@maverickcruise What a stupid thing to say. The burden of truth is on the one making the claim, if you're willing to beleive in something such as a sentient being controlling the universe, you'd better have some evidence to back it up. and can i just say, no one commenting on this video is a real christian, you pick and chose the good bits of the bible, that you like, and forget about the stoning of non beleivers being a rule. FUCK ME christians especially are so pathetic.
@sammybarnet Faith does not believe in proofs, if it does, then it's not faith. I trust my earthly father never to betray my trust, more so I have faith that the heavenly father not only exists but takes care of me day in day out. I cannot show you with evidence that He exists but personal experience alone lets you know him. You may call us irrational, blind, foolish, but to this day science or any other rationality has only theorized the origins of life.
@maverickcruise Well, what if you're wrong, you've devoted your life to complete and utter bullshit, when you could be out there living REAL life. And as for "Personal experiance" spend a day in North Korea, and you tell me that there's an all knowing, all loving god, and you try telling THEM that god loves them, i think not. fucking idiots, 3 year olds dying a painful death from aids just because their parents couldnt afford to buy condoms. ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE? God... pffffff
@sammybarnet If i'm wrong I still have lived a life that I have no regrets about. Real life doesn't mean partying around, orgies etc. Even an atheist would agree that life needs discipline and my Lord guides me on that. Your take on North Korea, parents unable to afford condoms?? Hence being faithful and loyal as the Bible commands can save you from the deadliest diseases. Do you think there are no believers in North Korea?? There are plenty... you'll be surprised how happy they are
@maverickcruise ive been to North Korea. They let tourists into Pyongyang for 10 days, THEY ARE ALL STARVING, a child is killed for stealing, and anyone caught worshiping anyone except for Kim Jong Il is killed upon sight.
@sammybarnet That the Lord alone decides, we are merely to submit to his will. Let his will be done... I'm sure he will not allow his faithful to suffer beyond their ability to bear it....
@maverickcruise Your religion has SO many holes in it. HIS FAITHFUL? as if its their fault they're not faithful to christianity, surely its not a choice to beleive in something!? Also what about the people who dont even know about christianity do they burn in the hellfires? are they even real people? does god care about them? Where do all the little tribes stand in all this?
@sammybarnet God has prepared a plan for salvation. Those who have not received the good news of salvation, I'm sure God has a plan for them. Just like little children who die young, even before they reach the age of understanding are surely in heaven like Jesus himself said, unless you become a child you cannot see the kingdom of heaven. Don't be far from the lord, I'm sure He has spoken to you, I know you are hurt may be because of unanswered prayers, trust me I have been there.
@sammybarnet He is merciful and kind and He has a plan for you, just submit yourself and see how He changes your life. May the peace from heaven rule your heart.
TRUE and HONEST atheists don't ask the question this guy says they ask. Asking for "scientific proof of God" is, of course, ridiculous and REAL atheists know it. The people supposedly communicating with this guy are 'militant atheists' who crave argument more than truth. In the end, monotheistic views such as Christianity reject all the same hundreds of supposed gods that atheists do, except for the one they believe in. Again, with this guy, absolutely nothing new here.
I posted on one of your other videos that I thought you were an atheist. I apologize as I was, obviously, incorrect. And I completely agree with you when you state that you need to "assess the facts in a manner consistent with the way those facts are, and ask questions in relationship with that". However, when I ask those questions myself, I reach the opposite conclusion as you. Regardless, you are using your brain and I am always on board with that.
Is it logical to believe in a god, do you believe in Zeus, or Thor? Which god, which book, it's all bullshit and it's bad for you, It is so sad that so many people believe these delusions and fairy tales.
I live in Boise, Idaho which is near where Mr. Slick lives. The other day I was at a Hastings entertainment store and I could not believe what I saw. The great and perfect Matt Slick was looking at the Maxim and Playboy magazines they had. I walked right over a began looking at them as well. I said "Hello mr. Slick" and he very quickly left the store. It was very amusing.
It's pointless to argue about whether or not there is or was a Creator. It's much more fun to argue about the NATURE of that Creator. Like, for instance, what He wants us not to eat, what we shouldn't be allowed to do with our bodies, what land he gave his chosen people, which direction to pray, What his name is ETC.
cool yar,,, s absolutely love, honour, faithfulness,appreciation can not b scientifically proved... but....it can b felt... and no one can say that i dont believe the above mentioned things in this world....but .. does every feel god`s presence???? no! never! because god is fake... just imagined toy to our unanswered questions....i ask... how the fuck u believe in such gods idiots?
cool yar,,, s absolutely love, honour, faithfulness,appreciation can not b scientifically proved... but....it can b felt... and no one can say that i dont believe the above mentioned things in this world....but .. does every fell god`s presence???? no! never! because god is fake... just imagined toy to our unanswered questions....i ask... how the fuck u believe in such gods idiots?
It got nothing to do with ''Believing in the existence of God or not''....Is all about the fact that we have to have the ball's to recognized we are not Gods.
"we aren't asking to prove God via science. we are however pointing to the fact that the world functions in the manner consistent with there not being any intervening god." Raggedm88, it's amazing that you would even say that. You look at the complexity of the universe and how detailed it is. Just the earth alone has to be positioned in a way so that it's either not destroyed by the sun or it doesn't freeze solid. That just doesn't happen by accident!
we aren't asking to prove God via science. we are however pointing to the fact that the world functions in the manner consistent with there not being any intervening god. if we saw unexplained suspensions of laws of physics or unambiguous evidence for effectiveness of prayer we would consider it, while not as a proof, but certainly as a scientific evidence which would point to an existence of a god. incidentally, it would not give any indication as to which god or gods.
Honour, integrity etc. Either you're saying that you can only have these things through knowledge of the christian god and the bible because without either, you would not have any of it; or you're saying that since the knowledge you have of science has no explaination for either, that it would naturally have to be put there by the christian god, by default. But then it gets into a whole new ball of wax by having me ask "Okay, then which god did it? Was it Kryshna, Allah, Vishnu, the Raven etc.?"
If people want scientific evidence that the world is not millions and billions of years old and that the great flood happened then check out this DVD: The Young Age of the Earth by Robert Gentry.
If we prove the Bible to be true don't we then prove that God is real at the same time?
Common man`s reasons why god does not exist A) total absence from from natural events, No sig of a god before, during or after natural events. B)The total absence of favoritism towards believers. Even church steeples need lightning rods for protection against god.C) The absence of any reaction, when crimes are committed in his name. D) The suffering of the innocent. One could accept suffering of the guilty, but little children
Slick states it right. Science cannot prove or disprove God. However, he stumbles in regards to emotion. We are now, through neurobiology, able to quantify emotional variables and preferences - we're even starting to disseminate WHERE preference comes from and how it develops; this would infer that science could either interfere/inhibit or even change the course of preference. God is more a part of preference than people want to admit and science is starting to say some very intersting things.
I think matt is absolutely right when he says that his god is just a concept or label like honour, love or integrity, and not a real thing. Bravo matt, bravo!
Science can't prove or disprove the existence of God, but since the Bible contains the word of God we can look into what science says about that. One of the biggest discrepancies between science and the word of God is the age of the earth. The Bible says ~6000 years old, radiometric dating says ~4.5 billion years old. That's quite a difference. This tells me the Bible can't be trusted.
@TherionNLD: The Bible doesn't give the earth a specific age. Most people try to take the ages that are given in the bible and try to do their own calculations with the given info. I noticed that you automatically dismissed God's word without giving it a second thought and gave the win to the scientist and their "not so sure" dating methods. Why is that?
@spirtualthinker The point I wanted to make is that in this video Matt is posing a question that no atheist with any kind of sense would ask: "Can you use science to prove God exists?". Ofcourse not, that's impossible. Instead use science to look at biblical claims, this is something that is actually possible to an extent, and reveals big discrepancies like the age of the earth, the world wide flood that didn't leave any mark and the evolution of all life.
@TherionNLD: Believe it or not some atheist do ask Christians to use science to try to prove God. Now, when trying to determine the age of the earth why should one agree with the scientific dating methods (which change occasionally because of errors) and ignore the Bible? I know a world wide flood sounds foolish, but you shouldn't totally dismiss something just because of the way it sounds and some scientist believe that the flood did leave marks.
@spirtualthinker Well those atheists should be slapped over the head with a large trout for asking that. Seems you don't believe in radiometric dating, undoubtedly because their results don't agree with whats in the Bible. Sure there are some instances where mistakes were made, some KNOWN circumstances where it doesn't produce correct results, but it's an accepted and proven method. If you don't believe in radiometric dating you might aswell not believe in the atom bomb or in radiotherapy.
