I was waiting for Metallica to come out up the top.

Mark McCormack 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Pro trick : you can watch series on InstaFlixxer. Been using them for watching a lot of movies these days.

@Cason Mohammed yup, been watching on InstaFlixxer for years myself =)

@Cason Mohammed Yea, I have been using InstaFlixxer for since november myself :D

Stupid statement. Comprehension comes from the development of the senses through evolution, nothing more than that; awareness of our surroundings. Animals have similar abilities though not as advanced as ours.

@@drServitis exactly Sean Carroll gives a great presentation on second law of Thermodynamics and the creation of order in the universe, while the universe as a whole moves to Greater disorder The universe does produce ordered systems but overall the universe is moving to Greater disorder Certainly there is still the question of why the universe was once a hot dense and smooth and very low entropy And there is also the great question of can life Prevail against the current of Greater disorder that is part of the fabric of the universe In other words can life continue indefinitely But in terms of understanding we can only go with what we no at this time and what the evidence tells us And the evidence doesn't tell us that there is any top-down meaning in the universe coming from some Supreme agent or super intelligence There is no evidence for any God or gods or any sort of deities There is only evidence that we find ourselves in a current state that allows for the ability to live and understand the universe That is we can only go with the fact that we currently have a sophisticated understanding have a relatively stable biosphere have a relatively stable inhospitable Earth, and we find ourselves in the universe that outside of the earth is very inhospitable to life and potentially very destructive Therefore we can only use what we know now and continue to cultivate our abilities and hopefully continue to progress with better and Better Living

@@drServitis so a purposeless, unguided process accidentally produced something that can comprehend things and yet you trust this comprehension. If your brain is the result of a random process how can you trust the conclusions you come to since they too are just random unguided processes. That's alot of faith you have there.

@@heavybar3850 I hope for your sake you're not right, that there is a "guided process" which produced humanity and the universe." If you are right then you have to come to terms with the fact that your "guide" allows the most horrendous pain to occur while "it" watches and it does nothing to help, though you say it could if it wanted to. Witness for example the Rwandan genocide in which 1 million people were slowly chopped to death with machetes in a span of four months in 1994 and your guide did nothing to help as they screamed in agony and finally died of their heinous wounds.

@@drServitis You are trying to say that because there is evil in the world then it is less likely that God exists. It seems like you are having an emotional response to the fact that there is Evil in the world but unable to justify the reliability of these assumptions youve come to. In your world view all that exists is physics and chemistry, and the brain is just a process of chemical reactions, as long as this is your world view you cant justify anything that comes out of it even its own world view. Your world view self refutes itself. Secodnly, adressing your problem with Evil. On a purly logical level it could be totally necessary for God to permit evil in the world, for justified reasons, so people will seek him etc. The bible clearly states that we live in a fallen world, and the Christian perspective is that God came into this world as a peasant in the 1st Century and suffered and died an excruciating Death that neither you or I can begin to imagine. So even God has suffered and felt immense pain, and that changes the perspectice compltely. Lastly, I would like to simply point that your problem of pain and suffering is not consistent with your world view. Ultimitaly its a problem with morals, like why would God allow such Evils to take place. When in your world view where does this standard of Evil come from. If anything Evil is evidence for God, for if Evil exists then there is an objective foundations for Good in the world. In Christianity Gods nature is the standard of Goodness, and anything that opposes that nature is by default Evil. Evil is a vialation of Gods nature. But, in the athiestic world view its impossible to justify these things beyond ones own opinion. According to you we live in a universe that doesnt give a damn about the Rwandan genocide.

37:00 Mr Dawkins, How can a process be "Brilliant" aka "Ingenious" if a mind didn't create it?

1:05:50 "We have an explanation for 'why?'" First, I thought Why questions were foolish, so I wouldn't think you'd be very proud of knowing why we have a brain. But then he doesn't provide the 'why' for it, only the process by which we got it. Again, "How."

