Science Refutes God

On the fundamental question--evolution or creation?--Americans are on the fence. According to one survey, while 61% of Americans believe we have evolved over time, 22% believe this evolution was guided by a higher power, with another 31% on the side of creationism. For some, modern science debunks many of religion's core beliefs, but for others, questions like "Why are we here?" and "How did it all come about?" can only be answered through a belief in the existence of God. Can science and religion co-exist?
For: Lawrence Krauss
For: Michael Shermer
Against: Ian Hutchinson
Against: Dinesh D'Souza
===================================
3:20 Introductions of the participants
Opening Statements:
8:24 Lawrence Krauss (Atheist)
15:45 Ian Hutchinson (Christian)
23:34 Michael Shermer (Atheist)
31:02 Dinesh D'Souza (Christian)
Q+A Period:
40:03 Question 1
54:11 Question 2
59:59 Question 3
1:05:45 Question 4 (audience)
1:09:50 Question 5 (audience)
1:11:13 Question 6 (audience)
1:12:11 Question 7 (audience)
1:14:44 Question 8 (audience) - Actor Andie MacDowell
1:16:54 Question 9 (audience)
1:18:16 Question 10 (audience)
1:22:41 Question 11 (audience)
1:24:25 Question 12 (audience)
1:28:35 Question 13 (audience)
1:29:44 Question 14 (audience)
Closing Statements:
1:33:24 Ian Hutchinson (Christian)
1:35:36 Michael Shermer (Atheist)
1:37:55 Dinesh D'Souza (Christian)
1:40:10 Lawrence Krauss (Atheist)
1:47:01 Debate Voting Results
===================================
Subscribe: bit.ly/IQ2onKZbin
Official site: iq2us.org/vote
IQ2US Twitter: bit.ly/IQ2Twitter
IQ2US Facebook: bit.ly/IQ2onFacebook
===================================

[@Onodera1980]

17:43 - Wishful thinking still explains why humans invented hell. We want justice and if you get away with it in life, you won't in the afterlife. Checkmate, Dinesh!

[@leandrotristian8229]

I know im asking the wrong place but does anyone know a tool to get back into an Instagram account?? I stupidly lost the account password. I love any assistance you can offer me!

[@kylanalexzander2449]

@Leandro Tristian instablaster =)

[@leandrotristian8229]

@Kylan Alexzander Thanks for your reply. I found the site thru google and im in the hacking process now. I see it takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.

[@leandrotristian8229]

@Kylan Alexzander it worked and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy! Thank you so much, you saved my ass !

[@kylanalexzander2449]

@Leandro Tristian you are welcome :D

[@BinyaminTsadikBenMalka]

This debate should be called: "Science refutes Christianity".

[@Cindy-ls3dj]

Religion and science will never get along. Science looks for truth. Religion tries to cover truth up.

[@Cindy-ls3dj]

Mark Edwards Except science is built on proof and facts and things that actually exist in reality, like elements and atoms. The world has been warming up since the last ice age... duh. That's why its not a real topic to real scientists. Global climate change has been happening without humanity for over 4 billion years dumbo. Hot to cold, cold to hot. It will do the same with or without humanity. Just one volcano blowing up, like Pompeii, spits out more global pollutants in a few days than humanity can in thousands of years. Let's just stick with reality and go from there. Wishful fantasy land and ancient ignorant cult books talking about superstitions and invisible demons isn't a higher anything and helps nothing.

[@AlienAirMusic]

Cindy Bet you got an 'A" from the crackpot Marxist academic who held a failing grade over your head, but both of you lack common sense, along with civility.

[@NukSooLang]

Far too many times did both sides ignore the actual topic of the debate. Regardless of anyone's religious or secular stance, they should agree that science refutes (the idea of) god. Science is evidence based. Theism is faith based. (lack of evidence) They are fundamentally incompatible. It was fantastic to hear the debate about morality and such but it was all digression. Dinesh D'Souza was miserably arrogant during this entire debate. Quite literally placing theists on an intellectual mountain peak above everyone else simply because of their faith. That is arrogant and closed-minded thinking. The "theists are morally smarter and superior because they are theists" argument is an insulting one. No one can claim to have such fantastic knowledge of the origin of the Universe. It bothers me when theists of any religion say, "I know that... etc." No, you do not know. There is no possible way you could know. You only THINK, you only BELIEVE or FEEL a certain way. Scientists use words like "may" and "could" because they are honest (as Krauss said.) Krauss and Shermer both had the courage and humbleness to admit they could be wrong. The opposition did not.

