I could understand if god put nature in motion, although when theists add that god is omni-whatever it starts getting confusing and doesn't make any sense.
A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory
If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning
Your conclusion hinges on god having a ''job'' left to do, which would imply non-omnipotence. This would lead to a contradiction on necessary characteristics of an infinite being.God's ''job'' would imply incompleteness, incompleteness would imply nature, nature would indeed be the ''job''. God ''doing'' a ''job'' would hence require nature, for if there was no nature god would necessarily have no ''job''. If nature exists because of god then, therefore, ''jobs'' or nature follow necessarily.
@officialtheowarner Dr. Dawkins didn't avoid it. Then you say I was quite happy to forward you these emails from theoisafatso-drama-queen-shithead. And so when I say And they don't disagree that much at all, now you're practically dodging what I wrote. I'll post EXACTLY what I wrote previously. Typical.
I think conclusion A is flawed because perfection is almost always a purely subjective thing unless talking logically or mathematically. Why would a unnecessarily extravagant route be imperfect?
And even if it is imperfect because it could have been done simpler then the entire universe is imperfect and shouldn't exist because it all could have just played out in God's head immediately and then there would be no need for it.
@TehOwnerer999 Exactly. If an unnecessary universe exists then the claim that a perfect and thus all efficient god exists is debunked. Further if this god is truly absolutely flawless shouldn't he be perfect in EVERY sense?
@hockeater I really don't like this whole perfect God idea because you have to ask questions like "is God the perfect shape" and "is God the perfect color" which just seem like irrational questions. There is no logical way to determine whether some things are perfect or not and so I think people should just refrain from using it in any non subjective sense.
@TehOwnerer999 Ah but many god concepts claim perfect non subjective perfection. We're just chipping away at that incredibly stupid paradox making idea.
There is no such this as natural phenomenon. The movement of an electron is only able to measured when observered says the uncertainty principle. If "God" could do it so could you... pretty much just do you have the will power to? also what is a "natural phenomenon" and "supernatural"?
Atheist people will not dare read Professor Antony Flew's latest book for fear that their reasoning might be straightened out. I challenge every so-called atheist here to read Professor Antony Flew's latest book and try refuting it point by point. Not even Dawkins, Barker, Hitchens, or Harris have come out with an exhaustive argument against such material. Why don't you start embracing the truth about God and Jesus Christ. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you now.
@ByJustified It's interesting that so many Christians point to Flew's book. He didn't convert to Christianity - you know that, right? I have read interviews he's done, and I have his book (but haven't read it yet - promise I will soon).
@antybu86 The issue friend is not his conversion to Christianity but his conversion to believing in Intelligent Design. Who knows if Professor Flew was converted many years prior to his death there is a huge possibility for him to come to know Jesus Christ and accept Him as Lord and Savior. Who knows if he has accepted Him before his last breath. Who knows.... Who knows if you, my friend, will also embrace the existence of God after reading Prof. Flew's book. Who knows...
@DaToNyOyO Oh, I read it maybe 6 months ago. Lame book - filled with arguments from ignorance. He's not convinced by the scientific explanation for X, therefore X must be caused by a god. That's basically how the entire thing goes.
@DancingTableLeg ... The point that I am making is a former prominent atheist became a believer in God. And this guy is no small fish but a big fish. A combination of the brains of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Barker, and all other young atheists is nothing compared to Prof. Antony Flew. Well, I hope Prof. Flew had the chance to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Probably he will if given the chance.
@ByJustified Since I wrote that reply to you 3 months ago, I have read Flew's book. Sorry to say, it's underwhelming. Even if he did write it - and since he had two ghost writers, I doubt how much of those words were his own - it's very poorly argued. It's mostly just arguments from ignorance.
@antybu86... Poorly argued? Ghost writers? Why don't you reason here and let's see if it will hold water. And why did you come to arrive that it was written by somebody else? I think you are trying to find if there are atheists out there who can refute his book. There is none. A reason why these poor young atheists would like to accuse that it was written by somebody else. Remember, there are no exhaustive refutation of that book even until today done by any sensible atheists. They are afraid.
@ByJustified You seem like a very aggressive person. You might want to tone it down a bit because it really doesn't seem like you're even interested in hearing what I think.
But nevertheless, it was written by Varghase (sp?). He's been very open about it - he simply states that it was based off of interviews with Flew and that he had Flew's permission to write under his name. It's also not a secret that there was a second ghostwriter. ...
(cont.) And "poorly argued" is a poor choice of words on my part because there isn't really much argument in it. It's mostly a bunch of "I don't like the scientific answers to these questions.. So, there is a God!" I wrote a whole review of the book at the Tuesday Afternoon website, so if you want to engage me about the book, I suggest you do so there.
What exactly do you mean when you say deductive argumentation isn't the right approach? Do you mean we'd have to take empirical data into consideration, or that there's something wrong with deductive reasoning itself?
I think that it's very clear that if the natural is real, then what we think of as the supernatural is only apparent. Only the natural is real.
Likewise, if the supernatural is real, then what we think of as "natural" is only apparent. Only the supernatural is actually real.
It's much like the world of our dreams. Things change from one form to another, change around in time and space. even the laws of identity don't apply.
But sometimes, our dreams are just like the waking world.
(cont'd) (2) So much so that we might be dreaming and not even realize it for a time. Then suddenly, something "impossible" happens that gives it away.
To live in a "supernatural" world is the same as living in a world like the world of our dreams. It may seem as if it's one in which entities are governed by intrinsic rules, but actually, at any moment, a horse may turn into a house.
In a supernatural world, like the world of our dreams, there *is* no nature, only an illusion of nature.
@prodprod Hmm. I think I've grappled with that same idea, except I used the terms "realms of matter and energy ('natural')" and "realms of thought ('supernatural')" instead.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. The greatest sin of all is to believe something just because someone tells you to.
@FelixTheGhost Slaves are painfully aware of their master's will. Friendship consists of mutual respect for each other's will, not one party looking to appease the other by learning his will. This is just typical of how the meaning of words is twisted by believers. Words like love and friendship are twisted to suit the idea that an obviously sadistic and maniacal character from a fantasy book really cares about us. It's like the beaten woman saying "But I know my husband really loves me.".
A journalist named Lee Strobel went out to find the truth with concrete evidence and facts to prove God doesn't exist. His findings are compiled into a number of books. The first one I read was 'The Case for Faith.' There are other books in his series that examine other arguments to Christian beliefs. It's just whether or not you are ready to abandon blind faith or blind doubt to know the Truth.
All this wordplay assumes God can be accurately described with human vocabulary. God himself cannot be encapsulated fully with our words, though the ways he manifests himself can. Anyone arguing that God is illogical should consult history, archaeology, science and mathematics themselves if they are looking for 'proof' of God and Jesus.
@FelixTheGhost God can be accurately described with human vocabulary. Richard Dawkins succeeded perfectly in one of his books. It's just that he doesn't use the words believers typically try to apply, because that's when you run into problems of inconsistency and logical gaps.
There is no evidence for any god to be found in any of the disciplines you mention. You're fooling yourself if you think so.
I agree with the previous three arguments, but not this one. How can premise 2 be correct is premise 1 is assumed. If premise 1 is correct, then God's work and natural phenomena known through empirically derived data are mutually unintelligible i.e how can we know if electromagnetism dictates the existence of electrons in a probability haze or if God is merely physically overseeing it, when the effects of both will be the same.
Let's get to the heart of the matter. In an atom there is a nucleus. What do you think all those energetic particles are swirling around? The nucleus in all things is responsible for Life...Energy...Light etc. Sound familiar? Just sayin...
I am sure the one who did this video had an axe to grind with God Himself. Imagine giving us a multiple choice without the option of God's existence. I am also sure the guy had a past traumatic experience that made him deny his Creator. I suggest that he go to a pastor and ask for some counseling and prayer. This will surely help take away his emotional burdens. Every atheists individual has a past traumatic experience and this is one reason that led them to deny God. That's very sad.
@ByJustified Sorry, but your psychoanalysis is pretty far off. I don't have any axes to grind, I just happen to find the topic interesting.
Now, if you're willing to actually have a discussion of the topic at hand, I'd be happy to hear why you think the arguments in this video series are incorrect.
@ByJustified Is that the book which claims that all atheists have father issues based on a bunch of anecdotal evidence? Sorry, seems like just another attempt to avoid the actual arguments.
