Sorry but you have a very poor reading style and watching a video of text while you read it is just very boring. And I'm an atheist so we might agree but I just can't sit through your video.
this video was built on quicksand. I was looking for logical arguments against the 5 reasons. The best I got was famine, and then you repeated it is built on quicksand. Sorry, not very convincing
HEY GUYS!!! For those who believe in God, we are very lucky to have Him in our life RIGHT??? He knows what is good for us, that's why he brings circumstances to our life because He wants us to improve and learn such things from that circumstance. We must not have find scientific evidence to our God just only to prove that he exist because if you do that, it means you dont have Faith and Trust in Him. Glory to God!
But, most importantly, do not be curious about the existence of God because you know man, God has a purpose for it, for those who believe in Him and for those who unbelieve in Him. To see the truth, you must believe, man. What do you think why I am telling it to you, because we, as a Christian are taking ouir responsibilities and purpose in life.
HEY GUYS!!! For those who believe in God, we are very lucky to have Him in our life RIGHT??? He knows what is good for us, that's why he brings circumstances to our life because He wants us to improve and learn such things from that circumstance. We must not have find scientific evidence to our God just only to prove that he exist because if you do that, it means you dont have Faith and Trust in Him. Glory to God!
god is legit. i like him. he is real. i know htis because god could just as eaasily be thinking mohamed does not exist but he would be wrong. and that is impossible because he is always right. because he is perfect. therefore, both me and god exist. QED
how do we talk about god if he aint real? everything we talk about is real in a sense. we talk about purple bunnies cuz bnnies are real and pruple is real. but where are these examples of omnipotence, infintiude in substance, and perfection we so readily speak of in reference to god
i find it funny that instead of creating an arguement against his five theories you decide to break down his definition of his five theories. this is probably done so you can prove how inferior his ideas are without actually challenging them with your own knowledge on the subjects. perhaps before you claim others ideas are built on quicksand you build a strong foundation upon your own and ACTUALLY debate the ideas being spoken, not try to prove how stupid someone is by debasing there definition.
The scientific world is entirely biased, that is why people have tried to claim they have found evidence of the missing link and instead have created counterfeit skeletons to manipulate humanity and create fame, such as nebraska man.
biased is what controls us and no one will ever be right or wrong on how we were created, u either have faith or doubts. i choose faith but if you are going to try and argue a point you should atleast attempt to argue bias.
Thanks, you saved me the trouble. I thought I was going to have to break out the old discrete math text book with existential and universal quantifiers.
i really hope that doesnt meen you thought the other guys video was convincing hahaha...the other guy thought he actually proved the existence of god.
ok. check this out. why is it that the word of god is spread by man and not god himself? men are greedy, power hungry, attention craving, lying, unperfect beings so why is it that he, meaning man, being unperfect, can understand something that is "perfect"? i am not an athiest nor do i totally negate the fact that there is a god. my belief is that if there is a god, we cannot possibly understand Him nor can we explain him. it like a dog trying to understand why humans work. not possible.
god sent us all done and besides look at Jesus. now the reason why God doesnt come down himself is because we would become self reliant and lose our total sense of life. God wanted us to live a normal life not well up in a church all day praying, when a man tells us it is our choice to believe and God gives us free will
Would you say famine is one of the most meaningful realities of life? Then you further broke down your own claim and just stated "meaningful" Just because there are still born babies, should God or nature be held 100% responsible? The laws of nature are indeed responsible for certain things, and they never excluded that. There are car accidents too, should you have included that as an argument? Is it Gods fault for fatal car accidents?
this video was built on quicksand. I was looking for logical arguments against the 5 reasons. The best I got was famine, and then you repeated it is built on quicksand. Sorry, not very convincing.
Because the few people you have spoken to have not given you a rational argument does not mean one does not exist. Thomas Aquinas was making rational arguments centuries before we ever arrived at this point.
And reason existed well before Aquinas, and well before the Pagan Greeks who believed in Zeus et al! None of Aquinas' proofs hold water either.
The ugly fact is that the Christian God who interacts with his creation at all levels is unsupported by science. All evidence points against his purported interactions with reality.
When you say "materialism" do you refer to the collective action of thousands of people making logical deductions, inferences, tests, and conclusions, based on data obtained from the real, material, world?
Believers starts their arguments assuming te argument itself.U just cant say "God exist cos he designed the universe"...It just doesnt make any sense.They can not give me ANY rational argument.
so true ! to explain the complexity of the universe Christians invented a being that is infinitively complex and all knowing. And when you ask them where does this being come from... they say from itself. Why cant universe come from itself or from even simpler self a pre-big-band universe :)
The universe cannot come from itself because that is a blatant violation of the universal laws of physics. An argument to a pre-bang universe or anything extra-universal makes the same suppositions for which Christians are chided. If a materialist argument is made, the existence of unproven and unprovable extrauniversal entities must be universally discounted. If an extra-materialist argument is allowed, then there is no cause to dismiss the Christian's claim of a supernatural being.
