Has anyone noted a serious lack of good grammar and sentence structure in youtube posts? I've been checking out a variety of videos and noticed that many posts make no sense or are compleatly illiterate!
I'm certainly no genious myself! I see posting as practice for formulating good arguments on any subject.
I try to check my grammar and spelling before posting, but when I go back and read them later I see small grammatical mistakes. I figured that I either made a simple mistake or that my comments are being edited by the CIA in a gas lighting campaign. Either way, I don't really care that much about it, and neither does anyone else, except English majors, of course.
Language evolves - it is not static. z00n w3'll 4ll b3 sp34k1ng 3117. Se la ve. Sink or swim.
@alexbald12 We, English Majors (or anyone with a minimum of one year on the course to an English degree), do watch Youtube videos. Unfortunately, we are the exception and not the rule.
And in case you're wondering where I fall, I fall under the "Minimum of One Year" category.
Interesting. . . lol. That's really all I'll say here because I prefer not to argue via youtube. Not to mention, any argument I make you'll probably deem as invalid as, when talking about religion - and even a few choice scientific things - some bit of "faith" is required. Faith isn't really logical at all, now is it? *shrugs* Even so, very interesting.
Faith is the very opposite of science. Faith is not allowed in science. You can either formulate a hypothesis to test a theory or you can't. Some people might have "faith" in the scientific community, but that "faith" has a lot more hard evidence supporting it than religion, as the scientific community solves problems every day, whereas religions have a talent for creating them.
Science operates under assumptions. One assumption is that you seem to be certain there couldn't possibly be a more intelligent or advanced "brain" out there than human. Is it possible? sure, but it's also possible we aren't. Science has always been our best guess at the time. And historically, that guess gets proven wrong, then a new guess is developed. There is absolutely no more validity to the scientific theory than another theory. One time science KNEW the Sun rotated round the Earth
"One assumption is that you seem to be certain there couldn't possibly be a more intelligent or advanced "brain" out there than human"
Name me one scientist who has ever made that assumption in any way.
"One time science KNEW the Sun rotated round the Earth"
NO, one time PEOPLE "knew" the sun rotated around the earth. SCIENCE doesn't "know" anything. It is a METHOD, a method, which, btw, we people LEARNED the truth about the sun.
PEOPLE "knew" the sun rotated around the earth, because that was their SCIENCE at the time. You're right, it's a Method. The method is to call the best guess at the time universal laws. Yet, every one we've had, until the ones we use now, eventually were proven wrong. An apple falling from a tree led to scientific understanding of gravity. Yet, we still can't confirm if gravity is a push or a pull. Mind you, I'm not trying to change your mind on anything, just offering outside perspective
Just as people of faith/religious/unseen beliefs have different groups, sects, etc. So too does the scientific community. There are opposing views and beliefs in all areas. Look at Global Warming and Climate change. Which sadly most of the debate on that is hidden from the public as government enjoys many benefits from one side of that scientific debate. As far as Science vs Religion goes, there's holes in both. In my experience, issues with different views, truth's usually in the middle!
"Just as people of faith/religious/unseen beliefs have different groups, sects, etc. So too does the scientific community. "
There are disagreements, sure. There is always a debate as people formulate different theories based on a constantly growing body of data. That doesn't mean that science is "just" like religion. Religion has dogma that is not based on evidence, whereas everything in science MUST be based on evidence, and there is NO dogma allowed.
"You're confusing scientific theory with physical law." Theory = Guess
"whereas everything in science MUST be based on evidence, and there is NO dogma allowed." Than explain gravity. Is it a push or a pull? How can there be a black and white debate over the issue. And how can both have evidence when they are clearly contravening theories? It's all a matter of perspective. A change in perspective changes everything.
A scientific theory is NOT a "guess". It is an EXPLANATION of FACTS.
Gravity is an OBSERVATION. General relativity is the theory that explains this observation. I can't explain general relativity to you in less than 500 characters
General Relativity is the best guess right now used to try and explain gravity. But that retort had nothing to do with my question about gravity being a push of a pull. Science has determined it's a force, but there is no consensus or proof, that this force is a push, or a pull. And it's a pretty big leap of faith to believe in the science past that. There would be different implications of Newton's 3rd Law, if it was a push vs a pull.
General Relativity is not a "guess". While it may not be perfect or complete, it IS valid, as nuclear power and nuclear weapons attest.
Push or pull? This isn't the third grade. Warping space-time has nothing to do with "pushing" or "pulling" anything. Those terms are remedial analogies at best.
"Well it may not be perfect or complete, it IS vaild"
^----- sounds suspiciously like the spaghetti monster. Now it seems you are asking me to believe/get behind/put faith into a guess ... errrr ok, fine *sigh* .... I'll accept your word "theory" that is not perfect or complete.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is NOT a valid scientific theory. The idea exists as an EXAMPLE of something that is not a valid scientific theory.
Faith is not required. We can DEMONSTRATE that general relativity is somewhat accurate by splitting an atom and releasing it's energy. The "imperfection" of the theory is not something that is hidden. Unlike religion, scientists are encouraged to explore and even disprove theories rather than accept them on "faith".
Well I guess it's a good thing I'm not religious. ;) I also have a very hard time believing that slaves built the pyramids. I'm also not arrogant enough to believe consciousness, thought, art, emotions, dreams, even the pursuit of science, just happened. Nor am I willing to accept on "faith" that the Big Bang, just happened by chance. And overlook the idea that something had to cause it. Science IS able to explain how, Spirituality explains WHY. But those are answers you find within!
"I'm also not arrogant enough to believe consciousness, thought, art, emotions, dreams, even the pursuit of science, just happened."
JUST HAPPENED? That would be absurd. The idea that all of these things just inexplicably came into existence without precursors is even worse of an explanation than saying "God did it". Is that what you think the big bang theory is? Everything just popped into existence out of nothing? Sorry, but, if that's the case, you simply don't understand the theory.
"These zones of infinite density are called 'singularities.' Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know." (quote from w w w (dot) big-bang-theory (dot) com/) I see a whole lot of we don't know's, holes, and leaps of faith when I read this, just as big of a leap of faith as God did it.
Saying "we don't know" is not a leap of faith. Saying "we don't know, therefor God did it" IS a leap of faith.
To accept ANY speculation about what we don't know is a leap of faith. However, we CAN accept that some explanations have more evidence than others, and that "divine" explanations have no evidence at all. THAT'S FAITH - accepting something without evidence.
When have I ever claimed that we don't know therefore God did it? However, it's because I don't know, that I also won't rule out God or other "divine" explanation did it. The very fact that you don't know, shouldn't shut your mind to any possibility. Dr. Masaru Emoto's research on consciousness and emotion having effect on water is a prime example. To think about thought affecting matter on a molecular level to me enforces the belief that a "divine" explanation is possible.
"PEOPLE "knew" the sun rotated around the earth, because that was their SCIENCE at the time."
NO, it was because it was their BELIEF at the time. The idea that the sun revolved around the earth was not determined scientifically. It was based on tradition and the CHURCH.
The scientific method is not "calling the best guess a universal law". You're confusing scientific theory with physical law.
why do antelope run so fast? is it so they can escape predators? why do cheeters run so fast? is it so they can catch antelope? if so, whos side is god on?
now, some of my experiences are provisions, helps, upliftings, answered prayer, signs and wonders following, braking of yokes of bondage, being set free, being delivered from demonic and satanic forces, given understanding by God, given wisdom, given direction, guidance by the Holy Spirit, dreams, intercessions, fighting against God, rebelling against God, carrying the cross, dropping the cross and stomping on it, the wrath of God hanging over my head,
Its nice to see someone with common sense on here. They think our views are silly.... but they are the ones that believe a big explosion created everything...usually from what i have seen explosions tend to destroy stuff.
"but they are the ones that believe a big explosion created everything"
A "big explosion"? I assume you're talking about the "big bang". Calling it an "explosion" demonstrates only a remedial understanding.
The big bang is a theory extrapolated from DIRECT OBSERVATION. Analysis of the light coming from stars, as well as other observations, indicates that all matter in the known universe originated from a single point. It is a CONCLUSION people have drawn, not a "belief" that they subscribe to.
I am begining to wonder if you are the reincarnation of my father, a Physics teacher, Doctor of Science and a lifelong atheist. I was brought up on the same views from early childhood, as you so succinctly expound with your fabulous videos.
But of course there is no such thing as reincarnation, only a numpty believes that kind of nonsense.!
Really great stuff keep up the good work we need people like you.
anyways im really bored of arguing semantics now, i've told you my definition of supernatural, it's very simple and shouldn't be something that needs discussion.
It may be semantics. However, the problem is that you are using "supernatural" in one sense to describe what we don't or can't understand about nature, and then using to describe what is "outside" nature. You've already equivocated the two, and have refuse to further define what it is you are talking about.
If supernatural means that which is outside of the known universe, fine. However, the word carries with it things that are IMPOSSIBLE withing the realm of nature, like miracles.
the word can be used in other ways, but as i've said, again and again, i use to it describe that which is beyond the natural. It really is as simple as that, or should be anyway.
OK, well, I'm going to call anything that is not yet known by science "black magic". Therefor, the big bang was created by black magic. Also, gravity is the result of black magic.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
"clearly seen"? Maybe when bronze age primitives looked at the natural world, it was "clearly seen" that a god created everything, but now we have the benefit of science, and what we are "clearly seeing" right now is evidence of evolution and the big bang.
and very soon you are going to "clearly see" "SIGNS and WONDERS" performed by false prophets, including, but not limited to, fire being summoned from the heavens.