@antybu86 Do you own one? Have you read the whole thing? I really hope so. And by the way, don't forget to buy the book of a former notorious atheist namely Prof. Antony Flew who reverted to becoming a believer in Intelligent Design. Even before there was Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, & Dan Barker, there was already an Antony Flew considered to be the "Billy Graham" of the atheist community. Well, I do believed that someday you will surely go back to the One who created you.
@ByJustified Ugh... if you can't address the arguments, just stop. I don't care that Flew is now a deist (not a Christian, by the way). His argument for deism is bad, so why the hell should I care?
@antybu86 I didn't Prof. Flew was a Christian (Well, who knows if he accepted Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior before his last breath. Remember, he was a close friend to Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig.) Why don't you try reading his book and make an exhaustive refutation? After all, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and the rest of the "Johnny-come-lately" new atheists has not even dared to refute his solid arhuments for Intelligent Design.
@ByJustified This is not a place to plug a book. What is his arhument (Argument) for intelligent design. NVM I got the idea it is the first causality. Man just created a bigbang using forces from nature. That means God is not needed and that universes are natural objects.
@antybu86 Can you give me a book title or an article exhaustively refuting Dr. Antony Flew's latest work on Intelligent Design? These young guns like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Barker, and Daniel Dennett are no much with Dr. Flew's Intelligent Design argument. I suggest that you really by the latest book of Dr. Antony Flew and not just comment subjectively. God bless you and your family.
@ByJustified Fuck you, you condescending cunt. We've moved past your bronze-age religious beliefs into something bigger, something verifiably correct. If you can't handle that stay at home all day and read your bible, but don't make these incredibly stupid and baseless claims that atheists are mad at god, or that we're somehow incomplete without your bullshit stories about a tyrannical failure of a god who can't get the simplest of things right.
@ByJustified What traumatic experience do you have that has turned you away from Allah? Why do you deny your creator? It is very sad and I suggest you go to a mosque and speak to a Imam who will help you with your emotional burdens.
Saying you need a traumatic experience to deny the existence of any god(s) is absurd. I'm sure you don't believe in Allah, Vishnu, or Amaterasu....do you have traumatic experiences that have led you to deny each one? Or how about the other thousands of gods?
In my country believers are minority. Do we all have post traumatic experience? No, we just were never MADE to believe in god. Why are you so dishonest?
@ByJustified Wrong!! Traumatic experience on its own isn't enough to create an atheist. You forget that once a person begins to doubt God that's when they begin to educate themselves and research the origins of the Bible and of Christianity and other religions. It is not the truamatic experience but the evidence against the legitamcy of the Bible and the god there in that creates the atheist. The absurdities, inconsistencies and contradictions and the questions they generate are the genesis
You know, I was debating this quality with someone just recently. This person put forth the idea that this omnipresent deity is existent as all vacuum in the universe. We know that vacuum exists everywhere and contains great amounts of energy potential and seems to display creative properties, such as particles seeming to pop in and out of existence in vacuum. While I disagree with this concept on many grounds, I would like to hear some other thoughts on the concept.
it seems that you are as dedicated to "disproving god" or "proving god illogical" as a preacher is to proving god exists. all your mental masturbation will just make you more stressed out in the end. god is all things. not good or bad. just is. god is all time all space and not conscious. god is simply the end of current human understanding. big words don't make you smarter. just more douche-ish. stop trying to disprove something u have resentments towards and push your brain past this argument
@LelandStabler so if god is not good or bad, all time and space and not conscious, then why can't I be god or my mother or father? If you are going to put such fuzzy unspecific terms onto some person you want to make symbolic, the least you can do is be specific, otherwise I could proclaim anything to be always good, everywhere, and a creator of all things.
antybu86 As an atheist and scientist I have enjoyed this little series but I do have one question regarding this last video. You say that an omnipresent 'God' who controlled the motion of each and every sub-atomic particle would have no need to create 'natural processes' in order to fulfill its will. I don't disagree but I do wonder how it would be possible to distinguish between such a 'God' and actually 'natural processes' (not supernatural) that were not created by a supernatural being?
Then after you have clearly explained and proved your point logically and excellently, what good will it bring to the humanity?
Is it for the fact that you just wanted to disprove God's existence? Do you want to free the believers from their ignorance? Or you have a greater purpose?
Assuming that God doesn't really exist, what evil would it bring to humanity if they continue to believe in Him?
I, too, believe that God is illogical, for I believe in two things which exist: Logical & Illogical
@ronald017 Reason is a tool to seek for truth. The truth you find can be either useful or not. If the belief in God is good or bad, it´s another topic, but I can name some bad things about the belief:
1) Suicide bombers. Will you blow yourself in the name of God, killing a lot of people if you don´t believe in God?
2) If God doesn´t exist, religious authorities are illegitimate.
3) Claims for the supernatural delays and undermines scientific progress on wich we rely to survive.
People don't seem to realize that god is bound by logic. For example, math, the most basic form of logic, is entirely universal; if God exists he can't break math nor logic. 1+1 always equals 2.
Well, what in the world does it mean to say that a thing is "present" if you say that the sum total of all of its attributes exist at every point in existence, including the totality of space and time, and yet at the same time, it *doesn't* exist at all in either space or time?
A god that creates "unnecessarily" does not imply that he is not perfect.
You don't know anything about this supernatural being and its plans or reasons - what you are describing here and in the previous vids of this series are the contradictions YOU would have to face if you were god.
The concept of god explains "someone who is able to and does and did whatever it wants for reasons we will never fully understand". It is perfect within itself, no logical arguments are able to scratch that.
Actually, yes, unnecessary creations implies and imperfect creator. For example, a keyboard with unnecessary buttons is imperfect, is it not?
But if your argument is the typical "God is outside of our understanding" then, as I've said to everybody else who has suggested the same thing, you'd better not try to prove God's existence with logical arguments.
@antybu86 You're arguing this point against a theist? haven't you learned yet, theists are the all knowing on what god wants, thinks, is capable of, is, etc? when a person becomes an atheist they lose all that knowledge, magically I guess.
@antybu86 I would have to slightly disagree with you. It could be argued that "unnecessary" is only an issue with limited resources and time. I'm not saying your argument is wrong, but the conclusion that unnecessary = faulty is not well founded. For instance perhaps it is unnecessary to have trillions and trillions of stars in the universe that we won't even see or barely anybody will find, but if God feels like doing it how does that make him/it imperfect?
Circular reasoning, tautologies and arbitrary unsupported claims like "god.. is able to and does and did whatever it wants for reasons we will never fully understand" are an easy way to believe anything you want, argue until you refute yourself and then just walk away saying that it is not logical (for humans) and cannot be understood anyway.
Well, you finally agree then because that's exactly what atheists (and this video) say: god is illogical, believing in it is unreasonable :)
@ispaniola I don't believe in god - why should I disagree? And if you would have taken the time to think about my comment a bit more, you could have interpreted it the way it was meant.
Being religious means living the perfect illusion - an almighty being is the root cause for everything and it is not directly observable. Thus whatever doubts this video is trying (and in my opinion very unscientifically) to raise can be refuted easily by answering "You don't know god, don't try to explain him".
@ispaniola Wasn't I clear enough the last time? I thought I was.
It is NOT ME who is desperately hoping for baby jesus waiting for us in heaven with 72 virgins for every suicide bomber and fulfilling you every wish you were denied in your life.
Religious people consider their faith in god despite all the contradictions a VIRTUE. And unless this video was just meant to stroke our atheistic balls, telling us "see, we are right", it has no effect at all.
I know, you were representing the theist's position right?
But I just had a discussion with a creationist and he used similar reasoning (as usual indeed), so at least I thought I give you my answer.
Btw, it's not that I think I'm right. I'm really open to almost any possibility. However, the specific abrahamic gods are a joke to me, not only because of the contradictions logically, but his whole portrayed character is absurd and far from perfect or benevolent.
You assume that God works independently of science. God works THROUGH science. I seem to be finding a consistence among your videos... they all involve assumptions! Congratulations! You've confused assumption with logic somehow! You've proven that God doesn't exist in an illogical world!
If this being is perfect then natural phenomena have no reason to exist. This statement is illogical. God made natural laws in a "got the ball rolling" way, he has control over every situation, but is not controlling every tiny thing as we speak. You assume that there must be no God, or God is doing everything, and there is no in between which IS incomplete (flawed) logic. Why would God do that? I don't know, but does that matter? Absolutely not, it doesn't change a thing.
You know, technically... YOU are unnecessary. Does that mean you shouldn't exist? No! Just because something is unnecessary does not mean that it is without reason. Not to mention your argument is PARTICULARLY flawed if you believe there is no God, because then NOTHING is necessary and all is nigh! Everything is pointless and morality is a figment of man's Imagination! Who gives a crap about morality if there is no meaning in this world? You are the one with the illogical God (Abiogenesis).
