3:42, "in order for something to create itself it must pre-exist its own existence... which is and absurdity..."
if i understand you correctly, one could rephrase your claim as follows: "from nothing nothing comes".
however, can you prove that? no. so how can you claim that? thats the true absurdity here.
besides, modern science says absolutely nothing about "creation" but rather about "transformation". and we know that this science is "operative", thus its very unlikely a fairy tale...
Of course you'd say, it must be an intelligent designer and not an exclusive god of your religion. But I bet you wish it was your God.
The problem most theists have with ID is that they disconnect the intelligence from the universe. They say, fungus suddenly appeared on the rock, or a God just made it.
You should instead think of the universe, and even our planet, as living things coexisting with each other.
yeh while islam is plotting to destroy western society, lets make money to fund arms and use the system to enjoy ourselves. wow why cant u see that? hypocritical
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I certainly hope you have some information about this concept/hypothesis/theory (I am unclear as to which it is) about this Intelligent Design, because I have been asking Christians for this, and they cannot provide, I am now asking you, and hope you can provide.
Don't rip me off or you will be ridiculed you claim you have a designer theory, lets see it.
Show me your full Intelligent Design theory, in full form, PDF, HTML, whatever, complete, with author, and contact information for critique/clarifications, because by the way you talk, you are holding a Theory, that can explain this Intelligent Design, so why are you witholding the raw data from us to read and analyze? Otherwise you are just saying there is a designer because it suits you.
The argument of the paperclip is stupid and does not indicate there is a designer for the Universe, if you guys want to start getting respect from people that are scientifically minded you have to come up with empiracle evidence, and while you love to bash StarMexus, that is what is present in other working theories, for example what is your theory of intelligent design in its entirety and where can I read it to critique it properly? Simplying saying complexity requires designer = no good.
LoL at the "Bring a surah like it" thing.. If he only knew what the Qur'an is.. the BEST poet in mecca at muhammeds(saw) time got shocked and said "LEave this man Muhammed alone for he is something" ! SubhanAllah
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh please you are on of those "Miracle of the Quran" propagandists, that end up getting debunked when people actually have time (which is not all the time) to go over which vague verse you are trying to tie to tightly worded (where the words mean everything) theories and hypothesis...
I debunked around 7 of them before deciding I was wasting my time.
some of them are too ludicrous for words.
Wishful thinking ... and I spent hours and days and over months coming to this conclusion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
can I have an answer to my paper on Muhammad I made for you? I spent some time behind what you asked me to do, its only fair that you be so kind as to spend a little time and respond to me, even if you want to slander me in it, at least give me what I worked for.
I saw it, it's the same argument that that i responded to above (no life or not as great life in the universe does not change the fact fact of good life in the universe). Also I'd add that its funny he is complaining about how bad design it yet he is able to stand, see, talk etc. perfectly to be able to complain about it. These are lame attempts to divert attention; it does not even attempt to explain it away.
"had there been poor design he could not be in a position to complain."
there have poor design that is why evolution on earth started 9 billion years after the formation of universe and it took 3.5 billion years to reach human with all that flows.
and if you think evolution is just a theory,let finish the debate here.
Late development of life in the universe does not change anything; again the 'quality not quantity' response applies here. Also note time is a relative concept.
And evolution is just a theory...but I have no major conflict with it, it's neither here no there as far as I'm concerned.
and comparatively low quality life that you have here is perfectly explained by evolution a natural process which dose not take god into account.
and in design quantity matters it is like attacking a mountain of garbage to paper clip and calling it a deign,and saying quantity dose not matter its quality.
It's like looking at a DVD player (lets say an old one) and assuming that simply because it has space it must not be made for DVDs, my point in regards to quality is not effected. Many different things contribute to life on earth. the design argument is not even the main point of this video so sorry my video still stands. You have yet to account for the fine tuning, evolution shows how life came from A to B that's all.