"he is clearly an intellectual coward if he thinks he is to select what questions are worth answering" But he doesn't say that this question isn't worth answering. He says that this question doesn't mean anything and he explains why (whether you agree or not is a completely different problem). That's completely different from refusing to answer, this is an answer. For example if you ask me "What colour is consciousness?" I would answer that it's a silly question. Would you deny the fact that I would have answered the question? Of course the reason why my example of question is silly is far simpler and more obvious than for the question "Why is the universe as it is?". I'm not putting the two at the same level, just explaining why Dawkins is actually answering his question.

Dawkins' response lacks creativity. If, as I assume, he is a materialist, then consciousness (and its sub-category greed) would just be brain chemicals. Isolate and extract those chemicals, put them in a test tube, and hold them up to the light to see what color they are. See? What's so silly about using your imagination to solve complex problems? I thought that was a crucial aspect of science. Quite frankly I find anyone who calls themselves a scientist that calls any question "silly" doesn't deserve that title because they lack an important brain function to be a scientist.

For materialists consciousness is an emergent property from the interactions within the brain. The color of individual components from which emerge this property is not the same thing as the color of the property itself. No, consciousness doesn't have a color, you can use your imagination as much as you want to move the goalpost but that will always be fallacious reasoning. That's why every single scientist in the world must, according to you, lack brain functions, because science requires the use of rigorous and precise definitions. Using his imagination to play around the definitions is what someone intellectually dishonest does. Incidentally, consciousness is so hard to investigate scientifically precisely because it's a somewhat ill-defined concept.

@Thedude101 Craig is a shitlord and people who believe in his words are sheep.

Your comprehension is lacking then. There are all sorts of questions you can ask like "what is the purpose of a mountain?" but that would be silly as it presumes it does have a purpose. You can ask "what led to the formation of mountains" but implying it has a purpose is silly, for instance.

then why don't you call him and post the debate on your channel and I will pay to watch you get smashed by a very well educated man with two doctorates.😃

o thou wise cyberman

But we can do the same thing with what you wrote. We have basic assumptions that your words carry meaning. We should go back and make sure all the words you used tp write this thought are being used in their true sense of meaning. Obviously, that would be silly. Miguel, you have to start somewhere we all have to start with assumptions until our assumptions are questioned. WLC can back up his assumptions really well.

Good point. I don't think that people responding negatively to your comment understand the value and necessity of the concept of Occam's Razor.

Whatju mean mayne?

You misunderstand him. If no God, the purposes and loves you have in your life are only meaningful, and temporarily so, because you think they should be, not because there is any real/cosmic significance to them beyond what an insignificant human being can impose. You are the product of blind processes, from which you and your loved ones will live, die, cease to exist, and eventually be forgotten, just like the entire universe itself is heading. Even the fact you call someone "loved ones" is an abstract and meaningless term, brought on by the evolutionary desire for community and the chemical reactions in your brain. You may think you love these people, and you may think there is something special and significant in that. But, in reality, it is an illusion of meaning. You are "dancing to your DNA" to quote Dawkins. If there is God, the purposes and loves you have in your life do have a cosmic significance and are part of what he called "human destiny". God would mean you don't just not exist one day, exist the next, learn, grow, love, discover and enrich others, develop culture and art, die and return to ceasing to exist, this happening over and over again to people until all that is left is dead stars and planets. We are not just struggling against the current, with only guaranteed tragedy at its end. We are working towards a divine purpose that is beyond life and death, guaranteed by a creator that fulfills our innermost desire for there to be meaning in this life that is real, not simply imagined. Nothing I said proves either case. One could just as easily be as true as the other. But, it seems to me Craig is right that for there to be any "real" meaning and purpose, you have to have a being (not an inanimate process) that can usurp the natural tragedy we know all too well. Otherwise we have a universe that is as indifferent to that child a parent loves so much, as it is to a snail. Each person has to decide if they believe the universe has meaning and purpose or not. The rest follows. Craig would be the first to say you do have meaning and purpose in your life. He believes such things exist and are not the product of natural occurrences. It is not the theist worldview that is in opposition to this, but the atheist worldview that tells us how everything is accounted for in science and nature, but don't tell them they can't be moral and they can't have meaning in their lives. Of course you can, and you rebel against the atheist alternative whether you intend to or not, and rightly so. I encourage you to listen to him one more time at 1:14:08 and listen for the distinction he makes between objective and subjective purposes.

