Piers Morgan vs Richard Dawkins on Origin of Universe and Life

[Dodo]

 I can't believe it, but I am on Piers' side for once!   

 

PS: We need Leo there!  "You are both not aware right now how you are creating reality"  

Edited September 13 by Dodo

[Spiritual Warfare]

I agree. I don't understand why Richard is like famous. I mean, he is very close-minded and doesn’t really have good arguments for why there is nothing beyond the material world.

 

Edited September 13 by Spiritual Warfare

[Nilsi]

The fact that a British person wouldn’t know Oasis is all the evidence of closed-mindedness one could ask for.

Edited September 14 by Nilsi

[zurew]

Yeah, well, Dawkins is right that its a category-error to ask what was before the big bang. It seems Piers wasn't able to track why.  Terms like 'before' and 'after'  are both temporal notions and time as we understand it , was created/came into existence at the big-bang. 

Its equivalent to asking "what was before the existence of time?". Its a nonsense question , because it assigns a property (time) to something that doesn't have that property.

The other thing is that there are responses to the fine-tuning argument and nothing really new was said by that Stephen Meyer guy

 

Edited September 14 by zurew

[El Zapato]

Dawkins is a clueless ass...

[Dodo]

On 14/09/2024 at 11:49 AM, zurew said:

Yeah, well, Dawkins is right that its a category-error to ask what was before the big bang. It seems Piers wasn't able to track why.  Terms like 'before' and 'after'  are both temporal notions and time as we understand it , was created/came into existence at the big-bang. 

Its equivalent to asking "what was before the existence of time?". Its a nonsense question , because it assigns a property (time) to something that doesn't have that property.

The other thing is that there are responses to the fine-tuning argument and nothing really new was said by that Stephen Meyer guy

 

Some of us here arguing there is no such thing as time at all, and that the big bang didnt happen in the past, its still "happening". So what was before the existence of time? We looking at it 😆 

[questionreality]

Dawkins defines "god" in dualistic sense - as he said he doesn't believe in the man who sits on the sky and forgives sins, listens to prayers, etc.

He clearly rejects this concept and he is correct to do so.

Yet he does say that there is something mysterious in the universe - so he is still open to the possibility of mysterious force, just not "god in conventional sense.

Most people miss this, but how you define "god" when discussing this concept is very crucial.