In some ways every evolutionary biologist is a eugenist at heart; its the whole point of evolution. BTW, omitting "evolutionary" was a neat little trick.
Considering that Darwin himself asked that his theory be completed removed, if the missing link is not found with 100 years of his death, won't stop scientists, now will it?
The point is, there is absolute truth -- regardless of what anyone says, and you can choose to believe it or, not!
Missing Link? How many hominids do we have to find before you realize there will always be things missing from the record? By your logic, for every hominid found we create two more "missing links".
Perhaps there is something called truth - but you don't know it. I don't know it. No one does. If you actually think you do have all the answers - ask why you think so? Where did you hear it from? Who told you? How can you be sure?
@SolRosenberg84 - Question -- Have you seen your face? Seriously, have you? You will realize very soon, regardless of how you answer this question you are right, and wrong, at the same time.
"Perhaps there is something called truth - but you don't know it. I don't know it. No one does." By your definion, that is not true, or reliable, or both.
Do I have all the answers? No! Enough to know I'm right? Yes.
I don't need to know every turn on the road to know where I am headed.
Intuition, is by definition, a thought process -- and what's wrong with being an animal that bows down. We are at the very root of it animals.
From your name, it seems you might be of Jewish origin. If it helps you to know, Charles Darwin's cousin, who helped him publish his "The Origin of Species", was a eugenist. Guess who bought into it big time, among other's, the Nazis, who in turn used it to do what exactly, now? Take a wild guess! Why argue with me, read it for yourself.
Evolution does not support eugenics. Evolution does not imply Nazism. If it did, every biologist today would be a eugenic Nazi. Understanding that all life has common ancestry does turn people into sociopaths monsters.
Even if evolution really did make people into Nazis, it would not remove the accumulation of almost two centuries of evidence in its favour.
SolRosenberg84 would probably say that it's normal for certain theories to be disproven and for new theories that look better at the moment to be created. But this essentially means that there is a theoretically infinite amount of corrections to be made to the way we view the world right now, and everything we think we know is hypothetically wrong.
>everything we think we know is hypothetically wrong.
Well, duh. Welcome to science. We don't find "reality" by doing science, we find models that best fit the evidence found. When new evidence shows new aspects of reality, the old models change.
I'd say the fact that a hypothetical can be made regarding any known "fact" IS what invalidates science. Suppose you see the sun rise. You see it do so twice. Ten times. Is that enough evidence to assume that the sun will always rise? Galileo comes along and claims that the sun does not actually move. His evidence is the parallax thing. Then some other guy could suggest that the sun doesn't exist at all it's just light from a distant star that gets sent through a wormhole.
@OcularNebula What's your point though? Science isn't certain? Well yes but you got to be careful to see what the evidence is really proving. Science is in a box. Within the framework of your understanding it is pretty accurate when you have multiple independent evidences. But ultimately you could have it all wrong. That doesn't make it bad just not very good at finding certainty of an ultimate understanding of reality. Not that science claims to give certainty in the first place.
Well, a person who honestly believes in the fact will be just as convinced that a bullet will not harm him/her as a biologist will be convinced that it will. So on an individual level, either way yields the same certainty. The only difference is that the believer would be dead. It is true that science helps increase the standard of living, though. In the general sense.
I was just wondering, have you read any of Dr. Michio Kaku's books, just a curious thought, seeing as you were talking about theoretical science, and he can explain very well. i personally haven't read any, but would like to in the future.
Look at the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The less people know about a given scientific topic the more confidence they tend to put in what they find intuitively satisfying. On the other end of the spectrum we have the top scientists in these fields, often accused of being dogmatic(???) by the previously mentioned group, willingly admitting that they *don't* know it all and are willing to be proven wrong, etc.
I've been growing up in Orange County, California near Saddleback, and I had to go there several times due to parents and whatnot. I don't believe most religion is dying by the amount of young people they got recruited. The thing I hate the most when I argue about religion to these people is that they keep trying to pull up blind faith as an argument! If you can't prove something true, nor can you prove it false, by essence it doesn't exist! Either way I'm glad I moved.
I'm just saying that there isn't that much difference between believing in something without evidence and believing in something because of evidence. And the term "evidence" is thrown around a lot, but what exactly is its definition? Is it sense perception? That isn't really a foolproof way of discovering truth. Logical reasoning? That's just another ill defined bullshit term. I don't think there can be any way for us humans to achieve certainty about anything.
So you will have no trouble if I shoot you in the head with a nine millimetre bullet right? Since a belief without evidence, such as that you cannot be harmed by that bullet passing through your head, can be accepted as readily as one with evidence what would the problem be?
You sit writing on a machine based entirely on using what we learn from evidence, and question the entire endeavour. Thats pretty stupid bro.
Evidence doesn't find what is "True" by the way, it finds something but a small degree closer to it. Science doesn't find truth, it finds models that best explain the accumulated data. Thats it.
However, this doesn't mean you can insert any mindless belief in its stead. If it doesn't fit the evidence as well, it fails. Nature is the final judge of our models, no matter how elegant or simple they may be.
@OcularNebula evidence is data or argument that supports a conclusion. Reason is the intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively by means of intuition or by process of inference. Your going to be correct more often if you believe in things with evidence since there is usually more wrong answers than correct answers. Certainty is a non-issue. We can be confident the sun exists but we can always come up with a hypothetical to doubt anything.
In the bigger picture, your "scientific knowlegde" amounts to something that isn't that much better than religious belief. You think that just because you can sense or measure something from your human perspective using human tools, that makes whatever you're sensing or measuring the truth. The ironic thing about what you generally say is that you pass off humans as insignifiant and faulty in design. Yet you praise all the scientific discoveries and achievements of humankind. Seems hypocritical.
Yes it is true that the more you learn about the Universe the less Religion makes sense. But for that same reason, makes religion the popular choice, as it is a easy answer. Why do electrons move so fast? God made it that way. How is it possible that the universe is so big, when the smallest part is so small? God designed it that way. Its just the easy way out.
Also, the worst debates you can have with a religious person is when they toss out ALL scientific facts because i toss out the bible.
when you get into the meat and the potatoes about 3 mins in your video is very interesting but I don't really agree that people can't understand complex concepts intuitively, actually people cannot understand these concepts intellectually, that is, left-brainy... they seem very natural to the creative side, many great discoveries are made when people are not "consciously focused", it comes together
check out The Cosmic Serpent to see how supposedly "primitive" people understand so much
You talk about the "scientific method" but people only ever discover things by intuition, you can't create a theory scientifically, it has to be created by thought, then it can be tested scientifically.
