You had sniffles because of your cold, you had a cold because you are an evil atheist - I mean no Christian would ever get a cold now would they?
These guys are idiots. I love how they try to ridicule science and then in the very next sentence use science to prove their thesis "Science is materialistic BS and is the Atheist's "god" and to prove they are wrong and my god actually exists I will use.... science!"
Ozmoroid, you just gotta have faith. Just keep trying to believe. Hang around others who believe and ask them to help you come to believe also. You'll love the way it feels to be accepted and approved of. Now hey, I know it seems impossible, but if you keep trying really hard and surround yourself with others who are doing the same, you can do this! And just keep in mind, this is so much bigger than logic and reason. Be willing to throw that blasphemous crap out the window, in Jesus' name.
@chuckfrasher Right, so as long as you surround yourself with people who propagate the lie, then you will never see the truth, and you can be happy. Bra---vo... This is exactly what is wrong with Christianity.
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible that God exists.
Another fallacy of yours, it is not "gravity" that drives the motion of the Earth around the sun, but electromagnetic forces. It's been firmly established that the sun and Earth are both charged bodies in a field of plasma. In such circumstances, as lab experiments routinely show, bodies do not obey "gravity laws", they obey electromagnetic force laws. Electricity dominates the universe on every scale, "gravity" is a feeble toy theory rife with misunderstanding and metaphysical meandering waffle
@fertilizerspike Wow, I'm impressed. You seem to be a 9/11 truther, pseudo-science fool of a troll. Here's what I challenge you to do. Make a video where you demonstrate your command of science. I have a physics playlist. You could "refute" any of those videos.
Eat my ass. I don't have to make a video to correct your errors. As for refuting your videos, I don't seek out bullshit to refute, but when I come across it I do correct it. If you don't like being corrected, stop making errors.
@ozmoroid What do you mean by there's not evidence for Us?...if there's not,then I'm not here writing this down trying to save your soul,if there's not then I'm not Melkissedec or Holy Ghost,if there's not, then the twin towers are still up,Katrina,Mitch,Japan's tsunami never hit,Bush never stole Gore's and Obama's not in the White House,if there's not,then Gore won't be president and Hillary vicep after Biden,and the GOP 666 won't come,and there's no hell for y'all.Good luck Charlie.
@fertilizerspike Why on earth did NASA waste all that money on rocket fuel, when all they needed to was to give the rocket the same electrostatic charge as the earth, and off it would have gone without gravity to impede it?
It's clear to me you don't understand the phenomena involved here. It isn't a simple matter of "give the rocket the same charge as the Earth". All atoms are like tiny bar magnets. It's the sum of electromagnetic attraction and repulsion that roughly cancels out in close proximity but acts as a weak attractive force at a distance. We observe this in the lab in experiments involving birkeland currents.
Your imaginary friend and your alternate reality claims suggest otherwise. I am willing to bet any genuine shrink will agree with me after a short conversation with you.
And i am not ignorant, maybe arrogant.. but it is easy to turn arrogant when surrounded by brainless tools.
@fertilizerspike Gravity is quite the toy theory then if it prevents everything on Earth, even electrically neutral objects, from floating out into space.
Begging the question. Of course if you begin with the ASSumption that "gravity" is responsible for attraction, all attraction will look like "gravity" to you. Until somebody manages to generate, amplify, block or manipulate gravity in any fashion, the only reasonable conclusion is that it is imaginary. I realize you will never come to grips with this, but that won't stop you from being wrong.
@fertilizerspike I don't begin with the assumption. The theory of gravity has been tested and has been apparent for over 200 years. It doesn't matter what its called, what matters is there is an obvious force holding objects down to earth and that every object dropped from a height falls downward at 9.8 m/s^2. We have equations that can be used to predict the movements of planets and objects with mass, all factoring in the attractive force of gravity.
It is an ASSumption that "gravity" is responsible for attraction between matter. You also happen to be wrong in your ASSumption about the acceleration you cite, it's not the same everywhere on the Earth. And actually it DOES matter what you call it, if you call it something imaginary while there is a perfectly real and verifiable force you're ignoring.
@fertilizerspike It is also known that electromagnetic forces are far weaker than gravitational forces because they act on particles more than anything else. I don't argue the fact that material can be charged, however an object that is electrically neutral has no electromagnetic forces, yet it STILL falls to the ground if you drop it from a known height. How do you explain this force then if the object is electrically neutral?
It's apparently thought by you that "gravity" is stronger than electromagnetic forces, but that doesn't make it true. Aside from the fact that "gravity" is imaginary, electromagnetic forces are about forty orders of magnitude stronger than this "force". Also your claims about "electrically neutral" objects is feeble and misguided. The net force between two charged bodies is attractive at a distance, repulsive up close.
Since you don't qualifiy "electrically neutral" there's no reason to tell what you really mean, but the fact is there are no "electrically neutral" objects anywhere in the universe. There are no objects that have "no electromagnetic forces". This "force" of "gravity" can not be generated, amplified, blocked or manipulated in any fashion. That alone is reason to suspect it is wrong.
@fertilizerspike A object that is electrically neutral means that it has no net charge (i.e. the same number of protons to electrons). All atoms want to achieve this state. For example, a hydrogen atom has one proton and one electron, therefore it is electrically neutral. Only electrically charged objects can produce electromagnetic fields and be influenced by them.
@fertilizerspike One can see this by taking a piece of glass and some resin, setting them down next to each other, and notice that they do not exert forces on each other. It is only by transferring electrons through the act of rubbing the resin and glass together, that they will attract each other when separated. Charge is a quantifiable quantity, therefore the glass and resin have no net charge unless they are rubbed together.
Is this in response to a video by young Hovind? That seems like his voice. He has a more professional sounding voice than his father. But he seems to be, if this is at all possible, even less intelligent than Kent is.
Let's not forget the Chaos Theory. The Chaos Theory explains how things go from simple to complex. People in the know believe that in 20 years or so computers will program themselves, and more interesting, write code that humans cannot write.
I think the main mistake that Philos makes is a very common one amongst theists. Namely that once a text is written it is fixed and must be defended at all costs, so the bible is equated with Darwin's 'on the origin of species' or with sciences understanding of the laws of nature as they existed around 1900. So he contends that the discovery of the seemingly random but ordered quantum mechanics world is proof of god because once upon a time scientists believed that quantum physics was thought t
What a poor argument. Quantum physics = God... I guess Feynman or Hawking just overlooked this obvious truth..... ROFLMAO
Fundamentally his argument is that any uncertainty = his god. His argument was a non-starter but you brilliantly ripped it to shreds. It was a classic mistake, any unknown = deity.
Too many people use their superficial understanding of science to make bogus claims. They make a patchwork theology out of old rags torn from genuine research and sew it together with fallacious inferences.
I really enjoyed your video. I'm convinced...there is no evidence for God. If there is a God, he better do something soon so we can know he exists. Otherwise, soon there will only be Atheists or superstitious fools.
One of the best videos I've seen on YouTube. I suspect that Philos doesn't have much knowldge of Quatum Mechanics. He is probably repeating a sermon that seems to be popular in churches today. It is the type of stuff that impresses the ignorant into belief in God.
What? Didn't you notice the line of people lining up for baptism after the quantum physics exams? Those who did not get baptised were of course the people who failed the test. Instead of the ususal celebration of "the exam is finally over, let's get drunk and forget this stuff" we were trying to find a harp and some gospel music.
It's truly bizarre that the US, a country whose wealth and achievements are substantially based on science and technology, is now one of the most superstitious nations in the world.
