He is 80 and alive

Maybe he’s evolved

Had to stop the video after that line like have I missed something, do I need to check if he's still alive. You should not scare people like that :D

Fuckin scared the shit out of me for a second...

@@sos83 Hehe, I also had to scroll down to see if I was the only one noticing this.

Wow, so those losers are your treasures. Poor loser you. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

I agree, the UK has some great critical thinkers,even some modern British comedians are great thinkers of logic and reason, probably why the UK is more skeptical of religion in modern times.

@@2fast2block Everything is a product of cause effect, nothing supernatural. No proof of any god claim,but you would disagree I'm sure.

Try Lawrence Kraus and Sam Harris, both from US. Great communicators too

He surely no longer fits the stereotype 96% of the world has about Americans. 👍

Absolutely 💯. These videos have taken a very thought-provoking turn.

🙄

Indeed kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pNWaZ9OZsrqdf3k.html

@@szabados1980 Yeah he is a good lad. I have watched the Hitch one and battle of Britain

There is NO hope for fools. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block Pseudo-scientific, presuppositional bollocks

@@2fast2block If what you say is true, then something must have created God. What created God? And what created the thing that created God? And what created that? Of course creation can happen by natural means - it happens every minute of every day! How do you imagine YOU were created?! Or do you not perceive pregnancy and childbirth as "natural"?

@@2fast2block Any evidence for this god you talk about? No? I didn't think so.

@@rosieharris3176 I wasn't created by nothing. From nothing comes nothing. You atheist have all failed to demonstrate that it is not rational to believe that a creation requires a Creator. It is only irrational to believe that something can come from nothing and this is exactly what atheist believe.

WELL congratulations... Now you've joined the new cult and dogma of Darwininism.

Though micro-evolution is true and obvious when we look at things like variations in birds' beak sizes or human skin colour, the idea of speciation is a whole other can of worms that current evolution theory does not explain. The main problem is the mathematical inconsistencies. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pNWaZ9OZsrqdf3k.html

@@marioluigi9599 "micro-evolution makes sense but speciation is nonsense." Ah yes, "taking a step makes sense, but walking a mile is nonsense"

@@permets2apollox453 No. It's more like, diluting your blue watercolour makes sense, but creating red from your blue is nonsense. The more Melanin you have, the browner your skin and eyes are. That's changeable... but you can't get green alien skin colour from melanin. That's nonesense

@@marioluigi9599 " diluting your blue watercolour makes sense, but creating red from your blue is nonsense" At what point in a rainbow does red become orange, orange become yellow? there is no part of a rainbow where you can say "this part here is red, but this part right next to it is orange" What you are calling "microevolution" is the shades of a colour, but you are completely ignoring the fact that if you push shades of a colour far enough, they can end up as different colours to what you started with (macroevolution)

I'm also Irish and loved watching the people of our Country not afraid anymore to use their own minds...I was brought up in an open minded exploratory minded family...there were some religious in my family but they let us be free and open minded...My Dad once said to me a few years before he passed that" Religion is not your belief...its a belief instilled in your mind by someone else's unproven belief " ☘

@@CHIBBZ-54 Yep. Its a mind-virus that serves no purpose in the current world other than to consume resources better used elsewhere, and justify history's absolute worst behaviours.

No. It shouldn't even be mentioned to a child until they have the mental facility to tell bullshit from reality. Inculcating religion in a young mind is simply child abuse.

All you can do is respect each others points of view, science itself has been proved completely wrong as we develop

You're a loser like Dawkins so shut the F up. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block I read the first line and ignored the rest. Good job wasting your time.