2,DVD is designed and the resources have been EFFICIENTLY (low quantity) to serve a purpose (quality)
you were talking about eye and life in the universe,..so what is the fine tunning you talking about ? black holes ? formation of stars of galaxies colliding ? or maybe meteors ?
1. It does not matter if the DVD player is not alive; i am using an analogy to show apparent inefficiency does not negate quality.
2. As for 2 that is exactly my point, even with its apparent inefficiency it does not change what it does do (the quality) or that it was made for that purpose.
You first assumed time would be an issue for God (life was late in universe) and this is the same argument but with recourses as if God would be limited by that.
i said 'old' as they are usually bigger then newer ones to help me make my pint clearer. It is not meant to be an exact parallel to the universe but to simply prove a point (that i think i did since you are now trying to refute the analogy rather then attack my main premise).
"so you can't use argument for design at all."
Was not my argument, it was a reply to your objection to my argument.
what? Now you are attacking strawmen, I think you know very well (as i explained already) what that DVD player analogy was about. This would be the "refute the example/analogy" fallacy. Even if you did refute the analogy (which you have no way done) my point still has not been refuted.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes a theory that has millions of pieces of verifiable evidence that happens to really contradict your books story of life being created from dust & water.
This blind watchmaker idea is ludicrous. Because a watch has a designer, and a car has a designer, then the universe has to have a designer. No not at all. Mountains do not, rivers do not, oceans do not. Only when a presupposition of the universe having a designer, do these supposedly have a designer. Also the nothing comes from nothing pertains to everything. God as well. You cannot put anything beyond the laws of nature just for your convenience.
That's not the argument, the watch is designed for a purpose...the universe has finely tuned laws and constants that are essential for life...it is a reasonable inference to a designer of some kind.
For the 'nothing from nothing': your objection assumes everything came into existence...I mentioned in the video that things that begin to exist need a cause.
quedorf i removed your comment by mistake, sorry. this is what you said:
"Why do you assume that the universes laws are finely tuned for life. The majority of the universe does not support life as we know it. Also the life that we are aware of is as it is because of the universe, not the other way around. If the universe was different, so would life. It is not finely tuned. It is a mishmash of variety..."
my reply to that: It's not an assumption that the universe is finely tuned for life, for example could life exist if we where a little closer to the sun or further way? And the majority of the universe not supporting life does not change the fact that life exists in the universe. All these constants and laws, expansion rates etc. all contribute to the balance that allows life in the universe.
And so what if life would be different if the universe was slightly different? The range of life supporting values is very limited and that's the point of the argument; that it's more likely under theism then atheism.
"Also the life that we are aware of is as it is because of the universe, not the other way around."
I don't know what you mean by that, can you explain it a bit more?
For the cause: I am referring to something that brings something else about (in whatever way) so every temporal being/thing needs something else to bring it from potentiality to actuality.
I did mention things that begin to exist need a cause in this video. And aside from that i never said everything had a cause, this is a strawman version of the arguments. The old version would be something like: Effects need causes and an infinite regress is not possible therefore there must be a first (or uncaused) cause. Even in this version (that I don't really care about) it is in the argument that there must be a first cause, so to ask what caused the first cause is to miss the point.
The objection of "what caused God (the first cause)" is to concede the fact that effects need causes and then to ignore the second half of the argument that an infinite regress is impossible" Not only that but it also commits the fallacies I mentioned in the video.
no and it shows CAUSE AND EFFECT is not the way,you make a false assumption and try to cover it up by god.where god from will not be answered by false assumptions.
Why does it miss the point. there is only two possibilities. Everything requires a cause, or everything does not require a cause. If everything does, then you have infinite regression. If not then you have no requirement for a god. the universe could be infinite just as easily as a fictional god.