In the home of modern aeronautical science, about 75% of the population believes in angels: ie. invisible six limbed flying hominoids with feathered wings.
@DukeIrritable What's even more depressing is that isn't even what the angels of the Bible look like! They are described as bizarre creatures, monstrous beings with surrealistic construction and impossible physical form.
They certainly aren't pretty white guys with feathered wings.
@DukeIrritable well even though we have a vast number of well educated people here, we also have 5 times that of high school drop outs and bums that drown them out and the stupidity keeps perpetuating itself by allowing them to breed.
Im sorry, i think i just pissed myself. The thing religous people dont get is that if there was scientific evidence for god then all scientist was be christian or what religion was proved. Its not happened yet.
I don't get this video. What is this about? Wtf has quantum mechanics or any other scientific idea, theory or evidence to do with the maybe 3500 year idea that there is a man in the sky who created everything, including mankind made from dust (and a rib), and cares about the hebrew race. I have no objection that people could believe in some deity, but to connect that deity with a single religion like judaism is stupid. To connect it with a man called Jesus is insane.
Oh my god, you must be the most arrogant youtuber out there! If you want to be an atheist, then why not just kill yourself? What is the point of living, if there is no such thing as spirituality? I feel sorry for you. The truth is, there is no time, it is all happening at once. Wether you believe it or not, you do have a spirit and a soul, and you are wasting the opportunity of reaching your full human potential by choosing to be a (simple) atheist. But then again, it's all good. You are OK.
@mongorocker Why not kill myself? Uh, maybe because I enjoy living. What is the point of living? Enjoying life and loving other people. Being a productive member of society. Leaving behind a better world for the next generation. Being a father to my kids. Being a husband to my wife. Being a son to my parents. Being a ... You don't need a "spirit" or a "soul" to do any of these things.
@ozmoroid "The meaning of life is being a productive member of society, and loving other people". Do you not see how sheepish that shounds? By the sound of it, you have no independent thought at all.
@mongorocker You seem to have mistaken atheism with nihilism, or directly assumed that all atheists are nihilists.
Besides, just because you are an atheist, doesn't mean you don't believe in something. For example, I believe that my dad will quit smoking. Atheists just disbelieve in one more god (out of the thousands of other gods) than Christians, Hindus, and Muslims alike. That is all.
@pythor2 I disagree. I think most atheists are, more or less, nihilists. Atheists tend to think there is no afterlife. I am not a christian, nor am I religious, but I do believe in eternal life. There are plenty of "hidden" secrets about the mening of life, right out there in the open. All you have to do is look, and you will see it. For instance, take a look at the HUGE pine cone statue in the Vatican. Think pineal gland. What do the masons say? There is no time.
@badpanda84 Yes. And the reason for this is fear of death. Atheists are in a state of fear, denying the undeniable truth of infinity and infinite ilfe.
@mongorocker i believe that i have a spirit/ soul/ whatever u wanna call it. i believe my soul will live on after i die. but i also fear death because there is no proof of an afterlife. i believe in a higher power, but my beliefs are soooo far off from what 99% of people call god that i generally agree with atheism 99% of the time. if that confuses you, PM me. respect.
@mongorocker Seriously? It's been my observation that people who believe in the supernatural, especially as it pertains to life after death, are the ones most in fear of death. They fear it so much that they construct myths to reassure them that there is some form of existence beyond death. Their fear of non-being is so great they simply cannot accept anything less than continued existence.
I, an atheist, fear non-being, but have conceded that I have no choice in the matter. Someday I will die.
@mongorocker Furthermore, the idea that infinite life is undeniable is absurd, and you call in to question your rationality and credibility by even making such an assertion.
Infinite life (especially beyond death) is very deniable based on the fact that there is no hard evidence of consciousness of any form existing beyond death (anecdotal experiences do not count as hard evidence), nor is there any hard evidence of anyone being resurrected after a significant period of being dead.
there is a species of jellyfish which is potentially immortal. It starts life as a cessile polyp on the seafloor. upon sexual maturity it becomes a swimming/drifting medusoid jellyfish. It is then able to revert this process and start again from the polyp stage. this can be done an infinite number of times.
Not refuting your argument.... just a fun (and incredibly cool) fact =D
@haz020190 Lol, strange critter. Amended, no HUMAN immortal =P
Though given what evolutionary science, yes evolutionary science, has taught us, it is not inconceivable that we could make our species effectively immortal through gene-therapy as we learn more about stem cells, free radicals, and the process of dna/rna replication. Basically, as I understand it, we could undo cell and dna replication damage with stem cells by giving the body a way to create "correct" undamaged cells and dna.
never sure whether id want it myself =/ an eternity would get pretty dull....and it would raise issues of population control if people are living that long.
if science can get me 150-200 years i reckon ill be happy =P
@manatsunoshi Nope, I'm not a christian. I'm just a human being, who has realized the fact that there is more to life than Pepsi and popcorn. Sometimes life is good, and sometimes life is bad. But if you HONESTLY believe in NOTHING at all (I mean, you REALLY think when life ends, that's it), why not just put yourself out of your misory and kill yourself? This is like trying to teach an old dog how to sit, but you should look up the Pineal Gland, read about, and try to grasp what infinity is.
@manatsunoshi That's right, you think it is scary. The truth though, is there is nothing to fear. You are the one full of fear, not me. You fear me cause I feel no fear. Though I must say, I do not want to encourage anyone to commit suicide, as it is not good for ones spiritual development. You try any tarot deck and ask what will happen if you kill yourself, and the same card will always appear with the message: lesson not learned, double punishment.
@mongorocker The whole point of being a christian is death. Your life is meaningless and will only have meaning once you die and meet your imaginary friend. You should be praying to your sky daddy to kill you sooner rather than later so that you may join him. Isn't that the whole point?
@mongorocker That's like saying, "I can't watch every movie in the world, so why watch 1?" or "I cannot know everything in the universe, so why learn anything?". Finite happiness in a finite life are just as valuable, if not more valuable, then infinite life and infinite happiness. Just because we accept that we cannot live eternally, does not mean that we must immediately kill ourselves. Logical fail.
@AnonymousAscendent :"Why bother to live if your life would end anyway" as stupid as Why bother to watch the movie if you knew if would end anyway
"if this is your only life and no punishment why don't you kill,rape etc for pleasures?"
Because I have only a little time I think I should spend it on meaningful purposes,and no,most ppl don't have such criminal pleasures and no,I don't need hell to not hurting others.]
It's just simple like that,I don't get y some ppl can't seem to understand it :(
@uyenst Are you arguing with me? You seem to be agreeing to my point. I was stating those metaphors as examples of the logic of a theist. Of course it's worth watching a movie that will end, that's my point. Finite happiness is not worthless because it is not one's precious infinite happiness.
@AnonymousAscendent :No I don't, I just wanna share my thoughts and my question "why are there, not some but many of ppl, in the 21st century, can still be intolerant like that?" , but the fricking 500 limitation from youtube just won't let me express them clearly without posting another comment, which usually lead to having to fill in captcha and likely being over lapped by others' comments.
@mongorocker Any animal, including us, are not stupid enough to go kill ourselves (well, we're the exception, but in extreme situations). You're given a life, you don't fucking waste it. "Oh thanks dad for the $1,000. I'll throw it away now, lol."- you use it to the fullest extent.
@CrapnellGates It also seems you are confusing metaphysics with philosophy, at large. But, I could be wrong. Science is, itself, a philosophy. One that works, as you and Tf00t put it. Which I would consider to be evidence that science is a true philosophy... that is, a true and accurate method for exploring and studying reality, and more importantly, determining what actually is real.
