Turek's basketball example is so fail. The basketball stops bouncing because energy is transferred into heat and sound. This is not a closed system. If we are including the entire universe in the system, it is closed, as far as we can determine it for now, so the energy does remain within the universe. A 2nd big bang certainly can happen, but not likely. More likely will be a very boring, cold, non-kinetic / static expanded universe. Sucks, but is likely true.
I tried to read Turek's book and keep an open mind and not judge him to hard because his opinion are different than mine. The the book was bad, it was "I dint have enough faith to be an atheist". He just plays samantics in a very poor and unconvincing way thru most of the book. Totally dedicated to his faith in a myopic way. He seems more concerned to defend his christan culture witch he love than making some hard hitting points. He just stays in his small box
Doesn't he see the flaw in his understanding of physics, when he applies the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the WHOLE universe, which is a closed system, containing ALL the mass and energy of itself?
Any energy absorbed or "lost" into the system would still be there within the universe, therefore nothing would be lost and the laws of conservation and entropy, would not apply.
Silly man! If this debate was with a scientist he'd be walking out of there very red-faced indeed!
Christopher has helped me discover the absolutely ridiculous views that religion puts forth. That being said, he is mistaken about the religious icon of Stalin with a halo. In reality, the icon has a picture of a saint (with halo) that Stalin (sans halo)
Hitchens..... disgraceful performance. You could have done so much better in your explanations. Why did you beat about the bush on questions which you could have so easily answered without appearing to avoid it. Horrible performance by a great man.
He completely mangles the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Only considering classical physics I would agree with him but on the quantum level it is a stochastic law, making the continual increase in entropy highly probable rather than inevitable. Furthermore, the total energy in the universe appears to be zero, hence it can survive as an extended quantum fluctuation. He is quoting very basic physics and ignoring any of the more complex aspects of quantum mechanics.
It appears that the big bang is a huge sticking point when infact in modern physics theories exist which go beyond it. For example M theory attempts to explain the origin of the big bang and could be a credible stepping stone to a unified theory of everything. It seems that the further back we go in the past and explain origins of thing, religion always attempts to have the answer to the origin of the earliest thing.
Lol! Anything that exists may exit before our observation of it... that's just a non-argument. Correction: he is applying causality before the universe begins to exist; in other words causality must exist before the universe, if the universe must have a cause. Aside from that, one falls into the trap of an infinite regress if the causality is persued as an argument for god.
Second law of thermodynamics?? LMAO, Frank attempts to solidify his "ancient" delusions (solely based on a 2000 year old book of 'hearsay') with "modern" science? I rest my case.
What is the real logic for abortion? It is not so much social, but economic. New birth affects one psychologically, economically, and socially. The fetus is part of the female body, if it develops in the womb and is disturbed with have detrimental implications, because the fetus becomes a new organ (by definition), and later an organism, separate from the mother {even though scientific evidence proves that babies are surviving more outside the womb.}
@msd1835 You can't get evidence from outside the universe, that's the whole point of my arguement!! Therefore you can't apply causality or any other law to anything outside/beyond the universe.
That's where you seperate the honest from the dishonest. hitchens honestly admits to not know how the universe began and to be incompetent in physics. But for some reason Turek thinks he can disprove in 1 minute the theory of infinite big bang-big crunch brought by physicist with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The analogy he then makes about a ball not bouncing back to its original point is completely offpoint, this simply has to do with energy loss during the bouncing and air encounter.
@TakashiMinamori id like frank turek to be forcibly educated about evolution and science since he cannot help but give his own ugly disfigured versions
Frank Turek keeps applying causality to say the universe must have a cause called god. Causality is a principle/law or whatever, derived through knowledge and observation of the universe like for example gravity or whatever other physical law you can think of. You can't apply a law or principle of the unverse outside it; you cant say if the principle of causality applies outside the universe!
@slimjim33332 I don't see the problem here. Would you say that laws of logic (only discovered to be applicable "inside" the universe/ I like with and without as opposed to inside and outside) aren't applicable "outside" the universe? I can't say that 'if X then Y, X, therefore Y' "outside" of the universe? Big Bang Cosmology suggest the universe had a beginning. What's responsible? Nothing? (Be aware that I'm not arguing for Christianity).
Frank is a moron. He claims to be scientific-- "because of the second law of thermodynamic" -- but fails to realize that nature is not subject to the "laws" that humans create to explain natural phenomena. Scientific laws are deduced from observations, not in ... I just realized that Frank thinks that god made the laws of nature, so he would think that nature must follow these laws. Poor premise, but I guess his argument makes sense from a deistic framework.
@rosmia2 Is that not the semantic argument, though? Humans uncover/discover the nature of the universe, and create a working definition as a representation of our understanding of those laws. I suppose it's all in how you read the context of the previous poster's comment.
@pc533ecx I've watched many of Christopher's videos. Your telling me that the 5 minutes he spends deflecting the questions with more questions like "has people following religious rules made them more moral or worked?" I'm paraphrasing a bit on that because if I typed the entire deflections he throws out there i would have ebough to write an entire book. He has plenty of time to answer he just never does.
@ialvarez357 so some college class is the final authority on morality? The question on morality is where does it come from if it is learned then a person taught to rape and kill is noral and you can't say anything to them about because who are you force your beliefs on them. if it's society then Hitler was moral in exterminating Jews
Everytime Christopher doesn't answer a question and Frank calls him on it they stop the conversation and move on. This debate is a joke. As always the "athiest" is able to dodge and not answer questions but the "thiest" is absolutely required to give complete and total answers.
@TheBigfiggity Do yourself a favor and watch the rest of Hitchens's videos and read his books. For one, the debate format doesn't always allow him to fully answer the questions that he has asked. Secondly, I'd have to say that Christopher is simply tired of attempting to straighten people out repeatedly... he wasn't asked a single question in this debate that he hasn't absolutely refuted or destroyed in the past.
To Dr. Turek-- If you believe in the big bang and an expanding universe, light years and so on. How can you believe in the widespread christian doctrine that the earth is somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old and that we are all descendants of adam and eve. Science tramples these ideas time and time again, just one dinosaur fossil shows that evolution and millions of years brought the earth to the way it is now. Strange.
The audience is fucking retarded. They ask such rudimentary and moronic questions, and even waste precious time making inane and inarticulate comments with zero relevance. They all come across as stoner, underachieving, typical college kids.
@JaguarEscarlata Excellent point. Turek's knows little to nothing about physics and cosmology. But this doesn't stop him from making unwarranted assertions and bone-headed conclusions based on his gross misinterpretations of science. He'll twist, distort and attempt anything to get science to conform to his fundamentalist Christian belief system. This is intellectual recklessness at it's worst.
Name one thing of science he twisted. Hitchens tends to stay away from the science. Do you know this? He appeals to emotion and misdirects his audience and a sarcastic undertone and jokingly misleading points. He never addressed the origins of the universe because if he did he wouldn't e able to explain how something can come from nothing.
@ScScruzer831 Neither is Turek a scientist. At least Hitchens doesn't try to hitch his wagon to science as he knows it's not his field of expertise. This is because Hitchens is an honest man. Turek's twisting of science is contained right in your own statement---that big bang means "something from nothing". It is simply not known what is/was the precursor to the big bang. Many scientists call it a singularity,--others say it's a state in between matter and energy in absolute compression.
The very nature of something as elusive and difficult to study as cosmology puts us in a precarious position. Approach with caution--what you think you know about the universe is liable to come crashing down like a house of cards. The field of cosmology is in it's infancy.
There are obvious gaps in our limited knowledge but that doesn't mean we can fill those gaps with whatever suits our fancy. Most scientists admit we are light years away from a comprehensive understanding of the universe.
Science makes a new discovery, religion Says " look how clever god is" can this man honestly say he gets his faith from astrophysics? Why even bring it up? Should I need to understand thermodynics to believe in god?
