to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even contradicts empirical logic.
@1tabligh - You must really be impressed with the nonsensical gibberish you keep copying & posting ... I don't see why though. It's simply illogical, fallacious voodoo speak . You're a fraud.
@MaitreyaRocket How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
@1tabligh You've completely misunderstood the video (see 4:44), and even overlooked the comments Clutchology made of his own video. He's not arguing for the non-existence of God or the uncaused creation of the universe. You're equating "God exists" to "God is science". If you're bold enough to claim that God created the universe simply because science didn't find a God-less explanation, then you're simply showing a lack of imagination and understanding of science, not of intelligence.
@1tabligh And yes, in addition you're copy-pasting what an author posted on Al-Islam dot org. I must say I'm not impressed of finding another sheep simply repeating what an islamic think-tank said (which, by the way, makes an argument that can only make agnosticism a valid option rather than theism). Pathetic.
@CoonAndFriends2 Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh Not surprisingly, you just copy-pasted another article from al-islam dot org, and on your way there, you misrepresented both what I said and what the author of this video is saying.
Did I even mention the self-production of oxygen, electrons and protons? Did Clutchology mention it? (If so, tell me where in the video)
Both the author of your Al-Islam dot org article and you are fighting against arguments nobody put forward, and fail to understand the role of agnosticism in science.
@1tabligh Dodging questions? Why should I defend claims that are not mine, and you are trying to portray as though they were mine? Atheists doesn't even have the goal of answering "ALL the questions", and are skeptical of all who claim they can.
Criticising atheists on those grounds is the equivalent of criticising a doctor for not killing enough patients.
@CoonAndFriends2 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
I don't believe beauty is completely subjective, and I don't think everything is either subjective or objective. There may be inbetween stuff. But who knows.
The problem is there ISN'T knowledge outside of scientific knowledge. Philosophy is just mental masturbation. It's trying to convince yourself that your OPINION is fact.
You can make up anything in philosophy and I can make up an opinion that's the antithesis of what you say. We can be absolutely sure that we are right but since there is no way to actually test opinion it's a total waste of time.
And then it becomes dangerous because you might want to kill me just to prove you are right.
He assumes that god is omniscient, immaterial etc etc. He just asserts these things without any evidence. He points out that "something that explains everything in fact explains nothing" - right. The idea of gods never explains anything. Science and god separate? I disagree. Gods are used by most people (other than clutchology) as a hypothesis for lots of things - and it always fails. Gods as imaginary beings?
but the theory of god, well mine, haha (look at me being ignorant) has arrows pointing to it. for example , in ghosts, i dont know the status of conscious operating outside of the body in science although it looks good in robotics, but if they ever proved it could exist afterward, i think their natural behaviors (of ghosts/poltergeist) would make sense
thanks man, i love god, and i totally agree with you. i tell atheists all the time, that believers shouldn't try to prove him, and science is not out to prove or disprove him. and impossible as you said even if he was real
If people understood how consciousness navigated space-time we could make one of two hypotheses. It's either an illusion, or conscious takes place on a higher dimensional level which would destroy our idiotic notion of "science". Science at some point will be replaced at it's own niche, you do know that don't you? Doesn't that make this entire discussion utterly pointless? You are exploring a false dichotomy, but so are most people.
If you can't use science to prove God, why do you use it to disprove God? And don't give me that intellectually lazy nonsense about who harbors the burden of proof. Give a real response to a real question. Or don't. Doesn't matter.
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions.
God is invisible so He cannot be seen with the naked eye. So we have to prove scientifically that God exists or doesn't exist by examining His word, the Bible.
I've experienced things in life that make me think that there is a greater power and I am a Christian as well. It all seems to fit very well for me and my world view because it seems to make sense for all my experience. Evolution as a force is unguided, however according to Collins, it is still easily possible that God could have known how the force of evolution would work through the ages of time.
were that man has a desire to help others out of compassion for others which is not explained by evolution or simple materialism. There is more to a human than simple electrical signal in ones brain or the chemicals related to emotions or what were made out of....a lot of francis' ideas came from CS Lewis book Mere Christianity and Lewis is cited as a great influence for Collins in Collins book. Personally I've experienced things in life that would make it impossible for me to be a materialist
PROOF - ATHEIST ARE BRAINWASHED AND DELUDED! Here is a proof, the joke is gone too far! 1st option: Is God uncaused cause? Yes? So God is your uncaused cause creator God? No? How about 2nd option? Is matter/energy uncaused cause? Yes? So matter/energy is your uncaused cause creator God? No? continue.....
1TABLIGH That makes sense man. Thanks. The very same argument used against God, atheists have to defend themselves from too. matter us an uncaused existing thing that materialists dont know where it came from. essentially it has no known cause.We have a god that is uncaused. Is that so different? To an atheist materialist matter is the cause of life, and the origin of all things....there is no divine origin whatsoever. I dont know if evolution acted alone or with God. What u think?
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer *only* that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a ...
In just the same way that atheists regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. ...
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence. ....
How do deluded atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. ....
The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter. The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent. ....
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe)were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
Evolution alone or by God? Well, coming to the conclusion that evolution is supported by science was a difficult one. I read Lee Strobels book Case for Creator which denies the credibility of Evolution....and then I read Francis Collins book, The Language of God. Francis is a much more knowledgeable scientist when it comes to genes which is an important part of evolution and hes a believer in God....he explained how evolution is compatible with theism or belief in a God. His reasons were
So far as observation and scientific experiments show, a living being is born only by another living being and not by lifeless matter. Similarly no living being is born suddenly and automatically. At the same time it also cannot be doubted that a living being appeared only at a special stage of the evolution of nature, which was naturally that of the beginning of life. Hence a question arises as to what is the origin of life? .....
The theory of evolution on the whole has a long history. Lamarck enunciated certain principles in this connection. But it was Charles Darwin, who carried out extensive studies of the living organisms and the way of their birth, and gathered enough scientific evidence to show that evolution has taken place actually ....
Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause? .....
The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
I dont know but I think the new gene is passed down to future generations, making it expand into future generations. The genes of the child are a combination of the genes of the father and mother. Therefore not every child would inherit the gene that evolved. I think this is how it works. If not, I can always learn more!! I think what you said is right but Evolution is hardly my line of expertise.
We find that the wild animals and plants are alike and of average type, whereas the artificial selection gives the animals and plants more variety and leads them to better evolution. There are many other questions of this sort. Anyhow, in spite of all the objections raised to discredit it, the theory of evolution has been accepted by the scientists as an objective principle of natural sciences. At the same time it is also certain that prominent and unbiased ....
naturalists do not consider this theory to be final and incontrovertible. The way to further scientific investigation is not closed. All that they say is that the scientific inquiry has not so far discovered any new principles which may take the place of the principle of evolution.
Now it may be said that if an unbiased investigator carefully examines the results of the observations in regard to the genesis of the living organisms, he will come to the following conclusions: ...
(1) The living organisms in accordance with their degree of evolution have a historical succession. In other words, the more developed species have usually appeared over history after the less developed ones.
(2) This historical succession is similar to that found in all other things of the world. The entire cosmos has evolved from a simple state and gradually galaxies and solar systems have been formed in the ...
environment devoid of all traces of life. Conditions conducive to the appearance of life have developed gradually. Similarly development has taken place successively from the plants to the developed animals. On the whole, the more complex organism have followed the simple ones.