@volound I disagree with you. I was raised by moderately religious parents and I shook it off. God = santa claus, but people are too lazy to think it through.
Unfortunately, there are morons out there (I'm using this term as definition, not insult) like Hovind who know nothing of science, but are perfectly able to squash reality within their own version of "science". It's kind of like having a five year old performing invasive surgery.
Don't you think that perhaps the reason why some intellegent people who are well informed are religious and some are not because of this intuition and perception of reality? For instance lets just put God and the multiverse as two ideas for the fine tuning of the universe. To the atheist the multiverse is a better option because it makes not many new assumptions. To the theist there's an obvioius intuitive analogy of design and purpose. Two perceptions, two different conclusions.
@RuinSonic I can help you with that. The problem with the 'idea' that an intelligence is needed to create the universe is that it answers no questions. It only moves the question one step back where it is impossible to answer. What created god? You cannot make a serious claim that something complicated needs something MORE complicated to create it but that second more complicated thing can just exist. It is an obviously false position to hold.
@sfg911 "intelligence is needed to create the universe is that it answers no questions"
It accounts for the fine tuning of the universe assuming there needs to be an explanation as many scientists seem to believe. Multiverse is another option.
"It is an obviously false position to hold."
Depends what God is. I haven't heard an argument proving all possible forms of intellegence have to be complex. My point is all positions have absurdities to face when talking about our existence.
@RuinSonic "fine tuning of the universe... there needs to be an explanation as many scientists seem to believe." 'Many' meaning half a dozen? The vast majority of scientists don't make assumptions.
No, it doesn't depend on what god is. God would have to be more complicated. You haven't heard an argument?? I haven't heard an argument that all computers need to be complex either.... For a god to exist to create this universe both a complex god AND wherever it exists have to just POOF exist.
@sfg911 I have yet heard a theist really prove that God doesn't have to be complex. Apparently because the mind they claim god has could be reduced to logic perhaps complexity comes out of this simple being. I haven't really heard a theist come up with a convincing case for this. But if you say God is infinitely more complex than the universe that is just an assertion as well.
Poof the universe came from nothing is at least similarily absurd as poofing things out of nothing. Option C?
@RuinSonic Not only does the concept that the universe came from nothing seem impossible but our observations show that it didn't happen. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The stuff of the universe always existing is difficult to imagine for us but it is the only option. Even a god creating the universe would need something to create it with. Why was that 'stuff' there? Where did god's space come from?
@sfg911 "I haven't heard an argument that all computers need to be complex either"
Computers are physical, computation is not. You can't assume God operates in a mechanistic/supernatural way if one were to exist. The problem is we have no idea if such ideas as pure abstract entities actually exist. The theist defines the problem away, which is fine, but there is no evidence for that concept. So we are left with evaluating if we assume god does that make existence any less absurd.
@sfg911 My problem with saying most likely god doesn't exist is the fact that it seems that the universe or multiverse had to be somewhat complex at a very basic level and that it's not entirely reasonable to think it came from nothing. Atheism doesn't necessitate this but the implications of a first cause seem to at least make a deist god a lot more likely.
@RuinSonic First cause is simply that there was not nothing and the 'not nothing' was not static. Again, there MUST have always been something even if you want to call god the first cause then there was a god. What caused god? No matter how you slice it adding a god to the story is not necessary and MORE complicated. I already KNOW there is more to life than science has figured out but I have seen no reason, argument or evidence that this something was necessary for the universe to start.
@sfg911 Do you think their was a first cause to our universe or that t = 0 is like an asymptote? Also if there is a multi-verse how do things come from a simple "pot" if all of those universes have time begin within those universes?
@RuinSonic I think it is likely there are more universes. Other universes would be undetectable with our current tech so we have no way to know one way or the other.... but where there is one there are probably more seems to be a reasonable observation.
@sfg911 "where there is one there are probably more seems to be a reasonable observation."
Agreed. I'm just wondering from what are these universes coming from if each universe is uncaused? Are they all independentally uncaused and randomly just there?
@RuinSonic How can we have an answer for something we think might exist? The only thing I'm saying is if you want to argue that the universe needs a cause then how can you get around whatever causing it ALSO needing a cause? A god does not answer the question.
@sfg911 "How can we have an answer for something we think might exist?"
I am not sure what your replying to but I didn't say the universe needs a cause. You only escape the problem by assuming either the universe or God just always existed. I think your confused because i was using theistic arguments to raise doubt about the possibility that there may need to be a cause. I agree with most or all of your criticisms of theism, but I was trying to entertain hypotheticals.
@sfg911 I'm kind of playing devils advocate too and asking how can you be confident that there is no god or that it is irrational since there is much we don't know and many consequences that seem absurd regardless of if you believe in god or not. I'm not debating whether there is currently enough evidence to make God a likely possibility. I don't believe in God, but I am sometimes on the fence about it.
@RuinSonic I am not confident there is no god. In fact I believe in something 'more' that some people call 'god' but I don't go that far because the term brings on too much extra baggage. However, ALL the arguments people use to claim a god is necessary to start the universe are self conflicting. "The universe is too complex to have just happened - but a god and that god's 'space' did just exist"?? This argument is ludicrous.
@sfg911 What do you mean by "more than" God? Do you think there is something you can't even propose exists or if we came up with the idea it would sound absurd without having the evidence for its existence? God has a lot of baggage but in the words simplest form it's basically a first cause with some kind of order. For instance Aristotle believed in an unmoved mover that simply caused order to other things kind of like a magnet causes things to move. God doesn't have to equal super complex.
@RuinS The 'thing' I believe in could be a cause of the universe but I don't have any reason to believe that so I would have to assume. If I did go that far then I still have to explain where the 'thing' came from. Having no evidence one way or another I lean toward life being the cause of the 'thing' and not the other way around because that seems to be the most logical conclusion, I can understand how it is possible that life got here without any help but not how a complex entity just exists.
"I still have to explain where the 'thing' came from."
No because something had to just simply exist whether it is god, the universe or whatever. So no idea has an advantage there.
"...not how a complex entity just exists."
Theists can't understand how such order could come out of chaos or how something temporal can just exist. It's all what you think is more inconceivable, ultimately there's no objective way from emperical reality that can inform us about this.