@2nDoppelganger Sorry. A supernatural entitiy in a natural world does not carry the same weight as a universe without this being. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Those who believe that there is a god (of some sort) must demonstrate with evidence this god person, or it is logical, reasonable, and correct to dismiss said claims out of hand. The negative doesn't need any evidence. Until the premise is proven by the positive claimant, the negative wins by default.
@jymbo1969 I'm not talking about the same instance. Theists are guilty of the negative proof fallacy in exactly the way you are describing, while (some) atheists are guilty of saying the bible is false because there is no evidence for it.
@2nDoppelganger Nonsense. I say the bible is false, because all extant evidence leads to that conclusion. The bible IS false. That's not an irrational position to take. You see? The bible declares itself true and is believed to be inspired (at least) by some perfect (heh) being. Any evidence to the contrary is proof positive the bible is false. The bible is internally inconsistent, and externally uncorroberated. Ergo: the only reasonable assessment is the bible is false.
@2nDoppelganger Ahh! Well, ok, I see what you''re saying. Yes, you are correct. Without further logical analysis stopping at the "there is no evidence for A, therefore B must be correct," is ijndeed a logical fallacy.
@2nDoppelganger And moreso, it is nonsense to assume that abscence of evidence does not constitute evidence of abscence if the premise requires self-evidence, like in the god concept. Over time, the lack of evidence presented by the positive claimant position does, in fact, constitute evidence that the premise is false. It is not, however, proof that the premise is false. However, this plus the skeptical position requiring evidence for a premise, shows the clear response to the claim: rejection.
Materialistic science cannot tell you what is real in the materialistic world. This may come as a shock to you, and I always have a laugh at atheists who think themselves scientific for thinking it is the case.
The signal difference between science and other modes of inquiry is that science overcomes the dilemma of knowing the nature of reality by not making positive statements about it.
You do not KNOW the apple will fall, you believe it will on the basis of past successful prediction.
@ozmoroid We make positive statements about reality on the basis of our belief or lack of belief in scientific theories but we do not establish our belief in scientific theories on the basis of (and correspondence with) the positive statements THEY make about the world.
We evaluate scientific theories solely on the basis of "falsifiability, refutability or testability" according to Popper 1963. A good scientific theory is not a description of the world, it is "a prohibition".
@compactdisk2 "I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what the heck your point is."
It isn't complicated, the point is that speaking of science as if it is an attempt to describe reality is misguided both from a scientific and a philosophical perspective.
It what sense is a clade "real"? Or Newton's laws?
No, they are not real things, they are descriptions of consistently related observations. Science is not a description of reality, it is a description of our understanding of reality.
@DarkwingScooter So what is the problem? Do you have an alternative?
Would you say that some wild guess of some magical jewish zombie controlling it all is an explanation worthy of equal merrit with the explanations we gather as a result of the harsh scientific scrutiny?
Either propose an alternative methodology that works better or admit that science is the best way we have to gather knowledge about the universe. Or shut the fuck up.
@DarkwingScooter What keeps you from believing in unicorns or do you believe in unicorns? I have a Christian friend who told me "I never said I don't believe in unicorns". What?! His response was the Bible was never meant to explain scientific fields. He also didn't let me explain that if ancient people had any real knowledge of the world, they wouldn't have made up stories to explain it. The creation myths for example
@DarkwingScooter Why claim a god exist? There's the same amount of evidence for the existence of unicorns as any god. Still, you believe a god is real. Why?
Why claim I like chocolate? Why claim time always runs forward? Why claim I am conscious? Why claim empirical reality exists? Why claim a anti-matter particle will be stable in a anti-matter region of space? Why claim the laws of physics are the same in all regions of space? Why claim that there is a singularity at the center of a black hole?
I can't prove any of those things things either. Nor you.
@DarkwingScooter Are you going to answer the question? If I see you eating chocolate all the time, I can correctly assume you like it. Time is relative. I know I'm conscious and I assume you are also. We know anti-matter exists, we've been creating it for 20yrs. There is some research going on right now to answer the physics law question. Mathematics don't lie, math tells us that there are what's called a singularity at the center of black holes
@DarkwingScooter You can't give me any evidence for a god, yet you seem to claim one exists. Blind faith is all you have friend, which is fine, but don't post stupid comments on science videos.
@DarkwingScooter I never claimed there isn't a god. There could be one. My problem is with people that claim they know a god exists, they don't. You don't, I don't. But, there is a reason I don't believe in fairies too. No evidence for them.
Takes no blind faith to believe in gravity. We have evidence to support the claim that gravity does exist.
@HighCardWins "We have evidence to support the claim that gravity does exist."
We do not accept scientific theories on the basis of evidence. That is a lay misconception of the process.
You accept the existence of gravity because experiments designed to falsify which had a good chance of falsifying Newton's law failed to do so. In fact Newton's law is known to be incorrect in the details and there is technically no established replacement theory which unifies quantum mechanics and gravity.
@DarkwingScooter A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
@HighCardWins "Takes no blind faith to believe in gravity"
So in fact the exact opposite is the case: We accept gravity exists in terms of Newton's laws because it is useful for us to do so despite the fact that we have extremely solid evidence showing that they are in fact not correct.
@DarkwingScooter "You do not KNOW the apple will fall, you believe it will on the basis of past successful prediction."
That's your view of quantum mechanics? If what you are saying were true, we wouldn't have nuclear reactors, fool.
Scientific inquiry is the only way to prove things. The scientific method has very stricts rules from which to follow. Anything else is absolute nonsense.
Spit in one hand, wish in the other and see which one fills up the fastest.
Understanding reality is very convoluted, deep, and difficult. However, no one ever cured diseases or created a polio vaccine by "other modes of inquiry".
At the deepest and darkest level you are right, We cannot be certain of much (including what is real in the materialistic world)..but It is the best we've come up with so far...so what do you say we let philosophers do philosophy, and in the mean time we try to save some lives and find truth the best way we know how?
@CrapnellGates As a philosopher, I gotta tell ya... It isn't just philosophers to "do philosophy". reason is for everyone.. but! one may not simply decide his argument is correct. It requires evidence.
@jymbo1969 I think our disagreement here (if there is one) is just semantics.
Obviously reason is for everyone, and if that is all your definition of philosophy entails then you are correct.
But I was speaking more specifically to the type of philosophy that asks "Are we Brains in Vats?" or "Am I a ghost in a machine?". Epistemology and The problem of Induction are very important, but I think this type of philosophy should be viewed as a commodity when we could be saving human lives.
@CrapnellGates Science might not get us to the deepest degree of philosophical truth, but as Thunderf00t put it, "It works, bitches" . I don't think retreating into these core depths of philosophy is not important, but I don't think it supersedes the responsibility to live peacefully or create cures. If you value the former over the latter It's a slippery slope to solipsism and selfishness.
p.s. I'm also a philosopher. I'll have my bachelors in Philosophy in a few months actually. Huzzah !
@CrapnellGates Those excercises you mention are used to demonstrate the inherent impossibility of certainty, and to teach not to assume one's beliefs to be rational.
@DarkwingScooter I think you're hinting at the fallibilism of Karl Popper and in a sense you are correct. However, science works so well, in the sense that it is very good at deciding which past instances to use in future prediction and how, that I think that that belief you talk about is justified.
@ikmaardanouder I'm not just hinting at Popper. I am SHOUTING Popper.
You don't believe in science because THAT is what distinguishes science from hokum. The whole point is that science is not about believing what you can justify believing in. Science is about believing in and testing syllogisms not concrete facts.
As far as I am concerned is at best scientism is no better than dousing. Worse even, because it actually damages science immeasurably. These guys CAUSE reactionary creationism.
@DarkwingScooter I didn't realise so many people on youtube didn't go to school. Can I make a donation to your family or something. Which backward part of the world are you from little feller? Maybe I can convince my government to send some aid over there... All the best, hope it works out for you. Watch out for dingos or whatever.
@hesaurus Wow, you really demonstrated your intellectual and moral superiority there. Excellent grasp of the subtleties involved in the subject matter. I especially noted the clever association of Australia with a backward country in need of foreign aid because it has a wild animals. Such class.
Don't worry about sending aid to my government though, you can send the money directly to me (no cheques please). PM me for the posting address.
@sooperfukker -_-. star with personal insult where? allso where are the unsupported claims? and where are the jumping from a-z? show me where and explane how.
I find it incredibly amusing when christian apologists try to make arguments using big buzz words like quantum mechanics etc thinking that atheists will react like the dumb brainless religious people and just drop their jaws in awe and be so impressed that they accept it all as truth. Too bad that in real life most atheist know their stuff, and those who don't seek to learn from the right sources and don't just take the first view they happen to meet.
lets not repeal the law of gravity, lets just have it altered so we can make zero gravity zone
CapQuacer 1 week ago
You had sniffles because of your cold, you had a cold because you are an evil atheist - I mean no Christian would ever get a cold now would they?
These guys are idiots. I love how they try to ridicule science and then in the very next sentence use science to prove their thesis "Science is materialistic BS and is the Atheist's "god" and to prove they are wrong and my god actually exists I will use.... science!"
GenericGenerator 2 weeks ago in playlist Pwnagey stuff
Ozmoroid, you just gotta have faith. Just keep trying to believe. Hang around others who believe and ask them to help you come to believe also. You'll love the way it feels to be accepted and approved of. Now hey, I know it seems impossible, but if you keep trying really hard and surround yourself with others who are doing the same, you can do this! And just keep in mind, this is so much bigger than logic and reason. Be willing to throw that blasphemous crap out the window, in Jesus' name.
chuckfrasher 2 months ago
@chuckfrasher I see what you did there :)
jjobie 2 months ago
@chuckfrasher Right, so as long as you surround yourself with people who propagate the lie, then you will never see the truth, and you can be happy. Bra---vo... This is exactly what is wrong with Christianity.
leftclickben 1 month ago
@chuckfrasher Hey I've got a new motto you can use for your Church :
"BE IGNORANT; STAY IGNORANT; BE PROUD".
dieghettozz 1 month ago in playlist Pwnagey stuff
Well done! Owned.
BlueMajic100 2 months ago
ALL HAIL WHATEVER!
alexicoff 3 months ago
I lol'd at the annotation
Daruqe 4 months ago
God=A eternal, wise, whatever... just like in the bible
zxzIzxz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. Therefore is plausible that God exists.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
It's all green to me, really GREEK TO ME. Shoedinger? Wasn't he the one who came up with the Cat experiment.?
TheDano1947 4 months ago
@TheDano1947 Sorry about the Typo!
TheDano1947 4 months ago
Another fallacy of yours, it is not "gravity" that drives the motion of the Earth around the sun, but electromagnetic forces. It's been firmly established that the sun and Earth are both charged bodies in a field of plasma. In such circumstances, as lab experiments routinely show, bodies do not obey "gravity laws", they obey electromagnetic force laws. Electricity dominates the universe on every scale, "gravity" is a feeble toy theory rife with misunderstanding and metaphysical meandering waffle
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike Okay, you're a bit on the looney side I see.
ozmoroid 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
I can make an equally valid competing claim about you. You are a dumb fuck piece of shit ignoramus. See?
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike Wow, I'm impressed. You seem to be a 9/11 truther, pseudo-science fool of a troll. Here's what I challenge you to do. Make a video where you demonstrate your command of science. I have a physics playlist. You could "refute" any of those videos.
ozmoroid 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
Eat my ass. I don't have to make a video to correct your errors. As for refuting your videos, I don't seek out bullshit to refute, but when I come across it I do correct it. If you don't like being corrected, stop making errors.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@ozmoroid What do you mean by there's not evidence for Us?...if there's not,then I'm not here writing this down trying to save your soul,if there's not then I'm not Melkissedec or Holy Ghost,if there's not, then the twin towers are still up,Katrina,Mitch,Japan's tsunami never hit,Bush never stole Gore's and Obama's not in the White House,if there's not,then Gore won't be president and Hillary vicep after Biden,and the GOP 666 won't come,and there's no hell for y'all.Good luck Charlie.
melkissedec1 2 months ago
@fertilizerspike Why on earth did NASA waste all that money on rocket fuel, when all they needed to was to give the rocket the same electrostatic charge as the earth, and off it would have gone without gravity to impede it?
djhalling 5 months ago
@djhalling
First of all, money is worthless, it's impossible to waste it.
Second, it's not "electrostatic", there is no such thing as "electrostatic", electrons are always in motion.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@djhalling
It's clear to me you don't understand the phenomena involved here. It isn't a simple matter of "give the rocket the same charge as the Earth". All atoms are like tiny bar magnets. It's the sum of electromagnetic attraction and repulsion that roughly cancels out in close proximity but acts as a weak attractive force at a distance. We observe this in the lab in experiments involving birkeland currents.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike
It's clear to me (and i am sure i am by far not the only one) that you are living in an alternate reality.
A good shrink or a lenghty vacation at your local mental house might fix that.
You should maybe give it a try.
Oh btw i am quite positive that you never saw a real lab from the inside..
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay
Speak for yourself and your own mental problems, I have none.
I'm quite positive that you're a presumptuous and ignorant assfuck.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike
Your imaginary friend and your alternate reality claims suggest otherwise. I am willing to bet any genuine shrink will agree with me after a short conversation with you.
And i am not ignorant, maybe arrogant.. but it is easy to turn arrogant when surrounded by brainless tools.
realbojay 5 months ago
@realbojay
I'd have to say you're quite delusional. Basing belief on faith and the stories of twelve men is what got christainity started.
fertilizerspike 5 months ago
@fertilizerspike Sorry Spike, but you're obviously off your rocker. No offense.
Be good to yourself - get some professional help.
jjobie 2 months ago
@jjobie
Speak for yourself. Get your own "professional help".
fertilizerspike 2 months ago
@fertilizerspike "Electricity dominates the universe on every scale" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *takes breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
leftclickben 1 month ago
@fertilizerspike Gravity is quite the toy theory then if it prevents everything on Earth, even electrically neutral objects, from floating out into space.
jshowa10 1 day ago
@jshowa10
Begging the question. Of course if you begin with the ASSumption that "gravity" is responsible for attraction, all attraction will look like "gravity" to you. Until somebody manages to generate, amplify, block or manipulate gravity in any fashion, the only reasonable conclusion is that it is imaginary. I realize you will never come to grips with this, but that won't stop you from being wrong.
fertilizerspike 1 day ago
@fertilizerspike I don't begin with the assumption. The theory of gravity has been tested and has been apparent for over 200 years. It doesn't matter what its called, what matters is there is an obvious force holding objects down to earth and that every object dropped from a height falls downward at 9.8 m/s^2. We have equations that can be used to predict the movements of planets and objects with mass, all factoring in the attractive force of gravity.
