The only proof god gives us is a book. not much but damn good evidence if you ask me. most of the things happening today were predicted in a "false" book most would say. Scientists just look more convincing because they have some what of proof about basic laws and what not. but they are trying to say this world, this universe was created out of nothing. a particle exploding in space and time. how can you create something without nothing. no mass,energy, atoms.. something had to have created this
@BaraKaStew but then you've put yourself in a vicious circle, if something has to create something, then what created god? and what created whatever it was that created god etc etc Does this not bother you, why is this not explained the book?
@TommyGuitarful Your not supposed to know unless you are chosen in the end. I've studied the bible to many times trying to figure things out and everything is says pretty damn precise and up to date even today. it predicted to many things thats going on right now. It's not really supposed to be up for questioning. That's why there is to many atheist in the world. But let the world chose thier own fate, as the bible predicted many will be rebellious and not believe in the truth.
@BaraKaStew you're just skirting around the issue, it was you who said something cant be created by nothing, not me. Nothing in the bible is up to date, it is all representative of the time it was written, as with all religious texts. You cant say "something has to have created this" and then avoid the issue of what it was that created the something that created it ...... oh no, you're religious, or course you can :P
@TommyGuitarful in an infinite system, creation is not impossible. If a man can manipulate an atom, A larger form of existence could manipulate a universe. But whether that existence gives any shit for the things happening in the tiny little sub/atomic structure it has created is another question entirely. If there is a creator it probably only cares whether his creation works without worrying about the parts as a whole just like man doesnt care about molecules as long the compound works.
@MegaPokerMon you're right, it's not impossible at all, I wasn't talking about the concept of creation per se. What's impossible is to reconcile the contents of a book written by humans 2000 years ago with modern day science. The two should be kept well apart!
@TommyGuitarful yes lol its not even translated right...The Catholics edited it all back in the day to meet their own ends. Changed the Hebrew word for Pit into Hell to boost failing church attendance.
There are plenty of claims of "proof of God's existence" on YouTube, and they all seem to boil down to one of two arguments:
1) I don't understand something about the world, therefore God is the only explanation.
2) The explanation for something we may not understand is "right here in God's word: the Bible," hence he exists.
If people were prevented from filling up space on YT with this self-satisfied pap, we'd way cut back on the number of half-baked attempts at God vs Science debates.
There are plenty of people who would consider a deity a philosophical issue in that it's a nice thought experiment. Mental masturbation if you will. However, I think the problem with assigning a deity with the property of "non-scientific" has some issues. One of the bigger ones would be that you'd be describing a deity that has no effect at all on our universe - otherwise we could measure it.
Science is the way we figure out concrete truths, and honestly, this just reeks of accommodating.
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even contradicts empirical logic.
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
Atheism versus theism: See the concept of entropy. If you truly want to be secure in your belief in the lack of a creation/ creator, then you will surely find the scientific argument based on entropy intriguing.
We all have to make a leap of faith at some point, theists and atheists alike, because at some point you must either have faith in a theory, a scientist, or some alternative. We all have faith when it comes to any belief system.
you are making a huge mistake saying that a discussion of a deity should be a philosophical issue. philosophy is question that can not be answered, religion is answers that can not be questioned. so religion does not belong in philosophy
So physics tries to explain physical world. And science is about assumptions, proofs and conclusions. But in God we believe - he is assumption and conclusion and he is spiritual cause of world. So what is the point of the video? God does not exclude science.
Science deals with material proofs, such as the earth is flat and the rest of the solar system doesn't rotate it. However science counts for nothing with dealing with immaterial proofs, such as the existence of god or mathematics ( sciencetifically you can't prove with 100% certainty that all triangle have an area that's equal to base times height divided by two, however in mathematics you can prove it to be true with 100% acurracy). Thus scientific prove is irrelevant to the existance of god!
Exactly. Which is why it's so tiresome to see theists trying to use science to prove the existence of god, and atheists trying to use it to disprove him.
@Clutchology However, if there is not the slightest understandable reason (or proof) to believe in God, then why believe in him at all? There would be just at must reason to believe in the literally countless other gods that have "existed" throughout history. And Pascal's Wager doesn't cut it. If you didn't believe before, but decide to take "the wager", God would know you did not truely believe. And if you already believed, it wouldn't be a wager....
@arjenvdziel Just because we rule out science, doesn't mean there is no understandable reason. Science doesn't exist in an epistemological vacuum. There are other valid and more appropriate epistemic methods we can use.
I believe a philosophical argument has to be formed. Science can be used to help justify a posteriori premises, but the arguments have to be philosophical in nature, not scientific.
PS. I'm an atheist. Got the impression reading your comment that you thought I was a theist.
What's more remarkable than theists using science to prove the existence of god, is the fact that they reject anything that is not supported by evidence except god's existence.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
@justforflag2 Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
You didn't answer my question. What is your reason to believe in god?
"Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?"
@1tabligh you and people like you , both of you completely wrong < and just you claim any thing from your mind , and then you think it is kind of science < it is not proof if believe any thing of your mind or from people who think like you. in short < you have to know that this world created by one god.
@lovelychances How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even contradicts empirical logic.
@disarmsmile thats wrong actually nothing in this universe is 100% accurate even proven by math. Given enough trials on a long enough timeline their will be deviation. Scientists like to believe that everything is absolute and has a quantifiable answer. But mathematics is nothing more than a set of theories to quantify our own perspective of the universe. In an infinite system there are no 100% proofs only things which appear as constants from our limited perspective. No opinion on the God thing
@MegaPokerMon Obviously, you have no formal training in math because otherwise you'd know that math isn't a science and it is absolute. Nothing in the physical universe can be described perfectly by math but there is no perfect forms or shapes in the physical universe. There are no perfect circles, or triangle in the universe and even if you try to make one there will always be imperfections in the material you use. Math takes place purely in thought in order to have no imperfections.
"Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth "will mourn because of him." So shall it be! Amen.
OMG! You are a freaking idiot! So where is your "evidence" that a man can survive three days in the belly of a whale? That it rained toads? That there was a tower of Babel? You have a book of fairy tales - why do you believe it? Because it tells you it is true? Which is harder to believe that this world - with 0 evidence of god's intervention - started from nothing or that it was made by god...who started from nothing? That said, why YOUR god?
Physics and cosmology, background radiation, expanding Universe, Galaxy and star formations at outskirt of the visible Universe, Entropy, dark matter, energy=mass*speed pf light squared, the speed of light, the periodic table. All of these support the Big Bang theory.
In 500 characters, I'll try. We can measure the background radiation, thats just the heat from the BigBang. It's now about 2,7kelvin 0 being absolute zero where no matter or energy can exist. It's slowly(very slowly) getting colder. The only "explanation" for this is that the Universe was once much hotter. This is just one example, but the referred examples i gave all come independently to the same conclusion. The BigBang happened.
Matter exists at absolute 0, it just contains no energy and therefore ceases to move. Just because the Universe was hotter does not means at one point it was a "massive singularity" comprised of all the matter in the universe as we know it. Next
Matter exists yes and has energy, just no kinetic energy. What i meant was if the whole Universe was at 0K, planets and stars would fall apart and all particular motion would cease. If you knew that much why are you asking me to prove the BigBang???
The point i'm trying to make is that you don't actually know the theory behind the Big Bang Theory. You don't know how it happened or why it happened, you just beleive it happened becase you don't actually know.
Thats a pretty bold statement. It looks to me that YOU don't know the Big Bang theory, and your not open to accept it. I'm not a physicist, i just find physics and cosmology fascinating. But i know enough that there is NO doubt the Big Bang happened. So don't let my limited knowledge and poor English discourage you from seeking answers and facts about the subject. We live in interesting times, with the LHC and other "projects" trying to give a definitive answer. The back ground radiation was a
prediction of the Big Bang, and what do you know they found it. Just like the Higgs particle is a prediction of the early formed particles after the Big Bang, so if they find the Higgs particle at Cern we know the Big Bang theory as we know it today is true.
You see the thing is that I am a physicist, and i do know why the big bang theory exists. That is also why i know that the average person actually has no idea what the big bang theory actually entails. The point i'm trying to make is that the average believer in science (one with to formal scientific education) is much different from your average religious beleiver. Neither actually know what the proofs are for what they beleive they just take someone's word for it that it's true.
I can agree with you on that, scientists are pretty bad at publishing their work to the general public and popularizing the theories. We need more people like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking to explain to the public in a comprehensible way what is known and what is yet to be discovered.(And why it's known)
The general pupblic don't have the education nor the intellectual abilities to fully understand the theories and that is if they even care enough to look into. Your average person couldn't care less about the details of evolution or the big bang theory
Background microwave radiation, galaxy red and blue shift, the ever increasing size of the universe...there is lots of proof for the big bang, you just need to remove your hands from your ears.