So, in other words, the only thing that can prove the existence of god is miracles, but these miracles shouldn't be evidence of god, but are in fact deceptions of the devil?
That presents quite a few problems, don't you think? You are basically saying that the only evidence we can use to determine god's existence should be ignored.
No, there is plenty of evidence for God. Im just telling you atheists and agnostics to earnestly seek God with a sincere heart (Jesus says "seek and ye will find"), because you will believe in a god very soon; be it the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Antichrist.
There is archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, dead sea scrolls, etc...ive corresponded with lots of atheists like ChristianREDPILL channel that became Christians through looking at things like the archeological evidence...
Everything in existence supports a biblical worldview.
I'm more into escahtology, but from what I've seen, there are all kinds of OT family herilooms, dead sea scrolls, and the many original manuscripts and manuscript copies that exist...if i recall the NT dwarfs every other text, with like 24,000 manuscripts, as opposed to around 700 for the illiad, and then down to only several for different roman historians etc...
also what I find interesting is the Grand Canyon and Polystrat trees...
they say the Colorado eroded the grand canyong over billions of years...but i've been there, and there's no way...the Colorado is SMALL compared to the cliffs and pinnacles of the canyon...they are nearly a MILE DEEP...and where else in the world have rivers eroded a canyon like that?
so is it a small amount of water that eroded it over billions of years, OR, is it a LARGE amount of water, over a SHORT timeframe...which brings us to things like polystrat trees and coalization...
geologists contend that each layer of strata is thousands of years of deposit...but then how do you explain single fossilized trees going through many(poly) layers of strata?
there are many pics of this you can find online...an abvious explanation would be sedimentary deposits following, say, a flood...a flood would also explain the sea shells etc found on every single mountain, including mount everest...we've found shells and trilobites here in the appalachians of PA farming...
and they say coalization takes place over billions of years as well, but scientists have been able to duplicate the process using high pressure + temp in a lab...the outer layer would be coalized in like two weeks...
also, there is evidence that oil is abiotic...I ran across some things when i was looking up peak oil, which is a fraud...peak oil basically originates from a BP guy...anyway, those are a few of the things I can think of off hand...
I don't know anything about "coalization". I've never read much about it. Please do me a favor and look up the talk origins index of creationist claims, and tell me why what they say about "coaliation" is wrong.
I did tell you. Basically peat forms from vegetation, and then turns into coal. The question is, how long does it take. They suggest millions of years, but there is evidence to the contrary, in that scientists were able to duplicate the process in a relatively short amount of time (ie several weeks).
idk. But I do know that God exists, because I have had many experiences and revelations. And Im not special, i am nothing. Everyone can experience God, but they harden their hearts.
I have had many spiritual experiences, as well, but I didn't ATTRIBUTE them to anything specific anymore. I USED TO attribute them to God, but then I discovered that true humility is not found in accepting something as true, but rather in accepting that you may not know the truth.
I'm nothing special, either. However, just because I have not accepted YOUR truth does not mean I have "hardened my heart", whatever that means.
Do you even have ANY IDEA how those "strata" are formed? Do you understand the dating methods? Do you realize that there are DIFFERENT KIND OF STRATA, made by DIFFERENT methods? Do you honestly think that the thousands of geologists that study this are completely stupid? Nobody in the accedemic world accepts this. Only people who don't know anything about geology.
Yes. AS WITH ANY OTHER TOOL, if you use it improperly, you will get incorrect results. However, when you take into account the massive convergence of the various kinds of dating methods, which are doubly verified by the consensus of multiple branches of science, there's almost no chance that the earth could be that young.
yeah, idk how old the earth is, i would have to do a lot more research concerning these matters...
Im more interested in the end than the beginning. False prophets and prophesies are deceiving millions of people, and the church is asleep. You guys watch what happens, nothing will happen on Dec 21 2012, and then everyone will stop watching, when Jesus tells us to watch.
If God already set up a system where billions of people will go to hell as it stands now. Whose to say it's not worse for man, and all Christians current understanding of the Bible is fundamentally flawed. If Satan can trick people, who are you to say that Satan hasn't tricked early Christians and Jews into making them think Satan was the Holy Ghost and has had people change the Bible to successfully impeded peoples chances of receiving the Holy Ghost.
to the New Testament "put up thy sword into thy sheath, for ALL those who take the sword shall perish with the sword."
and to Revelation..."whoso killeth with the sword MUST BE KILLED BY the sword."
that's a good example using the Bible anyway.
the only problem is that there are many lies and fallacies concerning the mainstream historical record, so we must combine elements of revisionist history, and this is a very difficult process.
my point though is we shouldn't use the Bible as our source for history, or science, as so many people do. We should leave that to scientists. We need to start trusting the scientific method and peer reviewed articles a little more.
no, the Bible literally chronicles the entire history of mankind.
their version of history is in sharp contrast with what the Bible says, and both cannot be correct.
for example Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel about the statue...that goes from Babylon right into the present day, prophesying kingdoms before they were even formed.
the prophecy is confirmed by the dead sea scrolls etc.
By having faith in god, and not faith in mankind's wisdom, you simply push us back to the dark ages with thinking like that. Just because "god" says that the wisdom of this world is foolish, doesn't make it true. Newton wasn't foolish, Benjamin Franklin wasn't foolish, Thomas Jefferson wasn't foolish, Charles Darwin wasn't foolish, Edwin Hubble wasn't foolish. All of them were atheist or deists. Lack of god opens up the door for intelligent thinking, which is what we depend on so much.
they were most certainly foolish compared to the mighty and living God.
"II thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"
Isaiah 3: "1For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water. 2The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, 3The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator. 4And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them."
You keep quoting the Bible as if its merit-able. It's not. Anybody, and I repeat ANYBODY looks foolish when you compare it to an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnipresent being that we can't see. But, that doesn't make it true. When I compare any human to superman, they pale by comparison, but superman isn't real. When I compare people to Jimmy Neutron they pale in comparison to intelligence, that doesn't make Jimmy Neutron real. You are delusional, your god isn't real!!!!!!!
Leifton, there are MILLIONS of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and other Christian sects that have ALSO "experienced" god, and are JUST AS CONVINCED of their beliefs as you are of yours. They think YOU are going to hell.
If personally "experiencing" god isn't a reliable way to determine anything about god (which it clearly isn't), how, then, do you determine which god is real, which book is real, and which beliefs about god and the book are real?
How do you know that the Bible is true? Because it says its true? That's illogical, and down right ignorant. How do you know you experienced god. I'm not being rude by asking this, but in all seriousness, what was your experience?
Their version of history is in sharp contrast because the Bible is not historically accurate. There are not extrabiblical accounts that we can use to confirm history, other than a portion of the dead sea scrolls. And most of the prophecies are selffulfilled. if not all of them.
Sure they can be self-fullfilled. For example, Jesus' coming could be self fulfiled in that Jesus was fictional and all his details were simply matched by the writers of thenew testament to fulfill prophecies of the old testament. It's pretty easy to do that. Harry Potter has tons of selffulfilled prophecy, are you gonna worship him too?
Wow. Really? No its not. It's a fictional tale for the entertainment of both children and adults. Like Star Wars, or House MD. Mainstream history does not recognize Jesus. They don't know. There's no evidence anywhere and I use this word again, extrabiblical accounts, of the existence of a guy called Jesus. They have suspicion that he may have existed as just a guy named Yeshua who may have been a thinker of the day, but was not born of a holy virgin, or any of the other Jesus myths etc.
Leiflton, the Bible is a disgusting, genocidal book containing wars after wars after wars which slaughtered thousands of innocent children and babies, all commandment by the god who supposedly wrote it.
He demanded CHILD HUMAN SACRIFICES on SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
How can you worship the most disgusting character in all of fiction as a god and look yourself in the mirror?
How were the unborn babies that where killed when pregnant women were "sliced open" as your god commanded in Hosea 13:16 "not innocent"?
You are claiming that god can kill anyone he wants because we are all guilty based on what? The biblical god's perfect morality? That's circular reasoning.
If YOU want to justify killing little babies and children in the name of an all-loving god of perfect justice, fine. Don't expect anyone to take your ethics seriously.
15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."
"18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
God can do anything he wants, even if we think it is immoral, because he's god. Any "unjust" punishment that he serves out is actually just, because we all deserve much worse, even babies who haven't actually done anything "wrong", because our existence in inherently evil, because we inherited sin.
Sound right?
Of course, that is RIDICULOUS, but hey, you believe in a talking snake.
Do you even KNOW how the Colorado river was supposed to have been made? You're arguing against a straw man. The Colorado river's formation has been studied for hundreds of years and has been demonstrated to be much more complex than simple "forming over millions of years".
The flood myth has been debunked for hundreds of years. You can't accept this and still be taken seriously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The flood is not "debunked." There are sea shells on every single mountain. So when the primordial oceans receded, they were just left there? And the theories surrounding the Grand Canyon are not at all sound. They say that the Colorado river eroded it over millions or billions of years, and then sections of the wall collapsed inward, etc.
I had never heard that one before. Yes, SOME mountains have fossilized arthropods (NOT modern "sea shells"). That is because older layers are pushed up into mountains.
