RE: Random Questions Atheists Will look Stupid Trying To Answer (part 2)

[AnonymousGreyHat]

REALLY FUCKIN FAST!

[Harlekijn1982]

oke, question.. the big bang was an explosion of matter in a space where there first was nothing. so if there first was nothing where did the matter come from?

i'm not saying that you're wrong or right i'm just curious.

[BlueSpirals]

@Harlekijn1982 The big bang was not an explosion of nothing. As I stated in the video, all the matter in the universe was simply condensed into one point. Kind of like, imagine having a marble. Except that marble ways about 10^100000000000000000 pounds. Then you shatter the marble and end up with a trillion trillion trillion pieces.

[kick2004]

Nevertheless, it's the best we've come up with so far... But it still has to be proven ;) The rest of the vid: PERFECT! Keep up the good work ;)

[kick2004]

First of all, I love your vids... BUT, to your point at the beginning, that the big bang is proven.... Well... It's not.... Background radiation at the levels we found in the universe were predicted way before we came up with the big bang, and according to the Big bang theory way more background radiation should be there... But since there isn't scientist simply adapted their values, and try to find an explanation... And there are examples where the redshift indicates the opposite...

[BlueSpirals]

@kick2004 Sorry, redshift indicating what exactly?

[kick2004]

@BlueSpirals Indicating that the universe is not expanding, therefore the big bang theory isn't correct... I'm not saying it's false, I'm just saying that we still have to figure some things out, before we say it's proven ;) Thats why we say "The big bang THEORY"... But thats how science works, and it's also a good thing, that science doesn't claim to know everything ;)

[BlueSpirals]

@kick2004 Okay, now that you have completely misused the word 'theory', I feel like I should disregard what you are saying. A scientific Theory is an expression of a relationship between observation and scientific laws. Theory does NOT mean speculation. And I feel like you dont know much about the big bang if you are saying that it has not yet been demonstrated. Redshift demonstrates that objects are moving away from us, not toward.

[distillednikki]

@kick2004

No you are wrong, the big bang DID happen and the only cosmologists, astronomers or physicists that deny this fact are not worthy of their titles.

[kick2004]

@distillednikki Dude, for the last time... I do NOT deny that the big bang happened -.- I just say that it is not yet (completely) proven...

[Pyro7502]

mutations make life worst...not better... animals dnt randomly change into other animals...they may develop certain distinct features over time...but not change..how does science deal with that?

[BlueSpirals]

@Pyro7502 You obviously dont even know what a mutation is, you must only know what mutations are from the Ninja Turtles. Genetic mutations are any random changes in DNA sequencing in a cell. Almost all mutations that exist in species are beneficial mutations, because the ones that have non-beneficial mutations die out.

Oh and after reading your second sentence you obvously don't know ANYTHING about evolution and you're probably 14, so I'm not even going to waste my breath.

[FOUSEL1321]

I enjoyed your video very much. Keep up the good work.

[BlueSpirals]

@FOUSEL1321 thank you good sir

[CutClip]

Stephen Hawking may be one of the most self-professed smartest people alive, but he's also a retarded cripple in a wheelchair.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

And mentally you are an equivalent to his physical handicap.

ha ha ha hah a!

you are a joke.

[BlueSpirals]

@CutClip Retard.

[realbojay]

@BlueSpirals

awesome vids, i am pretty familiar with all that stuff but hearing it summarized and clarified in english is great, especially (me no good english)

For us atheists its great to see but as you can see based on the reactions of ignorant fucktards like @Cutclip douchebag over there (just poking him to see i said it) you are wasting your breath man.. at least if you are trying to get the brainwashed ones to question their uberflawed beliefs. hopefully few will open their eyes tho..



[realbojay]

@BlueSpirals

btw, we DO need help, we need to stop discussing anything with them about religion, trying to bring some light into the darkness of their brains is nearly impossible, to be avoided except for the fun of it. They won't take help unless we get allowed to enforce psychiatric treatment on them, for everything else they have their imaginary friends allah god jesus the loch ness monster and so on.

btw reason to NOT even attempt you can find on my homepage.

Sorry for my crappy english.

[mattsgoneskatin]

I love how youre saying something fully intelligent and then go 'this shits moving fucking fast', quality video man

[BlueSpirals]

@mattsgoneskatin thankee

[BlueSpirals]

@Seargent363 Wrong. Pluto has an axial tilt of 120 degrees.

[Seargent363]

@BlueSpirals I find it odd then that I never learned that about Pluto in High School(must of been a bad course/teacher), but is Uranus on its side or am I wrong on that as well?

[BlueSpirals]

@Seargent363 Uranus has an axial tilt of 97 degrees, which is notable, but not as much as pluto. and you didnt learn about it probably because it's not very important, at least in introductory astronomical education for high schoolers. I had to learn this stuff in college.

[BlueSpirals]

@Seargent363 by the way if you are old enough, say, in your 40's or something, they probably didn't even know about the axial tilt of the farthest planets yet

[Seargent363]

@BlueSpirals yeah she probably was, thanks for helping me out, peace.