(3) There exists complete organic similarity between the first living organism and the most developed living organism known to us. ....
(4) The stages through which a human embryo passes during its embryonic development are fully akin to the stages through which living organisms have passed over history.
When we put all this evidence together, we can *scientifically* presume that the various species of the living organisms are the progeny of one another (transformism) and have not come into existence independently (fixism).
Are you a student of science or is it just a hobby for you?
_______
Both!
Scientific presumption, not incontrovertible principle!
Anyhow, it would be fair to say that the conclusions at which we have arrived are no more than a scientific guess corroborated by some evidence. They cannot be regarded as decisive and final, for if an unbiased investigator looks carefully at the history of the origin. ....
Out of all the natural phenomena with which we are a conversant, the living beings have a comparatively more complex and marvelous mechanism. It may be said that life is the apex of perfection on the scale of natural motion.
Life.
No thinker belonging to any school of thought has any doubt about the fact that‑ living beings have characteristics which are not found in the non‑living beings. ...
The main' characteristics of a living being are self‑defense, adaptation to the environment, growth and procreation. The living beings of higher categories move from one place to another and those of still higher category are gifted with feeling and consciousness. That is why the laws of organic chemistry are different from those of inorganic chemistry, or for that matter of geology.
Life is a cycle of energy that is constantly growing and maturing. In the dimension of time, life is able to transform by resonating at higher and higher frequencies. The final result is shaped by the environment. If consciousness is real, we should all be connected be connected. If it is just an illusion, than we are hopelessly being cycled back into an 80 year piece of that stream and it is the reflection the brain produces.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
Yeah, that's the question, or rather that is a really good way of asking it.
As human beings we think in terms of contrast. We look at the extremes and rarely the spectrum in between. I really don't believe that matter simply exists. It makes more sense to think of what can possibly exist manifesting from essential principles that do not change. But at the same time it doesn't make sense to think of what we perceive to exist as not existing at some point because everything is interdependent.
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
First you need to answer these questions. Do physical laws exist necessarily and independent of matter? Is it even possible to know if the most basic components of matter/energy are really mindless? Examine your assumptions within the context of the question, not just the logical process and your conclusion.
Some brainless scientists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Evolution is death, not life. It is a continuous becoming that shifts with the genetic, conscious, and environmental memories of the past. But all physical systems degrade. Life as we understand it is figurative. Only something that doesn't need to evolve, or has no need of physical systems is truly alive. Our experience is an illusion, chemical impulses and sensations that have been organized into a coherent mega process in our brains.
the better question is: is science God? seems as though some folks have mistakenly made a God out of the very science that the Catholic church developed through the middle ages and Rennaisence. But hey, why ruin a good ideology with facts, right? Science without morality brought us great stuff like the nuclear bomb. awesome.
are you saying that god doesn't care if we get him or not ? why does god have to be so mysterious ? why were we created to be so imperfect by a perfect being ? does it seem logical ?
If that comment was directed at me, that is not what I'm saying at all. This video has nothing to do with the existence of god or anything else about his nature other than is he, as defined by theists, compatible with science. The philosophical and theological implications of that are beyond the scope of this video.
So matter/ energy is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
So matter/ energy is ETERNAL?
So matter/ energy is hocus - pocus izzy - wizzy abracadabra WITHOUT A
***brainless DELUDED cuckoo atheists with asinine mind MAGICIANS **?
VAIN BRAGGARTS Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery Atheists who refuses all circularity goes MARY GO ROUND ROUND ROUND, ROUND ROUND ROUND ROUND, ROUND ROUND ROUND!
You may be limiting your self with science. Western Science is only 400 years old. You say Proof is something observable? I am on a Wireless computer right now and communicating with you. Can you see that? No Proof? Peace and Love.
This does deal with the content, but it's very weak. Short sighted, unfortunately. Observation consists of much more than the naked eye, my friend. Science advanced past that a long time ago. Wireless internet communication is, in fact, observable.
There is also much more to a 'proof' than observation. Other things, such as reliability and repetition, are also part of the criteria.
I would recommend you update your understanding instead of referencing a science of centuries ago.
Science Proves God. Science is good it just needs to catch up with The Bible. Eventually this will happen. The top Physicists have all ways credited God. Love.
This comment does nothing to deal with the content of the video, other than ignore it and blankly disagree with it. A scientists belief or disbelief in deities has nothing to do with the epistemology and application of science. It is not that fickle.
If there are two explanations for something, and the newer of them is much simpler than the prior, then you can't insist that we keep the old theory simply because it exists. Science has gone though lots and lots of theories searching for the truth. We're know we don't have the right ones now, just really good ones. We teach the old ones sometimes as a tool to instruct kids on how progress is made. This is why we must abandon the prejudices and fears of primitive people and face the real world.
But I don't. I see lots of purely logical and metaphysical reasons to reject god as well. And I disagree that there is any reason to worry that by ignoring ancient mythology we risk becoming unable to completely understand our world and ourselves. Just like I don't worry that if I fail to consider the possibility that we are just a program running on some cosmic computer I'll be unable to make sense of reality. If some evidence eventually points in that direction I can just change my mind.
So the empirical scientist, who is unaware of the method of those who know God, accepts and regards as proper, in the course of his life, whatever is compatible with scientific logic and thought. He grants himself the right to deny whatever is incompatible with his scientific method. His method is absolute trust in the experiment and regarding it as the sole proof for the correctness of any deduction.
Once empirical logic succeeded in pouring all thoughts into its own mould, it colored men's outlook on the world to such a degree that they were convinced that it was the only basis for accepting the truth of a thing. They assigned it supreme authority and consid- ered it impossible to prove the existence of anything imperceptible to the senses.
...other gods made such a big deal about being outgrown. Why is yours so obstinate?
______
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
Intellectual confusion is also one of the chief symptoms of a sick culture. The solutions that are proposed for the solution of the crisis are fruitless and ineffective when it comes to controlling the deviant tendencies rampant in society.
Modern science has expelled man from certain spheres of thought he used to inhabit; this is a phenomenon which has inevitably
Insofar as man retains a firm and correct belief, this is a positive development, but insofar as he is ignorant and lacking in belief it is harmful. Man is not always in a position to draw logical conclusions from his knowledge, and if scientific civilization is to be a civilization that benefits man, true faith and wisdom must be added to man's augmented body of knowledge.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to God, the Lord of the Universe.
I wonder why you consider science to be a form of worship? It's always changing to fit whatever new facts or better theories emerge. I've never seen a scientist speak of science in the way you seem compelled to speak of god, with lots of meaningless and redundant qualifiers.
In any event, your claim is clearly false. The only thing science and religion have in common is that religion tries to answer a tiny fraction of the questions that science actually does answer.
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear
"to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions." ... If you begin by making magical claims, like there is a god, or we have 'innate capacities that are lost if we don't recognize god", or even that there is such a thing as "beyond our nature" or that we should worry about trespassing it --or anywhere for that matter--then you can conclude anything you like. The point of science is that the explanation must be simple and testable. There's nothing simpler than nothing itself.
The point of science is that the explanation must be simple and testable.
-----------
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the logic of the empirical sciences and to fail to recognize the limits and boundaries of that logic. Since the specialists in the empirical sciences devote all their mental energy to the sensory sciences, they are alien to matters that lie beyond sense perception.
god isnt a powerful space creature. God isnt a god. Its logic. Physical laws. We and everything else were created by possibilities of logic, time and physics.