Mountains have several layers of sedimentary rock. Each of these layers has a distinct group of fossils. You don't see dinosaurs in the same layer as these "sea shells", which we would expect if it was due to a flood.
Also, why don't you look up how the Colorada river is ACTUALLY thought by geologists to have formed?
wow i never thought someone would use the seashells on mountains argument. ever take a geology course? you would learn why in the first week, guaranteed.
There are hundreds of examples of historical events in the Bible conforming to secular historical records. The Iliad referenced real places, people, and events. Does that mean that these books are the word of Zeus? Does that meant that the MIRACLES that the book mention are true, too?
Just because there is SOME truth in the Bible does not mean we have to accept what is obviously false, such as the flood myth or the creation account.
I'll upload a talk about Richard Dawkin's for you at some point, which you should really listen to, to see just how much and how easily Richard's claims get owned. He is a king of deception.
In the mean time, thanks once again for the chat, was an interesting one. I'll get back to you if I have any revelations regarding time :P
what does Dawkins know?!?! he's only an evolutionary biologist who has worked for the University of California, Berkeley
the University of Oxford
and New College, Oxford.
Of course God exists. Look at all the evidence!! Only an idiot would not believe that a supernatural being sits and watches our actions solely to reward us or torture us in our afterlife.
So you believe that if evolution is true and is completely naturalistic, that it would disprove the existence of God? And you also think there is no evidence? Someone needs to study
Nothing would disprove the existence of a god. You can only disprove theories which can be disproven. The only way to do that is through natural means. You can accept anything you want outside of that, but since you have no method of verifying it, you can claim whatever you want and it has the same amount of validity as a god, which is equally unprovable.
perfect way for free-will towards belief in God wouldn't you say ^^One thing i have heard more then once from scientists at the top of their field is, there isn't evidence either way. For or against. So it really is just a choice. Although I do view the fine-tuning as evidence and design and moral absolutes and my personal encounter and so on, as evidence :P And although you can't prove God to anyone else, God can prove Himself to you personally, if you ask Him
You will never get an answer with that sort of attitude, as that is showing that you know really want to know Him, you don't believe or care. If you genuinely want to know He exists, then humble yourself before Him and "sincerely" ask Him to reveal Himself, look for Him, not stuff to deny Him, pray to Him, not just once, but properly seek Him genuinely open yourself up to an encounter with Him and you will have one. But your attitude has to be right.
i really wont get into another argument with a believer cause its a waste of my time. belief is not based on logic, and hence there's no way to have a logical discussion. as for the study part, not to brag about it but you are talking to someone who received an anthropology degree with high distinction, and who has spend numerous hours researching the SCIENCE vs GOD issue as a come from a deeply religious country. good luck with your belief in an UNPROVEN being
"belief is not based on logic, and hence there's no way to have a logical discussion"
You obviously don't know me, or William Lane Craig, otherwise you would never say such a thing.
"UNPROVEN being"
He doesn't need to be proven, He just needs evidence, that's the whole point. He designed a world where we can reject Him if we choose, otherwise there would be no free-will. He gives enough evidence to believe or not to believe, it's up to you which way you go.
You are right in that time cannot pre-exist itself, in order to allow the creation of itself. That would be an endless cycle of time, pre-existing time, to allow the creation of time.
What does science say allowed the first change? the creation of time. Imaginary time? Like Stephen Hawking?
String theory postulates another universe, and other theories also do the same.
I don't understand much about imaginary time, but I'm guessing it is similar to imaginary numbers. That is, it is a mathematical placeholder that allows for calculations outside of the normal range of time. This may be exactly what I'm talking about when I say an alternative temporal dynamic.
"Does sound exist at 0 decibels?" The potential for sound exists, but the sound itself does not exist. Same goes for heat.
This is all actually very difficult to figure out without wide-ranging research. We can philosophize about it, yet it still remains a paradox. I too am tempted to invoke another dimension of time, yet I have never seen any scientist invoke this, so I hesitate to.
I just thought, something we need to define, at what point does time exist? Is it time zero, or some value? like 0.0001?
And it's a weird paradox going on here. You need time in order to create time, but you can't have time to create time before time exists lol this is stupid
I think we have one of two options...
1) the first change and the time to allow that change, occurred at same time
2) there is another type of time that allows change, a sort of supernatural time
Does time actually exists at T=0? That's an interesting question. Does sound exist at 0 decibels? Does distance exist in a system with 0 volume? Does heat exist at absolute zero?
We are talking about at least two distinct thing - the measurement and that which is being measured. It's an interesting thing to wrap your head around, but I honestly don't know.
I would probably go with option 2, which makes more sense to me, as it can be inferred by the behavior of quantum particles.
Also; I'm not sure about comparing quantum laws to this, as it's not just the quantum level we are dealing with, it's everything squeezed into nothing. I find it fascinating that the information about the beginning of the universe, has in a sense, been scrambled, almost like a radio transmission. The data has been scrambled almost as if we are not allowed to understand what existed before the BB, maybe we will never understand.
When "everything is squeezed into nothing" as you put it, the quantum realm becomes very relevant. But I think you may be right. Maybe we will never understand, but honestly accepting that is better, IMHO, than invoking god.
String theory postulates the existence of things called "branes", two of which supposedly collided to create the big bang. I suggest looking into that.
This is something I need to fully understand (if that is humanly possible)
I know that space and time are the same thing (spacetime) but I don't know exactly how or why that is, it begs the question, what is time? Is it a physical thing? In some sense it must be, as it can be warped and stretched by bodies of mass.
I also know that gravity affects time, which is why I can understand it's origin in the bang and the singularity with it's infinite gravity.
First off, a couple things we need to understand about time:
Time is relative to space. As you approach the speed of light, time effectively slows to a stop, so anything traveling at the speed of light is "timeless". This is counter-intuitive, because light has a speed, which implies distance over TIME.
But all of this is irrelevant when we are talking about the big bang, because we are talking about a singularity, and Einstein's equations just don't work.
And if something cannot begin, how can it have a cause/explanation for it's beginning? It didn't begin. How can it begin?
To answer the question "What caused God?"
You must first answer the question "How can something that exists outside of time, begin to exist?"
There is no passage of time, outside of time. What is there, will always be there, nothing will begin nor end, without the passage of time, it is frozen in a timeless, unchanging realm.
"everybody else is just supposed to accept that, even though it makes no sense"
To you maybe, but not everyone. I for one understand it.
It's actually very simple, the only thing i struggle with, is understanding why you don't understand.
For since we know that time did not exist before the bang, how then can anything have a beginning or end, without the time to measure it's beginning or end?
I accept that time, as we know it, originated with the big bang.
If nothing could possibly have a beginning "before" the big bang, then the big bang could not have had a beginning. Obviously, there is some kind of dynamic there. Just because change happens within time doesn't mean that change can not happen without time.
In fact, since we are here talking about it, change DID happen before time, so your conclusion that nothing can have a beginning "before" the big bang MUST be wrong.
I have to admit, some of this is head-bending stuff. To imagine a time-less realm, from which time is created, that's some deep stuff :P
To fully comprehend such a thing, may in fact be impossible. But that's not to say it didn't happen, as science shows us it did happen. So the question isn't if, but how?
Also; could the first change and the factor that allows change (time) happen simultaneously?
The simplest example is that we need time for change, so how then did that first change occur?
A chicken in egg problem, which is easily answered.
If time had a beginning, and beginnings require change, then change is possible without time, which requires another dimension in which change can occur. If you believe in God, then God is in this dimension, as any act of creation is a change in reality (the creation of nature is not a change in nature, but in reality).
"If time had a beginning, and beginnings require change, then change is possible without time"
Well put, however you forget one thing, the creation of time, was the first change. What is the creation of time to allow change and the change of creating time happened simultaneously? Is that not at least a possibility?
"Jesus, the son, was the first creation, not time."
Interesting.
"I can't see any reason to accept the idea that time and change itself happened simultaneously"
The fact that change can't occur without time is a pretty good reason for me. This isn't the most simple explanation, but it could be the explanation. However, I cannot grasp how time could be created, without time to create it.
"The fact that change can't occur without time is a pretty good reason for me."
The FACT that change can't occur without time? I thought that was the main point we were discussing. You're a big fan of circular reasoning. You use it quite often.
context dude. Time as we know it, within our universe, is an essential factor for change. If "our" time was paused, nothing would change, that's a fact. What we are debating is what existed before our time. So it's not circular logic, it's perfectly reasonable logic, when you put it in context.
"Give me your best argument for why God cannot exist."
I don't have any arguments for why God "cannot" exist. I'm not making the claim that I can prove the non-existence of God, or anything else that is based on magic, for that matter.
This is a litmus test for THEISTIC arguments. I have never proposed any argument for the non-existence of God, as any such argument can be countered by God's magic.
I'm fairly certain there is no God, because there is no compelling evidence for this claim.
I wasn't asking for proof, I was just asking for an argument.
So what do you think created the universe? And why did it create it in just the right way for life? And why do we have morals? And do you believe in moral absolutes? And why do you favor chance over design?
"I wasn't asking for proof, I was just asking for an argument."
An argument that shows that atheism is the default position? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no evidence has been presented.
So what do you think created the universe?
Like I've put in my videos, I don't know (neither do you, btw), but the idea that it was created by a god is a horrible explanation which can never be verified and actually explains nothing.
"And why did it create it in just the right way for life?"