[@donn333]

Well said, I agree fully with you.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@loganbrown3565]

The thing is, evidence for creation life itself.

[@harrisonsmiller1]

Any legitimate rational debate must begin with defining the terms or words of the thesis that is being debated. Krauss correctly begins by defining "refute". His opponents don't agree or disagree with Krauss's proposed definition and make arguments that don't address the thesis Science refutes God. Whereas Shermer in his opening talk reiterates the criteria for deciding whether science refutes God is what is "likely." D'Souza doesn't even know the thesis he thinks he is debating. He begins by stating that science can't answer Why questions such as what is the first beginning point, what is our purpose and what happens after we die, all of which have nothing to do with the thesis being debated. "Why" are deterministic questions which mean what results are produced by which causes and conditions. The questions D'Souza asks are not "Why" questions but are at present speculative views that science may or may not be able to answer in the future. I suspect this may be partially why Krauss began by distinguishing between "disproving" and "refuting" and was careful to define refute as he did and discusses the meaning of "Why" in his closing argument. That D'Souza and his supporters won't even notice this or quite possibly even understand the criteria for a rational debate using logic and reasoning supports the thesis that religious people are less intelligent than atheists, which has also been shown in IQ tests. If you blindly believe in a book that continually contradicts itself and you lack the minimal intelligence to recognize this then you are easily manipulated because you do not distinguish between opinion, facts and lies when they oppose your religious view, or possibly don't even know what those words mean. So the thesis being debated behind Does science refute God? may be Does believing in God make you more stupid?, with stupid being defined in the context of this debate as not able to distinguish between what are or are not deterministic or "Why" questions.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@HeiderJeffer]

“If God exists, I hope he has a good excuse.” ― Woody Allen

[@username82765]

Thank you so much for this debate. I had my 8 and 9 year watch it as much as they could stand, for the following reasons despite being a topic that people get very passionate about, it remained intelligent, civil and on message. Well done, very well done.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@VemundVR]

These debates should be longer, though; the talking in the middle especially is so f*cking gooooooooooood

[@noamchomsky1040]

I encourage someone to re-post this debate with Dinesh's remarks removed. In all the debates I have seen, and in all the editorials I have read, he has never offered an original thought or a well-reasoned argument. He is a snake oil salesman, not a legitimate academician, and certainly not an intellectual.

[@AlienAirMusic]

Noam Chomsky Appropriate screen name for an intolerant secularist who demands censorship on anyone daring to disagree with his indoctrination

[@noamchomsky1040]

Made a demand, did I? Of censorship? Read it again. Perhaps you should turn that laser beam of criticism inward. "Daring to disagree," I think psychologists call that "projecting."

[@AlienAirMusic]

+Noam Chomsky ...Dime store psychology on your part; try reading your own comment. As to Chomsky, your Marxist idol, he's a bigoted hypocrite, just like the pseudo-science mindset of secular crackpots you're carrying water for.

[@noamchomsky1040]

@Pat How unbelievably judgmental you are! You know nothing about be, but you judge: the MIT professor to be Marxist, judge me to idolize him, judge what you don't understand as "pseudo science," judge me as "secular" (actually you guessed right on that, for once), and use the ad hominem pejorative "crackpot." You probably don't know what that means. So, buy a thesaurus, and if you don't know what a thesaurus is, buy a dictionary, and work your way forwards.

[@AlienAirMusic]

+Noam Chomsky Speaking of being 'judgmental', you're pithy rant reflects that, along with the defensive reaction typical for those indoctrinated with extremist views. I correctly pegged you as a secularist because you're buying into a mindset which denies the murderous and tyrannical results of secular governments. This is inevitably followed by ad hominem attacks (snide insults) against people of faith, especially Christians; few secularists ever confront Muslims because they're cowards. Marxism and its bastard offshoots are the love of secularists. I don't need need a dictionary, but you need to read history books to understand Marxism's disastrous results. Same goes for repackaged and sugar-coated versions like socialism and progressivism. But if you want to wallow in your anti-God thing and lame attempts to disprove any deistic existence, that's your choice. A few facts about Chomsky. He is and always was a fraud. To this day he draws his fat retirement checks from the Pentagon, while having publicly trashed the U.S. Defense Dept. for decades He loves forced busing, except he moved to the only county in Massachusetts that didn't have it so his own daughter didn't have to go to school with Blacks. He hates wealth being passed on to family heirs and thinks government should confiscate all assets upon death, but he set up an offshore trust for his daughterso she can gain his millions, tax-free. In a 1970 speech, Chomsky praised North Vietnam as 'workers' paradise' ... just after he bought a $1.4 million ocean view estate in Cape Cod. He's an unabashed hater of the free market, but his website demands royalties and prohibits use of his speeches without payment that include threats of severe legal action against violators.