It misses the point as for the reason I stated: the argument says there cannot be an infinite regress. And no, there could be something that does not requite a cause, why exclude this possibility? You are happy to accept it for the universe to be eternal (and thus uncaused). If all things needed a cause then so begins the infinite regress. I'd stick to all temporal things need a cause. Positing the universe as a stopping point does not help since it began to exist.
"the argument says there cannot be an infinite regress.'
this is the third time at that level newton mechanics (cause and effect=>infinite regress) is not used) but quantum mechanic is used.
"there could be something that does not requite a cause, why exclude this possibility?"
as long as you mean a quantum fluctuation
not a complex being who is consciouses knows everything, can do anything, reads thoughts answers prayers performs miracles and punishes and rewards it sown creations.
so what part do you reject? that things that begin to exist have a cause for their existence or that the universe began to exist? or both? i think its the latter because you are appealing to quantum mechanics but i want to be sure.
I reject nothing,im very happy to admit i dont have enough evidence to have an answer,at the smame time i don't see any evidence for your side either and many against it.
For me it is perfectly fine not to have an answer,i would rather grasp the universe as it is than to find comfort in a baseless belief.(nothing personal)
there is not enough evidence to KNOW what happened but a god a consciouses god is highly improbable.
...and as we go back in time things get simpler not more complex,so a quantum fluctuation is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more probable than a god and a theistic god.
I do not exclude the possibility of something not requiring a cause. But to assume that the entity/object is God, is based on a presupposition. It almost seems to be a stalemate. We agree in principle, but not in implementation.
I am just saying that there must be a first (uncaused) cause (that is not the universe since it began to exist and other reasons), what the "nature" of it is we can discuss later.
Well we do agree on the uncaused cause. (interesting terminology if i do say so). I cannot say without doubt that the universe had a beginning. But like you say the nature of the original cause is a later discussion. Thanks for the debate. Well done.
ok lol when i said 'later' i meant right after we agree on some comment ground (that we have done so i think). I am happy to keep talking a little longer with you if you want? If not then thank you for the nice respectful discussion.
i was actually talking to 'quedorf' but we have also had a good talk (apart from a few messy comments) and I'd be happy to keep talking with you. You can PM me on this account and we can talk over some other app later (if needed). Same with you quedorf we can continue in PM of you want, all this is getting hard to keep track of, lol.
Yeah that was poorly worded. Meant to say that life is as it is int he universe because of the conditions in the universe. That in no way means that life would not exist if conditions were different, only means that life would be different. So another way is saying that the universe was not created for us, but we are a product of the universe.
Life as we know it could not exist if we were closer or farther from the sun, but that only means life as we know it would be different. But the majority of the universe not supporting life means that the if the universe is designed, it is done so very poorly. If life was the intention of the universe, then why is it so rare.
Right and my reply to that was that it is the life permitting range that needs to be considered, so within a very small alteration maybe life could still exist, however compare this with the non-life permitting range. Your other objection (about life being so rare) is looking at the matter quantitatively and not qualitatively.
You are mistaking appeal to a 'false authority' with the regular appeal to authority. We have to listen to his actual arguments not look at a diploma and blindly accept what they say.
"my reply to that: It's not an assumption that the universe is finely tuned for life, for example could life exist if we where a little closer to the sun or further way?"
How many planets do we have in the solar system that can sustain life ?
"And the majority of the universe not supporting life does not change the fact that life exists in the universe."
and that fact doesn't help your fine tuning argument.
that nasheed is great! :D
izzatiizzatiizzati 2 years ago
a) that nasheed is hella obnoxious.
b) you misspelled making.
;)
Jewlum 3 years ago
the universe is designed to produce helium, not humans.
sum1unxpected 3 years ago 3
3:42, "in order for something to create itself it must pre-exist its own existence... which is and absurdity..."
if i understand you correctly, one could rephrase your claim as follows: "from nothing nothing comes".
however, can you prove that? no. so how can you claim that? thats the true absurdity here.
besides, modern science says absolutely nothing about "creation" but rather about "transformation". and we know that this science is "operative", thus its very unlikely a fairy tale...
pikechris1 3 years ago
I can't even stress the stupidity of this pisspoor rebuttal video.
deprofundis442 3 years ago 2
Of course you'd say, it must be an intelligent designer and not an exclusive god of your religion. But I bet you wish it was your God.
