If you look at a painting, you could run experiments to count the number of brush strokes, calculate the dimensions of the frame, determine the chemistry of the pigments, the age of the canvas, and so on. Does that diminish the meaning of the piece? Does that negtate the fact of the painter who painted it? If the answer is no, then neither could our scientific understanding of the Universe prove that there is no meaning to it or there is no Creator behind it.

The ability to scientifically detail a painting does not diminish its meaning, nor does it "negate" the painter. What science does show, however, is whether the piece is genuine or fake; that given enough time and investigation, events can be explained. Maybe science will, one day, discover that there is a "meaning," maybe that there is a "creator." And, maybe, they will also discover that "god" is a totally natural phenomenon. Education, searching for the truth, and willingness to accept evidence only when that evidence has been tested, re-tested, then tested again, these are the keys to our future. Science does not say; "We don't know, therefore we believe it was god." Apparently we ate from the tree of knowledge and were cast out. Maybe that was gods undoing or, maybe, it was his intention that we should use that knowledge. That's a lot of maybes, but as time goes on we are getting closer to the "truth." And, whatever that is, I suspect it will surprise us all.

Moving this video to kulpims's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter kulpims.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Deano.

If I see a painting of a landscape I really really like...can I forget that it's canvas and paint and...if I believe haaaaaard enough....can I live inside that painting?

Interesting talk that I enjoyed a great deal, though I wonder if that was more for the quality of his delivery rather than the material.
It was interesting to learn about reality being wave-based and our perception is that of the particle. e.g the EM wave that is light we see as particles we call photons.
Also I do believe Dawkins was there at the end asking a question.

Waves to @Deano

All of "reality" exists only as waves of probability until measured, or, observed. This is the conclusion drawn from the double slit experiment. There is no painting.

Your using the old, you cant prove there is no god arguement. Stop it.