I cannot explain the significance of the evidence that I stated, so please google them and read the articles on wikipedia. Then, if you are smart enough, you will find that you understand why they are proof of the big bang.
Actually i'm familiar with all of those, they are not proofs, they support the theory, but without the theory they wouldn't have been linked together in such a way. So where did the theory come from?
(cont'd 3) ...experieced some kind of miracle or some kind of proof of God's existance that convinced them that this particular faith was the one true faith. So there for almost every christian has effectively fucked themselves when it comes to the arguement of proving God's existance.
ps. Holy Fuck, I did not mean for this comment to be so long! I'm sorry.
(con't 2) and that contact in and of itself is proof of God's existance. Humans by nature aren't prone to believeing something without some sort of experience to reinforce it. Abraham would not have believed that there was a God if God had not come to him and proved his existance. Therefore the mere existance of the religion disproves the religion itself. Most christians aren't technically christians by definition. They believe what they believe because they have either directly or indirectly...
(cont'd) Taking that into account most Christains say that God created the universe and it's existance, as well as our own, is difinative proof of God. And since they believe in God BECAUSE of this proof they don't have actual faith in God and without that faith God is nothing. The same arguement can be given with anything that christains say is proof of God such as miracles and etc. Even the mere fact that we even know what God is means there had to have been some contact between man and God...
The mere proof of God effectively debunk the whole christain religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Christianity based on faith, that is believing in God even without proof because he is so supreme that he need not show proof for us to believe in him? This means that if there was infact definative proof of God's existance it would cause people to believe in him because there was proof of his existance, which not what faith in a infinately supreme being is suppose to be...
I cited you extraordinary evidences and you ignored it! It is extraordinary! Otherwise if it happens every time in your own back yard it would not be asked as "extraordinary!"
lol also dude, you have "free your mind" at the end of your video.... yet you are constrained by what you see, what you perceive to be the truth because it is infront of you..... hmmm to free your mind kind of contradicts your whole argument...
if someone then challenged one of your "facts" you would be in DISBELIEF that they could think something like that, because of what you believe to be true due to "scientific evidence".
well if the same thing came from a Christian about God's existence, the same way you believe something to be true, a Christian would also, but a Christian doesn't believe in having to SHOW PROOF of God's existence.
If you need proof about the existence of God, then you are missing the entire point of "faith"
"but a Christian doesn't believe in having to SHOW PROOF of God's existence." - because they cant.
"If you need proof about the existence of God, then you are missing the entire point of "faith" " - faith is what you use inthe absence of proof. if you use faith you are missing the entire point of having a brain.
dont worry dude i wouldnt expect you to understand. assuming you mean "having a brain" as meaning stupid.
Faith cannot be explained by logic or equations, because there is literally no connection. the concept of faith is that it does not require proof. dont misunderstand, im not saying faith is illogical, thats your argument, but the idea to call faith illogical is stupid, because it is a belief.
"'but a Christian doesn't believe in having to SHOW PROOF of God's existence.' - because they cant."
hmmmm ok, well seeing as there have been MILLIONS of Christians claiming they have felt the presence of God, and much more, and your precious science will claim its all an illusion of the brain under stress or due to whatever.... it seems more like Christians are giving proof, but you are throwing it back in their faces because you dont want to let go of your precious "facts".
oh and dude answer me this..... thousands of cases occur in hospital when the patient has incurable cancer, then the next day they are COMPLETELY cured of it, and doctors go over their records to find miscalculations and there are none... the patient claims they were healed by God after prayer.... i guess your answer would be "the patient's will power stopped the cancer"
LOL yeah because will power is enough to make a tumor decease.. even doctors cant figure out the phenomenon, but you can? lol
It's no statistical wonder. You forget to count all the patients who did die from a incurable or even a curable cancer after prayer.
There's allways this small percentage that survives with or without prayer. You're looking at the wrong side of the coin. So what about the people who survived such cancer without prayer? Does God play favors?
You can perfectly explain this phenomena with the anthrophic principle.(Law of great numbers in mathmatics).
a belief that cannot be explained by logic or equations and that does not require proof is a stupid belief. calling it faith does not give it credibility. faith is illogical because it contradicts logic. im not saying its trying to be logical, im saying it devoid of logic. its insane that people base their entire world view on a belief without logic or proof!
yeah, you have something on video and you think its a ghost, nice proof. it was analyzed? wow! that settles it! nobody can argue with the fact that it was analyzed! i have a legit analyzed video of a goblin that 10 thousand people showed up to see!
Just search celestial apparitions and find the greatest number who witnessed it. Or google how many had happened!Evolution is not what happened. It's fake and it do not account to any scientific method used in science! In fact intelligent design is what brought us here to this type of technology! How do you explain MASSIVE engineering structures formed by ancient man and this is without science and school text books!
ok let me just clear this up for you niiice and simply.
God CANNOT be proven to NOT exist because he is based mainly on faith. faith is inextinguishable and cannot be touched by facts. im not talking about an individuals faith, im talking about the concept of faith.
there have been cases around the world where He has shown himself, but most people believe in him through faith, thats the whole point.
TO BELIEVE YOUR SO CALLED "FACTS" TO BE TRUE IS FAITH IN ITSELF!!
we all think that scientific facts are all true, but if you think about it, none of us have ever actually physically seen the atomic makeup of air under a microscope, (and those who have, that has been proven to them and it is a solid fact) but for us who have heard that, we must assume this is correct without solid evidence for ourselves, we think "well these hundreds of millions of scientists think this so it must be a fact"
The difference is, a Christian will not need these figures and calculations to prove God exists because its FAITH.
and you might ask "well without facts, what can you base faith on?"
ok well the existence of God has been acknowledged through the ages by trillions of people, which will date waaaay back before most scientific discoveries of today, and while theres no "video recording" of God's visual, why would SO many people have claimed to feel His presence? and thats not a fact,
but it is something that has been recorded. throughout the ages in all parts of the world. coincidence? a common form of the brain's hallucinations? of course you would say that, because its one of your "facts", which by the way.... you heard from who? you read from where? you learnt about from who?
well unless you have done these experiments and investigations yourself and found these out with EVERY person to claims to have felt God's presence, you are ASSUMING these "facts" are correct,
and an assumption is no more than someones view or theory about what they believe to be correct. God's existence is not a fact, it is for some people and has been proven by some, but for the majority of Christians, God's existence is based on faith, and facts cannot touch faith.
for some like you, facts are needed to make that initial step into faith, and you wont be convinced unless you have solid evidence. but my initial point is, do you see how the facts of science are initially based on
what a person has found out, and what they beleive to be true after extensive research. what they BELIEVE to be the truth.
interview a million Christians, they will tell you the same thing about God's existence, why? because they believe it to be true. the same way you believe your "facts" to be true.
the only difference is, when something is acknowledged as being a faith, it doesnt require figures and calculations because that would be PROVING that faith... which means its not faith!!!!
if your saying that no one can prove that god exists because their is no proof well how about this no one can prove that evolution happend because not one person expirenced it or how about your brain i cant see, hear, smell, touch, or taste it so their for science says you have no brain. sometimes you have to leave out science and just have faith. i have faith in god no matter what science or anyone else tells me and that will never change.
Scientific observation is much more than the five senses, my friend. Evolution and people's brains are scientifically observable, just not always with the naked eye. Why do you think we have all those telescopes, fossils and MRI scanners in the first place? To see things we can't see with the naked eye. If there is faith in that, its very small and not worth mentioning.
We do not, however, have a god-dar, a god-scanner or anything like that. That is why god is not a scientific question, period.
wow this comment is almost too idiotic to respond to. But for starters:
"how about ur brain, you cant see, hear, touch... so their for (therefore?) science says you have no brain".
Ok... what the fuck do you mean? Most things aren't discovered through direct ONE PROCESS evidential observations but through a rigorous synthesis of these using the principles of inductive logic. It's called the fucking scientific method moron.
Second, person experience is NOT evidence, and it never is. We know the brain is capable of deceiving you and making you hallucinate, so no matter what you are trying to prove (God, evolution, or the existence of Cheerios), you can't use personal experience. Third, I would also conclude you have no brain. You specifically.
Forth, you blatantly admit to being closed-minded when it comes to hearing and studying anything. So, that in itself is enough of for you to lose all credibility.
An interesting resource for the type of emperical evidences you seek can be accessed at Reasons To Believe, an organization composed of thousands of scientists and researchers from blue chip colleges and include leading Phds in their respective fields of study. And yes, you do have to ask. That means contacting them and engaging them which you can initiate right now.
