Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨🇺🇸 WORLD-RENOWNED SCIENTIST SAYS SCIENCE ISN’T KILLING GOD… IT’S DOING THE OPPOSITE World-renowned biochemist James Tour pushed back on the science-vs-faith narrative, saying modern research is increasingly pointing toward belief, not away from it. Tour put it bluntly: “Science is pointing us more and more to God.” The comment...

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

3,233,240 subscribers

31,210 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfĂźgbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Dr. Joel Gator Warsh is blowing the whistle — saying the science is far from settled on vaccines and autism. “There is nothing that has shocked me more in my entire life than looking into the autism research myself.” “When I went through training, we were told vaccines do not cause autism.” “They said, ‘The science is settled. We have tons of great research to prove it.’” “But when I looked into the research myself, that was not true.” “You don’t think to question it when you’re in training or when you hear it on the media — ‘The science is settled, it’s been debunked.’” “And it’s like why would people be lying to you?” “When you start to read other books and look at the research yourself, you realize that we haven’t studied this question almost at all.” “Not one study exists comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and autism.” “We haven’t done a prospective trial.” “We haven’t looked at all the ingredients.” “To say it’s been debunked or the science is settled is ridiculous.” “It’s so far from that.”
1:38

Dr. Joel Gator Warsh is blowing the whistle — saying the science is far from settled on vaccines and autism. “There is nothing that has shocked me more in my entire life than looking into the autism research myself.” “When I went through training, we were told vaccines do not cause autism.” “They said, ‘The science is settled. We have tons of great research to prove it.’” “But when I looked into the research myself, that was not true.” “You don’t think to question it when you’re in training or when you hear it on the media — ‘The science is settled, it’s been debunked.’” “And it’s like why would people be lying to you?” “When you start to read other books and look at the research yourself, you realize that we haven’t studied this question almost at all.” “Not one study exists comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and autism.” “We haven’t done a prospective trial.” “We haven’t looked at all the ingredients.” “To say it’s been debunked or the science is settled is ridiculous.” “It’s so far from that.”

Children’s Health Defense

27,147 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”
1:31

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”

neandrewthal

74,654 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The more I learn about DNA and the inner workings of our cells, the more I’m convinced that there is a Creator/Force/God. You can call it what you want but to think it’s all just “evolution”, the result of natural selection, seems absolutely absurd to me. I am not saying evolution isn’t real but I am saying that our understanding about the nature of our reality and where we come from is sorely lacking. We like to tell ourselves the “we know the truth”, but the correct answer is that we really don’t know at all. Human origins is the mystery of all mysteries and our arrogance instead of reverence for that mystery is a big reason why evil has gained such a foothold in our world in my opinion. What do you think? Evolution explains it or something else is at play? I don’t claim to know the truth but instinctually feel our explanations are fundamentally flawed. Watch this stunning animation that explains how our DNA is tightly packed up and tell me you are not left with a sense of wonder for the mysterious nature of it all.
6:35

The more I learn about DNA and the inner workings of our cells, the more I’m convinced that there is a Creator/Force/God. You can call it what you want but to think it’s all just “evolution”, the result of natural selection, seems absolutely absurd to me. I am not saying evolution isn’t real but I am saying that our understanding about the nature of our reality and where we come from is sorely lacking. We like to tell ourselves the “we know the truth”, but the correct answer is that we really don’t know at all. Human origins is the mystery of all mysteries and our arrogance instead of reverence for that mystery is a big reason why evil has gained such a foothold in our world in my opinion. What do you think? Evolution explains it or something else is at play? I don’t claim to know the truth but instinctually feel our explanations are fundamentally flawed. Watch this stunning animation that explains how our DNA is tightly packed up and tell me you are not left with a sense of wonder for the mysterious nature of it all.

Champagne Joshi

149,527 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

"Free markets, the natural system is dominant. ... The reality is, if just in terms of pure science and physics of the world and how the world, biology, the world, the way the world works, life is not fair. Equality is not an actual construct. It is a made up construct that we create....I do believe ultimately that if you don't follow the natural system, it's more inefficient and things become a bigger problem at the end of the day."
6:50

"Free markets, the natural system is dominant. ... The reality is, if just in terms of pure science and physics of the world and how the world, biology, the world, the way the world works, life is not fair. Equality is not an actual construct. It is a made up construct that we create....I do believe ultimately that if you don't follow the natural system, it's more inefficient and things become a bigger problem at the end of the day."