The problem most theists have with ID is that they disconnect the intelligence from the universe. They say, fungus suddenly appeared on the rock, or a God just made it.
You should instead think of the universe, and even our planet, as living things coexisting with each other.
rba718 3 years ago
How babies learn ?! people are not born with a blank slate.
I claim that the intelligent designer fine tune the universe for no life, or minimal life.
AceoIogy 3 years ago
are you seriously arguing that universe is fine tuned for life ?!
AceoIogy 3 years ago
yeh while islam is plotting to destroy western society, lets make money to fund arms and use the system to enjoy ourselves. wow why cant u see that? hypocritical
vidamringil 3 years ago
your both wrong.
Anthrax4000 3 years ago
...both wrong about what?
RzaaV2 3 years ago
starmexus is such an idiot.
dankpurple 3 years ago 2
can you give me the name of the song you used?
antibush5 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I certainly hope you have some information about this concept/hypothesis/theory (I am unclear as to which it is) about this Intelligent Design, because I have been asking Christians for this, and they cannot provide, I am now asking you, and hope you can provide.
Don't rip me off or you will be ridiculed you claim you have a designer theory, lets see it.
ytben26 3 years ago
Show me your full Intelligent Design theory, in full form, PDF, HTML, whatever, complete, with author, and contact information for critique/clarifications, because by the way you talk, you are holding a Theory, that can explain this Intelligent Design, so why are you witholding the raw data from us to read and analyze? Otherwise you are just saying there is a designer because it suits you.
ytben26 3 years ago
The argument of the paperclip is stupid and does not indicate there is a designer for the Universe, if you guys want to start getting respect from people that are scientifically minded you have to come up with empiracle evidence, and while you love to bash StarMexus, that is what is present in other working theories, for example what is your theory of intelligent design in its entirety and where can I read it to critique it properly? Simplying saying complexity requires designer = no good.
ytben26 3 years ago
LoL at the "Bring a surah like it" thing.. If he only knew what the Qur'an is.. the BEST poet in mecca at muhammeds(saw) time got shocked and said "LEave this man Muhammed alone for he is something" ! SubhanAllah
easyonetwothree 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh please you are on of those "Miracle of the Quran" propagandists, that end up getting debunked when people actually have time (which is not all the time) to go over which vague verse you are trying to tie to tightly worded (where the words mean everything) theories and hypothesis...
I debunked around 7 of them before deciding I was wasting my time.
some of them are too ludicrous for words.
Wishful thinking ... and I spent hours and days and over months coming to this conclusion.
ytben26 3 years ago
this is nothing to do with that so stop the strawman attack.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
Excellent video! He covers up his stupidity with logical fallacies. Let's see how he responds.
LetsDebate 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
can I have an answer to my paper on Muhammad I made for you? I spent some time behind what you asked me to do, its only fair that you be so kind as to spend a little time and respond to me, even if you want to slander me in it, at least give me what I worked for.
ytben26 3 years ago
My bad. I'll give my response soon. I've just been really bust lately.
LetsDebate 3 years ago 3
Exactly! HE did? The dude didn't even know about the religon! What an idiot!
YushuaMali 3 years ago
assalamu alaikum,
good video. peace be upon you
qwertyfshag 3 years ago
Really great video!
StabbingEcstasy 3 years ago
Hey you guys should read the tags he used on this video:
Starmexus84 Starmexus Fat Gay Elmo Stupid Atheist Sub-Whore Retard Pwnd Owned
This was hilarious!
