The Mystery of Existence: Part 1 - Richard Dawkins, Richard Swinburne, Jessica Frazier, Silvia Jonas

Dive into the ultimate mystery that has captivated minds for centuries: the origin of our universe. 🌠✨ Prepare to embark on a mind-bending exploration where we confront the age-old question - why does something exist instead of nothing? But that's just the beginning. 🤯🔮
Venture deeper as we unveil the astonishing tale of our existence in a world governed by exquisitely precise laws of nature. 🌍🔬 Marvel at the complexity of life forms that inhabit this awe-inspiring realm. 🌱🦋 Brace yourself, for the answers that unfold hold the keys to unlock not just the meaning of our lives, but the very secrets that shape our destinies. 🔑🔒
Join the quest for truth, unravel the threads of existence, and behold the profound insights that could reshape our understanding of reality. 💡📚 Are you ready to decode the universe's enigmatic origins? The journey starts now. ⏳🚀 #OriginOfExistence #UnveilingTheUniverse #JourneyOfDiscovery"
🌌🔍 Unravelling the Universe's greatest enigma 'The Mystery of Existence' this captivating two-part event is a mind-blowing journey into our origin as Unbelievable podcast brings together renowned experts from philosophy and biology. Join Richard Dawkins as he represents science and atheism, Jessica Frazier delving into Hinduism, Silvia Jonas discussing Jewish philosophy, and Richard Swinburne defending Christianity.
This groundbreaking event that will ignite your curiosity and challenge your perceptions. Join us for 'The Mystery of Existence,' a Premier two-part show that delves into the timeless question that has perplexed minds for eons: 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' 🤔🌟
In a unique collaboration with The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast, we've crafted an electrifying experience that will keep you on the edge of your seat. This thought-provoking journey is made possible in part by the Global Philosophy of Religion Project at the University of Birmingham. 🎙️📚
Prepare to be captivated as we explore the depths of this age-old query - 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' Guiding you through this captivating discourse is Unbelievable's own Ruth Jackson, and the discussion is masterfully hosted by Panpsycast's very own Jack Symes. 🎤🌠
Don't miss this chance to unravel the threads of existence, ignite your intellectual curiosity, and join the global conversation on the profound mysteries that shape our reality. 🌍🔮 Brace yourself for an enlightening journey that just might reshape the way you perceive the world. 🌌🚀 #MysteryOfExistence #IntellectualExploration #UnveilingReality #faithexplored
The Global Philosophy of Religion Project: global-philosophy.org
Philosophers on God (book): amzn.to/3K4enjy
Talking about Philosophy: talkingaboutphilosophy.com
Richard Dawkins: richarddawkins.com
Jessica Frazier: bit.ly/jessicafrazier
Silvia Jonas: silviajonas.com
Jack Symes: jacksymes.co.uk
Richard Swinburne: bit.ly/richardswinburne
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...

[@PremierUnbelievable]

Watch Part Two: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZWVhWSqfpV0e9E

[@martinploughboy988]

What a waste of an hour!

[@trickjacko8482]

It amazes me how the woman at the left side of Dawkins is a philosophy professor, probably PhD and still has some basic flaws in her philosophy fundamentals, for instance, implying that there's a conflict between science and religion and thinking that Swinburne is talking religion. Gosh! Theism does not equals religion. Dawkins can be labeled as a naturalist here so the real dichotomy is Theism vs naturalism, that's something that should be basic knowledge for a philosophy professor. I know this and I'm a dentist.

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

This dialogue is a great way to raise MANY questions about creation and a universe/creator outside of our concrete knowledge. The strength of the dialogue? It poses MANY interesting questions and potential answers regarding the creation of the universe. The downside (limitation) of the dialogue? The questions/answers posed are so diverse and complex, there as no way to entertain meaningful answers from all of the guests from their different worldviews. This show could be the beginning of a year-long discussion. In only one hour, it leaves me frustrated with all the "open doors" to questions and answers -and- no way to address them in a full and meaningful analysis. Thanks, though, for the show and for setting the questions out for us to think about.

[@Shaolin-Jesus]

I felt the same frustration. My only solace was to receive without expectation, finding humor in the fact that the turning open of every door felt like a good moment for God to walk right in and soothe the existential toothache of the babies in suits. Do you feel you were able to take away anything positive from the dialogue?

[@Shelumy]

I think you just synopsized the entire experience of wrestling with existentialism in a KZbin comment lol. Throw in the fact that some of us are people with no higher education in these fields and it makes it even more difficult.

[@martinploughboy988]

Having a bunch of fools discussing what they don't understand never results in answers. Swinburne was the only one getting anywhere near an answer & that was because he was referring to the Bible. Dawkins, as usual, was laughable. What a waste of a hour!

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

Positive? Confirmation of the human need to dialogue about the "Big Questions" about our shared human existence. It pushes me forward in a project to that purpose. Pray for me! Please. @@Shaolin-Jesus

[@raphaelfeneje486]

Swinburne walks into the room educating these folks.

[@matthewphilip1977]

Hi, Raphael. Can you give an example of something Swinburne said that educated them?

[@raphaelfeneje486]

@@matthewphilip1977 Listen to Swinburne correcting Richard Dawkins on his view of God. Richard Dawkins keeps on recycling the same stuff. John Lennox has also corrected him.

[@pattytoscano9569]

Great interview. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son and whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

[@matthewphilip1977]

A John 3:16 more consistent with the NT narrative as a whole would go something like, "For God so loved the world he sent his only begotten Son to Earth for a brief time knowing that he would get him back again for eternity."

[@pattytoscano9569]

​@@matthewphilip1977True statement but not John 3:16 🙂

[@matthewphilip1977]

@@pattytoscano9569 I agree. It just means that John 3:16 isn't really true, if we accept the rest of the NT.

[@pattytoscano9569]

@@matthewphilip1977 No disrespect, but not sure where you are getting your theology from. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

[@matthewphilip1977]

@@pattytoscano9569 Thanks, Patty, but I think that's circular, to point to another verse that praises scripture, when we're debating this particular verse. The verse either makes sense, or is consistent with the rest of the narrative, or it's not. I've argued that it's not. Another verse saying all scripture is from God wouldn't change that. Best to argue for the verse itself.

[@EmporerFrederick]

I think we can reconcile Swinburne with dawkins in this way: God is a simple explanation with several qualities just like how a cube is a single thing with several sides.

[@brucegreetham1951]

yes that's fine if you are thinking of god a just this single "first cause" which laid down the laws of science. But as soon as you give god additional features, like the ability to intervene in the laws of nature, say to hear our prayers, then you have something with complexity in its own right which needs explanation. So in short: Dawkins right; Swinburne wrong - that is how you reconcile them.

[@EmporerFrederick]

@@brucegreetham1951 I think the effect of God as the highest reality on each level shows a particular quality of him: for example his effect on math shows his necessity, his effect on physics shows him being a first cause, his effect on biology shows him being an intelligent designer, his effect on cognition shows his knowledge, etc. Just like when the effect of a man on his child is considered, he is called "a father", when his effect on his pet is considered we call him "an owner", .....