I would first need to be convinced that science is an appropriate epistemology for the question of god before I could ever take anything they said seriously. As of right now, every argument I have seen fails not necessarily on scientific grounds, but epistemic ones. If they cannot solve that issue I cannot accept their arguments, leading Phd's or not.
Not God versus science. That is a strawman posited by misinformed individuals hampered by their own bias. God and science would be a realistic way to posit this multilayered complex reality.
lets see... its absurd and cant be proven that God created the universe, but it perfectly ok to believe the universe happened by chance? how can nothing collide with nothing and explode causing everything? it disobeys the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states "every system left to itself will tend toward a condition of minimum potential energy and maximum entropy(disorder)"... if we cant create an entropyless reaction how can nothing and chance do this?
A change in any system that has reached maximum entropy will reduce entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics only really applies to enclosed systems such as heat engines. It was postualted out of the development of steam technology. Yes it does apply to systems on a stellar or even galactic scale. It does not apply to a universe wide system, quantum systems or very large stretches of spacetime.
we are hir 4 a purpose we dont live and die or survive jus wat other said u do have a purpose and god has a plan in ur life be changed look god is so powerful that are mind cant conceived and understand,, 1 thing i can say u do not read the manual of life (bible) thats why you don't understand read the bible pray first,
why do you try to put God in a box? God is not bound to the rules He's created for the universe and life. He's not a part of the universe- He's beyond it.- then you try to think of how long it would take to get to Him - what speed? How long? You can't put God into an equation of how long it would take to cross the universe when He's not in it.... It's so hard to explain something beyond the human brain. We are the gods of the earth but we are not omnipotent. There's NO way to understand...
But It's like this. The universe did not always exist, it is not eternal. So people that claim this are false. The universe did not create itself, it did not come from nothing. I mean that goes against the law of conservation. Which leaves us with the third option, that the universe was created by a creator, ie God. The universe shows design, there must have been a designer etc. Makes the most sense to me,.
God is the most logical explanation for the origin of the universe. If you have any other theories that are valid I would love to hear them. But until then I am sticking with the God one. No matter what you say the universe started out with, matter, tiny particles, energy, gases etc. fair enough....but then how did that stuff get there in the first place?? That is what I want to know.
I believe that to conclude God from that would be flawed.
Even if a god exists, we would expect to have a naturalistic answer to 'how did that stuff get there?'. Belief in god or not, you should search out the answers.
I cannot claim to know, neither can anyone. But that does not mean that there isn't one. I would direct you to quantum mechanics. That is where the answer will most likely emerge.
I am not really concluding that it was God, but I am sticking with that for now until a better theory comes along. And even if we know exactly "how" God created the universe, and knew the answers to everything as to how God did everything....then he wouldn't be much of a God. Because if we knew how God created everything then that is like saying we are as smart as God, and that we have just as much knowledge as he does. That wouldn't be much of a God. Sure it may sound like a cop out.
whats the point on discussing this topic its not sence. what do u think ur purpose y u live?? is it just u live and u die??? no i dont think so.. 1 thing ill say to you may be u have a deep problem to ur faith! if god's not real then y ur hir? u know wat god loves u verry much just kip dat in mind
ok why does ther have to be a reason why were on earth. its only natural to survive. that is what i claim be our reason for being. i suppose you could say the meaning of life is simply to survive......
Is that eally THE reason for life? Does that really explain our emotions and why we have them in the first place? Human beings, incase you haven't noticed, don't just survive; we discover and create. We even hold personalities for Pete's sake! And didn't they teach you in school that no one is alike to another? There is a God and I'm not Him.
I met god once, He was riding the bus reading Nat Geo. I asked him what he was doing and he said "Trying to figure out what just happened"
When I told him an abridged history of the human race, and current paradigm shifts, of evolution and physics he said,"Of course, how else would I do it?"
I asked him where he came from and he winked and said "I'll tell you when you're older"
the whole god v science theory is gunna go on till the end of time. ppl that belive in god can do so but dont get all jumpy wen some1 says he doesnt exist thats there opinion if they belived in god then they will no that surely if god wanted us 2 belive in him then y not send jesus bk now??? ppl that belive in the science side of it e.g the big bang have a gd point but untill u can prove it 100% then dont go round thinking ur right. mix both theorys that might be better
very true im not saying he never did or he isnt real im just saying we cant prove either tht science created man kind or god created it we'll just have to wait and see.....
You need to make a video further away from the camera with a ton of things in the background, so you can sit on like 100 different things during the video.
You christians should really listen to this guy. If you free your mind from religion, you can stop trying to convert and study such a silly belief and actually do something productive. Like actually benefit the world rather than bring more hate into it.
Again you dont realize this "evidence" that you speak of comes down to a matter of opinion, someone could have all the "evidence" in the world thrown at them and what would be a fully convincing group of evidence to one person can be as believable as "God did it" to another person...
great video,some new material for next time missionaries come to visit xD
whenever they speak about "just have to believe" "cause his god etc..." i just replace god with SANTA,who can prove that santa didnt create everything! huh? cmon give me ur best shot!
LOL I always show them my tattoos and offer them a beer they don't stay long..when I use to smoke I would chain smoke like 2 at the same time, and blow it in their face. I'd invite them in and just smoke and smoke it was so funny watching them turn green hehe. I'd keep them there for at least 2 hours you know they were nicking to see me the next day LOL!
Well, I will give it a shot. How about this reason. Santa (aka St. Nick) was a "real" person who never claimed to be God. Also history tells us about Jesus who also was a "real" person and He did claim to be God. Jesus backed it up by what He did and said and all the prophecies He fulfilled. The Bible confirmed it as well. Oh and many other historic non-fictional, non-Christian writings as well. That is a pretty good bit of evidence which convinces me.
So how can you prove that santa didnt create everything? are you telling me that people found evidence of jesus existence? you cant back up fairy tales with other fairytales,doesnt make it any more credible,and i think those writings you are talking about was way before his time,witch only DISPROVES it more. if the events were real it had to make sense...and it doesnt,not to my scientific understanding,talking snakes ,magical trees. besides the bible contradicts itself 100s of times(fact!)
Well, I know you want that to be true but it just is not. However the good thing is that Jesus being real, you can now have hope in the words He spoke too! Real quick just to strengthen your faith in Him a bit more... The New Testament is more accurately reliable than ANY other book in history. It is backed by more evidence as fact, than any other book. So if you cannot believe that, then you cannot believe any history book ever written.
Also, since there is more factual evidence of it's accuracy and reliability, you need not worry about all those so called contradictions. The problem is not the Bible but rather your perception of it. Did you know there is a way to see God's character (love) just like it says and also then find no contradictions too? Well good news friend there is! You actually have to read it in context though, just like any other book. Also miracles are possible! Need proof? The creation itself is miraculous.
Oh and yes people did find evidences of Jesus existence. It was through many historians and even in the eye witness accounts of the apostles themselves. Of course you don't have to take the word of the Apostles if you dont want for fear of bias. You can go to the non Christian historians which wrote about Him and told the same stories. Also If Jesus is the creator then St Nick is not. The opposite of true is false.
Twisted, Jesus did exist. There is LOADS of evidence to prove that he was a real character who lived in those times. The issue you have is, is this Jesus the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE he claimed to be.
If He was a hoax, fine, leave it. But make sure he wasnt first, before you go. Think on this, what if everything he said was true. You have a problem. You are banking everything that YOU are right. Have you exhausted every avenue? Do you have an iron clad scientific guarantee He does not exist?
However if the explanation to the universe IS supernatural, why not take it into consideration? Scientists are supposed to be searching for answers, so what happens if natural evidence leads to a Supernatural being? If you already refuse to accept that your theory is flawed due to bias. Great thing about Youtube is I don't have to be a rocket scientist to talk to people. Its Youtube. If your insulted by my lack of agreement, then find a private blog. Otherwise you will have to suck it up.
We can, but not in science. Science doesn't search for any and every answer. It searches for *naturalistic* answers. That is not to say there are no other answers. Philosophy, for one, is another such epistemological method. We just need to keep science to science, and not make it anything else or we will destroy what it is. It's not bias. It's compartmentalising certain answers to certain categories. God is an answer to fit into another category than science. Why is that so objectionable?
For the record, I'm not insulted. I'm simply extremely frustrated by the amount of false assumptions you are making. And you're doing it with an arrogance too, one that doesn't seem to want to hear differently. I've tried to correct you, and you've just make more false assumptions to try and argue me. I've recommended you educate yourself more, and you want none of it. I'm not even trying to convince you God is not real, simply that its epistemology is not in science.
I'm trying to point you in a better direction, a more scientifically/philosophically correct one, and again you seem to want nothing to do with it. You're really not benefiting yourself here unless you just want to further convince yourself of your errors. If that's what you want, then there is no point in me trying to correct you. It'll just lead to a "Backfire effect".
