Proving the Existence of the Necessarily Existent One *4/4*

[religiousvom1t]

Occam's Razor

[ThomasRW2]

oh yeah by the by, you need to find a way to expand and compress if you know what i mean, took me like 30 additional minutes of rewinding and playing to get through the first part and have compeltely absorbed waht you said, but i also have a.d.d and i was tired :P actually i took a nap around 3.5 hahahaha

[ThomasRW2]

many things right, some things wrong whether you know it or not or whether you can reason it or not, im sure if you could have you would have but right now . however yeah, you've actually slightly altered some genius' view on another piece of rock in the world. but even i see where you have gone wrong here, pay me $1000 and i'll tell ya :D

oh and by the by, gj on whatever you want to call the visual aspect of this.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

ok,i have just sent you 1000 dollars

it can reach your door at any second

haha

plus it will come on its own and sweep in through under your door

so keep your dog far from it :D

[Gwisss]

Philosophy does not discover truths, it makes logical assumptions that are often wrong. This is a video based on philosophical logic that makes assumptions using an empty hand of evidence, and then make a conclusion based on this empty hand.

"Just because we can't get info by physical methods"

This quote alone demonstrates the WEAKNESS of it's claim and conclusion.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

yep,whats wrong,mr.?

if you cant reach something through physical ways,does it show you that,the thing does not exist?

i used it against the guy who found that idea enough to disbelieve in the Creator

so,whats weak

[Gwisss]

What you just stated was incomprehensible. Maybe clean it up and try to be clear about what you are saying.

The scientific method is our only and our best method for understanding the truths of the Universe. Any other method is fallacious and corrupt.

[sroHex]

Well this was a big waste of time, it's just a long version of debunked creationism propaganda.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

well,sorry sir for wasting your priceless time which will end after a "few" blinks of an eye

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

In the second video (i think) there was the example of the brute walking into a palace adorned with incredible machinery, and he assumes that the machinery formed itself. This is, quite frankly, a ridiculous analogy for evolution. 1) machinery is not living and therefore not subject to genetic mutation/drift and natural selection. 2) the brute has no way of explaining how the machinery came about, however, science has a sound explanation of life's complexity: The Theory of Evolution.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

1-cellular machines...,have you heard them?

they are way more complex than the palace in the example and they are unseen with the naked eye while the palace is seen from miles and the cellular machines keep working alive while the palace only stands there more dead than a death

[HighFlyingDutchman]

2-and creating life from dead and adding the information in your genes to it and making it work is an imagination which theory of evolution can NEVER explain

it only points to the variation,adaptations,speciati­ons and claims that "why not the same from a bacteria to human"

"if a few amino acids in a dishonest test,why not thousands of them on its own getting together perfectly"

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

"if a few amino acids in a dishonest test,why not thousands of them on its own getting together perfectly"

Nearly all of the 20 amino acids plus the bases of nucleic acids came together spontaneously during the Miller-Urey experiment. I don't think that is was dishonest. But maybe I'm forgetting a particular detail of the experiment.

Nobody is claiming that thousands of amino acids initially came together spontaneously in a perfect manner.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

"cellular machines...,have you heard them?"

Yes, I plan on majoring in structural biology/biophysics, which deals with macromolecular structure and function.

"they are way more complex than the palace in the example"

You're right. I totally agree that they can be incredibly complex. However, my whole qualm with this palace example is that it is not affected by natural selection, whereas macromolecules are. That was why I had felt that the analogy was weak.

[ScientiaVeritasEtLux]

I must say, I'm not terribly impressed by this video series. Largely because they use analogies to try to explain the "impossibility" of evolution but, in reality, they don't even touch upon the subject. For example, in the first video the example of the pharmacy comes up, but this is a poor argument because it involves nonliving objects which are not effected by natural selection, so of course the scenario is close to impossible. But it has nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

how the hell not!

can you explain what abiogenesis really is

[rodawin]

For me they seem more light guide of conduct to live a good life, with some punishment if you don't follow.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

so which scriptures have you read?

just out of curiousity

peace

[rodawin]

Since I was born in Quebec, Canada ... I mainly read the Bible, more precisely the nwe testament ... But I aslo looked at many ''so called proof of whatever gods the believer said was real'' and never found anything else than hope, faith, supposition and word game straw men argument, or false mathematic proof.

