Dodo

Piers Morgan vs Richard Dawkins on Origin of Universe and Life

7 posts in this topic

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

 

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

Edited by Dodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Spiritual Warfare

The end of separation is the end of desire. It’s life, it’s death, it’s unity; it is the absolute. In this profound realization, we find perfection eternal, a state of everlasting harmony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Nilsi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 😆 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now