[@brucegreetham1951]

@@EmporerFrederick ok, but then you have a complex god as Dawkins was saying. Also btw, as your god is an intelligent designer of biological systems then your god is in conflict with evolutionary science - so good luck defending that

[@EmporerFrederick]

@@brucegreetham1951 Describing how biology is made through evolution and suggesting that it does not need a designer is like describing how a computer is made of components and suggesting that it does not need a designer. The final outcome of biology shows its designer as the final outcome of computer shows its designer. BTW as Arisrotle says, a whole is more than a some of its parts according to the principle of Gestalt since a whole has new properties in whose components we cannot find them. When some has new essenrial properties it is another being not just a sum of its parts and needs a further explanation

[@brucegreetham1951]

@@EmporerFrederick No. Please read the selfish gene then reconsider your ideas.

[@KenDavis761]

Haven't finished both episodes yet, but it seems that all perspectives hit an epistomological brick wall of "It just is...suck it up princess"

[@RealAtheology]

I appreciate the topic of discussion and bringing in new voices, but I have to wonder why they would bring Richard Dawkins to speak on such a philosophical question? So many more well-qualified Atheist philosophers, such as Graham Oppy, Wes Morriston, Alex Malpass, Evan Fales, Robin Le Poidevin, and many others could have also been invited.

[@Raiddd__]

@@briansheely3474the typical atheist doesn’t simply not believe in God, they believe it’s justified to believe God doesn’t exist. This clearly makes it a world view. “Atheism” the word, has many different meanings. The belief that God doesn’t exist, or the best explanation for things and the world is that God doesn’t exist, is absolutely a worldview. Also, being agnostic is a part of your worldview, in that if you were to take the set of every belief that defines a worldview, the belief in God having the value “false” (as in disbelief) would make that set a unique set of beliefs from all other varied sets of beliefs. You could thus name that set (whatever you’d like I suppose) and that set would obviously be your world view / ideology (how you look at the world)

[@ephs145]

​@@briansheely3474the term religion is confused with the term theism. religion refers to the view that we have of the world - our worldview - that shapes the way we think and live. hence everyone is religious - some religions are theistic whilst others are atheistic. secular humanism has been defined as a religion by the US supreme court. Culture is the public manifestation of ones religious beliefs.

[@ephs145]

@@briansheely3474 tocaso v watkins also read the humanist manifesto Everybody believes things they can't prove

[@anthonycostello6055]

As a Christian I would have to agree. This was like Swinburne, and then three other folks. If I were an atheist, I would also want better representation, minimally one of the philosophers you mention here, probably Oppy, or maybe Draper (if he is still around).

[@ephs145]

@@briansheely3474 @briansheely3474 I did not say that the court RULED that secular humanism was a religion . I said the court DEFINED secular humanism as a religion. did you read footnote [11]? "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."

[@user-or9cj3vk6t]

The central most important question anyone can ever answer, even in their last breath is.."Who do you say that I am?" - Jesus

[@Morewecanthink]

John 8, 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 14, 6 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[@Trigger-xw9gq]

A likely fictional character of primitive desert men.

[@Morewecanthink]

@@Trigger-xw9gq - Would you say so? Apart from your misplaced snobbery, which is by no means 'woke' - it would be interesting to know how you could describe your ancestors back to Adam -. Furthermore, your statement about the most influential person alive *(Read 'Person of Interest' by Jim W. Wallace)* shows that you are either a mocker or a very ignorant and uneducated person. First, as a human, Jesus himself was a carpenter by trade, like his foster father Joseph. But that's not all: *read 'More than a carpenter', Josh McDowell.* HE is God forever and ever, through whom all things, including yourself, were created and who upholds all things by the word of His power. Then HE will come again and HIS word will judge those who did not believe HIS word. John 1, 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. ... 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Matthew 1, 1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Joh 8,58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 3, 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

[@andrewferg8737]

@@Trigger-xw9gq "fictional character"-- Why on earth would the avowed enemies of the new religion write about this "fictional character" by confirming the basic outline of its foundational narrative? “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged on a tree. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, ‘He is going forth to be executed because he has practiced magic and enticed Israel to apostasy” (Babylonian Talmud c. 70 AD) Why would the Roman Emperor, of all people, involve himself directly in some senseless commotion about resurrection in the tiny backwater province of Palestine? “if anyone legally charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person I order that a judicial tribunal be created… and I wish that violator to suffer capital punishment” (Nazareth Inscription -- edict of Emperor Claudius Caesar c.41 AD) Why would St.Justin perjure himself directly before a Roman Emperor and sacrifice his life when records were readily available at the time? "Bethlehem... in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea” (St. Justin, Martyr - First Apology-- addressed to Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius c. 138 AD)

[@Shaolin-Jesus]

who would you say jesus is ?

[@EmporerFrederick]

Consider this analogy: you cannot find meaning in separate letters of my sentences but a word as a whole has a meaning that is non-existent in its single letters. Also a sentence as a whole has a new meaning in whose single words cannot be found. If you describe scientifically how you write a sentence by grammatical rules and words, you are not denying its writer. Similarly when you are describing how biology is made through natural selection you are not denying its designer. We have to disntinguish between syntax and semantics in language and similarly we have to distinguish between howness (evolution) and whyness (design) in biology.

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

Of course Dawkins never had the time to debate Michael Behe

[@jameswright...]

Why would he? Behe is a lying creationist and proven lier in court.

[@justin10292000]

Or William Lane Craig. Dawkins is very intelligent, but utterly lacking in wisdom and spiritual insight. And Dawkins is NOT a philosopher!

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

@@justin10292000Even pertaining to his own field he’s a nutjob and a liar

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

@@justin10292000The amount of praise he gives natural selection for generating large scale innovation in the history of life is the most glaring example and is extremely misleading.

[@Adam-gl1qv]

​@@justin10292000Dawkins does science. WLC does fairy tales. Why would he even want to debate him lol

[@anthonycostello6055]

Around the 56.30 mark Jonas realizes that she is really out of her league. However, and to her credit, she humbly starts to ask Swinburne questions, just like any good student would.

[@Shaolin-Jesus]

why do you consider her to be out of her league?