If anyone wants to call that god go ahead. But It isnt a consciousness and doesnt love you or hate you. You are part of it.
But if your ask anything of it or kill for it you are a fucking idiot maipulated by dead humans (bible koran etc).
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to *restrict* one's thought to the *logic* of the *empirical sciences* and to fail to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that *logic*. Since the specialists in the empirical sciences devote all their mental energy to the sensory sciences, they are alien to matters that lie *beyond* sense perception.
Science does explain the "Why" but does it explain "why does it work like that" For example:
E=MC2, but why does MC2 equal E, why can't something else equal E? I'm just wondering, we have science to prove how everything works, but we can't prove "WHY" it works like that, and if we can, we can't explain "WHY" it works like that which results in it working like that, and so on and so on. Sorry if that's confusing, but I only have 500 characters so I had to compress it a bit.
I read your response and gave you a second chance. The annoying music, the constant cutting your moving all over the place it's just too much.35 seconds this time so a bit better. As for the subject matter, sorry I don't share your enthusiasm but it was rather boring. Not a patch on Pat Condell. Goodbye.
That, my friend, is called publicising your videos, and everyone does it. You post as video responses videos which the viewing audience would be interested in as they are topic related. 90% of Condell's response section is like this. Let's go rate all of those 1 star for the most petty of reasons!
Can you perhaps help me through the more than two hundred videos pretending to be a response to Pat Condell's video? Which IF ANY actually are responses or refer to this video in any way shape or form? That would be helpful. "Everybody does it" is no excuse for speeding or littering or marrying prepubescent girls or circumcision or believing in superstitious stupidities etc. So why not just confess your sins, renounce your wickedness and go away and sin no more?
Because they're not pretending to be responses. No one is trying to trick or fool you. It's simply a method of publicising your work, and one which the vast majority of YouTube users are able to appreciate.
Yes, and would you know it, less than 10% of this video's viewing demographic are under 18, the predominant group being 40+. Being made by a kid (me), I'd say that's pretty good demographical relations myself.
I'm terribly sorry that we don't all share your precocious maturity and sophistication, but while you're busy dismissing all us immature children (and immature 40 year-olds) we actually want to have a productive discussion about things. It's sad that you're too pretentious to join us.
If God isn't scientifically accountable, then why would any human being be "spiritually" accountable? We cannot SEE any reason to suspect a God exists, so why should we?
We are among the "existent" and we have to answer to science. If God isn't "existent" in the scientific science, then he/it doesn't have any authority over us. We would have "diplomatic immunity" towards God because our realms would be completely separate.
That's why I tried to take the time and explain that during the start of the video. People are very aware of the colloquial definitions of those words, but not the scientific ones. I needed to make clear how scientists define the words so as to help people understand exactly where I'm coming from.
Great vid, but I understand why some believers attack science or try to twist it. Science eats away the space they have reserved for religious stories, myths and fantasies. If you believe in dogmatic manner, where are you supposed to put all this scripture? Some may feel that their entire world is being attacked. That must be kinda scary.
One of the functions religion was first conceived for was to answer the mysterious aspects of life, but that was before we had better epistemologies like philosophy, math, science etc to answer those questions for us. But many religious people still use God as an explanation, to explain the gaps science has not answered yet. That is dangerous, because then they will see any attempt to fill in those gaps using our better epistemologies as an attack on God. You're right, that must be scary.
deamanding scientific evidence is not a strawman- its asking a question of "how can you believe it without evidence". Not having scientific evidence severly weakens one's arguement but they can still make other phiolosophical arguments- but those are fallacies also.
Asking how one can believe without scientific evidence is asking for a philosophical justification, not a scientific one.
Demanding scientific evidence is a strawman if the theist holds the position that there would not be scientific evidence even if God does exist (like me, even though I'm an atheist). You're attacking or rejecting a position they do not hold because it is easier to reject.
i see your point, but if there is not objective evidence which can be verified through testing then isn't it an irrational belief?
come to think of it, isn't the argument also a red herring?
I only use the argument against people who claim science to favour their position, but when i do make the calim to a theist they always try to justify their beliefs with science.
Quite often their reasons are just misconceptions about the physical world.
"i see your point, but if there is not objective evidence which can be verified through testing then isn't it an irrational belief?"
No, of course not. Logical positivism was refuted a long time ago.
Indeed, a lot of theists do use science to try and justify their position. If you notice, the end part of this video deals with that very issue. They should not be offering it, and atheists should not be demanding it. The conversation will go, and has gone, nowhere otherwise.
I agree that science can't find an elusive god. But science could verify that intentional acts of god are beyond known natural law, which would have huge significance. If pious people could ask god for proof and he delivered it science could be used to verify it. It could explain what happened but not how.
Some people want to see scientific proof just becuase they want to be more certain that something is real or unreal. The reason want to cling to religion is because of an underlying fear in what we can't explain yet. And what will happen to us after our death. People are really quick rushing to an answer. Because humans are just uncomfortable with the unknown. We can use science to explain a lot of things about our world. I think man on day can find out what the origin of the universe is wait!
Science has a rhetorical authority that appeals to people strongly. We're still coming out of the age of the positivists, and many people don't like it. There's a special appeal about a universal epistemology that we can all see and touch and that can be proven to us all. It's not an abstract which can vary beyond belief like philosophy. And people never seem interested in finding the truth these days, rather convincing others that they're right. It's no surprise that science is invoked.
I have a question for you man. Do you think that the idea of creationism will ever die out? After all it doesn't make any sense what so ever and they try to use science to to prove creationism. But the idea of it doesn't make any sense. People I live in the bible belt and it just seems that they never think outside the box. And always what their little book says.
I'm sceptical. The trouble is, for all people say about creationism not being science, it is. It makes testable predictions (age of earth, worldwide flood, appearance of species on the earth). It's just WRONG science.
But just because an idea is wrong science has not stopped people with convictions in the past. And the rest is a pseudo-science which they make to fit any explanation out there, like the reasons I put forward in the video. So they can convince themselves if no one else.
There are many. The most obvious being the very demanding predictions on the fossil record, demanding predictions on DNA patterns (similarities and differences), the anatomical predictions based on the tree of life, the predictions that under certain circumstances we will see organisms change over various degrees of time.
If there were no predictions, evolution would not be falsifiable and would be considered a pseudo-science.
That's not pertinent. You asked the predictions, which are needed for evolution to be a scientific proposition, and I gave them to you. Whether they're correct or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Evolution would still be a scientific proposition whether it was right or wrong.
If you want to know about evolution, I suggest you talk to and read books by evolutionary biologists.
That's because neo-darwinism is a pseudo-science. We know that evolution happens but we dont know how the mechanism works. Instead we have an empty tautology known as natural selection. I have a couple of videos on this.
God is not science, but religion is... let me explain...
You give the people a comforting god that fits their own imagination of "good" (remember, god will send ya to hell, made hiob poor, sick and lonely and killed enough egypts... but he loves ya) they will jump right for the comforting imagination, why ? Well, do you rather sleep on rocks or on a smooth bed? It's more like a psychologically thing... :-)
Hehe, your interest is easy to be seen in your videos. But yeah, those are pretty interesting topics overall. Since I'm not an Investigator, but a questioner, I leave the proving of those things to either you or people who really work with subject like this.
It's great to see a person so much on their game. You have a powerful resource in that noggin of yours; I'm glad it's put to such good use. I'll be hangin' around.