[@austinfunk2607]

I'm sorry but this whole debate is incredibly primitive. Both sides have an infantile understanding of the god concept. When are people going to start understanding that we're all trying to say the same thing, we just argue about the words we use to say it.

[@JonasHortell]

Why do people insist on giving Dinesh access to microphones?

[@pc98scout71]

The thing that I dislike about religious people debating is that they never make an argument that is ON POINT but they always tend to be biased and have to prove that it is their God that is true. I don't understand why they cannot just try to make arguments for God from a Deistic standpoint.

[@tommy-jy5ig]

When I was young, knowing and understanding less, I believed in the god I was told to believe in. I've since grown up.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@skepticus123]

@@afsar_gunner5271 The fact he is short is an irrelevant ad hominem (Fermi, Einstein, Pauli were all short), and 93% of scientists in the American National Academy of Sciences have no religious belief.

[@tsuba14]

if god implanted values in humans, why did he need to remind us of the ten commandments.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@skepticus123]

@@afsar_gunner5271The fact he is short is an irrelevant ad hominem (Fermi, Einstein, Pauli were all short), and 93% of scientists in the American National Academy of Sciences have no religious belief.

[@zKyo7763s]

This was covered by Lawrence from the start. That's the only argument left, rationally at least, by theologians. The problem he pointed out is that there isn't a need for a super natural cause for any of this. It works independently. If there is no evidence to support this super natural being that we cannot understand then you simply have to ask yourself: What is more likely?

[@DL-ty4cu]

thanks for the footnote.

[@InformantNet]

Three great minds and one intellectually challenged charlatan fighting out of his weight class.

[@godalmighty7106]

Yes, poor Dinesh; and his credibility is now utterly gone: he's pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws, and an article he wrote about Obama has been verified to contain an out-of-context quote from Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father," in order to make Obama look like an angry black man ready to do damage to whites, when the full context conveyed just the opposite meaning. That, and the fact that he cheated on and then dumped his wife of 20 years for a 26-year-old girlfriend, and then got kicked-off as Prez of the tiny but religious Kings College Board of Directors. The "man" is a total hypocritical sleazeball, and therefore the perfect spokesperson for the religious right. D'Souza is now the poster child for why religion fails to help make anyone a better person, so why do that?

[@joeruf6526]

More like zero great minds and one jester.

[@kayem3824]

But he draws people for entertainment.

[@sidsean]

How's that "campaign finance fraud" trial working out for you Dinesh???

[@angetpanget]

That's right-wing self-righteousness corelating with corruption for all of us to see. 🤣 Sorry Dsouza. I like Mr. Bean better.

[@kevnation5556]

That Shermer guy's sleeves are just ridiculous. I can't concentrate on the debate showing that much sleeve should be akin to public indecency.

[@browndoc]

Trying to stand on Dinesh's arguments is like trying to ride a hover board"Hmm,looks solid enough" whoooop,bang!

[@iluvideos]

Not to knock the Christians, but I feel like this debate could've been pulled off better had they brought agnostics/deistic scientists going up against the atheistic ones on this topic.

[@grantkohler7612]

I would have preferred non-judaic ( += christian/muslim) speakers to argue that science does not refute the existence of god(s)/spiritual matters. I don't think it does.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@JM-zg2jg]

Should have been science refutes the need for god. Also Dinesh is suffering from severe cognitive dissonance. I doubt he even hears himself anymore, So much circular logic.... Seems dangerous to the mind to make a legit effort to combine reality and religion, he should seek help.

[@JM-zg2jg]

+M Esmail You are operating under an assumption. You are claiming that consciousness is somehow separated, from the observable universe. Unfortunately for you, and any other that would wish to believe this, there simply is no evidence for your claim, and frankly I find it most likely to be a result of hubris.