I hadn't heard of Turek before. I have to compliment him and say as a debater he is probably the best religious debater I have seen. But I do say this only because of his style, not because of his arguments. He argues somewhat like a machine gun, firing off arguments until the casual listener thinks "he must have a point". However I didn't hear a single good argument he made. I wish someone had asked him what he thought his best argument was, then dealt with that.
2nd law of thermo applies to closed systems. Since the universe continues to grow it will never be closed until it stops. But when it stops another big bang can happen. Or god fucked up.
'Just' chemicals? 'JUST'? What I want to know is what the hell difference does it make whether love and thought are made out of chemicals or out of whatever it is theists think it's made of?
Questions continue...Mr. Hitchens claims logic is a material thing and that the definition of good is whatever keeps you surviving. He makes a mistake by stating that the theist view of free will is contradictory because there is no choice in receiving free will. However, there is no contradiction since the receiver does not have free will to refuse it until they possess free will. Hitchens later claims love is immaterial then decides it is material. Turek does not comment much in this segment.
@JeremiahA40 "Turek does not comment much in this segment. " More like Turek makes a total fool of himself when discussing an infinitely looping big bang theory and/or infinitely expanding universe. This can completely fall into the 2nd law of thermodynamics for those will versed enough in those studies to understand it. Unfortuantely Turek completely does not how them (neither does Hitchens).
@adknerr I am not well-versed myself. If you have some free time, would you please explain simply what is wrong with Mr. Craig's statements? And if you can please keep it simple (i.e. at my low level of comprehension), I would greatly appreciate it.
@JeremiahA40 Well the reason why a modern basketball cannot bounce forever is because energy is taken out via sound/heat which is transferred to the air/floor. The energy isnt disappearing, just moving elsewhere. In other words the 2nd law only applies to a closed system. The universe when taken as a whole does not lose any energy either, so that heat/sound equivalent would still be within the universe so that I can be 'recycled' again.
@adknerr Thank you very much! Your explanation was very clear and easily understandable, even by me! If you have time, I just have one more question (and if you don't have time to answer, no problem.) When looking at the universe as a whole with the heat/sound equivalent being recycled again, does this mean that the universe will always expand or will it eventually reach a point of equilibrium or is there some other option? In other words, what is the general view on the fate of the universe?
@JeremiahA40 I dont think even the boldest scientist would claim they have enough information now to place bets on any one of the many theories, but my brother-in-law has a doctorate in astrophysics and if I would dare to simplify what he thinks is currently most likely is the some sort of halted expansion, little to no chemical reactions left, very cold, very dull. The idea of heaven certainly sounds better to me, but wishfulthinking may not change that reality if it's true.
@adknerr Thanks again for the explanation! Astrophysics must be an extremely exciting field of study/work. The view of the universe, and Pluto, have changed greatly since I was in school. Thank you for the taking the time to illuminate the darkness trapped in the space between my ears!
WhY doesn't it say in the bible how the it all began in detail,christians only are making up their religion as scientits are discovereing new things that christians have to answer in order to justify their religion.
I'm pretty sure in physics that when you drop the ball it transfers energy into the ground as the Earth absorbs the shock. The kinetic energy is then transformed into thermal energy in the collision. All laws of conservation of mass and energy are maintained in this manner.
To say that there is a God because the universe may have had a single beginning and you support this with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then you have completely lost me on that train of thought.
@Nexius8 sounds like survival of the fittest but that include Hitler's decision to destroy blacks and Jews for the race that is the strongest...Love, joy, peace are things that are not relative. We all have these needs and desires. To have a basic way of governing our life and then altering life to "save" it but we also murder and kill according to our own desires.. why??
@JayRdakingdomkid Well that is a very complex questions. In many of his books Dawkins looks at how 'good' is a collection of evolutionary advantages. In a quick example. Imagine two comunitys. One everyone is evil. One everyone is good. Which comunity withh grow and prosper the most? The comunity that grows and prospers the most will spread its genes the furthest. It is also worth noting that people consider the killing of similar people (genes) a worse crime than distant people.
@JayRdakingdomkid Incest is also an intresting thing to look at, from a genetic POV. Incest and close breading dramatically increases the likelyhood of resessive fatal genetic defects taking effect and killing a child. Once again a natral revolsion of close breading is an evolutoinary advantage. We are also naturally hireachial creatures and self organising into 'heards/ packs' this has further advantages. We also understand attraction on a nerual chemical level and are learning more allways.
@JayRdakingdomkid I've heard Hitchens address that question many times in this debate alone. Good is a common understanding of how people need to behave in order for a society to thrive/or sustain itself. A natural order exists within every animal (though at times it isn't apparent, as with our own species) which enables creatures to survive. Good is entirely a survival mechanism. The assumption that a diety put "goodness" in us is superfluous and has no logical basis.
@Leoorchange He spoke at my school today... he totally did... but he left himself a huge cop out because he purposely made his presentation twice as long as he had time for. So, whenever he was getting stumped, he just said oh well thats very well covered in my book and the other half of my presentation
It is similar to the paradox about the arrow crossing a room (watch?v=u42Y3RbP7JE). In the same way that there are an infinite number of positions between one end of a room and the other, there are an infinite number of moments between the start of a second and the end of it. The arrow has no troubles getting across the room, and I have just wasted several hundred seconds typing this out. With no trouble at all.
But it's not provable at all, especially with science. That is an illusion that allows Christians to feel better about what they believe and it's absurdity. If it were provable by the means of science, more scientists would believe in it, which they don't.
Hitchens' "free will" paradox is nonsense and 100% rhetoric.
If naturalism is true, we are NOT free. We are merely reacting like dominoes falling over or a tree growing a branch. Hitchens' "no choice" means he has to live under the ILLUSION of freedom.
If theism is true, then yes, free will is "given".... but we still HAVE it! We are no more "forced" to be free than under Hitchens' atheism, and he is truly free to reject who gave him the free will.
@Birdieupon hmm but there is this thing known as quantum mechanics which does mention the randomness in our universe. So I'll say; everything is 'not' just a reaction.
Ok, so our lack of freedom, given naturalism, is either determined or random. It doesn't really get you very far toward being able to assert you have your own rational self-control.
@Birdieupon I'm not asserting that. I'm simply stating that everything is not necessarily a predictable outcome from a quantum mechanics point of view. As far as my own perception of reality it does "seem" to me like I do have free will, whether I do or don't I'll say I don't know.
Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with pure randomness. It is about uncertainty constrained by laws of nature. Most blindly accept the claim that without the direction of a mind everything is random. I just want to make clear that that claim is baseless. Nature is a mindless author of a grand symphony of stars and life, music and minds.
So what if it's all just chemicals? Knowing intricate details about sugar doesn't lessen my sweet tooth. I still feel moved by love just as strongly.
@darkmiles22 I said in my last sentence that everything is not necessarily a predictable outcome, that is to say there is a level of uncertainty. Not having a prediction leaves you in a state of uncertainty, does it not? As you pointed out constrained by laws of nature, I completely agree. And I completely agree, just knowing the chemical relationship doesn't demean the grand interaction. So what was your point?
There's nothing wrong with it being chemical. What the hell are people's problems with this fact? It doesn't make love any less special. It doesn't make it feel any less special. I guarantee (and I think there have been experiments of this) that if I gave you or anyone a cocktail of love chemicals and hormones similar to the ones that are released when you feel love, you would feel exactly the same as if it were natural. I think this naturalistic view is even better than a supernatural one.
Turek is the most dishonest type of Christian. He spends a good deal of time intellectually posturing by pretending to have a working knowledge of scientific and philosophical fields he knows little about. And further he distorts and misuses his limited knowledge to make it seemingly conform to Christian theology. Thus he fraudulently gives Christianity an intellectual and objective foundation that it never had. He proclaims Christianity as no longer a faith but more of a science.
In his mind - "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is not intended for those who lie for jeebus, just as killing is not immoral if you think it's dictated by your god.