Should they be telling anyone anything then if they do not know? Or is it then so wrong to say they don't know and that hey maybe there is a God too? Maybe the idea of evolution being taught as some sort of "way it is" theory should not be the only accepted teaching.
In science you don't 'know' anything. We can only say with probability and then give the reasons why we think certain things. But I don't quite see why a gap in science means there is a god, or lack of gaps means there isn't. I think that's an extremely dangerous idea. Science should not touch the issue of God. How can it? The supernatural can never be scientific, simply because of the natures of both things.
I personally think God is a philosophical issue, and applies regardless of whether we have a naturalistic explanation for things or not. Your idea of the supernatural being scientific is detrimental to both religion and science.
Take my advice - pick up a book and educate yourself in the scientific method and religious/philosophical and scientific epistemologies. You seem to be lacking in both areas, and arguing on a YouTube comment section really isn't going to help you.
Real fast, if in science we don't "know" anything where do we get scientific laws? An obvious answer to the question of life would be a supernatural one since science cannot give an answer as you state. When does the search stop and the acceptance begin?
We don't "know" laws. They are simply the basest ideas which everything seems to work off, and things which we have yet to see disproved. We have every reason to assume that they are true and steadfast, but we don't "know" they are.
I also never said science cannot give us an answer. I said it has not as of yet given us a solid consensus. I'm seriously puzzled as to how you not only made that jump, but went from that to a supernatural explanation. I don't see the progression at all.
Really? Was there some new theory/hypothesis adopted by big bang theorists? I would love then for you to tell me what they believe if not in Something came from nothing. I have seen school text books with those exact words in it. As a matter of fact, Time magazine did an article about scientists who say that nothing exploded into something! So if you do not believe this what is your "factual" evidence for a non-supernatural phenomenon?
No new theory. It was never an idea in the first place. Big Bang theory simply states that a singularity expanded at an exponentially fast rate. What that singularity is, or where it comes from, has nothing to do with the theory. Scientists are working on those questions as we speak, and no self-respecting scientist would tell you that they knew. School text books tell you in the layman, written for schoolchildren to understand the basic concepts. They're not aimed at real scientists.
"Something from nothing" is a cheap colloquialism that doesn't do the theory any justice. It's to the Big Bang what "survival of the fittest" is to evolution. Both are wrong. Neither were ever ideas inside the scientific community. They were layman terms that even though rebuked by scientists have somehow gotten adopted and internalised by the public, probably because they're much easier to remember than the actual theories.
Is it not odd to you that the big bang is widely accepted as an explanation to the origins of the universe? I mean that something came from nothing? Is that science? That sounds pretty "miraculous" to me. Not natural but supernatural right? Seems more logical and rational too. Just a thought.
I would suggest you read up on what common scientific views of the Big Bang are. "Something from nothing" certainly isn't it. It's not science, and it's not what scientists think.
people find it difficult to understand whatever happens beyond our world.
we as humans live in a "bubble" where we are governed by physical forces and thus are limited in many ways. to accept a GOD who is beyond what limits us, doesn't make sense to many.....duh!! ofcourse what GOD does won't make alot of sense in the natural world.....because his power is not bound by nature, physics....and all these physical things around us, that bind us and our way of thinking.
I onder who "we" is. Personally I use science all the time, God is completely irrelevant and doesn't effect my life at all, well, 'sides from the amusement i get from watching ignorant fools on youtube preaching.
Is there something wrong with my comment, did i spell "we" wrong. Anyway i just want everybody to know, especially Vampiiire that i am not an ignorant fool. I am just a person who deeply loves god and i use science all the time. So please dont call me a fool.
But doesn't science require a conscious observer. And yet there is no instrument that we can use to measure consciousness. We cannot tell if a rock is more or less conscious than a human.
So does your statement also mean that consciousness is non-scientific. . .which also undermines science itself?
Science doesn't require a conscious observer... it is there either way. As for no instrument to measre consciousness, I should think our eyes would suffice. Are you implying that you cannot tell whether or not a person is conscious or unconsious based on simply looking at them?
A rock is not conscious because consciousness is based apon an observable self-awareness from the entity. A rock doesn't seem to show self-awareness, but an animal does, thus the distinction.
turkey knives are not razors. razors are razors. just saying.
einLesenderArbeiter 8 months ago
The only proof god gives us is a book. not much but damn good evidence if you ask me. most of the things happening today were predicted in a "false" book most would say. Scientists just look more convincing because they have some what of proof about basic laws and what not. but they are trying to say this world, this universe was created out of nothing. a particle exploding in space and time. how can you create something without nothing. no mass,energy, atoms.. something had to have created this
BaraKaStew 1 year ago
@BaraKaStew but then you've put yourself in a vicious circle, if something has to create something, then what created god? and what created whatever it was that created god etc etc Does this not bother you, why is this not explained the book?
TommyGuitarful 1 year ago
@TommyGuitarful Your not supposed to know unless you are chosen in the end. I've studied the bible to many times trying to figure things out and everything is says pretty damn precise and up to date even today. it predicted to many things thats going on right now. It's not really supposed to be up for questioning. That's why there is to many atheist in the world. But let the world chose thier own fate, as the bible predicted many will be rebellious and not believe in the truth.
BaraKaStew 1 year ago
@BaraKaStew you're just skirting around the issue, it was you who said something cant be created by nothing, not me. Nothing in the bible is up to date, it is all representative of the time it was written, as with all religious texts. You cant say "something has to have created this" and then avoid the issue of what it was that created the something that created it ...... oh no, you're religious, or course you can :P
TommyGuitarful 11 months ago
@TommyGuitarful in an infinite system, creation is not impossible. If a man can manipulate an atom, A larger form of existence could manipulate a universe. But whether that existence gives any shit for the things happening in the tiny little sub/atomic structure it has created is another question entirely. If there is a creator it probably only cares whether his creation works without worrying about the parts as a whole just like man doesnt care about molecules as long the compound works.
MegaPokerMon 10 months ago
@MegaPokerMon you're right, it's not impossible at all, I wasn't talking about the concept of creation per se. What's impossible is to reconcile the contents of a book written by humans 2000 years ago with modern day science. The two should be kept well apart!
TommyGuitarful 10 months ago
@TommyGuitarful yes lol its not even translated right...The Catholics edited it all back in the day to meet their own ends. Changed the Hebrew word for Pit into Hell to boost failing church attendance.
MegaPokerMon 9 months ago
There are plenty of claims of "proof of God's existence" on YouTube, and they all seem to boil down to one of two arguments:
1) I don't understand something about the world, therefore God is the only explanation.
2) The explanation for something we may not understand is "right here in God's word: the Bible," hence he exists.
If people were prevented from filling up space on YT with this self-satisfied pap, we'd way cut back on the number of half-baked attempts at God vs Science debates.
NVanWendy 1 year ago
There are plenty of people who would consider a deity a philosophical issue in that it's a nice thought experiment. Mental masturbation if you will. However, I think the problem with assigning a deity with the property of "non-scientific" has some issues. One of the bigger ones would be that you'd be describing a deity that has no effect at all on our universe - otherwise we could measure it.
Science is the way we figure out concrete truths, and honestly, this just reeks of accommodating.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even contradicts empirical logic.
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
Damnit... I thought this was gonna be a video of a retarded Christian that made a bunch of illogical theories that I could laugh at.
Eh, I guess the video could be just as good....just not as funny
hahaha.
But seriously, this is a great video, Christians need to open their eyes.
TheAlaricPetz 1 year ago
Atheism versus theism: See the concept of entropy. If you truly want to be secure in your belief in the lack of a creation/ creator, then you will surely find the scientific argument based on entropy intriguing.
We all have to make a leap of faith at some point, theists and atheists alike, because at some point you must either have faith in a theory, a scientist, or some alternative. We all have faith when it comes to any belief system.
Sekkou527 1 year ago
cut the music
nickgoering 1 year ago
nice thoughts, keep going! you are seeking. that is good enough right now
helpmetony 1 year ago
yes it is
deluxe77777 1 year ago
to explain god you must explain self
deluxe77777 1 year ago
you are making a huge mistake saying that a discussion of a deity should be a philosophical issue. philosophy is question that can not be answered, religion is answers that can not be questioned. so religion does not belong in philosophy
brownbigb 1 year ago
So physics tries to explain physical world. And science is about assumptions, proofs and conclusions. But in God we believe - he is assumption and conclusion and he is spiritual cause of world. So what is the point of the video? God does not exclude science.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
Science deals with material proofs, such as the earth is flat and the rest of the solar system doesn't rotate it. However science counts for nothing with dealing with immaterial proofs, such as the existence of god or mathematics ( sciencetifically you can't prove with 100% certainty that all triangle have an area that's equal to base times height divided by two, however in mathematics you can prove it to be true with 100% acurracy). Thus scientific prove is irrelevant to the existance of god!
disarmsmile 1 year ago
Exactly. Which is why it's so tiresome to see theists trying to use science to prove the existence of god, and atheists trying to use it to disprove him.