Or retired

Shut up, loser, you don't even think much. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

Thank you, Dawkins does not deserve the vitriol of so many who claim that he is a strident and deeply unpleasant human being when I have never once witnessed him ever being disrespectful or rude. He's an incredibly intelligent man and his books have given me many hours of enjoyment. It's nice to see a Christian who is not blinded by their faith that they cannot show respect or tolerance to an atheist who does not agree with the Christian faith

@@jackwhitbread4583 I must admit, I was at first, just going by what other people had said but once I sat down and listened to him, I came to realise that he's not "anti faith" at all, it's just that he doesn't personally believe. Whenever Dawkins is brought up at our church in conversation, I always tell people to actually listen to him rather than just go on what you hear from others.

@@matthill3293 Nonsense, he is anti-faith, as far as meaning religion.

And their heads don't add up to much just like Dawkins is a loser too. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block "Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." No he doesn't. Creation out of literal nothing is a religious concept. It isn't really advocated for by anyone else. "Real science says nothing does nothing." Science offers no commentary of 'nothing', since we don't have a 'nothing' in order to examine it and see what it is or isn't capable. "We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy." That applies to our local presentation of the universe. It may not necessarily apply to whatever state the universe existed prior to the Big Bang (if 'prior' to the Big Bang is even a coherent concept). "Creation cannot happen by natural means." Woooooooooa there, buddy. You're going to have to join the dots there, because nothing you said up until this point justifies that assertion. "This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created." ......No....it doesn't. Again: Nothing you've said up until this point justifies that assertion. Please justify it now. Preferable with evidence that supports that supernatural creator (and you've got a long way to go in order to get there). But heck, I'd settle for a syllogism. Because if you think you've made one, you haven't. "When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction." The guy who is accusing other people of "resorting to science fiction" is resorting to literal MAGIC as part of his own 'explanation'.....yeah.. "Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it." Well sure, if you just accept that "magic exists" then you can make up whatever explanation you want. But I actually care whether or not the explanation is true, not just whether you can make something up. "We can't get anything from "literally nothing."" Prove it? How many nothings have you examined? "We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God." Okay, you seriously need to read something other than creationist apologetics websites. Because your "arguments" barely rise to the level I would expect from facebook memes. You just jump from one unfounded assertion and non-sequitur to another, and you don't even appear to know how to MAKE an argument, let alone how to make one that's valid and sound. You've just posted up a gish-gallop of nonsense without making any attempt to justify even ONE of your assertions. Please do so now.

@@seraphinaaizen6278 just one of your loser replies... "No he doesn't. Creation out of literal nothing is a religious concept. It isn't really advocated for by anyone else." Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.” Dawkins' "literally nothing": kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i7pjl8mBtMqliYk.html Lawrence Krauss wrote a book A Universe From Nothing that is something he prefers to call nothing. A nothing with space, matter, and time that somehow created space, matter, and time. Krauss, “Some of this bothers people. But who cares? Quantum mechanics is illogical-just get over it.” “But scientists have known for centuries that nothing is the key to understanding absolutely everything, from why particles have mass to the expansion of the universe - so without nothing we’d be precisely nowhere.” (New Scientist Promotions, 21 October 2013) “We started from literally nothing; from empty spacetime containing solely the energy of the quantum vacuum, and have arrived at our Universe today, with its billions of galaxies, stars, and all that ever was or will be here on Earth. (The Physics of Nothing; The Philosophy of Everything, August 16, 2011) Alan Guth, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Yes, you are a liar and a loser. You're happy about that.

@@2fast2block Erm ok. So who created god then? Thank you for your detailed reply, but I'm still not convinced.

42

@@margaretnicol3423 We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

@@AFNacapella In the beginning God created. Richard has no clue how it happened otherwise. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block "Richard has no clue how it happened." ...and neither do you, you utter clown.

@@2fast2block Wow, really, so, where did this God come from then?