The only way I am wrong is if the energy I think God as being, that creates all that is, is not God. The force and creation which makes the energy maybe God. Therefore science may not be ever able to prove God.
Then would I be correct in saying that you are no different to an atheist except the way in which you describe the world? You don't believe in anything different, just take something such as energy and define it as God, correct?
Yes, thats right I am like an athiest. I am trying to find a real god definition. That is all Catherine8here is about, I think. The basic laws and realities are still all an expression of a possible God but not the actual God? The problem is, I still can't understand what God can be, once one suggests that God is not energy, God is not related to something sounds impossible. As soon as you say God is something it does limit what God is not. It seems impossible to prove, is it important for us?
I agree with Catherine8here. I believe that science can prove their is a God. It is hard to explain when we have not defined God. I do agree that theology makes God sound completely made up. Maybe the bible was tampered with by man to control us, scare us, and it is not really to do with God, but an out of date controlling system. Now we have law. An atheist will not define a God, he doesn't believe in. I do not believe in the bibles God description, any logical man wouldn't.
But one can attempt to disprove certain gods using theology :) E.g.: the notion of 1 John 4 equating God with love/Agape and the existence of an eternal pool of fire means that the Christian idea of God is rather nonsensical.
Agreed. The reason I left my faith was because I had to theologically examine my faith since I planned to join the Dominican Order. I noticed far too many inconsistencies...
I think science itself is often a bit vague as to what science is and should include.
18 months ago I read Peter Woits excellent 'Not Even Wrong' and certainly on a strict definition of the word, string theory is not science (and by almost any definition of the word NOT a theory) and yet we have whole scientific departments decades into turning out peer reviewed articles in their thousands on the subject.
Ive heard this argument many times before but it never really made sense b4 now to. Im a athiest that will never belive in god because he is untestable but from that video ive come to realise shit if others want i feel like i can let them. Goood video.
Surely you could apply this point to any one of a literally infinite number of things that are not directly observable. Thor, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. The fact that there is no way to prove their existence one way or the other does not make them any less ridiculous. Is science allowed to postulate a guess (or a hypothesis) on their respective liklihood of existing?
Of course this says nothing about whether the entities in question exist or are completely farcical. All it says is that one type of epistemology isn't suitable for making that judgement.
What can science say about them? They aren't scientific. That's it. Does it say anything else? No.
A very good vid, worth 5 stars but I disagree with the claim that there is no chance to prove the existence of God.
If we had had the science we have now when god purportedly interacted with people a lot more (like moses and abraham and sending his son down to earth) Surely the very fact that half of Jesus' DNA would correspond with no human on earth would be a miracle that science could determine?? OFC the real reason science can never prove gods existence is because he doesn't exist.
Similarly I can think of many ways in which DNA could be marked and taxonomically arranged amongst species that would be a very very good indicator of some sort of intelligent designer alongside many physiological and morphological patterns that would flag up a very different conclusion to the obvious evolutionary conclusion we have to draw as things actually are.
I'm not disputing that you or I or anyone else can (and people have many times) postulated deistic notions of a god or gods that exactly fit your point and cannot be proven or disproven by science. However, I don't think this fits in with most religious believers notion of god.
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even contradicts empirical logic.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh - You must really be impressed with the nonsensical gibberish you keep copying & posting ... I don't see why though. It's simply illogical, fallacious voodoo speak . You're a fraud.
MaitreyaRocket 11 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh You've completely misunderstood the video (see 4:44), and even overlooked the comments Clutchology made of his own video. He's not arguing for the non-existence of God or the uncaused creation of the universe. You're equating "God exists" to "God is science". If you're bold enough to claim that God created the universe simply because science didn't find a God-less explanation, then you're simply showing a lack of imagination and understanding of science, not of intelligence.
CoonAndFriends2 11 months ago
@1tabligh And yes, in addition you're copy-pasting what an author posted on Al-Islam dot org. I must say I'm not impressed of finding another sheep simply repeating what an islamic think-tank said (which, by the way, makes an argument that can only make agnosticism a valid option rather than theism). Pathetic.
CoonAndFriends2 11 months ago
@CoonAndFriends2 Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh Not surprisingly, you just copy-pasted another article from al-islam dot org, and on your way there, you misrepresented both what I said and what the author of this video is saying.
Did I even mention the self-production of oxygen, electrons and protons? Did Clutchology mention it? (If so, tell me where in the video)
Both the author of your Al-Islam dot org article and you are fighting against arguments nobody put forward, and fail to understand the role of agnosticism in science.
CoonAndFriends2 11 months ago
@CoonAndFriends2
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh Dodging questions? Why should I defend claims that are not mine, and you are trying to portray as though they were mine? Atheists doesn't even have the goal of answering "ALL the questions", and are skeptical of all who claim they can.
Criticising atheists on those grounds is the equivalent of criticising a doctor for not killing enough patients.
CoonAndFriends2 11 months ago
@CoonAndFriends2 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 11 months ago
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
I Believe Aliens
Genesis verse 26:2 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;
it even says theres more then one god
Kurisudakota 1 year ago
@Kurisudakota People laugh when one mentions Aliens in relation to Human origins, yet it makes a hell of a lot more sense than God.
OTSTRETFORD 1 year ago
Great Vid man
alex1209 2 years ago
I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
—Albert Einstein[
alex1209 2 years ago
I don't believe beauty is completely subjective, and I don't think everything is either subjective or objective. There may be inbetween stuff. But who knows.
zach9899 2 years ago
The problem is there ISN'T knowledge outside of scientific knowledge. Philosophy is just mental masturbation. It's trying to convince yourself that your OPINION is fact.
You can make up anything in philosophy and I can make up an opinion that's the antithesis of what you say. We can be absolutely sure that we are right but since there is no way to actually test opinion it's a total waste of time.
And then it becomes dangerous because you might want to kill me just to prove you are right.
Kludge420 2 years ago
He assumes that god is omniscient, immaterial etc etc. He just asserts these things without any evidence. He points out that "something that explains everything in fact explains nothing" - right. The idea of gods never explains anything. Science and god separate? I disagree. Gods are used by most people (other than clutchology) as a hypothesis for lots of things - and it always fails. Gods as imaginary beings?
That fits everything!
farvision 2 years ago
but the theory of god, well mine, haha (look at me being ignorant) has arrows pointing to it. for example , in ghosts, i dont know the status of conscious operating outside of the body in science although it looks good in robotics, but if they ever proved it could exist afterward, i think their natural behaviors (of ghosts/poltergeist) would make sense
jennyrgar 2 years ago
thanks man, i love god, and i totally agree with you. i tell atheists all the time, that believers shouldn't try to prove him, and science is not out to prove or disprove him. and impossible as you said even if he was real
jennyrgar 2 years ago
If people understood how consciousness navigated space-time we could make one of two hypotheses. It's either an illusion, or conscious takes place on a higher dimensional level which would destroy our idiotic notion of "science". Science at some point will be replaced at it's own niche, you do know that don't you? Doesn't that make this entire discussion utterly pointless? You are exploring a false dichotomy, but so are most people.
cruelfate45 2 years ago
If you can't use science to prove God, why do you use it to disprove God? And don't give me that intellectually lazy nonsense about who harbors the burden of proof. Give a real response to a real question. Or don't. Doesn't matter.
cruelfate45 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion.
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions.
1tabligh 2 years ago
God is invisible so He cannot be seen with the naked eye. So we have to prove scientifically that God exists or doesn't exist by examining His word, the Bible.