jshowa10 1 day ago
@jshowa10
It is an ASSumption that "gravity" is responsible for attraction between matter. You also happen to be wrong in your ASSumption about the acceleration you cite, it's not the same everywhere on the Earth. And actually it DOES matter what you call it, if you call it something imaginary while there is a perfectly real and verifiable force you're ignoring.
fertilizerspike 22 hours ago
@fertilizerspike It is also known that electromagnetic forces are far weaker than gravitational forces because they act on particles more than anything else. I don't argue the fact that material can be charged, however an object that is electrically neutral has no electromagnetic forces, yet it STILL falls to the ground if you drop it from a known height. How do you explain this force then if the object is electrically neutral?
jshowa10 1 day ago
@jshowa10
It's apparently thought by you that "gravity" is stronger than electromagnetic forces, but that doesn't make it true. Aside from the fact that "gravity" is imaginary, electromagnetic forces are about forty orders of magnitude stronger than this "force". Also your claims about "electrically neutral" objects is feeble and misguided. The net force between two charged bodies is attractive at a distance, repulsive up close.
fertilizerspike 22 hours ago
@jshowa10
Since you don't qualifiy "electrically neutral" there's no reason to tell what you really mean, but the fact is there are no "electrically neutral" objects anywhere in the universe. There are no objects that have "no electromagnetic forces". This "force" of "gravity" can not be generated, amplified, blocked or manipulated in any fashion. That alone is reason to suspect it is wrong.
fertilizerspike 22 hours ago
@fertilizerspike A object that is electrically neutral means that it has no net charge (i.e. the same number of protons to electrons). All atoms want to achieve this state. For example, a hydrogen atom has one proton and one electron, therefore it is electrically neutral. Only electrically charged objects can produce electromagnetic fields and be influenced by them.
jshowa10 13 hours ago
@fertilizerspike One can see this by taking a piece of glass and some resin, setting them down next to each other, and notice that they do not exert forces on each other. It is only by transferring electrons through the act of rubbing the resin and glass together, that they will attract each other when separated. Charge is a quantifiable quantity, therefore the glass and resin have no net charge unless they are rubbed together.
jshowa10 13 hours ago
Is this in response to a video by young Hovind? That seems like his voice. He has a more professional sounding voice than his father. But he seems to be, if this is at all possible, even less intelligent than Kent is.
subductionzone 5 months ago
@subductionzone It is a response to Youtuber philos71 who has since closed his account.
ozmoroid 5 months ago
@ozmoroid
max2right 4 months ago
@ozmoroid One down, only six zillion more to go Thanks for the.great videos.
max2right 4 months ago
I don't understand most of what you said, it's way over my head.
But you are on the correct side of the debate, so I can only assume you are right.
It is interesting that Christians who do not understand this science either will use this information to try to prove their delusions.
legion1a 5 months ago
oh jesus, just looking at quantum mechanic equations hurts my brain.
jinnwarior 5 months ago
Let's not forget the Chaos Theory. The Chaos Theory explains how things go from simple to complex. People in the know believe that in 20 years or so computers will program themselves, and more interesting, write code that humans cannot write.
grisflyt 6 months ago
I think the main mistake that Philos makes is a very common one amongst theists. Namely that once a text is written it is fixed and must be defended at all costs, so the bible is equated with Darwin's 'on the origin of species' or with sciences understanding of the laws of nature as they existed around 1900. So he contends that the discovery of the seemingly random but ordered quantum mechanics world is proof of god because once upon a time scientists believed that quantum physics was thought t
Batters56 6 months ago
Subscribed :)
TheFluffyDuck 6 months ago
i'll help you mate, quite simple equation there.
Brain - Reason = God
oh and..
The only thing religions ever managed to prove.. is... that people are stupid enough to buy them.
realbojay 6 months ago
hello index of refraction!
thealchemist1111 7 months ago
I like ur intro. It's original.
zEropoint68 7 months ago
Yes!!! Good one, oz! This douche is obviously mentally troubled..
JokerzKard 7 months ago
What a poor argument. Quantum physics = God... I guess Feynman or Hawking just overlooked this obvious truth..... ROFLMAO
Fundamentally his argument is that any uncertainty = his god. His argument was a non-starter but you brilliantly ripped it to shreds. It was a classic mistake, any unknown = deity.
Enjoyed watching the pwnage.
th30r3m 7 months ago
anyone notice that he removed his original video? I guess he got tired of being bitch slapped with actual scientific data.
Relativisticism 7 months ago
Too many people use their superficial understanding of science to make bogus claims. They make a patchwork theology out of old rags torn from genuine research and sew it together with fallacious inferences.
jessemaurais 8 months ago
great vid!
narco73 8 months ago
It essentially boils down to:
"Science observes existence, and that's fallacy."
TuahShinguru 9 months ago
I really enjoyed your video. I'm convinced...there is no evidence for God. If there is a God, he better do something soon so we can know he exists. Otherwise, soon there will only be Atheists or superstitious fools.
ChristShepherd 9 months ago
One of the best videos I've seen on YouTube. I suspect that Philos doesn't have much knowldge of Quatum Mechanics. He is probably repeating a sermon that seems to be popular in churches today. It is the type of stuff that impresses the ignorant into belief in God.
ebaltrace 9 months ago
What? Didn't you notice the line of people lining up for baptism after the quantum physics exams? Those who did not get baptised were of course the people who failed the test. Instead of the ususal celebration of "the exam is finally over, let's get drunk and forget this stuff" we were trying to find a harp and some gospel music.
lizzand 10 months ago
Or maybe I should just have had a few more beers and avoided the hallucinations.
lizzand 10 months ago
Dawwwww, your quantum mechanics equations were saying hi to me. H math!
BigLundi 10 months ago
Typical Christian - finding the cutting edge mysteries of science and exploiting them as being "God".
... and then, the massive leap from Deism to crazy-wacky theism.
"There must have been a designer ..."
"... which is obviously Keith & Tim, the gay space monkeys."
They go from almost getting away with a dressed up "God did it" argument - and then collapse into a loopy fantasy land.
Nice to see Hoyle's comment about Yahweh - Dawkins wasn't the first to dump on that evil arsehole then.
jazzx251 10 months ago
Just like Deepak Chopra... trying to say: Quantum Mechanics = God, oh please.
DSAhmed 10 months ago
quantum mechanics hypothesises that there are paralell universes if only on the quantum scale,this doesnt show any evidence for a god of any kind.
ranchai100 10 months ago
What the hell is going on down there, crazy American's talking about magic beings cut it out scaring us up here eh.
groovyengineer 10 months ago
Outstanding.
It's truly bizarre that the US, a country whose wealth and achievements are substantially based on science and technology, is now one of the most superstitious nations in the world.
In the home of modern aeronautical science, about 75% of the population believes in angels: ie. invisible six limbed flying hominoids with feathered wings.
DukeIrritable 10 months ago
@DukeIrritable Well said. It's a bit depressing at times.
ozmoroid 10 months ago
@DukeIrritable What's even more depressing is that isn't even what the angels of the Bible look like! They are described as bizarre creatures, monstrous beings with surrealistic construction and impossible physical form.
They certainly aren't pretty white guys with feathered wings.
syn010110 9 months ago
@DukeIrritable well even though we have a vast number of well educated people here, we also have 5 times that of high school drop outs and bums that drown them out and the stupidity keeps perpetuating itself by allowing them to breed.
k0rps3gynd3r 6 months ago
Im sorry, i think i just pissed myself. The thing religous people dont get is that if there was scientific evidence for god then all scientist was be christian or what religion was proved. Its not happened yet.