avenger1212 " One could just as easily be as true as the other." LMAO, NO, IT CANT!!! One is based on evidence and reality, the other is based in ignorance and superstition.

avenger1212 *"I encourage you to listen to him one more time at **1:14:08** and listen for the distinction he makes between objective and subjective purposes."* ************** One of the main reasons Craig pisses me off is his Biblical based "objective" morals and values. He defines objective as apart from human input and understanding. Thus, he's stacking the deck by pretending (ok, he believes it) that objectivity only comes from God. That his basis for this are texts written during the Bronze Age and the Iron Age by middle eastern goat herders, fishermen and tax collectors is interesting. I can't think of many things more subjective than texts written to tell others what to think, how to act and what to believe.

Stephen Land You misrepresent his argument in the same way Richard Dawkins did during the debate. He is not talking about your personal subjective purpose you decide you want your life to be about. He is talking about the purpose for which you exist. It's as though I create a fish bowl, and put plants and an air pump and gravel inside. Then I put water and add chemicals to get the pH at the perfect level for fish. Then I put fish in there. Then I feed them daily and watch them, and change their water when needed, etc. Assuming fish could reason, one fish might decide his ultimate purpose in life is to eat as many flakes of food he possibly can and have offspring. Nothing wrong with that. But that does nothing to explain why he is there. It doesn't explain why he finds himself in a world that seems custom designed for his survival, etc. The higher reason he is there is because I wanted a fish bowl full of fish to enjoy. Maybe he thinks his purpose is better than mine. That doesn't matter. It's still the truth that he would not be there if not for my decision and purpose. A fish's understanding of a human's purposes is probably far greater than our understanding of God's purposes.

Stephen Land and you are pissing smart people off with the noise exiting your oral, neanderthalic orifice.

Are you done being a reducionist

Stephen we needed huge power to assume the law , law can organize the chaos we been through , so in somhow the very idea of "god" means the complete power to avoide this chaos , my humble idea religion is human creation come when we needed to organize our great achievement "Consciousness"

Stephen Land But in your world rocks during a very very long period turned to homo sapiens.

But you believe that your ancestors are space dust and rocks cooked in the stars. (Sounds magical to me!) You believe that this finest design is a result of non-design and incredible intelligence came out of non-intelligence. You accept that meaningful purpose is a product of a meaningless processes. You even propagate that everything including your brain come from nothing... What are you arguing then, If your evolutionary reasoning is just a random motions of atoms and a meaningless exercise? You only matter and your words only matter if there is purpose and meaning which can only be explained by an Intelligent Designer. This is the reason why you write your comment because you want your words to matter and you want to matter.

Stephen Land We ALL need help because we’ve all sinned. You forgot the part where God turns into a human and inserts himself into his creation, pays the penalty for EVERYBODY’S sin in exchange for his righteousness. That’s the most important point of all and you left it out.

So you state that there is a "hole" in his line of reasoning and that he is spouting "bullshit", without actually rebutting his arguments? Nice... You state that he is making a fallacy but do not try to explain what makes his argument/statement fallacious.... You are actually doing what you yourself deem untruthful by trying to persuade the reader in thinking that you have refuted something. "Ten points to the first person to show the very obvious hole in this line of reasoning" is just another way of saying that you have no argument against the proposition, but feel as though it is false.

You are such a moron!! The challenge was to have people show Craig's fallacies. You take that as there are no fallacies. 1) As a non-theist, I have every acceptance of purpose, both my own and that of the universe around me. That Craig insists i cannot accept purpose is his way of stating a piss-poor opinion and doing so in a way that suggests fact. Such disingenuous sophistry is his stock-in-trade. 2) There most certainly are 'oughts' (we ought to do this, or ought not do that). For Craig to say I have none is just his outright lying. 3) Evil exists. Donald Trump is a current example. ISIS is evil. Hitler was evil. Craig's disingenuous lies are evil. 4) see No. 3 5) Craig's, "Evil exists, therefore God exists" is an excellent example of the evil of trying to pass off bullshit as truth. PS; saying there is a hole in Craig's reasoning was an inside joke. His reasoning is littered with holes.