[@anthonycostello6055]

@@Shaolin-Jesus In comparison to Swinburne she is, not necessarily in comparison to the other two guests (and certainly not Dawkins). I consider her out of her league because if one has studied philosophy, especially analytic philosophy, one can discern the vast discrepancy in knowledge, erudition, precision, and also constructive thinking between someone like Jonas and Swinburne. If Swinburne was a bit younger, and if his speech wasn't beginning to fail him, the difference would be even more noticeable. Swinburne has been doing philosophy of religion for over 50 years, and has a corpus of work behind him that is simply prodigious. He was the first to really apply the probability calculus to metaphysical and theological problems, and he has developed novel arguments for the existence of God (and the soul) as well as further contributed to the development of classical arguments. There are two 20th century philosophers of religion that simply stand head and shoulders above the rest, Swinburne is one of them, Plantinga the other. Those two literally put philosophy of religion back on the map in the second half of the 20th century. Without their contributions (and, to a lesser degree, Stuart C. Hackett, William Alston and Robert Adams) you wouldn't be having panels like this (or philosophers open to metaphysics and theology like Jonas). In one sense then, Jonas simply hasn't had the time to achieve that level of academic rigor and scholarship (she is obviously far younger). I mean, sitting in with Swinburne on philosophy of religion is like sitting in with Kripke on philosophy of language, it just doesn't get much better than that. So, she just is in a different pedagogical position. There isn't any shame in that, and, I think she came to realize it when she started asking questions of Richard. Now, as far as Dawkins is concerned, everyone knowns he is an intellectual lightweight. I mean, I think that was obvious given the back and forth between him and Swinburne. Dawkins has avoided debating every significant philosopher of religion over the last 40 years. He's also clueless as to what the arguments are; at this point it would almost be a waste of time for William Lane Craig or Stephen Meyer to bother with him. There are more incisive thinkers to deal with.

[@brucegreetham1951]

@@anthonycostello6055 I find your analysis interesting. I do follow what you are saying and agree Dawkins doesn't have the philosophical background of the other speakers. But then here is the thing: I've been absorbed in the theoretical physics physics community these last years; its been a while since I listened to someone like Swinburne. Then to me it is quite shocking to hear some of the statements he came out with. It is lacking the rigor of thought needed to progress in fundamental science nowadays. Seems to me that philosophy is stuck in a cul-de-sac as science finally takes centre stage. Unashamed scientism.🙂

[@anthonycostello6055]

@@brucegreetham1951 I see. What, specifically did he say that is lacking rigor?

[@brucegreetham1951]

@@anthonycostello6055 Well to be concrete let's focus on his sentence near the beginning "theism is rendered probable by these data.." . Now using such language gives what he is saying an apparent intellectual credibility. But then we need to challenge this: to talk of probability of an hypothesis we need a null hypothesis to compare against. Then we need some numerical measure of the possibilities in our hypothesis vs the the null hypothesis. Only then we are in a position to do some sort of statistical analysis of our data and arrive at say a 5-sigma confidence we are correct ( that is the level generally used for the discovery of a new particle). So has he done this analysis - no. Other philosophers have tried to tackle theological issues using such scientific rigor - but typically have run into problems of having no good way to define a measure of possibilities. It is because of all these failed attempts that we can have confidence that such question of first cause are meaningless for us to speculate about. So I don't anymore, and just focus on the bits we can do: science.

[@TheRetrospective]

In one of his books, Dawkings tries to prove „evolution from nothing“ via a computer program (code). However, after I studied the code, it became evident that the program had initial values and thus was not providing anything „from nothing“. After this obvious charade/fallacy, I became sceptical of him. Afterwards I found philosophy where I could find many answers to fundamental questions. I don‘t think Dawkins has really developed as a person, he‘s stuck in the 80s.

[@RMarshall57]

Causal explanations as opposed to purpose-related explanations! That was an excellent point. Why is the kettle boiling? ... Because I want a cup of tea. Science cannot provide such an answer!

[@dmi3kno]

It used to be (Aristotle's four causes) but got lost in the centuries that followed.

[@brucegreetham1951]

No its a misleading point. Remember that the only reason we have apparent purpose is ultimately due to Darwinian evolution. Before the evolution of complex life there was nothing in the universe with "purpose"

[@dmi3kno]

@@brucegreetham1951 not much has changed

[@Shaolin-Jesus]

@@brucegreetham1951 the cause is not separate from the purpose. The point is that in order to uncover meaning it is better to intellectually address purpose alongside cause rather than just cause which is what was going on.

[@brucegreetham1951]

@@Shaolin-Jesus Once you see that Darwinian evolutions forbids talk of purpose, you just can't unsee it - that's where I am . I appreciate many still only see the illusion.

[@runePV]

we don't know something... we create a fantasy story around it to explain it... that is religion!

[@raphaelfeneje486]

Says a man who can't explain his own worldview. We are still waiting for you to give us a better alternative

[@runePV]

just accept that you don't know it.. it is so easy... just say 'i don't fucking know'🙄@@raphaelfeneje486

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@EmporerFrederick]

Modern science describes howness and does not explain whyness. Imagine a triangle: the three lines separately do not consitute a triangle but the hidden unity between them constitutes the real surface of a triangle. Science is like describing how those lines are attached together and philosophy is like explaining the hidden unity that caused the surface of the triangle as a whole. Let me give you a better analogy: you cannot find meaning in separate alphabets of my sentences but a word as a whole has a meaning that is non-existent in its single letters. Also a sentence as a whole has a new meaning in whose single words cannot be found. If you describe scientifically how you write a sentence by grammatical rules and words, you are not denying its writer. Similarly when you are describing how biology is made through natural selection you are not denying its designer.

[@Shaolin-Jesus]

beautiful analogy. Are you a philosopher ?

[@Trigger-xw9gq]

Terrible analogy. You might consider the inherent error in the "why" question.

[@EmporerFrederick]

@@Trigger-xw9gq We have to have a theory that is balanced with both howness and whyness at the same time. Limiting knowledge to one of them is not enough for knowing reality. Describing how biology is made through evolution and suggesting that it does not need a designer is like describing how a computer is made of components and suggesting that it does not need a designer. The final outcome of biology shows its designer as the final outcome of computer shows its designer. Graham Oppy attributes this inferrence from computer to our background knowledge but the point is that, if we face a new computer as opposed to the one that we had attributed design previously, we will attribute design to this new computer too. Similarly we can attribute it to biology too. Because we seem to have found a basic similarity between computer and biology which is complexity. In other words we seem to have extracted the following formula: Intelligent design= degree of initial simplicity × degree of final complexity

[@Trigger-xw9gq]

@@EmporerFrederick Sure, but you have to open to the possibility that the "why" is nothing more than physics, chemistry, biology, and several billions years. The same "why" error is made when a bus load of children careen over the edge of a cliff to die in the most horrific way. There is no "why", stuff just happens.

[@Shaolin-Jesus]

@@Trigger-xw9gq so, the children and the bus driver all died because there was absolutely no cause as to why, right. it just happened cuz no wheels on the bus go round and round or whatever

[@RandallChase1]

Silvia Jonas’ unwillingness to even consider the causal argument isn’t helpful. It just avoids the question because it’s uncomfortable.

[@colinlavery625]

Further to the above, the materialist paradigm is breaking down .... fast.

[@matthewphilip1977]

Hi, Colin. Do you believe in an omniscient creator?

[@RandallChase1]

I find the irony of the one person on the stage that doesn’t believe in God trying to be the arbiter of the definition of God.