RapeJesusWithAStick 11 months ago
While I enjyoed the video...spell check sometimes yo :P
BigLundi 11 months ago
"Hi, I'm the index of refraction" lol that cracked me up XD
Qubvo 11 months ago
Excellent video Oz.
GermanChocolateCake 11 months ago
I don't get this video. What is this about? Wtf has quantum mechanics or any other scientific idea, theory or evidence to do with the maybe 3500 year idea that there is a man in the sky who created everything, including mankind made from dust (and a rib), and cares about the hebrew race. I have no objection that people could believe in some deity, but to connect that deity with a single religion like judaism is stupid. To connect it with a man called Jesus is insane.
drdalet 1 year ago
Good work Oz. But those creationist videos are just a joke. Right? I mean they don't really believe that stuff... Do they?
hesaurus 1 year ago
@hesaurus I wish they didn't, but I'm afraid they do.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
Hoyle may have been hyper-intelligent, but was he pan-dimensional?
MrFungus420 1 year ago
love it ozmoroid!! great video!!
Ricosophy 1 year ago
oh my god, it was brutally distroyed:D
Ignorantf00l 1 year ago
Oh my god, you must be the most arrogant youtuber out there! If you want to be an atheist, then why not just kill yourself? What is the point of living, if there is no such thing as spirituality? I feel sorry for you. The truth is, there is no time, it is all happening at once. Wether you believe it or not, you do have a spirit and a soul, and you are wasting the opportunity of reaching your full human potential by choosing to be a (simple) atheist. But then again, it's all good. You are OK.
mongorocker 1 year ago
@mongorocker Why not kill myself? Uh, maybe because I enjoy living. What is the point of living? Enjoying life and loving other people. Being a productive member of society. Leaving behind a better world for the next generation. Being a father to my kids. Being a husband to my wife. Being a son to my parents. Being a ... You don't need a "spirit" or a "soul" to do any of these things.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid "The meaning of life is being a productive member of society, and loving other people". Do you not see how sheepish that shounds? By the sound of it, you have no independent thought at all.
mongorocker 1 year ago
Comment removed
pythor2 1 year ago
@mongorocker You seem to have mistaken atheism with nihilism, or directly assumed that all atheists are nihilists.
Besides, just because you are an atheist, doesn't mean you don't believe in something. For example, I believe that my dad will quit smoking. Atheists just disbelieve in one more god (out of the thousands of other gods) than Christians, Hindus, and Muslims alike. That is all.
pythor2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pythor2 I disagree. I think most atheists are, more or less, nihilists. Atheists tend to think there is no afterlife. I am not a christian, nor am I religious, but I do believe in eternal life. There are plenty of "hidden" secrets about the mening of life, right out there in the open. All you have to do is look, and you will see it. For instance, take a look at the HUGE pine cone statue in the Vatican. Think pineal gland. What do the masons say? There is no time.
mongorocker 1 year ago
@ozmoroid Why not kill myself?"
Hmm because we only get one life -- there is a reason why there are no atheist suicide bombers--
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Yes. And the reason for this is fear of death. Atheists are in a state of fear, denying the undeniable truth of infinity and infinite ilfe.
mongorocker 1 year ago
@mongorocker i believe that i have a spirit/ soul/ whatever u wanna call it. i believe my soul will live on after i die. but i also fear death because there is no proof of an afterlife. i believe in a higher power, but my beliefs are soooo far off from what 99% of people call god that i generally agree with atheism 99% of the time. if that confuses you, PM me. respect.
SuckMyKiss420 1 year ago
@mongorocker Seriously? It's been my observation that people who believe in the supernatural, especially as it pertains to life after death, are the ones most in fear of death. They fear it so much that they construct myths to reassure them that there is some form of existence beyond death. Their fear of non-being is so great they simply cannot accept anything less than continued existence.
I, an atheist, fear non-being, but have conceded that I have no choice in the matter. Someday I will die.
GermanChocolateCake 11 months ago
@mongorocker Furthermore, the idea that infinite life is undeniable is absurd, and you call in to question your rationality and credibility by even making such an assertion.
Infinite life (especially beyond death) is very deniable based on the fact that there is no hard evidence of consciousness of any form existing beyond death (anecdotal experiences do not count as hard evidence), nor is there any hard evidence of anyone being resurrected after a significant period of being dead.
GermanChocolateCake 11 months ago
@GermanChocolateCake Nor do we have any factual evidence of anyone or anything being "immortal".
GermanChocolateCake 11 months ago
@GermanChocolateCake just on an interesting note to that.
there is a species of jellyfish which is potentially immortal. It starts life as a cessile polyp on the seafloor. upon sexual maturity it becomes a swimming/drifting medusoid jellyfish. It is then able to revert this process and start again from the polyp stage. this can be done an infinite number of times.
Not refuting your argument.... just a fun (and incredibly cool) fact =D
haz020190 11 months ago
@haz020190 Lol, strange critter. Amended, no HUMAN immortal =P
Though given what evolutionary science, yes evolutionary science, has taught us, it is not inconceivable that we could make our species effectively immortal through gene-therapy as we learn more about stem cells, free radicals, and the process of dna/rna replication. Basically, as I understand it, we could undo cell and dna replication damage with stem cells by giving the body a way to create "correct" undamaged cells and dna.
GermanChocolateCake 11 months ago
@GermanChocolateCake ye ive heard of some great progress in that.
never sure whether id want it myself =/ an eternity would get pretty dull....and it would raise issues of population control if people are living that long.
if science can get me 150-200 years i reckon ill be happy =P
haz020190 11 months ago
@ozmoroid Fantastic video. Witty, funny and logical. Thumbs up.
Vomitonthecross 1 year ago
@ozmoroid EXACTLY! /high five
kallie3000 7 months ago
@ozmoroid y u no enable thumbs up?
i want to like this comment!
Hypastpist 7 months ago
@mongorocker "why not just kill yourself?" wow, that's very... christian thing to say. you "spiritual" people are just SCARY.
manatsunoshi 1 year ago
@manatsunoshi Nope, I'm not a christian. I'm just a human being, who has realized the fact that there is more to life than Pepsi and popcorn. Sometimes life is good, and sometimes life is bad. But if you HONESTLY believe in NOTHING at all (I mean, you REALLY think when life ends, that's it), why not just put yourself out of your misory and kill yourself? This is like trying to teach an old dog how to sit, but you should look up the Pineal Gland, read about, and try to grasp what infinity is.
mongorocker 1 year ago
@manatsunoshi That's right, you think it is scary. The truth though, is there is nothing to fear. You are the one full of fear, not me. You fear me cause I feel no fear. Though I must say, I do not want to encourage anyone to commit suicide, as it is not good for ones spiritual development. You try any tarot deck and ask what will happen if you kill yourself, and the same card will always appear with the message: lesson not learned, double punishment.
mongorocker 1 year ago
@mongorocker The whole point of being a christian is death. Your life is meaningless and will only have meaning once you die and meet your imaginary friend. You should be praying to your sky daddy to kill you sooner rather than later so that you may join him. Isn't that the whole point?
angryshoes1986 1 year ago
@mongorocker LOL
HoLOLcaust 1 year ago
@mongorocker That's like saying, "I can't watch every movie in the world, so why watch 1?" or "I cannot know everything in the universe, so why learn anything?". Finite happiness in a finite life are just as valuable, if not more valuable, then infinite life and infinite happiness. Just because we accept that we cannot live eternally, does not mean that we must immediately kill ourselves. Logical fail.