All believers are quite sure their god is the right one, and everyone else go to hell ...

The argument of fear

[rodawin]

Why is there something instead of nothing ?

What, or who created it, or was it always there ?...

Why do we exist ?

It seems there is no clear answer to that, so we most rely on actual and acceptable proof of god, which fail to be delivered... agnostic atheism :) It took a while, but I watched it. and your videos just seem to indicate that since we don't know, it must be God. There is so many ''holy books'' of different regions and cultures t doesn't make sense anymore.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

it means their conscious seemed moves come from another source

normally you dont need to accept the existence of a flying teapot in the space

but if you see raining tea when you look out of the window,and after your search how tea-rain is happening,if you find no source for it,nor any system in clouds that can create such thing and if there is no teapot in sky,either

then you need to accept the existence of a possible flying unseen teapot or such necessarily existent thing

best regards

thnx:D

[FHomeBrew]

Oké, I see. So if matter and [allmost] everything is an illusion, this makes me think of "The Matrix". Is it somewhat similar?

About the teapot, I can accept "I don't know, I don't have an answer." Therefor I don't need to assume the teapot and by extention the puppeteer.

Dreamwaves are different from normal brainwaves.

One cannot prove existence of matter, nor that it's an illusion. So I'll stick with science in explaining this world (illusion or not) and accept that I don't know if it exists.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

thats the golden secret

why would you say

"i dont know"

while you would be sure that if tea "rains" from nothingness,there probably is an unseens teapot?

would it accepting it a blind belief?

or a logical result of free thinking?

[FHomeBrew]

The word probably takes away any meaning in that arguement. In this case, the "probably" word is based on human logical inference, which is wrong sometimes. Tea can come from other places besides teapots you know? Accepting something that is merely "probable" as truth without anything to confirm that it actually ís this thing is blind faith. If it's probable, why not just prove it is; proof for confirmation should be easy to find.

Saying something is probable indicates you don't know for sure

[HighFlyingDutchman]

im sorry dude,once i read it and didnt reply :D

please visit thisistruth dot org

for the confirmation of the one behind the curtain

just some logical signs,we will get deeper later if u want

peace

and sorry again

[FHomeBrew]

I'm not really into this whole argument any more but I'll give it another shot.

According to the site you've redirected me to, The Qur'aan is teh way of life. This debunks your claim of not having anything to do with God or ancient texts.

There are several things on that site I'm very critical of, especially paragraph 9 on the scientific facts page.

If science is trying to know the truth and they oppose that, it's some bad shit goin' on there.

We can take this conversation into mail y/n?

[HighFlyingDutchman]

Tea can come from other places besides teapots you know?"

that's the point,after accepting that tea must be coming from somewhere(not from nothingness) you should then investigate where this may be

that's why i referred that site,as signs from the "teapot"

"Accepting something that is merely "probable" as truth without anything to confirm that it actually ís this thing is blind faith."

and they may be useful for such confirmation

science tries to learn how things work

cant learn why

peace

[FHomeBrew]

Science has learnt how things fall to earth, in what pattern/way. They have also learnt why: gravity. Science cán learn the 'whys' to our universe as there are tons of examples for that. I don't accept that this metaphoric tea MUST come from somewhere because then I MUST accept that the thing it comes from MUST also originate from somewhere (infinite recursion).

"and they may be useful for such confirmation" gives circular logic and blind faith.

Science is the the best way to truth.

Peace

[FHomeBrew]

Also, religion claims to tell the absolute truth and discourages (or bans) learning other or contrary stuff. For this reason alone I would already give up such a system, because if one doesn't provide critique on one's own beliefs, one cannot learn the truth.

"Those who say they know the truth do not know the truth; they know how to obtain power over people by means of words".

[HighFlyingDutchman]

Only those of His servants who are endowed with knowledge fear ALLAH."Quran 35,28

Thats the reason why science(which means learning whats going on around us) and Islam(which means submission to the Creator) had always been twins in real Islamic countries of history.

when west was dying under the pressure of church,Muslims were living a golden age

when west left religion and followed science,they came back to life

when Muslims left science,Islam also slipped from their hands

peace and love

[HighFlyingDutchman]

but why gravity exists?

and why the reason of its reason...and why its..its...

so can u explain what caused existence?

if there cant have always been some power or something

i mean,what is the cause of Big Bang or the existence before that(although science cant reach its "before)

if you only learn science and never think about what it means(i mean,if you never use ur philosophy to it) then you have no difference than a robot,or your computer,which knows more than you but it means nothing to it

[FHomeBrew]

If you ask me to keep looking for "The reason why ... the reason why" then you'll probably do the same. Then what is the reason God exists and what is the why for that reason (infinite recursion there)

If you say God is it's own cause then I can claim the same thing for nothingness.

I don't really have a defined philosophy other than learning for the sake of learning. But this notion only distracts from the real argument, possibly opening doors to ad homonims so let's just leave that notion..

[HighFlyingDutchman]

so which is more logical

nothingness creating something

or something which has always existed

because of being a completely different dimensional power which we cant comprehend how

[FHomeBrew]

tl;dr, I think a summation would be the argument: "It's too complex to be created by chance and nature, therefor it must have been created". This argument has been heard before and has been refuted manier times. Your story doesn't make any sense because it makes unproven and unnessecairy assumptions.

Nice images though. I also thought the vid was a bit dry and sometimes hard to follow. When you use long sentences and similar words so often it's hard to keep track of the whole.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

you are simplifying the argument

you are ignoring the intelligence shown by unconscious things around (and in) you

starting from the very smallest particle of matter,to the biggest things in universe

and from proteins,hormones...to your body

this is not just complexity

this is intelligence

and this intelligence doesnt belong to any of the things i said

everything is like a puppet game

we see the puppets but not the puppeteer

[HighFlyingDutchman]

think about it

we see a car turning the corners perfectly

slowing down,getting fast,etc,everything

and we see that there is not a driver in it

as logical people,we guess and know that it is being commanded by a remote control or it was programmed to do that moves in a chip etc

be careful,i am not pointing to the design in the car,or its complex systems,i am just talking about the controller of it

there must be a driver

[HighFlyingDutchman]

and now check out what science brings

in whatever way it tries to explain beings

there is a fact

from particle physics to microbiology ... to astronomy all the fields of science agrees on one thing

all these unintelligent things perfom a great intelligence

you will want to disagree with me and attribute everything to the "laws"

but laws are already one of the things i mentioned

most of it found by physics and whatever name you give,laws or nature,nothing changes

THANKS

[FHomeBrew]

THe thing is, when something seems intelligable, or intelligently made, it doesn't have to be made intelligently at all. Even if you don't talk about the car but the driver. It's just substituting the car which I can prove logically. This is a logical flaw. The TOE will make clear that laws are all subject to something too, but it doesn't have to be divine. It's up to science to prove stuff like that. We don't know yet, that's the answer, not God per sé, certainly not by necessity.

Peace.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

so can a car drive itself?

all with its complex systems,whatever..

[FHomeBrew]

Same question as: Can a watch build itself? etc. It's just another blind watchmaker arguement in a new jacket. In stead of "Who created it?" it's now "Who controls it". Which are both essentially variations of "Who did it?". This question is wrong because it assumes someone did it. The real question is: "What caused/causes it?" It's not hard to see this. The better question still is: "Did something cause it at all?" because wwhat reason do we have to rule out "nothing" as an answer?

[FHomeBrew]

Science is all about questioning the world on how it works and why it works in such a manner. No assumptions.

If creationists think they're right, why don't they write a scientific paper about their findings, get it peer reviewed and convince the scientific community of the existence of God? That's what they want right? Then why won't they do that? Why use rediculous methods and bare philosophy and theology? Theology isn't even a real philosophical branch...

Science is the only way. l2question

[HighFlyingDutchman]

what kind of scientific evidence are you waiting to find about the existence of God?

while science only accepts matter(the other name of illusion) as existence?

and you will choose your own way

you were unseen,a small drop

you are responsible of that body,not me,nor not theist scientists who may help you scientifically in the future,as you hope(?)

just answer this

if there is no driver in the car

how can you explain its good turns?

and if there is no consciousness in matter

how do you...?

[FHomeBrew]

(Did you just call matter an illusion? just asking)

I cannot explain why the car makes good turns etc. I'd investigate using science and decent tests. I'd not just assume someone drives the car, nor that noone drives the car. I don't assume because I can agree with the conclusion: "I don't know [yet].". I don't even know what drives the car, let alone that I assume it's someone.

There is conciousness in people. A mind is the neurons firing in our brains.

Again, L2science, L2question.

Peace.

[FHomeBrew]

Ow and another thing. I'd especially not assume "someone did it" because of some ancient texts. Modern science can explain way more than ancient science, so the odds that they were right is also way smaller. The scientific method is quite new in fact.

Question for you now:

- Why do you assume an intelligent creator?

- Would you investigate why and how the car drives good?

Also, if the car has no driver as you said before, God can also not be the driver. The car would have to drive itself.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

come on

who is talking about ancient texts here?

first of all,if there is no enough sign of its divinity,of course it would make no sense to follow a random scripture in any way

as i said,i see things around me,like a puppet show.there must be puppeteer.thats all,no religion,no text,no parent force,its all about such simple idea

and to achieve this,to see the details in the puppet show,of course i have to investigate why and how the puppets move

if i see that they have no consciousness..

[HighFlyingDutchman]

OK thats the point thats why i didnt name the video "proving God" but i gave a different name "necessarily existent One" consciousness exists in us,although not in brain but what about unconscious matter btw,matter is an illusion for us,because we can never reach the matter,we can only perceive it in our "small" brains it is just all about electrical signals and has NO difference than dream existence of matter is unprovable and it can be all about another dream,while we are in somwhere else

[HighFlyingDutchman]

please read the other comment

open the comments page

peace

[Prohoridzo]

The beauty of the Universe and our comprehension of that beauty is all I need to be convinced of the Almighty Dominical Eternal Creator.

This is an awesome video. Well done. Thank you.

[WorkingForPeace]

Excellent video series bro!!!

Jazak Allah khair!

[wanderingmaster]

Some good analogy's. Another fine contribution to the growing source of metaphysical video's here on youtube. Well done! :D

Peace, Love & Light

Pete

[rickardo004]

These videos are great. So simple yet so complex to fully grasp.

Humans underestimate God, we boast we know reality but we are nothing but small ants whom He loves. God's grace and Power is far too great for our small logic to understand. Yet our human pride denies the blessing of true wisdom given by Him.

:sighs:

God is a wonder, let's stop fighting our logic and accept we cannot understand it all.

[t123n5]

im sorry meant to hit the thumbs up button. i agree with you. we need to stop agruing and draw the positive things from ALL faiths.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

After realizing the existence...

Ask urself,why only you have complete consciousness?

See,maybe there is a message hidden

peace

[t123n5]

great words provoke thought. Thank you.

[bemuslim]

Great posting brother.... I like it.

[faysalislam]

man that was one of the best vidoe's i seen so far. let me ask you a question? have u been reading the QURAN?

[HighFlyingDutchman]

yes

salaam

[faysalislam]

mashAllah brotha keep up the good work.

salaamz.

[lalmomani]

As-Salam Alaikum Wa Rahmatuliahi Wa Barakatuh,Jazakallahu khair.

[spiritlite]

SalaamAlaikum, JAZAKALLAH KHAIR.

[Censeo]

Atheists must not be materialists. The metaphysics is logically real. That I realize myself. What its nature is in details, is hard to grasp with logic... Possibly forever impossible to discover and be certain of the nature of it.

[HighFlyingDutchman]

yes,it will be impossible to reach The Necessarily Existent One by physics,so you will always wonder,what that metaphysic is.

peace

[Censeo]

Thats all true. You bring up good rebuttals on many views. Very methodical and awsome reasoning.

Peace to you too!

[HighFlyingDutchman]

very gladsome to hear that,as i said at the beginnig,it is just a call to think,we,humans,should use this speciality,that only we own it if i'm not wrong ;)

best regards.

thanks & regards

HFD*

[Censeo]

Eternal and sovereign government, the founder of universe, must include the manifestations itself. God everywhere as eternal beings are, then not being the things we see and is ourselves, is illogic.

Your reasoning stops before that conclution. Why? I guess that takes away the undivine sinners, who look in awe at some being, detatched from themselves. Then we can make guesses on the divine intention, although they are our own.

[1oneundergod1]

interesting point, sinners suppress thier god essence [animus] under a veil of sin

it dosnt remove thier own inherant god[good]animus[thus perhaps we are warned to,let the foolish be foolish[lest we inadvertently offend god himself]

i try not to judge any a sinner [or good ] [or indeed as god][there is but one god who animates all life[how isnt for us to speculate

[in time we shall all be told]

a car runs on gas

dosnt mean the car is gas

it only makes it go[live][god is our life animus]

[Censeo]

Thats the thing. If God is only the outside barriers of the universe, he must long to understand his own creation. youtube search "Imago homines partus" and click on first hit. Awsome song and illustration of the Animae in interaction with the world. Beautiful perspective :D

[1oneundergod1]

we can speculate

from rev 21;3.the dwelling of god is with [life][living..and he[god][life] will live with[in] them

[yet] 'they' will be 'his' people and god himself will be with[in] them and [yet]be thier god

4 he[thus we] will wipe away every tear

the inference being god[good]is on his thone [in our hearts]

emmanual means 'god with us

those expecting a messiah little realise god has allways been'with us'all

jesus said see me see my[our]father[ie god with[in]us[all]

[Censeo]

The song imply that God insist that we dedicate our lives to him, so that he can see the world through the created ones point of view,

[1oneundergod1]

i couldnt 'get ' the words in the song [so i read them] its close to how i believe

but i put it different

its like god is the web

we all together make the web, but the web dosnt really need any of us , yet god needs all of us to reveal the fullness of all god really is

we are just meat, but god animates us to life, its not that we are [or could be 'god'] but that without god we couldnt live

god dosnt 'need ' us

we need god

[1oneundergod1]

amasing visions

great words

i am lost in the amasing revelations you have revealed

at the end i had the thought [imagine the 'space sounds'' those visions would make [as music upon our ears ] as gods voice himself

or if they could speak [or we could hear and comprehend thier praises ,praising his hand that created them ,wow

how awesome god is

how blessed are we to even know

peace upon our teachers

shalam

[1oneundergod1]

how great god

who saw the words in the notebook to be recited and written

words but scratches of a pen from the hand of man,

yet sacred word[s/word][sword]s so perfectly reflects our minds to reflect on the hand that formed all creation

to know that from from his mind alone said he be and behold what is [is perfect]

yet we can know the source by seeing the visions he saw written into his words and creation

only to chose to see them[to see him][to seek know them

to begin to know him

[HighFlyingDutchman]

salaam bro ;)