Thank goodness i don't have the bible, or any other religious text as a guideline for my morals
Picture conscious thought as a locomotive traveling through a web of tracks and arriving at several stations. You have no control over the speed or the tracks that the locomotive takes to get to the station (ie: we cannot usually choose what sensory data we perceive), however we CAN choose what routes the locomotive will take after departing from the stations (ie: we can decide HOW to act upon receiving some sensory information), and can influence the trains route.
It's interesting to me that atheist use youtube as a venting medium. I think its not just Frank Turek's view point that offends people, I think its the concept of being accountable. There is no hope in atheism. Like many atheists before Hitchins, we are just molecules and chemical reactions. This conversation means nothing because I am just atoms. Atoms that somehow making me have a relationship with a higher being that has changed me from the inside out.
@ScScruzer831 The psychological damage Christianity inflicts on followers is this notion that everything that does not conform to the dogma of Christianity is meaningless---that we are just atoms and chemicals. Atheism does NOT equate with nihilism. I'm an atheist but I hold value in a great many things in the context of enhancing human life. Atheism is only a singular position of skepticism regarding belief in god(s). There are a great many ideas and philosophies for an atheist to consider.
Without any purpose, we are a meaningless meat bag making up our own purposes as we go about. Atheism equates no outer standard, meaning morality is just my opinion over your. If there is no standard, no moral right and wrong without God or an outer entity. Yes there are many ideas to concider, but the Holy Bible is the only book that doesn't make such outrageous claims about creation. It supports the Big Bang theory. Nothing cannot create everything.
@ScScruzer831 The intolerance inherent in your belief system is so extreme and complete that it has you negating anything apart from Christianity as meaningless opinion as you proceed to equate the extreme authoritarianism of your belief with objective truth. These are baseless assertions without foundation except for a primitive book of mythology.
Problem is--this book is a pus bucket of bronze age ignorance used by theocratic institutions as a tool to seize control of your mind and your will.
The problem here is you think too highly of yourself socksumi. That book changes your heart and I am living proof of that change. It deals with real matters and makes no stupid scientific assumptions. With that aside, your assertions are meaningless dribble that have no foundation to stand on. The Bible can change a man and I have seen it. I see what a true Christian acts like and it isn't mass killings. This is a false view of a Christians. Your "will" is anarchy socksumi.
@ScScruzer831 It is belief itself and the fantasy world promises of eternal life that has captured you. Who wouldn't want to live forever in bliss? It appeals to your fondest dreams and wishful thinking (your heart). But the appeal is all emotional and not grounded in anything real if you care to put it under the scrutiny of critical thinking. People of many different faiths make similar claims as you. They can't be all right but they sure can all be wrong.
@ScScruzer831 That "change" is not for the better. I have never seen a Christian as an "improvement" on anyone else. I think moderate Christians are much the same as anyone else. "Born-again" types are another matter--I find many of them to be---how can I put it gracefully---psychologically disturbed and cognitively damaged.
"That book changes your heart and I am living proof of that change"
Millions of books, art, and poetry have changed billions of people's hearts. The Bible just happened to be one of yours. Personally, I've read many philosophical pieces and hear many symphonies that have changed me in a significant way. It is arrogant of you to believe that non-Christians cannot undergo transcendence of the self just as a Christian can.
I garantee other books has not freed you from slavery to sin. I am not talking about some kind of inspiration to be a better person according to cultural beliefs. I am talking about and inside out change that allows you to master the sin that grasps your throat and doesn't let go. Sexual sins, cursing, hatred, lying, stealing, among so many others. The Bible is the ONLY book that deals with sin properly. It's not arrogant, it is just Truth. Only God can change a mans heart.
You want YOUR god to be the cause of all the collapsing stars, imploding galaxies, destroyed universes, and failed solar systems that have left us on the one planet in this petty solar system that can support life some of the time on some of its surface. A god that filled the world with species only to have 99% of them go extinct.
I have yet to see a man be risen from the dead and I have yet to see the amount of evidence Jesus has in historical documents. there are about 24,000 original documents that were written right after Jesus'dead. So I am inclined to think this is the most significant event of mankind. We can play this game all day. I am not here to be sensitive to other false gods, I am here to propse that there is only One God and he is in the Bible.
You clearly don't know the true lack of evidence for your religion and holy book. Other than the Bible, there is only one other credible MENTION of Jesus' name that comes from St. Paul, and nowhere does he attribute Jesus with divine status or miraculous acts. All of the documentation regarding Jesus were written LONG after his alleged death. And none of them were written by the disciples.
The perfect universe is a false argument. You cannot now the purpose of these collapsing stars and failed solar systems. That actually points me to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which points to a beginning. Even Dawkins believes the universe had a beginning!!! You are arguing out of pure biased. There was a beginning and everything is heading to disorder. This universe will end and that is not debatable as of right now, unless any contrary evidence is seen.
You are right. There is no absolute moral standard or law, making human beings responsible for what we do. Morality stems from natural sentimentality and reasoning about said sentiments. Morality exists when we hold shared values with others that concern others well-being. We have to make do with what we have. And if there is no greater meaning to existence, so what?
What a dangerous view point you have. You prove my point. morality is not fixed based on an Atheist view point. So I guess we shouldn't hold Nazi Germany to any morality sense your standard may be different than the Nazi Standard. Can you show me the moral molecule by the way. I am waiting to see this amazing DNA molecule that controls what is right and what is wrong. And seeing it from an evolutionary perspective. Why do most men listen to their weaker feeling...
Mine dangerous!!?? Have you seen the bloody track record through history of Christianity and religion? More blood has been shed in the name of religion than politics. The bible ITSELF is one of the most gruesome, bloodbaths that we know of.
People have a natural approbation toward their own well-being. And if you violate that, as the Nazi's did, people WILL resist you.
If you have ever read the Bible you would see how love radiates from it. God is righteous, do not think that he is some fluffy bunny. You say Christians killed people, but you do not know what a Christian is! Anyone can claim to be a christian. Read the source and you will see that Christians don't go on crusades and slaughter people. Diluted power hungry men do with the excuse of God. Sorry to be rash, but that is ignorant to think a Disciple would participate in such absurdities
I have read the Bible, and it advocates love at some parts and wicked actions and ideas at many other parts. As such, it is not a morally-perfect doctrine.
"you will see that Christians don't go on crusades and slaughter people"
Actually, some of the "moral icons" of the Bible did JUST that.
"you will see that Christians don't go on crusades and slaughter people"
Actually, some of the "moral icons" of the Bible did JUST that.
These men were actually told by God. Samuel was actually rebuked by God for keeping some of the prime sheep. He was supposed to kill everything. You have to notice why God wanted this too. You can't say its immoral unless you know the meaning. If he didn't do it they would have been destroyed. Whats the correct decision...
I don't assume there is a god. But for arguments sake, just because a god CAN do anything it pleases, it doesn't make such a being moral, good, or trustworthy. It merely makes it powerful.
My God is the definition of righteousness. You are not. I am sure God had a cause for what he did. I haven't studied out this specific book thoroughly, but I know it had a purpose. God does not kill for fun. I now this for fact. I will study that out. I am called to talk with knowledge by God, so I would be disobeying to talk out of bias. I will get back to you on this subject matter. I am still a young christian. :)
I never claimed to be the definition of righteousness. But I do grant human beings the capacity to read an ancient text and determine if it is wicked or not. The problem is that you are basing your arguments on two HUGE assumptions (1) a deity exists, and (2) The bible accurately portrays that deity. Before you can determine whether or not a god is righteous, you must first determine that that god even exists.
I am not rambling. I am a Biology major bro. Can you please state to me the 2nd law so I can explain it too you. Turek is a smart man, you just don't agree with him. Let not resort to name calling tactics without accurate info. I am very well equipped to talk about science.
"Can you please state to me the 2nd law so i can explain it too you"
What the hell? That makes no sense whatsoever. Also, being a biology major doesn't make you an authority on physics. If you know the second law of thermodynamics so well, you should be able to state it, explain it, and show how it points to the existence of a deity.