AnonymousAscendent 8 months ago
@AnonymousAscendent :"Why bother to live if your life would end anyway" as stupid as Why bother to watch the movie if you knew if would end anyway
"if this is your only life and no punishment why don't you kill,rape etc for pleasures?"
Because I have only a little time I think I should spend it on meaningful purposes,and no,most ppl don't have such criminal pleasures and no,I don't need hell to not hurting others.]
It's just simple like that,I don't get y some ppl can't seem to understand it :(
uyenst 8 months ago
@uyenst Are you arguing with me? You seem to be agreeing to my point. I was stating those metaphors as examples of the logic of a theist. Of course it's worth watching a movie that will end, that's my point. Finite happiness is not worthless because it is not one's precious infinite happiness.
AnonymousAscendent 8 months ago
@AnonymousAscendent :No I don't, I just wanna share my thoughts and my question "why are there, not some but many of ppl, in the 21st century, can still be intolerant like that?" , but the fricking 500 limitation from youtube just won't let me express them clearly without posting another comment, which usually lead to having to fill in captcha and likely being over lapped by others' comments.
Sorry for the misunderstanding ;)
uyenst 8 months ago
@mongorocker Any animal, including us, are not stupid enough to go kill ourselves (well, we're the exception, but in extreme situations). You're given a life, you don't fucking waste it. "Oh thanks dad for the $1,000. I'll throw it away now, lol."- you use it to the fullest extent.
TomRaphaelWolf 8 months ago
@CrapnellGates It also seems you are confusing metaphysics with philosophy, at large. But, I could be wrong. Science is, itself, a philosophy. One that works, as you and Tf00t put it. Which I would consider to be evidence that science is a true philosophy... that is, a true and accurate method for exploring and studying reality, and more importantly, determining what actually is real.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
There is plenty of evidence for the Tahitian Banana God....If he doesn't exist then why are there bananas?
rogan71 1 year ago
Could not stop laughing from 8:10 to 9:10. Great job, great editing!
mokarss 1 year ago
how is that a fallacy? It's observation.
systematic101 1 year ago
both sides are guilty of the same fallacy
Negative proof fallacy:
that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Sorry. A supernatural entitiy in a natural world does not carry the same weight as a universe without this being. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Those who believe that there is a god (of some sort) must demonstrate with evidence this god person, or it is logical, reasonable, and correct to dismiss said claims out of hand. The negative doesn't need any evidence. Until the premise is proven by the positive claimant, the negative wins by default.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@jymbo1969 I'm not talking about the same instance. Theists are guilty of the negative proof fallacy in exactly the way you are describing, while (some) atheists are guilty of saying the bible is false because there is no evidence for it.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Nonsense. I say the bible is false, because all extant evidence leads to that conclusion. The bible IS false. That's not an irrational position to take. You see? The bible declares itself true and is believed to be inspired (at least) by some perfect (heh) being. Any evidence to the contrary is proof positive the bible is false. The bible is internally inconsistent, and externally uncorroberated. Ergo: the only reasonable assessment is the bible is false.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@jymbo1969 I agree with your claim, but some atheists will say, "There is no evidence >for< the bible/god, and so therefore it/he does not exist."
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger Ahh! Well, ok, I see what you''re saying. Yes, you are correct. Without further logical analysis stopping at the "there is no evidence for A, therefore B must be correct," is ijndeed a logical fallacy.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger And moreso, it is nonsense to assume that abscence of evidence does not constitute evidence of abscence if the premise requires self-evidence, like in the god concept. Over time, the lack of evidence presented by the positive claimant position does, in fact, constitute evidence that the premise is false. It is not, however, proof that the premise is false. However, this plus the skeptical position requiring evidence for a premise, shows the clear response to the claim: rejection.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
I wish the dude would reply. It'd be interesting.
GodDamnit7711 1 year ago
Science > God.
LegendaryZody 1 year ago
I go by insticts you go by faith there is no god so piss off you got the dam idea of god from a book not from looking up in the clouds.
wachnathan 1 year ago
Ouch!
Well they asked the question!
1BustedMyth 1 year ago
Damn, that philos71-guy is insane! He's just like that Brock Lawley or whatever his name is.: )
winterstellar 1 year ago
Materialistic science cannot tell you what is real in the materialistic world. This may come as a shock to you, and I always have a laugh at atheists who think themselves scientific for thinking it is the case.
The signal difference between science and other modes of inquiry is that science overcomes the dilemma of knowing the nature of reality by not making positive statements about it.
You do not KNOW the apple will fall, you believe it will on the basis of past successful prediction.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Of course science makes positive statements about reality, that's what scientific theories are.
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid We make positive statements about reality on the basis of our belief or lack of belief in scientific theories but we do not establish our belief in scientific theories on the basis of (and correspondence with) the positive statements THEY make about the world.
We evaluate scientific theories solely on the basis of "falsifiability, refutability or testability" according to Popper 1963. A good scientific theory is not a description of the world, it is "a prohibition".
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what the heck your point is.
compactdisk2 1 year ago
@compactdisk2 "I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what the heck your point is."
It isn't complicated, the point is that speaking of science as if it is an attempt to describe reality is misguided both from a scientific and a philosophical perspective.
It what sense is a clade "real"? Or Newton's laws?
No, they are not real things, they are descriptions of consistently related observations. Science is not a description of reality, it is a description of our understanding of reality.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter So what is the problem? Do you have an alternative?
Would you say that some wild guess of some magical jewish zombie controlling it all is an explanation worthy of equal merrit with the explanations we gather as a result of the harsh scientific scrutiny?
Either propose an alternative methodology that works better or admit that science is the best way we have to gather knowledge about the universe. Or shut the fuck up.
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter What keeps you from believing in unicorns or do you believe in unicorns? I have a Christian friend who told me "I never said I don't believe in unicorns". What?! His response was the Bible was never meant to explain scientific fields. He also didn't let me explain that if ancient people had any real knowledge of the world, they wouldn't have made up stories to explain it. The creation myths for example
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins "What keeps you from believing in unicorns or do you believe in unicorns?"
The only test of veracity I allow myself (and others): 'I have no need for that hypothesis.' - Pierre-Simon Laplace
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Why claim a god exist? There's the same amount of evidence for the existence of unicorns as any god. Still, you believe a god is real. Why?
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins "Why claim a god exist?"
Why claim I like chocolate? Why claim time always runs forward? Why claim I am conscious? Why claim empirical reality exists? Why claim a anti-matter particle will be stable in a anti-matter region of space? Why claim the laws of physics are the same in all regions of space? Why claim that there is a singularity at the center of a black hole?
I can't prove any of those things things either. Nor you.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Are you going to answer the question? If I see you eating chocolate all the time, I can correctly assume you like it. Time is relative. I know I'm conscious and I assume you are also. We know anti-matter exists, we've been creating it for 20yrs. There is some research going on right now to answer the physics law question. Mathematics don't lie, math tells us that there are what's called a singularity at the center of black holes
You can't prove gravity 100%, you doubt that too?
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter You can't give me any evidence for a god, yet you seem to claim one exists. Blind faith is all you have friend, which is fine, but don't post stupid comments on science videos.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins "You can't give me any evidence for a god, yet you seem to claim one exists."
I don't think I ever claimed that he actually exists.
All of your supposed proofs just show what I always suspect about your brand of atheism. It is usually built on a poor grasp of logic.
"You can't prove gravity 100%, you doubt that too?"
As a person of a scientific mindset you bet I do. You mean you believe it as an article of faith?