@TherionNLD: Correct me if I'm wrong but I read somewhere that radiometric dating only dates back only thousands of years so if that is the case.....where did millions and billions of years come from when items are being dated? What does radiometric dating have to do with the atom bomb or radiotherapy? Just curious.
@spirtualthinker Think you read that on Answers in Genesis page that purposely implies that all radiometric dating is limited to carbon dating. I'd check out talkorigins, maybe a couple science books, start with the 6th grade and work your way up. Radiometric dating is used on many different isotopes and can measure millions and billions of years depending on which isotope on which the radioactive decay is being measured.
@ReservoirdogEC: I was thinking off the top of my head and I figured that I was getting my dating methods mixed up...thanks for the correction. But my question is that if the dating method (radiometric dating in particular) is so bullet proof, why is there still any discussion at all about the age of the earth? Wouldn't radiometric dating have ended the debates a long time ago? I'm not a scientist but I do a lot of thinking and somethings not adding up.
@spirtualthinker The debate among the scientists is around 4.5 billion years, with perhaps some debate within a few million years. The "debate" over whether or not the world is 6,000-10,000 years ago ended to scientists many, many years ago, and isn't considered remotely possible for a number of reasons, radiometric dating being one of them.
It should also be mentioned that Expelled is a piece of propaganda trash and is the conservative equivalent of a Michael Moore film.
@ReservoirdogEC: I doubt that the debate over is the earth 6,000 or 6 billion years old is far from over. I believe this about many scientist that depending on who you're working for of course you have to do and say certain things so you may continue receiving your grants and pay checks. If you personally want to believe that the earth is millions/billions of years old go ahead.
@spirtualthinker It's also worth mentioning that scientists aren't talking about millions/billions of years, the number they're at is 4.5 billion years, give or take a few tens of million, no one's guessing 6 billion or 50 million or 14 billion, virtually the entire scientific community is within the same area around 4.5 billion years old.
@ReservoirdogEC: Also, like humans, scientists also have agendas when conducting their experiments and I don't understand why some people praise them as if they always know better. Scientist from both sides of the issue have their reasons for why they interpret the evidence for the earth's age as either millions/billions of years old or less than 10,000 years old.
There is no science that says the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that claim is nonsense.
Those who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old do not do so for any scientific reason, they believe because they think they have a magic book that tells them how old the earth is. To claim that you can interpret the scientific evidence to come out with an age for the earth of 10,000 years is absurd. Every piece of evidence we have says the earth is ancient.
@nakedapedude: You've been told to believe that every piece of evidence says that the earth is ancient. Why do you accept with blind faith what scientist might tell you? Do you accept it because they show you some fancy charts and graphs? Do you accept it because they use fancy terms and sound highly intelligent? Why do you not question their motives? Scientist are just people too you know.
@nakedapedude: Why is my so called "global conspiracy" idea impossible? When men's hearts are not right with God all men do is think wickedness. I can examine the evidence myself and my conclusions are opposite from yours. Why are you assuming that a young earth is a fantasy. Would it put a damper on things if you found out that maybe you could be wrong? How do you know that there is no evidence that might slightly hint at a young earth? Stop assuming.
@spirtualthinker I don't think anybody is qualified to dictate which parts to take literally or how to interpret them, it's something you have to discover for yourself. Study and discussion with an open mind will help you with that.
I would recommend you this article in Time magazine, go to their site time.com and search for "reconcile god with science" first article by Amy Sullivan from 2009.
@spirtualthinker Unless scientists all got together and decided to make up radiometric decay for no apparent reason, no one's coming to the conclusion that Earth is 4.5 billion years old for any reason other than the hard evidence. There are no real scientists stating that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, period.
@spirtualthinker How far back can be dated depends on the isotope used and it's half-life. Radiometric dating, atom bombs and radiotherapy are all based on our understanding of how atoms and radioactivity works. Search for "radiometric dating wiki" if you want to know some details. I'm not saying there is no God but in my opinion you shouldn't dismiss scientific discoveries based on scripture or religious beliefs. Unfortunately this is happening on a large scale, especially in the USA.
@TherionNLD: I also agree that you shouldn't dismiss good science in the name of religion. My position is that you shouldn't dismiss religion (God in particular) in the name of bad science. I don't think religion will leave America anytime soon because America was found on religious principles.
@TherionNLD: Also, I'm not a scientist but I do try to use my brain every now and than and I believe that if the overall concept of the evolutionary theory were true it would have graduated from theory to law a long time ago. I honestly believe that good science backs up the Bible and I know you will not agree with my statement.
@spirtualthinker A scientific theory is something different then the word theory as in "it's just a theory". Scientific theories never "graduate" to fact or unchangeable dogma because it's always open to be improved or changed when new evidence comes in. People don't doubt the atomic theory, einstein's theory of relativity or quantum theory. But as soon as it conflicts with the Bible they suddenly don't trust in scientific reason anymore. This is what annoys me.
@TherionNLD: I agree but the problem is not science conflicting with the Bible. The problem is lies conflicting with the Bible and calling it science. 1st Timothy 6:20-21 says "...guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith..." I personally have nothing against science.
@spirtualthinker: As a believer in Christ Jesus it is my job to make sure that I'm not suckered in by false knowledge and accept it without questioning the real motives behind it. I'm sure that you yourself wouldn't naively accept so called important info without questioning it would you?
@spirtualthinker If there is a lie in science it will be found out and corrected. That's how the scientific community works, it's self-correcting. Radiometric dating and the evolution theory have been used and corrected in practical science for a hundred years or more. They are not lies.
@TherionNLD: Here's the problem. Honest scientist will correct themselves but all scientist are not honest (after all...they're just people). I watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and it seems to me that if you're a scientist looking for a cozy job at a top university you must get on board the evolution bandwagon even if you don't agree and if you speak out you will be exiled to academic Siberia. I could be 100% wrong but I do know for a fact that all science isn't honest.
@spirtualthinker If you've watched Ben Stein's Expelled I'd urge you to read the New York Times' review on it, I quote: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."
That piece of misleading intelligent design propaganda contains the very dishonest scientists you just mentioned. There is no global conspiracy from evil scientists motivated by Satan himself to promote evolution, it's just a part of the history of our natural world.
@TherionNLD: Here's the problem with what you just said. Forget the movie for a moment. You believe that scientist are not willing to lie to push their agenda (whatever it may be). In my opinion anyone that chooses not to follow God has a Satanic agenda at heart and of course they don't see it because they're spiritually blinded. I know for a fact you're not going to agree with me.
@spirtualthinker Sure some scientists might lie or do bad stuff, but the entire scientific community as a whole? No, not a chance. You seem to think that evolution equals atheism/evil/Satan but that's not the case, there are plenty of notable Christians who have reconciled evolution with their faith. Kenneth Miller, George Coyne and Pope John Paul II to name a few. Look something up about the first two, I'm sure you're familiar with the third.
@TherionNLD: I didn't say or mean to imply that the whole scientific community is bad. I think that evolution theory is an attempt to explain away God. Also, no true Christian would equate the evolution theory with God's word because they don't mix. You're either for one or the other their is no in between. Once again, I would personally question the motives behind why a Christian would accept the evolution theory. Before I forget, do you believe that radiometric dating has flaws?
@spirtualthinker I know radiometric dating has it's limitations and known instances where it's results aren't reliable, that doesn't make it an unusable tool. If a measuring method is completely unreliable it wouldn't be used at all, it would defeat it's purpose.
It wasn't Darwin's goal to explain away God same as it wasn't Galileo's goal to explain away God. They both were searching for scientific truth. If they were completely wrong nobody would be hearing of them today.
@TherionNLD: My point is that since radiometric dating does has some flaws, it isn't 100% reliable. It is reliable....just not 100%. So my question would be....why base everything on something that has been proven not to be 100% accurate? Let's say that radiometric dating is right 90% of the time. I say that other 10% needs some investigating. Why investigate the other 10%? In my opinion that 10% could mean the difference between life and death (literally).
@spirtualthinker That's a wrong way of looking at it. It's not like every time they date a sample there's a 90% chance they'll get the right result. The circumstances where radiometric dating gives inaccurate results are known and
accounted for. Age estimates are cross-tested using different isotopes, results often measured in different labs continually confirm each other. Either all scientists around the world are in a secret anti-God club or the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
@TherionNLD Im not trying to argue with you but radiometric dating is based on many assumptions which make the practice very inaccurate. For one carbon dating assumes that the same percentage of C-14 has always been in the atmosphere, even though the amount has risen greatly in the last 40 years. It is estimated that it would take about 30,000 years for C-14 in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium and it hasn't. The carbon is not equally destributed across the Earth and contamination is very...