Fine, since I suspect you have no background in science I will state it for you.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states:
"While quantity remains, energy/matter deteriorates gradually over time. Energy is being used up by a system and that system degrades and energy is lost. Usable energy is converted to unusable energy. I study chemistry also and this is very important in chem. Notice that energy is lost.
"there had to be either a Beginner or the universe must have created itself."
False dichotomy. The Big Bang refers only to the "observed" universe, or the universe that we are acquainted with, NOT the universe in it's ENTIRETY. That is a huge misconception. As such, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Universe as a whole, has not always existed.
I can debate all day on this matter. Top scientists have concluded the Universe has a beginning. You can debate them if you wish, but this conversation is coming to an end. My point to you is life is not all materials. There is a God and you will meet him. And it won't matter if you believe or not. You will not even be able to stand in his presence unless you have Christ. Good Day MrAtheism. I wish you best of luck in your future.
Since energy is seen as finite that means energy had a beginning and must of had a source. Energy is being lost. As you sit in your chair, this is happening. Chemical reactions are happening and moving from higher energy to lower energy until your dead (equilibrium). This also means a new universe cannot be created since the universe will not have any energy left to start over again. There's a beginning and an end to this universe.
Continued... Conclusion, there had to be either a Beginner or the universe must have created itself. Being a logical human being, nothing out of nothing is impossible. There has to be a simple truth. Kind of like gravity is a simple truth. You can't tell gravity to stop, you will still fall.
In addition, the Big Bang Theory does NOT claim that something came from nothing. That has to be the BIGGEST misconception of the theory. And it is evident that neither you nor Turek understand the actual theory, but only what you have heard said OF it.
No actual scholar of cosmology would claim that something came from nothing. Only religion does that by claiming that God created the universe ex nihilo. So, if it is impossible, according to you, to create something out of nothing, how the FUCK did God do it?
First of all, I think you can use more intelligent words rather than using filth. Second is I cannot give you that answer. I can tell you we all will stand before him. All I can give you from a scientific perspective is that the Universe had a beginning. And proof of God resides in my heart and it radiates from me. I am no longer a slave to this world and my sins.
Morality IS NOT fixed, and I never disputed that. There is NO metaphysical moral law, and no "moral molecule" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. There are altruistic genes and several hormones associated with altruism but that doesn't mean we have moral molecules. That does NOT mean that nobody is accountable for their actions. We are not PREDETERMINED as Turek seems to believe. We can make choices.
This ideology is one of materialism. Everything is guided by atoms and chemical reactions. How can we say that love or beauty or anything else is purposeful. We have no cause, we are just a chaotic events that happened to turn into the most complexes entities in the universe. millions upon millions of coding and all arose form a purposeless universe. There was no cause behind the universe, we all are a bunch of worm food making our lives seem better than they are. Heartbreaking...
"We have no cause, we are just a chaotic events that happened to turn into the most complexes entities in the universe"
So what?
The beauty of a godless life is that one can determine their own meaning in life. We can create our own purpose by achieveing those ends that bring us fulfillment and joy. A power we hold over ALL other animals.
"Heartbreaking"
It depends on how you look at it. Personally, I don't see life as heartbreaking.
What an idiotic title for a book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist".
WalangDiyos 1 month ago
You can tell these guys hate each other.
brajamtho757 1 month ago
Turek's basketball example is so fail. The basketball stops bouncing because energy is transferred into heat and sound. This is not a closed system. If we are including the entire universe in the system, it is closed, as far as we can determine it for now, so the energy does remain within the universe. A 2nd big bang certainly can happen, but not likely. More likely will be a very boring, cold, non-kinetic / static expanded universe. Sucks, but is likely true.
adknerr 2 months ago
3:33 and following is a lie on Hichens part:-)
girtkaz 3 months ago
Good god Turek's basketball analogy was horrid.
iz2sicc 4 months ago in playlist Theist Atheist Debate
I tried to read Turek's book and keep an open mind and not judge him to hard because his opinion are different than mine. The the book was bad, it was "I dint have enough faith to be an atheist". He just plays samantics in a very poor and unconvincing way thru most of the book. Totally dedicated to his faith in a myopic way. He seems more concerned to defend his christan culture witch he love than making some hard hitting points. He just stays in his small box
flubno 5 months ago
0:59 Hitchens -> Challenge accepted.
jlmdfnbo 5 months ago
Turek is an idiot.
Doesn't he see the flaw in his understanding of physics, when he applies the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the WHOLE universe, which is a closed system, containing ALL the mass and energy of itself?
Any energy absorbed or "lost" into the system would still be there within the universe, therefore nothing would be lost and the laws of conservation and entropy, would not apply.
Silly man! If this debate was with a scientist he'd be walking out of there very red-faced indeed!
Tobytrim 6 months ago
Thank you for posting this, Aught3.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Christopher has helped me discover the absolutely ridiculous views that religion puts forth. That being said, he is mistaken about the religious icon of Stalin with a halo. In reality, the icon has a picture of a saint (with halo) that Stalin (sans halo)
supposedly visited (probably BS).
Administrator80085 7 months ago
Hitchens..... disgraceful performance. You could have done so much better in your explanations. Why did you beat about the bush on questions which you could have so easily answered without appearing to avoid it. Horrible performance by a great man.
TheDcac 7 months ago
Hitchens..... disgraceful performance. You could have done so much better in your explanations.
TheDcac 7 months ago
He completely mangles the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Only considering classical physics I would agree with him but on the quantum level it is a stochastic law, making the continual increase in entropy highly probable rather than inevitable. Furthermore, the total energy in the universe appears to be zero, hence it can survive as an extended quantum fluctuation. He is quoting very basic physics and ignoring any of the more complex aspects of quantum mechanics.
AussieAtheist1 7 months ago
Hitch is so amazing, so well spoken!
TheSultan03 7 months ago
For me the act of description is part of this universe. So to use a tool of this universe to work outside it makes everything Tuerk says flaccid.
Lingerminator 7 months ago
It appears that the big bang is a huge sticking point when infact in modern physics theories exist which go beyond it. For example M theory attempts to explain the origin of the big bang and could be a credible stepping stone to a unified theory of everything. It seems that the further back we go in the past and explain origins of thing, religion always attempts to have the answer to the origin of the earliest thing.
slimjim33332 7 months ago
@jgraham97mc
Lol! Anything that exists may exit before our observation of it... that's just a non-argument. Correction: he is applying causality before the universe begins to exist; in other words causality must exist before the universe, if the universe must have a cause. Aside from that, one falls into the trap of an infinite regress if the causality is persued as an argument for god.
slimjim33332 7 months ago
@AtheismIzMadness Nice try ;)
MrBrational 7 months ago
Frank turek is a Turd
Hitch is the best
turek was just trying so hard no success
Johnandvanessa 7 months ago
Is the guy at 2:35 preaching? wtf? There are people in the audience with real questions.
Nerd042 8 months ago
Second law of thermodynamics?? LMAO, Frank attempts to solidify his "ancient" delusions (solely based on a 2000 year old book of 'hearsay') with "modern" science? I rest my case.
john0908c 8 months ago 2
What is the real logic for abortion? It is not so much social, but economic. New birth affects one psychologically, economically, and socially. The fetus is part of the female body, if it develops in the womb and is disturbed with have detrimental implications, because the fetus becomes a new organ (by definition), and later an organism, separate from the mother {even though scientific evidence proves that babies are surviving more outside the womb.}
elitevestigator 8 months ago
Frank Turek is quite possibly the most annoying theist alive.
Hornadayfan 8 months ago 6
Someone tell Harry Potter to shut the fuck up
Skater2Morrow 8 months ago
@Skater2Morrow James Potter actually lol
foosejax 8 months ago
@msd1835 You can't get evidence from outside the universe, that's the whole point of my arguement!! Therefore you can't apply causality or any other law to anything outside/beyond the universe.
slimjim33332 10 months ago
"I try to guard against them in myself, and I try to ridicule them in others." One of the greatest lines I have ever heard.