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter I never claimed there isn't a god. There could be one. My problem is with people that claim they know a god exists, they don't. You don't, I don't. But, there is a reason I don't believe in fairies too. No evidence for them.
Takes no blind faith to believe in gravity. We have evidence to support the claim that gravity does exist.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins "We have evidence to support the claim that gravity does exist."
We do not accept scientific theories on the basis of evidence. That is a lay misconception of the process.
You accept the existence of gravity because experiments designed to falsify which had a good chance of falsifying Newton's law failed to do so. In fact Newton's law is known to be incorrect in the details and there is technically no established replacement theory which unifies quantum mechanics and gravity.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
What are you talking about?
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@HighCardWins Oh poor dear. Go read Popper, you have a horribly misguided idea of what science is.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@HighCardWins "Takes no blind faith to believe in gravity"
So in fact the exact opposite is the case: We accept gravity exists in terms of Newton's laws because it is useful for us to do so despite the fact that we have extremely solid evidence showing that they are in fact not correct.
How does that fit into your worldview?
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter You can start your own Hogwarts school of magic if you'd like.
"Gravity is the result of levitating super turtle sitting on infinite trampoline"
HighCardWins 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter "You do not KNOW the apple will fall, you believe it will on the basis of past successful prediction."
That's your view of quantum mechanics? If what you are saying were true, we wouldn't have nuclear reactors, fool.
Scientific inquiry is the only way to prove things. The scientific method has very stricts rules from which to follow. Anything else is absolute nonsense.
Spit in one hand, wish in the other and see which one fills up the fastest.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HighCardWins "Scientific inquiry is the only way to prove things."
I bet Einstein, Popper, Feynman and that whole psuedo-scientific physics crew would disagree.
Maybe you should try learning from these admittedly minor figures in science?
/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4
Just a suggestion...
Proof is the domain only of logic, physical reality has nothing to do with it.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HighCardWins "Scientific inquiry is the only way to prove things."
I bet Einstein, Popper, Feynman and that whole psuedo-scientific physics crew would disagree.
Maybe you should try learning from these admittedly minor figures in science?
/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4
Just a suggestion...
Proof is the domain only of logic, physical reality has nothing to do with it.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HighCardWins "Scientific inquiry is the only way to prove things."
I bet Einstein, Popper, Feynman and that whole psuedo-scientific physics crew would disagree.
Maybe you should try learning from these admittedly minor figures in science?
o1dgrvlWML4
Just a suggestion...
Proof is the domain only of logic, physical reality has nothing to do with it.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
Understanding reality is very convoluted, deep, and difficult. However, no one ever cured diseases or created a polio vaccine by "other modes of inquiry".
At the deepest and darkest level you are right, We cannot be certain of much (including what is real in the materialistic world)..but It is the best we've come up with so far...so what do you say we let philosophers do philosophy, and in the mean time we try to save some lives and find truth the best way we know how?
CrapnellGates 1 year ago
@CrapnellGates "but It is the best we've come up with so far"
I have no problem with that. Science serves a purpose and serves it well. I don't even mind if you want to be scientistic about and "worship" science.
"so what do you say we let philosophers do philosophy"
I like to think of myself as a bit of a philosopher, hence I do philosophy.
"try to save some lives and find truth the best way we know how?"
Avoiding scientific error and maintaining epistemic humility is part of that goal.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@CrapnellGates As a philosopher, I gotta tell ya... It isn't just philosophers to "do philosophy". reason is for everyone.. but! one may not simply decide his argument is correct. It requires evidence.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@jymbo1969 I think our disagreement here (if there is one) is just semantics.
Obviously reason is for everyone, and if that is all your definition of philosophy entails then you are correct.
But I was speaking more specifically to the type of philosophy that asks "Are we Brains in Vats?" or "Am I a ghost in a machine?". Epistemology and The problem of Induction are very important, but I think this type of philosophy should be viewed as a commodity when we could be saving human lives.
CrapnellGates 1 year ago
@CrapnellGates Science might not get us to the deepest degree of philosophical truth, but as Thunderf00t put it, "It works, bitches" . I don't think retreating into these core depths of philosophy is not important, but I don't think it supersedes the responsibility to live peacefully or create cures. If you value the former over the latter It's a slippery slope to solipsism and selfishness.
p.s. I'm also a philosopher. I'll have my bachelors in Philosophy in a few months actually. Huzzah !
CrapnellGates 1 year ago
@CrapnellGates Congrats on your degree.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@CrapnellGates Those excercises you mention are used to demonstrate the inherent impossibility of certainty, and to teach not to assume one's beliefs to be rational.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter I think you're hinting at the fallibilism of Karl Popper and in a sense you are correct. However, science works so well, in the sense that it is very good at deciding which past instances to use in future prediction and how, that I think that that belief you talk about is justified.
ikmaardanouder 1 year ago
@ikmaardanouder I'm not just hinting at Popper. I am SHOUTING Popper.
You don't believe in science because THAT is what distinguishes science from hokum. The whole point is that science is not about believing what you can justify believing in. Science is about believing in and testing syllogisms not concrete facts.
As far as I am concerned is at best scientism is no better than dousing. Worse even, because it actually damages science immeasurably. These guys CAUSE reactionary creationism.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter I didn't realise so many people on youtube didn't go to school. Can I make a donation to your family or something. Which backward part of the world are you from little feller? Maybe I can convince my government to send some aid over there... All the best, hope it works out for you. Watch out for dingos or whatever.
hesaurus 1 year ago
@hesaurus Wow, you really demonstrated your intellectual and moral superiority there. Excellent grasp of the subtleties involved in the subject matter. I especially noted the clever association of Australia with a backward country in need of foreign aid because it has a wild animals. Such class.
Don't worry about sending aid to my government though, you can send the money directly to me (no cheques please). PM me for the posting address.
I look forward to doing business with you.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
Such a typical new age atheist vid ...
1) 50% chance that author starts with a personal insult
2) makes unsupported claims about other peoples' statements
3) hides itself in semantics & rhetoric trickery
4) jumps from a-z to evade any consequences that could come from strictly following a line of argumentation.
4) author inserts several snotnosed remarks and quits with (1)
I wish these people weren't so bitter about their societal irrelevance.
It's really a sign of the times...
sooperfukker 1 year ago
@sooperfukker You nailed me. I'm so irrelevant. ;-)
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid
Well, your pseudo atheism certainly is.
Since Sartre, I haven't anything new about the topic and this newish atheist movement is quite low class in its positions.
sooperfukker 1 year ago
@sooperfukker I don't think you understood this video at all.
compactdisk2 1 year ago
@sooperfukker -_-. star with personal insult where? allso where are the unsupported claims? and where are the jumping from a-z? show me where and explane how.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@sooperfukker
Such a typical new age( anti atheist) vid ...
1) 50% chance that author starts with a personal insult
2) makes unsupported claims about other peoples' statements
3) hides itself in semantics & rhetoric trickery
4) jumps from a-z to evade any consequences that could come from strictly following a line of argumentation.
4) author inserts several snotnosed remarks and quits with (1)
I wish these people weren't so bitter about their societal irrelevance.
InquisitorDracomual 1 year ago
I find it incredibly amusing when christian apologists try to make arguments using big buzz words like quantum mechanics etc thinking that atheists will react like the dumb brainless religious people and just drop their jaws in awe and be so impressed that they accept it all as truth. Too bad that in real life most atheist know their stuff, and those who don't seek to learn from the right sources and don't just take the first view they happen to meet.
D20018200 1 year ago