@RuinSonic No idea has an advantage? So just energy existing is just as likely as a fully functioning computer that requires energy?? Sorry but whatever just existed is not a fully formed complex entity that makes decisions. I don't know how else to say it. You have to make assumptions AND really want this entity to just -poof- exist before making such an argument. You cannot break down a god by any definition to the simplicity of a quark.
@sfg911 " So just energy existing is just as likely as a fully functioning computer that requires energy??"
No... But your also assuming that something that simple could exist and produce everything else. Where did I say that God is just as likely as no God? What I said first is there are many conceptions of God simpler than the one Christians propose. And even though one idea may be simpler than another nature can't inform us an objective likelyhood on a first cause or not.
@RuinSonic I don't think I have to assume something simple can become complex over time. We can observe this happening. What I don't assume is that complex things can just exist fully formed. God cannot be simplified enough to justify it just always existing as a reason why the universe is here...because the universe just can't exist without help. The creator will ALWAYS be more complex.
Right but it's actually hard to define what is complex. Is an electron complex? Do the rules of nature put together make the simplist form of nature complex? Tell me. At the creation of the strong force, the weak force, gravity, and matter do you think there is some principle that is simple that somehow generates such diversity which can be orderly and complex? Do you think the universes origin is indivisible?
@RuinSonic For instance the first life form could have been really simple compared to life today, but is it really that simple in terms of chemistry and physics? It seems reasonable to think nature is not completely simple at some level otherwise it seems magical that it could ever devide itself into parts.
@RuinSonic A rock could be considered complex... but an entity that makes decisions and can make a rock (either from nothing or from part of itself) HAS to be more complex. I don't see any way around it.
IMO the forces of nature are probably based on some simple constant in some higher dimension. Every force, energy, matter all seem to be a reaction from something else... all related like electricity and magnetism, energy and mass... two halves of one thing.
@sfg911 Idk, I agree with you, but it's hard to even talk about what is or isn't beyond our current bounded universe without making a fallacy. The closer god is arbitrary like a toothe fairy it/he/she doesn't exist but i can't just say yet that any sort of ordering power most likely doesn't exist.
@sfg911 Well I can say the ability for something to be or do something is simply there. That at least would have to be a brute fact. For instance iron has the ability to melt to bend... Why should anything intellegeable exist in the first place?
"The creator will ALWAYS be more complex."
Isn't ordered or divisible a better word? A bunch of dead trees is complex. But see some theists just define god to be indivisible and they define god into existence to win the day.
@RuinSonic You can define anything into existence but to be credible you have to have a reason. My argument is that the reason they use "Universe is too complex to just exist - a creator is needed to just exist to explain it" is not a credible reason. If God can just exist then so can the universe so the universe does NOT require a creator by the same argument. It may have been, but why assume it is? It all boils down to creation from the uncreated. It's illogical.
@sfg911 WLC argues that you don't need an explanation for the explanation in order to be the best explanation and that a mind is fundamentally simple. Dawkins is sort of simplistic and can make sweeping statements but he isn't as naive as WLC would like to believe. I've gotten more sick of atheists who are too simplistic and don't address theists, but more and more I see no need for it. The theist is like well of course God doesn't have to be explained!!!
@sfg911 "something complicated needs something MORE complicated to create it"
Why doesn't that make sense to me. Let's say the universe is unlikely but it just happened to be the way it is and is super complicated and is the only universe possible for planets or life to exist. So it is a complete brute fact universe that came from nothing, bang.
Now when we propose God we add another complicated thing right?
@RuinSonic@sfg911 Remember this is only for the sake of argument to assume the worst case scenario for the naturalist. I think God seems reasonably appealing because we are accostumed to see order begging for an explanation and assume agents first unless there is evidence otherwise, and then think that perhaps god might not be as complicated afterall. It would seem similar to winning the loto 10 times by chance. I know the probabilities aren't the same but conceptually it seems the same.
@RuinSonic How does a god's existence and the space it takes up not effected by your loto 10 times by chance logic? Is the god you imagine not ordered? Do you assume agents for god unless there is evidence otherwise?
@sfg911 "not effected by your loto 10 times by chance logic?"
It is but i'm assuming we know the universe is super improbable (remember hypothetical assumption) but we aren't sure god has to be that complicated.
"Do you assume agents for god unless there is evidence otherwise?
Apparently humans do and are often right. I'm not saying that principle is necessarily correct. Obviously theists were wrong making that assumption before they found out about evolution.
@sfg911 i'm just defending the position that it isn't irrational to believe in some sort of first cause much more than not. I'm not sure about the contention but it requires sort of a burden of proof to really say that it is irrational to believe in god. It may not be obvious to you based on the questions i'm asking you, but I don't think theists have met the burden of proof for god. Sometimes I get close to believing in deism but I quickly find that i have to believe in many dubious claims.
@RuinSonic I don't agree that the universe is super complicated. The universe grew complex from simplicity. The 'rules' of the universe may be considered complex but we don't really have a clue yet. What seems complex to us could simply be '1' in the 11th dimension and there is no other way for it to play out.
The universe did not come from nothing. Just like a god couldn't come from nothing.
Ok, at least i'm not as bad as some physicists who say the universe came out of nothing. I don't usually say the universe came from nothing but when you have a temporal beginning something came about and it came about from nothing else.
@RuinSonic I'm not aware of these physicists.... is this related to what I've heard about particles appearing to come from nothing and then vanishing again? This seems likely to me that the particle is moving through dimensions and it just appears it's coming from nothing as it moves through ours. Appearing to come from nothing does not mean it did.
@sfg911 "particles appearing to come from nothing and then vanishing again?"
Yes, Steven Hawkins new book (which isn't really written by him much) uses a lot of this language. But I would agree with you. I don't think things come out of nothing literally, but i think things can act without a cause.
I personally find the fine tuning argument to be terrible. We have to know there are dials to be turned that produced this universe to know if it is valid, and with no access to any information on the mechanisms that caused the big bang, we just don't know. The argument seems to be stating "things could be different" when we don't really know if they could be different.
@SolRosenberg84 The evidence definitely points to that direction. Just because we don't know there is other possibilities doesn't mean that's where the evidence leads scientists to believe. Yeah the universe could have only been one way, but why did that randomly be the only possibility of existence?