@TherionNLD ...common. It is not unusual for a living animal to be dated tens of thousands of years old. In short do not put your trust in something that is not an exact science. It is only accurate within about a hundred years or so because the C-14 levels do not change that much within that time.
@mbernal41 Carbon dating isn't used to date the age of the earth though because C-14's half-life is way too short. When they find a fossil and carbon date it to ~40.000 years old, then date the rocks it was found in to ~40.000 years old when the species that was found was predicted to exist ~40.000 years ago by the evolution theory then you can be pretty sure it's accurate.
@TherionNLD Uhhh ???? Did I say its used to date the Earth? My point is that it is very innacurate so I wouldnt bet my life on it. My other point is that if the Earth is so old than why is'nt C-14 in equilibruim yet.
@spirtualthinker Radiometric dating isn't just "90% reliable," while a few older methods aren't reliable in certain situations the way it's used now most methods are reliable to the point of being 100% reliable as far as practical application goes, and all practical application points to Earth being 4.5 billion years old. There's no room for debate for anyone that has any understanding of radiometric decay, it's not fuzzy math.
@ReservoirdogEC: I was just putting out numbers in the attempt to prove a point. No scientific dating method is 100% reliable other wise the debates would have been over a long time ago. I'll agree that some methods are more reliable than others but non are 100%.
"No scientific dating method is 100% reliable otherwise the debates would have been over a long time ago"
There is no debate, no intelligent, educated, psychologically healthy person believes the earth is young. Young earthers are just as convincing as flat earthers and geocentrists, in other words, you're nothing but a lame joke.
@spirtualthinker It seems to me that you take the Bible as the literal unfallable word of God. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says you should kill your daughter if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Is this something you agree with? Leviticus 20:13 says gays should be put to death. Are you in favor for killing off gays?
There's good stuff in the Bible and there's bad stuff in the Bible. It's not all 100% unfallable truth.
@TherionNLD: At least me and you are having an honest discussion unlike some other people I've been talking to. Deuteronomy and Leviticus are Old Testament LAWS for the HEBREWS and not 100% for the gentiles. As a follower of Christ I'm under the New Testament. Jesus didn't kill gays so I wouldn't either. I would try to convince them to give their lives over to Christ.
@TherionNLD: I also wouldn't kill non-virgin girls on their wedding night. I don't think Jesus did that so neither would I. No body is perfect and all have fallen short (Romans 3:23). Once again, followers of Christ are not under the law of the Old Testament (to an extent) so therefore shouldn't try to enforce the cultural laws that were meant for the Hebrews. If anything you should ask a Jew/Hebrew those questions.
@spirtualthinker My point was that in the Bible, even in the New Testament, there are teachings that not even Christians adhere to today. Like eye for eye; tooth for tooth, turn the other cheek, give up all your worldly possessions. You don't have to take the Bible 100% literal to be Christian. Many good Christians have different opinions on how to interpret scripture. Don't think black & white.
@TherionNLD: Eye for an eye/revenge is old testament and was done away with in the new testament. Turn the other cheek means to forgive which Christian SHOULD ALWAYS do. Jesus told the rich man to give up all his worldly possessions just to see how the rich man would react and he reacted just as Jesus predicted. I agree that you don't have to take the Bible literally 100% but the question remains which parts do you take literally?
"There's a different set of criteria that you would use to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus..."
This is special pleading. You're saying that what you believe shouldn't be held accountable to high scientific standards.
You're accepting the resurrection of Jesus based on "changed lives, eyewitness accounts, empty tomb" when you would NEVER accept this as sufficient evidence for ANY other phenomena (except those within the realm of your confirmation bias)
If an atheist asks you to prove god exists using science, then they have misunderstood what science is. Science strives to provide evidence in favor of something- nothing in science can ever be 100% "proven"- however, the point is still valid. Demanding evidence to support your claim is always a reasonable stance to take.
No one is asking you to prove god is faithful, honorable, etc. just that he exists. You say that "you can't prove love,honor, etc." with science- you CAN prove existence
WHat a dickhead. Ok so using this logic you can basically prove anything is real.
Ok well i now believe in the great bowl of pasta in the sky it is real and you should all go and worship it now 'but using the scientific method we cant provide any evidence of its existence?' Pffft the giant pasta bowl in the sky is beyond observation and testing of the scientific method therefore it exists. ALL hail the giant bowl of pasta in the sky!
I could use the scientific method to figure out if you are a man of honor by studiying your behaviour, though it's much more blurry than measuring your weight our height it doesn't belong to a complete different category. You should also use the scientific method when do research by studying liiterature.
For all the atheists out there i recommend you look into how the major events of the first 12 books of Gensis are accurately spot on encrypted in the Ancient Symbols of the Chinese Language. With a little research you will find God has revealed himself to us through other ways then just the Bible.
Well , gravity is a thoery but its thier and we can prove same as evolution. Like the earth is round is a fact so its also true for evolution. Therefore the creation story of the bible is invalid. This is coming from the bottom of my heart, if you can prove that evolution and most of mainstream science isnt different from the christian relgion thoughts and ideas, i would follow christ till my dying days and i would keep faith no matter what.
This is fallacious in many ways just because two propositions are assumed true does not make creation invalid. Saying these theories are true and disproving creation is an absolute statement. In Atheism one does not need absolutes to determine truth but to say that is using an absolute therefore you are self-contradictory.
"According to Scriptures" is s the key phrase. The events cited are anecdotes, not data. The scientific method requires some observation to pose an explanation to test, and there aren't any. The existence of God has been questioned for thousands of years, long before organized science. What can be tested are the claims of religion, and they just are not true. This doesn't prove God is not real, just that there is no evidence for. It boils down to a matter of personal choice.
NOT different categories. You are making PHYSICAL claims - a person was dead and then came to life again. It requires PHYSICAL proof.
You are not claiming whether Jesus was an 'honorable man' etc. You are claiming that his actual heart stopped beating and then started again. "he ascended to heaven" GREAT! - point to "heaven" Show us where he went and how he got there!! Either show the evidence or sign yourself in to the nearest mental hospital.
Wow he uses the resurection as an example. Well I have a question. How do u know any of those were eye witness accounts. If someone actually rose from the dead and performed the miracles as is said he did then there would be many many more historyical documents about this man other than the Bible
Science does explain love, honor, loyalty, etc. Science CAN explain these things and it does. And we are not asking you to search for god with science, we are asking you to prove him scientifically. You don't need observational evidence to prove something. After all, gravity is just a theory. The quantum field cannot be observed but it can be scientifically proven and supported. If science cannot prove god or at least explain him, why should we believe him based off one ancient book?
@Sum41rocks47 Well first I would have to say that I am not sure what it means to live outside of science. Science is a method. Also, you are assuming that God created heaven, Earth, and science. I do not agree that creating something does not make you subject to it (if that is what you are claiming with God). Humans discovered the scientific method and can certainly be studied using it. God can also, if only indirectly.
@Sum41rocks47 Maybe, depending on how you are defining God. Still, if God every did something that impacted the world we would be able to look at that effect scientifically. So in that sense we can indirectly test God. Now, if God had certain characteristics, based on how you define God, or if God claimed to have done certain things...
The entire Old Testament is full of God proving his existence to people in some of the most atrocious ways possible. But 2000 years later it's not 'fair' to demand proof?
His explanation did not move even a inch from my Atheist position.In the beginning i was so exited that he is going to give a good explanation for the existence of but this guy failed me miserably! i will wait for another theist with their explanation!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA This is such a ridiculous fail. "Look, reasonable people, your logic and brain is "insufficient" to investigate the existence of god. You have to close your eyes and see him. Now thats proof right?" hahahahahahahahaha. Yes its so worth it to kill people and brainwash over imaginary friends. lolollololololololo
go to encyclopedia dramatica . c om / Christianity
"If we could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
@SPF50000 killing people and brainwashing people is not christian behaviour. that behaviour is for people who dont believe in God, people who dont believe in having to answer for their ways, people who brainwash others are not actually intentionally brainwashing them what they are doing is conttolling them, becausae they love to have power and control people, again not a christian characteristic. thank you...
@Griexxt oh ok i see what you mean there. dont like that phrase though as far as my point is made. i know christians do horrible things but if they are followers of jesus and adhere to his teachings (i dont) thry wouldnt do these awful things. but i know thats not the case, but in general a real christian wouldnt do horrible things right?
@shipkleo What is a "real Christian"? You can't define a group by what they should be, you must go by what they are. In the middle ages for example people did horrible things because they thought it was God's will that they should do so. Where they not Christians?