Starmexus84 3 years ago
lol it was hahha, and thanks for bringing attention to that (you fat sub-whore).
RzaaV2 3 years ago
Brothers,
We are Muslims, and an example for NonMuslims to follow,
StarMexus has made a choice to accept kufr, and we need to refute his choice through wisdom and dawah as taught by Islam,
So we need to refrain from cussing, or name calling.
DivineLove247 3 years ago
lmao yeah i agree elmo it was hillarious.
xMuslimSouljax 3 years ago
hillarious yet true!!
xMuslimSouljax 3 years ago
Honestly I have no idea why you love this guy starmexus, he is like the VenomFangX of the atheist community, LOL total embarrassment Hahhaa
I am getting some far more intelligent comments here (not including yours ruthie lol) then I have ever seen in any starmexus video.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
Really. The dude is a big embarrasment. They have GOT to feel sorry for him or something.
YushuaMali 3 years ago 2
I see nothing wrong with StarMexus questions, why are they stupid?
ytben26 3 years ago
for the reasons i mention in the video.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
you might want to watch the video i posted as a response.
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
I saw it, it's the same argument that that i responded to above (no life or not as great life in the universe does not change the fact fact of good life in the universe). Also I'd add that its funny he is complaining about how bad design it yet he is able to stand, see, talk etc. perfectly to be able to complain about it. These are lame attempts to divert attention; it does not even attempt to explain it away.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
you provide no arguments.
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
erm...yes i did... and it is you who provides no arguments.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
your argument is this :
he makes lame point
soild
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
the point is lame becouse..."no life or not as great life in the universe does not change the fact of good life in the universe".
RzaaV2 3 years ago
RuthieWeLoveYou "you said he can talk and.. =>he is "designed"
and
lame attempt to divert attentions"
not even whining"
My point is he denied design in the universe despite the fact that; had there been poor design he could not be in a position to complain.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
"had there been poor design he could not be in a position to complain."
there have poor design that is why evolution on earth started 9 billion years after the formation of universe and it took 3.5 billion years to reach human with all that flows.
and if you think evolution is just a theory,let finish the debate here.
aceology4 3 years ago
Late development of life in the universe does not change anything; again the 'quality not quantity' response applies here. Also note time is a relative concept.
And evolution is just a theory...but I have no major conflict with it, it's neither here no there as far as I'm concerned.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
and comparatively low quality life that you have here is perfectly explained by evolution a natural process which dose not take god into account.
and in design quantity matters it is like attacking a mountain of garbage to paper clip and calling it a deign,and saying quantity dose not matter its quality.
aceology4 3 years ago
Evolution is the process...the argument accounts for the laws and constants that allow evolution to take place.
And I disagree, I say quality matters, 1 good eye that sees (as we see) is better then 10 crappy eyes that see a blur.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
"Evolution is the process...the argument accounts for the laws and constants that allow evolution to take place."
you mean natural selection ? the cause for extinction of 99% of life on earth ?
or
mutation ? which only 1% is beneficial ?
and yes 1 ok eye in 10 bluer eyes is good but in no way it is design,it is what you expect from a blind process called evolution .
aceology4 3 years ago
same argument 'quality not quantity'
RzaaV2 3 years ago
i already showed you why
quantity not quality is not design,the whole point of design is highest quality with quantity.
so there goes your video.
aceology4 3 years ago
It's like looking at a DVD player (lets say an old one) and assuming that simply because it has space it must not be made for DVDs, my point in regards to quality is not effected. Many different things contribute to life on earth. the design argument is not even the main point of this video so sorry my video still stands. You have yet to account for the fine tuning, evolution shows how life came from A to B that's all.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
1.DVD is not alive and dose not reproduce
2,DVD is designed and the resources have been EFFICIENTLY (low quantity) to serve a purpose (quality)
you were talking about eye and life in the universe,..so what is the fine tunning you talking about ? black holes ? formation of stars of galaxies colliding ? or maybe meteors ?
aceology4 3 years ago
1. It does not matter if the DVD player is not alive; i am using an analogy to show apparent inefficiency does not negate quality.