Why does it need to have intteligence to spit out something as simple as big bang. And if our universe was different like stronger gravity then we wouldnt be here but some other life would be.
Also quantum physic has a theory of meter appearing from nothinggness
What if? Doesn't matter. Remove materialism from the argument and you can no longer point to a materialist assertion that God does not exist. Whatever other "voodoo" you substitute for God is irrelevant.
Also, I hardly consider the creation of the entire universe as a simple endeavor by any means.
but you cannot disprove the existence of a invisible pink unicorn. And like I said God is complex comparing to the universe and you never solve a problem with a more complex answer and why should universe existence be any different
a). explain how the concept of God is more complex than the universe
b). your argument to a pre-universe or the universe coming from itself *IS* the pink unicorn. You cannot claim an argument for God is irrational without acknowledging that every other possibility you present is equally irrational.
a) if god created everything and designed it exactly the way he wants it and then knows everything thats about to happen. Well he is much more complex then the universe. You might try to create a planet or a AI that will be as complex as a human but thats nothing compared to God. how can God be less complex then a universe are you calling god stupid he suppose to be limitless!
By that logic, anything which creates something is by default more complex than its creation. So there is nothing about saying "God is more complex than the universe" that does not square with observable reality.
What I thought you meant was that a created universe was a more complex explanation than a self-creating universe, which I would still disagree with.
self creating universe or a universe created by something that is simplest is a more probable explanation! it is much easier for a dot to be the begging of everything then something that requires more explanations. if life on earth requires explanations the more so does God! Something very simple like nothingness might just be and properties of nothingness might create universe witch creates even more complex things like life itself.
"self creating universe...is a more probable explanation!"
That makes no sense. Whatever created the universe is by definition more complex. You acknowledge this, then turn around and say the MOST logical assumption is that LESS complex things beget MORE complex things.
For a dot to be the beginning of everything DOES require new explanations. ANYTHING before Planck Time is equally speculative, and therefore none can be considered more materially simplistic than the other if there is no observable phenomena.
By definition, we cannot observe things that exist outside our universe. The only evidence we have is that which reveals itself within this universe. Natural phenomena cannot do that. God HAS done that.
I love when people state things with no background. Natural phenomena cannot do this? of course it can just not within our universe! and that is also obvious, If something is outside our universe it doesnt mean that it is god !
"Natural phenomena cannot do this? of course it can just not within our universe!"
If it's not within our universe, it's not natural, but supernatural. You debate fine points on whether something is "too supernatural" to be reasonable. Arguing to the supernatural negates argument to reason because you are talking about phenomena that cannot be explained in a universal context. There is no universal way to explain extrauniversal phenomena, therefore no ground to argue what is "simpler".
damn man, so sad you seem like a guy who read some books and has some knowledge, but you just care more about bashing me then arguing. Of course if nothing can create itself and therefore then must have been something that did. But God cannot be the answer because he is more complex and he too would have to have an explanation. like 4x = 2y the answer isnt 8x = 4y but 2x =y.
I have a feeling that you respond and say that my arguments are flawed and you dont concentrate on what I really mean. I might be wrong thou. God would require an explanation on the same basis we require an explanation. How can something as complex as our universe exist? same principle with god
"God would require an explanation on the same basis we require an explanation."
Things in this universe require explanation because materialism dictates that all things in this universe have a universal explanation. As soon as you step outside the universe, that no longer applies. It's not even POSSIBLE to explain things which do not necessarily follow our laws.
why do you assume so? it is much easier to assume that they do fallow basic logic then that they do not! And therefor it is more probable! If you just make something up and say that its outside our universe therefore it exists, it is still pretty probable that it doesnt, no metter how much you would want it too. I am quite tired its 3AM here. I will be on tommorow. nice talking to you.
"it is much easier to assume that they do fallow basic logic then that they do not"
What is basic logic when you remove our frame of reference?
"If you just make something up and say that its outside our universe therefore it exists, it is still pretty probable that it doesnt, no metter how much you would want it too."
Luckily for me, God is not something I "just made up".
please reply to the last comment on the page it be easier to find. Also the last note, saying that god is the most possible explanation because no logic or laws work outside our universe is like saying that outside our universe circle is most possibly also a square! And that circle being just circle outside our universe is a less probable idea
"saying that god is the most possible explanation because no logic or laws work outside our universe"
That is not at all what I said. I said YOU cannot assume that OTHER explanations are MORE reasonable for that reason.
God is the most possible explanation based on the evidence HE revealed to US. Your ideas cannot be observed and cannot reveal themselves, and so will always be purely speculative.
God did not reveal to me any evidence of his existence. Other then my parents brainwashing me to believe in him. However my theories come from observing the universe and the fact that anything complex used for explaining something simple is not an answer but an even more complex question so the very beginning would have to come from the simplest thing!
please reply to the last comment, what I mean by that is the lowest comment on this page I cannot reply to it because its my comment and you wont see on your mail that someone had replied.