[@Comicus8102]

I love how Dawkins so pompously states that life has the appearance of having been designed with a purpose…when the opposite claim - that life has the appearance of having evolved without a purpose - would actually be more descriptive to what we observe. Darwin had no idea of the complexity of life. He stated himself that if it could be proven that any complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, his theory would absolutely break down. We have so many examples of that complexity now (even 70 years ago we had enough proof of information- dependent complex systems), but due to the a-priori commitment to materialism, there is no amount of complexity that Dawkins would agree, falsifies macro-evolution. Does that sound like someone who is seeking the truth, or does it sound like someone with an irrational commitment to a worldview? Per the host’s statement, …”science should always have priority” I would reply that science should be seen as a tool to be used to understand and explain the physical aspects of the universe. By asserting that science should always have priority, we elevate a tool to a level of the mind or creativity. This type of thought permits the easy transition into a-priori assumptions that are inappropriate, such as Everything can be explained in terms of the ‘yet to be discovered’ processes or properties of physics & chemistry. There is no way we can know that to be the case, yet it’s the prevailing ‘belief’ of most scientists today. It’s equal to the ‘god of the gaps’ argument that atheists impose on believers of the non physical. The Statement “We all agree on the Darwinian explanation for the complexities of life.” Only shows that you are missing key members in your panel. All that is proven from a physical science perspective is that living systems have it within their genetic and epigenetic capacity to adapt to their environment to a limited point. There are absolutely no aspects of the Darwinian theory that account for anything more than adaptability. To quote David Berlinsky, “There would be far more plasticity (malleability)” than what we actually experience if macro-evolution were true. Scientists have been trying for 70 years to force something/anything to evolve into a functionally superior being/animal, to no avail…and no, the ability for a bacteria to develop the ability to metabolize citrate is not equivalent to evolving into a functionally superior being, it’s mere adaptability.

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

it's obviously important to aknowledge the fact that it's a question which our brains aren't necessarily equipped fully to understand, the idea of before everything begun, sounds incoherent.

[@cba4389]

It's obvious that you would need communication from outside the material world to know. Wait...we have that. Problem solved!

[@RandallChase1]

Dawkins has argued himself in a corner, God is a single entity, and he can be very simple in his essence while also being able to accomplish large tasks, just like Swinburne explains that a simple particle of matter can impact many things. His only answer is “so what?” He is blind to the fact that it’s his own bias against God that he can accept atomic complexity but not allow that same logic for an idea of God.

[@MiladTabasy]

Consider this analogy: you cannot find meaning in separate alphabets of my sentences but a word as a whole has a meaning that is non-existent in its single letters. Also a sentence as a whole has a new meaning in whose single words cannot be found. If you describe scientifically how you write a sentence by grammatical rules and words, you are not denying its writer because of the whole meaning. Similarly when you are describing how biology is made through natural selection you are not denying its designer because of the whole intelligence.

[@brucegreetham1951]

And your point is ...? Natural selection demonstrates two things: 1. we can explain complex life without needing to posit a designer 2. if we continue to posit a meta-designer who set up the laws of physics with the aim of letting natural selection generate complex life, then we can now infer this was an evil designer who would use the mechanism of death and pain as the primary mechanism to generate said life

[@martinploughboy988]

@@brucegreetham1951 Natural selection demonstrates that all forms of life are designed to vary within constraints of their original form.

[@brucegreetham1951]

@@martinploughboy988 Sounds like you need to read Dawkin's books

[@martinploughboy988]

@@brucegreetham1951 I have, they are tedious tomes wherein he tells a fairy story & then claims it is evidence of Evolution. You can take his claim of the Evolution of the eye as an example.

[@brucegreetham1951]

@@martinploughboy988 ok too bad. Personally I read Selfish Gene as a teenager and was awestruck by the quality of his writing, especially the first few chapters. Shame you cant appreciate that.

[@RMarshall57]

Jessica is making an argument which is consistent with Genesis 1!

[@Shaolin-Jesus]

consistent in what way ?

[@brando3342]

@@Shaolin-Jesus Everything she is saying applies equally to the God of the Bible described in Christian apologetics. The only difference is that the Christian view answers more questions than the Hindu view.

[@SAMBUT]

could it get any more boring - Dawkin not yet getting that Darwinism is long dead... Swinburne reciting abstractions... that's how far I got

[@ytube777]

Science and Religion are not in conflict. They are orthogonal. The opposite of Religion is Secular. The opposite of Science is Art.

[@EmporerFrederick]

I think we have to have a theory that is balanced with both howness and whyness at the same time. Limiting knowledge to one of them is not enough for knowing reality. Howness and whyness have different logical directions and that is why their results are compatible. If they had the same epistemic direction (both top-down or bottom-up), they would show incompatibility. Describing how biology is made through evolution and suggesting that it does not need a designer is like describing how a computer is made of components and suggesting that it does not need a designer. The final outcome of biology shows its designer as the final outcome of computer shows its designer. Showing scientific howness indirectly points to God (by refuting the inherent complexity) whereas showing whyness directly points to God (by showing irreducible complexity and its concomitant intelligent design). In other words atheists have chosen an indirect approach to God whereas theists have chosen a direct approach to God. Graham Oppy criticizes this intelligent design by attributing inferrence from computer to our background knowledge. But the point is that, if we face a new computer as opposed to the one that we had attributed design previously, we will attribute design to this new computer too. Similarly we can attribute it to biology too. Because we seem to have found a basic similarity between computer and biology which is complexity. In other words we seem to have extracted the following formula: Probability of intelligent design= degree of initial simplicity × degree of final complexity. This formula shows that biology is even more likely than computer to have an intelligent designer.

[@hectorronaldopaca5091]

Un debate muy interesante.

[@Steven-ze2zk]

50:53 "God is a highly complicated, mammoth, great-big-fat entity!!" Professor Richard Dawkins.

[@mikejurney9102]

how tall is Silvia Jonas

[@Insane_ForJesus]

I came here for Richard Swinburne

[@jessedphillips]

Someone get Dawkins a mint or something.

[@akbal7033]

Why would the default state be nothing?

[@micahalb]

And some use “science” as a premise to avoid bowing the knee

[@tihomirvrbanec9537]

@@micahalb bending the knee

[@jasonbach9885]

What if there is no answer to the WHY??? Are we ready to accept that!!!!

[@brando3342]

That in itself is an answer. In philosophy it's called "brute fact".

[@bradronngobe5735]

Ke neng R.Dawkins a re “Yoh!”

[@garybalatennis]

The important part of this intellectual journey is: a deep sense of skepticism, humility and wonder, as the two ladies remind us in the implications of what they argue. Sadly, the two gentlemen fail that test.

[@sedmercado24]

Richard Dawkins has stopped reading and thinking for years or something? He has nothing else to talk about or give except No no no no! Not simple, not simple, not simple!

[@zgobermn6895]

Wow, Swinburne (a philosopher) lectures Dawkins (a scientist) on the nuances of proper scientific thinking and analysis! Dawkins is clearly outgunned by Swinburne. Fascinating.

[@goodquestion7915]

Swinburne says "probable" many times. Probabilities are calculated COUNTING facts. He dilutes the meaning of that word talking about his fanciful wishes as facts.

[@lukestables708]

Short answer: we don't know

[@mattholland6816]

Dawkins a "big name in philosophy"??