Both have failed before they even start.
Clutchology 1 year ago
I like you! You get what's going on!
If you can't use scientific methods to provfe God exists, what do you use?
disarmsmile 1 year ago
@Clutchology However, if there is not the slightest understandable reason (or proof) to believe in God, then why believe in him at all? There would be just at must reason to believe in the literally countless other gods that have "existed" throughout history. And Pascal's Wager doesn't cut it. If you didn't believe before, but decide to take "the wager", God would know you did not truely believe. And if you already believed, it wouldn't be a wager....
arjenvdziel 9 months ago
@arjenvdziel Just because we rule out science, doesn't mean there is no understandable reason. Science doesn't exist in an epistemological vacuum. There are other valid and more appropriate epistemic methods we can use.
I believe a philosophical argument has to be formed. Science can be used to help justify a posteriori premises, but the arguments have to be philosophical in nature, not scientific.
PS. I'm an atheist. Got the impression reading your comment that you thought I was a theist.
Clutchology 9 months ago
@disarmsmile
What's more remarkable than theists using science to prove the existence of god, is the fact that they reject anything that is not supported by evidence except god's existence.
justforflag2 1 year ago
@justforflag2 The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Allright then. God cannot be shown to exist, let's accept this.
Now, what's the reason for believing in god?
justforflag2 1 year ago
@justforflag2 Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
It's not about being peculiar, it's about being reasonable to believe in god, no matter how strange it may seem at first.
justforflag2 1 year ago
@justforflag2
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
You didn't answer my question. What is your reason to believe in god?
"Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?"
-
I don't know.
justforflag2 1 year ago
@justforflag2
Dude, he's just spamming youtube vids. Don't reply to the guy. He's copypasting everything from al-islam org. Don't feed the troll and such. :-)
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@1tabligh you and people like you , both of you completely wrong < and just you claim any thing from your mind , and then you think it is kind of science < it is not proof if believe any thing of your mind or from people who think like you. in short < you have to know that this world created by one god.
lovelychances 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lovelychances How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 11 months ago
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even contradicts empirical logic.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@disarmsmile did you just say that the earth is flat?
JollSSteR 1 year ago
@disarmsmile thats wrong actually nothing in this universe is 100% accurate even proven by math. Given enough trials on a long enough timeline their will be deviation. Scientists like to believe that everything is absolute and has a quantifiable answer. But mathematics is nothing more than a set of theories to quantify our own perspective of the universe. In an infinite system there are no 100% proofs only things which appear as constants from our limited perspective. No opinion on the God thing
MegaPokerMon 10 months ago
@MegaPokerMon Obviously, you have no formal training in math because otherwise you'd know that math isn't a science and it is absolute. Nothing in the physical universe can be described perfectly by math but there is no perfect forms or shapes in the physical universe. There are no perfect circles, or triangle in the universe and even if you try to make one there will always be imperfections in the material you use. Math takes place purely in thought in order to have no imperfections.
disarmsmile 10 months ago
"Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth "will mourn because of him." So shall it be! Amen.
Rev1:7
30cuteforever 2 years ago
Wow, an intellectual chav. He even gets a knife out at the end.
Dear Lord !!
JohanElectric 2 years ago
ocham's razor
adirm18 2 years ago
More like Dagenham's
JohanElectric 2 years ago
We have the bible
What do we have to show for monkeys to humans? nothing
big bang? nothing
I suppose a scientist got his hands on some of this and proved it? sure he did
btheking4 2 years ago
OMG! You are a freaking idiot! So where is your "evidence" that a man can survive three days in the belly of a whale? That it rained toads? That there was a tower of Babel? You have a book of fairy tales - why do you believe it? Because it tells you it is true? Which is harder to believe that this world - with 0 evidence of god's intervention - started from nothing or that it was made by god...who started from nothing? That said, why YOUR god?
vivalaleta 2 years ago
first tell me this where is your evidence that the big bang is true?
btheking4 2 years ago
Physics and cosmology, background radiation, expanding Universe, Galaxy and star formations at outskirt of the visible Universe, Entropy, dark matter, energy=mass*speed pf light squared, the speed of light, the periodic table. All of these support the Big Bang theory.
baldurus1 2 years ago
1. I also beleive in the Big Bang Theory so i'm not trying to disprove it
2. Do you actually know how these things that you've meantioned are evidence that the Big Bang actually occured? If you do I'd like to hear it!
disarmsmile 1 year ago
In 500 characters, I'll try. We can measure the background radiation, thats just the heat from the BigBang. It's now about 2,7kelvin 0 being absolute zero where no matter or energy can exist. It's slowly(very slowly) getting colder. The only "explanation" for this is that the Universe was once much hotter. This is just one example, but the referred examples i gave all come independently to the same conclusion. The BigBang happened.
baldurus1 1 year ago
Matter exists at absolute 0, it just contains no energy and therefore ceases to move. Just because the Universe was hotter does not means at one point it was a "massive singularity" comprised of all the matter in the universe as we know it. Next
disarmsmile 1 year ago
Matter exists yes and has energy, just no kinetic energy. What i meant was if the whole Universe was at 0K, planets and stars would fall apart and all particular motion would cease. If you knew that much why are you asking me to prove the BigBang???
baldurus1 1 year ago
The point i'm trying to make is that you don't actually know the theory behind the Big Bang Theory. You don't know how it happened or why it happened, you just beleive it happened becase you don't actually know.
disarmsmile 1 year ago
Thats a pretty bold statement. It looks to me that YOU don't know the Big Bang theory, and your not open to accept it. I'm not a physicist, i just find physics and cosmology fascinating. But i know enough that there is NO doubt the Big Bang happened. So don't let my limited knowledge and poor English discourage you from seeking answers and facts about the subject. We live in interesting times, with the LHC and other "projects" trying to give a definitive answer. The back ground radiation was a
baldurus1 1 year ago
prediction of the Big Bang, and what do you know they found it. Just like the Higgs particle is a prediction of the early formed particles after the Big Bang, so if they find the Higgs particle at Cern we know the Big Bang theory as we know it today is true.
baldurus1 1 year ago
You see the thing is that I am a physicist, and i do know why the big bang theory exists. That is also why i know that the average person actually has no idea what the big bang theory actually entails. The point i'm trying to make is that the average believer in science (one with to formal scientific education) is much different from your average religious beleiver. Neither actually know what the proofs are for what they beleive they just take someone's word for it that it's true.
disarmsmile 1 year ago
I can agree with you on that, scientists are pretty bad at publishing their work to the general public and popularizing the theories. We need more people like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking to explain to the public in a comprehensible way what is known and what is yet to be discovered.(And why it's known)
baldurus1 1 year ago
The general pupblic don't have the education nor the intellectual abilities to fully understand the theories and that is if they even care enough to look into. Your average person couldn't care less about the details of evolution or the big bang theory
disarmsmile 1 year ago
That may be true.
baldurus1 1 year ago
Background microwave radiation, galaxy red and blue shift, the ever increasing size of the universe...there is lots of proof for the big bang, you just need to remove your hands from your ears.
Zombiefruit 2 years ago
How are thoses proof?
disarmsmile 1 year ago
I cannot explain the significance of the evidence that I stated, so please google them and read the articles on wikipedia. Then, if you are smart enough, you will find that you understand why they are proof of the big bang.
Zombiefruit 1 year ago
Actually i'm familiar with all of those, they are not proofs, they support the theory, but without the theory they wouldn't have been linked together in such a way. So where did the theory come from?
disarmsmile 1 year ago
(cont'd 3) ...experieced some kind of miracle or some kind of proof of God's existance that convinced them that this particular faith was the one true faith. So there for almost every christian has effectively fucked themselves when it comes to the arguement of proving God's existance.
ps. Holy Fuck, I did not mean for this comment to be so long! I'm sorry.
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
(con't 2) and that contact in and of itself is proof of God's existance. Humans by nature aren't prone to believeing something without some sort of experience to reinforce it. Abraham would not have believed that there was a God if God had not come to him and proved his existance. Therefore the mere existance of the religion disproves the religion itself. Most christians aren't technically christians by definition. They believe what they believe because they have either directly or indirectly...
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
(cont'd) Taking that into account most Christains say that God created the universe and it's existance, as well as our own, is difinative proof of God. And since they believe in God BECAUSE of this proof they don't have actual faith in God and without that faith God is nothing. The same arguement can be given with anything that christains say is proof of God such as miracles and etc. Even the mere fact that we even know what God is means there had to have been some contact between man and God...