"I have a feeling that you respond and say that my arguments are flawed and you dont concentrate on what I really mean."
I have a feeling you would rather say I don't understand then realize I simply don't agree. I get you just fine. I don't agree, and I am presenting specific rationale for that disagreement.
:) we're good then. I apologize, however you did not respond to the last comment on the page therefore I think we do have a problem understanding each other. I'll try to work on it.
no whatever is intelligent and creates things on purpose must be more complex! imagine a rock falling on other rock and chipping of a piece to make a perfect sphere a non perfect sphere and a rock arent more complex then a perfect sphere and a rock quite the opposite.
"no whatever is intelligent and creates things on purpose must be more complex!"
I said that. I also said the argument to simplicity is not relevant. Whatever created this universe is necessarily greater than this universe, not restricted to our physical or temporal laws. Once that threshhold is breached, complexity is a non-argument.
how is complexity not an argument. Without certain things there is no argument at all. And complexity is one of the things that must exist whenever something exists
Because (how many times have I explained this to you?) leaving the framework of the universe leaves you no grounds to determine what is sufficiently simple or complex. All such phenomena are "more complex than" the universe and equally "inexplicable".
that is a wrong assumption. You cannot assume that after leaving this universe complexity changes. As you cannot assume squares are circles outside our universe. The most probable thing is that complexity works the same and that circles are circles. Otherwise I could say something like god didnt want to create us but in that universe if you dont want to create you create. And therefore most probable outcome is that god didnt want to create us.
and as soon as you realize that God must have been more complex to design the universe then the universe itself. (look at the things we design together with 100 of other humans yet we never came close to designing something more complex then us)Then it is obvious that the creation of universe by something simple is the reasonable answer!
"look at the things we design together with 100 of other humans yet we never came close to designing something more complex then us"
Which means, precisely, that creators are naturally more complex than their creations. Therefore there is nothing unreasonable about a universal Creator more complex than His creation. Your logic makes a point completely opposite to your argument to simplicity; that makes no sense. Something greater naturally produces something lesser; that makes sense.
nono... you see a creator creates something lesser. But evolution creates something grater. Our universe you might say evolved from something simple but if it was created and designed and the designer was all knowing he must have been more complex!
Evolution doesn't "create" anything, it mutates something into something else. And the only measure you have for "greater" or "lesser" is your own subjective view, a non-intelligent Nature would not consider one thing greater or lesser than another.
You claim a non-intelligent design but you are stealing the foundation of your argument from an intelligent perspective.
More complex than what? Individual cells and even atoms are immeasurably complex. And if evolution drove all things more complex (as you attempt to define it) then "lesser" organisms would no longer exist, replaced by more complex ones.
however the first organism no longer exist they were probaly imperfect had low rate of reproduction and high rate of death. the bacterium today is much more complex and the reasons why it didnt die out are obvious! because it has place to live in with no serious treat but it is improving itself and the more perfect DNA will outlive the imperfect DNA
"however the first organism no longer exist they were probaly imperfect had low rate of reproduction and high rate of death."
Obviously they didn't die out, if they "evolved into us." And given how complex individual cells are, I don't see how you can argue that the cells of the time were not complex.
"Lack of serious threat" also does not coincide with the theory of evolution due to external pressures.
ok let me reword myself again. I would count for some intuition but clearly I expect too much. The very first organism arent todays bacteria! todays bacteria is a much much better version of that organism. now because we do not occupy the same space as bacteria it can survive if we would the better one of us would survive and bacteria is extremely complex as for being so small
well its much better adapted for current environment then the begging bacteria was for its environment. Again with the detail that dont bring anything. Try to figure out what I am saying before you mark it as something incorrect
by better I mean that it has more complexity (more DNA letters) and that it has lower death rate in its environment and faster speed of reproduction. I mean better adapted and more complex like we are more complex then a single cell organism
by better I mean more complex and higher reproductive rate and lover death rate. also I wanna point on another example from evolution, birds. Imagine that small creature that could jump and run, would have 2 basic traits fast climbing and far jumping. If the far jumping one would slowly evolve wings to give it a glide (like the flying square) then it could evolve into bird
. Also if lets say forest burned down the fast running squares would survive and maybe the flying ones, but those be 2 new species and the fast running one would go extinct.
No! they would exist. if I have a bag with tons of letters and I trow them around and a word cat is created, and that word can reproduce. Then we have tons of words cat and then I trow the letters around and one of them becomes caterpillar (this is just an example) and the caterpillar has ability to reproduce, so now there are tons of cats and after a while there are tons of caterpillars. cat evolved into caterpillar but it didnt go extinct.
what does happen however is when the same species becomes better at something for example cat that sneaks on its pray better then other cats, then this cat will have a better chance of not starving and slowly other cats without his DNA will starve.(after many generations)
But if a monkey for example gets a DNA that makes if want to live on the ground rather then on trees it becomes a new specie because it need different traits like walking upwards more intelligence because there are more predators on the ground etc. But it has different source of food then the other monkeys and it can reproduce freely cuz it occupies a new niche
a) let me try again to show how God is more complex then universe. if you have x being universe. and if god knows all thats about to happen and happened he has to have all the universes states memorized. so he must have x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 (as universe moves in time) so he is much more complex!