They may of meant your moral anchor, all of western morality is built upon religious ideas, it may have not been true but you can't deny the benefits religious people seem to possess

I had a female friend who regarded me as her brother who over the years I had helped move house a number of times after her many failed relationships and I have helped her out financially more than once. She saw a thank you letter from the blood bank that I had in a frame on the shelf in my office, they had sent it to me to thank me for my 100th donation and she said that she should really start donating. She said god will reward you for your donations. Over the whole 20 years I had known her she had never talked about religion. Then I told her I was an atheist and the first words out of her mouth were you dreadful person you'll burn in hell. Shortly after that she stopped all contact with me unfriended me on facebook and would not return my calls.

@@geoffmower8729 that's just a sign she was full of shite, Christianity is about forgiveness and tolerance

@@escobarlisle6007 I can definitely deny any sense of morals owned by any one religious people . 43 years working in health care has taught me that morels don't stop you from dumping your elderly relatives into the Care System . Don't get we wrong , I love my patients , but whatever the religious belief you may have . We in the care field don't have to have a belief situation.

@@99fruitbat94 I think the trouble is theres are alot of fake religious people out there that do it just to virtue signal, Im a firm believer of the old ways, religion that's based on money isn't a religion at all

He's a loser. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block Dawkins doesn't teach anything of the sort because he's an evolutionary biologist, and not a cosmologist. I'm also not on board with your logic of x is true, so therefore Y is also true. Even if you're right about X (Laws of Thermodynamics) it doesn't make Y (a supernatural creator) true. It's merely a hypothesis, that needs evidence.

As if such an award is to be proud of. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block Dawkins teaches no such thing about the universe (citation required). The rest of what you wrote was garble and needs...well evidence again.

@@2fast2block I didn't bother reading your babble because you lied just a couple of sentences in. Maybe try to understand people and their positions before going on a rant

Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

No, I hate him because he IS the liar. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block Here we go. You've just proven what I said. He is breaking that bubble you live in.

@@ChocoLater1 this was somehow evidence to prove me wrong... "Here we go. You've just proven what I said. He is breaking that bubble you live in." You ARE such a F-ing loser. You did nothing to prove me wrong.

@@ChocoLater1 Dawkins is a fool with a degree in stupidity,he was humiliated by a twelve years old Muslim girl when he tried to regurgitate ignorance about religion in a class room.is this guy your best defense for atheism?

People like you never help humanity to move forward. You insult people at the earliest opportunity when someone disagree with you.

I hate him for his lying and you losers take him seriously. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha .

@@musicbruv this is the evidence from a loser that somehow proved me wrong... "Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ." Dawkins would be proud of how you're a loser like he is.

@@2fast2block So where did God come from. Any exception you can make for the existence of God can just as easily apply to the universe. Check out Roger Penrose's latest theory of an eternal self reproducing universe. No god required.

Yeah, keep at being clueless. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block maroon!

Climbing Mount Improbable is my favourite of his books. He's such a wonderful writer

@@danic9304 Yes, it is excellent...especially when being told by a believer that the eye is a miracle and you want to refute their belief with evidence for its evolution.

'The Greatest Show in Earth' is a personal favourite, because it demonstrates the majesty of the natural world, without necessarily going into and addressing the minutiae of religious fundamentalist belief.

@@tonygriffin_ I've read many of both his and Hitchens' books,....absolutely wonderful, and can recommend Hitch's 'Portable atheist' as a great source of early thinking, and Also the work of AC Grayling.

Tony, Richard is a loser and so are his clueless followers. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

What? No. That's not even close. Dawkins is a hack. There are plenty of serious atheist philosophers put there like Paul Draper and Graham Oppy but Dawkins is not one of them.

Yes

Citation needed

@@dereknewbury163 you have the word of an English man, the only citation you'll ever need, good day sir

@@markstevenson1646 With deepest respect, sir, utter bollocks reply.

@@dereknewbury163 really, well just remember that without stupidity there would be no intelligence and without ugliness there would be no beauty so I guess the world needs people like you after all, good day sir

Well, not without an impressive amount of cognitive dissonance.

Please don't forget the splendid anti-religious writings of the 19th Century American agnostic Colonel Robert Ingersoll. Thanks!