[@slimwhitman2760]

Someone wrote that he would call "The God Delusion" sophomoric but that would make sophomores seem dumber than they really are.

[@razagamerofficial1859]

Haha I 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅 Dawkins have no clue about philosophy and logic and even science

[@tosafmjcom]

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" Exactly! That question presupposes that there is some form of reason or logic that is effective in describing anything and everything. The question presupposes that there is a Reason or Truth that preexists, from which the material universe and the laws of nature can be derived. Or in other words, Truth is the axiom on which everything is built. And this Truth upholds itself always. And this Truth exists everywhere, at all times, and takes into account everything. In other words, this preexisting Truth is otherwise known as "God".

[@francesco5581]

i would also add that this "something" is pretty complex, stable, meaningful ...

[@tosafmjcom]

@@francesco5581 I don't think there can be anything simpler than truth. It can get complicated from there, but the truth itself is usually quite simple.

[@cba4389]

No.

[@Morewecanthink]

@@francesco5581 - This "something" ... men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Jes 40,26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things , that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. Eph 3,9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Kol 1,16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Offb 4,11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

[@Drapenyo]

True and good

[@tech9110]

There is no need to debate about this. It's very simple. when you are alive or conscious, then there is everything and anything and when you are dead, then there is nothing.

[@Diallelus]

What is your evidence for that conclusion?

[@benscraftymusings]

If god created EVERYTHING, how can evil be seen as something 'outside of' or other than 'him'? it must, surely, be a part of him if the logic is followed

[@cloud1stclass372]

This is incorrect. God did not create everything. For example, God can’t create “nothing,” for “nothing” is simply the absence of something. It would be more appropriate to say that if God is goodness itself, and NOT an entity which IS good (which would place the characteristic of goodness as something more fundamental than God), than evil is the absence of goodness. It is not created, it is the absence of an underlying reality.

[@benscraftymusings]

@@cloud1stclass372 thanks for the reply... I think though, that it depends on how exactly you view god - if you view him in a non-dual way, then I would say that he resides beyond the realm of opposites, good and evil and so forth. Goodness also has to have its negation 'badness' in order to exist as goodness - the one doesn't work without the other. This is complex stuff to talk about and loaded with semantic issues and the way in which we view and use terms, but I think that whatever god is, he must necessarily be something 'more' than both good and evil, as these are just terms that we use in our world.

[@edwarddonnachie1565]

My only concern is the present and the future because I'll be long dead before the past is fully understood. Do we have an interventionist god ? That to me is a more important question than a creator god. My daughter is a nurse, her latest patient is a 11 year old girl with a terrible case of psoriasis on her whole body and in her hair. Her itching was uncontrollable and her discomfort immeasurable. There may be far worse ailments but can god control them and did does he have the power to put this girl out of her misery and did he give the girl the psoriasis in the first place. My opinion is that he doesn't exist and never did.

[@goodquestion7915]

Swinburne wants something simpler to be the answer. There you go, that's why god is one, perfect, unchanging, eternal, etc. Lazy minds created god.

[@ElkoJohn]

For me, the ultimate question is: Does my personal identity survive after the death of my body? If true, then religion and theology are relevant. If false, then religion and theology are not relevant.

[@francesco5581]

lets says that if our personal identity doesnt survive death then we are not really interested in any other explanations/problems/meaning/purpose ...

[@Morewecanthink]

@ElkoJohn - 'Religion' = people's ideas about G(g)od(s) and the universe, which includes a-theistic ones as well as 'revelation' within a naturalistic worldview (occultism) = man wants to determine truth. God's word, the Bible = truth, God's thoughts about His creation, revealed to us Human creatures = God's word is truth (John 17, 17).

[@criticalthinker8007]

Why does the survival of your personal identify after death necessitate a God?

[@criticalthinker8007]

@@francesco5581 Why does having a purpose meaning in live require that the purpures is pre-existing at birth

[@Morewecanthink]

@@criticalthinker8007 - The question is: What is the Truth? And what is in accordance with the Truth?

[@530jazzercise]

33:30 “there was neither air nor space beyond it..”..but turtles..turtles, all the way down..

[@Bjarne2411]

Jesus said that people in the end times will think they are so wise, but in reality they are just fools. Think again that Jesus, so long ago, could foresee the behavior of atheists.

[@302indian]

I don’t think Jesus viewed the population as atheists . He viewed everyone as fallen creatures more or less dead to the reality of Deity.

[@user-nd5ro8pz9y]

Poor Dawkins, he had to sit through all this nonsense. And the comments section is clear evidence to what an echo chamber is.

[@anthonycostello6055]

Jonas - "Religious in a way many of us no longer find adequate" says it all, i.e., I don't want the morality of the Bible to be true, therefore deism.

[@ricksonora6656]

Dawkins demonstrates you can get away with not learning, once someone declares you an “expert.” The problems for evolution continuously grow, and he declares it “solved.” And the worn cliche about God having a Creator? His arguments are so tired.

[@jonlang2781]

While the pro god arguments are novel, fresh, exciting, never heard of...

[@gerardmoloney433]

​@@jonlang2781 The pro God is the only possible explanation for the universe's existence. This is amply supported by the latest spacetime theorems which confirm that any universe like ours MUST HAVE A CAUSAL AGENT OUTSIDE OF ENERGY MATTER SPACE AND TIME. The Bible stated that thousands of years ago and also explained who God is and how He created everything that exists. Not alone that but scientific discoveries prove the the Bible got the conditions and the sequence of creation events 100% correct. Only the creator could know that. The Bible is the only book ever written that stated thousands of years ago that the universe had a beginning, is expanding, has fixed laws of physics, that everything that is detectable is made from that which is undetectable ( Scientists call it nothing 😂) that there are mountains, valleys, springs and pathways under the sea. All these facts have been discovered recently by scientific discoveries using the scientific method which came from the Bible and indeed we are instructed to use in search of truth. Now you know who God is because He is the only God outside of energy, matter space and time, all other gods are man-made inside the universe. Maranatha

[@samruggiero1778]

Dawkins has not evolved his arguments.

[@ricksonora6656]

@@jonlang2781 If the issue were settled by entertainment value, you would have a point. Indeed, most atheists seem to think cleverness, hyperbole, and offensiveness trump rational argument. But your comment is nothing more than a snarky straw man. Rational argument and civil debate depends on accurate expression. Over time, honest people listen and cull bad claims from their presentations. Dawkins hasn’t done that. He makes the same overreaching claims he made twenty years ago. He’s obsolete and doesn’t know it.

[@jonlang2781]

@@ricksonora6656 The question was asked by Leibniz some 3 centuries ago. I don't see that anyone relates those who ask that question today, to obsolescence.

[@ChildofGod98765]

As Christians it’s vital to trust God no matter what we are facing. I want to give up so bad! But God won’t allow me because he is our only strength in this world. As a single mom, things are tough on me. My husband passed years ago. I feel so alone. Both of my sons are autistic and non verbal. I’m constantly struggling to provide for my boys. I’m overwhelmed and so ashamed. Father God hear my prayers. My faith in you is strong! Even as I constantly struggle to pay my rent. And I constantly struggle to provide groceries for my children! I trust you Lord! I’m choosing to keep faith. Walking with faith is the most important thing us christian’s must do. That’s why love compassion and prayers are all we truly need. Please keep me in your prayers.