Why can God be the only thing that created universe. And why is the universe the thing that creates so many things out of simple rules like the game of 'life'... simple rules no design but marvelous results. if our universe can create stuff why cant some other not intelligent thing create universes
"Why can God be the only thing that created universe."
You tell me. You're the only one who's made that claim here. I certainly never said it was the ONLY possibility. But it IS the best fit to the evidence I have seen.
"if our universe can create stuff"
It can't. That's a principal law of matter. The universe cannot create something out of whole cloth. It can only react to changes in its conditions. Your basic premise is fundamentally flawed.
Ok. First of all, There is no proof that our universe cannot create stuff (remember the tricky you cannot prove anything negative like non existence of God). Second of all it doesnt need to the thing that created our universe needs too! Also Why isnt a inmaterialistic universe that spits out universes like our a better fit? I tell you why it is a better fit. Because a designer would have to be more complex and require even more explanation
fact that it doesnt... you must prove something to be a fact just because we dont see pink unicorns doesnt prove that there arent here. Its like you saying "there is no prof that there is no god" and me responding other then the fact that there isnt! Second of all I want to show if you are making a mistake in you claim so I dont have to explain myself l8ter. Thats why I brought it to the argument
"A designer would have to be more complex and require even more explanation"
Since you have no way to quantify your extra-universal non-intelligent entity, you cannot demonstrate that it is a better fit. You have no qualifications to make that claim.
The existence of things within our environment less complex than us does not prove that these less complex things created the things that we KNOW we created. Complexity/simplicity of the creator is not relevant.
ahh. Why do you suppose God created us when we have a lot of evidence pointing out that evolution exist and that we evolved and if we evolved why couldnt universe evolve from something even simpler.
Something simpler is always easier to explain then something more complex, why explain something simple with something thats even harder to explain. And thats not even physics thats something that never changes, thats logic !
Sorry but you have a very poor reading style and watching a video of text while you read it is just very boring. And I'm an atheist so we might agree but I just can't sit through your video.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
#
this video was built on quicksand. I was looking for logical arguments against the 5 reasons. The best I got was famine, and then you repeated it is built on quicksand. Sorry, not very convincing
cvb55ty 1 year ago
HEY GUYS!!! For those who believe in God, we are very lucky to have Him in our life RIGHT??? He knows what is good for us, that's why he brings circumstances to our life because He wants us to improve and learn such things from that circumstance. We must not have find scientific evidence to our God just only to prove that he exist because if you do that, it means you dont have Faith and Trust in Him. Glory to God!
mhack088midnight 2 years ago
That's what everyone says. Try something with more logic and reason.
AtheistChase 2 years ago
But, most importantly, do not be curious about the existence of God because you know man, God has a purpose for it, for those who believe in Him and for those who unbelieve in Him. To see the truth, you must believe, man. What do you think why I am telling it to you, because we, as a Christian are taking ouir responsibilities and purpose in life.
mhack088midnight 2 years ago
WHAT ARE THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES???
- to share the gospel to everybody
mhack088midnight 2 years ago
Silly theists and their Pascal's Wager.
AtheistChase 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HEY GUYS!!! For those who believe in God, we are very lucky to have Him in our life RIGHT??? He knows what is good for us, that's why he brings circumstances to our life because He wants us to improve and learn such things from that circumstance. We must not have find scientific evidence to our God just only to prove that he exist because if you do that, it means you dont have Faith and Trust in Him. Glory to God!
mhack088midnight 2 years ago
Religion is just for those who are too stupid to understand science.
MasterTenku 2 years ago
good arguement. in theory.
in the end when you stand before god you will pay for this video. repent of your disbelief and go on acordingly in the way he wills you
DustinBoydBoyd 2 years ago
Pascal's Wager has been refuted more than a century ago.
AtheistChase 2 years ago
god is legit. i like him. he is real. i know htis because god could just as eaasily be thinking mohamed does not exist but he would be wrong. and that is impossible because he is always right. because he is perfect. therefore, both me and god exist. QED
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
how do we talk about god if he aint real? everything we talk about is real in a sense. we talk about purple bunnies cuz bnnies are real and pruple is real. but where are these examples of omnipotence, infintiude in substance, and perfection we so readily speak of in reference to god
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
i find it funny that instead of creating an arguement against his five theories you decide to break down his definition of his five theories. this is probably done so you can prove how inferior his ideas are without actually challenging them with your own knowledge on the subjects. perhaps before you claim others ideas are built on quicksand you build a strong foundation upon your own and ACTUALLY debate the ideas being spoken, not try to prove how stupid someone is by debasing there definition.
123twom123 3 years ago
Its called refutation.
Nellsing 2 years ago
no its called being selectively bias.