Cem Karsan 🥐

52,262 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

In a world and industry full of TERRIBLE people, Chris Pratt is one of the good ones. I applaud this man's love for God and his faith. "God is real!" "God Loves you!" "God wants the best for you. Believe that because I do." "Learn to pray! It is so good for your soul." We need more Chris Pratt's in this world!
0:51

In a world and industry full of TERRIBLE people, Chris Pratt is one of the good ones. I applaud this man's love for God and his faith. "God is real!" "God Loves you!" "God wants the best for you. Believe that because I do." "Learn to pray! It is so good for your soul." We need more Chris Pratt's in this world!

AmericanPapaBear™

364,520 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Dr. Ruxandra Teslo argues America's biotech problem isn't the science, it's how slowly we learn from humans: "This is going to be more and more of a bottleneck as science advances especially in oncology. It's not just that we don't have enough clinical trials and they are expensive. This has become worse and worse throughout the years." "The article is particularly focused on these phase one clinical trials. These are the trials where you first take a new drug into humans for the first time. The reason we're focusing on those, they are some of the most important trials because that's where you can actually start to learn and do iterative loops of learning in humans." "What you learn from that goes back into the science and you can engineer something better. We can see from China, they're very very good doing their phase one trials fast, that is very much responsible for propelling them ahead, almost ahead of the US in just a decade, despite the fact that their science is not as good." "We have a very good model for how to do them faster and better, which is Australia." Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 Adam Kroetsch IFP
2:32

Dr. Ruxandra Teslo argues America's biotech problem isn't the science, it's how slowly we learn from humans: "This is going to be more and more of a bottleneck as science advances especially in oncology. It's not just that we don't have enough clinical trials and they are expensive. This has become worse and worse throughout the years." "The article is particularly focused on these phase one clinical trials. These are the trials where you first take a new drug into humans for the first time. The reason we're focusing on those, they are some of the most important trials because that's where you can actually start to learn and do iterative loops of learning in humans." "What you learn from that goes back into the science and you can engineer something better. We can see from China, they're very very good doing their phase one trials fast, that is very much responsible for propelling them ahead, almost ahead of the US in just a decade, despite the fact that their science is not as good." "We have a very good model for how to do them faster and better, which is Australia." Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 Adam Kroetsch IFP

MTS

16,511 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

Terence Tao, UCLA mathematics professor and Fields Medallist, on why AI may be succeeding at science while scientists get worse at it: Tao starts by naming the tension directly: "There is this paradox that on the one hand AIs are becoming more powerful and more capable and making fewer mistakes, and they are ostensibly achieving a lot of the goals that we think scientists are trying to do. They're running experiments. They're analyzing data. They're writing papers." Experiments run, data analyzed, papers written — the exact outputs any university or funding body would cite as proof that science is working. Tao's concern is what those outputs stop telling you: "It may be that it comes at the cost of the AI picks up some skill but no human scientist gets any better at doing the science." The skill still accumulates, just in the wrong place. The system gets more capable while the people operating it stand still, because the work that used to build a researcher is now the work being handed off. And the cost shows up in the one thing scientists are supposed to be able to do: "No human can communicate exactly what just happened and why. This scientific discovery is interesting, why this proof is new and what features it has and how it connects." That final clause is the sharp end of it. Tao is describing a result nobody can place — a proof that arrives with no one able to say what makes it new, how it's built, or how it connects to the rest of the field. Understanding is a separate achievement from getting the answer, and it can quietly disappear while the answers keep arriving on schedule. Which is why he thinks the target itself needs re-examining: "We may have to sort of redesign our conception of what science is and what we actually want out of science. What exactly is science for and what are we trying to do? And is there a danger that we are optimizing the wrong thing when we are pointing our AI tools at science?"
0:52

Terence Tao, UCLA mathematics professor and Fields Medallist, on why AI may be succeeding at science while scientists get worse at it: Tao starts by naming the tension directly: "There is this paradox that on the one hand AIs are becoming more powerful and more capable and making fewer mistakes, and they are ostensibly achieving a lot of the goals that we think scientists are trying to do. They're running experiments. They're analyzing data. They're writing papers." Experiments run, data analyzed, papers written — the exact outputs any university or funding body would cite as proof that science is working. Tao's concern is what those outputs stop telling you: "It may be that it comes at the cost of the AI picks up some skill but no human scientist gets any better at doing the science." The skill still accumulates, just in the wrong place. The system gets more capable while the people operating it stand still, because the work that used to build a researcher is now the work being handed off. And the cost shows up in the one thing scientists are supposed to be able to do: "No human can communicate exactly what just happened and why. This scientific discovery is interesting, why this proof is new and what features it has and how it connects." That final clause is the sharp end of it. Tao is describing a result nobody can place — a proof that arrives with no one able to say what makes it new, how it's built, or how it connects to the rest of the field. Understanding is a separate achievement from getting the answer, and it can quietly disappear while the answers keep arriving on schedule. Which is why he thinks the target itself needs re-examining: "We may have to sort of redesign our conception of what science is and what we actually want out of science. What exactly is science for and what are we trying to do? And is there a danger that we are optimizing the wrong thing when we are pointing our AI tools at science?"

