Debate: Does Science Refute God?
Video Statistics and Information
No captions available for this video.
Channel: FORA.tv
Views: 24,765
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: debate, science, God, gods, religion, reason, Enlightenment, Lawrence Krauss, Michael Shermer, Ian Hutchinson, Dinesh D'Souza, philosophy, physics, psychology, religious discrimination, IQ2, IQ2US, coexist
Id: LDu2dgTT5t4
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 110min 29sec (6629 seconds)
Published: Fri Jan 25 2013
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
DO NOT WATCH ANYTHING WITH D'SOUZA. it's a waste of time and you'll just end up shouting at the screen. seriously. go read a book for 110min instead. ;)
How is D'souza even qualified to be in what is supposed to be a rational debate? This guy is a joke.
Krauss CRUSHED this. Called the exact arguments the theists were going to use and refuted them before they even got a chance to make them.
Hutchinson is a nuclear physicist at M.I.T.
Humor! Presenter: "Two of you are in the dark, and I don't mean that metaphorically." (Dr. Krauss and Michael Shermer were literally in the dark.) Dr. Krauss: "Let there be light!"
Did anyone else notice actress Andy McDowell in the audience?
D'Souza just makes assertion after assertion that is just BS. He offers 0 evidence for any of it. He's also shoe-horning biblical stories into modern science and saying they were right all along.
Regarding Krauss' question to D'Souza about the sun stopping in the sky and what would be the ramifications of that from a physics standpoint... why don't biblical "scientists" show the math that would allow that to happen without destroying the world?
The anti-deterministic argument that Hutchinson is making and the point Krauss is making about deterministic laws... I think Hutchinson is trying to say (similar to what D'Souza is contending) that just because all of the laws of physics are deterministic and the Universe is governed by these deterministic laws that you can't say that the universe is deterministic. That's such a leap of faith! Why should you expect that the Universe is not deterministic if ALL experiments, theoretical models, mathematical models and experience shows it to be deterministic? How can you make the leap to not expecting that if EVERYTHING in the Universe says otherwise? It's absurd and completely arbitrary.
D'Souza's example about stomping on a dog or cat on stage and the moral revulsion that would create in the audience he says that's because, although science does tell us that the dog/cat can feel pain and suffer, that's not why we think it's wrong. Yet, if he came on stage and threw a bouquet of flowers on the ground and stomped on them, people might think him weird, but would not feel nearly as repulsed by the action. Why not? Because our experience and science do not show that flowers and plants necessarily feel pain or experience suffering like animals have been shown to do. So in that sense, the experience of the natural world and science do inform our morality with regard to killing plants. The same goes for insects and bacteria. We do not perceive them to suffer, so we have no qualms about killing them.
D'Souza: "The Bible says that God made the Universe from nothing." No it doesn't. The Bible says that there was the "Waters of the Deep." The bible never says that God made the world/Universe from nothing. It is clear from reading that the "firmament" was always there and the world was carved out of it/expanded within it. He's just wrong.
How smug of Hutchinson and D'Souza for not clapping and showing gratitude to Krauss and Shermer in kind.
Yay! "We" won! ;)
And after watching that whole debate I have to agree with many commenters so far... D'Souza has no business being in debates like this. He just makes assertions and assumes he's right and challenges others to prove him wrong without ever actually presenting a valid argument and/or using the same tired arguments that have been made and refuted before. I can't believe that Krauss and Shermer did not jump on those statements.
I haven't listened to the debate, but isn't it widely held among atheists that science can't refute god? At best it can show why god is not necessary.