So you think that this massive universe, with our tiny little planet floating around in it, was created specifically for life? If that's the case, it was a horrible design, as the vast majority of it is completely inhospitible to life.
"And why do we have morals?"
That's a good question. Watch the video "Nice guys finish first".
"the vast majority of it is completely inhospitible to life"
I take it you've never read that we actually need the universe to be the size it is, to have life. The vast universe is testimony to it's vastly precise tuning.
You have to admit, we are damn lucky to be here, it didn't have to turn out this way, chances were vastly against it in fact. And when the chances are against random assembly, purposeful design is the more viable option.
Yes, we are lucky. And the millions of species that are extinct, and the millions right now that are suffering because of disease, starvation, and violence aren't so lucky.
Chance might not be the best, most satisfying explanation, but it is better than NO EXPLANATION AT ALL, which is what you have for God.
An explanation is something that clarifies causes. To say that something has no cause is to say it has no explanation.
By invoking God, you are simply filling in a gap in our current knowledge with a magical, all-powerful deity. This is NOT NEW. THAT answers your question "how could God be caused". He's caused by human ignorance.
"An explanation is something that clarifies causes. To say that something has no cause is to say it has no explanation"
Exactly, it clarifies the cause. So of course you can't have an explanation for a cause of something that can have no cause! For how can that which exists in a timeless realm have a beginning or end? Only that which is in time can begin or end. That which is outside of time either exists or it doesn't, it cannot begin nor end as there is no passage of time. Think about it.
How can you clarify gods origin if that origin doesn't exist? And why do you keep making statements about this "timeless realm" which is impossible, as of yet, to know anything about?
We are just playing a semantics game that can be summed up succinctly: God, as you define him, does not need a cause, as you define it, and everybody else is just supposed to accept that, even though it makes no sense.
How can you clarify God's origin, when God doesn't have an origin?
""timeless realm" which is impossible, as of yet, to know anything about?"
Apart from the fact that it exists. You don't deny that time was created in the big bang do you? Do you disagree with Stephen Hawking? and if so, why?
CAN NOT HAVE? That's a bold statement. How is that? You know SO MUCH about the nature of God, and SO MUCH about the nature of the universe, and SO MUCH about the nature of this dimension that exists outside the known universe and outside of our temporal dimensions that you can claim that god CAN NOT have a beginning?
Because if something changes (i.e. something begins to exist) then time must of progressed from say zero time, to 0.0001 or at least to some amount to allow that change.
So from what exists at point A to what exists at point B. Would require time to go from point A to point B. Change and time work together, if time does not change, existence cannot change.
I say God "cannot" have a beginning, because (as I have said) you cannot begin nor end in a timeless realm, you either are or you are not
As long as you keep your perception in this narrow view that change can not happen without time, which I have just stated can not be the case.
Let's say that you are Dr. Who, traveling through time. When he is traveling, he may be doing something, but it is outside of the known temporal dynamics which he is transcending. If God is completely static, then he can not make any decisions, do any creating, feel any emotions, or react to anything, including prayers. Is this what you are saying?
Not that's not what I am saying, with the creation of time, God can enter into time and have a progression of change. The question is, whether He changed before the creation of time and if so, how?
And what we really need to know, is what science says? Do they suggest another type of time before time?
I know that time as we know it, did not exist, nor did space or matter. So no natural cause that we can comprehend could be the cause of the universe. It would have to be something supernatural.
"God can enter into time and have a progression of change"
How can god "enter into" time if he is timeless? Does he DECIDED to enter time? How does god go from point a (outside of time), to point b (inside of time)?
Also, if you are describing supernatural as that which we DO not comprehend, all of modern technology was "supernatural" at some point. If you are describing it as something that we CAN not comprehend, are you saying that we CAN comprehend EVERYTHING in nature? Why?
To be honest, the true relationship between something eternal and the finite world will always remain somewhat of a mystery, it is very difficult for us as finite beings designed for a finite world to comprehend such things. So I'll get back to you once I have read some of William Lane Craig's articles about God & time (reasonablefaith. org) You probably know him, he is probably the best apologist I know and a great philosopher who has spent time thinking about time :P and has articles about it
J.B.S. Haldane said once that the world is "not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose.". In other words, those things that we "can not" comprehend does not mean that it is "supernatural".
And no, what I call supernatural (as i've said before), is that which is beyond the natural, that is all.
" those things that we "can not" comprehend does not mean that it is "supernatural"
Of course not! And it's patronising to even say that. Clearly you have let the picture atheists paint get to yo and the false beliefs they propose believers have.
I myself watch youtube late at night, sleepy, after a couple drinks. That's why my grammar devolves.
alliaskis 4 months ago
This is just an observation.
Has anyone noted a serious lack of good grammar and sentence structure in youtube posts? I've been checking out a variety of videos and noticed that many posts make no sense or are compleatly illiterate!
I'm certainly no genious myself! I see posting as practice for formulating good arguments on any subject.
Do English majors not watch videos on youtube?
I lament for lack of good grammar.
alexbald12 6 months ago
@alexbald12
I try to check my grammar and spelling before posting, but when I go back and read them later I see small grammatical mistakes. I figured that I either made a simple mistake or that my comments are being edited by the CIA in a gas lighting campaign. Either way, I don't really care that much about it, and neither does anyone else, except English majors, of course.
Language evolves - it is not static. z00n w3'll 4ll b3 sp34k1ng 3117. Se la ve. Sink or swim.
somecomputergeek 6 months ago
@somecomputergeek Language evolves, but leet speak is a devolution.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@alexbald12 We, English Majors (or anyone with a minimum of one year on the course to an English degree), do watch Youtube videos. Unfortunately, we are the exception and not the rule.
And in case you're wondering where I fall, I fall under the "Minimum of One Year" category.
HimesInu 6 months ago
ROFL, darth helmet bit was awesome!
freeofavia 1 year ago
Haha, This vid made me laugh.
Most people think that the belief in a God is dieing, but that is untrue.
The fact is most people don't believe or don't care about God, People used to go to Church because they would be shunned if they didn't.
I'm a Christian all the way, but i'm not gonna pretend that the generation before us were all true believers.
10Maloy 1 year ago
@10Maloy "People used to go to Church because they would be shunned if they didn't."
OH yeah and maybe even burnt on the stake and tortured
badpanda84 1 year ago
Does that A at the end of your videos stand for asshole by any chance?
littleilly98 1 year ago
Who cares, honestly? We're pretty busy eating and making money and hoping people like us. Boring...in the worst way.
jaredtgrand 1 year ago
@jaredtgrand
If you're not interested in the subject, I curious as to why you bothered to watch the video in the first place.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago 9
Miss any meals lately? Probably not! That shows that Baal is on the job making the crops grow.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Interesting. . . lol. That's really all I'll say here because I prefer not to argue via youtube. Not to mention, any argument I make you'll probably deem as invalid as, when talking about religion - and even a few choice scientific things - some bit of "faith" is required. Faith isn't really logical at all, now is it? *shrugs* Even so, very interesting.
CrimsonFountainofYou 2 years ago
Faith is the very opposite of science. Faith is not allowed in science. You can either formulate a hypothesis to test a theory or you can't. Some people might have "faith" in the scientific community, but that "faith" has a lot more hard evidence supporting it than religion, as the scientific community solves problems every day, whereas religions have a talent for creating them.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago 6
Science operates under assumptions. One assumption is that you seem to be certain there couldn't possibly be a more intelligent or advanced "brain" out there than human. Is it possible? sure, but it's also possible we aren't. Science has always been our best guess at the time. And historically, that guess gets proven wrong, then a new guess is developed. There is absolutely no more validity to the scientific theory than another theory. One time science KNEW the Sun rotated round the Earth
JohnBabiuk 2 years ago
"One assumption is that you seem to be certain there couldn't possibly be a more intelligent or advanced "brain" out there than human"
Name me one scientist who has ever made that assumption in any way.
"One time science KNEW the Sun rotated round the Earth"
NO, one time PEOPLE "knew" the sun rotated around the earth. SCIENCE doesn't "know" anything. It is a METHOD, a method, which, btw, we people LEARNED the truth about the sun.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
PEOPLE "knew" the sun rotated around the earth, because that was their SCIENCE at the time. You're right, it's a Method. The method is to call the best guess at the time universal laws. Yet, every one we've had, until the ones we use now, eventually were proven wrong. An apple falling from a tree led to scientific understanding of gravity. Yet, we still can't confirm if gravity is a push or a pull. Mind you, I'm not trying to change your mind on anything, just offering outside perspective
JohnBabiuk 2 years ago
Just as people of faith/religious/unseen beliefs have different groups, sects, etc. So too does the scientific community. There are opposing views and beliefs in all areas. Look at Global Warming and Climate change. Which sadly most of the debate on that is hidden from the public as government enjoys many benefits from one side of that scientific debate. As far as Science vs Religion goes, there's holes in both. In my experience, issues with different views, truth's usually in the middle!
JohnBabiuk 2 years ago
"Just as people of faith/religious/unseen beliefs have different groups, sects, etc. So too does the scientific community. "
There are disagreements, sure. There is always a debate as people formulate different theories based on a constantly growing body of data. That doesn't mean that science is "just" like religion. Religion has dogma that is not based on evidence, whereas everything in science MUST be based on evidence, and there is NO dogma allowed.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"You're confusing scientific theory with physical law." Theory = Guess
"whereas everything in science MUST be based on evidence, and there is NO dogma allowed." Than explain gravity. Is it a push or a pull? How can there be a black and white debate over the issue. And how can both have evidence when they are clearly contravening theories? It's all a matter of perspective. A change in perspective changes everything.
JohnBabiuk 2 years ago
"Theory = Guess"
A scientific theory is NOT a "guess". It is an EXPLANATION of FACTS.
Gravity is an OBSERVATION. General relativity is the theory that explains this observation. I can't explain general relativity to you in less than 500 characters
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
General Relativity is the best guess right now used to try and explain gravity. But that retort had nothing to do with my question about gravity being a push of a pull. Science has determined it's a force, but there is no consensus or proof, that this force is a push, or a pull. And it's a pretty big leap of faith to believe in the science past that. There would be different implications of Newton's 3rd Law, if it was a push vs a pull.
JohnBabiuk 2 years ago
General Relativity is not a "guess". While it may not be perfect or complete, it IS valid, as nuclear power and nuclear weapons attest.
Push or pull? This isn't the third grade. Warping space-time has nothing to do with "pushing" or "pulling" anything. Those terms are remedial analogies at best.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"Well it may not be perfect or complete, it IS vaild"
^----- sounds suspiciously like the spaghetti monster. Now it seems you are asking me to believe/get behind/put faith into a guess ... errrr ok, fine *sigh* .... I'll accept your word "theory" that is not perfect or complete.
JohnBabiuk 2 years ago
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is NOT a valid scientific theory. The idea exists as an EXAMPLE of something that is not a valid scientific theory.
Faith is not required. We can DEMONSTRATE that general relativity is somewhat accurate by splitting an atom and releasing it's energy. The "imperfection" of the theory is not something that is hidden. Unlike religion, scientists are encouraged to explore and even disprove theories rather than accept them on "faith".
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Well I guess it's a good thing I'm not religious. ;) I also have a very hard time believing that slaves built the pyramids. I'm also not arrogant enough to believe consciousness, thought, art, emotions, dreams, even the pursuit of science, just happened. Nor am I willing to accept on "faith" that the Big Bang, just happened by chance. And overlook the idea that something had to cause it. Science IS able to explain how, Spirituality explains WHY. But those are answers you find within!
JohnBabiuk 2 years ago
"I'm also not arrogant enough to believe consciousness, thought, art, emotions, dreams, even the pursuit of science, just happened."
JUST HAPPENED? That would be absurd. The idea that all of these things just inexplicably came into existence without precursors is even worse of an explanation than saying "God did it". Is that what you think the big bang theory is? Everything just popped into existence out of nothing? Sorry, but, if that's the case, you simply don't understand the theory.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"These zones of infinite density are called 'singularities.' Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know." (quote from w w w (dot) big-bang-theory (dot) com/) I see a whole lot of we don't know's, holes, and leaps of faith when I read this, just as big of a leap of faith as God did it.
JohnBabiuk 2 years ago
Saying "we don't know" is not a leap of faith. Saying "we don't know, therefor God did it" IS a leap of faith.
To accept ANY speculation about what we don't know is a leap of faith. However, we CAN accept that some explanations have more evidence than others, and that "divine" explanations have no evidence at all. THAT'S FAITH - accepting something without evidence.
See the difference?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
When have I ever claimed that we don't know therefore God did it? However, it's because I don't know, that I also won't rule out God or other "divine" explanation did it. The very fact that you don't know, shouldn't shut your mind to any possibility. Dr. Masaru Emoto's research on consciousness and emotion having effect on water is a prime example. To think about thought affecting matter on a molecular level to me enforces the belief that a "divine" explanation is possible.
JohnBabiuk 2 years ago
"PEOPLE "knew" the sun rotated around the earth, because that was their SCIENCE at the time."
NO, it was because it was their BELIEF at the time. The idea that the sun revolved around the earth was not determined scientifically. It was based on tradition and the CHURCH.
The scientific method is not "calling the best guess a universal law". You're confusing scientific theory with physical law.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
why do antelope run so fast? is it so they can escape predators? why do cheeters run so fast? is it so they can catch antelope? if so, whos side is god on?
Rhyze81 2 years ago
Good stuff. Straight and to the point. I love the flying spaghetti monster test, as well as the ending. 5 stars!
Danothy03 2 years ago
lol
space balls :)
guineapigsushi 2 years ago
i know and understand your positions.
because i was there before.
but all things can be reconciled.
one just has to search for the truth.
"seek, and ye will find."
now many of them are experiencing and praying to devils, and "i would not that ye should fellowship with devils."
first, see this:
/watch?v=OsqaDDGTd_o&feature=channel_page
Leiflton 2 years ago
now, some of my experiences are provisions, helps, upliftings, answered prayer, signs and wonders following, braking of yokes of bondage, being set free, being delivered from demonic and satanic forces, given understanding by God, given wisdom, given direction, guidance by the Holy Spirit, dreams, intercessions, fighting against God, rebelling against God, carrying the cross, dropping the cross and stomping on it, the wrath of God hanging over my head,
Leiflton 2 years ago
...restoration from the spirit of contrition and brokenness, on and on.
and i am not special, i am nothing, less than nothing and vanity.
Leiflton 2 years ago
Its nice to see someone with common sense on here. They think our views are silly.... but they are the ones that believe a big explosion created everything...usually from what i have seen explosions tend to destroy stuff.
jimmy50000 2 years ago
"but they are the ones that believe a big explosion created everything"
A "big explosion"? I assume you're talking about the "big bang". Calling it an "explosion" demonstrates only a remedial understanding.
The big bang is a theory extrapolated from DIRECT OBSERVATION. Analysis of the light coming from stars, as well as other observations, indicates that all matter in the known universe originated from a single point. It is a CONCLUSION people have drawn, not a "belief" that they subscribe to.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
I am begining to wonder if you are the reincarnation of my father, a Physics teacher, Doctor of Science and a lifelong atheist. I was brought up on the same views from early childhood, as you so succinctly expound with your fabulous videos.
But of course there is no such thing as reincarnation, only a numpty believes that kind of nonsense.!
Really great stuff keep up the good work we need people like you.
boredbutbeautiful 2 years ago
what a crack of shit!!!
kindergarden stuff...
celestiall 2 years ago
When theists stop using this "kindergarten stuff", I won't have to make these kinds of videos.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
IIIIImmmmmmmmaaaaasubbbbbbbsssssscccrrrr
rriiibbbbeeeeeerr!!!!!!!!
creationism god done dit is not science, it is the failure of it.
god does not come from knowldedge but from the lack of it.
jrev37 2 years ago
ok answer me this scg.....how are you so awesome?
lbrn23 3 years ago
I have nothing else better to do, so I'm forced to just be awesome all of the time. Answer me this: how did you get to have such great taste?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I have an eye for people who have common sense =D and use it.
lbrn23 3 years ago
You are asking pretentiously. Besides, you are supposed to pray in secret, "and thy Father, which seeth in secret shall himself reward you openly."
Leiflton 3 years ago
And you don't think that I've asked "in secret"?
You have to realize that this is ridiculous. It's a lot of nonsense. Just repeating what you believe does not, in any way, make it more convincing.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I don't know what you asked, but God does, and God sees our heart, thoughts, intentions, and the "secrets of men."
We will all be judged according to our works, "whether good or evil."
What you believe, what I believe, and what the world believes is of no consequence. All that matters is the truth. Truth is absolute.
I know for certain that if one seeks the truth, one will FIND, because that is what I did. My worldview went from deism, to New Age, to Christianity.
Leiflton 3 years ago
anyways im really bored of arguing semantics now, i've told you my definition of supernatural, it's very simple and shouldn't be something that needs discussion.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
It may be semantics. However, the problem is that you are using "supernatural" in one sense to describe what we don't or can't understand about nature, and then using to describe what is "outside" nature. You've already equivocated the two, and have refuse to further define what it is you are talking about.
If supernatural means that which is outside of the known universe, fine. However, the word carries with it things that are IMPOSSIBLE withing the realm of nature, like miracles.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
the word can be used in other ways, but as i've said, again and again, i use to it describe that which is beyond the natural. It really is as simple as that, or should be anyway.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
OK, well, I'm going to call anything that is not yet known by science "black magic". Therefor, the big bang was created by black magic. Also, gravity is the result of black magic.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
Leiflton 3 years ago
Amen bro
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
"clearly seen"? Maybe when bronze age primitives looked at the natural world, it was "clearly seen" that a god created everything, but now we have the benefit of science, and what we are "clearly seeing" right now is evidence of evolution and the big bang.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
and very soon you are going to "clearly see" "SIGNS and WONDERS" performed by false prophets, including, but not limited to, fire being summoned from the heavens.
When it happens, DO NOT BE DECEIVED.
Leiflton 3 years ago
So, in other words, the only thing that can prove the existence of god is miracles, but these miracles shouldn't be evidence of god, but are in fact deceptions of the devil?
That presents quite a few problems, don't you think? You are basically saying that the only evidence we can use to determine god's existence should be ignored.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
No, there is plenty of evidence for God. Im just telling you atheists and agnostics to earnestly seek God with a sincere heart (Jesus says "seek and ye will find"), because you will believe in a god very soon; be it the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Antichrist.
There is archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, dead sea scrolls, etc...ive corresponded with lots of atheists like ChristianREDPILL channel that became Christians through looking at things like the archeological evidence...
Leiflton 3 years ago
Every time I investigate the "archeological evidence", I find some glaring problems.