@SolRosenberg84 Also if it was tuned differently we would just have a different Universe, maybe not with us in it, but still it doesn't remotely suggest a GOD
As for clever people still believing in religion, I personally don't think a free thinking mind is crafted by intelligence alone. It is what you do with that mind that counts, and if you never ask yourself certain questions, and question certain assumptions, you will never stop believing, no matter how clever you are.
Perhaps the difference is anatomical, that some minds are more prone to belief than others due to their wiring.
@SolRosenberg84 definitely. i think that growing up with religion as a virtue moulds brains into thinking in a certain way, i dont think its something that can be shook off.
@SolRosenberg84 I would agree with that. Also, I would say that there is sort of a value judgement when you talk about something being more absurd. To the theist the idea of a universe that came to be from nothing is more absurd than a god that created something out of nothing. Obviously there's debate on whether the universe probably needs an explanation therefore making occams razor less certain for the atheist, but i'm kind of wired in the middle.
I agree with this soooo much. It's as if as soon as you learn about the universe.... anything else is small in comparison... yet we are a part of the universe. for example, our average lifetime is about 70ish years old, a star on the other hand is billions of years old... traveling to our closest galaxy to see if there is life there takes millions of years to even travel there... We not only need to have enough food to survive the journey... We also need to be able to live millions of years! :)
I don't think science is really all that counter-intuitive intrinsically; Religion sets the norm from which we build our intuition from, and thus reinforces it.
I think Scientific thinking is perfectly capable of providing that norm; after all as it's said once:
"why did we used to think the sun went around the earth?"
"well, it just appeared that way"
"what would it look like if it appeared that the Earth went around the Sun?"
---
If the norms change, quantum mechanics could be intuitive.
For instance, I've heard it said by some who would know what they're talking about that the concepts of Evolution are counter-intuitive. Yet I've never found this to be true myself.
There are tools that make understanding the principles of certain fields so much more easier (Family Trees for Evolution, Legos for Chemistry), that there's no doubt we might think up such similar things for those fields which we are at the moment not publicly exposed to.
good to see you, sol. excellent points as always. makes you wonder how anyone who possesses any scientific knowledge could still be religious. it seems to me that only someone who is ignorant could still accept the beliefs of todays organized religions. i'm not trying to offend anyone here, but....
Even among the top scientists religious beliefs such as that of a personal god tend to asymptote somewhere well above zero (don't remember the number but I want to say around 15%?) So certainly I do think it helps, as it did in your case, mine, and countless other people I'd be weary to treat it as a end-all be-all, because it isn't.
Check out Neil DeGrasse Tyson's talk "The God of the Gaps" for more info on it. He explains it way better than I do in this dumb comment. lol
The number of agnostics/atheists is anyway far higher than officially stated, since many people just don't dare to speak out freely.
It's usually no big problem in a secular environment, but in many countries religious and cultural traditions are enforced with brutal intimidation. Often by the state, and supported by conservative family authorities who may sanction deviating views either "only" by total social isolation, or by any physical violence up to murder.
cool video. The only thing I disagree with is that your personal experience of science making you fail to see religion as rational (although I could see this if you take a fundamentalist view of religion). For me increased scientific knowledge just helps me better understand the world, which in no way contradicts and in many ways reinforces religious belief.
I know exactly what you're getting at. This is basically the topic I try to bring up when speaking about my current lack of religion to family members who can't believe how I've abandoned the faith. They always say "well, eventually you may see the light", but the only thing I can say to that is I have analyzed and 'debugged', as it were, my previous mentality and have already forgone previous biases. Kinda like once you see the absurdity for what it is, it's impossible to go back. Great vid!
Have you thought about how early it is in terms of star formation in this universe. What I mean is the total amount of stars that have formed until now is far less than a percent of the projected number of stars that will form in the future. If this is so than we can say we are among the first sentient beings to have risen in this cosmos.
Well, we can't say we are the first - there has been enough time for quite a few planets to have formed before the earth did, and create the conditions for life to arise.
The age of the star is indeed somewhat young though, and it wouldn't amaze me if life is fated through physics alone to form on countless worlds in the future. As to whether we are the first of these life forms, or the millionth, is beyond our current knowledge.
@SolRosenberg84 It's a miracle! This is exactely what i have been thinking about and reading about. The struggle between intuition and analogies and the brutal exceptence of scientific answers and the unknown.
"the total amount of stars ...formed until now is far less than a percent of the (....) stars that will form in the future."
To my knowledge the bulk of star formation in the universe is lying behind us, with a peak around 3 billion years after the big bang - up to the period when galactic disks were abundantly forming around elliptical star systems. The Milky Way produced 10 times as many stars back then compared to now.
it pisses me off not knowing what I am or even if I'm me.how do I know it's me controlling myself, no way to tell.
ilovetodraw555 1 year ago
:) Godwin's Law -- couldn't help LOL.
In some ways every evolutionary biologist is a eugenist at heart; its the whole point of evolution. BTW, omitting "evolutionary" was a neat little trick.
Considering that Darwin himself asked that his theory be completed removed, if the missing link is not found with 100 years of his death, won't stop scientists, now will it?
The point is, there is absolute truth -- regardless of what anyone says, and you can choose to believe it or, not!
jamessv2005 1 year ago
@jamessv2005
Missing Link? How many hominids do we have to find before you realize there will always be things missing from the record? By your logic, for every hominid found we create two more "missing links".
Perhaps there is something called truth - but you don't know it. I don't know it. No one does. If you actually think you do have all the answers - ask why you think so? Where did you hear it from? Who told you? How can you be sure?
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago 6
@SolRosenberg84 - Question -- Have you seen your face? Seriously, have you? You will realize very soon, regardless of how you answer this question you are right, and wrong, at the same time.
"Perhaps there is something called truth - but you don't know it. I don't know it. No one does." By your definion, that is not true, or reliable, or both.
Do I have all the answers? No! Enough to know I'm right? Yes.
I don't need to know every turn on the road to know where I am headed.
jamessv2005 1 year ago
Intuition, is by definition, a thought process -- and what's wrong with being an animal that bows down. We are at the very root of it animals.
From your name, it seems you might be of Jewish origin. If it helps you to know, Charles Darwin's cousin, who helped him publish his "The Origin of Species", was a eugenist. Guess who bought into it big time, among other's, the Nazis, who in turn used it to do what exactly, now? Take a wild guess! Why argue with me, read it for yourself.