Stephen Land responce to nr one: Craig's claim follows; without god, there is no OBJECTIVE perpose. Therefore, he does not propose that you can't create subjective perpose with your life. The fact that you don't already know this shows that you either haven't heard his argument, (which makes you incompetent in this discussion) or that you have heard, but lack basic listening comprehension. If you propose that the universe has an objective perpose than you go against every respected atheist philosopher. Responce to nr two: Of cource you can say that there are "oughts", but in your atheistic world view there can't be an objective morality (i.e. your "oughts" are not independent from or beyond people's opinion). Responce to nr three: Not an argument. Only a statement. Responce to nr five: Not an argument. Only a statement. P.S. Great debating tactic to start your rebuttal with an ad hominem attack, it really shows that you don't try to win the debate by persuading the reader (sarcastic voice)....

My guess is that you studied under Craig. Craig's assumption that there really is a god is just that, an assumption. Seeing as how there's never been a properly documented example of anything even vaguely resembling an act of divine intervention much less a properly documented appearance of anything in the way of a supernatural entity, I'd say that Craig's assumption is sorely lacking. I never said that the universe has an objective purpose. And I object to Craig's definition of 'objective' in this sense which is having no human input and thus only coming from (his) god. With zero evidence for any god much less any compelling evidence. I'll say his definition is sophistry at it's worst. I'm sure the universe has a purpose even if I'm not (yet) privileged to know what it is. My guess is that it exists because it cannot not exist. In my non-theist world view (that of accepting what natural reality exists around us) there most certainly are 'oughts' that are the result of our collective desire and need to be useful and purposeful individuals. They are not the result of one person's opinion alone and they most certainly are not the opinions of bronze age, middle eastern goat herders who were so ignorant of reality that they were clueless about where the sun went at night. A statement of fact is sufficient to do away with an argument that is based on a fallacy. Perhaps Craig was reticent to teach you that. His, "Evil exists, therefore (his) God exists" is a fallacious argument. My statement that evil exists is factual. Craig's statement that his god exists is anything but factual. Trying to pass off bullshit as truth (one of Craig's more disingenuous tactics) is an example of evil. Argue this if you choose. It remains true. Craig's beginning assumption that his god exists is a very large hole in his arguments. They are all dependent on that unproven and (in my opinion) highly unlikely assumption. If you're a believer (I assume that you are), this is something you will never accept. But then, as Carl Sagan said (words to the effect), you can't convince a believer of anything because there belief is not based on evidence but on a deep-seated need to believe. PS; bronze age, middle eastern goat herder creation mythology is not evidence. It is mythology.

Ok, so your entire response revolves around the statement that Craig assumes that there is a god (assume = to take for granted without proof). But in fact, most of his reasoning behind the claim that there is a god is based on deductive arguments which is comprised of conclusions that follows behind premises. A deductive argument is not at all equivalent to an assumption. If you want to debunk the conclusions of his argument, then you first have to attack his premises, not the conclusion itself. When you say that there are “oughts”, do you consequently think that we have a sense of morality/right or wrong ingrained in our DNA, or do you think that humanity/society have achieved it in some other fashion? If you believe in the initial part of the question, then the most plausible cause or explanation for it, is to advance the rate of survival for the human species. So for example, murdering a child is unbeneficial for the survival of the human species. But if humans evolve beyond the need of each other (if we maybe become immortal or some other consideration) and therefore murdering a child wouldn’t be unbeneficial for humanity's survival, would it still be immoral to do so? If you still think it would be immoral, then it’s truly just a matter of opinion, since you have no grounds in which you can assert morality on, other than the matter of your own personal feelings.

kris6682 There is always a better argument and a better reason even though it might be improved in the future.

tell that to vladimir putin and adolf hitler. No one is right or wrong on your view.

Really? The person(s) who made the stage might disagree with you.