SyKmGl 10 months ago
4:23 - BATTLE TIME!!!!!!
Mimi2591 10 months ago
That's where you seperate the honest from the dishonest. hitchens honestly admits to not know how the universe began and to be incompetent in physics. But for some reason Turek thinks he can disprove in 1 minute the theory of infinite big bang-big crunch brought by physicist with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The analogy he then makes about a ball not bouncing back to its original point is completely offpoint, this simply has to do with energy loss during the bouncing and air encounter.
2CSST2 11 months ago
Oriental Orthodox Church??? what a loser this kid is. Didn't even ask a question. What a rude dude.
JBeezie428 11 months ago
1 Dislike.
Frank Turek.
TakashiMinamori 11 months ago 51
@TakashiMinamori id like frank turek to be forcibly educated about evolution and science since he cannot help but give his own ugly disfigured versions
superlativewoman 2 months ago
Anyone else notice that since the Q&A started that Turek has turned more and moreso again into a whiney little bitch?
freakystyley4000 11 months ago
Frank Turek keeps applying causality to say the universe must have a cause called god. Causality is a principle/law or whatever, derived through knowledge and observation of the universe like for example gravity or whatever other physical law you can think of. You can't apply a law or principle of the unverse outside it; you cant say if the principle of causality applies outside the universe!
slimjim33332 1 year ago 16
@slimjim33332 maybe, but Occam's Razor is what really destroys that argument anyway.
TheDcac 7 months ago
@slimjim33332 I don't see the problem here. Would you say that laws of logic (only discovered to be applicable "inside" the universe/ I like with and without as opposed to inside and outside) aren't applicable "outside" the universe? I can't say that 'if X then Y, X, therefore Y' "outside" of the universe? Big Bang Cosmology suggest the universe had a beginning. What's responsible? Nothing? (Be aware that I'm not arguing for Christianity).
alawrence89 4 months ago
"do we have free will? yes, because the boss says so!" LOL Classic, "go home, you are all individuals!" i'm sure you know where that one came from.
Epostaxis 1 year ago
Frank is a moron. He claims to be scientific-- "because of the second law of thermodynamic" -- but fails to realize that nature is not subject to the "laws" that humans create to explain natural phenomena. Scientific laws are deduced from observations, not in ... I just realized that Frank thinks that god made the laws of nature, so he would think that nature must follow these laws. Poor premise, but I guess his argument makes sense from a deistic framework.
Iambasebeast354 1 year ago 2
@Iambasebeast354 Humans don't "create" laws. Humans "discover" laws, discover what is already there. Now who's the moron, sir?
rosmia2 1 year ago 2
@rosmia2 Is that not the semantic argument, though? Humans uncover/discover the nature of the universe, and create a working definition as a representation of our understanding of those laws. I suppose it's all in how you read the context of the previous poster's comment.
blue1085 1 year ago
what has a basketball to do with astronomical theory of thermodynamics? he is always using examples as he is speaking to 5th graders..
trannyniggr 1 year ago
4:30 - How many joints did he just have? Did his girlfriend just leave him? Is he still with us today?
HakaWog 1 year ago 2
Does love exist outside the human mind?
Of course not.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton I swear my dog loves me
huddl007 1 year ago
@huddl007
Correction....love does not exist outside minds.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@pc533ecx I've watched many of Christopher's videos. Your telling me that the 5 minutes he spends deflecting the questions with more questions like "has people following religious rules made them more moral or worked?" I'm paraphrasing a bit on that because if I typed the entire deflections he throws out there i would have ebough to write an entire book. He has plenty of time to answer he just never does.
TheBigfiggity 1 year ago
@ialvarez357 so some college class is the final authority on morality? The question on morality is where does it come from if it is learned then a person taught to rape and kill is noral and you can't say anything to them about because who are you force your beliefs on them. if it's society then Hitler was moral in exterminating Jews
TheBigfiggity 1 year ago
Everytime Christopher doesn't answer a question and Frank calls him on it they stop the conversation and move on. This debate is a joke. As always the "athiest" is able to dodge and not answer questions but the "thiest" is absolutely required to give complete and total answers.
TheBigfiggity 1 year ago
@TheBigfiggity
Well the questions are absurd.
Objective morality, logic does not need a God.
just take some course on philosophy...
ialvarez357 1 year ago
@TheBigfiggity Do yourself a favor and watch the rest of Hitchens's videos and read his books. For one, the debate format doesn't always allow him to fully answer the questions that he has asked. Secondly, I'd have to say that Christopher is simply tired of attempting to straighten people out repeatedly... he wasn't asked a single question in this debate that he hasn't absolutely refuted or destroyed in the past.
pc533ecx 1 year ago
Damn it, it's like 0448 here, I can't stop watching
Elvarks 1 year ago
person at 4:30 should have stayed on the couch
larstait 1 year ago
To Dr. Turek-- If you believe in the big bang and an expanding universe, light years and so on. How can you believe in the widespread christian doctrine that the earth is somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old and that we are all descendants of adam and eve. Science tramples these ideas time and time again, just one dinosaur fossil shows that evolution and millions of years brought the earth to the way it is now. Strange.
naykid42 1 year ago
The audience is fucking retarded. They ask such rudimentary and moronic questions, and even waste precious time making inane and inarticulate comments with zero relevance. They all come across as stoner, underachieving, typical college kids.
mmeasy123 1 year ago
"That is a relatively hard and large question"
heheh hard and large
luckycharms8282 1 year ago
How come no one points out Turek's failure to understand the 2nd Law of Thermodinamics.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
@JaguarEscarlata Excellent point. Turek's knows little to nothing about physics and cosmology. But this doesn't stop him from making unwarranted assertions and bone-headed conclusions based on his gross misinterpretations of science. He'll twist, distort and attempt anything to get science to conform to his fundamentalist Christian belief system. This is intellectual recklessness at it's worst.
socksumi 1 year ago
@socksumi
Name one thing of science he twisted. Hitchens tends to stay away from the science. Do you know this? He appeals to emotion and misdirects his audience and a sarcastic undertone and jokingly misleading points. He never addressed the origins of the universe because if he did he wouldn't e able to explain how something can come from nothing.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831 Neither is Turek a scientist. At least Hitchens doesn't try to hitch his wagon to science as he knows it's not his field of expertise. This is because Hitchens is an honest man. Turek's twisting of science is contained right in your own statement---that big bang means "something from nothing". It is simply not known what is/was the precursor to the big bang. Many scientists call it a singularity,--others say it's a state in between matter and energy in absolute compression.
socksumi 1 year ago
The very nature of something as elusive and difficult to study as cosmology puts us in a precarious position. Approach with caution--what you think you know about the universe is liable to come crashing down like a house of cards. The field of cosmology is in it's infancy.
There are obvious gaps in our limited knowledge but that doesn't mean we can fill those gaps with whatever suits our fancy. Most scientists admit we are light years away from a comprehensive understanding of the universe.
socksumi 1 year ago
Turek is talking twaddle.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 year ago
Science makes a new discovery, religion Says " look how clever god is" can this man honestly say he gets his faith from astrophysics? Why even bring it up? Should I need to understand thermodynics to believe in god?
mountainmanbear 1 year ago
This Turek character is a clown. Aren't the Christians with at least half a braincell cringing when watching this?
findusfunk 1 year ago
Frank's got a great sense of humor.
EvolvedParadigm 1 year ago
@EvolvedParadigm
No he hasn't. He is just the joke.
SilverBallers47 1 year ago
@SilverBallers47 I wish I had an English accent.
EvolvedParadigm 1 year ago
what does good mean?... hard for an atheist and not for a jerk?... what a jerk
lukeism2 1 year ago
I hadn't heard of Turek before. I have to compliment him and say as a debater he is probably the best religious debater I have seen. But I do say this only because of his style, not because of his arguments. He argues somewhat like a machine gun, firing off arguments until the casual listener thinks "he must have a point". However I didn't hear a single good argument he made. I wish someone had asked him what he thought his best argument was, then dealt with that.
narco73 1 year ago
The basketball example is quite stupid.
The universe is a closed system, the energy can not escape anywhere.
Basic physiks
diekerze 1 year ago
2nd law of thermo applies to closed systems. Since the universe continues to grow it will never be closed until it stops. But when it stops another big bang can happen. Or god fucked up.
69Thrasha69 1 year ago
Oh Turek, surely the multiple big bang theory is EXACTLY like a basketball bouncing. I felt embarrassed for him throughout this entire debate.
I do wish Hitch would clarify his reductionist view however.
adknerr 1 year ago
'Just' chemicals? 'JUST'? What I want to know is what the hell difference does it make whether love and thought are made out of chemicals or out of whatever it is theists think it's made of?
sam51092 1 year ago
Love ¿intelectual problem? Ja
JuanPaulo11 1 year ago
The 1 person that disliked this video is Frank Turek
ObLiesk 1 year ago
Turek is coming across quite agressive for a loving christian
louiscfc93 1 year ago
Questions continue...Mr. Hitchens claims logic is a material thing and that the definition of good is whatever keeps you surviving. He makes a mistake by stating that the theist view of free will is contradictory because there is no choice in receiving free will. However, there is no contradiction since the receiver does not have free will to refuse it until they possess free will. Hitchens later claims love is immaterial then decides it is material. Turek does not comment much in this segment.
JeremiahA40 1 year ago
@JeremiahA40 "Turek does not comment much in this segment. " More like Turek makes a total fool of himself when discussing an infinitely looping big bang theory and/or infinitely expanding universe. This can completely fall into the 2nd law of thermodynamics for those will versed enough in those studies to understand it. Unfortuantely Turek completely does not how them (neither does Hitchens).
adknerr 1 year ago
@adknerr I am not well-versed myself. If you have some free time, would you please explain simply what is wrong with Mr. Craig's statements? And if you can please keep it simple (i.e. at my low level of comprehension), I would greatly appreciate it.
JeremiahA40 1 year ago
@JeremiahA40 Well the reason why a modern basketball cannot bounce forever is because energy is taken out via sound/heat which is transferred to the air/floor. The energy isnt disappearing, just moving elsewhere. In other words the 2nd law only applies to a closed system. The universe when taken as a whole does not lose any energy either, so that heat/sound equivalent would still be within the universe so that I can be 'recycled' again.
adknerr 1 year ago
@adknerr Thank you very much! Your explanation was very clear and easily understandable, even by me! If you have time, I just have one more question (and if you don't have time to answer, no problem.) When looking at the universe as a whole with the heat/sound equivalent being recycled again, does this mean that the universe will always expand or will it eventually reach a point of equilibrium or is there some other option? In other words, what is the general view on the fate of the universe?
JeremiahA40 1 year ago
@JeremiahA40 I dont think even the boldest scientist would claim they have enough information now to place bets on any one of the many theories, but my brother-in-law has a doctorate in astrophysics and if I would dare to simplify what he thinks is currently most likely is the some sort of halted expansion, little to no chemical reactions left, very cold, very dull. The idea of heaven certainly sounds better to me, but wishfulthinking may not change that reality if it's true.
adknerr 1 year ago
@adknerr Thanks again for the explanation! Astrophysics must be an extremely exciting field of study/work. The view of the universe, and Pluto, have changed greatly since I was in school. Thank you for the taking the time to illuminate the darkness trapped in the space between my ears!
JeremiahA40 1 year ago
I could watch Turek grasping for straws all night. Poor bastard is drowning in his own incompetence.
Crazytalk589 1 year ago 3
Turek cannot keep his cool!
He senses his inferiority before Hitchens.
BohemianBlasphemy 1 year ago 4
How reluctant he is to admit that, to him, love is just physical.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
WhY doesn't it say in the bible how the it all began in detail,christians only are making up their religion as scientits are discovereing new things that christians have to answer in order to justify their religion.
lllaaalllzzoo 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure in physics that when you drop the ball it transfers energy into the ground as the Earth absorbs the shock. The kinetic energy is then transformed into thermal energy in the collision. All laws of conservation of mass and energy are maintained in this manner.
To say that there is a God because the universe may have had a single beginning and you support this with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then you have completely lost me on that train of thought.
coreygames 1 year ago
this should be renamed, Christopher Hitchens vs. the whole room, and kicks their collective butt.
rns13 1 year ago
@Nexius8 sounds like survival of the fittest but that include Hitler's decision to destroy blacks and Jews for the race that is the strongest...Love, joy, peace are things that are not relative. We all have these needs and desires. To have a basic way of governing our life and then altering life to "save" it but we also murder and kill according to our own desires.. why??
JayRdakingdomkid 1 year ago
8:20 It's called gravity and air resistance you moron.
Nexius8 1 year ago
All atheists run from that question...Where does good come from if there is no God????
JayRdakingdomkid 1 year ago
@JayRdakingdomkid Well that is a very complex questions. In many of his books Dawkins looks at how 'good' is a collection of evolutionary advantages. In a quick example. Imagine two comunitys. One everyone is evil. One everyone is good. Which comunity withh grow and prosper the most? The comunity that grows and prospers the most will spread its genes the furthest. It is also worth noting that people consider the killing of similar people (genes) a worse crime than distant people.
Nexius8 1 year ago
@JayRdakingdomkid Incest is also an intresting thing to look at, from a genetic POV. Incest and close breading dramatically increases the likelyhood of resessive fatal genetic defects taking effect and killing a child. Once again a natral revolsion of close breading is an evolutoinary advantage. We are also naturally hireachial creatures and self organising into 'heards/ packs' this has further advantages. We also understand attraction on a nerual chemical level and are learning more allways.
Nexius8 1 year ago
@JayRdakingdomkid good is a concept, not a thing.
holdenbane 1 year ago
@JayRdakingdomkid I've heard Hitchens address that question many times in this debate alone. Good is a common understanding of how people need to behave in order for a society to thrive/or sustain itself. A natural order exists within every animal (though at times it isn't apparent, as with our own species) which enables creatures to survive. Good is entirely a survival mechanism. The assumption that a diety put "goodness" in us is superfluous and has no logical basis.
TheYellowTelevision 1 year ago
for a christian, astronomy that vaugely seems to somehow prove a creator when stretched is fine, biology though? bad stuff keep away.....
BillKiernan 1 year ago
who cares if love is "just" chemical or not, it really doesn't matter.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
Frank Turek is one of the best word manipulators I've ever heard.
Leoorchange 1 year ago
@Leoorchange He spoke at my school today... he totally did... but he left himself a huge cop out because he purposely made his presentation twice as long as he had time for. So, whenever he was getting stumped, he just said oh well thats very well covered in my book and the other half of my presentation
thehuman371 1 year ago
Thanks for your speech impediment-laden rambling about the Oriental Apostolic church, douche.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
It is similar to the paradox about the arrow crossing a room (watch?v=u42Y3RbP7JE). In the same way that there are an infinite number of positions between one end of a room and the other, there are an infinite number of moments between the start of a second and the end of it. The arrow has no troubles getting across the room, and I have just wasted several hundred seconds typing this out. With no trouble at all.
ElPeejerino 1 year ago
8:55 - Just a brief point about Turek's "you cant traverse an infinite number of moments" comment. It's bullshit.
ElPeejerino 1 year ago
If Christianity and the existence of God is so provable by the means of science, why bother with faith? Isn't its truth rather evident?
BillF1967 1 year ago 4
But it's not provable at all, especially with science. That is an illusion that allows Christians to feel better about what they believe and it's absurdity. If it were provable by the means of science, more scientists would believe in it, which they don't.
ButtPoopWiggle 1 year ago 5
Hitchens' "free will" paradox is nonsense and 100% rhetoric.
If naturalism is true, we are NOT free. We are merely reacting like dominoes falling over or a tree growing a branch. Hitchens' "no choice" means he has to live under the ILLUSION of freedom.
If theism is true, then yes, free will is "given".... but we still HAVE it! We are no more "forced" to be free than under Hitchens' atheism, and he is truly free to reject who gave him the free will.
It's his worst argument.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon hmm but there is this thing known as quantum mechanics which does mention the randomness in our universe. So I'll say; everything is 'not' just a reaction.
janjust 1 year ago
@janjust
Ok, so our lack of freedom, given naturalism, is either determined or random. It doesn't really get you very far toward being able to assert you have your own rational self-control.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon I'm not asserting that. I'm simply stating that everything is not necessarily a predictable outcome from a quantum mechanics point of view. As far as my own perception of reality it does "seem" to me like I do have free will, whether I do or don't I'll say I don't know.
janjust 1 year ago
@janjust
Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with pure randomness. It is about uncertainty constrained by laws of nature. Most blindly accept the claim that without the direction of a mind everything is random. I just want to make clear that that claim is baseless. Nature is a mindless author of a grand symphony of stars and life, music and minds.
So what if it's all just chemicals? Knowing intricate details about sugar doesn't lessen my sweet tooth. I still feel moved by love just as strongly.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
@darkmiles22 I said in my last sentence that everything is not necessarily a predictable outcome, that is to say there is a level of uncertainty. Not having a prediction leaves you in a state of uncertainty, does it not? As you pointed out constrained by laws of nature, I completely agree. And I completely agree, just knowing the chemical relationship doesn't demean the grand interaction. So what was your point?
janjust 1 year ago
if that fetus was on jupiter would we not call it life on another planet
worrior777 1 year ago
There's nothing wrong with it being chemical. What the hell are people's problems with this fact? It doesn't make love any less special. It doesn't make it feel any less special. I guarantee (and I think there have been experiments of this) that if I gave you or anyone a cocktail of love chemicals and hormones similar to the ones that are released when you feel love, you would feel exactly the same as if it were natural. I think this naturalistic view is even better than a supernatural one.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago
You are witnessing the death throes of religion.
321lawc 1 year ago
This section is where Turek falls to pieces completely.
frusciante001 2 years ago 7
As the debate progresses, Turek is slowly being taken over by the devil.
scary man. and full of rediculous shit, i might add.
wiz2112 2 years ago 5
ctw005 ,
Hahaha, somebody apparently didn't get the whole "train of ..." joke.
ethdaman1985 2 years ago
Turek is the most dishonest type of Christian. He spends a good deal of time intellectually posturing by pretending to have a working knowledge of scientific and philosophical fields he knows little about. And further he distorts and misuses his limited knowledge to make it seemingly conform to Christian theology. Thus he fraudulently gives Christianity an intellectual and objective foundation that it never had. He proclaims Christianity as no longer a faith but more of a science.
socksumi 2 years ago 45
@socksumi
So true.
In his mind - "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is not intended for those who lie for jeebus, just as killing is not immoral if you think it's dictated by your god.
Thank goodness i don't have the bible, or any other religious text as a guideline for my morals
tdjdk 2 years ago
@socksumi In other words, he has built his house on sand.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
@Brainbuster1000
Picture conscious thought as a locomotive traveling through a web of tracks and arriving at several stations. You have no control over the speed or the tracks that the locomotive takes to get to the station (ie: we cannot usually choose what sensory data we perceive), however we CAN choose what routes the locomotive will take after departing from the stations (ie: we can decide HOW to act upon receiving some sensory information), and can influence the trains route.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@socksumi
It's interesting to me that atheist use youtube as a venting medium. I think its not just Frank Turek's view point that offends people, I think its the concept of being accountable. There is no hope in atheism. Like many atheists before Hitchins, we are just molecules and chemical reactions. This conversation means nothing because I am just atoms. Atoms that somehow making me have a relationship with a higher being that has changed me from the inside out.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
Comment removed
socksumi 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831 The psychological damage Christianity inflicts on followers is this notion that everything that does not conform to the dogma of Christianity is meaningless---that we are just atoms and chemicals. Atheism does NOT equate with nihilism. I'm an atheist but I hold value in a great many things in the context of enhancing human life. Atheism is only a singular position of skepticism regarding belief in god(s). There are a great many ideas and philosophies for an atheist to consider.
socksumi 1 year ago
@socksumi
Without any purpose, we are a meaningless meat bag making up our own purposes as we go about. Atheism equates no outer standard, meaning morality is just my opinion over your. If there is no standard, no moral right and wrong without God or an outer entity. Yes there are many ideas to concider, but the Holy Bible is the only book that doesn't make such outrageous claims about creation. It supports the Big Bang theory. Nothing cannot create everything.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831 The intolerance inherent in your belief system is so extreme and complete that it has you negating anything apart from Christianity as meaningless opinion as you proceed to equate the extreme authoritarianism of your belief with objective truth. These are baseless assertions without foundation except for a primitive book of mythology.
Problem is--this book is a pus bucket of bronze age ignorance used by theocratic institutions as a tool to seize control of your mind and your will.
socksumi 1 year ago
@socksumi
The problem here is you think too highly of yourself socksumi. That book changes your heart and I am living proof of that change. It deals with real matters and makes no stupid scientific assumptions. With that aside, your assertions are meaningless dribble that have no foundation to stand on. The Bible can change a man and I have seen it. I see what a true Christian acts like and it isn't mass killings. This is a false view of a Christians. Your "will" is anarchy socksumi.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831 It is belief itself and the fantasy world promises of eternal life that has captured you. Who wouldn't want to live forever in bliss? It appeals to your fondest dreams and wishful thinking (your heart). But the appeal is all emotional and not grounded in anything real if you care to put it under the scrutiny of critical thinking. People of many different faiths make similar claims as you. They can't be all right but they sure can all be wrong.
socksumi 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831 That "change" is not for the better. I have never seen a Christian as an "improvement" on anyone else. I think moderate Christians are much the same as anyone else. "Born-again" types are another matter--I find many of them to be---how can I put it gracefully---psychologically disturbed and cognitively damaged.
socksumi 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
"That book changes your heart and I am living proof of that change"
Millions of books, art, and poetry have changed billions of people's hearts. The Bible just happened to be one of yours. Personally, I've read many philosophical pieces and hear many symphonies that have changed me in a significant way. It is arrogant of you to believe that non-Christians cannot undergo transcendence of the self just as a Christian can.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
I garantee other books has not freed you from slavery to sin. I am not talking about some kind of inspiration to be a better person according to cultural beliefs. I am talking about and inside out change that allows you to master the sin that grasps your throat and doesn't let go. Sexual sins, cursing, hatred, lying, stealing, among so many others. The Bible is the ONLY book that deals with sin properly. It's not arrogant, it is just Truth. Only God can change a mans heart.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
"It's not arrogant"
You want YOUR god to be the cause of all the collapsing stars, imploding galaxies, destroyed universes, and failed solar systems that have left us on the one planet in this petty solar system that can support life some of the time on some of its surface. A god that filled the world with species only to have 99% of them go extinct.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
I have yet to see a man be risen from the dead and I have yet to see the amount of evidence Jesus has in historical documents. there are about 24,000 original documents that were written right after Jesus'dead. So I am inclined to think this is the most significant event of mankind. We can play this game all day. I am not here to be sensitive to other false gods, I am here to propse that there is only One God and he is in the Bible.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
died***
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
You clearly don't know the true lack of evidence for your religion and holy book. Other than the Bible, there is only one other credible MENTION of Jesus' name that comes from St. Paul, and nowhere does he attribute Jesus with divine status or miraculous acts. All of the documentation regarding Jesus were written LONG after his alleged death. And none of them were written by the disciples.
"24,000 orignal documents"
WHERE!?
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
The perfect universe is a false argument. You cannot now the purpose of these collapsing stars and failed solar systems. That actually points me to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which points to a beginning. Even Dawkins believes the universe had a beginning!!! You are arguing out of pure biased. There was a beginning and everything is heading to disorder. This universe will end and that is not debatable as of right now, unless any contrary evidence is seen.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
Explain to me the 2nd law of thermodynamics in your own words and show me how it proves that existence had a beginning. This should be classic.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
You are right. There is no absolute moral standard or law, making human beings responsible for what we do. Morality stems from natural sentimentality and reasoning about said sentiments. Morality exists when we hold shared values with others that concern others well-being. We have to make do with what we have. And if there is no greater meaning to existence, so what?
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
What a dangerous view point you have. You prove my point. morality is not fixed based on an Atheist view point. So I guess we shouldn't hold Nazi Germany to any morality sense your standard may be different than the Nazi Standard. Can you show me the moral molecule by the way. I am waiting to see this amazing DNA molecule that controls what is right and what is wrong. And seeing it from an evolutionary perspective. Why do most men listen to their weaker feeling...
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
" What a dangerous view point you have."
Mine dangerous!!?? Have you seen the bloody track record through history of Christianity and religion? More blood has been shed in the name of religion than politics. The bible ITSELF is one of the most gruesome, bloodbaths that we know of.
People have a natural approbation toward their own well-being. And if you violate that, as the Nazi's did, people WILL resist you.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
If you have ever read the Bible you would see how love radiates from it. God is righteous, do not think that he is some fluffy bunny. You say Christians killed people, but you do not know what a Christian is! Anyone can claim to be a christian. Read the source and you will see that Christians don't go on crusades and slaughter people. Diluted power hungry men do with the excuse of God. Sorry to be rash, but that is ignorant to think a Disciple would participate in such absurdities
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
I have read the Bible, and it advocates love at some parts and wicked actions and ideas at many other parts. As such, it is not a morally-perfect doctrine.
"you will see that Christians don't go on crusades and slaughter people"
Actually, some of the "moral icons" of the Bible did JUST that.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
"you will see that Christians don't go on crusades and slaughter people"
Actually, some of the "moral icons" of the Bible did JUST that.
These men were actually told by God. Samuel was actually rebuked by God for keeping some of the prime sheep. He was supposed to kill everything. You have to notice why God wanted this too. You can't say its immoral unless you know the meaning. If he didn't do it they would have been destroyed. Whats the correct decision...
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
"These men were actually told by God. Samuel was actually rebuked by God for keeping some of the prime sheep. He was supposed to kill everything."
That only goes to show that not only are the MEN in the Bible wicked, but the god they worship as well.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
So since we are assuming there is a God. Do you think he has the right to take life as he pleases?
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
I don't assume there is a god. But for arguments sake, just because a god CAN do anything it pleases, it doesn't make such a being moral, good, or trustworthy. It merely makes it powerful.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
My God is the definition of righteousness. You are not. I am sure God had a cause for what he did. I haven't studied out this specific book thoroughly, but I know it had a purpose. God does not kill for fun. I now this for fact. I will study that out. I am called to talk with knowledge by God, so I would be disobeying to talk out of bias. I will get back to you on this subject matter. I am still a young christian. :)
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
I never claimed to be the definition of righteousness. But I do grant human beings the capacity to read an ancient text and determine if it is wicked or not. The problem is that you are basing your arguments on two HUGE assumptions (1) a deity exists, and (2) The bible accurately portrays that deity. Before you can determine whether or not a god is righteous, you must first determine that that god even exists.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
Well the 2nd law hints at a God. There is a beginning and it is proven thus far.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
"Well the 2nd law hints at a God. There is a beginning and it is proven thus far"
That's what I thought. Rambling on about science you don't understand, just like Turek.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
I am not rambling. I am a Biology major bro. Can you please state to me the 2nd law so I can explain it too you. Turek is a smart man, you just don't agree with him. Let not resort to name calling tactics without accurate info. I am very well equipped to talk about science.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
"Can you please state to me the 2nd law so i can explain it too you"
What the hell? That makes no sense whatsoever. Also, being a biology major doesn't make you an authority on physics. If you know the second law of thermodynamics so well, you should be able to state it, explain it, and show how it points to the existence of a deity.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
Fine, since I suspect you have no background in science I will state it for you.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states:
"While quantity remains, energy/matter deteriorates gradually over time. Energy is being used up by a system and that system degrades and energy is lost. Usable energy is converted to unusable energy. I study chemistry also and this is very important in chem. Notice that energy is lost.
Continued...
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
"Notice that energy is lost."
Energy is transfered, not lost entirely.
"there had to be either a Beginner or the universe must have created itself."
False dichotomy. The Big Bang refers only to the "observed" universe, or the universe that we are acquainted with, NOT the universe in it's ENTIRETY. That is a huge misconception. As such, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Universe as a whole, has not always existed.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
sorry, that last line should read "has always existed"
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
I can debate all day on this matter. Top scientists have concluded the Universe has a beginning. You can debate them if you wish, but this conversation is coming to an end. My point to you is life is not all materials. There is a God and you will meet him. And it won't matter if you believe or not. You will not even be able to stand in his presence unless you have Christ. Good Day MrAtheism. I wish you best of luck in your future.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
"Top scientists have concluded the Universe has a beginning."
Wrong.
"My point to you is life is not all materials"
Depends on how you define "life." In the ontological sense, you're wrong. In the subjectivity of consciousness, I completely agree with you.
"I wish you best of luck in your future"
Same to you.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
Continued....
Since energy is seen as finite that means energy had a beginning and must of had a source. Energy is being lost. As you sit in your chair, this is happening. Chemical reactions are happening and moving from higher energy to lower energy until your dead (equilibrium). This also means a new universe cannot be created since the universe will not have any energy left to start over again. There's a beginning and an end to this universe.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
Continued... Conclusion, there had to be either a Beginner or the universe must have created itself. Being a logical human being, nothing out of nothing is impossible. There has to be a simple truth. Kind of like gravity is a simple truth. You can't tell gravity to stop, you will still fall.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
In addition, the Big Bang Theory does NOT claim that something came from nothing. That has to be the BIGGEST misconception of the theory. And it is evident that neither you nor Turek understand the actual theory, but only what you have heard said OF it.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
No actual scholar of cosmology would claim that something came from nothing. Only religion does that by claiming that God created the universe ex nihilo. So, if it is impossible, according to you, to create something out of nothing, how the FUCK did God do it?
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
First of all, I think you can use more intelligent words rather than using filth. Second is I cannot give you that answer. I can tell you we all will stand before him. All I can give you from a scientific perspective is that the Universe had a beginning. And proof of God resides in my heart and it radiates from me. I am no longer a slave to this world and my sins.
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
Morality IS NOT fixed, and I never disputed that. There is NO metaphysical moral law, and no "moral molecule" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. There are altruistic genes and several hormones associated with altruism but that doesn't mean we have moral molecules. That does NOT mean that nobody is accountable for their actions. We are not PREDETERMINED as Turek seems to believe. We can make choices.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago
@MrAtheism33
This ideology is one of materialism. Everything is guided by atoms and chemical reactions. How can we say that love or beauty or anything else is purposeful. We have no cause, we are just a chaotic events that happened to turn into the most complexes entities in the universe. millions upon millions of coding and all arose form a purposeless universe. There was no cause behind the universe, we all are a bunch of worm food making our lives seem better than they are. Heartbreaking...
ScScruzer831 1 year ago
@ScScruzer831
"We have no cause, we are just a chaotic events that happened to turn into the most complexes entities in the universe"
So what?
The beauty of a godless life is that one can determine their own meaning in life. We can create our own purpose by achieveing those ends that bring us fulfillment and joy. A power we hold over ALL other animals.
"Heartbreaking"
It depends on how you look at it. Personally, I don't see life as heartbreaking.
MrAtheism33 1 year ago