Please provide me with some information about said evidence.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Everything in existence supports a biblical worldview.
I'm more into escahtology, but from what I've seen, there are all kinds of OT family herilooms, dead sea scrolls, and the many original manuscripts and manuscript copies that exist...if i recall the NT dwarfs every other text, with like 24,000 manuscripts, as opposed to around 700 for the illiad, and then down to only several for different roman historians etc...
also what I find interesting is the Grand Canyon and Polystrat trees...
Leiflton 3 years ago
they say the Colorado eroded the grand canyong over billions of years...but i've been there, and there's no way...the Colorado is SMALL compared to the cliffs and pinnacles of the canyon...they are nearly a MILE DEEP...and where else in the world have rivers eroded a canyon like that?
so is it a small amount of water that eroded it over billions of years, OR, is it a LARGE amount of water, over a SHORT timeframe...which brings us to things like polystrat trees and coalization...
Leiflton 3 years ago
geologists contend that each layer of strata is thousands of years of deposit...but then how do you explain single fossilized trees going through many(poly) layers of strata?
there are many pics of this you can find online...an abvious explanation would be sedimentary deposits following, say, a flood...a flood would also explain the sea shells etc found on every single mountain, including mount everest...we've found shells and trilobites here in the appalachians of PA farming...
Leiflton 3 years ago
and they say coalization takes place over billions of years as well, but scientists have been able to duplicate the process using high pressure + temp in a lab...the outer layer would be coalized in like two weeks...
also, there is evidence that oil is abiotic...I ran across some things when i was looking up peak oil, which is a fraud...peak oil basically originates from a BP guy...anyway, those are a few of the things I can think of off hand...
Leiflton 3 years ago
I don't know anything about "coalization". I've never read much about it. Please do me a favor and look up the talk origins index of creationist claims, and tell me why what they say about "coaliation" is wrong.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I did tell you. Basically peat forms from vegetation, and then turns into coal. The question is, how long does it take. They suggest millions of years, but there is evidence to the contrary, in that scientists were able to duplicate the process in a relatively short amount of time (ie several weeks).
idk. But I do know that God exists, because I have had many experiences and revelations. And Im not special, i am nothing. Everyone can experience God, but they harden their hearts.
Leiflton 3 years ago
You didn't tell me. I had to look it up.
Here is the article:
toarchive. org/faqs/c14. html
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
@Leiflton
Well, I know nothing about peat, but...
I have had many spiritual experiences, as well, but I didn't ATTRIBUTE them to anything specific anymore. I USED TO attribute them to God, but then I discovered that true humility is not found in accepting something as true, but rather in accepting that you may not know the truth.
I'm nothing special, either. However, just because I have not accepted YOUR truth does not mean I have "hardened my heart", whatever that means.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@Leiflton That wasn't God, it was the opium.
Funny enough, religion and praying have been proven to work identically to drugs, on the mind.
Fun fact for ya.
colonofcoca 1 year ago
Do you even have ANY IDEA how those "strata" are formed? Do you understand the dating methods? Do you realize that there are DIFFERENT KIND OF STRATA, made by DIFFERENT methods? Do you honestly think that the thousands of geologists that study this are completely stupid? Nobody in the accedemic world accepts this. Only people who don't know anything about geology.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Yes, I have an idea. I don't know what the truth is, and Im not a geologist, but there's lots of evidence for a young earth.
And many of the dating methods are inaccurate, like Carbon dating. They've dated live mollusks that were said to be thousands of years old.
Leiflton 3 years ago
Yes. AS WITH ANY OTHER TOOL, if you use it improperly, you will get incorrect results. However, when you take into account the massive convergence of the various kinds of dating methods, which are doubly verified by the consensus of multiple branches of science, there's almost no chance that the earth could be that young.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
yeah, idk how old the earth is, i would have to do a lot more research concerning these matters...
Im more interested in the end than the beginning. False prophets and prophesies are deceiving millions of people, and the church is asleep. You guys watch what happens, nothing will happen on Dec 21 2012, and then everyone will stop watching, when Jesus tells us to watch.
Leiflton 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
If God already set up a system where billions of people will go to hell as it stands now. Whose to say it's not worse for man, and all Christians current understanding of the Bible is fundamentally flawed. If Satan can trick people, who are you to say that Satan hasn't tricked early Christians and Jews into making them think Satan was the Holy Ghost and has had people change the Bible to successfully impeded peoples chances of receiving the Holy Ghost.
brutus149 3 years ago
the beginning can help you understand the end better. like any good movie.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
oh yes, it must be taken as a whole.
for example, concerning scripture, you need the Genesis account, all the way through Revelation.
ie, in Genesis "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man."
to Numbers..."for blood it defileth the land, and the land cannot be cleansed but by the blood of him that shed it."
"and the land itself vommiteth out her inhabitants."
Leiflton 2 years ago
to the New Testament "put up thy sword into thy sheath, for ALL those who take the sword shall perish with the sword."
and to Revelation..."whoso killeth with the sword MUST BE KILLED BY the sword."
that's a good example using the Bible anyway.
the only problem is that there are many lies and fallacies concerning the mainstream historical record, so we must combine elements of revisionist history, and this is a very difficult process.
Leiflton 2 years ago
my point though is we shouldn't use the Bible as our source for history, or science, as so many people do. We should leave that to scientists. We need to start trusting the scientific method and peer reviewed articles a little more.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
no, the Bible literally chronicles the entire history of mankind.
their version of history is in sharp contrast with what the Bible says, and both cannot be correct.
for example Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel about the statue...that goes from Babylon right into the present day, prophesying kingdoms before they were even formed.
the prophecy is confirmed by the dead sea scrolls etc.
Leiflton 2 years ago
people need to have faith in God, and not in mankind, or man's supposed "wisdom"
"for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."
Leiflton 2 years ago
By having faith in god, and not faith in mankind's wisdom, you simply push us back to the dark ages with thinking like that. Just because "god" says that the wisdom of this world is foolish, doesn't make it true. Newton wasn't foolish, Benjamin Franklin wasn't foolish, Thomas Jefferson wasn't foolish, Charles Darwin wasn't foolish, Edwin Hubble wasn't foolish. All of them were atheist or deists. Lack of god opens up the door for intelligent thinking, which is what we depend on so much.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
they were most certainly foolish compared to the mighty and living God.
"II thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"
Leiflton 2 years ago
"And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:"
Leiflton 2 years ago
Isaiah 3: "1For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water. 2The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, 3The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator. 4And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them."
Leiflton 2 years ago
You keep quoting the Bible as if its merit-able. It's not. Anybody, and I repeat ANYBODY looks foolish when you compare it to an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnipresent being that we can't see. But, that doesn't make it true. When I compare any human to superman, they pale by comparison, but superman isn't real. When I compare people to Jimmy Neutron they pale in comparison to intelligence, that doesn't make Jimmy Neutron real. You are delusional, your god isn't real!!!!!!!
riseofatheism 2 years ago
i dont care what you or anyone else says.
i have experience God, and I know that of a truth Jesus is the "the way, the truth, and the life."
Leiflton 2 years ago
Leifton, there are MILLIONS of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and other Christian sects that have ALSO "experienced" god, and are JUST AS CONVINCED of their beliefs as you are of yours. They think YOU are going to hell.
If personally "experiencing" god isn't a reliable way to determine anything about god (which it clearly isn't), how, then, do you determine which god is real, which book is real, and which beliefs about god and the book are real?
Without OBJECTIVITY, you CAN'T.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
How do you know that the Bible is true? Because it says its true? That's illogical, and down right ignorant. How do you know you experienced god. I'm not being rude by asking this, but in all seriousness, what was your experience?
riseofatheism 2 years ago
its the greatest example of hubris IMO
speeps84 2 years ago
Their version of history is in sharp contrast because the Bible is not historically accurate. There are not extrabiblical accounts that we can use to confirm history, other than a portion of the dead sea scrolls. And most of the prophecies are selffulfilled. if not all of them.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
It is not historically inaccurate, it is the foundation.
Secular history just happens to leave out events such as Nebuchadnezzar's supernatural encounters. And Darius's. And the rest of them.
They are not self-fulfilled, that is impossible.
Look at all the prophecies about Israel, and Jesus's first coming. Those cannot possible be self-fulfilled.
And neither will the prophecies about the future be self-fulfilled, but will be fulfilled by God in his time.
Leiflton 2 years ago
Sure they can be self-fullfilled. For example, Jesus' coming could be self fulfiled in that Jesus was fictional and all his details were simply matched by the writers of thenew testament to fulfill prophecies of the old testament. It's pretty easy to do that. Harry Potter has tons of selffulfilled prophecy, are you gonna worship him too?
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
even mainstream history recognizes the person of Jesus Christ.
Harry Potter is satanic propaganda.
Leiflton 2 years ago
Wow. Really? No its not. It's a fictional tale for the entertainment of both children and adults. Like Star Wars, or House MD. Mainstream history does not recognize Jesus. They don't know. There's no evidence anywhere and I use this word again, extrabiblical accounts, of the existence of a guy called Jesus. They have suspicion that he may have existed as just a guy named Yeshua who may have been a thinker of the day, but was not born of a holy virgin, or any of the other Jesus myths etc.
tubajedimaster 2 years ago
Leiflton, the Bible is a disgusting, genocidal book containing wars after wars after wars which slaughtered thousands of innocent children and babies, all commandment by the god who supposedly wrote it.