@Griexxt i dont understand why atheists always point to the middle ages to say look how evil christians are(were) lol. but you are right they were christians and i guess there was lots of horrible things done. however the in european countries rome was still in control and for centuries have always been dueling with persians and much of middle east. the fact that the european people were converting to christianity but still in service to the roman empire should be enough evidence to
@shipkleo I'm not saying they were evil for doing the things they did in the middle ages, they were under the impression that they were doing something ultimately good. Just like the 9/11 hijackers. It's the idea that they weren't "real" Christians (or Muslims) because of what they did I'm opposing.
@Griexxt most christians back then accepted and believed in Jesus, however most were not allowed to read a bible, they were still being controlled by rome and its policies, and for me to say that someone who is going to commit murder, rape, adultery, fornication, is in fact not a real christian is perfectly legitamate. a christians reads the words of Jesus and follows his ways and teachings. i never read anything where Jesus says its okay to murder,kill, or harm another human.quite the contrary.
@shipkleo I agree that it is irreconcilable with the Christian teachings to do those things. But with such a narrow definition there would hardly be any Christians at all, which in my view makes it pointless.
I think the biggest problem I've encountered is that Atheists don't understand what God is. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an Atheist say, "Well, there is not some dude sitting up in the clouds looking down on us." Of course not! If there was, we'd see him and wave to him as we passed by on airplanes. That is silly. He does not have a human body on Earth at the present.
Religion is and was part of every culture. It is not something invented by the Roman empire to control its citizens. It existed even in the smallest tribes, not just to "control the masses." Religion is for everyone. Even the rulers practiced it, went to church/synagogue/etc.
How do we know God exists? Where did the universe come from? Who created the "Big Bang"? Why do we feel emotions? Feel touched when seeing something beautiful? Suddenly feel compelled to do something? That is God.
there is no proof of god existing so he doesnt. he was made up so people would have something to believe in.. '' oh i cant do this , what would god say? '' yeah and also it brought peace really cmon
So basically, Matt is saying believing in god is a matter of blind faith. Superstition. There's no way of telling if god exists.
Believe in something people tell you, even though you have no evidence of it being true. Believeing it just because it says in the bible. It's stupid.
On a very simple level, you only see images of gods (whatever that god may be, depending upon what you were taught or what culture you were brought up in) that are produced by mankind. The gods that are commonly worshiped today, no matter what the religion, have been around for thousands of years and are an amalgam of gods that preceded them. This guy's argument that science has no place in any religious discussion is true...belief in a god relies upon a belief in supernatural spirits.
Anything will work, if you say where did the universe come from, you can say God, and somebody,can say a magical perfected troll, and that is just as likely as God. Prayer has been tested, and it failed. The bible has many errors, and to say a God inspired it is calling God, an illogical incompetent god, that really is a waste to argue,and God will never be proven, and the odds of it existing, is about 1 in 10^100,000,000.Drop the myths, and come to reality.
Is it fair for God to create a universe that, when measured,shows all systems forming and operating under predictable Constants of Nature......but then bibleGod resents and gets angry if we doubt his existence? Or accept the reality of Natural Selection? It would be like a practical joker getting angry at his victim for being tricked.
God creates a Universe that only looks old, but it isnt God creates fossils, geology, time scales, that look old but is only an elaborate illusion?I dont get it
Engaging these ~professional atheist comment makers~ is tricky. They do not follow the rules of debate, logic or civility. The reason, I think, is that heir actual motive is not to debate or converse, but to score points against anything good, noble or true [You know: Family, The West, Capitalism]. In short, they are attempting to blow smoke to obscure the Light. THAT is why, when pushed, they curse, do the ad hominem thang or change the subject.
@robbbingham Rules of debate? no we are just simply debating to gain new knowledge. If we are proven wrong we gain knowledge and if we prove others wrong then THEY gain knowledge. Your looking to deep into this
Logic shows us that if a philosophical statement cannot be demonstrated as true or false, it is meaningless. Demonstrating god in natural world is impossible. Therefore, it is a meaningless proposition.
Athiests requiring science to prove that got exists, you see there's a problem with this... HE FUCKING DOESNT
sammybarnet 1 month ago
@sammybarnet So why don't you prove he doesn't exist..
maverickcruise 1 month ago
@maverickcruise What a stupid thing to say. The burden of truth is on the one making the claim, if you're willing to beleive in something such as a sentient being controlling the universe, you'd better have some evidence to back it up. and can i just say, no one commenting on this video is a real christian, you pick and chose the good bits of the bible, that you like, and forget about the stoning of non beleivers being a rule. FUCK ME christians especially are so pathetic.
sammybarnet 1 month ago
@sammybarnet Faith does not believe in proofs, if it does, then it's not faith. I trust my earthly father never to betray my trust, more so I have faith that the heavenly father not only exists but takes care of me day in day out. I cannot show you with evidence that He exists but personal experience alone lets you know him. You may call us irrational, blind, foolish, but to this day science or any other rationality has only theorized the origins of life.
maverickcruise 1 month ago
@maverickcruise Well, what if you're wrong, you've devoted your life to complete and utter bullshit, when you could be out there living REAL life. And as for "Personal experiance" spend a day in North Korea, and you tell me that there's an all knowing, all loving god, and you try telling THEM that god loves them, i think not. fucking idiots, 3 year olds dying a painful death from aids just because their parents couldnt afford to buy condoms. ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE? God... pffffff
sammybarnet 1 month ago
@sammybarnet If i'm wrong I still have lived a life that I have no regrets about. Real life doesn't mean partying around, orgies etc. Even an atheist would agree that life needs discipline and my Lord guides me on that. Your take on North Korea, parents unable to afford condoms?? Hence being faithful and loyal as the Bible commands can save you from the deadliest diseases. Do you think there are no believers in North Korea?? There are plenty... you'll be surprised how happy they are
maverickcruise 1 month ago
@maverickcruise ive been to North Korea. They let tourists into Pyongyang for 10 days, THEY ARE ALL STARVING, a child is killed for stealing, and anyone caught worshiping anyone except for Kim Jong Il is killed upon sight.
sammybarnet 1 month ago
@sammybarnet True christians have been killed throughout history.... Be it Nero or Kim Jong IL it will continue until the lord returns.
maverickcruise 1 month ago
@maverickcruise so until extinction then?
sammybarnet 4 weeks ago
@sammybarnet That the Lord alone decides, we are merely to submit to his will. Let his will be done... I'm sure he will not allow his faithful to suffer beyond their ability to bear it....
maverickcruise 4 weeks ago
@maverickcruise Your religion has SO many holes in it. HIS FAITHFUL? as if its their fault they're not faithful to christianity, surely its not a choice to beleive in something!? Also what about the people who dont even know about christianity do they burn in the hellfires? are they even real people? does god care about them? Where do all the little tribes stand in all this?
sammybarnet 4 weeks ago
@sammybarnet God has prepared a plan for salvation. Those who have not received the good news of salvation, I'm sure God has a plan for them. Just like little children who die young, even before they reach the age of understanding are surely in heaven like Jesus himself said, unless you become a child you cannot see the kingdom of heaven. Don't be far from the lord, I'm sure He has spoken to you, I know you are hurt may be because of unanswered prayers, trust me I have been there.
maverickcruise 3 weeks ago
@sammybarnet He is merciful and kind and He has a plan for you, just submit yourself and see how He changes your life. May the peace from heaven rule your heart.
maverickcruise 3 weeks ago
@sammybarnet haha there are no holes my friend.
JACOESHMT 3 weeks ago
TRUE and HONEST atheists don't ask the question this guy says they ask. Asking for "scientific proof of God" is, of course, ridiculous and REAL atheists know it. The people supposedly communicating with this guy are 'militant atheists' who crave argument more than truth. In the end, monotheistic views such as Christianity reject all the same hundreds of supposed gods that atheists do, except for the one they believe in. Again, with this guy, absolutely nothing new here.
TomKaren1994 4 months ago
@TomKaren1994 Exactly.... that would be an agnostic. not an athiest.
sammybarnet 1 month ago
I posted on one of your other videos that I thought you were an atheist. I apologize as I was, obviously, incorrect. And I completely agree with you when you state that you need to "assess the facts in a manner consistent with the way those facts are, and ask questions in relationship with that". However, when I ask those questions myself, I reach the opposite conclusion as you. Regardless, you are using your brain and I am always on board with that.
JBR731 5 months ago
Q/ give us proof before we believe in something ridiculous.