2. As for 2 that is exactly my point, even with its apparent inefficiency it does not change what it does do (the quality) or that it was made for that purpose.
You first assumed time would be an issue for God (life was late in universe) and this is the same argument but with recourses as if God would be limited by that.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
"i am using an analogy to show apparent inefficiency does not negate quality."
you said an old dvd,it would like modern dvd wich weights 20000000million tons and dose not play CDS but plays tapes which dont have.
and you call his design
"but with recourses as if God would be limited by that."
so you cant use argument for design at all.
aceology4 3 years ago
i said 'old' as they are usually bigger then newer ones to help me make my pint clearer. It is not meant to be an exact parallel to the universe but to simply prove a point (that i think i did since you are now trying to refute the analogy rather then attack my main premise).
"so you can't use argument for design at all."
Was not my argument, it was a reply to your objection to my argument.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
this argument is not valid,dvds are in no way related to universe,its plastic apples to unicorns
and what is your argument then you say it is nor design so what is it ?
aceology4 3 years ago
what? Now you are attacking strawmen, I think you know very well (as i explained already) what that DVD player analogy was about. This would be the "refute the example/analogy" fallacy. Even if you did refute the analogy (which you have no way done) my point still has not been refuted.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
Are you aware what a theory is.
quedorf 3 years ago
yep...and evolution would be an example of a theory :D
...but anyways like i said it does not effect me so no point in my arguing against it.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes a theory that has millions of pieces of verifiable evidence that happens to really contradict your books story of life being created from dust & water.
ytben26 3 years ago
no,and who is dan barker ?
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
I would have added this to my main account but i don't want to give that sub-whore more attention.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
This blind watchmaker idea is ludicrous. Because a watch has a designer, and a car has a designer, then the universe has to have a designer. No not at all. Mountains do not, rivers do not, oceans do not. Only when a presupposition of the universe having a designer, do these supposedly have a designer. Also the nothing comes from nothing pertains to everything. God as well. You cannot put anything beyond the laws of nature just for your convenience.
quedorf 3 years ago
That's not the argument, the watch is designed for a purpose...the universe has finely tuned laws and constants that are essential for life...it is a reasonable inference to a designer of some kind.
For the 'nothing from nothing': your objection assumes everything came into existence...I mentioned in the video that things that begin to exist need a cause.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
quedorf i removed your comment by mistake, sorry. this is what you said:
"Why do you assume that the universes laws are finely tuned for life. The majority of the universe does not support life as we know it. Also the life that we are aware of is as it is because of the universe, not the other way around. If the universe was different, so would life. It is not finely tuned. It is a mishmash of variety..."
RzaaV2 3 years ago
Thats alright. No harm done.
quedorf 3 years ago
my reply to that: It's not an assumption that the universe is finely tuned for life, for example could life exist if we where a little closer to the sun or further way? And the majority of the universe not supporting life does not change the fact that life exists in the universe. All these constants and laws, expansion rates etc. all contribute to the balance that allows life in the universe.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
And so what if life would be different if the universe was slightly different? The range of life supporting values is very limited and that's the point of the argument; that it's more likely under theism then atheism.
"Also the life that we are aware of is as it is because of the universe, not the other way around."
I don't know what you mean by that, can you explain it a bit more?
RzaaV2 3 years ago
you aslo asked about what i meant by 'cause'.