He demanded CHILD HUMAN SACRIFICES on SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
How can you worship the most disgusting character in all of fiction as a god and look yourself in the mirror?
See my video "A thank you message from Satan".
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
you do greatly err.
first of all, there are no innocent, good people.
and technically God should just have wiped everyone out in the flood, for mankind is the disgusting character in this story of NON-fiction.
we have transgressed the most High God and are deserving of eternal hellfire.
many of us will get what we deserve.
for after "thy hard and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and righteous judgment of God"
Leiflton 2 years ago
"there are no innocent, good people."
How were the unborn babies that where killed when pregnant women were "sliced open" as your god commanded in Hosea 13:16 "not innocent"?
You are claiming that god can kill anyone he wants because we are all guilty based on what? The biblical god's perfect morality? That's circular reasoning.
If YOU want to justify killing little babies and children in the name of an all-loving god of perfect justice, fine. Don't expect anyone to take your ethics seriously.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
how are they not innocent?
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
guilty because "she hath rebelled against her God."
hence "thou hast destroyed thyself."
God can do whatever he wants, but he is righteous, and often punishes us "less than our iniquities deserved."
Romans 9:
"13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."
Leiflton 2 years ago
15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."
Leiflton 2 years ago
"18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
Leiflton 2 years ago
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
Leiflton 2 years ago
Well, Leifton. You have a real argument, there.
Let me paraphrase:
God can do anything he wants, even if we think it is immoral, because he's god. Any "unjust" punishment that he serves out is actually just, because we all deserve much worse, even babies who haven't actually done anything "wrong", because our existence in inherently evil, because we inherited sin.
Sound right?
Of course, that is RIDICULOUS, but hey, you believe in a talking snake.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
don't forget the talking mule.
riseofatheism 2 years ago
Do you even KNOW how the Colorado river was supposed to have been made? You're arguing against a straw man. The Colorado river's formation has been studied for hundreds of years and has been demonstrated to be much more complex than simple "forming over millions of years".
The flood myth has been debunked for hundreds of years. You can't accept this and still be taken seriously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
The flood is not "debunked." There are sea shells on every single mountain. So when the primordial oceans receded, they were just left there? And the theories surrounding the Grand Canyon are not at all sound. They say that the Colorado river eroded it over millions or billions of years, and then sections of the wall collapsed inward, etc.
Leiflton 3 years ago
I had never heard that one before. Yes, SOME mountains have fossilized arthropods (NOT modern "sea shells"). That is because older layers are pushed up into mountains.
Mountains have several layers of sedimentary rock. Each of these layers has a distinct group of fossils. You don't see dinosaurs in the same layer as these "sea shells", which we would expect if it was due to a flood.
Also, why don't you look up how the Colorada river is ACTUALLY thought by geologists to have formed?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
wow i never thought someone would use the seashells on mountains argument. ever take a geology course? you would learn why in the first week, guaranteed.
maidenfucknrulz666 3 years ago
Yah another bright human 5 stars to the geek....Love the old school Battle Star Galactica type face too....
yourmomdidsayyourean 2 years ago
"Everything in existence supports a biblical worldview."
Even the massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution instead of the biblical creation myth?
"there are all kinds of ... manuscript that exist..."
Yes, and many of those manuscripts say that you are absolutely wrong.
More people viewed this material, so it's the write material? So star wars is the word of god?
Grand Canyon and polystrate trees? Oh, GOD! You're a KENT HOVIND Creationist? Kent Hovind is a PROVEN LIAR!
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
No, I've looked at Hovind, he has lots of stuff that I don't agree with. There's other people though...films like "The Young Age of the Earth."
Archeological evidence is not limited to manuscripts, there are hundreds of tombs, like herod, stuff like Jacob's well, etc.
Leiflton 3 years ago
There are hundreds of examples of historical events in the Bible conforming to secular historical records. The Iliad referenced real places, people, and events. Does that mean that these books are the word of Zeus? Does that meant that the MIRACLES that the book mention are true, too?
Just because there is SOME truth in the Bible does not mean we have to accept what is obviously false, such as the flood myth or the creation account.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I'll upload a talk about Richard Dawkin's for you at some point, which you should really listen to, to see just how much and how easily Richard's claims get owned. He is a king of deception.
In the mean time, thanks once again for the chat, was an interesting one. I'll get back to you if I have any revelations regarding time :P
God Bless,
Henry
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
what does Dawkins know?!?! he's only an evolutionary biologist who has worked for the University of California, Berkeley
the University of Oxford
and New College, Oxford.
Of course God exists. Look at all the evidence!! Only an idiot would not believe that a supernatural being sits and watches our actions solely to reward us or torture us in our afterlife.
God Bless you Henry
borat38 3 years ago
So you believe that if evolution is true and is completely naturalistic, that it would disprove the existence of God? And you also think there is no evidence? Someone needs to study
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
Nothing would disprove the existence of a god. You can only disprove theories which can be disproven. The only way to do that is through natural means. You can accept anything you want outside of that, but since you have no method of verifying it, you can claim whatever you want and it has the same amount of validity as a god, which is equally unprovable.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
perfect way for free-will towards belief in God wouldn't you say ^^One thing i have heard more then once from scientists at the top of their field is, there isn't evidence either way. For or against. So it really is just a choice. Although I do view the fine-tuning as evidence and design and moral absolutes and my personal encounter and so on, as evidence :P And although you can't prove God to anyone else, God can prove Himself to you personally, if you ask Him
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
There isn't evidence either way? I agree.
Is there any evidence against he existence of fairies? If not, then there isn't evidence either way.
By the way, I've asked god. Guess he didn't think I was important enough to provide evidence of his existence. Let me ask again:
God, please provide evidence for your existence.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
You will never get an answer with that sort of attitude, as that is showing that you know really want to know Him, you don't believe or care. If you genuinely want to know He exists, then humble yourself before Him and "sincerely" ask Him to reveal Himself, look for Him, not stuff to deny Him, pray to Him, not just once, but properly seek Him genuinely open yourself up to an encounter with Him and you will have one. But your attitude has to be right.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
i really wont get into another argument with a believer cause its a waste of my time. belief is not based on logic, and hence there's no way to have a logical discussion. as for the study part, not to brag about it but you are talking to someone who received an anthropology degree with high distinction, and who has spend numerous hours researching the SCIENCE vs GOD issue as a come from a deeply religious country. good luck with your belief in an UNPROVEN being
borat38 3 years ago
don't waste your time,go and pray for us sinners instead!there! that would be a good use of free time!
2poi7bounce1uni 3 years ago
"belief is not based on logic, and hence there's no way to have a logical discussion"
You obviously don't know me, or William Lane Craig, otherwise you would never say such a thing.
"UNPROVEN being"
He doesn't need to be proven, He just needs evidence, that's the whole point. He designed a world where we can reject Him if we choose, otherwise there would be no free-will. He gives enough evidence to believe or not to believe, it's up to you which way you go.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
You are right in that time cannot pre-exist itself, in order to allow the creation of itself. That would be an endless cycle of time, pre-existing time, to allow the creation of time.
What does science say allowed the first change? the creation of time. Imaginary time? Like Stephen Hawking?
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
String theory postulates another universe, and other theories also do the same.
I don't understand much about imaginary time, but I'm guessing it is similar to imaginary numbers. That is, it is a mathematical placeholder that allows for calculations outside of the normal range of time. This may be exactly what I'm talking about when I say an alternative temporal dynamic.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
other theories? what other theories?
"Does sound exist at 0 decibels?" The potential for sound exists, but the sound itself does not exist. Same goes for heat.
This is all actually very difficult to figure out without wide-ranging research. We can philosophize about it, yet it still remains a paradox. I too am tempted to invoke another dimension of time, yet I have never seen any scientist invoke this, so I hesitate to.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
I just thought, something we need to define, at what point does time exist? Is it time zero, or some value? like 0.0001?
And it's a weird paradox going on here. You need time in order to create time, but you can't have time to create time before time exists lol this is stupid
I think we have one of two options...
1) the first change and the time to allow that change, occurred at same time
2) there is another type of time that allows change, a sort of supernatural time
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
Does time actually exists at T=0? That's an interesting question. Does sound exist at 0 decibels? Does distance exist in a system with 0 volume? Does heat exist at absolute zero?
We are talking about at least two distinct thing - the measurement and that which is being measured. It's an interesting thing to wrap your head around, but I honestly don't know.
I would probably go with option 2, which makes more sense to me, as it can be inferred by the behavior of quantum particles.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Also; I'm not sure about comparing quantum laws to this, as it's not just the quantum level we are dealing with, it's everything squeezed into nothing. I find it fascinating that the information about the beginning of the universe, has in a sense, been scrambled, almost like a radio transmission. The data has been scrambled almost as if we are not allowed to understand what existed before the BB, maybe we will never understand.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
When "everything is squeezed into nothing" as you put it, the quantum realm becomes very relevant. But I think you may be right. Maybe we will never understand, but honestly accepting that is better, IMHO, than invoking god.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
do you know any good peer reviewed articles that speculate on the cause of the universe and what existed before the bang?
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
String theory postulates the existence of things called "branes", two of which supposedly collided to create the big bang. I suggest looking into that.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
This is something I need to fully understand (if that is humanly possible)
I know that space and time are the same thing (spacetime) but I don't know exactly how or why that is, it begs the question, what is time? Is it a physical thing? In some sense it must be, as it can be warped and stretched by bodies of mass.