A/ god is not measurable by our feeble science! he's not asking a good question! its not fair! (AKA there is no proof)
and the fact he then went on to use bits OF THE BIBLE as his proof for the resurrection of jesus was the cherry on top :P
theres no reason what so ever, not one shred of proof, that The Bible is more factual than The Hobbit.
DemoraX 6 months ago
Is it logical to believe in a god, do you believe in Zeus, or Thor? Which god, which book, it's all bullshit and it's bad for you, It is so sad that so many people believe these delusions and fairy tales.
rfranklinw1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I live in Boise, Idaho which is near where Mr. Slick lives. The other day I was at a Hastings entertainment store and I could not believe what I saw. The great and perfect Matt Slick was looking at the Maxim and Playboy magazines they had. I walked right over a began looking at them as well. I said "Hello mr. Slick" and he very quickly left the store. It was very amusing.
MrSupernova890 7 months ago
It's pointless to argue about whether or not there is or was a Creator. It's much more fun to argue about the NATURE of that Creator. Like, for instance, what He wants us not to eat, what we shouldn't be allowed to do with our bodies, what land he gave his chosen people, which direction to pray, What his name is ETC.
How else will we keep all the Wars going?
doireallyneed1 7 months ago
This guy is talking through a hole in his head. He's clueless & brainwashed. You're making yourself look stupid, Matt.
debrog12 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If u want to use logic and reason than religion must be automatically ejected from the debate...
Zoonofski 7 months ago
Comment removed
Zoonofski 7 months ago
cool yar,,, s absolutely love, honour, faithfulness,appreciation can not b scientifically proved... but....it can b felt... and no one can say that i dont believe the above mentioned things in this world....but .. does every feel god`s presence???? no! never! because god is fake... just imagined toy to our unanswered questions....i ask... how the fuck u believe in such gods idiots?
jananishahid 7 months ago
cool yar,,, s absolutely love, honour, faithfulness,appreciation can not b scientifically proved... but....it can b felt... and no one can say that i dont believe the above mentioned things in this world....but .. does every fell god`s presence???? no! never! because god is fake... just imagined toy to our unanswered questions....i ask... how the fuck u believe in such gods idiots?
jananishahid 7 months ago
If you can't observe something, it is not worth thinking about.
skarloeyable 8 months ago
It got nothing to do with ''Believing in the existence of God or not''....Is all about the fact that we have to have the ball's to recognized we are not Gods.
TOLTECAAZTECA 8 months ago
@TOLTECAAZTECA What?!
xXFlockofGriffinsXx 8 months ago
"we aren't asking to prove God via science. we are however pointing to the fact that the world functions in the manner consistent with there not being any intervening god." Raggedm88, it's amazing that you would even say that. You look at the complexity of the universe and how detailed it is. Just the earth alone has to be positioned in a way so that it's either not destroyed by the sun or it doesn't freeze solid. That just doesn't happen by accident!
MrBAMAMAN76 8 months ago
Xbox360boypker? Are you mad bro?
Zacharybinx34 8 months ago
we aren't asking to prove God via science. we are however pointing to the fact that the world functions in the manner consistent with there not being any intervening god. if we saw unexplained suspensions of laws of physics or unambiguous evidence for effectiveness of prayer we would consider it, while not as a proof, but certainly as a scientific evidence which would point to an existence of a god. incidentally, it would not give any indication as to which god or gods.
RaggedM88 9 months ago
god isn't logical you fucking idiot. he is an idea. human created multiple religions and gods to explain the world.
xbox360boypker 9 months ago
You cannot prove what goes on in someone's mind like love and honour, these are psycological emotions.
Therefore you are saying that god is personified in the human mind and is therefore an interpretation of our own thoughts.
And from that we can deduce that god does not exist.
TheChubbo55 9 months ago
@TheChubbo55 so anything you cant see does not exist? love doesnt exist? happiness doesnt exist? i applaud you sir.
technicolorboy 8 months ago
athiests are fuckin morons
billy5939 1 year ago
@billy5939 lol...yeah
.mindless
MrMrfearofthedark 9 months ago
@billy5939 you're a fucking moron.
TheChubbo55 9 months ago
Honour, integrity etc. Either you're saying that you can only have these things through knowledge of the christian god and the bible because without either, you would not have any of it; or you're saying that since the knowledge you have of science has no explaination for either, that it would naturally have to be put there by the christian god, by default. But then it gets into a whole new ball of wax by having me ask "Okay, then which god did it? Was it Kryshna, Allah, Vishnu, the Raven etc.?"
berner 1 year ago
@berner
Slick is not saying you can't have morality without being a Christian.
seanhall2006 1 year ago
If people want scientific evidence that the world is not millions and billions of years old and that the great flood happened then check out this DVD: The Young Age of the Earth by Robert Gentry.
If we prove the Bible to be true don't we then prove that God is real at the same time?
GoAwayJak 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Common man`s reasons why god does not exist A) total absence from from natural events, No sig of a god before, during or after natural events. B)The total absence of favoritism towards believers. Even church steeples need lightning rods for protection against god.C) The absence of any reaction, when crimes are committed in his name. D) The suffering of the innocent. One could accept suffering of the guilty, but little children
lizazoon 1 year ago
Homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural? God can't be determined through science? God is unnatural, God is bad then.
You guys gave me quite literally the stupidest argument for religion ever. Good job.
tombert256 1 year ago
@tombert256 Now now, there are plenty of contending arguments for being the "stupidest" argument for religion; to many to count really.
Jesses001 1 year ago
@Jesses001 Saying that science can't measure "love" and "integrity" is literally the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
tombert256 1 year ago
@tombert256 How is it stupid? It is essential to know that all knowledge can be ascertained through logic or experiment.
meeene4 9 months ago
Slick states it right. Science cannot prove or disprove God. However, he stumbles in regards to emotion. We are now, through neurobiology, able to quantify emotional variables and preferences - we're even starting to disseminate WHERE preference comes from and how it develops; this would infer that science could either interfere/inhibit or even change the course of preference. God is more a part of preference than people want to admit and science is starting to say some very intersting things.
vryc 1 year ago
I think matt is absolutely right when he says that his god is just a concept or label like honour, love or integrity, and not a real thing. Bravo matt, bravo!
nakedapedude 1 year ago
Science can't prove or disprove the existence of God, but since the Bible contains the word of God we can look into what science says about that. One of the biggest discrepancies between science and the word of God is the age of the earth. The Bible says ~6000 years old, radiometric dating says ~4.5 billion years old. That's quite a difference. This tells me the Bible can't be trusted.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: The Bible doesn't give the earth a specific age. Most people try to take the ages that are given in the bible and try to do their own calculations with the given info. I noticed that you automatically dismissed God's word without giving it a second thought and gave the win to the scientist and their "not so sure" dating methods. Why is that?
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker The point I wanted to make is that in this video Matt is posing a question that no atheist with any kind of sense would ask: "Can you use science to prove God exists?". Ofcourse not, that's impossible. Instead use science to look at biblical claims, this is something that is actually possible to an extent, and reveals big discrepancies like the age of the earth, the world wide flood that didn't leave any mark and the evolution of all life.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: Believe it or not some atheist do ask Christians to use science to try to prove God. Now, when trying to determine the age of the earth why should one agree with the scientific dating methods (which change occasionally because of errors) and ignore the Bible? I know a world wide flood sounds foolish, but you shouldn't totally dismiss something just because of the way it sounds and some scientist believe that the flood did leave marks.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker Well those atheists should be slapped over the head with a large trout for asking that. Seems you don't believe in radiometric dating, undoubtedly because their results don't agree with whats in the Bible. Sure there are some instances where mistakes were made, some KNOWN circumstances where it doesn't produce correct results, but it's an accepted and proven method. If you don't believe in radiometric dating you might aswell not believe in the atom bomb or in radiotherapy.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: Correct me if I'm wrong but I read somewhere that radiometric dating only dates back only thousands of years so if that is the case.....where did millions and billions of years come from when items are being dated? What does radiometric dating have to do with the atom bomb or radiotherapy? Just curious.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker Think you read that on Answers in Genesis page that purposely implies that all radiometric dating is limited to carbon dating. I'd check out talkorigins, maybe a couple science books, start with the 6th grade and work your way up. Radiometric dating is used on many different isotopes and can measure millions and billions of years depending on which isotope on which the radioactive decay is being measured.
ReservoirdogEC 1 year ago
@ReservoirdogEC: I was thinking off the top of my head and I figured that I was getting my dating methods mixed up...thanks for the correction. But my question is that if the dating method (radiometric dating in particular) is so bullet proof, why is there still any discussion at all about the age of the earth? Wouldn't radiometric dating have ended the debates a long time ago? I'm not a scientist but I do a lot of thinking and somethings not adding up.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker The debate among the scientists is around 4.5 billion years, with perhaps some debate within a few million years. The "debate" over whether or not the world is 6,000-10,000 years ago ended to scientists many, many years ago, and isn't considered remotely possible for a number of reasons, radiometric dating being one of them.