For the cause: I am referring to something that brings something else about (in whatever way) so every temporal being/thing needs something else to bring it from potentiality to actuality.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
But to use the old argument what caused the cause. It is a paradox.
quedorf 3 years ago
I did mention things that begin to exist need a cause in this video. And aside from that i never said everything had a cause, this is a strawman version of the arguments. The old version would be something like: Effects need causes and an infinite regress is not possible therefore there must be a first (or uncaused) cause. Even in this version (that I don't really care about) it is in the argument that there must be a first cause, so to ask what caused the first cause is to miss the point.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
The objection of "what caused God (the first cause)" is to concede the fact that effects need causes and then to ignore the second half of the argument that an infinite regress is impossible" Not only that but it also commits the fallacies I mentioned in the video.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
"infinite regress is impossible" "
exactly and thats one of the reasons newton mechanics and your approach to the problem is wrong and a god will not coverup for it.
are not used at that level so leave the cause and effect.
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
Explain. You accept infinite regress? Yes or no?
RzaaV2 3 years ago
no and it shows CAUSE AND EFFECT is not the way,you make a false assumption and try to cover it up by god.where god from will not be answered by false assumptions.
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
what is the false assumption I make? and what is the "way"?
RzaaV2 3 years ago
you use newton mechanics (cause and effect).
aceology4 3 years ago
I explained what i meant by a 'cause' above. Show how this is incorrect.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
Why does it miss the point. there is only two possibilities. Everything requires a cause, or everything does not require a cause. If everything does, then you have infinite regression. If not then you have no requirement for a god. the universe could be infinite just as easily as a fictional god.
quedorf 3 years ago
It misses the point as for the reason I stated: the argument says there cannot be an infinite regress. And no, there could be something that does not requite a cause, why exclude this possibility? You are happy to accept it for the universe to be eternal (and thus uncaused). If all things needed a cause then so begins the infinite regress. I'd stick to all temporal things need a cause. Positing the universe as a stopping point does not help since it began to exist.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
"the argument says there cannot be an infinite regress.'
this is the third time at that level newton mechanics (cause and effect=>infinite regress) is not used) but quantum mechanic is used.
"there could be something that does not requite a cause, why exclude this possibility?"
as long as you mean a quantum fluctuation
not a complex being who is consciouses knows everything, can do anything, reads thoughts answers prayers performs miracles and punishes and rewards it sown creations.
aceology4 3 years ago
so what part do you reject? that things that begin to exist have a cause for their existence or that the universe began to exist? or both? i think its the latter because you are appealing to quantum mechanics but i want to be sure.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
I reject nothing,im very happy to admit i dont have enough evidence to have an answer,at the smame time i don't see any evidence for your side either and many against it.
For me it is perfectly fine not to have an answer,i would rather grasp the universe as it is than to find comfort in a baseless belief.(nothing personal)
there is not enough evidence to KNOW what happened but a god a consciouses god is highly improbable.
aceology4 3 years ago
You reject nothing...except God right? lol
I'll ask one last time: So you accept those two premises?
P1: everything that begins to exist have a cause for their existence.
P2: the universe began to exist?
I'll comment on quantum mechanics once i am clear on your position.
If you are happy with no answer then fine, stop commenting on this video, I'd rather talk to someone who is not that closed minded.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
I'm not rejecting god,im saying it is highly improbable .
": everything that begins to exist have a cause for their existence."
it is the 4th time throw out newton mechanics,they don't work at the level you talking about
i have no idea that universe began to exist it could be anything nobody knows because they have no evidence,and it is perfectly fine.
not closed minded means open to new ideas if you have evidence i'm open ,but all you have provided are baseless arguments.
aceology4 3 years ago
so you'd accept God if it were more probable then an eternal, self caused or uncaused universe? That's good.
ok your only objection is quantum events right? Apart from that you accept the principle?
As for P2: Big Bang? and other arguments that I'll talk to you about in PM if you want to keep talking PM me with reply to this.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
...and as we go back in time things get simpler not more complex,so a quantum fluctuation is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more probable than a god and a theistic god.
aceology4 3 years ago
I do not exclude the possibility of something not requiring a cause. But to assume that the entity/object is God, is based on a presupposition. It almost seems to be a stalemate. We agree in principle, but not in implementation.
quedorf 3 years ago
I am just saying that there must be a first (uncaused) cause (that is not the universe since it began to exist and other reasons), what the "nature" of it is we can discuss later.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
Well we do agree on the uncaused cause. (interesting terminology if i do say so). I cannot say without doubt that the universe had a beginning. But like you say the nature of the original cause is a later discussion. Thanks for the debate. Well done.
quedorf 3 years ago
ok lol when i said 'later' i meant right after we agree on some comment ground (that we have done so i think). I am happy to keep talking a little longer with you if you want? If not then thank you for the nice respectful discussion.
Peace
RzaaV2 3 years ago
sure it was a great talk i enjoyed it,and i might be wrong,so ye we should continue this in email or msn mine is
aceology at hotmail co uk
aceology4 3 years ago
i was actually talking to 'quedorf' but we have also had a good talk (apart from a few messy comments) and I'd be happy to keep talking with you. You can PM me on this account and we can talk over some other app later (if needed). Same with you quedorf we can continue in PM of you want, all this is getting hard to keep track of, lol.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
Yeah that was poorly worded. Meant to say that life is as it is int he universe because of the conditions in the universe. That in no way means that life would not exist if conditions were different, only means that life would be different. So another way is saying that the universe was not created for us, but we are a product of the universe.
quedorf 3 years ago
Life as we know it could not exist if we were closer or farther from the sun, but that only means life as we know it would be different. But the majority of the universe not supporting life means that the if the universe is designed, it is done so very poorly. If life was the intention of the universe, then why is it so rare.
quedorf 3 years ago
Right and my reply to that was that it is the life permitting range that needs to be considered, so within a very small alteration maybe life could still exist, however compare this with the non-life permitting range. Your other objection (about life being so rare) is looking at the matter quantitatively and not qualitatively.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
So explain, why is life so rare in a vast universe. If god were to make such a huge creation, why did he place life at such a discounted importance.
quedorf 3 years ago
"could life exist if we where a little closer to the sun or further way? "
that is exactly why there is no life on other planets!!!!
its like saying why rivers are near the cities rather than saying cities are near the rivers
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
Thanks for proving my point ruthie (aka Dan Barker) :D
Ever heard of the firing squad analogy???
...and i refuted the lame objection of your video reply in one of my above comments.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
lame objections are from a top astrophysict and he is not alone.
and i see no comment above
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
...Appeal to authority.
Bring some real refutations.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
appeal to authority in a related field is NOT a fallacy,sorry.
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
You are mistaking appeal to a 'false authority' with the regular appeal to authority. We have to listen to his actual arguments not look at a diploma and blindly accept what they say.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
and he docent provides reasons if you want you can respond,it is not an appeal
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
Yes it is an appeal to authority and i did respond, read my comments (below this time).
RzaaV2 3 years ago
you said he can talk and.. =>he is "designed"
and
lame attempt to divert attentions
not even whining
RuthieWeLoveYou 3 years ago
lets keep all this in one place; the other thread.
RzaaV2 3 years ago
"my reply to that: It's not an assumption that the universe is finely tuned for life, for example could life exist if we where a little closer to the sun or further way?"
How many planets do we have in the solar system that can sustain life ?
"And the majority of the universe not supporting life does not change the fact that life exists in the universe."
and that fact doesn't help your fine tuning argument.
AceoIogy 3 years ago
" All these constants and laws, expansion rates etc. all contribute to the balance that allows life in the universe."
THIS form of life.You can deal a deck of cads and wonder all day about the odds of having the same hand over and over again.
AceoIogy 3 years ago
"the universe has finely tuned laws and constants that are essential for life...it is a reasonable inference to a designer of some kind."
You need calculations for that, just claiming it won't make it true.
AceoIogy 3 years ago
if there is an order, there has to be an order given, read the tau of physics b4 u judge
vidamringil 3 years ago