Technically, unless you believe in Taoism or some other non God religion, you BELIEVE (key word) that the first cell somehow MAGICALLY (and I mean that in the fullest sense of the word) came to life. You BELIEVE that the first cell came to be randomly with a cell wall, DNA (a coded language), happened to have a ton of atp in it IN ADDITION to the necessary enzymes to catalyze that atp, Then finally, it somehow knew how to self replicate AND had a sense of purpose: continuity of self replication
Last but not least, when you believe something... is that science, logic, or faith? You my friend, have faith in abiogenesis, you have faith that it happens, you cannot test that it happens, you cannot verify, or falsify abiogenesis. You believe in it. Even if you believe that someday we will observe it or create it, if we create it, we show that life can be created, if we observe it then congratulations you are right. Until that happens however, you are not a scientist, you are an atheist.
Didn't get in all that I wanted to say with that lol... There is a problem with someday observing abiogenesis. And that problem lies with the necessity of DNA within the first organism. DNA is a code, an immensely dense and well written code. Codes if you do you research, do not, and CANNOT come about by random chaos. Codes REQUIRE intelligence to come into existence. If you would like to TRY to state otherwise be my guest, but PROVING me wrong using logic is, unfortunately for you, impossible.
first of all, love the name, sometimes reflects what's going through the mind of the owner during creation of the name. Second of all, instead of just posting hate comments, why not do something productive with your time? like for instance: providing the world with irrefutable non 'the bible says so' proof that God exists and that there's a reason why we should worship the imbecile that you call a god.
Okay... wow... I posted a link but I guess youtube doesn't like links for some reason.... look up "DNA as proof of God" on google, first link, excellent PROOF
you're assuming I'm not just some nutjob out to harrass christians, and that solid proof is all it takes. That's an assumption based totally without major evidence to the contrary. Even my comments over the years aren't proof, hell I jump all over the reality spectrum. I demand that people worship the divine gouda and the holy cow for cripes sakes.
Lol solid proof is all it takes... hmm hypocritical? Interesting how you complained about me saying "the bible says so" which I didn't even do... and now you state that you "might believe anything." Gotta love non science and logic based beliefs and comments. I am done with you good sir troll.
You completely missed his point or intentionally constructed a straw-man.
All the maker of this video is saying is that it is useless to attribute certain phenomena or gaps in science to god when you already believe god operates at every level everywhere in the universe.
"You assume that God works independently of science.God works THROUGH science"
This is a nonsensical statement to make. Science is a method,maybe you mean "nature"?.. It's also by definition impossible to falsify
@ReligionInTheBin Fine, "Scientific laws" then... seriously? As if one could not come to the conclusion that such was the message conveyed. Your entire post is nonsensical. What are you referring to that is impossible to falsify? Who says that people believe that God operates at every level? He has control but does not control, if not we would be fated rather than have free will. He made laws and got the ball rolling, every so often, he intervenes, this is when miracles happen.
That is a very loaded word. I can have two different kinds of breakfasts or two different books to read. The unnecessary needs to be qualified
God creates unnecesary things to be imperfect?
The unnecesary is a loaded word and I fail to see the connection. I am know that in Maos China anything beyond bare necesities was deemed unnecesary. The existance of something you find unnecesary does not directly mean that it is imperfection.
You people are ridiculous its like talking to a brick wall!!!!! THAT NOTHING IS God! He created physical laws!!!! NOT EVOLUTION NOT THE BIG BANG!! It takes more faith to believe in this crap than believing God did it. He did all that stuff with himself to show what God can do!!!
while i agree with you and it seems obvious to -us-, we have to be patient with these guys... remember, we didn't "figure all this out" on our own... we had the Holy Spirit.
you are actually the one arguing from ignorance(not trying to offend you).
you set the premise asking "if God is all powerful and all knowing, then......."
so, if God is "all powerful and all knowing", then how could -you- do a study on it? you are smarter than me, but you have no perspective compared to God if you set out the "if God is all knowing and all powerful" argument.
I am actually inclined to agree with you a bit, CapnnOrdinary. Trying to prove or disprove an "all powerful" being by using deductive argumentation is a bit silly.
The point is that when we say that a god is "omnipotent" this statement has consequences which necessarily follow from the statement, if nothing followed from the word, then it would have no meaning. Arguments against omnipotence then point out that these consequences which follow necessarily from the word's definition, and making no additional assumptions whatsoever, lead to a contradiction. Hence the property of omnipotence would be self defeating. It is not a fallacy, it is pure deduction.
However, it is logically possible to have a deity which is not truly omnipotent but still overwhelmingly powerful, the problem only occurs because omnipotence applies to itself much the same way that "This statement is false" applies to itself.
what a sec, why is "process" unGod like? God reveals Himself to us in many ways.. remember in Genesis where it says God created everything in 6 days then rested on the seventh? well, don't you think that God might have wanted to show us how our "week" could look for -our- benefit? and it ever occur that He uses nature as a process because it makes sense?
anty, you are not stupid, but these questions seem kinda silly. how are -we- supposed to comprehend how "God" works?
Now that you mention it, a week is a completely arbitrary measurement of time. A 5-day week would make much more sense since 365 days is divisible by 5 (and not by 7) - I guess math isn't God's strong suit.
But the "how are we supposed to comprehend God" line is just an appeal to ignorance - this wouldn't matter for somebody who believes for 'spiritual' reasons, but for anybody who claims to believe for 'logical' reason has some more explaining to do.
i believe the Jews invented the 7 day week... and i think the Egyptians "invented" the 365 days a year calendar. sometimes UnBelievers have a say in this world too. just like how professors at colleges are teaching Marxism rather than Christianity.
but seriously, if God is "God", how are -we- supposed to understand how He works? you start out by saying that if God is "omnipotent/ect.", then how can He do "this"?
Well, 365 days actually makes some sense - the earth rotates around its axis about 365 times for every one rotation around the sun. Everything else - months, weeks, hours, etc. seem to be a bit arbitrary and could be split up in any number of ways.
FYI - I never learned anything about Marx or Engles in college. I had to go read the Communist Manifesto for myself.
If there were a god, then I would guess that we would be unable to comprehend how he/she/it "works". My problem is that this has not stopped mankind since the dawn of recorded history from speculating on the subject. If there were a scripture that contained aspects of the "word of god" it would be impossible to separate the truth from the the man-made speculation. The very fact that god is referred to as male just screams of anthropomorphic projection. Why do we think he would need a gender?
no doode.. Christians don't believe God is male or female. you are getting caught up in semantics. just like when a teacher addresses her classroom about someone stealing her apple off of her desk , she might say, "class, someone stole an apple off of my desk, "HE" had better return it by the count of 3!"
now, do the students assume that a "male" did it? do the male students have a right to be upset? or does "he" represent both male and female? it's a generic term doode.
Your argument has merits, but in reality I don't think it holds up. Look at Christian art for the last 2000 years. Kind of looks like an old guy with a beard, doesn't he? While you can make a lucid argument about this, I strongly suspect that the mental image that most have of god is of hirsute gentleman in the robe. I doubt that the primitives who wrote the bible doubted in any way that he was male. After all, man was made in his image - another blatant anthropomorphic projection.
Ok, first of all the big bang had to come from something,SOMETHING. Yes even before the Big Bang there had to be some kind of matter and that matter can't come from nothing. Second, if you look at the universe its breaking apart into chaos not order, so order can not come from chaos.
You should check out the new, developing quantum physics. It explains all these confusing little details.
And yes, it is 'true' that everything came from nothing. Meaning that's what the math shows us now.
Thinking about the natural world can be very disorientating because of the inversion of reasoning. But just like we've found out before, that is just how nature likes to do it; counter intuitive.
But we ARE figuring out the universe. True, it's in tiny steps, but look how far we have come in the past century. We have sequenced the human genome. We have seen virtually to the dawn of the universe, and mapped much of the visible cosmos. We have unravelled matter to the level of the atom and beyond. I'd say that's cause to be optimistic about our future, not cause to wallow in futility.
I think its funny that Atheist even accept that title, there is nothing else that we refer to by what it is not. So, anyone who accepts this title is simply defeating themselves before they get started.
But, that explains things as well. Both Theist and Atheist are concerned about the same thing: GOD. Their lives still revolve around this subject. The point realizing there is probably no God is that one can stop concerning themselves all together.
lol, "atheists are concerned about god" We are concerned that people who believe in god are going to start murdering each other at any moment for no reason and we hope to eliminate their rationale.