It should also be mentioned that Expelled is a piece of propaganda trash and is the conservative equivalent of a Michael Moore film.
ReservoirdogEC 1 year ago
@ReservoirdogEC: I doubt that the debate over is the earth 6,000 or 6 billion years old is far from over. I believe this about many scientist that depending on who you're working for of course you have to do and say certain things so you may continue receiving your grants and pay checks. If you personally want to believe that the earth is millions/billions of years old go ahead.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker It's also worth mentioning that scientists aren't talking about millions/billions of years, the number they're at is 4.5 billion years, give or take a few tens of million, no one's guessing 6 billion or 50 million or 14 billion, virtually the entire scientific community is within the same area around 4.5 billion years old.
ReservoirdogEC 1 year ago
@ReservoirdogEC: Also, like humans, scientists also have agendas when conducting their experiments and I don't understand why some people praise them as if they always know better. Scientist from both sides of the issue have their reasons for why they interpret the evidence for the earth's age as either millions/billions of years old or less than 10,000 years old.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker
There is no science that says the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that claim is nonsense.
Those who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old do not do so for any scientific reason, they believe because they think they have a magic book that tells them how old the earth is. To claim that you can interpret the scientific evidence to come out with an age for the earth of 10,000 years is absurd. Every piece of evidence we have says the earth is ancient.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude: You've been told to believe that every piece of evidence says that the earth is ancient. Why do you accept with blind faith what scientist might tell you? Do you accept it because they show you some fancy charts and graphs? Do you accept it because they use fancy terms and sound highly intelligent? Why do you not question their motives? Scientist are just people too you know.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker
I accept what science has to say about the age of the earth for a number of reasons:
1. There is consensus among all professional geologists and physicists.
2. Your global conspiracy idea is not only impossible, it is absurd in the extreme.
3. I can examine the evidence myself and come to my own conclusions.
4. Your young earth idea is pure religious fantasy, not science.
5. There is no evidence that suggests the earth is under 10,000 years old, none at all.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude: Why is my so called "global conspiracy" idea impossible? When men's hearts are not right with God all men do is think wickedness. I can examine the evidence myself and my conclusions are opposite from yours. Why are you assuming that a young earth is a fantasy. Would it put a damper on things if you found out that maybe you could be wrong? How do you know that there is no evidence that might slightly hint at a young earth? Stop assuming.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker
Present your evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and don't mention the bible.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker I don't think anybody is qualified to dictate which parts to take literally or how to interpret them, it's something you have to discover for yourself. Study and discussion with an open mind will help you with that.
I would recommend you this article in Time magazine, go to their site time.com and search for "reconcile god with science" first article by Amy Sullivan from 2009.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker Unless scientists all got together and decided to make up radiometric decay for no apparent reason, no one's coming to the conclusion that Earth is 4.5 billion years old for any reason other than the hard evidence. There are no real scientists stating that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, period.
ReservoirdogEC 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker How far back can be dated depends on the isotope used and it's half-life. Radiometric dating, atom bombs and radiotherapy are all based on our understanding of how atoms and radioactivity works. Search for "radiometric dating wiki" if you want to know some details. I'm not saying there is no God but in my opinion you shouldn't dismiss scientific discoveries based on scripture or religious beliefs. Unfortunately this is happening on a large scale, especially in the USA.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: I also agree that you shouldn't dismiss good science in the name of religion. My position is that you shouldn't dismiss religion (God in particular) in the name of bad science. I don't think religion will leave America anytime soon because America was found on religious principles.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: Also, I'm not a scientist but I do try to use my brain every now and than and I believe that if the overall concept of the evolutionary theory were true it would have graduated from theory to law a long time ago. I honestly believe that good science backs up the Bible and I know you will not agree with my statement.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker A scientific theory is something different then the word theory as in "it's just a theory". Scientific theories never "graduate" to fact or unchangeable dogma because it's always open to be improved or changed when new evidence comes in. People don't doubt the atomic theory, einstein's theory of relativity or quantum theory. But as soon as it conflicts with the Bible they suddenly don't trust in scientific reason anymore. This is what annoys me.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: I agree but the problem is not science conflicting with the Bible. The problem is lies conflicting with the Bible and calling it science. 1st Timothy 6:20-21 says "...guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith..." I personally have nothing against science.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker: As a believer in Christ Jesus it is my job to make sure that I'm not suckered in by false knowledge and accept it without questioning the real motives behind it. I'm sure that you yourself wouldn't naively accept so called important info without questioning it would you?
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker If there is a lie in science it will be found out and corrected. That's how the scientific community works, it's self-correcting. Radiometric dating and the evolution theory have been used and corrected in practical science for a hundred years or more. They are not lies.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: Here's the problem. Honest scientist will correct themselves but all scientist are not honest (after all...they're just people). I watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and it seems to me that if you're a scientist looking for a cozy job at a top university you must get on board the evolution bandwagon even if you don't agree and if you speak out you will be exiled to academic Siberia. I could be 100% wrong but I do know for a fact that all science isn't honest.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker If you've watched Ben Stein's Expelled I'd urge you to read the New York Times' review on it, I quote: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."
That piece of misleading intelligent design propaganda contains the very dishonest scientists you just mentioned. There is no global conspiracy from evil scientists motivated by Satan himself to promote evolution, it's just a part of the history of our natural world.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: Here's the problem with what you just said. Forget the movie for a moment. You believe that scientist are not willing to lie to push their agenda (whatever it may be). In my opinion anyone that chooses not to follow God has a Satanic agenda at heart and of course they don't see it because they're spiritually blinded. I know for a fact you're not going to agree with me.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker Sure some scientists might lie or do bad stuff, but the entire scientific community as a whole? No, not a chance. You seem to think that evolution equals atheism/evil/Satan but that's not the case, there are plenty of notable Christians who have reconciled evolution with their faith. Kenneth Miller, George Coyne and Pope John Paul II to name a few. Look something up about the first two, I'm sure you're familiar with the third.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: I didn't say or mean to imply that the whole scientific community is bad. I think that evolution theory is an attempt to explain away God. Also, no true Christian would equate the evolution theory with God's word because they don't mix. You're either for one or the other their is no in between. Once again, I would personally question the motives behind why a Christian would accept the evolution theory. Before I forget, do you believe that radiometric dating has flaws?
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
Comment removed
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker I know radiometric dating has it's limitations and known instances where it's results aren't reliable, that doesn't make it an unusable tool. If a measuring method is completely unreliable it wouldn't be used at all, it would defeat it's purpose.
It wasn't Darwin's goal to explain away God same as it wasn't Galileo's goal to explain away God. They both were searching for scientific truth. If they were completely wrong nobody would be hearing of them today.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: My point is that since radiometric dating does has some flaws, it isn't 100% reliable. It is reliable....just not 100%. So my question would be....why base everything on something that has been proven not to be 100% accurate? Let's say that radiometric dating is right 90% of the time. I say that other 10% needs some investigating. Why investigate the other 10%? In my opinion that 10% could mean the difference between life and death (literally).
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker That's a wrong way of looking at it. It's not like every time they date a sample there's a 90% chance they'll get the right result. The circumstances where radiometric dating gives inaccurate results are known and
accounted for. Age estimates are cross-tested using different isotopes, results often measured in different labs continually confirm each other. Either all scientists around the world are in a secret anti-God club or the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD Im not trying to argue with you but radiometric dating is based on many assumptions which make the practice very inaccurate. For one carbon dating assumes that the same percentage of C-14 has always been in the atmosphere, even though the amount has risen greatly in the last 40 years. It is estimated that it would take about 30,000 years for C-14 in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium and it hasn't. The carbon is not equally destributed across the Earth and contamination is very...
mbernal41 1 year ago
@TherionNLD ...common. It is not unusual for a living animal to be dated tens of thousands of years old. In short do not put your trust in something that is not an exact science. It is only accurate within about a hundred years or so because the C-14 levels do not change that much within that time.
mbernal41 1 year ago
@mbernal41 Carbon dating isn't used to date the age of the earth though because C-14's half-life is way too short. When they find a fossil and carbon date it to ~40.000 years old, then date the rocks it was found in to ~40.000 years old when the species that was found was predicted to exist ~40.000 years ago by the evolution theory then you can be pretty sure it's accurate.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD Uhhh ???? Did I say its used to date the Earth? My point is that it is very innacurate so I wouldnt bet my life on it. My other point is that if the Earth is so old than why is'nt C-14 in equilibruim yet.
mbernal41 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mbernal41
"My other point is that if the Earth is so old than why is'nt C-14 in equilibruim yet."