[@SAMBUT]

thank you for sharing - maybe instead of this discussion, you may benefit from watching testimonies where people share how God helped them, I have some testimonies here on my channel as well, in any case I pray, you will continue to be strong - blessings

[@samkupp1390]

@@SAMBUT Testimonies is nothing more than BS.

[@SAMBUT]

@samkupp1390 I mean real life experiences, when God intervenes

[@michelangelope830]

The question humanity have to ask oneself is "why the most emblematic remark of atheism is "who created god?" with "god" in lower case? God is the creator of the universe and the question "does God exist?" means "was the universe created by an intelligence that gave purpose to the creation?" and doesn't mean what they made you believe from childhood it means. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I am tired and I need to rest. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news.

[@cyepez]

Buddhist view needed as well…

[@yousef8879]

It's views it's just nonsense

[@DavidJioo]

Richard Swinburne's God is a philosphical concept. I think it is simple: you either believe in a God or you do not. There is nothing to proof or disproof here. People are employed to either proof or disproof the existence of God.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

I still can't figure out how anybody takes Richard Dawkins seriously. He STILL argues against some version of the cosmological argument that nobody believes in or has ever believed in, nor has anyone ever written. He fully did not understand Thomism. He literally understands NONE of the major arguments for God's existence (maybe he understands the ID arguments, but these are much newer and hard to defend). How is it that someone who literally doesn't understand a subject become seen as an expert on the subject?

[@toreoft]

The reason there is something instead of nothing is that for something to exist there have to be nothing that surrounds it or else it would not be visible, for if there always was something all over, we coult not know that of all the somethings was something, so it all would suddelny convert to nothing, but then the nothing would be all that we had and that would convert suddenly to something, without us having any control over it, and that is very bad.

[@PieJesu244]

Wrong

[@tihomirvrbanec9537]

nothing cannot be. nothing is antithesis of being. we can't even imagine what nothing is

[@cba4389]

Sounds like you're trying to argue brute fact but already know that brute fact is anti-science and anti-logic so you are dancing around it. A pig with lipstick is still a pig.

[@MS-od7je]

The brain is a Mandelbrot set complex as it’s morphology. Consider: Sufficient to the description is the reality If I describe a square or a triangle, a house or a flower… you would recognize by the description what I am describing… that is to say you would understand the reality of the object, shape, emotion.. etc that I am describing by your awareness of its existence. You would not mistake my description of a square for a triangle. You would not misunderstand my description of a house as a flower. I can describe a human but with more detail I can come close to describing an individual but you would only recognize the description if you knew that individual. Furthermore a picture of the individual would be more helpful than a verbal description. Now consider : If I describe something as having a beginning and an ending, as well as being both infinite and simultaneously finite…. That this is in everything and everywhere and that it is what creates all forms and things from the quarks to the grandest structures of the universe, that it is the image in which you are made what am I describing?

[@scubaguy1989]

So what if God is not a simple entity, it doesn’t help the atheist position at all. Red herring argument. Who said the eternally existing ultimate first cause has to be simple.

[@20july1944]

BO-ring!

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

Swinburne's comments in a nutshell: ''You can't explain it without a God, and even if you can, it's still a god behind it'' Basically a win/win scenario, and therefore absurd, and unfalsefiable.

[@scubaguy1989]

Nah that’s just an inaccurate caricature, we can all do that, including to atheist beliefs

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

@@scubaguy1989 it wasn't inacurate it was a fair comment almost word for word, well not quite but close.

[@scubaguy1989]

@@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084 Dawkins goes 'it all looks so much like it’s designed'. If it walks and quacks like a duck … well, you know the rest

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

@@scubaguy1989 Yes, he's saying on the face of it, it has the illusion of design by our standards, but that's because of reasons which are well understood. it has to do with life only being successful in environments where it can be, where it can't it won't, leaving only what can. Get it?

[@scubaguy1989]

@@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084 That doesn’t satisfy me as it’s just empty words to try and explain away what is as plain as the nose on one’s face. You don’t get complex balanced intricacy of the sort needed for life, and especially consciousness, by chance. I just don’t buy it, I think it’s a grasping at straws because Dawkins doesn’t like the idea that he is ultimately accountable to God. He has a really warped view of who God is and so looks for something worse than the worst casino odds one could imagine to delusionally try ease the feeling of culpability. He is suppressing what is shatteringly obvious. It’s a case of self inflicted psychological delusion in my view. I realise you see it differently, and no offence intended, but that’s what I believe is the truth of atheism.

[@imad_mahmoud]

The simple explanation for me is: There's no contradiction between God and Science, and why there should be ? The God's hypothesis does not contradict the science, and vice versa. I look at it from my Islamic philosophy as follows: There's one God ... Creator of everything we know (and we don't know), and has instilled working laws to operate the world.... So, he's operating this world with these laws he decided to choose to run the whole creation. Having said that, this does not mean that we should stop science and looking for how things are in operation.... Actually, God himself asked humans to pursue the laws and know more about it for one reason: To reach to a conclusion that God exists. Excerpt from our holy Book - Quran: Say, [O Muhammad], "Travel through the land and observe how He began creation. Then Allah will produce the final creation. Indeed Allah, over all things, is competent."

[@PC-vg8vn]

Why does reality have to have a 'simple' explanation?

[@brucegreetham1951]

It's really just that has been a successful tactic of the scientific method to date. It may not be the case for all questions we would like to answer: physicists would like to understand why say the electron and proton has the different masses they do. But there really may not be a simple explanation for that: other than to say many sub-universes were spawned and we live in one with these particular values.

[@PC-vg8vn]

@@brucegreetham1951 noone believes quantum mechanics is 'simple' but it seems to reflect reality. The spawning of 'sub-universes' also does not seem to me to be a simple explanation. Simple does not equal reality.

[@brucegreetham1951]

@@PC-vg8vn quantum mechanics is simple in the sense we can describe the whole universe in a few equations. Simple is not the same thing as easy for us to learn

[@Drapenyo]

Not always necessarily true

[@murphyorama]

Poor old Dawkins is getting desperate. He couldn't give one cogent explanation for why there is anything rather than nothing and resorted to the wierd mythology of the multiverse to account for fine tuning. This can't even be called science. Pure superstition.

[@302indian]

The “ Fall of Man “ did not occur because of philosophical differences. The “ Fall of Man “ was a parting of the ways that resulted in the catastrophic “ devolution “ of Man from an estate that can scarcely be even imagined now. A dark veil of denial hangs in the heart of men and women to this day. The theory of a chance world without purpose is a psychological phenomenon not a scientific phenomenon.

[@RandallChase1]

Jessica never answered the question of whether Hinduism can answer the question. Hinduism’s foundation of the origin of the universe is at odds with all on the stage.