He is not a wordsmith, true, but he counters that with reason, scientific knowledge and the conviction to pass that on to as many people as possible.

seems u just use the word spirit as a way to define what isnt understood about physics, which is fine i suppose

@@girlsdrinkfeck lol you must be Irish with a name like that. Or a fan of Father Ted. Or both. I suppose what I mean by spirituality is a sense of self in the universe, of something bigger, community, intuition, feelings, the interconnectedness of all things - to steal from Douglas Adams. I doubt we'll ever know everything and very much doubt we have the senses or capacity no matter how much science evolves.

@@steveparker8065 i know what u mean, but everything can be explained by science eventually ,spirituality is just a word we use to fill the gap of the uncertain until we do know :)

@@girlsdrinkfeck You don't know that everything can be explained by science eventually. Thus far, the more answers we find, the more questions we have. “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” Douglas Adams

@@girlsdrinkfeck We think everything can be explained by science until it can't. When science can tell me where the Universe ends and what exists outside the Universe without some cop-out theory regarding it turning back in on itself, or it's a doughnut etc, or how a group of cells and chemical reactions become sentience, then maybe I'll consider your point about spirituality. But at the moment we know less than 1% about the Earth and less than 0.0000infinity about the Universe and are restricted in senses to a very small spectrum of the visible Universe. I really believe there are some things that will always transcend human limitations.

True believer syndrome. Its a thing.

He's alive still spreading his lies. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

When you indoctrinate children before they can speak it isn't surprising religions have a hold on people. It should be seen for what it is - child abuse. The mental distress created by placing their false guilt and dependency on kids is unforgiveable. Religious people are like generational abuse victims, it's all they know, so they see no problem doing it to their own children.

@@godamid4889 child abuse? You believe things with NO evidence and then you have the gall to act as if you care about truth? You're a joke like all you losers are. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

@@2fast2block if it was that good religion wouldn't need to fool children. It would stand on its own feet convincing adults. The rest of your post is rubbish. It doesn't make sense. But if you boil away the garbled nonsense, you are still left with the same question - but who created the creator?

@@godamid4889 since you love being a joke in your loser life, copy and paste any parts of your gassy reply that got around what I wrote rather than running from it.

@@2fast2block Odin is very disappointed in you. Dolt

He also says about being an Athiest. I'm an Athiest and so I don't believe in 6000 Gods, as a religious person you believe in one God and don't believe in 5,999 Gods. I don't believe in one more God than you. So in essence a religious person is just a less committed Athiest :)

Because God had to be there first to make the universe.

@@margaretnicol3423 I say Big Bird from Sesame Street created the universe and would argue that Big Bird had to be there before the universe could be created. And the strange thing is, that my logic is following yours. So you can't deny the validity of my point without contradicting yourself.

@@steveparker8065 Well the guy who created BB would have to be there before BB, wouldn't he?

@@margaretnicol3423 But BB has always been there though hasn't he? or don't you have faith? BB created Jim Henson shortly after the universe, then he took a day off to council Oscar the grouch in anger management ;-)

I hate the loser and losers who follow his lies. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

You're a loser like Dawkins so stop pretending you think. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

​@@2fast2block You say "We can't get anything from 'literally nothing'", yet in the same breath you tell us stories about how a magical being poofed the universe into existence out of nothing. I can see why this level of cognitive dissonance would leave you deranged 😂 You're also wrong about Richard Dawkins - he's an evolutionary biologist, not a cosmologist. His area of expertise goes as far back as the origins of life on Earth, not the universe. True, he often mentions the latest theories of the origin of the universe, but inflation theory doesn't propose the universe popping into existence out of nothing - just that the universe was previously much smaller than it is today. With big bang theory, even a singularity is not "nothing". At the moment nobody (including you) knows what happened prior to the big bang. It might not even make sense to talk about "prior" to the big bang if time also began at that point. It could be just as silly as asking "what's north of the north pole".