The point was about the semantics of the word atheist is that it is ultimately counter productive. Especially accepting a title that is the opposite by definition of who you're trying to talk with.
Maybe we should think of ways to find the root of the problems instead of a frontal attack?
Reasoning with the unreasonable is hard. This approach will only get us so far and only reaches so many.
Root causes of Human behavior is what I'm concerned with. This is where we must start.
No, I think of new and interesting things all day, everyday.
"Facepalm" I guess this shows your critical thinking skills you learned in middle school?
The point of my post was to bring up the semantics in our language, and point out how it might be counter productive in the long run to keep accepting a title that is the polar opposite of who we wish to communicate with.
Think about this when making reactionary childish insults instead of contemplating on the topic presented.
@antybu86 I would be like your grilfriend in the sense that i am not very interested in discussing the probablity of the existence of a magic invisible supernatural being, But we don't always have the possibility of ignoring God as some people are trying to push "Him" in our lives. So i sometimes find myself in a situation where talking about it is compelling. If we, atheists, don't stand up, the separation of church and state could become an old memory real quick...
You should ask your girlfriend if she also an amusician or an acommunist or an amotorcyclist. The point is that the semantics of the title atheist is completely counter to everything else we have created labels for.
What title do you refer to yourself that you are not?
I'm simply try to point out if someone is truly not concerned with the concept of God, then why would they ever accept a title based on that concept?
I disagree. When I call myself "atheist", I am not defining myself by that label. I am simply using it as a term by which people can understand what belief I hold with respect to god(s). My life doesn't revolve around it at all.
He tells us the sun revolves around the Earth. But we know they revolve around each other. Though Earth does most of the revolving.
And he omits to tell us why he took 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 thousand years to send his son or help the Prophet wake up and write it all down! But what if our Universe is a Bubble in a Universe of billions of Bubble Universes. Where's god then? Maybe God only visits once every billion years!
Interesting point, but it is plausible that a god might create the illusion of natural processes in the universe in order to make it more predictable for beings living in it instead of changing the rules at every possible moment.
Essentially you err in assuming that because you cannot think of a good reason for the universe appearing to be comprised of natural processes, that they could serve no purpose. Nevertheless, the series was good and gave some intriguing points.
Without wishing to support the god case, the same applies. There could be a motive behind the illusions that is founded in benevolence.
Not that it matters since the universe is essentially a mostly empty room with some dust floating about in it, and nobody in the room has yet seen any giant fairy.
I apologize for the ambiguity. My use of the word "illusion" wasn't intended to imply that a god would necessarily be intentionally deceitful anymore than your computer screen is trying to be intentionally deceitful in creating the illusion of an image.
My point was that a god could have various valid reasons for creating a universe which (at least usually) followed predictable rules, and hence this specific argument isn't valid in the same way that arguments against omnipotence appear to be.
fact is that there is no need of something supernatural to explaination any observed incident in our world.
just to belief in a god because someone told you to isn't a good reason but it's ok as long as you keep in mind that it's just an assumption and not a fact like many fundamentalists tend to act like.
Ok so by no means am I the religious type but if a god is responisble for natrual processes would any process not be considered god actively doing something to influence the outcome? Lets take Evolution for example: How could we be sure that the results of natrual selection are natrual and not simply the will of god if we could not determine the difference anyway?
I could understand if god put nature in motion, although when theists add that god is omni-whatever it starts getting confusing and doesn't make any sense.
halflifeproductionz 1 month ago
Creating unnecessarily does not mean he's imperfect. There could be a deeper meaning, or he could just be having fun making weird designs.
dookdawg214 5 months ago
A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory
solinari399 5 months ago
If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning
solinari399 5 months ago
Your conclusion hinges on god having a ''job'' left to do, which would imply non-omnipotence. This would lead to a contradiction on necessary characteristics of an infinite being.God's ''job'' would imply incompleteness, incompleteness would imply nature, nature would indeed be the ''job''. God ''doing'' a ''job'' would hence require nature, for if there was no nature god would necessarily have no ''job''. If nature exists because of god then, therefore, ''jobs'' or nature follow necessarily.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
Great music choice at the end lol
TSteverse 7 months ago
@officialtheowarner Dr. Dawkins didn't avoid it. Then you say I was quite happy to forward you these emails from theoisafatso-drama-queen-shithead. And so when I say And they don't disagree that much at all, now you're practically dodging what I wrote. I'll post EXACTLY what I wrote previously. Typical.
thePhantomFrank 8 months ago
This is the series that made me subscribe. Nice!
myteethareshiny 9 months ago
good series! thanks
MrPacnman 10 months ago
I think conclusion A is flawed because perfection is almost always a purely subjective thing unless talking logically or mathematically. Why would a unnecessarily extravagant route be imperfect?
And even if it is imperfect because it could have been done simpler then the entire universe is imperfect and shouldn't exist because it all could have just played out in God's head immediately and then there would be no need for it.
TehOwnerer999 11 months ago
@TehOwnerer999 Exactly. If an unnecessary universe exists then the claim that a perfect and thus all efficient god exists is debunked. Further if this god is truly absolutely flawless shouldn't he be perfect in EVERY sense?
hockeater 11 months ago
@hockeater I really don't like this whole perfect God idea because you have to ask questions like "is God the perfect shape" and "is God the perfect color" which just seem like irrational questions. There is no logical way to determine whether some things are perfect or not and so I think people should just refrain from using it in any non subjective sense.
TehOwnerer999 10 months ago
@TehOwnerer999 Ah but many god concepts claim perfect non subjective perfection. We're just chipping away at that incredibly stupid paradox making idea.
hockeater 10 months ago
There is no such this as natural phenomenon. The movement of an electron is only able to measured when observered says the uncertainty principle. If "God" could do it so could you... pretty much just do you have the will power to? also what is a "natural phenomenon" and "supernatural"?
Obito313 1 year ago
Atheist people will not dare read Professor Antony Flew's latest book for fear that their reasoning might be straightened out. I challenge every so-called atheist here to read Professor Antony Flew's latest book and try refuting it point by point. Not even Dawkins, Barker, Hitchens, or Harris have come out with an exhaustive argument against such material. Why don't you start embracing the truth about God and Jesus Christ. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you now.
ByJustified 1 year ago
@ByJustified It's interesting that so many Christians point to Flew's book. He didn't convert to Christianity - you know that, right? I have read interviews he's done, and I have his book (but haven't read it yet - promise I will soon).
antybu86 1 year ago 10
@antybu86 The issue friend is not his conversion to Christianity but his conversion to believing in Intelligent Design. Who knows if Professor Flew was converted many years prior to his death there is a huge possibility for him to come to know Jesus Christ and accept Him as Lord and Savior. Who knows if he has accepted Him before his last breath. Who knows.... Who knows if you, my friend, will also embrace the existence of God after reading Prof. Flew's book. Who knows...
ByJustified 1 year ago
@antybu86 Message me if you think it's worth a read, please. No point both of us potentially wasting our money, right? :P
DaToNyOyO 3 months ago
@DaToNyOyO Oh, I read it maybe 6 months ago. Lame book - filled with arguments from ignorance. He's not convinced by the scientific explanation for X, therefore X must be caused by a god. That's basically how the entire thing goes.
antybu86 3 months ago
@antybu86 Might've know. Bummer.
Cheers!
DaToNyOyO 3 months ago
@ByJustified Flew said he still thinks Christianity is ridiculous. Way to prove that you yourself haven't read the book. How sad.
DancingTableLeg 11 months ago
@DancingTableLeg ... The point that I am making is a former prominent atheist became a believer in God. And this guy is no small fish but a big fish. A combination of the brains of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Barker, and all other young atheists is nothing compared to Prof. Antony Flew. Well, I hope Prof. Flew had the chance to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Probably he will if given the chance.
ByJustified 9 months ago
@ByJustified Since I wrote that reply to you 3 months ago, I have read Flew's book. Sorry to say, it's underwhelming. Even if he did write it - and since he had two ghost writers, I doubt how much of those words were his own - it's very poorly argued. It's mostly just arguments from ignorance.
antybu86 9 months ago
@antybu86... Poorly argued? Ghost writers? Why don't you reason here and let's see if it will hold water. And why did you come to arrive that it was written by somebody else? I think you are trying to find if there are atheists out there who can refute his book. There is none. A reason why these poor young atheists would like to accuse that it was written by somebody else. Remember, there are no exhaustive refutation of that book even until today done by any sensible atheists. They are afraid.