[@rodneyblackwell7477]

I find it impossible to imagine nothing. Not empty space as it has the ability to be occupied by dark energy perhaps. I cannot imagine something that is not even nothing. I have to stop trying for i fear it will create a madness in my mind. So i cannot listen to this debate because i fear trying to imagine the non existent of absolutely everything, even nothingness. I fear insanity if i try to imagine this.

[@PieJesu244]

Are you as concerned about infinity? Trillions upon trillions of stars etc etc ?

[@collin501]

You don't have to imagine yourself there, perceiving nothing, because that's impossible. Nothing is not a thing. It's the absence, or negation, of all things. If there were 1,000 things existing, including dark matter, or whatever, you just subtract 1,000 and there you have it. But leave it in symbolic language, because imagining nothing is impossible, because it presupposes yourself, the perceiver.

[@cba4389]

Once you realize there is something beyond the material world, it makes perfect sense and is the best source of peace of mind.

[@mrrobert177]

As Carl Sagan said " the universe doesn't owe us humans an explanation"

[@cba4389]

@@mrrobert177 Each person owes himself an explanation. The universe is not even a person so sagan's statement is just dumb.

[@gooddaysahead1]

I'm surprised that randomness hasn't been mentioned yet. Randomness is built into and a profound part of the working of, well, everything. Yes, physical laws abide, but without randomness, there would be no progression of anything. Observation confers movement, change, etc. Unpredictablity is part of the nature of everything, i.e. combine, recombine, break apart... in no predictable fashion. Organization comes and goes. Is existence a random event? If so, it will eventually go... but not without innumerable organization and disorganization movemennt.

[@brucegreetham1951]

Yes : I think Dawkins did mention that as a key aspect of the evolutionary process: "random mutation followed by non-random selection"

[@gooddaysahead1]

@brucegreetham1951 Certainly possible I may have missed that. The idea that randomness affects everything, including language, culture, beliefs, and ideas, is obviously a bulwark against providence.

[@Clyde7709]

I think monty python want to check this for copyright. The guy in the fetching cream suit is definarely plagerising the life of brian.Although he may be trumped by the ordinary mid sized object on the right. I have no idea which side she was even arguing for. Just hilarious 😂.

[@John777Revelation]

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

[@samstockfisch1286]

While this is an interesting argument, it is still problematic for a few reasons, one being that is based on the presumption that one "can generate the position/concept of nothing." While one can argue that we only know what nothing (0) is because we recognize there is a lack of 1, we can also argue vice versa and say that we only know that there is 1 because there is 'not' nothing. It is at this point that you have to explain why we ought to go about the existence of nothing from the former approach rather than the latter, which if the latter holds true, then the argument (within the logical framework you have presented) cannot be held up as the singularity does not have a property of necessity.

[@samstockfisch1286]

Furthermore, yes, in some way, nothing is something; but only as a concept as it is the result of the perception that there is a lack of anything. The issue becomes that the argument you are presenting is that you are relating things applicable to nothing as a concept with nothing as an actual when there is no basis given that by your own admission, it is a human innovation. Why is this the case? By understanding that mathematics is a human innovation, you recognize that mathematics is not 'real' but rather a way by which we are trying to conceptualize things within reality. So by saying that within mathematics, the concept of 0 is something, does not actually bear any weight on what is real given that 0 ultimately is essentially a placeholder for the idea of 'nothing' in the actual (that is, a lack of something).

[@samstockfisch1286]

Finally, it seems problematic to equate the concept of nothing being 'something' to the singularity. Why? Because even if we work within your framework, the 'something' of nothing is not the same as the 'something' of the singularity. The nature of the concept of nothing is that there is a lack of anything, but the singularity, despite having no volume, still has mass (so it is something). So, once again, you run into the issue of trying to make the existence of the concept zero as something have weight in reality, which cannot be since to propose the nothing as actually something in reality negates the ability for there to be a singularity to begin with.

[@PieJesu244]

(1) nonsense (2) more nonsense

[@webwhale]

Nothing exist , I mean phone 😅😅

[@buxboi5308]

Sorry to be rude but the lady in white was exhausting to listen to. Speaking a lot without saying anything…

[@oldschoolsaint]

After all these years Dawkins still does not get it. The source of the material can not be material. A thing itself can not be the explanation of its own existence.

[@wocufot]

and neither is god a good explanation for anything. the correct answer right now is, "we do not know" because we have no evidence for any of this stuff.

[@oldschoolsaint]

@@wocufot I disagree. Swinburn's point of vie makes perfect sense. From the things that are made we can formulate a reasonable hypothesis about why the universe exists and who./what created it. It's the same sort of inductive reasoning that scientists have been engaging in for centuries.

[@tosafmjcom]

Richard seems to promoting a brute fact universe. This allows him to just suppose that it exists without cause without explanation.

[@oldschoolsaint]

@@briansheely3474 God is not a material thing.

[@oldschoolsaint]

@@briansheely3474 You’re trying real hard to make a point. I give you credit for that. The objects you noted exist within the material world. Some would argue that they are in fact material in nature themselves. That is certain for light and gravity. Hard core materialists and even naturalists like Dawkins would argue that it’s matter and energy all the way down. Feel free to take another crack at your criticism. See if you can do it without resorting to ad hominem arguments. .

[@kaloarepo288]

If there were not conscious thinking and reflecting beings like humans then the universe may as well not exist - I think consciousness has something to do with the universe itself demanding that conscious beings exist so the universe and its wonders be admired and appreciated! I don't know if that makes sense!

[@Shaolin-Jesus]

makes beautiful sense they call this metaphysics

[@Shaolin-Jesus]

what also can be realized is the magnitude of the role we can play within the universe... its as if the universe gifted us with the task to love and explore to experience something we knew nothing of prior feels very profound to me when you realize you cannot pinpoint the origin of consiousness like you can the origin of where you just came from when you leave a place to go to another... life is a profound destination to arrive it

[@karl5395]

Dawkins does represent a philosophical argument because science is built on philosophy

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Yeah, every argument is finally philosophy. That's a bit like a tautologie.

[@samkupp1390]

Science is based on fact and evidence.

[@dennisnduhiu3873]

Richard Dawkins represents atheism, not science and atheism. Science has no religion. The owners of the post got looped into the atheistic facade. Even the moderator was spot on 😅

[@Steven-ze2zk]

42:51 God has no extension in space? What does that mean? Does he mean that God exists outside of time and space? How can this possibly be? Time and space is an environment. Time and space is another way of describing the universe. How can anything exist without an environment in which to exist??? Such a concept is logically inconsistent.

[@razagamerofficial1859]

No God is a transcendent cause it brought the space and time into existance time and space are not independent they are dependent you are confused between a necessary existance and a dependent existance God exist in his own nature he doesn't require explanation of his existance that's what Richard Swinburne pointing g out

[@razagamerofficial1859]

God is best explanation why every dependent thing exist so we don't need an explanation of the explanation he exist because there can't be infinite regress of contingent things

[@desireless108]

See this will not answer our question answers has to come from factual spirituality

[@trippzy12]

Richard Dawkins: "Do you think God can read our thoughts" This is a disingenuous question. Dawkins knows full well that the bible is clear that God doesn't "read" thoughts, He knows our thoughts. Which in Swinburne's point reinforces the idea that God can be simple while doing complicated things. It would be like asking "do we know our thought's?" The answer is yes, of course we know our thoughts, obviously, it's true by definition. And yet, despite how simple and instantaneous it is to know our thoughts, it's the most complicated thing we are doing. So Dawkins' question presupposes complexity because reading is a complicated thing, whereas knowing is simple, it requires no energy or matter, it just IS.