Good Luck!
jamessv2005 1 year ago
@jamessv2005
Nice demonstration of Godwin's law.
Evolution does not support eugenics. Evolution does not imply Nazism. If it did, every biologist today would be a eugenic Nazi. Understanding that all life has common ancestry does turn people into sociopaths monsters.
Even if evolution really did make people into Nazis, it would not remove the accumulation of almost two centuries of evidence in its favour.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago 2
SolRosenberg84 would probably say that it's normal for certain theories to be disproven and for new theories that look better at the moment to be created. But this essentially means that there is a theoretically infinite amount of corrections to be made to the way we view the world right now, and everything we think we know is hypothetically wrong.
OcularNebula 1 year ago
@OcularNebula
>everything we think we know is hypothetically wrong.
Well, duh. Welcome to science. We don't find "reality" by doing science, we find models that best fit the evidence found. When new evidence shows new aspects of reality, the old models change.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago 2
@RuinSonic
I'd say the fact that a hypothetical can be made regarding any known "fact" IS what invalidates science. Suppose you see the sun rise. You see it do so twice. Ten times. Is that enough evidence to assume that the sun will always rise? Galileo comes along and claims that the sun does not actually move. His evidence is the parallax thing. Then some other guy could suggest that the sun doesn't exist at all it's just light from a distant star that gets sent through a wormhole.
OcularNebula 1 year ago
@OcularNebula What's your point though? Science isn't certain? Well yes but you got to be careful to see what the evidence is really proving. Science is in a box. Within the framework of your understanding it is pretty accurate when you have multiple independent evidences. But ultimately you could have it all wrong. That doesn't make it bad just not very good at finding certainty of an ultimate understanding of reality. Not that science claims to give certainty in the first place.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84
Well, a person who honestly believes in the fact will be just as convinced that a bullet will not harm him/her as a biologist will be convinced that it will. So on an individual level, either way yields the same certainty. The only difference is that the believer would be dead. It is true that science helps increase the standard of living, though. In the general sense.
OcularNebula 1 year ago
listening to you, reminded me of Bill Brysons book, A short history of Everything.
Amazing planet we live on.. truth really is stranger than fiction
bonnie43uk 1 year ago
I was just wondering, have you read any of Dr. Michio Kaku's books, just a curious thought, seeing as you were talking about theoretical science, and he can explain very well. i personally haven't read any, but would like to in the future.
theMammothman 1 year ago
Have you seen "The Nature of Existance"? It seems kind of up your alley.
TheBBQSquad 1 year ago
I love programs about space and time documentary about relativity makes my brain hurt
CyborgAtheist 1 year ago
is that a bong i see in the back
SSBMJunky 1 year ago
Look at the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The less people know about a given scientific topic the more confidence they tend to put in what they find intuitively satisfying. On the other end of the spectrum we have the top scientists in these fields, often accused of being dogmatic(???) by the previously mentioned group, willingly admitting that they *don't* know it all and are willing to be proven wrong, etc.
bowlsallbroken 1 year ago
I've been growing up in Orange County, California near Saddleback, and I had to go there several times due to parents and whatnot. I don't believe most religion is dying by the amount of young people they got recruited. The thing I hate the most when I argue about religion to these people is that they keep trying to pull up blind faith as an argument! If you can't prove something true, nor can you prove it false, by essence it doesn't exist! Either way I'm glad I moved.
BokuWaJShi 1 year ago
@VolansTheNaturalist
I'm just saying that there isn't that much difference between believing in something without evidence and believing in something because of evidence. And the term "evidence" is thrown around a lot, but what exactly is its definition? Is it sense perception? That isn't really a foolproof way of discovering truth. Logical reasoning? That's just another ill defined bullshit term. I don't think there can be any way for us humans to achieve certainty about anything.
OcularNebula 1 year ago
@OcularNebula
So you will have no trouble if I shoot you in the head with a nine millimetre bullet right? Since a belief without evidence, such as that you cannot be harmed by that bullet passing through your head, can be accepted as readily as one with evidence what would the problem be?
You sit writing on a machine based entirely on using what we learn from evidence, and question the entire endeavour. Thats pretty stupid bro.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago 3
@OcularNebula
Evidence doesn't find what is "True" by the way, it finds something but a small degree closer to it. Science doesn't find truth, it finds models that best explain the accumulated data. Thats it.
However, this doesn't mean you can insert any mindless belief in its stead. If it doesn't fit the evidence as well, it fails. Nature is the final judge of our models, no matter how elegant or simple they may be.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago 2
@OcularNebula evidence is data or argument that supports a conclusion. Reason is the intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively by means of intuition or by process of inference. Your going to be correct more often if you believe in things with evidence since there is usually more wrong answers than correct answers. Certainty is a non-issue. We can be confident the sun exists but we can always come up with a hypothetical to doubt anything.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
In the bigger picture, your "scientific knowlegde" amounts to something that isn't that much better than religious belief. You think that just because you can sense or measure something from your human perspective using human tools, that makes whatever you're sensing or measuring the truth. The ironic thing about what you generally say is that you pass off humans as insignifiant and faulty in design. Yet you praise all the scientific discoveries and achievements of humankind. Seems hypocritical.
OcularNebula 1 year ago
@OcularNebula
So you prefer to blindly believe without evidence, instead of discovering what we have the capacity to discover?
And can't a thing be both able and flawed?
VolansTheNaturalist 1 year ago
Yes it is true that the more you learn about the Universe the less Religion makes sense. But for that same reason, makes religion the popular choice, as it is a easy answer. Why do electrons move so fast? God made it that way. How is it possible that the universe is so big, when the smallest part is so small? God designed it that way. Its just the easy way out.
Also, the worst debates you can have with a religious person is when they toss out ALL scientific facts because i toss out the bible.
xToxicInferno 1 year ago
great points
bdwilson1000 1 year ago
Interesting video. Something to think about. Love the Reefer madness poster by the way
Basiritz 1 year ago
Thought this was one of your best vids, especially when you started geeking out a bit in the middle.
impiouspuppy 1 year ago
when you get into the meat and the potatoes about 3 mins in your video is very interesting but I don't really agree that people can't understand complex concepts intuitively, actually people cannot understand these concepts intellectually, that is, left-brainy... they seem very natural to the creative side, many great discoveries are made when people are not "consciously focused", it comes together
check out The Cosmic Serpent to see how supposedly "primitive" people understand so much
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
You talk about the "scientific method" but people only ever discover things by intuition, you can't create a theory scientifically, it has to be created by thought, then it can be tested scientifically.
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
Brilliant!
LJonYT 1 year ago
@volound I disagree with you. I was raised by moderately religious parents and I shook it off. God = santa claus, but people are too lazy to think it through.
Pitviper1979 1 year ago
Unfortunately, there are morons out there (I'm using this term as definition, not insult) like Hovind who know nothing of science, but are perfectly able to squash reality within their own version of "science". It's kind of like having a five year old performing invasive surgery.
skywize 1 year ago
i know that helping muslims to understand evolution is the easiest way to show them islam is wrong.
theres a reason there are no post-darwin era muslim biologists lol.
volound 1 year ago
Great video man.
LordNapalm 1 year ago
Don't you think that perhaps the reason why some intellegent people who are well informed are religious and some are not because of this intuition and perception of reality? For instance lets just put God and the multiverse as two ideas for the fine tuning of the universe. To the atheist the multiverse is a better option because it makes not many new assumptions. To the theist there's an obvioius intuitive analogy of design and purpose. Two perceptions, two different conclusions.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Unfortunately i'm plagued with both an atheists mind and a theists mind so i can't make up my mind :P
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I can help you with that. The problem with the 'idea' that an intelligence is needed to create the universe is that it answers no questions. It only moves the question one step back where it is impossible to answer. What created god? You cannot make a serious claim that something complicated needs something MORE complicated to create it but that second more complicated thing can just exist. It is an obviously false position to hold.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 "intelligence is needed to create the universe is that it answers no questions"
It accounts for the fine tuning of the universe assuming there needs to be an explanation as many scientists seem to believe. Multiverse is another option.
"It is an obviously false position to hold."
Depends what God is. I haven't heard an argument proving all possible forms of intellegence have to be complex. My point is all positions have absurdities to face when talking about our existence.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic "fine tuning of the universe... there needs to be an explanation as many scientists seem to believe." 'Many' meaning half a dozen? The vast majority of scientists don't make assumptions.
No, it doesn't depend on what god is. God would have to be more complicated. You haven't heard an argument?? I haven't heard an argument that all computers need to be complex either.... For a god to exist to create this universe both a complex god AND wherever it exists have to just POOF exist.
sfg911 1 year ago
Comment removed
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Comment removed
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@sfg911 I have yet heard a theist really prove that God doesn't have to be complex. Apparently because the mind they claim god has could be reduced to logic perhaps complexity comes out of this simple being. I haven't really heard a theist come up with a convincing case for this. But if you say God is infinitely more complex than the universe that is just an assertion as well.
Poof the universe came from nothing is at least similarily absurd as poofing things out of nothing. Option C?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Not only does the concept that the universe came from nothing seem impossible but our observations show that it didn't happen. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The stuff of the universe always existing is difficult to imagine for us but it is the only option. Even a god creating the universe would need something to create it with. Why was that 'stuff' there? Where did god's space come from?
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 "The stuff of the universe always existing is difficult to imagine for us but it is the only option."
Right, but the idea that it is temportal yet eternal at the same time is not very certain.
"Even a god creating the universe would need something to create it with."
You would think but obviously god isn't a natural concept anyways. Which is why we want to see more evidence from theists.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@sfg911 "I haven't heard an argument that all computers need to be complex either"
Computers are physical, computation is not. You can't assume God operates in a mechanistic/supernatural way if one were to exist. The problem is we have no idea if such ideas as pure abstract entities actually exist. The theist defines the problem away, which is fine, but there is no evidence for that concept. So we are left with evaluating if we assume god does that make existence any less absurd.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@sfg911 My problem with saying most likely god doesn't exist is the fact that it seems that the universe or multiverse had to be somewhat complex at a very basic level and that it's not entirely reasonable to think it came from nothing. Atheism doesn't necessitate this but the implications of a first cause seem to at least make a deist god a lot more likely.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic First cause is simply that there was not nothing and the 'not nothing' was not static. Again, there MUST have always been something even if you want to call god the first cause then there was a god. What caused god? No matter how you slice it adding a god to the story is not necessary and MORE complicated. I already KNOW there is more to life than science has figured out but I have seen no reason, argument or evidence that this something was necessary for the universe to start.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 Do you think their was a first cause to our universe or that t = 0 is like an asymptote? Also if there is a multi-verse how do things come from a simple "pot" if all of those universes have time begin within those universes?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I think it is likely there are more universes. Other universes would be undetectable with our current tech so we have no way to know one way or the other.... but where there is one there are probably more seems to be a reasonable observation.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 "where there is one there are probably more seems to be a reasonable observation."
Agreed. I'm just wondering from what are these universes coming from if each universe is uncaused? Are they all independentally uncaused and randomly just there?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic How can we have an answer for something we think might exist? The only thing I'm saying is if you want to argue that the universe needs a cause then how can you get around whatever causing it ALSO needing a cause? A god does not answer the question.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 "How can we have an answer for something we think might exist?"
I am not sure what your replying to but I didn't say the universe needs a cause. You only escape the problem by assuming either the universe or God just always existed. I think your confused because i was using theistic arguments to raise doubt about the possibility that there may need to be a cause. I agree with most or all of your criticisms of theism, but I was trying to entertain hypotheticals.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@sfg911 I'm kind of playing devils advocate too and asking how can you be confident that there is no god or that it is irrational since there is much we don't know and many consequences that seem absurd regardless of if you believe in god or not. I'm not debating whether there is currently enough evidence to make God a likely possibility. I don't believe in God, but I am sometimes on the fence about it.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I am not confident there is no god. In fact I believe in something 'more' that some people call 'god' but I don't go that far because the term brings on too much extra baggage. However, ALL the arguments people use to claim a god is necessary to start the universe are self conflicting. "The universe is too complex to have just happened - but a god and that god's 'space' did just exist"?? This argument is ludicrous.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 What do you mean by "more than" God? Do you think there is something you can't even propose exists or if we came up with the idea it would sound absurd without having the evidence for its existence? God has a lot of baggage but in the words simplest form it's basically a first cause with some kind of order. For instance Aristotle believed in an unmoved mover that simply caused order to other things kind of like a magnet causes things to move. God doesn't have to equal super complex.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinS The 'thing' I believe in could be a cause of the universe but I don't have any reason to believe that so I would have to assume. If I did go that far then I still have to explain where the 'thing' came from. Having no evidence one way or another I lean toward life being the cause of the 'thing' and not the other way around because that seems to be the most logical conclusion, I can understand how it is possible that life got here without any help but not how a complex entity just exists.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911
Fair enough.
"I still have to explain where the 'thing' came from."
No because something had to just simply exist whether it is god, the universe or whatever. So no idea has an advantage there.
"...not how a complex entity just exists."
Theists can't understand how such order could come out of chaos or how something temporal can just exist. It's all what you think is more inconceivable, ultimately there's no objective way from emperical reality that can inform us about this.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic No idea has an advantage? So just energy existing is just as likely as a fully functioning computer that requires energy?? Sorry but whatever just existed is not a fully formed complex entity that makes decisions. I don't know how else to say it. You have to make assumptions AND really want this entity to just -poof- exist before making such an argument. You cannot break down a god by any definition to the simplicity of a quark.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 " So just energy existing is just as likely as a fully functioning computer that requires energy??"
No... But your also assuming that something that simple could exist and produce everything else. Where did I say that God is just as likely as no God? What I said first is there are many conceptions of God simpler than the one Christians propose. And even though one idea may be simpler than another nature can't inform us an objective likelyhood on a first cause or not.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I don't think I have to assume something simple can become complex over time. We can observe this happening. What I don't assume is that complex things can just exist fully formed. God cannot be simplified enough to justify it just always existing as a reason why the universe is here...because the universe just can't exist without help. The creator will ALWAYS be more complex.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 "We can observe this happening"
Right but it's actually hard to define what is complex. Is an electron complex? Do the rules of nature put together make the simplist form of nature complex? Tell me. At the creation of the strong force, the weak force, gravity, and matter do you think there is some principle that is simple that somehow generates such diversity which can be orderly and complex? Do you think the universes origin is indivisible?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic For instance the first life form could have been really simple compared to life today, but is it really that simple in terms of chemistry and physics? It seems reasonable to think nature is not completely simple at some level otherwise it seems magical that it could ever devide itself into parts.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic A rock could be considered complex... but an entity that makes decisions and can make a rock (either from nothing or from part of itself) HAS to be more complex. I don't see any way around it.
IMO the forces of nature are probably based on some simple constant in some higher dimension. Every force, energy, matter all seem to be a reaction from something else... all related like electricity and magnetism, energy and mass... two halves of one thing.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 Idk, I agree with you, but it's hard to even talk about what is or isn't beyond our current bounded universe without making a fallacy. The closer god is arbitrary like a toothe fairy it/he/she doesn't exist but i can't just say yet that any sort of ordering power most likely doesn't exist.
"two halves of one thing."
The ying and the yang? jk...
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@sfg911 Well I can say the ability for something to be or do something is simply there. That at least would have to be a brute fact. For instance iron has the ability to melt to bend... Why should anything intellegeable exist in the first place?
"The creator will ALWAYS be more complex."
Isn't ordered or divisible a better word? A bunch of dead trees is complex. But see some theists just define god to be indivisible and they define god into existence to win the day.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic You can define anything into existence but to be credible you have to have a reason. My argument is that the reason they use "Universe is too complex to just exist - a creator is needed to just exist to explain it" is not a credible reason. If God can just exist then so can the universe so the universe does NOT require a creator by the same argument. It may have been, but why assume it is? It all boils down to creation from the uncreated. It's illogical.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 WLC argues that you don't need an explanation for the explanation in order to be the best explanation and that a mind is fundamentally simple. Dawkins is sort of simplistic and can make sweeping statements but he isn't as naive as WLC would like to believe. I've gotten more sick of atheists who are too simplistic and don't address theists, but more and more I see no need for it. The theist is like well of course God doesn't have to be explained!!!
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@sfg911 "something complicated needs something MORE complicated to create it"
Why doesn't that make sense to me. Let's say the universe is unlikely but it just happened to be the way it is and is super complicated and is the only universe possible for planets or life to exist. So it is a complete brute fact universe that came from nothing, bang.
Now when we propose God we add another complicated thing right?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic @sfg911 Remember this is only for the sake of argument to assume the worst case scenario for the naturalist. I think God seems reasonably appealing because we are accostumed to see order begging for an explanation and assume agents first unless there is evidence otherwise, and then think that perhaps god might not be as complicated afterall. It would seem similar to winning the loto 10 times by chance. I know the probabilities aren't the same but conceptually it seems the same.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic How does a god's existence and the space it takes up not effected by your loto 10 times by chance logic? Is the god you imagine not ordered? Do you assume agents for god unless there is evidence otherwise?
sfg911 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sfg911 "not effected by your loto 10 times by chance logic?"
It is but i'm assuming we know the universe is super improbable (remember hypothetical assumption) but we aren't sure god has to be that complicated.
"Do you assume agents for god unless there is evidence otherwise?
Apparently humans do and are often right. I'm not saying that principle is necessarily correct. Obviously theists were wrong making that assumption before they found out about evolution.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@sfg911 i'm just defending the position that it isn't irrational to believe in some sort of first cause much more than not. I'm not sure about the contention but it requires sort of a burden of proof to really say that it is irrational to believe in god. It may not be obvious to you based on the questions i'm asking you, but I don't think theists have met the burden of proof for god. Sometimes I get close to believing in deism but I quickly find that i have to believe in many dubious claims.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I don't agree that the universe is super complicated. The universe grew complex from simplicity. The 'rules' of the universe may be considered complex but we don't really have a clue yet. What seems complex to us could simply be '1' in the 11th dimension and there is no other way for it to play out.
The universe did not come from nothing. Just like a god couldn't come from nothing.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 "The universe did not come from nothing."
Ok, at least i'm not as bad as some physicists who say the universe came out of nothing. I don't usually say the universe came from nothing but when you have a temporal beginning something came about and it came about from nothing else.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I'm not aware of these physicists.... is this related to what I've heard about particles appearing to come from nothing and then vanishing again? This seems likely to me that the particle is moving through dimensions and it just appears it's coming from nothing as it moves through ours. Appearing to come from nothing does not mean it did.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 "particles appearing to come from nothing and then vanishing again?"
Yes, Steven Hawkins new book (which isn't really written by him much) uses a lot of this language. But I would agree with you. I don't think things come out of nothing literally, but i think things can act without a cause.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
I personally find the fine tuning argument to be terrible. We have to know there are dials to be turned that produced this universe to know if it is valid, and with no access to any information on the mechanisms that caused the big bang, we just don't know. The argument seems to be stating "things could be different" when we don't really know if they could be different.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84 The evidence definitely points to that direction. Just because we don't know there is other possibilities doesn't mean that's where the evidence leads scientists to believe. Yeah the universe could have only been one way, but why did that randomly be the only possibility of existence?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84 Also if it was tuned differently we would just have a different Universe, maybe not with us in it, but still it doesn't remotely suggest a GOD
VolansTheNaturalist 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
As for clever people still believing in religion, I personally don't think a free thinking mind is crafted by intelligence alone. It is what you do with that mind that counts, and if you never ask yourself certain questions, and question certain assumptions, you will never stop believing, no matter how clever you are.
Perhaps the difference is anatomical, that some minds are more prone to belief than others due to their wiring.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago 8
@SolRosenberg84 definitely. i think that growing up with religion as a virtue moulds brains into thinking in a certain way, i dont think its something that can be shook off.
volound 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84 I would agree with that. Also, I would say that there is sort of a value judgement when you talk about something being more absurd. To the theist the idea of a universe that came to be from nothing is more absurd than a god that created something out of nothing. Obviously there's debate on whether the universe probably needs an explanation therefore making occams razor less certain for the atheist, but i'm kind of wired in the middle.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
This is a VERY important insight.
michalchik 1 year ago
I absolutely love these videos you make.
jay666KJ 1 year ago
I agree with this soooo much. It's as if as soon as you learn about the universe.... anything else is small in comparison... yet we are a part of the universe. for example, our average lifetime is about 70ish years old, a star on the other hand is billions of years old... traveling to our closest galaxy to see if there is life there takes millions of years to even travel there... We not only need to have enough food to survive the journey... We also need to be able to live millions of years! :)
sniped101 1 year ago
I don't think science is really all that counter-intuitive intrinsically; Religion sets the norm from which we build our intuition from, and thus reinforces it.
I think Scientific thinking is perfectly capable of providing that norm; after all as it's said once:
"why did we used to think the sun went around the earth?"
"well, it just appeared that way"
"what would it look like if it appeared that the Earth went around the Sun?"
---
If the norms change, quantum mechanics could be intuitive.
sciencemile 1 year ago
@sciencemile Addendum:
For instance, I've heard it said by some who would know what they're talking about that the concepts of Evolution are counter-intuitive. Yet I've never found this to be true myself.
There are tools that make understanding the principles of certain fields so much more easier (Family Trees for Evolution, Legos for Chemistry), that there's no doubt we might think up such similar things for those fields which we are at the moment not publicly exposed to.
sciencemile 1 year ago
you are my hero
ccofmight 1 year ago
good to see you, sol. excellent points as always. makes you wonder how anyone who possesses any scientific knowledge could still be religious. it seems to me that only someone who is ignorant could still accept the beliefs of todays organized religions. i'm not trying to offend anyone here, but....
joegt123 1 year ago
Even among the top scientists religious beliefs such as that of a personal god tend to asymptote somewhere well above zero (don't remember the number but I want to say around 15%?) So certainly I do think it helps, as it did in your case, mine, and countless other people I'd be weary to treat it as a end-all be-all, because it isn't.
Check out Neil DeGrasse Tyson's talk "The God of the Gaps" for more info on it. He explains it way better than I do in this dumb comment. lol
Great vid!
trumasamune 1 year ago
religion is dying. most of the younger generations now are atheist anyways. We just know better now.
lastmondaypast1 1 year ago 12
@lastmondaypast1
The number of agnostics/atheists is anyway far higher than officially stated, since many people just don't dare to speak out freely.
It's usually no big problem in a secular environment, but in many countries religious and cultural traditions are enforced with brutal intimidation. Often by the state, and supported by conservative family authorities who may sanction deviating views either "only" by total social isolation, or by any physical violence up to murder.
eltamin1966 1 year ago
cool video. The only thing I disagree with is that your personal experience of science making you fail to see religion as rational (although I could see this if you take a fundamentalist view of religion). For me increased scientific knowledge just helps me better understand the world, which in no way contradicts and in many ways reinforces religious belief.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
I know exactly what you're getting at. This is basically the topic I try to bring up when speaking about my current lack of religion to family members who can't believe how I've abandoned the faith. They always say "well, eventually you may see the light", but the only thing I can say to that is I have analyzed and 'debugged', as it were, my previous mentality and have already forgone previous biases. Kinda like once you see the absurdity for what it is, it's impossible to go back. Great vid!
ErikWithBrain 1 year ago
Logic! It's the cocaine of science!
allreligionskill 1 year ago
Hooray for Sol Rosenberg!
bondeluke 1 year ago
Mike, quick cool idea.
Have you thought about how early it is in terms of star formation in this universe. What I mean is the total amount of stars that have formed until now is far less than a percent of the projected number of stars that will form in the future. If this is so than we can say we are among the first sentient beings to have risen in this cosmos.
ripemind 1 year ago 3
@ripemind
Well, we can't say we are the first - there has been enough time for quite a few planets to have formed before the earth did, and create the conditions for life to arise.
The age of the star is indeed somewhat young though, and it wouldn't amaze me if life is fated through physics alone to form on countless worlds in the future. As to whether we are the first of these life forms, or the millionth, is beyond our current knowledge.
tl;dr - I dunno, maybe.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago
@SolRosenberg84 It's a miracle! This is exactely what i have been thinking about and reading about. The struggle between intuition and analogies and the brutal exceptence of scientific answers and the unknown.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@ripemind
"the total amount of stars ...formed until now is far less than a percent of the (....) stars that will form in the future."
To my knowledge the bulk of star formation in the universe is lying behind us, with a peak around 3 billion years after the big bang - up to the period when galactic disks were abundantly forming around elliptical star systems. The Milky Way produced 10 times as many stars back then compared to now.
eltamin1966 1 year ago
Yep. That's what happened to me. I was raised Southern Baptist, and then I had...thoughts?
PopUpPenguin 1 year ago
Your new videos are like a whole orgasm of really fast thought. Hahaha. Makes me think though. Good job.
TheAJMetal 1 year ago
thank you so much for making a video i was hoping just a few mins ago for you to make a video thank you so much
bloodraven2471 1 year ago