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
The mere proof of God effectively debunk the whole christain religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Christianity based on faith, that is believing in God even without proof because he is so supreme that he need not show proof for us to believe in him? This means that if there was infact definative proof of God's existance it would cause people to believe in him because there was proof of his existance, which not what faith in a infinately supreme being is suppose to be...
BeekersSqueakers 2 years ago
watch?v=J7wD20TeQFg
youpussy9 2 years ago
I cited you extraordinary evidences and you ignored it! It is extraordinary! Otherwise if it happens every time in your own back yard it would not be asked as "extraordinary!"
youpussy9 2 years ago
lol also dude, you have "free your mind" at the end of your video.... yet you are constrained by what you see, what you perceive to be the truth because it is infront of you..... hmmm to free your mind kind of contradicts your whole argument...
raneanubis 2 years ago
if someone then challenged one of your "facts" you would be in DISBELIEF that they could think something like that, because of what you believe to be true due to "scientific evidence".
well if the same thing came from a Christian about God's existence, the same way you believe something to be true, a Christian would also, but a Christian doesn't believe in having to SHOW PROOF of God's existence.
If you need proof about the existence of God, then you are missing the entire point of "faith"
raneanubis 2 years ago
"but a Christian doesn't believe in having to SHOW PROOF of God's existence." - because they cant.
"If you need proof about the existence of God, then you are missing the entire point of "faith" " - faith is what you use inthe absence of proof. if you use faith you are missing the entire point of having a brain.
errskin 2 years ago
dont worry dude i wouldnt expect you to understand. assuming you mean "having a brain" as meaning stupid.
Faith cannot be explained by logic or equations, because there is literally no connection. the concept of faith is that it does not require proof. dont misunderstand, im not saying faith is illogical, thats your argument, but the idea to call faith illogical is stupid, because it is a belief.
raneanubis 2 years ago
and:
"'but a Christian doesn't believe in having to SHOW PROOF of God's existence.' - because they cant."
hmmmm ok, well seeing as there have been MILLIONS of Christians claiming they have felt the presence of God, and much more, and your precious science will claim its all an illusion of the brain under stress or due to whatever.... it seems more like Christians are giving proof, but you are throwing it back in their faces because you dont want to let go of your precious "facts".
raneanubis 2 years ago
oh and dude answer me this..... thousands of cases occur in hospital when the patient has incurable cancer, then the next day they are COMPLETELY cured of it, and doctors go over their records to find miscalculations and there are none... the patient claims they were healed by God after prayer.... i guess your answer would be "the patient's will power stopped the cancer"
LOL yeah because will power is enough to make a tumor decease.. even doctors cant figure out the phenomenon, but you can? lol
raneanubis 2 years ago
It's no statistical wonder. You forget to count all the patients who did die from a incurable or even a curable cancer after prayer.
There's allways this small percentage that survives with or without prayer. You're looking at the wrong side of the coin. So what about the people who survived such cancer without prayer? Does God play favors?
You can perfectly explain this phenomena with the anthrophic principle.(Law of great numbers in mathmatics).
DinkyDoeDoe 2 years ago
"Faith cannot be explained by logic or equations, because there is literally no connection"
"im not saying faith is illogical"- but you just did.
"the concept of faith is that it does not require proof." - which is illogical.
"because it is a belief" - its illogical to beleive something that you know isn't true.
errskin 2 years ago
a belief that cannot be explained by logic or equations and that does not require proof is a stupid belief. calling it faith does not give it credibility. faith is illogical because it contradicts logic. im not saying its trying to be logical, im saying it devoid of logic. its insane that people base their entire world view on a belief without logic or proof!
errskin 2 years ago
We have proof of celestial apparitions. It's legit video capture it was analyzed there's over 500 thousand people who showed up just to see it!
youpussy9 2 years ago
yeah, you have something on video and you think its a ghost, nice proof. it was analyzed? wow! that settles it! nobody can argue with the fact that it was analyzed! i have a legit analyzed video of a goblin that 10 thousand people showed up to see!
errskin 2 years ago
Just search celestial apparitions and find the greatest number who witnessed it. Or google how many had happened!Evolution is not what happened. It's fake and it do not account to any scientific method used in science! In fact intelligent design is what brought us here to this type of technology! How do you explain MASSIVE engineering structures formed by ancient man and this is without science and school text books!
youpussy9 2 years ago
ok let me just clear this up for you niiice and simply.
God CANNOT be proven to NOT exist because he is based mainly on faith. faith is inextinguishable and cannot be touched by facts. im not talking about an individuals faith, im talking about the concept of faith.
there have been cases around the world where He has shown himself, but most people believe in him through faith, thats the whole point.
TO BELIEVE YOUR SO CALLED "FACTS" TO BE TRUE IS FAITH IN ITSELF!!
raneanubis 2 years ago
we all think that scientific facts are all true, but if you think about it, none of us have ever actually physically seen the atomic makeup of air under a microscope, (and those who have, that has been proven to them and it is a solid fact) but for us who have heard that, we must assume this is correct without solid evidence for ourselves, we think "well these hundreds of millions of scientists think this so it must be a fact"
equally, a Christian can say the same thing.
raneanubis 2 years ago
The difference is, a Christian will not need these figures and calculations to prove God exists because its FAITH.
and you might ask "well without facts, what can you base faith on?"
ok well the existence of God has been acknowledged through the ages by trillions of people, which will date waaaay back before most scientific discoveries of today, and while theres no "video recording" of God's visual, why would SO many people have claimed to feel His presence? and thats not a fact,
raneanubis 2 years ago
but it is something that has been recorded. throughout the ages in all parts of the world. coincidence? a common form of the brain's hallucinations? of course you would say that, because its one of your "facts", which by the way.... you heard from who? you read from where? you learnt about from who?
well unless you have done these experiments and investigations yourself and found these out with EVERY person to claims to have felt God's presence, you are ASSUMING these "facts" are correct,
raneanubis 2 years ago
and an assumption is no more than someones view or theory about what they believe to be correct. God's existence is not a fact, it is for some people and has been proven by some, but for the majority of Christians, God's existence is based on faith, and facts cannot touch faith.
for some like you, facts are needed to make that initial step into faith, and you wont be convinced unless you have solid evidence. but my initial point is, do you see how the facts of science are initially based on
raneanubis 2 years ago
what a person has found out, and what they beleive to be true after extensive research. what they BELIEVE to be the truth.
interview a million Christians, they will tell you the same thing about God's existence, why? because they believe it to be true. the same way you believe your "facts" to be true.
the only difference is, when something is acknowledged as being a faith, it doesnt require figures and calculations because that would be PROVING that faith... which means its not faith!!!!
raneanubis 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now this is the story all about how
My life got flipped, turned upside down
And Id like to take a minute just sit right there
Ill tell you how I became the prince of a town called bel-air
URStouped 2 years ago
if your saying that no one can prove that god exists because their is no proof well how about this no one can prove that evolution happend because not one person expirenced it or how about your brain i cant see, hear, smell, touch, or taste it so their for science says you have no brain. sometimes you have to leave out science and just have faith. i have faith in god no matter what science or anyone else tells me and that will never change.
fdawg309 2 years ago
Scientific observation is much more than the five senses, my friend. Evolution and people's brains are scientifically observable, just not always with the naked eye. Why do you think we have all those telescopes, fossils and MRI scanners in the first place? To see things we can't see with the naked eye. If there is faith in that, its very small and not worth mentioning.
We do not, however, have a god-dar, a god-scanner or anything like that. That is why god is not a scientific question, period.
Clutchology 2 years ago
Just be honest. Even if we could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there wasn't a god, you wouldn't want to know.
H4I2I2EE 2 years ago
wow this comment is almost too idiotic to respond to. But for starters:
"how about ur brain, you cant see, hear, touch... so their for (therefore?) science says you have no brain".
Ok... what the fuck do you mean? Most things aren't discovered through direct ONE PROCESS evidential observations but through a rigorous synthesis of these using the principles of inductive logic. It's called the fucking scientific method moron.
iridethewave 2 years ago
Second, person experience is NOT evidence, and it never is. We know the brain is capable of deceiving you and making you hallucinate, so no matter what you are trying to prove (God, evolution, or the existence of Cheerios), you can't use personal experience. Third, I would also conclude you have no brain. You specifically.
Saxyman14 2 years ago
Forth, you blatantly admit to being closed-minded when it comes to hearing and studying anything. So, that in itself is enough of for you to lose all credibility.
Saxyman14 2 years ago
b/c you're a fucking fool who believes in fairy tales
earleyboy 2 years ago
An interesting resource for the type of emperical evidences you seek can be accessed at Reasons To Believe, an organization composed of thousands of scientists and researchers from blue chip colleges and include leading Phds in their respective fields of study. And yes, you do have to ask. That means contacting them and engaging them which you can initiate right now.