[@brucegreetham1951]

No: the only forms of "knowing" we understand, whether in biological brains or AI, all require energy to process, and matter to store. If you want to introduce a god as another form of "knowing" fine - but what is the mechanism?

[@johnhammond6423]

There are some things we homo sapiens simply don't know. But some homo sapiens like to make up a God to explain it.

[@andrewferg8737]

"make up a God to explain it" --- A term indicates a referent, not an explanation. Per the Mosaic Hebrew theonym יהוה‎ derived from the existential verb hayah meaning 'to be' the term God indicates the referent existence in and of itself. Existence in and of itself, logic, truth, or 'to be' are ontological synonyms for the transcendent: that which is without beginning or end and which cannot 'not be' as demonstrated by antinomies like "there is no truth" or "nothing is". Existence in and of itself or any of its synonyms, is the referent for the term God in classical theology: ipsum esse subsistens, the singularly self-evident axiom from which all else is derived. It is incoherent to posit existence itself to not be.

[@AmbientSpirit-nh7ir]

@@andrewferg8737 What I wonder is why a being would make up a concept of God? Why would someone enforce strict rules on oneself. God pretty much forbids many things that might be considered pleasurable. Why put limits on yourself if you evolve knowing no concept of God or a hereafter? Making up a God makes no sense.

[@mr.c2485]

@@AmbientSpirit-nh7ir I was in corrections for teenagers for 15 years. Even as much as these teenagers claimed to want autonomy, I found that they all, across the board, desired direction from an authoritative figure more than the freedom to make personal decisions. I could sense the uncertainty in their words and actions which , though aggressive, we’re a cry for direction. And that included disciplinary words/actions.

[@AmbientSpirit-nh7ir]

@@mr.c2485 I'm not talking about people who were raised in today's society. I'm talking about primitive people who created a value system that just happens to go along with most of the things that religion teaches. Why would they do it? what would influence the concept of a God that gives commands?

[@roncripe6123]

​@@AmbientSpirit-nh7irMental illness or rhythmic repitions or drugs subverting useful brain functions into something that seems to be 'other' but is not. The most useful bit of information in this mess was Dawkins calculation of the number of operations per second a human brain does. Now that is food for thought, as it were. :-)

[@davepangolin4996]

If they had a Pagan Sun worshipper straight from having a few beers and a dance around Stonehenge you would instantly have a panel member with more cred and valid point than the others combined. That is fact

[@cloud1stclass372]

?

[@martinploughboy988]

They were pretty feeble.

[@francesco5581]

Hollywood and Dawkins are the only ones who really believes in multiverse...

[@jessedphillips]

It takes a lot of faith to avoid God as a conclusion

[@mrrobert177]

​@@jessedphillipshow does inventing a personal God answer anything? If so who or what created your God?

[@polarisnorth4875]

I take it you're not into mainstream science?

[@francesco5581]

@@polarisnorth4875 I agree, some "mainstream" scientists (and even more science popularizers) love the multiverse (Wild) theory because it fortify materialism . Mainstream science is good to go to conventions, symposiums, sell books... but multiverse is not science, is just wild speculation to avoid the obvious fine tuning argument... It will end like the string theory ...

[@francesco5581]

@@mrrobert177 An higher consciousness (or God or whatever) can (probably) answer the question about the special complexity of our reality... Randomness not .

[@skylarhillman1455]

Why couldn't you guys simply have Swinburne v Dawkins? That is all we care about here.

[@anthonycostello6055]

This moderator is clueless. I hate it when interviewers have no knowledge of the topic they're dealing with. The idea that Hinduism and classical Theism are "close" or basically the same is inane.

[@wicekwickowski3798]

?

[@runePV]

59:00 at this point Dawkins really thinks ' are those guys here all aliens? where am I? are people just plain stupid?'

[@nathanrapana4430]

Dawkins got whacked

[@owencommunications1669]

Imagine.... into the room walks Jesus Christ, risen from the dead

[@tihomirvrbanec9537]

That would save us a lot of suffering, so why doesnt he?

[@brucew646]

@@tihomirvrbanec9537 how would that save a lot of suffering ? He walked into the room before and suffering was and is still happenning.

[@tihomirvrbanec9537]

It would save a lot of Muslims, Hindus ... praying to the wrong god wasting their time... it would save also a lot of lives when religious violence would stop etc.@@brucew646

[@cba4389]

Poorly structured discussion that does more to confuse the issue than clarify.

[@anthonycostello6055]

This was just Swinburne giving a lecture to a bunch of students.

[@oliver9568]

Aren't we all some apes, using our ability to make complex noises, trying to understand what the f is going on? Just imagine 2 very wise chimps arguing if the banana is holy or not. First: "banana obviously holy, no banana no chimp! 🤌" Second: "banana obviously not holy, banana just a banana". *uninteligible chimp screams and bananas flying everywhere

[@roen6800]

Professor Dawkins was completely out of his depth in this discussion.

[@user-vp7tm3et4t]

Dawkins makes lots of assertions without seeming to have the ability to produce any evidence for any if it. After speaking on this topic for so many years, he should have some ability to go deeper. It would have been nice to have an individual with a Christian scientific philosophy background. There are many to choose from.

[@tehPete]

Hello Bot. Demanding evidence from Dawkins, but not demanding the same level of evidence from the Religious folk shows an inherent bias. People with the view this bot has put forward will never be reached and will only be disingenuous interlocutors.

[@tehPete]

Science and Philosophy need to stop trying to compete with Religion with regards to trying to explain inherently unexplainable or invalid concepts; all it's doing is lending validity to the explanations of religion, even though they're fiction. Talks like this are an exercise in futility.

[@colinlavery625]

There are reckoned to be 26 universal constants in the universe not half a dozen as Richard Dawkins claims. As science progresses as does our realisation that our ignorance increases at an even faster rate. Science is becoming ever more meta-physical. It looks like there is some kind of intelligence at large behind the universe. This doesn't mean that the writings and dogmas behind any particular religion are true.

[@alexnorth3393]

Richard really does drone on and on. The mic is AWFUL...every pen click, every heavy sniff..

[@0klb0]

Having Richard Dawkins talk about the mistery of existence is like having a plant tell you about what it means to be a dog 😂

[@CerebralDAS]

You're nothing

[@martinjan2334]

_Why is there something rather than nothing?_ because it was created/designed/engineered .... So simple it is ...

[@reyhudson563]

Was Dawkins ALWAYS such a windbag?

[@emmanuelbudke6499]

Richards opening was so boring. I don’t get why he began like that.