ByJustified 9 months ago
@ByJustified You seem like a very aggressive person. You might want to tone it down a bit because it really doesn't seem like you're even interested in hearing what I think.
But nevertheless, it was written by Varghase (sp?). He's been very open about it - he simply states that it was based off of interviews with Flew and that he had Flew's permission to write under his name. It's also not a secret that there was a second ghostwriter. ...
antybu86 9 months ago
(cont.) And "poorly argued" is a poor choice of words on my part because there isn't really much argument in it. It's mostly a bunch of "I don't like the scientific answers to these questions.. So, there is a God!" I wrote a whole review of the book at the Tuesday Afternoon website, so if you want to engage me about the book, I suggest you do so there.
antybu86 9 months ago
What exactly do you mean when you say deductive argumentation isn't the right approach? Do you mean we'd have to take empirical data into consideration, or that there's something wrong with deductive reasoning itself?
KittenButter 1 year ago
I think that it's very clear that if the natural is real, then what we think of as the supernatural is only apparent. Only the natural is real.
Likewise, if the supernatural is real, then what we think of as "natural" is only apparent. Only the supernatural is actually real.
It's much like the world of our dreams. Things change from one form to another, change around in time and space. even the laws of identity don't apply.
But sometimes, our dreams are just like the waking world.
prodprod 1 year ago
(cont'd) (2) So much so that we might be dreaming and not even realize it for a time. Then suddenly, something "impossible" happens that gives it away.
To live in a "supernatural" world is the same as living in a world like the world of our dreams. It may seem as if it's one in which entities are governed by intrinsic rules, but actually, at any moment, a horse may turn into a house.
In a supernatural world, like the world of our dreams, there *is* no nature, only an illusion of nature.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Hmm. I think I've grappled with that same idea, except I used the terms "realms of matter and energy ('natural')" and "realms of thought ('supernatural')" instead.
SpyHotz404 1 year ago
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. The greatest sin of all is to believe something just because someone tells you to.
stormfox1 1 year ago
Also, God wants to us to be his friends, not slaves. Slaves are ignorant of their master's will, but friends of God get to learn his will.
FelixTheGhost 1 year ago
@FelixTheGhost Slaves are painfully aware of their master's will. Friendship consists of mutual respect for each other's will, not one party looking to appease the other by learning his will. This is just typical of how the meaning of words is twisted by believers. Words like love and friendship are twisted to suit the idea that an obviously sadistic and maniacal character from a fantasy book really cares about us. It's like the beaten woman saying "But I know my husband really loves me.".
Griexxt 1 year ago
A journalist named Lee Strobel went out to find the truth with concrete evidence and facts to prove God doesn't exist. His findings are compiled into a number of books. The first one I read was 'The Case for Faith.' There are other books in his series that examine other arguments to Christian beliefs. It's just whether or not you are ready to abandon blind faith or blind doubt to know the Truth.
FelixTheGhost 1 year ago
@FelixTheGhost Lee Strobel is a con artist. His understanding of the scientific issues he discusses is at a kindergarten level.
Griexxt 1 year ago
All this wordplay assumes God can be accurately described with human vocabulary. God himself cannot be encapsulated fully with our words, though the ways he manifests himself can. Anyone arguing that God is illogical should consult history, archaeology, science and mathematics themselves if they are looking for 'proof' of God and Jesus.
FelixTheGhost 1 year ago
@FelixTheGhost God can be accurately described with human vocabulary. Richard Dawkins succeeded perfectly in one of his books. It's just that he doesn't use the words believers typically try to apply, because that's when you run into problems of inconsistency and logical gaps.
There is no evidence for any god to be found in any of the disciplines you mention. You're fooling yourself if you think so.
Griexxt 1 year ago
And THIS is why you can't have supernatural science, QED. Good video.
Venaloid 1 year ago
I agree with the previous three arguments, but not this one. How can premise 2 be correct is premise 1 is assumed. If premise 1 is correct, then God's work and natural phenomena known through empirically derived data are mutually unintelligible i.e how can we know if electromagnetism dictates the existence of electrons in a probability haze or if God is merely physically overseeing it, when the effects of both will be the same.
bibhuna 1 year ago
Let's get to the heart of the matter. In an atom there is a nucleus. What do you think all those energetic particles are swirling around? The nucleus in all things is responsible for Life...Energy...Light etc. Sound familiar? Just sayin...
Jay0Uticano 1 year ago
I am sure the one who did this video had an axe to grind with God Himself. Imagine giving us a multiple choice without the option of God's existence. I am also sure the guy had a past traumatic experience that made him deny his Creator. I suggest that he go to a pastor and ask for some counseling and prayer. This will surely help take away his emotional burdens. Every atheists individual has a past traumatic experience and this is one reason that led them to deny God. That's very sad.
ByJustified 1 year ago
@ByJustified Sorry, but your psychoanalysis is pretty far off. I don't have any axes to grind, I just happen to find the topic interesting.
Now, if you're willing to actually have a discussion of the topic at hand, I'd be happy to hear why you think the arguments in this video series are incorrect.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 I suggest you buy the book "Faith of the Fatherless" and see the evidence yourself.
ByJustified 1 year ago
@ByJustified Is that the book which claims that all atheists have father issues based on a bunch of anecdotal evidence? Sorry, seems like just another attempt to avoid the actual arguments.
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 Do you own one? Have you read the whole thing? I really hope so. And by the way, don't forget to buy the book of a former notorious atheist namely Prof. Antony Flew who reverted to becoming a believer in Intelligent Design. Even before there was Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, & Dan Barker, there was already an Antony Flew considered to be the "Billy Graham" of the atheist community. Well, I do believed that someday you will surely go back to the One who created you.
ByJustified 1 year ago
@ByJustified Ugh... if you can't address the arguments, just stop. I don't care that Flew is now a deist (not a Christian, by the way). His argument for deism is bad, so why the hell should I care?
antybu86 1 year ago
@antybu86 I didn't Prof. Flew was a Christian (Well, who knows if he accepted Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior before his last breath. Remember, he was a close friend to Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig.) Why don't you try reading his book and make an exhaustive refutation? After all, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and the rest of the "Johnny-come-lately" new atheists has not even dared to refute his solid arhuments for Intelligent Design.
ByJustified 1 year ago
@ByJustified This is not a place to plug a book. What is his arhument (Argument) for intelligent design.
ebilly99 1 year ago
@ByJustified This is not a place to plug a book. What is his arhument (Argument) for intelligent design. NVM I got the idea it is the first causality. Man just created a bigbang using forces from nature. That means God is not needed and that universes are natural objects.
ebilly99 1 year ago
@antybu86 Can you give me a book title or an article exhaustively refuting Dr. Antony Flew's latest work on Intelligent Design? These young guns like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Barker, and Daniel Dennett are no much with Dr. Flew's Intelligent Design argument. I suggest that you really by the latest book of Dr. Antony Flew and not just comment subjectively. God bless you and your family.
ByJustified 1 year ago
@ByJustified Are you trying to make an argument, or sell books?
MasterBlueTiger 1 year ago
@ByJustified Fuck you, you condescending cunt. We've moved past your bronze-age religious beliefs into something bigger, something verifiably correct. If you can't handle that stay at home all day and read your bible, but don't make these incredibly stupid and baseless claims that atheists are mad at god, or that we're somehow incomplete without your bullshit stories about a tyrannical failure of a god who can't get the simplest of things right.
ByTor190 1 year ago
@ByJustified What traumatic experience do you have that has turned you away from Allah? Why do you deny your creator? It is very sad and I suggest you go to a mosque and speak to a Imam who will help you with your emotional burdens.
Saying you need a traumatic experience to deny the existence of any god(s) is absurd. I'm sure you don't believe in Allah, Vishnu, or Amaterasu....do you have traumatic experiences that have led you to deny each one? Or how about the other thousands of gods?
Lesterfinnigan 1 year ago
@ByJustified How arogant.
SgtDICTION 1 year ago
@ByJustified
In my country believers are minority. Do we all have post traumatic experience? No, we just were never MADE to believe in god. Why are you so dishonest?
muromestari 1 year ago
@ByJustified Wrong!! Traumatic experience on its own isn't enough to create an atheist. You forget that once a person begins to doubt God that's when they begin to educate themselves and research the origins of the Bible and of Christianity and other religions. It is not the truamatic experience but the evidence against the legitamcy of the Bible and the god there in that creates the atheist. The absurdities, inconsistencies and contradictions and the questions they generate are the genesis
nosajj12345 1 year ago
You know, I was debating this quality with someone just recently. This person put forth the idea that this omnipresent deity is existent as all vacuum in the universe. We know that vacuum exists everywhere and contains great amounts of energy potential and seems to display creative properties, such as particles seeming to pop in and out of existence in vacuum. While I disagree with this concept on many grounds, I would like to hear some other thoughts on the concept.