CHWful 2 years ago
I would first need to be convinced that science is an appropriate epistemology for the question of god before I could ever take anything they said seriously. As of right now, every argument I have seen fails not necessarily on scientific grounds, but epistemic ones. If they cannot solve that issue I cannot accept their arguments, leading Phd's or not.
Clutchology 2 years ago
Not God versus science. That is a strawman posited by misinformed individuals hampered by their own bias. God and science would be a realistic way to posit this multilayered complex reality.
CHWful 2 years ago
hey pizza face prove that the big bang happened if your so much into this science who knows what happened science cant 100% prove it
JrNba32 2 years ago
Can u 100% prove that god did this?
k30spartan 2 years ago
lets see... its absurd and cant be proven that God created the universe, but it perfectly ok to believe the universe happened by chance? how can nothing collide with nothing and explode causing everything? it disobeys the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states "every system left to itself will tend toward a condition of minimum potential energy and maximum entropy(disorder)"... if we cant create an entropyless reaction how can nothing and chance do this?
bashnslash 2 years ago
A change in any system that has reached maximum entropy will reduce entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics only really applies to enclosed systems such as heat engines. It was postualted out of the development of steam technology. Yes it does apply to systems on a stellar or even galactic scale. It does not apply to a universe wide system, quantum systems or very large stretches of spacetime.
herbiepop 2 years ago
you have too many pimples....pop them...
signintt 2 years ago
I think in the year and a half since I made this video that they successfully subsided on their own, thanks.
Clutchology 2 years ago
we are hir 4 a purpose we dont live and die or survive jus wat other said u do have a purpose and god has a plan in ur life be changed look god is so powerful that are mind cant conceived and understand,, 1 thing i can say u do not read the manual of life (bible) thats why you don't understand read the bible pray first,
keganagana 2 years ago
to really know what you are talking about you should read the bible. and know everything about science and the bible and what not...
anisemifightio888 2 years ago
i think that god is nothing just a hoax. science has proven so much that religion hasn't. if someone doesn't agree lets talk about it
DEADSILENCE122 2 years ago
Yeah, lets discuse this shall we? I'll post a video response and you do the same. You first... :) I'm serious.
kaline7 2 years ago
ya i dont do video comments... so im gunna stick to the facts
DEADSILENCE122 2 years ago
"i think that god is nothing just a hoax."
Can you please provide evidence to support your claim?
RebelRay 2 years ago
or maybe you can provide evidence of god's existence and that will automatically prove him wrong... and i mean solid evidence
sarkerm2 2 years ago
finaly .... some one who belives the same as i do ...
PuNkBoY9412 2 years ago
why do you try to put God in a box? God is not bound to the rules He's created for the universe and life. He's not a part of the universe- He's beyond it.- then you try to think of how long it would take to get to Him - what speed? How long? You can't put God into an equation of how long it would take to cross the universe when He's not in it.... It's so hard to explain something beyond the human brain. We are the gods of the earth but we are not omnipotent. There's NO way to understand...
KheaDan 2 years ago
Point well made! kudos! :)
Isabelizza 2 years ago
the boy's got a point here. I like you're thinking clutchology
THEDARKHORSE1987 2 years ago
But It's like this. The universe did not always exist, it is not eternal. So people that claim this are false. The universe did not create itself, it did not come from nothing. I mean that goes against the law of conservation. Which leaves us with the third option, that the universe was created by a creator, ie God. The universe shows design, there must have been a designer etc. Makes the most sense to me,.
pricer5 2 years ago
God is the most logical explanation for the origin of the universe. If you have any other theories that are valid I would love to hear them. But until then I am sticking with the God one. No matter what you say the universe started out with, matter, tiny particles, energy, gases etc. fair enough....but then how did that stuff get there in the first place?? That is what I want to know.
pricer5 2 years ago
I believe that to conclude God from that would be flawed.
Even if a god exists, we would expect to have a naturalistic answer to 'how did that stuff get there?'. Belief in god or not, you should search out the answers.
I cannot claim to know, neither can anyone. But that does not mean that there isn't one. I would direct you to quantum mechanics. That is where the answer will most likely emerge.
Clutchology 2 years ago
I am not really concluding that it was God, but I am sticking with that for now until a better theory comes along. And even if we know exactly "how" God created the universe, and knew the answers to everything as to how God did everything....then he wouldn't be much of a God. Because if we knew how God created everything then that is like saying we are as smart as God, and that we have just as much knowledge as he does. That wouldn't be much of a God. Sure it may sound like a cop out.
pricer5 2 years ago
Good video. I especially liked your deployment of Ockham's Cheese Knife!
logician360 2 years ago
jesus forever
mina319 2 years ago
whats the point on discussing this topic its not sence. what do u think ur purpose y u live?? is it just u live and u die??? no i dont think so.. 1 thing ill say to you may be u have a deep problem to ur faith! if god's not real then y ur hir? u know wat god loves u verry much just kip dat in mind
keganagana 2 years ago
ok why does ther have to be a reason why were on earth. its only natural to survive. that is what i claim be our reason for being. i suppose you could say the meaning of life is simply to survive......
boon12345 2 years ago 2
Is that eally THE reason for life? Does that really explain our emotions and why we have them in the first place? Human beings, incase you haven't noticed, don't just survive; we discover and create. We even hold personalities for Pete's sake! And didn't they teach you in school that no one is alike to another? There is a God and I'm not Him.
kaline7 2 years ago
I met god once, He was riding the bus reading Nat Geo. I asked him what he was doing and he said "Trying to figure out what just happened"
When I told him an abridged history of the human race, and current paradigm shifts, of evolution and physics he said,"Of course, how else would I do it?"
I asked him where he came from and he winked and said "I'll tell you when you're older"
Vennificus 2 years ago
i liked this.
greghsi 2 years ago
the whole god v science theory is gunna go on till the end of time. ppl that belive in god can do so but dont get all jumpy wen some1 says he doesnt exist thats there opinion if they belived in god then they will no that surely if god wanted us 2 belive in him then y not send jesus bk now??? ppl that belive in the science side of it e.g the big bang have a gd point but untill u can prove it 100% then dont go round thinking ur right. mix both theorys that might be better
zigzigy 3 years ago
God Doesn't Need To Send Jesus Back Down Its Either You Believe In Him Or You Dont
plus theres no evidence that he isnt real
you cant just infer that some one is dead if he/she has disappeared , but you also cant say that he/she is alive either
AMOS1523 2 years ago
very true im not saying he never did or he isnt real im just saying we cant prove either tht science created man kind or god created it we'll just have to wait and see.....
zigzigy 2 years ago
You need to make a video further away from the camera with a ton of things in the background, so you can sit on like 100 different things during the video.
ramdillian 3 years ago 2
you use chance as an explanation to everything
brbjuke45 3 years ago
When have you heard me, and I mean me, not anybody else, use chance as an explanation for anything?
Clutchology 3 years ago
Godbless everyone and everybody!!!!! jesus loves all of you!!!
psp05 3 years ago 2
You christians should really listen to this guy. If you free your mind from religion, you can stop trying to convert and study such a silly belief and actually do something productive. Like actually benefit the world rather than bring more hate into it.
KioMetalFan 3 years ago
bloodbought shush cause youre taking up all the comment space,just PM them,like i did to you,hope you got it
twisted709 3 years ago
Again you dont realize this "evidence" that you speak of comes down to a matter of opinion, someone could have all the "evidence" in the world thrown at them and what would be a fully convincing group of evidence to one person can be as believable as "God did it" to another person...
2011Productions 3 years ago
That clicking noise is from a cell phone to close to your computer or video cam.
I suggest moving it even when they are idol they can send and receive radio frequencies that are as powerful as a microwave oven.
Nice video besides the clicking you seem to know your stuff....
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
great video,some new material for next time missionaries come to visit xD
whenever they speak about "just have to believe" "cause his god etc..." i just replace god with SANTA,who can prove that santa didnt create everything! huh? cmon give me ur best shot!
twisted709 3 years ago
LOL I always show them my tattoos and offer them a beer they don't stay long..when I use to smoke I would chain smoke like 2 at the same time, and blow it in their face. I'd invite them in and just smoke and smoke it was so funny watching them turn green hehe. I'd keep them there for at least 2 hours you know they were nicking to see me the next day LOL!
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
Well, I will give it a shot. How about this reason. Santa (aka St. Nick) was a "real" person who never claimed to be God. Also history tells us about Jesus who also was a "real" person and He did claim to be God. Jesus backed it up by what He did and said and all the prophecies He fulfilled. The Bible confirmed it as well. Oh and many other historic non-fictional, non-Christian writings as well. That is a pretty good bit of evidence which convinces me.
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
So how can you prove that santa didnt create everything? are you telling me that people found evidence of jesus existence? you cant back up fairy tales with other fairytales,doesnt make it any more credible,and i think those writings you are talking about was way before his time,witch only DISPROVES it more. if the events were real it had to make sense...and it doesnt,not to my scientific understanding,talking snakes ,magical trees. besides the bible contradicts itself 100s of times(fact!)
twisted709 3 years ago
Well, I know you want that to be true but it just is not. However the good thing is that Jesus being real, you can now have hope in the words He spoke too! Real quick just to strengthen your faith in Him a bit more... The New Testament is more accurately reliable than ANY other book in history. It is backed by more evidence as fact, than any other book. So if you cannot believe that, then you cannot believe any history book ever written.
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
Also, since there is more factual evidence of it's accuracy and reliability, you need not worry about all those so called contradictions. The problem is not the Bible but rather your perception of it. Did you know there is a way to see God's character (love) just like it says and also then find no contradictions too? Well good news friend there is! You actually have to read it in context though, just like any other book. Also miracles are possible! Need proof? The creation itself is miraculous.
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
Oh and yes people did find evidences of Jesus existence. It was through many historians and even in the eye witness accounts of the apostles themselves. Of course you don't have to take the word of the Apostles if you dont want for fear of bias. You can go to the non Christian historians which wrote about Him and told the same stories. Also If Jesus is the creator then St Nick is not. The opposite of true is false.
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
Twisted, Jesus did exist. There is LOADS of evidence to prove that he was a real character who lived in those times. The issue you have is, is this Jesus the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE he claimed to be.
If He was a hoax, fine, leave it. But make sure he wasnt first, before you go. Think on this, what if everything he said was true. You have a problem. You are banking everything that YOU are right. Have you exhausted every avenue? Do you have an iron clad scientific guarantee He does not exist?
BrotherOfTheSon 3 years ago
However if the explanation to the universe IS supernatural, why not take it into consideration? Scientists are supposed to be searching for answers, so what happens if natural evidence leads to a Supernatural being? If you already refuse to accept that your theory is flawed due to bias. Great thing about Youtube is I don't have to be a rocket scientist to talk to people. Its Youtube. If your insulted by my lack of agreement, then find a private blog. Otherwise you will have to suck it up.
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
We can, but not in science. Science doesn't search for any and every answer. It searches for *naturalistic* answers. That is not to say there are no other answers. Philosophy, for one, is another such epistemological method. We just need to keep science to science, and not make it anything else or we will destroy what it is. It's not bias. It's compartmentalising certain answers to certain categories. God is an answer to fit into another category than science. Why is that so objectionable?
Clutchology 3 years ago
For the record, I'm not insulted. I'm simply extremely frustrated by the amount of false assumptions you are making. And you're doing it with an arrogance too, one that doesn't seem to want to hear differently. I've tried to correct you, and you've just make more false assumptions to try and argue me. I've recommended you educate yourself more, and you want none of it. I'm not even trying to convince you God is not real, simply that its epistemology is not in science.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I'm trying to point you in a better direction, a more scientifically/philosophically correct one, and again you seem to want nothing to do with it. You're really not benefiting yourself here unless you just want to further convince yourself of your errors. If that's what you want, then there is no point in me trying to correct you. It'll just lead to a "Backfire effect".
Clutchology 3 years ago
Should they be telling anyone anything then if they do not know? Or is it then so wrong to say they don't know and that hey maybe there is a God too? Maybe the idea of evolution being taught as some sort of "way it is" theory should not be the only accepted teaching.
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
In science you don't 'know' anything. We can only say with probability and then give the reasons why we think certain things. But I don't quite see why a gap in science means there is a god, or lack of gaps means there isn't. I think that's an extremely dangerous idea. Science should not touch the issue of God. How can it? The supernatural can never be scientific, simply because of the natures of both things.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I personally think God is a philosophical issue, and applies regardless of whether we have a naturalistic explanation for things or not. Your idea of the supernatural being scientific is detrimental to both religion and science.
Take my advice - pick up a book and educate yourself in the scientific method and religious/philosophical and scientific epistemologies. You seem to be lacking in both areas, and arguing on a YouTube comment section really isn't going to help you.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Real fast, if in science we don't "know" anything where do we get scientific laws? An obvious answer to the question of life would be a supernatural one since science cannot give an answer as you state. When does the search stop and the acceptance begin?
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
We don't "know" laws. They are simply the basest ideas which everything seems to work off, and things which we have yet to see disproved. We have every reason to assume that they are true and steadfast, but we don't "know" they are.
I also never said science cannot give us an answer. I said it has not as of yet given us a solid consensus. I'm seriously puzzled as to how you not only made that jump, but went from that to a supernatural explanation. I don't see the progression at all.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Really? Was there some new theory/hypothesis adopted by big bang theorists? I would love then for you to tell me what they believe if not in Something came from nothing. I have seen school text books with those exact words in it. As a matter of fact, Time magazine did an article about scientists who say that nothing exploded into something! So if you do not believe this what is your "factual" evidence for a non-supernatural phenomenon?
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
No new theory. It was never an idea in the first place. Big Bang theory simply states that a singularity expanded at an exponentially fast rate. What that singularity is, or where it comes from, has nothing to do with the theory. Scientists are working on those questions as we speak, and no self-respecting scientist would tell you that they knew. School text books tell you in the layman, written for schoolchildren to understand the basic concepts. They're not aimed at real scientists.
Clutchology 3 years ago
"Something from nothing" is a cheap colloquialism that doesn't do the theory any justice. It's to the Big Bang what "survival of the fittest" is to evolution. Both are wrong. Neither were ever ideas inside the scientific community. They were layman terms that even though rebuked by scientists have somehow gotten adopted and internalised by the public, probably because they're much easier to remember than the actual theories.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Is it not odd to you that the big bang is widely accepted as an explanation to the origins of the universe? I mean that something came from nothing? Is that science? That sounds pretty "miraculous" to me. Not natural but supernatural right? Seems more logical and rational too. Just a thought.
Bloodbought73 3 years ago
I would suggest you read up on what common scientific views of the Big Bang are. "Something from nothing" certainly isn't it. It's not science, and it's not what scientists think.
Clutchology 3 years ago
people find it difficult to understand whatever happens beyond our world.
we as humans live in a "bubble" where we are governed by physical forces and thus are limited in many ways. to accept a GOD who is beyond what limits us, doesn't make sense to many.....duh!! ofcourse what GOD does won't make alot of sense in the natural world.....because his power is not bound by nature, physics....and all these physical things around us, that bind us and our way of thinking.
diuryl 3 years ago
We relly allot on science and god. We are using science all the time, we pray eavery day to the lord. In my point of view, its a draw!
crusader1400 3 years ago
I onder who "we" is. Personally I use science all the time, God is completely irrelevant and doesn't effect my life at all, well, 'sides from the amusement i get from watching ignorant fools on youtube preaching.
Vampiiire 3 years ago
yeah, fools like yourself Vampiiire.
crusader1400 3 years ago
Is there something wrong with my comment, did i spell "we" wrong. Anyway i just want everybody to know, especially Vampiiire that i am not an ignorant fool. I am just a person who deeply loves god and i use science all the time. So please dont call me a fool.
crusader1400 3 years ago
I'll stop, soon as you prove santa claus to me, or stop preaching unproven rubbish.
Vampiiire 3 years ago
Vampiiire, why are you mad at me? I am just telling my you what i think about this video. And please dont call me stupid, thats really rude!
crusader1400 3 years ago
I'm not mad at you, I just said exactly what i meant.
Vampiiire 3 years ago
But doesn't science require a conscious observer. And yet there is no instrument that we can use to measure consciousness. We cannot tell if a rock is more or less conscious than a human.
So does your statement also mean that consciousness is non-scientific. . .which also undermines science itself?
tristenmc 3 years ago
Science doesn't require a conscious observer... it is there either way. As for no instrument to measre consciousness, I should think our eyes would suffice. Are you implying that you cannot tell whether or not a person is conscious or unconsious based on simply looking at them?
A rock is not conscious because consciousness is based apon an observable self-awareness from the entity. A rock doesn't seem to show self-awareness, but an animal does, thus the distinction.
Vampiiire 3 years ago
I'm sorry Vampiiire, but you are wrong on a few issues here.
"Science doesn't require a conscious observer... it is there either way."
I would reread the definition that Clutchology
defined science with in the beginning of this video, because I think it is adequate for point.
"(knowledge obtained from)"
Knowledge or to know requires awareness. Which means you have to be conscious.
"The systematic study. . .&