Big Brain AI

42,366 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

Retired MIT scientist LAUGHS off the claim that “the science is settled” on climate change. Once you hear this, it becomes clear that anyone insisting “the science is settled” has no idea what they’re talking about: “On the one hand, you’re told the science is settled… but on the other hand, if you read the IPCC reports, they’re pointing out, for instance, that water vapor and clouds are much bigger [greenhouse factors] than CO2, and we don’t understand them at all. So here you have the biggest phenomena we don’t understand at all, but the science is settled. Who knows what that means?” — Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
0:58

Retired MIT scientist LAUGHS off the claim that “the science is settled” on climate change. Once you hear this, it becomes clear that anyone insisting “the science is settled” has no idea what they’re talking about: “On the one hand, you’re told the science is settled… but on the other hand, if you read the IPCC reports, they’re pointing out, for instance, that water vapor and clouds are much bigger [greenhouse factors] than CO2, and we don’t understand them at all. So here you have the biggest phenomena we don’t understand at all, but the science is settled. Who knows what that means?” — Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

373,718 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

#HelloBlessedPeople 🙏🏾 Wouldn’t it be nice if life came with a schedule?! We want to know WHEN the blessing is coming. WHEN the struggle will end. WHEN everything is going to work out. But FAITH doesn’t require us to know the entire schedule… it requires us to TRUST the One who does!! Sometimes, or better yet, oftentimes GOD won’t show you the whole season. He’ll simply show you the NEXT STEP. Prayerfully Take it. 🙏🏾 Trust DEEPER. Walk by FAITH. Not by sight. And let GOD handle the schedule AND the outcome!! James 4:13-15 “Come now, you who say, ““Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city and spend a year there and do business and make a profit.”” You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes. You ought to say instead, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” #DAWKTALK #BBTB #Faith #Purpose
1:23

#HelloBlessedPeople 🙏🏾 Wouldn’t it be nice if life came with a schedule?! We want to know WHEN the blessing is coming. WHEN the struggle will end. WHEN everything is going to work out. But FAITH doesn’t require us to know the entire schedule… it requires us to TRUST the One who does!! Sometimes, or better yet, oftentimes GOD won’t show you the whole season. He’ll simply show you the NEXT STEP. Prayerfully Take it. 🙏🏾 Trust DEEPER. Walk by FAITH. Not by sight. And let GOD handle the schedule AND the outcome!! James 4:13-15 “Come now, you who say, ““Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city and spend a year there and do business and make a profit.”” You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes. You ought to say instead, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” #DAWKTALK #BBTB #Faith #Purpose

Brian Dawkins

12,524 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

I love how this section of the extended look is basically Rockstar saying… We know how you all escaped the police in GTA V and you won’t be doing that in GTA 6. Losing the cops is about to become a lot more challenging, and I’m absolutely ready for it. How are you feeling about your actions having consequences in this game and having to think more carefully about what you do?
0:36

I love how this section of the extended look is basically Rockstar saying… We know how you all escaped the police in GTA V and you won’t be doing that in GTA 6. Losing the cops is about to become a lot more challenging, and I’m absolutely ready for it. How are you feeling about your actions having consequences in this game and having to think more carefully about what you do?

RockStation

69,329 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

Tucker Carlson on Friday night: "The truth is contagious...the more you tell the truth, the stronger you become...the more you lie, the weaker and more terrified you become...you see these people and some of them really have paid a heavy price for telling the truth...but they do it anyway..."
0:57

Tucker Carlson on Friday night: "The truth is contagious...the more you tell the truth, the stronger you become...the more you lie, the weaker and more terrified you become...you see these people and some of them really have paid a heavy price for telling the truth...but they do it anyway..."

Townhall.com

1,243,435 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.
4:50

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

116,352 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Look at this incredible clip of Carl Jung talking about God. It literally gives me chills every time I watch it. One of the most prolific and famous psychotherapists and psychoanalysts of all time, Jung coined much of the language we use to describe our thoughts and psychology today. So why is it that someone so steeped in the sciences ends up finding himself not only saying that he believes in God as an act of conscious faith, but that he KNOWS God? If you, like me, were raised through your youth in the 2010s-2015 era of 'new-atheism', it became extremely zeitgeist to deny the existence of God. We saw a world where science was directly in opposition to anything spiritual, metaphysical, supernatural at all. But what I think is extremely compelling is how many incredibly intelligent individuals who clearly wrestled with the material and fought rigorously with these ideas ended up finding themselves at some sort of level acknowledging the existence of the supernatural, of the divine. Anyone who experiences life richly, who asks the deep questions and continues to seek earnestly, will find the answers that they're seeking for. My encouragement is to explore these questions now, when you are young, when you have the time for these answers and philosophies to completely change the trajectory of your life. How would you live if you thought that you were chosen? How would you live if you thought that you were placed here for a reason? Famously, they say that there are no atheists on deathbeds. But what I hope to see in the world is no atheists anywhere. We are surrounded by abundant evidence of something incredibly magical going on behind the scenes. And I think that if you're humble enough to consider the idea, you'll start to see it all around you.
0:29

Look at this incredible clip of Carl Jung talking about God. It literally gives me chills every time I watch it. One of the most prolific and famous psychotherapists and psychoanalysts of all time, Jung coined much of the language we use to describe our thoughts and psychology today. So why is it that someone so steeped in the sciences ends up finding himself not only saying that he believes in God as an act of conscious faith, but that he KNOWS God? If you, like me, were raised through your youth in the 2010s-2015 era of 'new-atheism', it became extremely zeitgeist to deny the existence of God. We saw a world where science was directly in opposition to anything spiritual, metaphysical, supernatural at all. But what I think is extremely compelling is how many incredibly intelligent individuals who clearly wrestled with the material and fought rigorously with these ideas ended up finding themselves at some sort of level acknowledging the existence of the supernatural, of the divine. Anyone who experiences life richly, who asks the deep questions and continues to seek earnestly, will find the answers that they're seeking for. My encouragement is to explore these questions now, when you are young, when you have the time for these answers and philosophies to completely change the trajectory of your life. How would you live if you thought that you were chosen? How would you live if you thought that you were placed here for a reason? Famously, they say that there are no atheists on deathbeds. But what I hope to see in the world is no atheists anywhere. We are surrounded by abundant evidence of something incredibly magical going on behind the scenes. And I think that if you're humble enough to consider the idea, you'll start to see it all around you.

Zach Schenken ᛋ

143,262 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

What am I watching? Is this real? Why does Trump sound so strange here? Does anyone actually believe that Donald Trump believes any of what he's saying here? In this video Trump apparently says: "You do what God called you to do. You show up. You put one foot in front of the other. You have no idea what God hasssss calling for you. You have no idea where you going, and in some cases you don’t know why. But he needs you. He needs me. He needs all of us. "It is God that is the answer and it is the same turning to God — the ultimate answer to evil — America is a nation strengthened and sustained by God and the prayers of all his children. "Your faith is a force that our enemies can never ever extinguish. Your love of God, family and country is more powerful than any adversaries, hatred, or malice or scorn.”
0:53

What am I watching? Is this real? Why does Trump sound so strange here? Does anyone actually believe that Donald Trump believes any of what he's saying here? In this video Trump apparently says: "You do what God called you to do. You show up. You put one foot in front of the other. You have no idea what God hasssss calling for you. You have no idea where you going, and in some cases you don’t know why. But he needs you. He needs me. He needs all of us. "It is God that is the answer and it is the same turning to God — the ultimate answer to evil — America is a nation strengthened and sustained by God and the prayers of all his children. "Your faith is a force that our enemies can never ever extinguish. Your love of God, family and country is more powerful than any adversaries, hatred, or malice or scorn.”

Ed Krassenstein

2,692,434 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Atrazine Changes the Sex of Frogs — And it’s in 63% of Americas Drinking Water Question for everyone… When you look at how feminine young men have become today compared to the last generation, is it plausible to say that this chemical has a lot to do with that? When you look at the explosion of LGBTQ folks… outside of indoctrination and grooming, is it plausible to say that this chemical has a lot to do with that? Truly sickening once you understand in your mind the depths of this evil… But now we are aware… thank you God This Clip Full Show
1:21

Atrazine Changes the Sex of Frogs — And it’s in 63% of Americas Drinking Water Question for everyone… When you look at how feminine young men have become today compared to the last generation, is it plausible to say that this chemical has a lot to do with that? When you look at the explosion of LGBTQ folks… outside of indoctrination and grooming, is it plausible to say that this chemical has a lot to do with that? Truly sickening once you understand in your mind the depths of this evil… But now we are aware… thank you God This Clip Full Show

MJTruthUltra

1,743,885 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

"This is true! When Elon says 'Questioning the science is part of the science,' I don't know if anybody in scientific academia knows that because usually if you publish a paper or a study, that's it! Nobody questions it. You just publish it, and that's it!"
1:29

"This is true! When Elon says 'Questioning the science is part of the science,' I don't know if anybody in scientific academia knows that because usually if you publish a paper or a study, that's it! Nobody questions it. You just publish it, and that's it!"

Destiny | Steven Bonnell II

126,428 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.
2:45

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

32,186 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten