This series purports to explore, with deep thought, questions about "cosmos, consciousness, God." So it interviews scientists, philosophers and theologians, compares their viewpoints on a given topic, and then the host tries to distill it all and draw a final conclusion about that week's topic.

The problem w/this series is that, despite the intelligence of the scientists and the host, whenever they interview philosophers or theologians, everything deteriorates into a mess of unfounded assumptions and false logic, leading to false conclusions. Just one example: one theologian says that the concept of God implies plenitude. I.e., as a Creator of the universe, God would want to create everything that He possibly could. But why? Who says? E.g., could He create a rock so large that He couldn't lift it? If no, then He's not omnipotent. If yes, then, again, He's not omnipotent. The only way to wriggle out of that problem is to say, "Yes, He could; but why would He want to? But that would then be an admission that He doesn't create everything He possibly could.

Elsewhere a theologian says that the mere fact of the universe's existence demands that God created it, since it couldn't have come from nothing w/out an intelligent Creator. Thus he completely dismisses the Big Bang theory, doing what so many of these fuzzy-headed interviewees do: adding an unnecessary layer of explanation. If one is going to say that God created the universe from nothing, one could more elegantly just say that the Big Bang created the universe from nothing. Why interpose God as an extra layer of explanation?

I watch the first few episodes of the first season. I no longer watch every episode of this pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Occasionally I'll watch an episode if the title sounds interesting and not a waste of time. But I think we all have better things to do w/our time than waste it on this. I'm just surprised it has lasted so long. Maybe they get a grant from some sort of Theological organization to keep it limping along.