HooahW2475 1 year ago
it seems that you are as dedicated to "disproving god" or "proving god illogical" as a preacher is to proving god exists. all your mental masturbation will just make you more stressed out in the end. god is all things. not good or bad. just is. god is all time all space and not conscious. god is simply the end of current human understanding. big words don't make you smarter. just more douche-ish. stop trying to disprove something u have resentments towards and push your brain past this argument
LelandStabler 1 year ago
@LelandStabler so if god is not good or bad, all time and space and not conscious, then why can't I be god or my mother or father? If you are going to put such fuzzy unspecific terms onto some person you want to make symbolic, the least you can do is be specific, otherwise I could proclaim anything to be always good, everywhere, and a creator of all things.
Lacoux 1 year ago
antybu86 As an atheist and scientist I have enjoyed this little series but I do have one question regarding this last video. You say that an omnipresent 'God' who controlled the motion of each and every sub-atomic particle would have no need to create 'natural processes' in order to fulfill its will. I don't disagree but I do wonder how it would be possible to distinguish between such a 'God' and actually 'natural processes' (not supernatural) that were not created by a supernatural being?
pleflar 1 year ago
No real response to your video series but thanks for the song at the end. I love that song.
mitenzouki 1 year ago
Then after you have clearly explained and proved your point logically and excellently, what good will it bring to the humanity?
Is it for the fact that you just wanted to disprove God's existence? Do you want to free the believers from their ignorance? Or you have a greater purpose?
Assuming that God doesn't really exist, what evil would it bring to humanity if they continue to believe in Him?
I, too, believe that God is illogical, for I believe in two things which exist: Logical & Illogical
ronald017 1 year ago
@ronald017 Reason is a tool to seek for truth. The truth you find can be either useful or not. If the belief in God is good or bad, it´s another topic, but I can name some bad things about the belief:
1) Suicide bombers. Will you blow yourself in the name of God, killing a lot of people if you don´t believe in God?
2) If God doesn´t exist, religious authorities are illegitimate.
3) Claims for the supernatural delays and undermines scientific progress on wich we rely to survive.
lfzadra 1 year ago
People don't seem to realize that god is bound by logic. For example, math, the most basic form of logic, is entirely universal; if God exists he can't break math nor logic. 1+1 always equals 2.
RobertoOneEye 1 year ago
love this song
shinoforever 1 year ago
Well, what in the world does it mean to say that a thing is "present" if you say that the sum total of all of its attributes exist at every point in existence, including the totality of space and time, and yet at the same time, it *doesn't* exist at all in either space or time?
prodprod 1 year ago
great series, gave this agnostic some food for thought.
wakcedout 1 year ago
A god that creates "unnecessarily" does not imply that he is not perfect.
You don't know anything about this supernatural being and its plans or reasons - what you are describing here and in the previous vids of this series are the contradictions YOU would have to face if you were god.
The concept of god explains "someone who is able to and does and did whatever it wants for reasons we will never fully understand". It is perfect within itself, no logical arguments are able to scratch that.
ashraghil 2 years ago
Actually, yes, unnecessary creations implies and imperfect creator. For example, a keyboard with unnecessary buttons is imperfect, is it not?
But if your argument is the typical "God is outside of our understanding" then, as I've said to everybody else who has suggested the same thing, you'd better not try to prove God's existence with logical arguments.
antybu86 2 years ago 14
@antybu86 You're arguing this point against a theist? haven't you learned yet, theists are the all knowing on what god wants, thinks, is capable of, is, etc? when a person becomes an atheist they lose all that knowledge, magically I guess.
To sum it up
theist = supernatural knowledge
atheist = supernatural ignorance
theist to atheist instantly loses said knowledge
atheist to theist instantly gains said knowledge
robvlob 1 year ago
@antybu86 I would have to slightly disagree with you. It could be argued that "unnecessary" is only an issue with limited resources and time. I'm not saying your argument is wrong, but the conclusion that unnecessary = faulty is not well founded. For instance perhaps it is unnecessary to have trillions and trillions of stars in the universe that we won't even see or barely anybody will find, but if God feels like doing it how does that make him/it imperfect?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@ashraghil
Circular reasoning, tautologies and arbitrary unsupported claims like "god.. is able to and does and did whatever it wants for reasons we will never fully understand" are an easy way to believe anything you want, argue until you refute yourself and then just walk away saying that it is not logical (for humans) and cannot be understood anyway.
Well, you finally agree then because that's exactly what atheists (and this video) say: god is illogical, believing in it is unreasonable :)
ispaniola 1 year ago 23
@ispaniola I don't believe in god - why should I disagree? And if you would have taken the time to think about my comment a bit more, you could have interpreted it the way it was meant.
Being religious means living the perfect illusion - an almighty being is the root cause for everything and it is not directly observable. Thus whatever doubts this video is trying (and in my opinion very unscientifically) to raise can be refuted easily by answering "You don't know god, don't try to explain him".
ashraghil 1 year ago
@ashraghil
You still repeat tautologies which is not scientific and isnt even philosophically acceptable
""You don't know god, don't try to explain him""
You havent shown that god exists, so you can't say that he's unexplainable either.
To assume god exists and to assume he's unexplainable is per definition not falsifiable and a tautology. So you're right the perfect illusion.
Furthermore, people use these arguments in a debate. This is absurd since a debate uses logic, so dont debate then.
ispaniola 1 year ago
@ispaniola Wasn't I clear enough the last time? I thought I was.
It is NOT ME who is desperately hoping for baby jesus waiting for us in heaven with 72 virgins for every suicide bomber and fulfilling you every wish you were denied in your life.
Religious people consider their faith in god despite all the contradictions a VIRTUE. And unless this video was just meant to stroke our atheistic balls, telling us "see, we are right", it has no effect at all.
ashraghil 1 year ago
@ashraghil
I know, you were representing the theist's position right?
But I just had a discussion with a creationist and he used similar reasoning (as usual indeed), so at least I thought I give you my answer.
Btw, it's not that I think I'm right. I'm really open to almost any possibility. However, the specific abrahamic gods are a joke to me, not only because of the contradictions logically, but his whole portrayed character is absurd and far from perfect or benevolent.
Cheers anyway :)
ispaniola 1 year ago
You assume that God works independently of science. God works THROUGH science. I seem to be finding a consistence among your videos... they all involve assumptions! Congratulations! You've confused assumption with logic somehow! You've proven that God doesn't exist in an illogical world!
Queeranus 2 years ago
Are you saying that he was the inventor of natural laws? Because I addressed this point in the video.
If not, then I'd appreciate a further explanation.
antybu86 2 years ago
If this being is perfect then natural phenomena have no reason to exist. This statement is illogical. God made natural laws in a "got the ball rolling" way, he has control over every situation, but is not controlling every tiny thing as we speak. You assume that there must be no God, or God is doing everything, and there is no in between which IS incomplete (flawed) logic. Why would God do that? I don't know, but does that matter? Absolutely not, it doesn't change a thing.
Queeranus 2 years ago
You know, technically... YOU are unnecessary. Does that mean you shouldn't exist? No! Just because something is unnecessary does not mean that it is without reason. Not to mention your argument is PARTICULARLY flawed if you believe there is no God, because then NOTHING is necessary and all is nigh! Everything is pointless and morality is a figment of man's Imagination! Who gives a crap about morality if there is no meaning in this world? You are the one with the illogical God (Abiogenesis).
Queeranus 2 years ago
Technically, unless you believe in Taoism or some other non God religion, you BELIEVE (key word) that the first cell somehow MAGICALLY (and I mean that in the fullest sense of the word) came to life. You BELIEVE that the first cell came to be randomly with a cell wall, DNA (a coded language), happened to have a ton of atp in it IN ADDITION to the necessary enzymes to catalyze that atp, Then finally, it somehow knew how to self replicate AND had a sense of purpose: continuity of self replication
Queeranus 2 years ago
Last but not least, when you believe something... is that science, logic, or faith? You my friend, have faith in abiogenesis, you have faith that it happens, you cannot test that it happens, you cannot verify, or falsify abiogenesis. You believe in it. Even if you believe that someday we will observe it or create it, if we create it, we show that life can be created, if we observe it then congratulations you are right. Until that happens however, you are not a scientist, you are an atheist.
Queeranus 2 years ago
Didn't get in all that I wanted to say with that lol... There is a problem with someday observing abiogenesis. And that problem lies with the necessity of DNA within the first organism. DNA is a code, an immensely dense and well written code. Codes if you do you research, do not, and CANNOT come about by random chaos. Codes REQUIRE intelligence to come into existence. If you would like to TRY to state otherwise be my guest, but PROVING me wrong using logic is, unfortunately for you, impossible.
Queeranus 2 years ago
first of all, love the name, sometimes reflects what's going through the mind of the owner during creation of the name. Second of all, instead of just posting hate comments, why not do something productive with your time? like for instance: providing the world with irrefutable non 'the bible says so' proof that God exists and that there's a reason why we should worship the imbecile that you call a god.
Zuifan 2 years ago
Thanks for the name compliment by the way, I love it too because I have a pretty broad sense of humor.
Queeranus 2 years ago
you're welcome
Zuifan 2 years ago
Okay... wow... I posted a link but I guess youtube doesn't like links for some reason.... look up "DNA as proof of God" on google, first link, excellent PROOF
Queeranus 2 years ago
you're assuming I'm not just some nutjob out to harrass christians, and that solid proof is all it takes. That's an assumption based totally without major evidence to the contrary. Even my comments over the years aren't proof, hell I jump all over the reality spectrum. I demand that people worship the divine gouda and the holy cow for cripes sakes.
Zuifan 2 years ago
Lol solid proof is all it takes... hmm hypocritical? Interesting how you complained about me saying "the bible says so" which I didn't even do... and now you state that you "might believe anything." Gotta love non science and logic based beliefs and comments. I am done with you good sir troll.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@Queer
You completely missed his point or intentionally constructed a straw-man.
All the maker of this video is saying is that it is useless to attribute certain phenomena or gaps in science to god when you already believe god operates at every level everywhere in the universe.
"You assume that God works independently of science.God works THROUGH science"
This is a nonsensical statement to make. Science is a method,maybe you mean "nature"?.. It's also by definition impossible to falsify
ReligionInTheBin 1 year ago 28
@ReligionInTheBin Fine, "Scientific laws" then... seriously? As if one could not come to the conclusion that such was the message conveyed. Your entire post is nonsensical. What are you referring to that is impossible to falsify? Who says that people believe that God operates at every level? He has control but does not control, if not we would be fated rather than have free will. He made laws and got the ball rolling, every so often, he intervenes, this is when miracles happen.
Queeranus 1 year ago
@Queeranus
"As if one could not come to the conclusion that such was the message conveyed"
Haha, you are obviously the pompous irrational blind believer that ridicules the other when he's clearly wrong and nonsensical...as usual.
You use logic as long as (you wrongly think) it serves you and then result in mere assertions when someone refutes your arguments
"You assume that God works independently of science.God works THROUGH science"There is no way to come to that conclusion deductively
ReligionInTheBin 1 year ago 12
i love you (no homo [well...kinda homo])
shorty962 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
George Green an Investment banker revealing plans for reducing the worlds population drastically.
watch?v=z-kivVAAV-o
Terra7Q 2 years ago
Excellent series. Keep up the good works.
FaganRoberts 2 years ago
Antybu, this series was excellent and the song at the end of the last part was an inspired (your should pardon the word) choice. Very well done!
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Natural phenomina "unnecessary"?
That is a very loaded word. I can have two different kinds of breakfasts or two different books to read. The unnecessary needs to be qualified
God creates unnecesary things to be imperfect?
The unnecesary is a loaded word and I fail to see the connection. I am know that in Maos China anything beyond bare necesities was deemed unnecesary. The existance of something you find unnecesary does not directly mean that it is imperfection.
spaderace5 2 years ago
I'll rephrase for you:
Natural phenomena are a redundancy (with God's powers). Redundancies are inefficient. A perfect god could not be inefficient.
antybu86 2 years ago
Much better!
spaderace5 2 years ago
Christianity, who wants to know? another fool who believes in theory and guessing?
SprDrumio64 2 years ago
What SprDummie64?
What is your point?
mriswithmoo 2 years ago
Jeez,
Can't you tell he's deliberating being incoherent and confusing?
:P
lopeyschools 2 years ago
This was a great way to finish up these 4 videos.
EVOLUTIONxxxVSxxxID 2 years ago
You people are ridiculous its like talking to a brick wall!!!!! THAT NOTHING IS God! He created physical laws!!!! NOT EVOLUTION NOT THE BIG BANG!! It takes more faith to believe in this crap than believing God did it. He did all that stuff with himself to show what God can do!!!
SprDrumio64 2 years ago
while i agree with you and it seems obvious to -us-, we have to be patient with these guys... remember, we didn't "figure all this out" on our own... we had the Holy Spirit.
that said, good point man!
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
you are actually the one arguing from ignorance(not trying to offend you).
you set the premise asking "if God is all powerful and all knowing, then......."
so, if God is "all powerful and all knowing", then how could -you- do a study on it? you are smarter than me, but you have no perspective compared to God if you set out the "if God is all knowing and all powerful" argument.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
I am actually inclined to agree with you a bit, CapnnOrdinary. Trying to prove or disprove an "all powerful" being by using deductive argumentation is a bit silly.
antybu86 2 years ago
agree.
that said, i believe that there is enough pointing to the fact that this Universe needs an "omni/ect" God. but that's another argument i guess.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
But enjoyable to watch! ;-)
TheLivingDinosaur 2 years ago
The point is that when we say that a god is "omnipotent" this statement has consequences which necessarily follow from the statement, if nothing followed from the word, then it would have no meaning. Arguments against omnipotence then point out that these consequences which follow necessarily from the word's definition, and making no additional assumptions whatsoever, lead to a contradiction. Hence the property of omnipotence would be self defeating. It is not a fallacy, it is pure deduction.
Flaar94 2 years ago
However, it is logically possible to have a deity which is not truly omnipotent but still overwhelmingly powerful, the problem only occurs because omnipotence applies to itself much the same way that "This statement is false" applies to itself.
Flaar94 2 years ago
what a sec, why is "process" unGod like? God reveals Himself to us in many ways.. remember in Genesis where it says God created everything in 6 days then rested on the seventh? well, don't you think that God might have wanted to show us how our "week" could look for -our- benefit? and it ever occur that He uses nature as a process because it makes sense?
anty, you are not stupid, but these questions seem kinda silly. how are -we- supposed to comprehend how "God" works?
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
Now that you mention it, a week is a completely arbitrary measurement of time. A 5-day week would make much more sense since 365 days is divisible by 5 (and not by 7) - I guess math isn't God's strong suit.
But the "how are we supposed to comprehend God" line is just an appeal to ignorance - this wouldn't matter for somebody who believes for 'spiritual' reasons, but for anybody who claims to believe for 'logical' reason has some more explaining to do.
antybu86 2 years ago
i believe the Jews invented the 7 day week... and i think the Egyptians "invented" the 365 days a year calendar. sometimes UnBelievers have a say in this world too. just like how professors at colleges are teaching Marxism rather than Christianity.
but seriously, if God is "God", how are -we- supposed to understand how He works? you start out by saying that if God is "omnipotent/ect.", then how can He do "this"?
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
Well, 365 days actually makes some sense - the earth rotates around its axis about 365 times for every one rotation around the sun. Everything else - months, weeks, hours, etc. seem to be a bit arbitrary and could be split up in any number of ways.
FYI - I never learned anything about Marx or Engles in college. I had to go read the Communist Manifesto for myself.
antybu86 2 years ago
i believe you.
but Universities are hell bent against Christianity.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
Well, not from my experience. Never learned anything about Christianity in my calculus or chemistry classes.
antybu86 2 years ago
of course you wouldn't learn about Anti-Christian world views in math and chemistry.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
If there were a god, then I would guess that we would be unable to comprehend how he/she/it "works". My problem is that this has not stopped mankind since the dawn of recorded history from speculating on the subject. If there were a scripture that contained aspects of the "word of god" it would be impossible to separate the truth from the the man-made speculation. The very fact that god is referred to as male just screams of anthropomorphic projection. Why do we think he would need a gender?
TheLivingDinosaur 2 years ago
no doode.. Christians don't believe God is male or female. you are getting caught up in semantics. just like when a teacher addresses her classroom about someone stealing her apple off of her desk , she might say, "class, someone stole an apple off of my desk, "HE" had better return it by the count of 3!"
now, do the students assume that a "male" did it? do the male students have a right to be upset? or does "he" represent both male and female? it's a generic term doode.
PocketKnifeProds 2 years ago
Your argument has merits, but in reality I don't think it holds up. Look at Christian art for the last 2000 years. Kind of looks like an old guy with a beard, doesn't he? While you can make a lucid argument about this, I strongly suspect that the mental image that most have of god is of hirsute gentleman in the robe. I doubt that the primitives who wrote the bible doubted in any way that he was male. After all, man was made in his image - another blatant anthropomorphic projection.
TheLivingDinosaur 2 years ago
Ok, first of all the big bang had to come from something,SOMETHING. Yes even before the Big Bang there had to be some kind of matter and that matter can't come from nothing. Second, if you look at the universe its breaking apart into chaos not order, so order can not come from chaos.
SprDrumio64 2 years ago
Did it have to come from something because thats scientifically true or because you simply cannot comprehend it?
JumpStartation 2 years ago
So scientifically true is that reality came from nothing? NO, then you don't know the truth
SprDrumio64 2 years ago
Nobody knows the truth.
JumpStartation 2 years ago
You should check out the new, developing quantum physics. It explains all these confusing little details.
And yes, it is 'true' that everything came from nothing. Meaning that's what the math shows us now.
Thinking about the natural world can be very disorientating because of the inversion of reasoning. But just like we've found out before, that is just how nature likes to do it; counter intuitive.
TheFifthGreatApe 2 years ago
Loved this series, especially the ending of this video. Well done
aire299 2 years ago
we are men, all of our brains together wont be able to figure out the universe, live your life
madchronz77 2 years ago
But we ARE figuring out the universe. True, it's in tiny steps, but look how far we have come in the past century. We have sequenced the human genome. We have seen virtually to the dawn of the universe, and mapped much of the visible cosmos. We have unravelled matter to the level of the atom and beyond. I'd say that's cause to be optimistic about our future, not cause to wallow in futility.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
god = Pi haha
okuma0kuma 2 years ago
Nice series.
quleughy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sigh.. another waste of time.
DeezerStephens 2 years ago
Sorry to disappoint, I guess . . .
antybu86 2 years ago
the crash of the stock market. ROFL!!
DeezerStephens 2 years ago
I think its funny that Atheist even accept that title, there is nothing else that we refer to by what it is not. So, anyone who accepts this title is simply defeating themselves before they get started.
But, that explains things as well. Both Theist and Atheist are concerned about the same thing: GOD. Their lives still revolve around this subject. The point realizing there is probably no God is that one can stop concerning themselves all together.
So, in this sense, atheist are still theist.
TheFifthGreatApe 2 years ago 2
Exactly. And the people not so concerned about it even writes about it. god concept is the funniest never ending joke ever conceived.
mytv80 2 years ago 5
lol, "atheists are concerned about god" We are concerned that people who believe in god are going to start murdering each other at any moment for no reason and we hope to eliminate their rationale.
wwickeddogg 2 years ago
@wwickeddogg
The point was about the semantics of the word atheist is that it is ultimately counter productive. Especially accepting a title that is the opposite by definition of who you're trying to talk with.
Maybe we should think of ways to find the root of the problems instead of a frontal attack?
Reasoning with the unreasonable is hard. This approach will only get us so far and only reaches so many.
Root causes of Human behavior is what I'm concerned with. This is where we must start.
TheFifthGreatApe 2 years ago 6
@TheFifthGreatApe -*Facepalm* Thinking isn't your strong-suit, is it kid? Don't quit your day job.
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
@Sav3TheWorld
No, I think of new and interesting things all day, everyday.
"Facepalm" I guess this shows your critical thinking skills you learned in middle school?
The point of my post was to bring up the semantics in our language, and point out how it might be counter productive in the long run to keep accepting a title that is the polar opposite of who we wish to communicate with.
Think about this when making reactionary childish insults instead of contemplating on the topic presented.
TheFifthGreatApe 2 years ago 6
I really don't think atheists are concerned about the subject of God. I mean, I find it interesting enough to discuss, but beyond that... meh...
Probably a better example, though, is my girlfriend. She's an atheist, and she finds the subject of God and religion extremely boring.
antybu86 2 years ago
@antybu86 I would be like your grilfriend in the sense that i am not very interested in discussing the probablity of the existence of a magic invisible supernatural being, But we don't always have the possibility of ignoring God as some people are trying to push "Him" in our lives. So i sometimes find myself in a situation where talking about it is compelling. If we, atheists, don't stand up, the separation of church and state could become an old memory real quick...
RaychSeldon33 2 years ago 2
You should ask your girlfriend if she also an amusician or an acommunist or an amotorcyclist. The point is that the semantics of the title atheist is completely counter to everything else we have created labels for.
What title do you refer to yourself that you are not?
I'm simply try to point out if someone is truly not concerned with the concept of God, then why would they ever accept a title based on that concept?
Seems counter productive to me.
TheFifthGreatApe 2 years ago 6
I disagree. When I call myself "atheist", I am not defining myself by that label. I am simply using it as a term by which people can understand what belief I hold with respect to god(s). My life doesn't revolve around it at all.
starfedrogue 2 years ago 2
My life doesn't revolve around God...The only time I ever think about the concept at all is when it's brought up by somebody else.
Good job at generalizing a whole group of people, moron.
Cupit29 2 years ago
Does God lie to us? Yes!
Does God commit SINS of Omission? Yes!
He tells us the sun revolves around the Earth. But we know they revolve around each other. Though Earth does most of the revolving.
And he omits to tell us why he took 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 thousand years to send his son or help the Prophet wake up and write it all down! But what if our Universe is a Bubble in a Universe of billions of Bubble Universes. Where's god then? Maybe God only visits once every billion years!
listen2meokidoki 2 years ago
ATHEIST: There is no God!
THEIST: Yes there is!
ATHEIST: Prove it!
THEIST: Look at this beautiful banana!
mytv80 2 years ago 5
"It has a point at the top for ease of entry, and it's just the right shape to fit the human mouth!"
antybu86 2 years ago
haha..and what of the pineapple???
mytv80 2 years ago
It's for people who aren't worried about ease of entry ^_^
starfedrogue 2 years ago
Classic
mak1759 2 years ago
great choice for the end song -- really sums up the series
symelian 2 years ago
Interesting point, but it is plausible that a god might create the illusion of natural processes in the universe in order to make it more predictable for beings living in it instead of changing the rules at every possible moment.
Essentially you err in assuming that because you cannot think of a good reason for the universe appearing to be comprised of natural processes, that they could serve no purpose. Nevertheless, the series was good and gave some intriguing points.
Flaar94 2 years ago
if god creates illusions and tricks life in the pursuit of truth then he is not benevolent ...
symelian 2 years ago
Without wishing to support the god case, the same applies. There could be a motive behind the illusions that is founded in benevolence.
Not that it matters since the universe is essentially a mostly empty room with some dust floating about in it, and nobody in the room has yet seen any giant fairy.
starfedrogue 2 years ago
I apologize for the ambiguity. My use of the word "illusion" wasn't intended to imply that a god would necessarily be intentionally deceitful anymore than your computer screen is trying to be intentionally deceitful in creating the illusion of an image.
My point was that a god could have various valid reasons for creating a universe which (at least usually) followed predictable rules, and hence this specific argument isn't valid in the same way that arguments against omnipotence appear to be.
Flaar94 2 years ago
Those mysterious, unknowable reasons of "god". What kind of "god" would that be? Certainly not a theistic father figure, or would it...
Wrath0fKhan 2 years ago 2
fact is that there is no need of something supernatural to explaination any observed incident in our world.
just to belief in a god because someone told you to isn't a good reason but it's ok as long as you keep in mind that it's just an assumption and not a fact like many fundamentalists tend to act like.
BalthazzarCH 2 years ago
Ok so by no means am I the religious type but if a god is responisble for natrual processes would any process not be considered god actively doing something to influence the outcome? Lets take Evolution for example: How could we be sure that the results of natrual selection are natrual and not simply the will of god if we could not determine the difference anyway?
TylerBoBylerFyler 2 years ago
all natural processes are the will of god, doesnt mean they cant go astray.
God something may interfere directly if he so chooses. God allows things to occur.
For this interpretation one does not need to even go further beyond than the 1st chp of genesis. God is always saying "Let" this or that happen.
ahmalala 2 years ago
Great job.
kissfan7 2 years ago
Great series, I'm sorry to see it come to an end.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago 2
oh and everything came from nothing yeah I totally believe you
SprDrumio64 2 years ago
Who said that everything came from nothing?
antybu86 2 years ago