I also know that gravity affects time, which is why I can understand it's origin in the bang and the singularity with it's infinite gravity.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
First off, a couple things we need to understand about time:
Time is relative to space. As you approach the speed of light, time effectively slows to a stop, so anything traveling at the speed of light is "timeless". This is counter-intuitive, because light has a speed, which implies distance over TIME.
But all of this is irrelevant when we are talking about the big bang, because we are talking about a singularity, and Einstein's equations just don't work.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
And if something cannot begin, how can it have a cause/explanation for it's beginning? It didn't begin. How can it begin?
To answer the question "What caused God?"
You must first answer the question "How can something that exists outside of time, begin to exist?"
There is no passage of time, outside of time. What is there, will always be there, nothing will begin nor end, without the passage of time, it is frozen in a timeless, unchanging realm.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
"everybody else is just supposed to accept that, even though it makes no sense"
To you maybe, but not everyone. I for one understand it.
It's actually very simple, the only thing i struggle with, is understanding why you don't understand.
For since we know that time did not exist before the bang, how then can anything have a beginning or end, without the time to measure it's beginning or end?
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
I accept that time, as we know it, originated with the big bang.
If nothing could possibly have a beginning "before" the big bang, then the big bang could not have had a beginning. Obviously, there is some kind of dynamic there. Just because change happens within time doesn't mean that change can not happen without time.
In fact, since we are here talking about it, change DID happen before time, so your conclusion that nothing can have a beginning "before" the big bang MUST be wrong.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I have to admit, some of this is head-bending stuff. To imagine a time-less realm, from which time is created, that's some deep stuff :P
To fully comprehend such a thing, may in fact be impossible. But that's not to say it didn't happen, as science shows us it did happen. So the question isn't if, but how?
Also; could the first change and the factor that allows change (time) happen simultaneously?
The simplest example is that we need time for change, so how then did that first change occur?
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
A chicken in egg problem, which is easily answered.
If time had a beginning, and beginnings require change, then change is possible without time, which requires another dimension in which change can occur. If you believe in God, then God is in this dimension, as any act of creation is a change in reality (the creation of nature is not a change in nature, but in reality).
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
"If time had a beginning, and beginnings require change, then change is possible without time"
Well put, however you forget one thing, the creation of time, was the first change. What is the creation of time to allow change and the change of creating time happened simultaneously? Is that not at least a possibility?
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
"The creation of time was the first change."
That's impossible to know. In fact, in many Christian belief systems, Jesus, the son, was the first creation, not time.
I can't see any reason to accept the idea that time and change itself happened simultaneously.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
"Jesus, the son, was the first creation, not time."
Interesting.
"I can't see any reason to accept the idea that time and change itself happened simultaneously"
The fact that change can't occur without time is a pretty good reason for me. This isn't the most simple explanation, but it could be the explanation. However, I cannot grasp how time could be created, without time to create it.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
"The fact that change can't occur without time is a pretty good reason for me."
The FACT that change can't occur without time? I thought that was the main point we were discussing. You're a big fan of circular reasoning. You use it quite often.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
context dude. Time as we know it, within our universe, is an essential factor for change. If "our" time was paused, nothing would change, that's a fact. What we are debating is what existed before our time. So it's not circular logic, it's perfectly reasonable logic, when you put it in context.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
Bring something to the table for me. Give me your best argument for why God cannot exist.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
"Give me your best argument for why God cannot exist."
I don't have any arguments for why God "cannot" exist. I'm not making the claim that I can prove the non-existence of God, or anything else that is based on magic, for that matter.
This is a litmus test for THEISTIC arguments. I have never proposed any argument for the non-existence of God, as any such argument can be countered by God's magic.
I'm fairly certain there is no God, because there is no compelling evidence for this claim.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I wasn't asking for proof, I was just asking for an argument.
So what do you think created the universe? And why did it create it in just the right way for life? And why do we have morals? And do you believe in moral absolutes? And why do you favor chance over design?
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
"I wasn't asking for proof, I was just asking for an argument."
An argument that shows that atheism is the default position? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no evidence has been presented.
So what do you think created the universe?
Like I've put in my videos, I don't know (neither do you, btw), but the idea that it was created by a god is a horrible explanation which can never be verified and actually explains nothing.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
"And why did it create it in just the right way for life?"
So you think that this massive universe, with our tiny little planet floating around in it, was created specifically for life? If that's the case, it was a horrible design, as the vast majority of it is completely inhospitible to life.
"And why do we have morals?"
That's a good question. Watch the video "Nice guys finish first".
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
"the vast majority of it is completely inhospitible to life"
I take it you've never read that we actually need the universe to be the size it is, to have life. The vast universe is testimony to it's vastly precise tuning.
You have to admit, we are damn lucky to be here, it didn't have to turn out this way, chances were vastly against it in fact. And when the chances are against random assembly, purposeful design is the more viable option.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
Yes, we are lucky. And the millions of species that are extinct, and the millions right now that are suffering because of disease, starvation, and violence aren't so lucky.
Chance might not be the best, most satisfying explanation, but it is better than NO EXPLANATION AT ALL, which is what you have for God.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Saying that God cannot have a cause, is the explanation. You just don't understand it yet.
I tell you what, tell me how God could be caused, then I will consider what may of caused Him.
You won't be able to, as you have to understand. There are two realms we are dealing with here, that which is in time and that which is timeless.
In time, things begin and end their existence.
In the timeless realm, they either exist, or they don't. There is no beginning or end. It either is or it isn't.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
An explanation is something that clarifies causes. To say that something has no cause is to say it has no explanation.
By invoking God, you are simply filling in a gap in our current knowledge with a magical, all-powerful deity. This is NOT NEW. THAT answers your question "how could God be caused". He's caused by human ignorance.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
"An explanation is something that clarifies causes. To say that something has no cause is to say it has no explanation"
Exactly, it clarifies the cause. So of course you can't have an explanation for a cause of something that can have no cause! For how can that which exists in a timeless realm have a beginning or end? Only that which is in time can begin or end. That which is outside of time either exists or it doesn't, it cannot begin nor end as there is no passage of time. Think about it.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
How can you clarify gods origin if that origin doesn't exist? And why do you keep making statements about this "timeless realm" which is impossible, as of yet, to know anything about?
We are just playing a semantics game that can be summed up succinctly: God, as you define him, does not need a cause, as you define it, and everybody else is just supposed to accept that, even though it makes no sense.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
How can you clarify God's origin, when God doesn't have an origin?
""timeless realm" which is impossible, as of yet, to know anything about?"
Apart from the fact that it exists. You don't deny that time was created in the big bang do you? Do you disagree with Stephen Hawking? and if so, why?
"God, as you define him, does not need a cause"
Not does not need, cannot have.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
CAN NOT HAVE? That's a bold statement. How is that? You know SO MUCH about the nature of God, and SO MUCH about the nature of the universe, and SO MUCH about the nature of this dimension that exists outside the known universe and outside of our temporal dimensions that you can claim that god CAN NOT have a beginning?
Any reason for this?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Because if something changes (i.e. something begins to exist) then time must of progressed from say zero time, to 0.0001 or at least to some amount to allow that change.
So from what exists at point A to what exists at point B. Would require time to go from point A to point B. Change and time work together, if time does not change, existence cannot change.
I say God "cannot" have a beginning, because (as I have said) you cannot begin nor end in a timeless realm, you either are or you are not
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
As long as you keep your perception in this narrow view that change can not happen without time, which I have just stated can not be the case.
Let's say that you are Dr. Who, traveling through time. When he is traveling, he may be doing something, but it is outside of the known temporal dynamics which he is transcending. If God is completely static, then he can not make any decisions, do any creating, feel any emotions, or react to anything, including prayers. Is this what you are saying?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Not that's not what I am saying, with the creation of time, God can enter into time and have a progression of change. The question is, whether He changed before the creation of time and if so, how?
And what we really need to know, is what science says? Do they suggest another type of time before time?
I know that time as we know it, did not exist, nor did space or matter. So no natural cause that we can comprehend could be the cause of the universe. It would have to be something supernatural.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
"God can enter into time and have a progression of change"
How can god "enter into" time if he is timeless? Does he DECIDED to enter time? How does god go from point a (outside of time), to point b (inside of time)?
Also, if you are describing supernatural as that which we DO not comprehend, all of modern technology was "supernatural" at some point. If you are describing it as something that we CAN not comprehend, are you saying that we CAN comprehend EVERYTHING in nature? Why?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
To be honest, the true relationship between something eternal and the finite world will always remain somewhat of a mystery, it is very difficult for us as finite beings designed for a finite world to comprehend such things. So I'll get back to you once I have read some of William Lane Craig's articles about God & time (reasonablefaith. org) You probably know him, he is probably the best apologist I know and a great philosopher who has spent time thinking about time :P and has articles about it
TheOriginProject 3 years ago
J.B.S. Haldane said once that the world is "not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose.". In other words, those things that we "can not" comprehend does not mean that it is "supernatural".
There's a good TED talk by Richard Dawkins.
watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
And no, what I call supernatural (as i've said before), is that which is beyond the natural, that is all.
" those things that we "can not" comprehend does not mean that it is "supernatural"
Of course not! And it's patronising to even say that. Clearly you have let the picture atheists paint get to yo and the false beliefs they propose believers have.
TheOriginProject 3 years ago