The scientific world is entirely biased, that is why people have tried to claim they have found evidence of the missing link and instead have created counterfeit skeletons to manipulate humanity and create fame, such as nebraska man.
biased is what controls us and no one will ever be right or wrong on how we were created, u either have faith or doubts. i choose faith but if you are going to try and argue a point you should atleast attempt to argue bias.
123twom123 2 years ago
without bias*
123twom123 2 years ago
well of course god exists! who do you think helps santa?
TheDiamondSpell 3 years ago
----yawn----
Oh, and the fact that you have presumed that God DOES NOT exist makes you guilty of using the SAME method which you are attempting to "debunk" ;)
fordsbush 3 years ago 2
Thanks, you saved me the trouble. I thought I was going to have to break out the old discrete math text book with existential and universal quantifiers.
deemon8 3 years ago
very good!! very well put together
juzzers312 4 years ago
Excellent argument.
Very nice work. Jesus likee.
ComedyJesus 4 years ago
Crap, you took my thoughts and made a video of it, and fancied it up... Almost creepy.
M6o6r6d6o6 4 years ago
Waste of time!!
Greimi 4 years ago
Shockingly unconvincing video!
KJBman777 4 years ago 2
i really hope that doesnt meen you thought the other guys video was convincing hahaha...the other guy thought he actually proved the existence of god.
awhelnaw 4 years ago
I mean that God exists and that man rebels by making little stories and justifications as to why they think He doesn't.
KJBman777 4 years ago
wow, really, you KNOW god exists?
awhelnaw 4 years ago
Yes.
KJBman777 4 years ago
good for you
awhelnaw 4 years ago
Fail.
Vagon4 3 years ago
ok. check this out. why is it that the word of god is spread by man and not god himself? men are greedy, power hungry, attention craving, lying, unperfect beings so why is it that he, meaning man, being unperfect, can understand something that is "perfect"? i am not an athiest nor do i totally negate the fact that there is a god. my belief is that if there is a god, we cannot possibly understand Him nor can we explain him. it like a dog trying to understand why humans work. not possible.
evocus 4 years ago
god sent us all done and besides look at Jesus. now the reason why God doesnt come down himself is because we would become self reliant and lose our total sense of life. God wanted us to live a normal life not well up in a church all day praying, when a man tells us it is our choice to believe and God gives us free will
Deagler2005 4 years ago
Would you say famine is one of the most meaningful realities of life? Then you further broke down your own claim and just stated "meaningful" Just because there are still born babies, should God or nature be held 100% responsible? The laws of nature are indeed responsible for certain things, and they never excluded that. There are car accidents too, should you have included that as an argument? Is it Gods fault for fatal car accidents?
xbradicusx 4 years ago
this video was built on quicksand. I was looking for logical arguments against the 5 reasons. The best I got was famine, and then you repeated it is built on quicksand. Sorry, not very convincing.
xbradicusx 4 years ago
Samples' premise is faulty because of its unfounded assumption of the existence of "most meaningful realities of life." Why is that unclear?
blsturm 4 years ago
Yeah not impressed...you just used big words to sound smart, then you didnt even disprove his whole arguement.
dxfan2525 4 years ago
"They can not give me ANY rational argument."
Because the few people you have spoken to have not given you a rational argument does not mean one does not exist. Thomas Aquinas was making rational arguments centuries before we ever arrived at this point.
w0rf 4 years ago
And reason existed well before Aquinas, and well before the Pagan Greeks who believed in Zeus et al! None of Aquinas' proofs hold water either.
The ugly fact is that the Christian God who interacts with his creation at all levels is unsupported by science. All evidence points against his purported interactions with reality.
blsturm 4 years ago
"And reason existed well before Aquinas, and well before the Pagan Greeks who believed in Zeus et al!"
Irrelevant. The argument that there is *no* rational argument for God is simply not accurate.
"None of Aquinas' proofs hold water either."
We're going to have to part ways on that point.
"All evidence points against his purported interactions with reality."
... and on that point. But then, I am not beginning from a presupposition of strict materialism.
w0rf 4 years ago
When you say "materialism" do you refer to the collective action of thousands of people making logical deductions, inferences, tests, and conclusions, based on data obtained from the real, material, world?
blsturm 4 years ago
Believers starts their arguments assuming te argument itself.U just cant say "God exist cos he designed the universe"...It just doesnt make any sense.They can not give me ANY rational argument.
JackREst 4 years ago
Thanks! One of my summer projects is to create a small lecture demonstrating why the "strong" anthropic principle is groundless as well.
blsturm 4 years ago
Glad to see some one still has the patience to address these vapid, tired arguments. 5 stars.
eightfootmanchild 4 years ago
so true ! to explain the complexity of the universe Christians invented a being that is infinitively complex and all knowing. And when you ask them where does this being come from... they say from itself. Why cant universe come from itself or from even simpler self a pre-big-band universe :)
princeofexcess 4 years ago
The universe cannot come from itself because that is a blatant violation of the universal laws of physics. An argument to a pre-bang universe or anything extra-universal makes the same suppositions for which Christians are chided. If a materialist argument is made, the existence of unproven and unprovable extrauniversal entities must be universally discounted. If an extra-materialist argument is allowed, then there is no cause to dismiss the Christian's claim of a supernatural being.
w0rf 4 years ago
... What if pre- universe wasn't made of meter!
Why does it need to have intteligence to spit out something as simple as big bang. And if our universe was different like stronger gravity then we wouldnt be here but some other life would be.
Also quantum physic has a theory of meter appearing from nothinggness
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"What if pre- universe wasn't made of meter!"
What if? Doesn't matter. Remove materialism from the argument and you can no longer point to a materialist assertion that God does not exist. Whatever other "voodoo" you substitute for God is irrelevant.
Also, I hardly consider the creation of the entire universe as a simple endeavor by any means.
w0rf 4 years ago
you cannot disprove the existence of God! ever...
but you cannot disprove the existence of a invisible pink unicorn. And like I said God is complex comparing to the universe and you never solve a problem with a more complex answer and why should universe existence be any different
princeofexcess 4 years ago
a). explain how the concept of God is more complex than the universe
b). your argument to a pre-universe or the universe coming from itself *IS* the pink unicorn. You cannot claim an argument for God is irrational without acknowledging that every other possibility you present is equally irrational.
w0rf 4 years ago
a) if god created everything and designed it exactly the way he wants it and then knows everything thats about to happen. Well he is much more complex then the universe. You might try to create a planet or a AI that will be as complex as a human but thats nothing compared to God. how can God be less complex then a universe are you calling god stupid he suppose to be limitless!
princeofexcess 4 years ago
By that logic, anything which creates something is by default more complex than its creation. So there is nothing about saying "God is more complex than the universe" that does not square with observable reality.
What I thought you meant was that a created universe was a more complex explanation than a self-creating universe, which I would still disagree with.
w0rf 4 years ago
self creating universe or a universe created by something that is simplest is a more probable explanation! it is much easier for a dot to be the begging of everything then something that requires more explanations. if life on earth requires explanations the more so does God! Something very simple like nothingness might just be and properties of nothingness might create universe witch creates even more complex things like life itself.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"self creating universe...is a more probable explanation!"
That makes no sense. Whatever created the universe is by definition more complex. You acknowledge this, then turn around and say the MOST logical assumption is that LESS complex things beget MORE complex things.
w0rf 4 years ago
For a dot to be the beginning of everything DOES require new explanations. ANYTHING before Planck Time is equally speculative, and therefore none can be considered more materially simplistic than the other if there is no observable phenomena.
By definition, we cannot observe things that exist outside our universe. The only evidence we have is that which reveals itself within this universe. Natural phenomena cannot do that. God HAS done that.
w0rf 4 years ago
I love when people state things with no background. Natural phenomena cannot do this? of course it can just not within our universe! and that is also obvious, If something is outside our universe it doesnt mean that it is god !
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"Natural phenomena cannot do this? of course it can just not within our universe!"
If it's not within our universe, it's not natural, but supernatural. You debate fine points on whether something is "too supernatural" to be reasonable. Arguing to the supernatural negates argument to reason because you are talking about phenomena that cannot be explained in a universal context. There is no universal way to explain extrauniversal phenomena, therefore no ground to argue what is "simpler".
w0rf 4 years ago
damn man, so sad you seem like a guy who read some books and has some knowledge, but you just care more about bashing me then arguing. Of course if nothing can create itself and therefore then must have been something that did. But God cannot be the answer because he is more complex and he too would have to have an explanation. like 4x = 2y the answer isnt 8x = 4y but 2x =y.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"damn man, so sad you seem like a guy who read some books and has some knowledge, but you just care more about bashing me then arguing."
I haven't said one bad word about you.
"But God cannot be the answer because he is more complex and he too would have to have an explanation."
Why would God *require* an explanation? Leave aside for just a moment my previous statement about the fact that it's not possible.
w0rf 4 years ago
I have a feeling that you respond and say that my arguments are flawed and you dont concentrate on what I really mean. I might be wrong thou. God would require an explanation on the same basis we require an explanation. How can something as complex as our universe exist? same principle with god
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"God would require an explanation on the same basis we require an explanation."
Things in this universe require explanation because materialism dictates that all things in this universe have a universal explanation. As soon as you step outside the universe, that no longer applies. It's not even POSSIBLE to explain things which do not necessarily follow our laws.
w0rf 4 years ago
why do you assume so? it is much easier to assume that they do fallow basic logic then that they do not! And therefor it is more probable! If you just make something up and say that its outside our universe therefore it exists, it is still pretty probable that it doesnt, no metter how much you would want it too. I am quite tired its 3AM here. I will be on tommorow. nice talking to you.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"it is much easier to assume that they do fallow basic logic then that they do not"
What is basic logic when you remove our frame of reference?
"If you just make something up and say that its outside our universe therefore it exists, it is still pretty probable that it doesnt, no metter how much you would want it too."
Luckily for me, God is not something I "just made up".
w0rf 4 years ago
well thats true, God is something primitive people before you made up. First there were spirits thou. And unicorns isnt something I just made up.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
please reply to the last comment on the page it be easier to find. Also the last note, saying that god is the most possible explanation because no logic or laws work outside our universe is like saying that outside our universe circle is most possibly also a square! And that circle being just circle outside our universe is a less probable idea
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"saying that god is the most possible explanation because no logic or laws work outside our universe"
That is not at all what I said. I said YOU cannot assume that OTHER explanations are MORE reasonable for that reason.
God is the most possible explanation based on the evidence HE revealed to US. Your ideas cannot be observed and cannot reveal themselves, and so will always be purely speculative.
w0rf 4 years ago
God did not reveal to me any evidence of his existence. Other then my parents brainwashing me to believe in him. However my theories come from observing the universe and the fact that anything complex used for explaining something simple is not an answer but an even more complex question so the very beginning would have to come from the simplest thing!
princeofexcess 4 years ago
please reply to the last comment, what I mean by that is the lowest comment on this page I cannot reply to it because its my comment and you wont see on your mail that someone had replied.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"I have a feeling that you respond and say that my arguments are flawed and you dont concentrate on what I really mean."
I have a feeling you would rather say I don't understand then realize I simply don't agree. I get you just fine. I don't agree, and I am presenting specific rationale for that disagreement.
w0rf 4 years ago
:) we're good then. I apologize, however you did not respond to the last comment on the page therefore I think we do have a problem understanding each other. I'll try to work on it.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
no whatever is intelligent and creates things on purpose must be more complex! imagine a rock falling on other rock and chipping of a piece to make a perfect sphere a non perfect sphere and a rock arent more complex then a perfect sphere and a rock quite the opposite.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"no whatever is intelligent and creates things on purpose must be more complex!"
I said that. I also said the argument to simplicity is not relevant. Whatever created this universe is necessarily greater than this universe, not restricted to our physical or temporal laws. Once that threshhold is breached, complexity is a non-argument.
w0rf 4 years ago
how is complexity not an argument. Without certain things there is no argument at all. And complexity is one of the things that must exist whenever something exists
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"how is complexity not an argument."
Because (how many times have I explained this to you?) leaving the framework of the universe leaves you no grounds to determine what is sufficiently simple or complex. All such phenomena are "more complex than" the universe and equally "inexplicable".
w0rf 4 years ago
that is a wrong assumption. You cannot assume that after leaving this universe complexity changes. As you cannot assume squares are circles outside our universe. The most probable thing is that complexity works the same and that circles are circles. Otherwise I could say something like god didnt want to create us but in that universe if you dont want to create you create. And therefore most probable outcome is that god didnt want to create us.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
and as soon as you realize that God must have been more complex to design the universe then the universe itself. (look at the things we design together with 100 of other humans yet we never came close to designing something more complex then us)Then it is obvious that the creation of universe by something simple is the reasonable answer!
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"look at the things we design together with 100 of other humans yet we never came close to designing something more complex then us"
Which means, precisely, that creators are naturally more complex than their creations. Therefore there is nothing unreasonable about a universal Creator more complex than His creation. Your logic makes a point completely opposite to your argument to simplicity; that makes no sense. Something greater naturally produces something lesser; that makes sense.
w0rf 4 years ago
nono... you see a creator creates something lesser. But evolution creates something grater. Our universe you might say evolved from something simple but if it was created and designed and the designer was all knowing he must have been more complex!
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"But evolution creates something grater."
Evolution doesn't "create" anything, it mutates something into something else. And the only measure you have for "greater" or "lesser" is your own subjective view, a non-intelligent Nature would not consider one thing greater or lesser than another.
You claim a non-intelligent design but you are stealing the foundation of your argument from an intelligent perspective.
w0rf 4 years ago
greater meaning more complex out of chaos!
so complex things like intelligence can evolve !
and evolution does add new pieces of DNA.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"greater meaning more complex out of chaos!"
More complex than what? Individual cells and even atoms are immeasurably complex. And if evolution drove all things more complex (as you attempt to define it) then "lesser" organisms would no longer exist, replaced by more complex ones.
w0rf 4 years ago
no they still have a placee to fill !
however the first organism no longer exist they were probaly imperfect had low rate of reproduction and high rate of death. the bacterium today is much more complex and the reasons why it didnt die out are obvious! because it has place to live in with no serious treat but it is improving itself and the more perfect DNA will outlive the imperfect DNA
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"however the first organism no longer exist they were probaly imperfect had low rate of reproduction and high rate of death."
Obviously they didn't die out, if they "evolved into us." And given how complex individual cells are, I don't see how you can argue that the cells of the time were not complex.
"Lack of serious threat" also does not coincide with the theory of evolution due to external pressures.
w0rf 4 years ago
ok let me reword myself again. I would count for some intuition but clearly I expect too much. The very first organism arent todays bacteria! todays bacteria is a much much better version of that organism. now because we do not occupy the same space as bacteria it can survive if we would the better one of us would survive and bacteria is extremely complex as for being so small
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"The very first organism arent todays bacteria! todays bacteria is a much much better version of that organism."
Again, better is your subjective view based on the current state of the planet. It is neither better nor worse, just adequate for this environment.
w0rf 4 years ago
well its much better adapted for current environment then the begging bacteria was for its environment. Again with the detail that dont bring anything. Try to figure out what I am saying before you mark it as something incorrect
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"well its much better adapted for current environment then the begging bacteria was for its environment."
Which means that "better" is SUBJECTIVE. It also does not indicate greater or less complexity.
"Try to figure out what I am saying before you mark it as something incorrect"
You (incorrectly) accuse me of bashing you, and then post this?
w0rf 4 years ago
by better I mean that it has more complexity (more DNA letters) and that it has lower death rate in its environment and faster speed of reproduction. I mean better adapted and more complex like we are more complex then a single cell organism
princeofexcess 4 years ago
by better I mean more complex and higher reproductive rate and lover death rate. also I wanna point on another example from evolution, birds. Imagine that small creature that could jump and run, would have 2 basic traits fast climbing and far jumping. If the far jumping one would slowly evolve wings to give it a glide (like the flying square) then it could evolve into bird
princeofexcess 4 years ago
. Also if lets say forest burned down the fast running squares would survive and maybe the flying ones, but those be 2 new species and the fast running one would go extinct.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
No! they would exist. if I have a bag with tons of letters and I trow them around and a word cat is created, and that word can reproduce. Then we have tons of words cat and then I trow the letters around and one of them becomes caterpillar (this is just an example) and the caterpillar has ability to reproduce, so now there are tons of cats and after a while there are tons of caterpillars. cat evolved into caterpillar but it didnt go extinct.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
what does happen however is when the same species becomes better at something for example cat that sneaks on its pray better then other cats, then this cat will have a better chance of not starving and slowly other cats without his DNA will starve.(after many generations)
princeofexcess 4 years ago
But if a monkey for example gets a DNA that makes if want to live on the ground rather then on trees it becomes a new specie because it need different traits like walking upwards more intelligence because there are more predators on the ground etc. But it has different source of food then the other monkeys and it can reproduce freely cuz it occupies a new niche
princeofexcess 4 years ago
a) let me try again to show how God is more complex then universe. if you have x being universe. and if god knows all thats about to happen and happened he has to have all the universes states memorized. so he must have x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 (as universe moves in time) so he is much more complex!
princeofexcess 4 years ago
Why can God be the only thing that created universe. And why is the universe the thing that creates so many things out of simple rules like the game of 'life'... simple rules no design but marvelous results. if our universe can create stuff why cant some other not intelligent thing create universes
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"Why can God be the only thing that created universe."
You tell me. You're the only one who's made that claim here. I certainly never said it was the ONLY possibility. But it IS the best fit to the evidence I have seen.
"if our universe can create stuff"
It can't. That's a principal law of matter. The universe cannot create something out of whole cloth. It can only react to changes in its conditions. Your basic premise is fundamentally flawed.
w0rf 4 years ago
Ok. First of all, There is no proof that our universe cannot create stuff (remember the tricky you cannot prove anything negative like non existence of God). Second of all it doesnt need to the thing that created our universe needs too! Also Why isnt a inmaterialistic universe that spits out universes like our a better fit? I tell you why it is a better fit. Because a designer would have to be more complex and require even more explanation
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"First of all, There is no proof that our universe cannot create stuff"
Other than the fact that it doesn't?
"Second of all it doesnt need to the thing that created our universe needs too!"
You were the one who is talking about the universe "creating" stuff. If it's not necessary, then don't introduce it to the discussion.
w0rf 4 years ago
fact that it doesnt... you must prove something to be a fact just because we dont see pink unicorns doesnt prove that there arent here. Its like you saying "there is no prof that there is no god" and me responding other then the fact that there isnt! Second of all I want to show if you are making a mistake in you claim so I dont have to explain myself l8ter. Thats why I brought it to the argument
princeofexcess 4 years ago
"A designer would have to be more complex and require even more explanation"
Since you have no way to quantify your extra-universal non-intelligent entity, you cannot demonstrate that it is a better fit. You have no qualifications to make that claim.
The existence of things within our environment less complex than us does not prove that these less complex things created the things that we KNOW we created. Complexity/simplicity of the creator is not relevant.
w0rf 4 years ago
ahh. Why do you suppose God created us when we have a lot of evidence pointing out that evolution exist and that we evolved and if we evolved why couldnt universe evolve from something even simpler.
princeofexcess 4 years ago
do you believe in evolution???
princeofexcess 4 years ago
Something simpler is always easier to explain then something more complex, why explain something simple with something thats even harder to explain. And thats not even physics thats something that never changes, thats logic !
princeofexcess 4 years ago