Jack Symes

aren't the like for me the the sense of community and the cultural aspects they don't appeal to me i couldn't think of anything more really boring than spending my sunday singing hymns and doing that no that's that's not for me there's so many other things that that you can do to find community to find fulfillment well but you could recognize how some people would find yeah sure that's fine with the enjoyment from it but i think in terms of like philosophical arguments for thinking it's true like the one you mentioned a moment ago like where this all came from

aren't the like for me the the sense of community and the cultural aspects they don't appeal to me i couldn't think of anything more really boring than spending my sunday singing hymns and doing that no that's that's not for me there's so many other things that that you can do to find community to find fulfillment well but you could recognize how some people would find yeah sure that's fine with the enjoyment from it but i think in terms of like philosophical arguments for thinking it's true like the one you mentioned a moment ago like where this all came from

aren't the like for me the the sense of community and the cultural aspects they don't appeal to me i couldn't think of anything more really boring than spending my sunday singing hymns and doing that no that's that's not for me there's so many other things that that you can do to find community to find fulfillment well but you could recognize how some people would find yeah sure that's fine with the enjoyment from it but i think in terms of like philosophical arguments for thinking it's true like the one you mentioned a moment ago like where this all came from

Science can't get to that question. The Kalam cosmological argument in philosophy is really popular. It just goes, everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it needs a cause. And then you do this deduction to figure out what kind of cause that could be.

Science can't get to that question. The Kalam cosmological argument in philosophy is really popular. It just goes, everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it needs a cause. And then you do this deduction to figure out what kind of cause that could be.

Science can't get to that question. The Kalam cosmological argument in philosophy is really popular. It just goes, everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it needs a cause. And then you do this deduction to figure out what kind of cause that could be.

And it would have to be something outside of time and space with the power and knowledge to bring this into being. And that might not be... That might get you all the way to God. That's a really strong reason for believing in God. And the answers the atheists give in place of it are nowhere near as strong. And likewise, like the argument from fine tuning, which is gaining traction again.

And it would have to be something outside of time and space with the power and knowledge to bring this into being. And that might not be... That might get you all the way to God. That's a really strong reason for believing in God. And the answers the atheists give in place of it are nowhere near as strong. And likewise, like the argument from fine tuning, which is gaining traction again.

And it would have to be something outside of time and space with the power and knowledge to bring this into being. And that might not be... That might get you all the way to God. That's a really strong reason for believing in God. And the answers the atheists give in place of it are nowhere near as strong. And likewise, like the argument from fine tuning, which is gaining traction again.

The physicist Sir Roger Penrose said that the fundamental laws of nature, like 26 of them, have to be delicately balanced perfectly to allow planets and intelligent life to form.

The physicist Sir Roger Penrose said that the fundamental laws of nature, like 26 of them, have to be delicately balanced perfectly to allow planets and intelligent life to form.

The physicist Sir Roger Penrose said that the fundamental laws of nature, like 26 of them, have to be delicately balanced perfectly to allow planets and intelligent life to form.

He calculates that the initial low entropy point of the universe had to be 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, which means if you sat there writing out that number for the law of entropy and the condition when the universe first started expanding, and you wrote down one digit every second, you'd still be writing out that number now.

He calculates that the initial low entropy point of the universe had to be 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, which means if you sat there writing out that number for the law of entropy and the condition when the universe first started expanding, and you wrote down one digit every second, you'd still be writing out that number now.

He calculates that the initial low entropy point of the universe had to be 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, which means if you sat there writing out that number for the law of entropy and the condition when the universe first started expanding, and you wrote down one digit every second, you'd still be writing out that number now.

That number is so astronomically huge that the odds of us being here are incredible. And when we're thinking of probability theory, if we're looking at the best explanation for that, then I think, you know, those that posit the existence of God have the better hand.

That number is so astronomically huge that the odds of us being here are incredible. And when we're thinking of probability theory, if we're looking at the best explanation for that, then I think, you know, those that posit the existence of God have the better hand.

That number is so astronomically huge that the odds of us being here are incredible. And when we're thinking of probability theory, if we're looking at the best explanation for that, then I think, you know, those that posit the existence of God have the better hand.

Like, I'm not religious, but I think we have to put our hands up and go, no, to those two problems, they've got really strong arguments for believing in God. But, you know, people like Dawkins, people like Hitchens and the like, even Dennett, I think Harris is a little bit more... I guess, sympathetic to those arguments than the other three. But they're not serious about following the arguments.

Like, I'm not religious, but I think we have to put our hands up and go, no, to those two problems, they've got really strong arguments for believing in God. But, you know, people like Dawkins, people like Hitchens and the like, even Dennett, I think Harris is a little bit more... I guess, sympathetic to those arguments than the other three. But they're not serious about following the arguments.