Henok30 2 years ago
yes...you have to prove love and other good virtues dont work
jennyrgar 2 years ago
I've experienced things in life that make me think that there is a greater power and I am a Christian as well. It all seems to fit very well for me and my world view because it seems to make sense for all my experience. Evolution as a force is unguided, however according to Collins, it is still easily possible that God could have known how the force of evolution would work through the ages of time.
aaronkehl 2 years ago
were that man has a desire to help others out of compassion for others which is not explained by evolution or simple materialism. There is more to a human than simple electrical signal in ones brain or the chemicals related to emotions or what were made out of....a lot of francis' ideas came from CS Lewis book Mere Christianity and Lewis is cited as a great influence for Collins in Collins book. Personally I've experienced things in life that would make it impossible for me to be a materialist
aaronkehl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How about 3rd option?
Delude yourself with Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
Yes?
So Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery is your uncaused cause creator God?
No?
How about 4th option?
There is no 4th option, O' brainless cuckoo atheists with asinine mind, clock off!
How long do you intend to beat around the scientific BUSH, O' brainless SWEETIE atheists with asinine mind?
"........deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
The Quran 2:171
1tabligh 2 years ago
1tabligh 2 years ago
1TABLIGH That makes sense man. Thanks. The very same argument used against God, atheists have to defend themselves from too. matter us an uncaused existing thing that materialists dont know where it came from. essentially it has no known cause.We have a god that is uncaused. Is that so different? To an atheist materialist matter is the cause of life, and the origin of all things....there is no divine origin whatsoever. I dont know if evolution acted alone or with God. What u think?
aaronkehl 2 years ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer *only* that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
creator.
In just the same way that atheists regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence. ....
1tabligh 2 years ago
How do deluded atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. ....
1tabligh 2 years ago
The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter. The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent. ....
1tabligh 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe)were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
The Quran 21:30
1tabligh 2 years ago
I dont know if evolution acted alone or with God. What u think?
________
You or anyone for that matter may send me PM if you wish to have a brieaf answers otherwise you may take it up here on this video.
1tabligh 2 years ago
Evolution alone or by God? Well, coming to the conclusion that evolution is supported by science was a difficult one. I read Lee Strobels book Case for Creator which denies the credibility of Evolution....and then I read Francis Collins book, The Language of God. Francis is a much more knowledgeable scientist when it comes to genes which is an important part of evolution and hes a believer in God....he explained how evolution is compatible with theism or belief in a God. His reasons were
aaronkehl 2 years ago
all my reply is below. Thanks!
aaronkehl 2 years ago
So far as observation and scientific experiments show, a living being is born only by another living being and not by lifeless matter. Similarly no living being is born suddenly and automatically. At the same time it also cannot be doubted that a living being appeared only at a special stage of the evolution of nature, which was naturally that of the beginning of life. Hence a question arises as to what is the origin of life? .....
1tabligh 2 years ago
Evolution.
The theory of evolution on the whole has a long history. Lamarck enunciated certain principles in this connection. But it was Charles Darwin, who carried out extensive studies of the living organisms and the way of their birth, and gathered enough scientific evidence to show that evolution has taken place actually ....
1tabligh 2 years ago
Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause? .....
1tabligh 2 years ago
The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
1tabligh 2 years ago
I dont know but I think the new gene is passed down to future generations, making it expand into future generations. The genes of the child are a combination of the genes of the father and mother. Therefore not every child would inherit the gene that evolved. I think this is how it works. If not, I can always learn more!! I think what you said is right but Evolution is hardly my line of expertise.
aaronkehl 2 years ago
what i meant is the future generations expand, spreading the gene, giving it further and more exposure.
aaronkehl 2 years ago
We find that the wild animals and plants are alike and of average type, whereas the artificial selection gives the animals and plants more variety and leads them to better evolution. There are many other questions of this sort. Anyhow, in spite of all the objections raised to discredit it, the theory of evolution has been accepted by the scientists as an objective principle of natural sciences. At the same time it is also certain that prominent and unbiased ....
1tabligh 2 years ago
naturalists do not consider this theory to be final and incontrovertible. The way to further scientific investigation is not closed. All that they say is that the scientific inquiry has not so far discovered any new principles which may take the place of the principle of evolution.
Now it may be said that if an unbiased investigator carefully examines the results of the observations in regard to the genesis of the living organisms, he will come to the following conclusions: ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
Principles which may be discovered.
(1) The living organisms in accordance with their degree of evolution have a historical succession. In other words, the more developed species have usually appeared over history after the less developed ones.
(2) This historical succession is similar to that found in all other things of the world. The entire cosmos has evolved from a simple state and gradually galaxies and solar systems have been formed in the ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
environment devoid of all traces of life. Conditions conducive to the appearance of life have developed gradually. Similarly development has taken place successively from the plants to the developed animals. On the whole, the more complex organism have followed the simple ones.
(3) There exists complete organic similarity between the first living organism and the most developed living organism known to us. ....
1tabligh 2 years ago
(4) The stages through which a human embryo passes during its embryonic development are fully akin to the stages through which living organisms have passed over history.
When we put all this evidence together, we can *scientifically* presume that the various species of the living organisms are the progeny of one another (transformism) and have not come into existence independently (fixism).
1tabligh 2 years ago
Are you a student of science or is it just a hobby for you?
aaronkehl 2 years ago
Are you a student of science or is it just a hobby for you?
_______
Both!
Scientific presumption, not incontrovertible principle!
Anyhow, it would be fair to say that the conclusions at which we have arrived are no more than a scientific guess corroborated by some evidence. They cannot be regarded as decisive and final, for if an unbiased investigator looks carefully at the history of the origin. ....
1tabligh 2 years ago
Man and Evolution.
Out of all the natural phenomena with which we are a conversant, the living beings have a comparatively more complex and marvelous mechanism. It may be said that life is the apex of perfection on the scale of natural motion.
Life.
No thinker belonging to any school of thought has any doubt about the fact that‑ living beings have characteristics which are not found in the non‑living beings. ...
1tabligh 2 years ago
The main' characteristics of a living being are self‑defense, adaptation to the environment, growth and procreation. The living beings of higher categories move from one place to another and those of still higher category are gifted with feeling and consciousness. That is why the laws of organic chemistry are different from those of inorganic chemistry, or for that matter of geology.
1tabligh 2 years ago
Life is a cycle of energy that is constantly growing and maturing. In the dimension of time, life is able to transform by resonating at higher and higher frequencies. The final result is shaped by the environment. If consciousness is real, we should all be connected be connected. If it is just an illusion, than we are hopelessly being cycled back into an 80 year piece of that stream and it is the reflection the brain produces.
cruelfate45 2 years ago
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 2 years ago
Yeah, that's the question, or rather that is a really good way of asking it.
As human beings we think in terms of contrast. We look at the extremes and rarely the spectrum in between. I really don't believe that matter simply exists. It makes more sense to think of what can possibly exist manifesting from essential principles that do not change. But at the same time it doesn't make sense to think of what we perceive to exist as not existing at some point because everything is interdependent.
cruelfate45 2 years ago
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
1tabligh 2 years ago
First you need to answer these questions. Do physical laws exist necessarily and independent of matter? Is it even possible to know if the most basic components of matter/energy are really mindless? Examine your assumptions within the context of the question, not just the logical process and your conclusion.
cruelfate45 2 years ago
God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some brainless scientists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
NO Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 2 years ago
Evolution is death, not life. It is a continuous becoming that shifts with the genetic, conscious, and environmental memories of the past. But all physical systems degrade. Life as we understand it is figurative. Only something that doesn't need to evolve, or has no need of physical systems is truly alive. Our experience is an illusion, chemical impulses and sensations that have been organized into a coherent mega process in our brains.
cruelfate45 2 years ago
the better question is: is science God? seems as though some folks have mistakenly made a God out of the very science that the Catholic church developed through the middle ages and Rennaisence. But hey, why ruin a good ideology with facts, right? Science without morality brought us great stuff like the nuclear bomb. awesome.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
are you saying that god doesn't care if we get him or not ? why does god have to be so mysterious ? why were we created to be so imperfect by a perfect being ? does it seem logical ?
hnicky 2 years ago
If that comment was directed at me, that is not what I'm saying at all. This video has nothing to do with the existence of god or anything else about his nature other than is he, as defined by theists, compatible with science. The philosophical and theological implications of that are beyond the scope of this video.
Clutchology 2 years ago
The problem is God is science. Please read the Bible and your questions will be answered.
BASSCHAMP101 2 years ago
You're just stating your opinion until you offer evidence, what makes you say that God is science?
Venaloid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion.
So matter/ energy is uncause cause?
So matter/ energy is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
So matter/ energy is ETERNAL?
So matter/ energy is hocus - pocus izzy - wizzy abracadabra WITHOUT A
***brainless DELUDED cuckoo atheists with asinine mind MAGICIANS **?
VAIN BRAGGARTS Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery Atheists who refuses all circularity goes MARY GO ROUND ROUND ROUND, ROUND ROUND ROUND ROUND, ROUND ROUND ROUND!
1tabligh 2 years ago
You may be limiting your self with science. Western Science is only 400 years old. You say Proof is something observable? I am on a Wireless computer right now and communicating with you. Can you see that? No Proof? Peace and Love.
affluence8 2 years ago
This does deal with the content, but it's very weak. Short sighted, unfortunately. Observation consists of much more than the naked eye, my friend. Science advanced past that a long time ago. Wireless internet communication is, in fact, observable.
There is also much more to a 'proof' than observation. Other things, such as reliability and repetition, are also part of the criteria.
I would recommend you update your understanding instead of referencing a science of centuries ago.
Clutchology 2 years ago
Science Proves God. Science is good it just needs to catch up with The Bible. Eventually this will happen. The top Physicists have all ways credited God. Love.
affluence8 2 years ago
This comment does nothing to deal with the content of the video, other than ignore it and blankly disagree with it. A scientists belief or disbelief in deities has nothing to do with the epistemology and application of science. It is not that fickle.
Clutchology 2 years ago
really good video, made me question myself.....i still am.
blackwoodjankins 2 years ago
If there are two explanations for something, and the newer of them is much simpler than the prior, then you can't insist that we keep the old theory simply because it exists. Science has gone though lots and lots of theories searching for the truth. We're know we don't have the right ones now, just really good ones. We teach the old ones sometimes as a tool to instruct kids on how progress is made. This is why we must abandon the prejudices and fears of primitive people and face the real world.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
But I don't. I see lots of purely logical and metaphysical reasons to reject god as well. And I disagree that there is any reason to worry that by ignoring ancient mythology we risk becoming unable to completely understand our world and ourselves. Just like I don't worry that if I fail to consider the possibility that we are just a program running on some cosmic computer I'll be unable to make sense of reality. If some evidence eventually points in that direction I can just change my mind.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Respectfully dude... Go watch some of my favorite video's.
Atheist fundies,gotta love em...
Droptopcadillac 2 years ago
So the empirical scientist, who is unaware of the method of those who know God, accepts and regards as proper, in the course of his life, whatever is compatible with scientific logic and thought. He grants himself the right to deny whatever is incompatible with his scientific method. His method is absolute trust in the experiment and regarding it as the sole proof for the correctness of any deduction.
1tabligh 2 years ago
Once empirical logic succeeded in pouring all thoughts into its own mould, it colored men's outlook on the world to such a degree that they were convinced that it was the only basis for accepting the truth of a thing. They assigned it supreme authority and consid- ered it impossible to prove the existence of anything imperceptible to the senses.
1tabligh 2 years ago
Gosh, none of the other gods made such a big deal about being outgrown. Why is yours so obstinate?
ananiasacts 2 years ago
...other gods made such a big deal about being outgrown. Why is yours so obstinate?
______
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
The Koran 21: 22
1tabligh 2 years ago
Do you think criticism of any religion, no matter how offensive, should be protected as a civil liberty by all governments?
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Do you know the subject on this video?
Science-GOD mix cola
How about you drink some IS GOD science drink!
Intellectual confusion is also one of the chief symptoms of a sick culture. The solutions that are proposed for the solution of the crisis are fruitless and ineffective when it comes to controlling the deviant tendencies rampant in society.
Modern science has expelled man from certain spheres of thought he used to inhabit; this is a phenomenon which has inevitably
cont..
1tabligh 2 years ago
affected the whole of humanity.
Insofar as man retains a firm and correct belief, this is a positive development, but insofar as he is ignorant and lacking in belief it is harmful. Man is not always in a position to draw logical conclusions from his knowledge, and if scientific civilization is to be a civilization that benefits man, true faith and wisdom must be added to man's augmented body of knowledge.
1tabligh 2 years ago
Does all of that mean your answer is "No." That you do not believe we should be at liberty to make fun of god?
ananiasacts 2 years ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to God, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 2 years ago
I wonder why you consider science to be a form of worship? It's always changing to fit whatever new facts or better theories emerge. I've never seen a scientist speak of science in the way you seem compelled to speak of god, with lots of meaningless and redundant qualifiers.
In any event, your claim is clearly false. The only thing science and religion have in common is that religion tries to answer a tiny fraction of the questions that science actually does answer.
Should I insult god here?
ananiasacts 2 years ago
science actually ...
--------
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear
1tabligh 2 years ago
"to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions." ... If you begin by making magical claims, like there is a god, or we have 'innate capacities that are lost if we don't recognize god", or even that there is such a thing as "beyond our nature" or that we should worry about trespassing it --or anywhere for that matter--then you can conclude anything you like. The point of science is that the explanation must be simple and testable. There's nothing simpler than nothing itself.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
The point of science is that the explanation must be simple and testable.
-----------
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the logic of the empirical sciences and to fail to recognize the limits and boundaries of that logic. Since the specialists in the empirical sciences devote all their mental energy to the sensory sciences, they are alien to matters that lie beyond sense perception.
1tabligh 2 years ago
god isnt a powerful space creature. God isnt a god. Its logic. Physical laws. We and everything else were created by possibilities of logic, time and physics.
If anyone wants to call that god go ahead. But It isnt a consciousness and doesnt love you or hate you. You are part of it.
But if your ask anything of it or kill for it you are a fucking idiot maipulated by dead humans (bible koran etc).
thankyou.
YearoftheKlown 2 years ago
no, god is not science, move on.
XChillX42 3 years ago
Psycology vs. Pseudoscience
kidersx 3 years ago
Lol then what are you perceiving that is not bound by your senses... Ur really not saying anything at all
dakuwon86 3 years ago
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to *restrict* one's thought to the *logic* of the *empirical sciences* and to fail to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that *logic*. Since the specialists in the empirical sciences devote all their mental energy to the sensory sciences, they are alien to matters that lie *beyond* sense perception.
1tabligh 3 years ago
God is not science, God created science. Science does not lower the odds of God existing in the slightest.
MaskofMystery 3 years ago
Science does explain the "Why" but does it explain "why does it work like that" For example:
E=MC2, but why does MC2 equal E, why can't something else equal E? I'm just wondering, we have science to prove how everything works, but we can't prove "WHY" it works like that, and if we can, we can't explain "WHY" it works like that which results in it working like that, and so on and so on. Sorry if that's confusing, but I only have 500 characters so I had to compress it a bit.
GuyBelowFails 3 years ago
subscribe! \../
<(^^<)
johnbananawarrior 3 years ago
Infinity Is Where God Exsists. Our Brain Can Not Wrap Around The Concept Of All Known Infinity's, But We Know It's There.
Dustar007 3 years ago
god is not science. that would be to say god is dogma. and god aint dogma
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
I read your response and gave you a second chance. The annoying music, the constant cutting your moving all over the place it's just too much.35 seconds this time so a bit better. As for the subject matter, sorry I don't share your enthusiasm but it was rather boring. Not a patch on Pat Condell. Goodbye.
WeeShooey 3 years ago
ONE STAR
"This is a video response to Welcome to Saudi Britain" No it isn't.
How can you respond weeks in advance?
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
That, my friend, is called publicising your videos, and everyone does it. You post as video responses videos which the viewing audience would be interested in as they are topic related. 90% of Condell's response section is like this. Let's go rate all of those 1 star for the most petty of reasons!
Clutchology 3 years ago
Can you perhaps help me through the more than two hundred videos pretending to be a response to Pat Condell's video? Which IF ANY actually are responses or refer to this video in any way shape or form? That would be helpful. "Everybody does it" is no excuse for speeding or littering or marrying prepubescent girls or circumcision or believing in superstitious stupidities etc. So why not just confess your sins, renounce your wickedness and go away and sin no more?
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
Because they're not pretending to be responses. No one is trying to trick or fool you. It's simply a method of publicising your work, and one which the vast majority of YouTube users are able to appreciate.
Clutchology 3 years ago
i think the fact that thousands of children die of hunger, are molested and raped everyday, proves god doesn't exist.
acdc51502112 3 years ago
that is a very unintelligent statement
MaskofMystery 3 years ago
I gave this vid 30 secs , got bored after that. remember ADULTS WATCH THIS ALSO
WeeShooey 3 years ago
Yes, and would you know it, less than 10% of this video's viewing demographic are under 18, the predominant group being 40+. Being made by a kid (me), I'd say that's pretty good demographical relations myself.
I'm terribly sorry that we don't all share your precocious maturity and sophistication, but while you're busy dismissing all us immature children (and immature 40 year-olds) we actually want to have a productive discussion about things. It's sad that you're too pretentious to join us.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Question:
If God isn't scientifically accountable, then why would any human being be "spiritually" accountable? We cannot SEE any reason to suspect a God exists, so why should we?
We are among the "existent" and we have to answer to science. If God isn't "existent" in the scientific science, then he/it doesn't have any authority over us. We would have "diplomatic immunity" towards God because our realms would be completely separate.
bennyv04988 3 years ago
nice techno music
dontleaveyet 3 years ago
how long did it take u to make this?
JJTecumseh87 3 years ago
Unbelieveble man what you say i think, i myself am neither an atheis nor a theist.
I belief in GOD and deny GOD`s existence at the same time, me am split because Science and GOD don`t go togheter!
vojin6 3 years ago
Idk but for most people it's like this:
fact - heard it to be true and believe it.
theory - an speculation, a guess.
hypothesis - don't know the word, too academic.
Love the video, very cogent.
subscribed!
onotheo 3 years ago
That's why I tried to take the time and explain that during the start of the video. People are very aware of the colloquial definitions of those words, but not the scientific ones. I needed to make clear how scientists define the words so as to help people understand exactly where I'm coming from.
Thank you, by the way!
Clutchology 3 years ago
How many toes does a newborn camel have?
UncleKennybobs 3 years ago
Great vid, but I understand why some believers attack science or try to twist it. Science eats away the space they have reserved for religious stories, myths and fantasies. If you believe in dogmatic manner, where are you supposed to put all this scripture? Some may feel that their entire world is being attacked. That must be kinda scary.
slipcurve 3 years ago
One of the functions religion was first conceived for was to answer the mysterious aspects of life, but that was before we had better epistemologies like philosophy, math, science etc to answer those questions for us. But many religious people still use God as an explanation, to explain the gaps science has not answered yet. That is dangerous, because then they will see any attempt to fill in those gaps using our better epistemologies as an attack on God. You're right, that must be scary.
Clutchology 3 years ago
deamanding scientific evidence is not a strawman- its asking a question of "how can you believe it without evidence". Not having scientific evidence severly weakens one's arguement but they can still make other phiolosophical arguments- but those are fallacies also.
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
Asking how one can believe without scientific evidence is asking for a philosophical justification, not a scientific one.
Demanding scientific evidence is a strawman if the theist holds the position that there would not be scientific evidence even if God does exist (like me, even though I'm an atheist). You're attacking or rejecting a position they do not hold because it is easier to reject.
Clutchology 3 years ago
i see your point, but if there is not objective evidence which can be verified through testing then isn't it an irrational belief?
come to think of it, isn't the argument also a red herring?
I only use the argument against people who claim science to favour their position, but when i do make the calim to a theist they always try to justify their beliefs with science.
Quite often their reasons are just misconceptions about the physical world.
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
"i see your point, but if there is not objective evidence which can be verified through testing then isn't it an irrational belief?"
No, of course not. Logical positivism was refuted a long time ago.
Indeed, a lot of theists do use science to try and justify their position. If you notice, the end part of this video deals with that very issue. They should not be offering it, and atheists should not be demanding it. The conversation will go, and has gone, nowhere otherwise.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Cheers!
NLPNVC 3 years ago
Excellent! You have managed to make the point clear that I have tried and failed to do so many times!
HerbyHippie 3 years ago
Great video.
inersphobia 3 years ago
Well done sir.
ratholin 3 years ago
Love it. =)
TheGrammarian 3 years ago
Great
majesticlizard 3 years ago
I agree that science can't find an elusive god. But science could verify that intentional acts of god are beyond known natural law, which would have huge significance. If pious people could ask god for proof and he delivered it science could be used to verify it. It could explain what happened but not how.
pknvdw 3 years ago
Ye I agree with you clutch---- science and god are completely different and you cant use one to prove another..
RadicallyRandom 3 years ago
so do you believe in him?
PONJOnco 3 years ago
Brilliant. I only hope that my two boys grow to be as articulate and insightful as you at such a young age.
vitriolik 3 years ago
Some people want to see scientific proof just becuase they want to be more certain that something is real or unreal. The reason want to cling to religion is because of an underlying fear in what we can't explain yet. And what will happen to us after our death. People are really quick rushing to an answer. Because humans are just uncomfortable with the unknown. We can use science to explain a lot of things about our world. I think man on day can find out what the origin of the universe is wait!
johuth 3 years ago
Science has a rhetorical authority that appeals to people strongly. We're still coming out of the age of the positivists, and many people don't like it. There's a special appeal about a universal epistemology that we can all see and touch and that can be proven to us all. It's not an abstract which can vary beyond belief like philosophy. And people never seem interested in finding the truth these days, rather convincing others that they're right. It's no surprise that science is invoked.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I have a question for you man. Do you think that the idea of creationism will ever die out? After all it doesn't make any sense what so ever and they try to use science to to prove creationism. But the idea of it doesn't make any sense. People I live in the bible belt and it just seems that they never think outside the box. And always what their little book says.
johuth 3 years ago
I'm sceptical. The trouble is, for all people say about creationism not being science, it is. It makes testable predictions (age of earth, worldwide flood, appearance of species on the earth). It's just WRONG science.
But just because an idea is wrong science has not stopped people with convictions in the past. And the rest is a pseudo-science which they make to fit any explanation out there, like the reasons I put forward in the video. So they can convince themselves if no one else.
Clutchology 3 years ago
so what is the PREdiction of evolution.
mejc2 3 years ago
There are many. The most obvious being the very demanding predictions on the fossil record, demanding predictions on DNA patterns (similarities and differences), the anatomical predictions based on the tree of life, the predictions that under certain circumstances we will see organisms change over various degrees of time.
If there were no predictions, evolution would not be falsifiable and would be considered a pseudo-science.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Ok good name one prediction that hasn't happened yet.
mejc2 3 years ago
That's not pertinent. You asked the predictions, which are needed for evolution to be a scientific proposition, and I gave them to you. Whether they're correct or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Evolution would still be a scientific proposition whether it was right or wrong.
If you want to know about evolution, I suggest you talk to and read books by evolutionary biologists.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I did. they dont' know any either.
mejc2 3 years ago
That's because neo-darwinism is a pseudo-science. We know that evolution happens but we dont know how the mechanism works. Instead we have an empty tautology known as natural selection. I have a couple of videos on this.
SuperFinGuy 3 years ago
To cal evolution science is an insult to scientists.
mejc2 3 years ago
"To cal evolution science is an insult to scientists."
and why isn't evolution science?
fffanatic06 3 years ago
it's conjecture.
mejc2 3 years ago
As is all science to varying degrees. That's a null point.
ACArticulate 3 years ago
varying degrees admitted. but there is some science in most.
mejc2 3 years ago
God is not science, but religion is... let me explain...
You give the people a comforting god that fits their own imagination of "good" (remember, god will send ya to hell, made hiob poor, sick and lonely and killed enough egypts... but he loves ya) they will jump right for the comforting imagination, why ? Well, do you rather sleep on rocks or on a smooth bed? It's more like a psychologically thing... :-)
Anyways, you rock Clutch, keep it up !
MinotaurSpawn 3 years ago
That I can only agree with. I'm very interested in the sociology/psychology/neurology/anthropology of religion myself.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Hehe, your interest is easy to be seen in your videos. But yeah, those are pretty interesting topics overall. Since I'm not an Investigator, but a questioner, I leave the proving of those things to either you or people who really work with subject like this.
MinotaurSpawn 3 years ago
Very slick. Did you just say 'God-dar'? You win!
proteanview 3 years ago
Yeah. That's my very amateur attempt to add sarcastic humour into things.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Nice video! 5 star =). I watched a few other of your videos and subscribed to.
xXVoiceOfThePeopleXx 3 years ago
very good video. I like your approach to the matter. very good...
Subscribed!
Braindiscovering 3 years ago
Thanks, Sofia!
Clutchology 3 years ago
It's great to see a person so much on their game. You have a powerful resource in that noggin of yours; I'm glad it's put to such good use. I'll be hangin' around.
I second the comment of twonyx.
NYCFin 3 years ago
ever tried (heard of) dmt?
jimmiow 3 years ago
Thank you for not claiming to know all the answers. You are a true intelect. Someone that asks questions, not stops at their own conclusions.
twonyx 3 years ago
The only way I am wrong is if the energy I think God as being, that creates all that is, is not God. The force and creation which makes the energy maybe God. Therefore science may not be ever able to prove God.
trilegarde 3 years ago
Then would I be correct in saying that you are no different to an atheist except the way in which you describe the world? You don't believe in anything different, just take something such as energy and define it as God, correct?
Clutchology 3 years ago
Yes, thats right I am like an athiest. I am trying to find a real god definition. That is all Catherine8here is about, I think. The basic laws and realities are still all an expression of a possible God but not the actual God? The problem is, I still can't understand what God can be, once one suggests that God is not energy, God is not related to something sounds impossible. As soon as you say God is something it does limit what God is not. It seems impossible to prove, is it important for us?
trilegarde 3 years ago
I agree with Catherine8here. I believe that science can prove their is a God. It is hard to explain when we have not defined God. I do agree that theology makes God sound completely made up. Maybe the bible was tampered with by man to control us, scare us, and it is not really to do with God, but an out of date controlling system. Now we have law. An atheist will not define a God, he doesn't believe in. I do not believe in the bibles God description, any logical man wouldn't.
trilegarde 3 years ago
But one can attempt to disprove certain gods using theology :) E.g.: the notion of 1 John 4 equating God with love/Agape and the existence of an eternal pool of fire means that the Christian idea of God is rather nonsensical.
Agila1 3 years ago
Very very true. The entire reason that I'm an atheist is philosophical and theological.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Agreed. The reason I left my faith was because I had to theologically examine my faith since I planned to join the Dominican Order. I noticed far too many inconsistencies...
Keep up the good work. Peace
Agila1 3 years ago
RELIGION IS THE POISON OF MANKIND.
rextrek 3 years ago 2
Just another thought:
I think science itself is often a bit vague as to what science is and should include.
18 months ago I read Peter Woits excellent 'Not Even Wrong' and certainly on a strict definition of the word, string theory is not science (and by almost any definition of the word NOT a theory) and yet we have whole scientific departments decades into turning out peer reviewed articles in their thousands on the subject.
noelplum99 3 years ago
Ive heard this argument many times before but it never really made sense b4 now to. Im a athiest that will never belive in god because he is untestable but from that video ive come to realise shit if others want i feel like i can let them. Goood video.
antonyneal 3 years ago
Surely you could apply this point to any one of a literally infinite number of things that are not directly observable. Thor, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. The fact that there is no way to prove their existence one way or the other does not make them any less ridiculous. Is science allowed to postulate a guess (or a hypothesis) on their respective liklihood of existing?
tomtarrell 3 years ago
Of course this says nothing about whether the entities in question exist or are completely farcical. All it says is that one type of epistemology isn't suitable for making that judgement.
What can science say about them? They aren't scientific. That's it. Does it say anything else? No.
Clutchology 3 years ago
A very good vid, worth 5 stars but I disagree with the claim that there is no chance to prove the existence of God.
If we had had the science we have now when god purportedly interacted with people a lot more (like moses and abraham and sending his son down to earth) Surely the very fact that half of Jesus' DNA would correspond with no human on earth would be a miracle that science could determine?? OFC the real reason science can never prove gods existence is because he doesn't exist.
noelplum99 3 years ago
Similarly I can think of many ways in which DNA could be marked and taxonomically arranged amongst species that would be a very very good indicator of some sort of intelligent designer alongside many physiological and morphological patterns that would flag up a very different conclusion to the obvious evolutionary conclusion we have to draw as things actually are.
noelplum99 3 years ago
Just one more point:
I'm not disputing that you or I or anyone else can (and people have many times) postulated deistic notions of a god or gods that exactly fit your point and cannot be proven or disproven by science. However, I don't think this fits in with most religious believers notion of god.
noelplum99 3 years ago