[@IamNeighborlee]

+John Mears Sorry,no,he is intellectually and convincingly, saying, mankinds hubris and arrogance to 'demand' there is no god because science says so, is both incorrect,and laughable, because we can BARELY send a man , to the moon. So much for science to prove the infinite

[@JM-zg2jg]

Right, and yet he fails to acknowledge his own hubris and arrogance in proclaiming that there is a god. Only it gets even worse then that, see, he actually claims that his "god" for which he has no actual evidence, is the only god. Science has its strength in making actual discoveries, rather then blindly following the "wisdom" of a bunch of ignorant intolerant warmongering tribesmen. Oh, and i like how you throw the capitalized BARELY in there, as though you could diminish the remarkable accomplishment, made by NASA. Get real, the only thing the big three have ever accomplished, is bigotry, intolerance, social injustice and war. Their charities pale, in comparison to their travesties.

[@IamNeighborlee]

John Mears Your denial and arrogant tone is no substitute for proof, from science,that god doesn't , and to arrogantly refer to all religions as 'tribesman' shows you aren't here to debate but throw around insults. I said 'barely', because its true isn't it ? We can barely do those things, so what gives us the wisdom to declare from a position of weak science, that god surely doesn't exist ? Not one person on earth is advanced enough, to even remotely comprehend something that far beyond our current imagining,and that you try to do that, shows your immaturity.

[@JM-zg2jg]

Actually I haven't denied the existence of god, nor does this debate cover, whether or not god exists. I posit, that there is no need for god. I do not claim that there is not one, just no evidence of it's existence or need, but I would bet my ass, that if there is, It is nothing like the pathetic tyrants that we imagine for ourselves. Also, do not try to alter my arguments to suit your own, that's just lazy. I said the "big three" , meaning that it is, Muslims, Jews and Christians, that blindly follow the wisdom of ignorant, warmongering, tribesmen.

[@jakeyw11]

Whenever I watch these debates I always want to give the other side a chance to be fair to their arguments... then after about 5 mins when it's clear they aren't offering anything new I skip past the white noise.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@skepticus123]

@@afsar_gunner5271 The fact he is short is an irrelevant ad hominem (Fermi, Einstein, Pauli were all short), and 93% of scientists in the American National Academy of Sciences have no religious belief.

[@sachamm]

I am impressed by the format of these debates. The involvement of the moderator adds a dimension that is missing in many debates without devolving into a free-for-all.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@SomeOne-lv9mp]

"Theist - Nuclear Scientist" gives me the creeps! MIT's reputation went down in my mind as well.

[@mk17173n]

Its scarey to think an MIT professor thinks the fundamental laws of nature can be manipulated by a supernatural being who couldnt even tell humanity how to progress but rather kill himself for other peoples sins.

[@armanisim7791]

+mk17173n childhood indoctrination is strong my friend.

[@pearlgirl6563]

+mk17173n it's more scary that you can post such an unrelated and incoherent comment and it doesn't bother you.

[@mk17173n]

+Pearl Girl please explain how its unrelated when its his christian phloosophy that compels him to think this way. Loser

[@pearlgirl6563]

mk17173n another baseless comment, are you related? To believe there is a cause makes MORE sense than it's negation, to them look for revelation of that cause and comparing it to reality as we know it..is not 'indoctrination' it's rational. Your arrogance..indoctrination?? maybe!

[@mk17173n]

+Pearl Girl causation doesnt imply a singular creator more so than multiple creators. Your religious beliefs are therefore irrelevant because they are baseless and without evidence. Read a science book maybe you will wake up one day.

[@98seko]

Is this debate edited? It feeld like the speeches are cut t shorten the episode, editing pauses. It feels disoriented and unnatural :/

[@JoyeII]

1) Everyone is agnostic on this issue. A/Gnosticim speaks to knowledge. No one "knows." 2) A/Theism speaks to belief. You either believe or you don't. 3) Agnosticism is not some middle-ground between belief and disbelief.

[@spaveevo]

Science cant refute God because the idea of God keeps changing.

[@jTech50]

eh, not so much. science keeps changing, but in a different way. science typically keeps building on itself and compounding information. whereas religion typically either sticks to its founding guns, or gives up on a few issues when they become obviously insane to current people

[@JonLinnell]

I find this debate so hard to watch. Not just because my beliefs are challenged, but mostly because Dinesh D'Souza spouts illogical, nonsensical, fallacious and facile garbage.

[@Djorgal]

"Not just because my beliefs are challenged" That's a very good thing. You should always seek for your belief to be challenged. That's how you make sure your belief are sound and coherent.

[@Areyourealythatdumb]

science doesn't absolve us of purpose - it just gives us the knowledge that the purpose is ours to command

[@VemundVR]

Look, you guys should definetely change the title to "Debate" in the beginning. This debate (aswell as all of the other ones that you have) is excellent and it has 42k views!! Look at other debates like this; they are very popular because People want to see it; however finding this one was pretty hard...

[@jennifer97363]

Dinesh d’Souza, not surprisingly, was dishonest in responding to Krauss’ suggestion that it is often an accident of where a person is born as to which religion they adhere. Dinesh retorted - not true I was born in India (where Christianity is not the major religion). He was raised by Roman Catholic parents and he attended a Jesuit high school. So much for honesty.

[@minbari73]

the believer side : lallalalaala god, is he on the first page of the argument? no? then lalalala god the atheist side : completely utter sense

[@AsFewFalseThingsAsPossible]

Have you seen Dawkins' lecture on YT "The purpose of purpose" ? Very interesting.

[@NoPlaybookPodcast]

I am a devout Catholic and I enjoyed watching this. It didn't change my mind, but it's always interesting to learn of the opposition's reasoning. I don't understand why so many people get angry at the other side of this argument.

[@HoJoXo]

You might be interested in the I2 debate about why Catholicism is a negative impact on the world.

[@onefodderunit]

Honor, Freedom and life are sacred. Literally nothing's sacred to believers that there is no God. The more Godless the USofA gets, the more conditions deteriorate. Atheists dispirit children as soulless animated meat sacks destined to become nothing someday. Atheism enables suicide.

[@onefodderunit]

Christopher Ivey Fanatical Atheist, who murdered a tenth the number of civilians last century, mainly Christian, as Bolshevik Atheists murdered?

[@cerebraldreams4738]

***** I do admit that between Italy, Spain, Greece, Syria, Israel, Egypt, and Libya, the Mediterranean region has most definitely seen some better years - look a bit further north to England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, things are going pretty well. Socialist policies in Europe are working everywhere except the Mediterranean. Right now the Mediterranean just... they have seen better years.

[@onefodderunit]

Christopher Ivey During the 20th century, who murdered a tenth as many civilians as Bolshevik Atheists murdered?

[@Pat121V]

I think they missed the point of the debate. They focused on the christian interpretation of god. If I was arguing against this motion, I'd argue, forget all the beliefs of religions and their views about god ( creationism,afterlife etc) and focus on the notion that their may be a force out there that we don't understand, what various cultures interpret as "god" who may use the laws of nature and physics as his method of creation. Not some old guy in the sky but a force we do not understand yet.

[@yuriyk8646]

If God can be said to work through evolution, why could It not be said to work through all science? It could be thought that revelations are now made to scientists through their discoveries in the lab. Science is now the leading force of moral progress.

[@jtheist32]

Not that it is a damning thing, but at 33:00 or so, ALL of the Occams razor violations. Essentially, Dinesh and Ian both said "while science *might* explain those things (morals etc) we believe that God is directing it." WHY? If science can account for it, why add the unnecessary entity?

[@b991228]

I'm about to find time to get completely through the debate. Did they use the analogy the if atheism is a religion then abstinence is a sex position.

[@jackjhmc820]

the debate should be renamed Science refutes Christian God

[@rumplef]

Is causing pain to a dog something you shouldn't do based on biblical morality? Thou shalt not cause pain to animals? I must have missed that one.

[@Krooksbane]

I absolutely love that Children are present for this debate. Giving them the option to see both arguments and think for themselves, that is the most important thing to give a child. Thought, not Dogma.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@Yash-wm1nj]

The moderator is soo f*cking good, best one I have ever seen in any debate.

[@RodneyBass74]

sound of crickets at 40:41

[@skepticus123]

I honestly came to watch this debate with an open mind, but I just came away thinking that all that the Christians had to offer was a god of the gaps concerning emotive subjects that we don't yet fully understand (i.e. morality, life after death and the origin of the universe). These all (admittedly) *may* have some kind of involvement by an agency transcending the known universe (I can't prove they don't) but the Christians had the onus on them to show why this was necessary and not to just assume (via Ockham's razor) that a simpler, natural explanation was more likely. They completely failed to do so, IMHO. I was also annoyed that they were presuming the subject of the debate was the Christian god and not any other agency such as Brahman, Allah, Zeus or The Force.

[@xerox1959]

Shermer makes an excellent point starting at 49:40 about the "bubble" the christian world bubble - but it can the bubble of any religion...

[@thesprawl2361]

Mark Edwards My, my, you are prickly.

[@jonathanymok]

So did Dinesh just basically say we should accept science if it supports god and dismiss it if it doesn't?

[@seanarmstrong1156]

when i saw this posted on Feb 1, i saw this is like a new debate...but it's just a re-post of the old one :(

[@thebigdee100]

I agree. It's quite egocentric to assume we should have any other purpose than that which we allocate ourselves throughout life.

[@InfiniteCyclus]

So what about simulation theory?

[@robertw2930]

IT is top-down versus bottom-up might makes right vs. right makes might

[@EGarrett01]

32:17...Andie MacDowell??

[@Doug44393]

Good debate.

[@flystix]

owned by logic and science once again. How many times do us Atheists need to win these debates before the world realizes their is no reason to believe in any religion or any dogmatic God?

[@Paskaks124]

Danish does really more harm than good. Which doesn't really surprise me, but does make me happy.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

"what would change your minds" it's such a cliche question.

[@jojibeanz]

Just curious... Why was god created?

[@Krooksbane]

That's an insightful question indeed. I think that the desire to understand how everything started (generally speaking) both Secular and Non-Secular; implies what role does our planet play in the grand scheme of the universe. Just knowing what our position is in the game of the universe means something to us, even if it is small.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@navarrodragon25]

one doesn't look at a sprocket(for example) and merely deduce that it was just a random splat of art or just came out of the factory that way for no reason.

[@LearnEnglishESL]

The scientific method (e.g. sense perception) is one way to investigate truth. There are also logic, reason, insight, intuition and inspiration. All are fallible. But, when they all agree on a "truth," it probably is true. - Abdul-Baha, Baha'i Concept

[@tasosgramozis813]

I'm atheist and I say both sides made great arguments.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@September2004]

25:07 Serious question 27:43 Determinism

[@AsFewFalseThingsAsPossible]

"matter is not able to make itself programmable" evidence please.

[@bobjones4469]

The scary thing is that its only 50%. If it was a tough issue where there's good arguments on both sides or a lot of undetermined grey spots then 50% would be good but its on a subject that's plainly obvious as this and we only get 50%. Its like arguing that leprechauns don't exist and only getting 50% of the people to agree with you and that is scary. I mean, you don't have to make a good argument and most people should still agree with you that they don't exist just from their own rationality but apparently not.

[@AQGOAT24]

People are really tied towards their religious beliefs.

[@ShunketsuXZ]

What were the two things you banged your head about?

[@radicaldisconnect]

Damn, this debate is too short.

[@0zyris]

The statement "science refutes God" does not only require the definition of the term "refute" (as per Lawrence Krause). It is shorthand for a statement something like "science refutes the claim that God exists". It is the claim that is being refuted, not God himself/itself. We do have a bunch of stuff that describes what we could mean when we use the word "God", such as an entity that has the ability and power to instantaneously create and destroy universes, to suspend their natural laws, to have thoughts without needing a mechanism for doing so and to communicate instantly across the vastness of space with any creature capable of receiving such communication, to name a few properties. But what we have not defined is what we mean when we say something exists. What conditions does something have to meet to fulfil the requirements of such a claim? Normally, we would require that such a something is detectable, that it has a definable unambiguous impact on something else, and that it can be convincingly determined to at least be continuously extant from some beginning observation moment to some later observation moment. I am sure that we could determine other properties that an object or phenomenon would normally need to exhibit to satisfy the claim that it exists. AJ Ayer did some excellent thinking around this idea. When it comes to the concept of God, what properties could he/it be defined as possessing that would serve as demonstrable indicators that he/it does in fact exist? He is defined as being undetectable, as adding nothing to a given scientific explanation, as occurring outside of time. None of these can be offered as such indicators. Indeed, logically, they would suggest he/it is defined as not existing. The assertion that "science refutes (the existence of) God" is in fact the assertion that no such properties can be determined. He/it "exists" purely via the belief of those with faith. I wonder, if an isolated population were to develop which had no concept of God whatsoever, only science based knowledge, for example one which grew in a spaceship on the way to populate some distant planet with no experience of life on earth, would they independently come up with the idea of a God? May I suggest they wouldn't.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@TheRiddler491]

Indeed I agree, but I think Knob Twiddling Gods are more supportable than other arguments for a deities existence if a debate is to be had about them.

[@dennisgibboney7007]

Still waiting for that oh so important cross examination period....The moderator's job is to simply oversee the order of the debate and nothing more. All the interactive questions were either initiated by the moderator or by the audience. For the most part, neither side got to freely ask the other side a direct question unrelated to the moderator's previous input, and that's a real shame. A good debate hangs on the quality of the cross examination section. I liked the "back and forth," but as for actual cross examination, there was none. I conclude that neither side left the debate understanding the other side or getting the chance to draw the other side's position out to the point of refuting it without setting up a straw man. There were misunderstandings on both sides, straw man argumentation, red herrings, and neither side gave a closing argument on the topic of the debate, but rather on a summation on what they posed throughout it, having left the topic quite early on. The setup for these debates im seeing is faulty, so I don't attribute all the fault to the debaters. The very act of "scoring" the debate is wrong. A debate is meant to be a presentation of two opposing sides of a single topic, and then you leave it up to the audience to decide for themselves who in their mind wins the argument. It's not meant to be a glorification of one side or the other in regards to the participants, but rather an experience on the spectators in regards to one's personal belief on the topic presented. Also you're not supposed to introduce any new information in your closing statement, because your opponent won't have a chance to rebut it. All four of the participants did not understand this. All four decided to introduce new points to try one last time to persuade the audience, instead of summarizing the points already made throughout the debate. The point of the closing statement is to summarize your previous points, not to introduce new information. The debate setup was flawed, it was moderator ruled, and now the atheistshave an even more inflated ego.

[@HenkkaArtGames]

It seems one of religions' primary questions is "why are we here?" and the other one "what happens after we die?". I find it interesting because humans have evolved to a stage where they think that there somehow needs to be a greater reason (philosophical) for our existence. That we cannot just exist without any deep or profound meaning. And then the follow-up is always: "Then what is the point in living if there is nothing beyond the veil?". And that's it! You can LIVE, your OWN life.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@Onodera1980]

41:31 - He didn't mention the Bible either, Dinesh. Way to answer a different question than the one posed.

[@CC-pt3di]

Dr Ehrman @ 2:23

[@Make6Games]

3:36 "Science doesn't disprove God, science refutes God." Merriam-Webster's Refute 1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous 2: to deny the truth or accuracy of

[@HiFugly]

According to a quick Google search, the second definition of "refute" is to disagree with, while to disprove is to objectively prove that something is false.

[@navarrodragon25]

....let me try again. 1)We forget 2)We want to forget....generally

[@Xilosphere]

God is a mysterious multidimensional being made of incomprehensible working parts... What sort of designer built the designer? And how far down the rabbit hole does this go? Infinitely? Are there an infinite number of Gods increasingly more powerful than the ones they create? Perhaps the God that made us has doubts about an even more supreme being that created "him" (Although technically, to us God is an "it").

[@valansultanna419]

It never ceases to amaze me how some scientist have no problem with the proposition, and discussion, of worm holes, warp drive, higher dimensions, multiverses; all of which there is no evidence to support the existence of but if you bring God, and an afterlife, into the discussion, then they have a fit, demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@jesyca1977]

No plausible scientific assumption can refute God as an alternative theory of cosmology; an atheist believes there is no God, a theologist believes there is a God... However, both can't refute the other with the scientific method, and both believe in a theory they care to prove one day; whilst paradoxically, an a-gnostic does not refute God, and can't scientifically do so, while he can claim his belief is the most modern scientifically aligned perspective.

[@Pat121V]

I should have said "its method of creation" not "his", apologies.

[@saibcis]

Holy jesus just AMAZING. "Lets go one god further" and "god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself" maaan you just did it jaja

[@fiveSolas879]

Wrong try again

[@NukeCDXI]

Yeah, that's a pretty cocky thing to think, that we are so special we have an individual purpose.

[@rokin73]

Everybody's right!

[@DripStopShop]

1:14 we have four superbly qualified master debaters

[@OMgnosis]

At this point in time, God is subjective. An objective God, manifested in the World, would end all debates. While God remains high subjective, debates of this nature are a battle ground for ideas only. The theory of evolution is too unsubstantiated, and as subjective as concepts about God. Resignation to either side of this debate is for people less skeptical than I; I must say.

[@KkkittT]

science says "don't have a clue, don't have a clue, don't have a clue", and religion says let me guess, this happen because I think so and I feel it in my heart! sadly a majority of the people in the world thinks this way! Disgusting!

[@TheRiddler491]

I think that the fact that Ian Huntchinson assumes Newton was Christian is foolish. His thoughts led into what we call Deism. To me, debates between theism and atheism should be between a Deist (The only God that would really make sense) and an Atheist. All other organized religions are foolish and idiotic.

[@carlosnat]

Are they really debating about this? the group that defends what they belief against the group that defends another belief. If you watch this whole video you can actually see how childish it is to hold your belief against others. People should respect each other and understand there is no right side

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@navarrodragon25]

your right..people are usually content to say that : well it just happened that way. order and function demand a designer but I'll leave this discussion at that because I will not likely get you to believe that.

[@CandideSchmyles]

Krauss in his $10m answer take a beautiful and adroit swing at D'Souza who is demonstrably dishonest in his arguments and pandering to the unswerving believer throughout. I very much doubt D'Souza gives a flying fig about belief outside of how much he can profit from it.

[@jesyca1977]

As much as I paradoxically believe that “Merry Christmas” is really merry, but likewise resonate upon the argument of “seasonal greetings”, as it ‘convert’ and generally refurbish to a merry social celebration rather than a religious one!!! As much as I also believe and campaign the importance of personal convictions and the right of every individual to believe in what he wants to believe and practice what cares to practice -as long as he doesn’t hurt the other members of his community-… Yet, as communities gain a momentum of herd moralities; are atheist gaining or losing ground like Muslims?? Is it only a minority problem, or do minorities also cause a problem with ‘pressuring herds’? Deliberating, I also believe a lot of atheists -and other minorities- are seeing the picture from the specifics of the ‘flawing’ inconsistencies, even when they paradoxically prohibit to an atheist disposition… Grateful to the debates they can invigorate our rational assessment with, but also obliged with my stand in this debate, I wrote this digest hoping it will help us reach a better understanding of each other’s existence, if not a profounder understanding of our ‘being’; jmp.sh/M3JMdnB * *This is kindof like my second edition; I look forward to receiving any comment or a further debate premise… point of view or furthermore, a correction…

[@UsenameUnavailible]

I like the "God is mostly not a scientific question." quote the best. Science is the measurement and understanding of the universe of real things. Finally, something I can agree with a Christian about! Imaginary things have no place in science!

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Dwarf L Krauss is a scientist but when he debates about God he really makes himself look stupid !! there are so many other Dr, Profs and scientists who do believe in intelligent design !

[@brogin]

2:21 Andie Macdowell

[@yannitoob]

well said

[@navarrodragon25]

as wicked as we are and as decieved as we are even by our own hearts, we mostly would claim negligence or ignorance when it came to giving an account for our lives...BUT now in the same way the government can not justly punish OR pardon you for breaking an undocumented law,the Lord could also be accuse of being unjust but we can NOT do so because the law has been written now only in our hearts but also in the scripture and our ignorance of either will not excuse us.

[@robertbentley3589]

My phone needs a delete Dinesh button.

[@johnv5527]

Personally, I like to study these kind of individuals more... to understand the mixture of practical, studied yet dishonest, disingenuous, prejudiced ideas that they put into words - that reflect the unspoken worldviews of many more.

[@SkepticalChris]

Yeah you can pretty much skip Dinesh's parts.

[@augustadawber4378]

"I don’t know what caused the Big Bang and I don’t know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don’t know either” - Bill Maher. “I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don’t have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position” - Issac Asimov. “You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself” - Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Consciousness, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.’s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. You may be right. But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: ‘Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects’. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists: “If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either” - Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you’re a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness ‘somehow’ evolved; you should know that using the word ‘somehow’ poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in ‘The Critique Of Pure Reason’ surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time ‘A Priori’ in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness. “Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing” - Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in ‘The Spiritual Universe’ claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing - He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles ‘pop’ into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss’s reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I’m not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing ‘eventually’ collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel - ‘How The Universe Works’) that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss’s assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: ‘What caused the first Big Bang ?’. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression - the question is: ‘Why is there something instead of nothing ?’ When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call ‘The Tooth-Fairy’ rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid’s bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up - you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can’t do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: ‘I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation’. Since you can’t do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable. The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don’t belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a Religious fanatic. If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this ‘Awareness’ down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

[@aegisgfx]

I love how when religious people want to make fun of atheism, they call it 'a religion'

[@philiprowney]

I _smell_ it that way too, but, I don't think 'it' was responsible for the beginning of all time, maybe just an architect of planets. 'I won an award for my fjords' - Slartibartfast

[@CandideSchmyles]

That may be true of the supernatural apologists. However all the well reasoned arguments in favour of rational evidence based analysis of the question equally refute your argument. So it makes no difference to the outcome.