[BlueSpirals]

@MsBabyBabyBooBoo I really only respond to people who come to me. I rarely go after a christian. For the really good ones, like Veritas, there are literally thousands of people making responses in video and print, so I feel a little bit like I'd be wasting my time. Furthermore, the ONLY good theistic arguments (which are still false) are the philosophical ones, and I really hate those conversations because they simply cannot end.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals As A philosophy major and religious studies minor I know exactly what you mean !

haha. But it's a good point...amazing to me that the average Christian has no idea how much ammunition they could find if they picked up a solid work of philosophy rather than some William Lane Craig bullshit which is just old Philosophy mixed with bad metaphysics and even worse science.

No theistic argument is free from flaws...but at least some are worth talking about. I rarely see them on youtube

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates which?

[CrapnellGates]

The Argument from Intentionality

The Argument from physical constants

The argument from positive epistemic status

The Argument from induction

The Kripke-Wittgenstein Argument From Plus and Quus

Again, not that these don't have holes. But at least their flaws aren't so easily pointed out that anyone who doesn't already believe in God can't help being suffocated by the fallacies. Also, they actually matter. These arguments seek to answer hard questions. Rather than validate preconceptions.

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates argument from physical constants, aka 'fine tuned universe', has been thoroughly debunked. look that one up. intentionality is a baseless assertion. positive epistemic status is a non-sequitor. induction lacks any empirical certainty, and cannot even prove itself to be more than baseless assertion. never heard of plus and quus. their flaws arent easily pointed out because most people aren't philosophers, but any elementary understanding of the fallacies will chase out the holes.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals Physical Constants doesn't have to be associated with arguments for fine-tuning though it often does.

You've pretty much just done what I already admitted was possible. All of these have holes, congrats that you've compared your Intellectual Cock to the average person and found yours to be slightly longer.

My point was that these are arguments worth discussing because if they are even slightly compelling they can help to answer the greater questions.

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates So I guess being able to detect bullshit makes me some kind of smartass? they dont help to answer anything. the structure of all of these arguments is "X could not have happened without god. Therefore, god exists." that isnt scientific inquiry. what exactly have we learned from arguments like these?

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals No, but arrogantly dismissing all these complex and deep arguments in a quick paragraph does seem hasty

They are not all arguments from ignorance as you assert. Most philosophers make these arguments as food for thought, not as dogmatic truth claims

The larger questions of life like Purpose, Free Will, What is the mind and Consciousness, and what is the true nature of reality continue to puzzle us. I don't dismiss any argument just because it might offer up God as possibility

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates they dont need to be discussed any further. Many of them are logical syllogisms. If you can find a fallacy in them, they are invalid. I dont dismiss god as an explanation for anything, but I do dismiss claims that have no evidence to support them. I have never read any convincing arguments, including the ones you posted, that supported the notion of the existence of any god. And I search on a daily basis.

[BlueSpirals]

@BlueSpirals (part 2) our abilities to point out logical disparities within the claim. So, in my opinion, if a philosophical claim isnt composed of all sound parts, then it is completely bunk and useless and must therefore be changed.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals I think that's a very narrow scope as far as philosophical investigation. You'll be able to use your wit to dismiss the arguments of a lot of people who were probably a lot smarter than you. But cynicism is easy...It's much more rewarding and challenging to take arguments that you understand have weak points and see how you can make it stronger, how you could make it work, and if not...how else can we think about it so as to gain perspective.

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates Look at my videos. Do you actually think I sit around dismissing things all day? I've investigated religion a hell of a lot more than you have; I even do it for grades at my university. Call me a cynic all you want, I am TRYING to be convinced that there is a god, i DEMAND to be convinced of it, and simply have not been. Unlike religious people, who refuse with abject anger the possibility that a god does not exist. And what the fuck else do you expect us to use beyond 5 senses?

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals I'm a little confused why you are fighting me so hard on points I didn't make and in general acting like an arrogant prick. You don't know what I have studied or to what extent I have studied it. I never doubted your sincerity or your intelligence. My point was that the value of every philosophical or metaphysical proposition is not reducible to your ability to show a weakness or two. The reality we perceive with our 5 senses is proof that "sense data" exists. Nothing else.

[CrapnellGates]

@CrapnellGates And again, I think you are missing my point. What one should believe, what one accepts as truth...I do believe materialistic scientific empiricism is the best route to those things. But philosophically investigating theistic, atheistic, metaphysical, epistemological, analytic, and all other propositions is often more rewarding than simply pointing out a fuck up in the logic.

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates I think you're misinterpreting me since we're talking over the internet. I'm really not being aggressive, at least intentionally. We both agree that we can only utilize our 5 senses to perceive the universe. I am pointing out that, given this fact, we have no ability whatsoever to prove or disprove the existence of god, and therefore you have to blindly believe in him in order to suggest his qualities.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals Yeah, this is just getting lengthy and I feel like we are misinterpreting each other.

There is nothing about that last comment I disagree with. At all.

Maybe I just didn't make my point clear enough but It was really just a differing opinion about the value of philosophically investigating not just the validity/soundness of theistic arguments (which always fail). But their depth and possible consequences.

I like your videos, have watched them, and share your general outlook.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals And on a side note, you should really stop "Demanding" to be convinced God exists. If you want something logically impenetrable that will without a doubt prove that God exists you are just wasting your time. Pointing out fallacies in arguments for God is child's play and has been done time and time again for a couple thousand years. You should give up the quest to be convinced and instead investigate what these God claims might mean outside their supposed conclusions.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals To summarize my point, I don't think that just because you take your ego-stick and poke some holes in an argument that it is then bunk and useless intellectually. Anyone with enough wit can poke holes in even the most compelling of arguments. Consider the success rate of Scientific empiricism/naturalistic world views. Yet still the problem of Induction remains largely unsolved

All I want to say is that theistic arguments don't have to be as empty as they are often presented

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates Here is the difference between scientific and philosophical claims. Scientific claims are either empirically true or empirically false. They are demonstrably true or false one way or the other. If it cannot be tested, it isnt science. If a scientific claim is false, the hypothesis can be changed and re-tested. Philosophy cannot be tested, it can only be debated, and it is purely inductive. Therefore, the only tools we have to determine which philosophical claims are accurate are

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals Whereas the average "Questions For Atheists" video on youtube offers up petty re-hashed arguments that solve none of the bigger questions surrounding the true nature of reality. I just meant that conversations about Theistic arguments don't have to be as vacuous as they often are on youtube. Because some arguments have deeper philosophical purpose and meaning than beefing up your Sunday School Teachers ego.

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates Why does the 'true nature' of reality have to be hidden? Why cant it just be exactly what we experience? That seems to be an impossible notion for theists to accept.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals I didn't say that any of them -prove God- I think some of them support the notion of the existence of God. To me the 'better' arguments are valid but end up being unsound...usually a non-sequitur is made somewhere in the underlying logic to reach God from the conclusion of the argument. Realities True nature doesn't have to be hidden...but seeing as we are limited to our Five senses it seems epistemologically hasty to think we currently have certainty about it.

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates We only have five senses with which to detect reality. If there is a god, we have absolutely no reason to believe in him, and have absolutely no ability to demonstrate his existence. As far as the realm of our perception, god CANNOT exist, if he does not exist in a way perceivable with our five senses. We also have NO reason to believe there is a sixth sense, or that any human or non-human animal possesses a sixth sense (like the "I can feel it in my heart" bullshit).

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals We also have no reason to believe that our 5 senses can perceive everything that is reality. Dennett does some exercises in a series called Dennett on consciousness where he shows we often aren't even perceiving half of what we think we are. And I definitely did NOT mean "feeling it in my heart bullshit" But maybe something less fucktarded, like in the future, augmenting our brain physiology to the point of super intelligence and therein being able to perceive other dimensions.

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates No. This is false. We only have 5 senses to work with, and therefore that which we perceive with the 5 senses is evidence that at least that information exists. We have no evidence to suggest anything exists outside of our ability to perceive. You're trying to make both sides equally probable by stating "We have no evidence to believe things DONT exist beyond our 5 senses", but I'm telling you that absence of evidence for those things = evidence of absence.

[MrGlennsftmb]

@BlueSpirals

I generally agree with your point of view, and I appologise if I questioned whether you are educated as you obviously are, but and please take this as constructive criticism and not slander, try not to be too proud of your opinion and try not to prove you are always correct, as you might find that you can learn as much from others as much as your trying to teach them. Note that other species like shark contain electroreceptivity scenses (6th sense) which we dont.=)

[BlueSpirals]

Extradimensionality is highly theoretical and has never been remotely demonstrated. I'll give you it's possible, but possibility is no reason to believe it.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals But you're kind of defending scientific empiricism and arguing against the existence of God.

I'm not arguing for God or against Science.

If anything I just think some Theistic arguments and conclusions, though scientifically hopeless, are still worth philosophical investigation. That is, challenging and interesting conversations on youtube could be had if instead of presenting shitty arguments and then us destroying them. Better arguments are made and we explore them.

[BlueSpirals]

@CrapnellGates We have no evidence to suggest god exists. Therefore, we have no reason to believe in him. That is my principle argument. Philosophy does not empirically prove the existence of beings.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals I mean you just asked me to list which arguments are 'better' and worth discussing. Then you say they are not because you can find a hole or two. My whole point was that entertaining the notion of some God like entity in order to solve riddles can be valuable. Some theistic arguments promote this type of investigation, and others don't.

[CrapnellGates]

@BlueSpirals When (random youtube creationist) posts a video about Absolute Morality proving God exists it is much less valuable than a genuine theistic exploration of the way that belief in God may solve the big problems. For instance belief in some God entity can help answer questions about the problem of interaction with Mind-Body dualism. Some arguments invite intelligent discussion, but most on youtube do the opposite.