Do you have the internet? The answer to your question is readily available on line. Here's a clue, just google "how is C14 made".
Why don't you people bother to do even the tiniest amount of research before you ask your silly questions?
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker Radiometric dating isn't just "90% reliable," while a few older methods aren't reliable in certain situations the way it's used now most methods are reliable to the point of being 100% reliable as far as practical application goes, and all practical application points to Earth being 4.5 billion years old. There's no room for debate for anyone that has any understanding of radiometric decay, it's not fuzzy math.
ReservoirdogEC 1 year ago
@ReservoirdogEC: I was just putting out numbers in the attempt to prove a point. No scientific dating method is 100% reliable other wise the debates would have been over a long time ago. I'll agree that some methods are more reliable than others but non are 100%.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spirtualthinker
"No scientific dating method is 100% reliable otherwise the debates would have been over a long time ago"
There is no debate, no intelligent, educated, psychologically healthy person believes the earth is young. Young earthers are just as convincing as flat earthers and geocentrists, in other words, you're nothing but a lame joke.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker It seems to me that you take the Bible as the literal unfallable word of God. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says you should kill your daughter if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Is this something you agree with? Leviticus 20:13 says gays should be put to death. Are you in favor for killing off gays?
There's good stuff in the Bible and there's bad stuff in the Bible. It's not all 100% unfallable truth.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: At least me and you are having an honest discussion unlike some other people I've been talking to. Deuteronomy and Leviticus are Old Testament LAWS for the HEBREWS and not 100% for the gentiles. As a follower of Christ I'm under the New Testament. Jesus didn't kill gays so I wouldn't either. I would try to convince them to give their lives over to Christ.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: I also wouldn't kill non-virgin girls on their wedding night. I don't think Jesus did that so neither would I. No body is perfect and all have fallen short (Romans 3:23). Once again, followers of Christ are not under the law of the Old Testament (to an extent) so therefore shouldn't try to enforce the cultural laws that were meant for the Hebrews. If anything you should ask a Jew/Hebrew those questions.
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
@spirtualthinker My point was that in the Bible, even in the New Testament, there are teachings that not even Christians adhere to today. Like eye for eye; tooth for tooth, turn the other cheek, give up all your worldly possessions. You don't have to take the Bible 100% literal to be Christian. Many good Christians have different opinions on how to interpret scripture. Don't think black & white.
TherionNLD 1 year ago
@TherionNLD: Eye for an eye/revenge is old testament and was done away with in the new testament. Turn the other cheek means to forgive which Christian SHOULD ALWAYS do. Jesus told the rich man to give up all his worldly possessions just to see how the rich man would react and he reacted just as Jesus predicted. I agree that you don't have to take the Bible literally 100% but the question remains which parts do you take literally?
spirtualthinker 1 year ago
So, if there is no way to ascertain that god exists, why believe in god at all?
EarthlyDerision 1 year ago
the methods you use to pick your religion to disprove the religions of others?
electorg 1 year ago
"There's a different set of criteria that you would use to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus..."
This is special pleading. You're saying that what you believe shouldn't be held accountable to high scientific standards.
You're accepting the resurrection of Jesus based on "changed lives, eyewitness accounts, empty tomb" when you would NEVER accept this as sufficient evidence for ANY other phenomena (except those within the realm of your confirmation bias)
flylike1 1 year ago
Comment removed
flylike1 1 year ago
If an atheist asks you to prove god exists using science, then they have misunderstood what science is. Science strives to provide evidence in favor of something- nothing in science can ever be 100% "proven"- however, the point is still valid. Demanding evidence to support your claim is always a reasonable stance to take.
No one is asking you to prove god is faithful, honorable, etc. just that he exists. You say that "you can't prove love,honor, etc." with science- you CAN prove existence
flylike1 1 year ago
WHat a dickhead. Ok so using this logic you can basically prove anything is real.
Ok well i now believe in the great bowl of pasta in the sky it is real and you should all go and worship it now 'but using the scientific method we cant provide any evidence of its existence?' Pffft the giant pasta bowl in the sky is beyond observation and testing of the scientific method therefore it exists. ALL hail the giant bowl of pasta in the sky!
lardplanet 1 year ago
I can test the resurrection of Jesus. Find Jesus, Kill him, if he comes back to life then he got resurrected. Not that difficult
iAMsoBEAST1 1 year ago
I could use the scientific method to figure out if you are a man of honor by studiying your behaviour, though it's much more blurry than measuring your weight our height it doesn't belong to a complete different category. You should also use the scientific method when do research by studying liiterature.
paulmag91 1 year ago
Kill him five times and see if he rises each time! xD
paulmag91 1 year ago
For all the atheists out there i recommend you look into how the major events of the first 12 books of Gensis are accurately spot on encrypted in the Ancient Symbols of the Chinese Language. With a little research you will find God has revealed himself to us through other ways then just the Bible.
mrpbns 1 year ago
Well , gravity is a thoery but its thier and we can prove same as evolution. Like the earth is round is a fact so its also true for evolution. Therefore the creation story of the bible is invalid. This is coming from the bottom of my heart, if you can prove that evolution and most of mainstream science isnt different from the christian relgion thoughts and ideas, i would follow christ till my dying days and i would keep faith no matter what.
thetruth786110 1 year ago
@thetruth786110
1 - Gravity is a theory like Evolution
2 - The earth is round so is true for evolution
3 - Therefore the creation story is invalid.
This is fallacious in many ways just because two propositions are assumed true does not make creation invalid. Saying these theories are true and disproving creation is an absolute statement. In Atheism one does not need absolutes to determine truth but to say that is using an absolute therefore you are self-contradictory.
LetTheLegGo 1 year ago
@LetTheLegGo Atheist does not need absolutes to find truth? how do you know you have even found truth?
meeene4 1 year ago
"According to Scriptures" is s the key phrase. The events cited are anecdotes, not data. The scientific method requires some observation to pose an explanation to test, and there aren't any. The existence of God has been questioned for thousands of years, long before organized science. What can be tested are the claims of religion, and they just are not true. This doesn't prove God is not real, just that there is no evidence for. It boils down to a matter of personal choice.
sanphaka04 1 year ago
NOT different categories. You are making PHYSICAL claims - a person was dead and then came to life again. It requires PHYSICAL proof.
You are not claiming whether Jesus was an 'honorable man' etc. You are claiming that his actual heart stopped beating and then started again. "he ascended to heaven" GREAT! - point to "heaven" Show us where he went and how he got there!! Either show the evidence or sign yourself in to the nearest mental hospital.
While you're there, look up the word 'metaphor'
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago
Wow he uses the resurection as an example. Well I have a question. How do u know any of those were eye witness accounts. If someone actually rose from the dead and performed the miracles as is said he did then there would be many many more historyical documents about this man other than the Bible
slickwick45 1 year ago
Science does explain love, honor, loyalty, etc. Science CAN explain these things and it does. And we are not asking you to search for god with science, we are asking you to prove him scientifically. You don't need observational evidence to prove something. After all, gravity is just a theory. The quantum field cannot be observed but it can be scientifically proven and supported. If science cannot prove god or at least explain him, why should we believe him based off one ancient book?
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
@Sum41rocks47 Well first I would have to say that I am not sure what it means to live outside of science. Science is a method. Also, you are assuming that God created heaven, Earth, and science. I do not agree that creating something does not make you subject to it (if that is what you are claiming with God). Humans discovered the scientific method and can certainly be studied using it. God can also, if only indirectly.
demonforte 1 year ago
@Sum41rocks47 so in my last statement every should be ever*
I am not sure what you mean by your question. I can't do what?
demonforte 1 year ago
@Sum41rocks47 Maybe, depending on how you are defining God. Still, if God every did something that impacted the world we would be able to look at that effect scientifically. So in that sense we can indirectly test God. Now, if God had certain characteristics, based on how you define God, or if God claimed to have done certain things...
demonforte 1 year ago
Lets try your argument for, say, the unicorn.
I know the unicorn exists. You can't tell me it doesn't. The scientific method is invalid, because the unicorn is honor, and love.
So, not using the scientific method, prove to me the unicorn isn't real.
A self proving idea isn't valid. Telling the world, "well you just can't measure it" doesn't prove anything.
Kuth70 1 year ago
The entire Old Testament is full of God proving his existence to people in some of the most atrocious ways possible. But 2000 years later it's not 'fair' to demand proof?
Griexxt 1 year ago
Comment removed
demondagger19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting points.
demondagger19 1 year ago
Comment removed
demondagger19 1 year ago
His explanation did not move even a inch from my Atheist position.In the beginning i was so exited that he is going to give a good explanation for the existence of but this guy failed me miserably! i will wait for another theist with their explanation!
samgee2007 1 year ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA This is such a ridiculous fail. "Look, reasonable people, your logic and brain is "insufficient" to investigate the existence of god. You have to close your eyes and see him. Now thats proof right?" hahahahahahahahaha. Yes its so worth it to kill people and brainwash over imaginary friends. lolollololololololo
go to encyclopedia dramatica . c om / Christianity
"If we could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
-Hugh Laurie (House)
SPF50000 1 year ago
@SPF50000 killing people and brainwashing people is not christian behaviour. that behaviour is for people who dont believe in God, people who dont believe in having to answer for their ways, people who brainwash others are not actually intentionally brainwashing them what they are doing is conttolling them, becausae they love to have power and control people, again not a christian characteristic. thank you...
shipkleo 1 year ago
@shipkleo No true Scotsman...
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt im not sure i follow what you mean? no true scotsman, can you elaborate on this?
shipkleo 1 year ago
@shipkleo Google the phrase.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt oh ok i see what you mean there. dont like that phrase though as far as my point is made. i know christians do horrible things but if they are followers of jesus and adhere to his teachings (i dont) thry wouldnt do these awful things. but i know thats not the case, but in general a real christian wouldnt do horrible things right?
shipkleo 1 year ago
@shipkleo What is a "real Christian"? You can't define a group by what they should be, you must go by what they are. In the middle ages for example people did horrible things because they thought it was God's will that they should do so. Where they not Christians?
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt i dont understand why atheists always point to the middle ages to say look how evil christians are(were) lol. but you are right they were christians and i guess there was lots of horrible things done. however the in european countries rome was still in control and for centuries have always been dueling with persians and much of middle east. the fact that the european people were converting to christianity but still in service to the roman empire should be enough evidence to
shipkleo 1 year ago
@shipkleo I'm not saying they were evil for doing the things they did in the middle ages, they were under the impression that they were doing something ultimately good. Just like the 9/11 hijackers. It's the idea that they weren't "real" Christians (or Muslims) because of what they did I'm opposing.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt most christians back then accepted and believed in Jesus, however most were not allowed to read a bible, they were still being controlled by rome and its policies, and for me to say that someone who is going to commit murder, rape, adultery, fornication, is in fact not a real christian is perfectly legitamate. a christians reads the words of Jesus and follows his ways and teachings. i never read anything where Jesus says its okay to murder,kill, or harm another human.quite the contrary.
shipkleo 1 year ago
@shipkleo I agree that it is irreconcilable with the Christian teachings to do those things. But with such a narrow definition there would hardly be any Christians at all, which in my view makes it pointless.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@shipkleo
shipkleo 1 year ago
I think the biggest problem I've encountered is that Atheists don't understand what God is. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an Atheist say, "Well, there is not some dude sitting up in the clouds looking down on us." Of course not! If there was, we'd see him and wave to him as we passed by on airplanes. That is silly. He does not have a human body on Earth at the present.
stephe1987 1 year ago
Religion is and was part of every culture. It is not something invented by the Roman empire to control its citizens. It existed even in the smallest tribes, not just to "control the masses." Religion is for everyone. Even the rulers practiced it, went to church/synagogue/etc.
How do we know God exists? Where did the universe come from? Who created the "Big Bang"? Why do we feel emotions? Feel touched when seeing something beautiful? Suddenly feel compelled to do something? That is God.
stephe1987 1 year ago
you are antisemetic
bobjones9001 1 year ago
did he just say god dosnt exist? lol
cooljoeh13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cooljoeh13 you are antisemetic
bobjones9001 1 year ago
this guy is fucking troling
BAZUKASH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BAZUKASH and you are antisemetic
bobjones9001 1 year ago
god was invented a long time ago.....the invetors were people who wanted to control other people and hell it worked
FunnyStuff1234123 1 year ago
@FunnyStuff1234123 and you sir, are antisemetic
bobjones9001 1 year ago
@bobjones9001 yep even more than hitler
FunnyStuff1234123 1 year ago
there is no proof of god existing so he doesnt. he was made up so people would have something to believe in.. '' oh i cant do this , what would god say? '' yeah and also it brought peace really cmon
ToxinBlade 1 year ago
laughable
DrunkLaserTagPlayer 1 year ago
So basically, Matt is saying believing in god is a matter of blind faith. Superstition. There's no way of telling if god exists.
Believe in something people tell you, even though you have no evidence of it being true. Believeing it just because it says in the bible. It's stupid.
LtShock 1 year ago
you still can't prove that 'God' Is Real.
fintan1471 1 year ago
Haha what a joke, This is so wrong in so many ways....
And why can't I thump up comments? to scared?
globalko 1 year ago
id say the main flaw in this is his main argument that you can't scientifically prove love,honor and emotional variations in general
im 16 and even i know you can scientifically prove these ....
this man needs an education
stop slating science when your abusing it all around you
Konartwist 1 year ago
78 thumps up
75 thumps down cmon! 3 more to go!!!
o0lama0o 1 year ago
Im in college, and half the time idk what he's even saying o_O
BlackPhoenix2257 1 year ago
@BlackPhoenix2257 I'm in grade 10 and I know what he is saying, I skipped a grade and I'm not religious
pugzlie18 1 year ago
@pugzlie18 well mbe i don't pay attention :p nerd
BlackPhoenix2257 1 year ago
why is this guy telling jokes but not laughing?
saucebiotch 1 year ago
this is funny stuff
ThieleM 1 year ago
On a very simple level, you only see images of gods (whatever that god may be, depending upon what you were taught or what culture you were brought up in) that are produced by mankind. The gods that are commonly worshiped today, no matter what the religion, have been around for thousands of years and are an amalgam of gods that preceded them. This guy's argument that science has no place in any religious discussion is true...belief in a god relies upon a belief in supernatural spirits.
auzndm 1 year ago
Anything will work, if you say where did the universe come from, you can say God, and somebody,can say a magical perfected troll, and that is just as likely as God. Prayer has been tested, and it failed. The bible has many errors, and to say a God inspired it is calling God, an illogical incompetent god, that really is a waste to argue,and God will never be proven, and the odds of it existing, is about 1 in 10^100,000,000.Drop the myths, and come to reality.
NWOSupporter2012 1 year ago
christian way of thought, a god must exist just look at the universe ergo it must be our christian god.
espyd21c 1 year ago
Is it fair for God to create a universe that, when measured,shows all systems forming and operating under predictable Constants of Nature......but then bibleGod resents and gets angry if we doubt his existence? Or accept the reality of Natural Selection? It would be like a practical joker getting angry at his victim for being tricked.
God creates a Universe that only looks old, but it isnt God creates fossils, geology, time scales, that look old but is only an elaborate illusion?I dont get it
FacelessPhoenix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible says that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes and donkeys talk.
And that insects have 4 legs.
And that bats are birds.
And that the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
If the the parts we can verify are false,
how can we rationally rely upon the parts that are not verifiable?
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Breaking News! "God: Hidden Science" - Google it!
byScrooby 1 year ago
@byScrooby Which god?
auzndm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Engaging these ~professional atheist comment makers~ is tricky. They do not follow the rules of debate, logic or civility. The reason, I think, is that heir actual motive is not to debate or converse, but to score points against anything good, noble or true [You know: Family, The West, Capitalism]. In short, they are attempting to blow smoke to obscure the Light. THAT is why, when pushed, they curse, do the ad hominem thang or change the subject.
robbbingham 1 year ago
@robbbingham Rules of debate? no we are just simply debating to gain new knowledge. If we are proven wrong we gain knowledge and if we prove others wrong then THEY gain knowledge. Your looking to deep into this
BAZUKASH 1 year ago
The Bible is a a physical book in the natural world written by men. How is it more significant that science?
derhammerman 1 year ago
Logic shows us that if a philosophical statement cannot be demonstrated as true or false, it is meaningless. Demonstrating god in natural world is impossible. Therefore, it is a meaningless proposition.
derhammerman 1 year ago
So God is an experience - like a dream or an emotion. Now he's NOT an actual being. uh huh.
You people need to get together and come up with a consistent story otherwise is just confusing for everyone.
Thank you. Good night.
Hufflewaffle 2 years ago
or you could just read the Bible and find out what God says about Himself
daneandkristybeam 1 year ago
You think I haven't?
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago