Of course God is of science. God and science are intrinsically joined. You will find a staggering number of scientists and doctors who know of God simply because of their work in his fields; ie.. sciences and medicine. Science is divine. God is ineffable yes, but that doesn't mean we can't follow some of his threads. Just because we CAN follow a thread here or there by no means means we know what the garment is. How presumptuous. How typically self richeous.
Any modern fifth grader could instruct Aquinas (an enthusiastic torturer and persecutor) in biology, cosmology, chemistry, physics, and a dozen other disciplines. He was a man of his time; but he warrants little adulation.
You say ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments are torn up logic? That must be a joke, because wasn't it the greatest philsoophers and logicians that came up with it? Aristotle, Plato? Even the great Einstein followed what you call torn up logic:
The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence.
No, it really WASN'T; it was the WORST philosophers and logicians who came up with it; wishful thinkers, primitive people with not enough background in critical thinking to know that their arguments had absolutely no basis behind them. People who, frankly, needed a good strong dose of REALITY.
So Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas (man who joined Christian Theology and Greek philosophy to begin Universities in Europe, which would later make the foundation of modern Science?). These people were wishful thinkers? Thomas Aquinas refuted all Atheistic arguments before there were Atheists around to discuss it, I think he did too much critical thinking. Furthermore there dose of reality is what started Science in the first place.
So you're saying Thomas Aquinas did little? In History he's one of the most influential people of all time, he unified Greek Philosophy and Christian Theology to advance Western Philosophy. He and his peers are the reason why widespread Education started in Europe, and these Universities that came out of Scholasticism are the reason for modern Science. Aquinas' and his peers invented a method of awnsering questions and educating. Compared to you, a person who makes youtube videos....
I don't care how much Aquinas DID; what matters is the basis BEHIND what he did, and he was a complete MORON with no logical thinking skills whatsoever.
There are plenty of people out there who did much with little intelligence; how much someone has accomplished has NOTHING to do with whether or not they were correct in their thinking.
Thats a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeroes. Now lets start off with just 37 zeroes, the precision of the electron Charge is 1:10^37. That can be thought out as, taking quarters placing them around North America, piling them to the moon, doing this with a billion more times while marking one coin is the precision of 37 zeroes, now imagine the below calculation, now imagine them together with the 71+ similar constants.
Oh, but he WAS. His premises were all predicated on assumptions which were outright false and frankly laughable. His logic would have been sound if those assumptions were true, but they really, really, REALLY weren't.
No go away; I have intelligent people to talk to.
LMAO, you didn't refute anything. All you did was make appeal to ridicule fallacies and ad hominems, and I know you lost because the loser always starts with insults and blocks people denying freedom of speech. If you ever decide to be rational, use logic, and allow freedom of speech, I'll be here, this is proof to all viwers that you're a fascist. -Ogirv101
I blocked you because you're obviously not interested in critical thinking and your mind is closed to any possibilities but those you've already decided are correct.
You come in here all aggressive and full of fire and completely ignoring everything I say and you expect me to just put up with it?
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable." -Albert Einstein
...and? That's not an argument for a deity, not by a long shot. There are so many things which are subtle, intangible, and inexplicable; what makes you think it can't be something as simple as a fractal equation, from which so much complexity is possible?
So a mathematic equation is the cause of the Universe? That makes no sense, second of all you obviously don't understand the Cosmological argument, that's the argument I'm making combined with telelogical and ontological arguments.
I know what a fractal is, but how does this relate to the existance of the Universe. Do you accept the Big Bang Theory? If you do you have to accept that at one point the dimensions of our Universe, and it's existence thereof at one point, did not exist. Something must have caused it, we don't know what that is, but from the looks of our laws, constants, and the precision of them many of us can philosophically, mathematically, and logically conclude a Creator.
The laws and constants of the universe do nothing of the kind...unless you engage in wishful thinking. You should not INFER a creator without actual evidence OF a creator; seeing order in things is NOT such evidence.
Again, think of a fractal; it's a SIMPLE equation from which much complexity can come and it doesn't NEED a creator to exist. Such could it be with the universe.
And no, Big Bang theory does NOT say the universe didn't exist prior to it, moron.
The existance of low entropy during the Big Bang, according to Roger Penrose mathematics professor at oxford University and Stephen Hawkin's collegue, is calculated to have a precision of 1:10^10^123. That is 1 in 1 followed by a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeroes. That number can't even be written if we took all atoms and fundamental particles in the Universe.
You're also looking at Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and many of the greatest philosophers of all time. They're philosophical arguments for the existance of God, and maybe if you haven't noticed (or you're just being a complete dumbass) the existance of God can't be scientifically verifiable because Science has a limit mutual to Nature. Anything outside nature can't be verified by Science, and people below mention Immanuel Kant, great example.
According to scripture, god has manipulated this world, the empirical world, thus making his existence a matter for science. If god never manipulated this world at all, ever, his existence would be irrelevant.
No matter how you slice it, god's existence can ONLY be proved by science.
"According to scripture, god has manipulated this world, the empirical world"
Yes, it's a little obvious that something or someone has tampered with the laws and constants of our Universe, but we barely know anything about the Big bang, and Science can never understand what caused the Big Bang. Science is a form of understanding nature, and nothing more, we can make a philosophical basis through Science that there is a Creator, but you want empirical proof of God? Are you Okay?
Science is a method of drawing conclusions--however tentative pending new information--from empirical data; if a deity tampered with this world, it would leave traces which science could discover, examine, analyze.
Science is a method of understanding nature, creating theories that can be repeateable, and from that we draw conclusions based off empiricism. Science has limits, for example the Multiverse hypothesis is not real Science considering you cannot find empirical evidence or a repeatable theory. The evidence you want are indirect evidence of a Creator, well people make conclusions through Science but everything is debateable. the precision of the Universe's laws and Constants are some form of proof.
Nobody has ever found ANYTHING empirical which indicates that there is or ever was a god of any kind, only evidence that people are willing to believe in such a creature.
The most reasonable conclusion given the evidence is that there is no god.
Oh come on atheists try to prove that there is no God, but u have not proven anything. And you might say "i have already proven that there is no GOD" then why do keep saying it.
I haven't said that there is no god, and I certainly won't say that I've PROVED there is no god.
What I WILL say is that there is NO GOOD REASON to believe in a god due to the lack of evidence, and that religious faith is NOT A Good Thing™.
And I will ALSO say that various religions make claims about their gods that CAN be proved untrue, like Noah's Ark and the flood, so SPECIFIC gods can be disproved even if you cannot prove that there is no god AT ALL.
Of course not, but that isn't the issue. It's a matter of creditable evidence eitherway..............that being, the evidence favours non-existense, or at least the lack of need for God to exist
dont apologize, i understand what you mean, but you have to understand that our human body, and its senses are very limited.
Im intrigued and fascinated with comments Immanuel Kant made concerning the metaphysical. He said that the human apparatus is very limited to perceive everything.
Its our own finite brains that have a great short coming. Just because we cant see it with our shabby excuse for vision, doesnt mean we have to rule it out totally.
Yes, a creator is possible. I just don't particularly see any reason to believe it's likely. I don't see any reason to assume that, without a divine being behind it all, there should be nothing rather than something.
I liked the video. But i would say that the universe is far from being understood. Look at the brain we use. We dont use it at its highest volume notch, so to speak.
The fact that the conversation is still going and going about God is exciting to me.
I think spirituality will get a respectable place within science. or perhaps we need another term for a different sort of science.
Because remember, science isnt even totally for sure, within itself.
Talking snakes and donkeys? Men living in fishes for three days? This doesn't seem like mythology to you?
Were you raised with the idea that Jack and the Beanstalk was a holy text and the Bible was a fairy tale, you'd be arguing precisely the same things, just for a different book.
exactly. he died for u. he died for all of us. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16)
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (Luke 19:10) Jesus loves u man
Ah yes... the bible. A book where all its claims is only supported with its own references stated inside the very same book. Yay! Rock solid evidence!
first of all, if knew anything about the bible, is the it has many book written by many different people in different times. i bet u really really never read a bible huh
I hope you get it now. We are not trying to disprove, it's not possible. We are waiting for you to prove, and try to explain why a god would create a universe, and create creatures simply to have the vast majority of them fail. And the only thing required of them to pass is to pick the right god and believe in him, with no evidence as to why that god and not any of the others. OK. I lets assume you are right, and there is a god, now what? Which one? and which interpretation of that one?
Awesome video, especially right now that this issue of whether science and religion can be reconciled is being debated in so many science blogs. I agree that religion is science cannot be reconciled.
HOWEVER - where "a" religion makes an empirical claim (for example, "the universe was created by some kind of being...") then of course that can also be a scientific claim. So, Dawkins is correct too. I don't think Gould meant to say that the Hale-Bopp Comet religion/cult's claim that there was a spaceship in the tail of the comet is NOMA. Gould's language is clear that he was talking about morality claims, not empirical ones. (Hopefully this won't make you angry).
Gould said, "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)." Gould here is limiting religion to the ephemeral questions, and in that regard religion and science are NOMA.
Thank you! I never understood what Dawkins meant by "the universe created by a God is a different one from the universe which isn't created". After watching your video, that's totally clear. Very well explained, thanks! And the pictures are extremely lovely!
where seed has no life soil is not live but when both comes together its ALLAH who makes thousands of grains from a single seed can ur science make it ,.................can ur science create a rain can ur science stop death can ur science stop age...........& ur science is clueless ........SCIENCE IS ONLY A MEDIUM FOR GOD NOT ULTIMATE OPTION
Look, I don't want to suppress your opinion or anything, but...right now you're being more disruptive than reasonably contributing; I don't feel inclined to respond to this as presented.
Any reasoned comparison of my posts with yours will reveal that I have been polite and to the point, and stuck strictly within the constraints of the challenge you made. I thought that you had dared people to respond - double dog dared. I suppose instead you were soliciting agreement. O.k., you're smarter than Stephen J. Gould, and his NOMA idea is pure idiocy. He's full of crap. Happy? Cheers. Last post.
Science doesn't seek to answer questions concerning whether jerking off is good or bad, for example. Making people feel guilty about diddling themselves is the province of religion. :-)
Of COURSE science seeks to answer questions like that! If jerking off is BAD, medical science will discover it!
But if by "bad", you mean MORALLY bad, certainly science has a thing or two to say about where human morality even COMES from in the first place, so again, it's a matter for science.
You keep trying to draw a stark dividing line, but where there are lines AT ALL, they are very fuzzy and murky, and not drawn straight.
No, medical science can determine whether jerking off is medically harmful, helpful, or neither. Whether it is "bad" is a value judgment - like whether or not premarital sex is bad.
If you've got a peer reviewed article where science has studied whether a certain action is moral or immoral, I'd love to see it.
Whoever said anything about fuzzy, murky or stark lines? You are saying there is no line at all.
I am not sure that you are coping here. Whether philosophy can exist without biology or whether the brain function is required to make a determination of right and wrong does not mean that questions of morality and art appreciation are scientific ones.
Once again - how is the assertion that Marcus Aurelius's Meditations is a better guide to right behavior than the Norse Havamal a scientific question?
I've already explained why it IS a scientific question,and you don't seem to even UNDERSTAND the answer. How about you explain why you think it ISN'T a scientific question? Lay your cards on the table and let's see where the disconnect is.
First of all, no you haven't explained why any of my specific examples are scientific question. However, I will assert that art appreciation is not a matter of scientific inquiry because it is a matter of personal opinion, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and whether one is better than the other cannot be measured scientifically. Similarly, whether Aurelius'sMeditations or the Havamal is a better guide to a good life or right behavior depends on subjective concepts (what is good, etc.)
First of all, I'm NOT GOING to explain why your specific examples are matters for scientific inquiry because you could do that FOREVER. Each of those specific examples if part of a larger umbrella of topics which ARE matters for scientific inquiry, so THAT'S the answer you get.
And, again, opinions are formed in the brain, the brain is a matter for science.
You still haven't explained WHY you think matters of opinion aren't matters for science. Explain how science is exclued from the question
I've explained how my examples are not matters for science. You can't explain how they are, and in fact you've acknowledged that they, in fact, aren't. You've merely claimed that they are part of a "larger ubrella." That's like saying that biology wouldn't exist without chemistry, therefore biology is really chemistry (the larger umbrella) and chemistry wouldn't exist without nuclear physics, so therefore it's all nuclear physics.
Sure, of course opinions are formed in the brain. That doesn't mean that whether Objectivism is a correct philosophy or Epicureanism is a better one is a scientific question. It's a philosophical question. It makes not one bit of difference that the brain's structure and origin can be explained by science. The rightness of a philosophy can't.
NOMA is all about differentiating the "what" and "how" questions (science) from the "why?" questions (religion/philosophy). However, your point is obviously valid insofar as when religious people make claims about the physical world (virgin births, winged horses, waters parting, arks, floods, energy fields, energy transfers curing disease (reiki/chakras), etc.), then obviously they trespass into the "what/how" area.
The way NOMA is used--especially with regards to evolution, but also with regards to the existence of god--is to say that matters of science and matters of god do not intersect.
And, frankly, I have never seen evidence to indicate that there is anything BUT the physical world, and all things are dependent upon it; if you have evidence otherwise, do please share with the group.
NOMA, when I've heard it explained, distinguishes the "why" questions from the scientific ones. It's kind of like saying that science can build a gun, but it doesn't tell you when it's right to fire it. Can science tell us whether a shooting was justified?
I've not posited anything about something existing other than the "physical" world. I assume, however, that with the word "physical" you ware including thoughts, feelings, consciousness, gravity, strong/weak forces, electromagnetsm...
Opinions are formed by brains and cultures, both of which are matters for various branches of science.
You cannot escape that; without a brain, NONE of these opinions would be possible, therefore they are matters for science. EVERYTHING comes down to science.
Again - science can explain how a mind works, how it evolved, how to fix it, what it's made of, etc. etc. - but it can't tell us who is better, Metallica or Megadeth. That does not come down to science. Does it? If so, explain how science can tell us who is better, Metallica or Megadeth.
That's being NEITHER is better; OPINIONS ARE NOT ABSOLUTES, and the question is, frankly, entirely moot. It has no answer.
But the formation of opinion IS a matter for science. And thus, the question ITSELF is a matter for science because of the biological brains which form it and which form opinions ON it.
So, if whether Wagner is better than Beethoven is a matter for science, then explain how the question can be answered scientifically? What kind of theory would be propounded to explain it? Have similar theories been published in peer reviewed journals? Of course not. You're basically admitting that I'm right when you say "opinions are not absolutes" and "it has no answer." Why not just admit that I rose to your challenge? Art appreciation is not a matter for science.- it's mere opinion.
You are really taking this rather personally. I'm obtuse because I understand what Stephen J. Gould and the National Academy of Sciences and others like Eugenie Scott mean when they propound the NOMA. Of course science can venture into the existence of gods. However, as Gould propounded methodological naturalism upon which science is based offers no insight into what is morally right (and the "why?" questions).
And, I never said opinions weren't a matter for science. YOU are the one who brought up the idea that the opinion on "which is better?" was impossible to answer and "moot." But, it's NOT impossible to answer because people answer it all the time in art appreciation and philosophy classes. They develop arguments about which is better, and some opinions become more persuasive than others, but science takes no side. That's why there are things that science can't answer: NOMA.
No, they DON'T "answer" these questions, that's the point; they render OPINIONS, not provide ANSWERS.
And I'm sick of arguing this with you; you don't have the LEAST clue what you're talking about, you refuse to actually answer any of my questions in any reasonable way, and you just keep repeating the same bullshit over and over as if it actually MEANS something. *rolls eyes*
Science doesn't either. And that was your question - whether there were things outside of the purview of science. Of course morality or right/wrong behavior, or quality of art or music is a matter of opinion. One person's answer may be that Taoism is the right way and another's may be that Shintoism is the right way or Hinduism, etc. Your question was "name me something that isn't a matter for science." These matters of opinion are not matters for science. I've shown that clearly.
I am not sure why you are getting so vitriolic. My posts clearly show that I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about and I'm quite familiar with the NOMA arguments of both Gould and Eugenie Scott. I have answered your questions and I've done so in detail and politely. You asked the question - you did - you invited the public to answer your question - no, you dared, actually. So, I did so. Now I'm a bit sorry I have. Cheers.
Ummm...of course I'm confident in what I'm saying. I'm correct on this issue. It is really silly to say that whether Taoism is a good guide for right/wrong behavior or morality is a scientific matter. Your only retort was to say that the origin of the brain is a matter for science therefore everything the brain things is a matter for science. Your argument in that regard is simply specious. You obviously flew into a hissy fit over it. Relax. Contrary opinions are not attacks on you.
You're an idiot. An overconfident, arrogant idiot who is actually WRONG but can't admit it and refuses to even consider contrary opinions, and evidenced by your inability to let anything another person says actually impact your thinking even the tiniest bit.
Wow. You are projecting, big time. I've been engaging in a rational discussion. You apparently like to pepper your statements with name calling.
For the record, if you had said anything that even remotely approached demonstrating that I was wrong, I would happily admit it. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again. I'm not, however, wrong now.
I absolutely have considered contrary opinions, including yours. I've rejected yours based on reason and evidence.
No, you have NOT been engaging in a rational position; "rational" does not include simply repeating the same thing over and over and hoping it sticks.
Your entire attitude thus far has been one of SUPREME arrogance and unwarranted surety in your position and a THOROUGH unwillingness to listen to anybody but yourself. I know you don't think that's the case, but that's just a symptom of exactly what I'm describing, bucko.
Dude, I've gotten into it with her before. I understand completely what you're saying. Though Bionic Dance is honest and sincere about what she believes, which definitely counts, you've got to be gentle, she's a warrior princess:)
Basically she asked The Youtube community to show her something that science cannot answer. You did. Now it's your fault:)
Would you incorporate your "well toned and shapely heiney" in your next video please? :-) And, don't you mean that they want to eat their cake and have it too? :-)
Yes, sure, whether there exists a god or gods can be a question that a scientist seeks to answer. However, your question was "name me something that isn't a matter for science in one shape or form - I dare you - I double dog dare you" at 1 minute into your video. You bet you could tell us how it was "a matter for science whatever aspect of the universe you bring up..."
Yes, well, again, I point to the fact that these are matters of the human brain; philosophy and morality did not just pop into existence.
Anthropology, archeology, biology, etc...these are all sciences which would discover the origins of things like morality and philosophy. How humans come up with them, what social pressures shaped them, etc.
The origins of morality have been studied in terms of a product of evolutionary biology, sure. However, whether one subscribes to a Kantian, Hegelian, Objectivist, Existentialist, Aristotelian, or some other philosophical milieu, or whether one derives their system of morality from Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism, Judaism, or whatever, is not a matter I've seen published in any peer reviewed journals. And, whether one enjoys Bach or Brahms or Metallica is likewise not subject to such study.
Science can tell us whether Sartes existentialism is correct and Rand's objectivism is wrong? Or can science determine that Pisarev's nihilism is the right thing? Or, does science tell us that Marcus Aurelius's Meditations are better guidance for right behavior than the Norse Havamal?
I've not posited anything having a stark yes or no answer. I've simply explained that what Gould and the NOMA proponents mean is that science doesn't explain "why" an action is moral or immoral or whether a certain philosophy is better or worse than another. That's what they mean. Where religion trespasses on science by making claims about the physical universe (origin of life, for example), then by all means - absolutely - that's a scientific area.
NOMA is a load of crap if someone advances it to say that science should not examine the question "do any gods exist?" That I do agree with. However, NOMA is not a load of crap when one asks a question of whether one should follow the Tao Te Ching's Taoist thought or Ayn Rand's Objectivism to govern their behavior.
I figure because there is no falsifiable theory one can come up with to show that the Tao Te Ching or Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a better guide to moral or right behavior. There are no repeatable observations or tests that can be made to support the assertion that one is a better guide to right/moral behavior than the other. There are no testable predictions that can be made either. Thus the scientific method does not work here. That's how I figure. How do you figure science can test it?
Thorns came after Adam's sin. Yeah, that makes sense.
But I can't figure out whether or not God created Adam and Eve with immune systems. If so, why, and if not, did He have to go back later and fix them?
In a similar vein, did God create Adam with reproductive organs? The same to questions apply?
I also can't understand why Jesus's crucifixion caused God to forgive us. If you were REALLY angry with some people and then they killed your child, wouldn't you be even angrier?
"it's still WRONG to compare making decisions without 100% certainty and making existence claims without evidence!"
But we do it all the time. You simply fail to see the obvious and that is that our faith decisions do in fact create existence or reality. For a good marriage to exist two people must first decide to get married without any proof that the marriage will be a good marriage. All they have is trust or faith in each other.
You trust we live in a god less world so you do. Others...?
Fair enough. This is your turf and you have the right to dismiss me. I will leave you then to your own counsel. But just before doing so please take the time to consider the possibility that it is you who fail to comprehend the discussion posted here and that it is you not me who is making category errors.
Thanks for responding. I enjoy your videos and will continue to subscribe to you.
"You trust we live in a god less world so you do."
What the hell? That sentence makes no sense. It would be like me saying "I trust I live in a world without rocks, therefore I do." No, I don't. There are still rocks, even if I'm absolutely certain there aren't. My own ignorance does not effect reality in any way.
God is the same way. If he exists, he exists, and people believing he doesn't have no impact on that.
Trusting that someone has the same emotions for you as you have for them before getting married is not them same as knowing for an absolute fact that that person, or being if you like, actually exists or not. You will never be able to fully grasp the questions raised in this video until you understand that concept.
For me, there are lots of scientific explanations, complexities within human nature, and also even relevance from texts in the holy book that are enough to tell me that there is a Great, Superior designer behind the workings of the world.
Oh well, to each his own, yeah?
By the way,please don't generalize. I saw in another comment you assume many people use God to justify discrimination and wars. In my religion, I don't. Unjustified discrimination is wrong in the core of religion.
Maybe that's enough for you; to me it looks like a lot of wishful thinking and bullshit. When someone has solid, scientific FACTS, that's when I'll start conceding that the idea has any merit. And not before.
And if you AREN'T using god to justify discrimination and wars, then you're not doing it right; all that shit's right there in your holy books, if you go take a look. Think about that, chief; I'll wait.
Hello. The actions of violent so-called extremists don't determine my religion as a whole. I am a Muslim, and in the Holy Quran, it states that yes we have to fight in self-defense, but .. "..Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.." Al-Baqarah, Verse 193. We are only allowed to do so against oppressors. How is that discrimination instead of self defense?
Oh, please; one has only to look at the sheer brutality of Islam in the Middle East and the riots over cartoons in Denmark to know that Islam is only a religion of peace when it's convenient.
You know what. I actually usually don't mind debating or discussing issues with atheists.. But not ones who are ignorant, judgmental, close-minded like you :) Sorry for coming across your videos and disturbing your space. Can't be bothered to discuss with you further. Goodbye~ sayonara
I just showed you a tiny piece of evidence (from the book). Being quick to generalize a group of people based on their faith without questioning the generalization - is close-minded. But yeah I guess to each his own. Last comment, bye.
You think I'm QUICK to generalize a group of people? You think you're the FIRST religious person I've met, Muslim or not? You think this is the FIRST time I've encountered these religious ideas?
Thanks for accepting the video reponse; I thought with you being an animator you might enjoy my creative collab work. I wasn't aware you did the C666 Olympic animation until NSC mentioned you. Did Coughlan ever credit you for doing that for him?
I'm currently seeking out creative folk of a like mind and would certainly be interested in doing something in the future. Please let me know if you're interested. My next vid will give you a better idea of what I have in mind that might interest you.
Well, I admit that I was a little confused by that video response, since it wasn't related to the topic of my vid, but it WAS an interesting watch.
Coughlan mentioned me once in a blogTV chatroom, but I've basically let that go; I remembered that I did it primarily to be part of the event, and not to be sung from the rooftops.
Anyway, I might be willing to collaborate, though my webcomic is taking up the bulk of my free time these days. But if I like the project...
And whatever you may say, I think a credit on the graphic would have been the decent thing to do. Using someone else's work without accreditation just isn't very nice - it's just like using someone, really. I know I'd feel screwed over by that, but anyhoo, enough about that.
Keep on with the vid making; they're great.
And good luck with the comic. I look forward to checking it out.
Good stuff! A few questions. What software do you use to create that? How long have you been doing this line of work? Are you still out of work? I hope it ain't so!
Mostly i used Adobe Premiere, though some of the graphics were done in 3D Studio MAX.
I've been doing 3D animation since about 1992, though only professionally since 1999.
And yes, still out of work. But I've started a webcomic for which I can probably sell merchandise and applied for YouTube partnership; that should keep me in booze and hookers for a while, neh?
I think I have a good chance; my subscriber base is increasing steadily, my account is in good standing, I'm reliably putting out a vid a week...true, ads are annoying, but frankly, I'd like to think my subs would WANT me to, you know, have money so I can KEEP making vids, so ads would be a small price to pay, neh? :)
Very important video! And it's not only Gould, this argument is still raging (if science and religion are compatible). You have a wonderful argument here. Not entirely new, philhelenes touched on this, I forget in which video - in his book, Steven Hawkins tells about a delegation of scientists to the Vatican, talking to the Pope. And the Pope says: "Ok, you study the universe in the past to the big bang, but not beyond that". And philhelenes said ; Why stop? Lets study how god did it?
As far as I can tell, faith is just a lie we tell ourselves; it has nothing to do with the truth. Faith is a hope that has overgrown itself, faith is a guess on steroids; it has nothing to do with reality. We might be right, we might be wrong...but I'd rather be right than wrong, frankly, and it takes KNOWLEDGE to know the difference.
Faith can never give us that. So why is having faith a good thing?
I agree.... but this is what a theist might say. Faith is a fundamental part of their religion that they believe is required by their god for some great unknowable reason and is their fore good no matter what you say.
*shrugs shoulders* Its nuts i know but we aren't dealing with rational people here.
I am not quite sure if I am accurate about what you meant by "faith" in this sense.
Well how about having faith in your own thoughts..If you believe that faith is just a lie, then how can you have enough faith to believe that you can trust your own scientific reasoning and deductive thoughts when you know you still have a lot of limitations?
Like it or not, unconsciously or consciously, faith is somewhat intertwined with our being. Each of us just define or grow to understand it differently.
Faith, in the religious sense, means "belief without proof"; you don't get see interact with god on an empirical level, not in any way that is CLEARLY distinct from your own thoughts and feelings, yet you're told you must believe anyway.
...which means you COULD just be talking to yourself or engaging in self-hypnosis; there is no reason to believe that god is real.
THAT kind of faith, I cannot have. And it's radically different from the kind of faith you just talked about.
There are a lot of abstract things in this world that do not require scientific reasoning - like the complexities within love and friendship, you cannot even define them in Science, how does it make any of those things less real?
How is believing in God - "belief without proof" just because we cannot see God with our eyes or physically feel God's presence? In actual fact, our knowledge is not only limited to just accepting things that can only be seen with the naked human eye or physically felt
You are right. Human existence without faith--trust--in and on many levels would be all but impossible.We have, for example, faith or trust that the unverse as it is revealed to our senses or the senses of the scientist is in fact real. But is it? Certainly some branches or schools of physics should cause all of us to question our faith in the realness of the universe and our separation from the universe. I have faith therefore I exist.
I sometime think if I couldn't emperically prove I love my wife some of you gee-whiz-hyper-science groupies would say my love doesn't exist, that it isn't real, etc. etc. etc.
People talk about love being "real" as if it were an object, as if it had an existence outside of one's own head.
Isn't love really just a very, very strong opinion, when you come right down to it? Does love have any existence independent of you and your mind? When you feel love for someone, is that love independent of you?
I would say no. This does not devalue it in any way, but let's call a spade a spade here; love doesn't "exist" outside of your own self.
Perhaps when it comes to love the poets speak more eloquently than do scientists. Not everything that is important to human beings needs to be proven. Some things like love need only be celebrated and appreciated not proven.
See my objection to your video does not rest on whether god exists or not, but the notion that only one group of people are allowed to speak for the human experience: scientists.
See, I wasn't TALKING about the human experience; that wasn't the point of the video.
The question is about what exists, what is REAL. If god doesn't exist, that changes a lot of things. Many, many people use god as an excuse to be really crappy to other people, to scare them, the discriminate against them, to control their lives, to start wars; if god isn't real, I want to know it! If gos IS real, I want to know it.
Of course God is of science. God and science are intrinsically joined. You will find a staggering number of scientists and doctors who know of God simply because of their work in his fields; ie.. sciences and medicine. Science is divine. God is ineffable yes, but that doesn't mean we can't follow some of his threads. Just because we CAN follow a thread here or there by no means means we know what the garment is. How presumptuous. How typically self richeous.
xUbastardx 1 year ago
2:22 lmfao hahaha
helljumper561 2 years ago
wo wo wo dont dis william lane creig he uses science in his debates
Viz731 2 years ago
Billy Lane Craig NOSTRILS RAPES science in his debates!
Check out Th1sWasATriumph's series on why WLC is full of shit:
/watch?v=veB1uUOv6Vg
/watch?v=aixbI7qKNlg
/watch?v=Bne7JB9FSms
/watch?v=PxRFXdvBwS0
/watch?v=yib7Kwx6Ojw
BionicDance 2 years ago
Any modern fifth grader could instruct Aquinas (an enthusiastic torturer and persecutor) in biology, cosmology, chemistry, physics, and a dozen other disciplines. He was a man of his time; but he warrants little adulation.
purbrookian 2 years ago
Science is a subset of mathematics, logic, and philosophy.
isotelesis1 2 years ago
You say ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments are torn up logic? That must be a joke, because wasn't it the greatest philsoophers and logicians that came up with it? Aristotle, Plato? Even the great Einstein followed what you call torn up logic:
The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence.
ogirv101 2 years ago
No, it really WASN'T; it was the WORST philosophers and logicians who came up with it; wishful thinkers, primitive people with not enough background in critical thinking to know that their arguments had absolutely no basis behind them. People who, frankly, needed a good strong dose of REALITY.
Reality is the antidote to faith.
BionicDance 2 years ago
So Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas (man who joined Christian Theology and Greek philosophy to begin Universities in Europe, which would later make the foundation of modern Science?). These people were wishful thinkers? Thomas Aquinas refuted all Atheistic arguments before there were Atheists around to discuss it, I think he did too much critical thinking. Furthermore there dose of reality is what started Science in the first place.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Thomas Aquinas ESPECIALLY; his arguments have no factual basis behind them AT ALL.
And there is NO SUCH THING as "too much critical thinking"; obviously both you and he have done far too little.
BionicDance 2 years ago
So you're saying Thomas Aquinas did little? In History he's one of the most influential people of all time, he unified Greek Philosophy and Christian Theology to advance Western Philosophy. He and his peers are the reason why widespread Education started in Europe, and these Universities that came out of Scholasticism are the reason for modern Science. Aquinas' and his peers invented a method of awnsering questions and educating. Compared to you, a person who makes youtube videos....
ogirv101 2 years ago
I don't care how much Aquinas DID; what matters is the basis BEHIND what he did, and he was a complete MORON with no logical thinking skills whatsoever.
There are plenty of people out there who did much with little intelligence; how much someone has accomplished has NOTHING to do with whether or not they were correct in their thinking.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Thats a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeroes. Now lets start off with just 37 zeroes, the precision of the electron Charge is 1:10^37. That can be thought out as, taking quarters placing them around North America, piling them to the moon, doing this with a billion more times while marking one coin is the precision of 37 zeroes, now imagine the below calculation, now imagine them together with the 71+ similar constants.
ogirv101 2 years ago
So Aquinas was a moron, how amusing this coming from you. No comment, let the public decide what's true and what's a retarted thought.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Oh, but he WAS. His premises were all predicated on assumptions which were outright false and frankly laughable. His logic would have been sound if those assumptions were true, but they really, really, REALLY weren't.
No go away; I have intelligent people to talk to.
BionicDance 2 years ago
LMAO, you didn't refute anything. All you did was make appeal to ridicule fallacies and ad hominems, and I know you lost because the loser always starts with insults and blocks people denying freedom of speech. If you ever decide to be rational, use logic, and allow freedom of speech, I'll be here, this is proof to all viwers that you're a fascist. -Ogirv101
teenchrist101 2 years ago
I blocked you because you're obviously not interested in critical thinking and your mind is closed to any possibilities but those you've already decided are correct.
You come in here all aggressive and full of fire and completely ignoring everything I say and you expect me to just put up with it?
I don't think so.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable." -Albert Einstein
ogirv101 2 years ago
...and? That's not an argument for a deity, not by a long shot. There are so many things which are subtle, intangible, and inexplicable; what makes you think it can't be something as simple as a fractal equation, from which so much complexity is possible?
BionicDance 2 years ago
So a mathematic equation is the cause of the Universe? That makes no sense, second of all you obviously don't understand the Cosmological argument, that's the argument I'm making combined with telelogical and ontological arguments.
ogirv101 2 years ago
It makes PERFECT sense...provided you know what a fractal actually is, what it can do, what it can produce.
And it makes a LOT more sense than "a magical, invisible man in the sky did it". *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 2 years ago
I know what a fractal is, but how does this relate to the existance of the Universe. Do you accept the Big Bang Theory? If you do you have to accept that at one point the dimensions of our Universe, and it's existence thereof at one point, did not exist. Something must have caused it, we don't know what that is, but from the looks of our laws, constants, and the precision of them many of us can philosophically, mathematically, and logically conclude a Creator.
ogirv101 2 years ago
BULLSHIT. Bull fucking shit.
The laws and constants of the universe do nothing of the kind...unless you engage in wishful thinking. You should not INFER a creator without actual evidence OF a creator; seeing order in things is NOT such evidence.
Again, think of a fractal; it's a SIMPLE equation from which much complexity can come and it doesn't NEED a creator to exist. Such could it be with the universe.
And no, Big Bang theory does NOT say the universe didn't exist prior to it, moron.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"unless you engage in wishful thinking."
The existance of low entropy during the Big Bang, according to Roger Penrose mathematics professor at oxford University and Stephen Hawkin's collegue, is calculated to have a precision of 1:10^10^123. That is 1 in 1 followed by a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeroes. That number can't even be written if we took all atoms and fundamental particles in the Universe.
ogirv101 2 years ago
3:37
You're also looking at Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and many of the greatest philosophers of all time. They're philosophical arguments for the existance of God, and maybe if you haven't noticed (or you're just being a complete dumbass) the existance of God can't be scientifically verifiable because Science has a limit mutual to Nature. Anything outside nature can't be verified by Science, and people below mention Immanuel Kant, great example.
ogirv101 2 years ago
According to scripture, god has manipulated this world, the empirical world, thus making his existence a matter for science. If god never manipulated this world at all, ever, his existence would be irrelevant.
No matter how you slice it, god's existence can ONLY be proved by science.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"According to scripture, god has manipulated this world, the empirical world"
Yes, it's a little obvious that something or someone has tampered with the laws and constants of our Universe, but we barely know anything about the Big bang, and Science can never understand what caused the Big Bang. Science is a form of understanding nature, and nothing more, we can make a philosophical basis through Science that there is a Creator, but you want empirical proof of God? Are you Okay?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Science is a method of drawing conclusions--however tentative pending new information--from empirical data; if a deity tampered with this world, it would leave traces which science could discover, examine, analyze.
How is that NOT empirical proof? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 2 years ago
Science is a method of understanding nature, creating theories that can be repeateable, and from that we draw conclusions based off empiricism. Science has limits, for example the Multiverse hypothesis is not real Science considering you cannot find empirical evidence or a repeatable theory. The evidence you want are indirect evidence of a Creator, well people make conclusions through Science but everything is debateable. the precision of the Universe's laws and Constants are some form of proof.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Nobody has ever found ANYTHING empirical which indicates that there is or ever was a god of any kind, only evidence that people are willing to believe in such a creature.
The most reasonable conclusion given the evidence is that there is no god.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Art.
JonnyBrotherJr 2 years ago
0:59 Fem-Nazi Satanic hand sign.
OregonHerbalist 2 years ago
Not seeing Fem-Nzai in there, but she's DEFINITELY throwing up the horns.
...so?
BionicDance 2 years ago
Awesome job Kate! Solid logic & superb graphics!
You have a well-toned and shapely hiney? Nice to know! :-)
5 star & faved!
1RationalMind 2 years ago
Oh come on atheists try to prove that there is no God, but u have not proven anything. And you might say "i have already proven that there is no GOD" then why do keep saying it.
brbjuke45 2 years ago
I haven't said that there is no god, and I certainly won't say that I've PROVED there is no god.
What I WILL say is that there is NO GOOD REASON to believe in a god due to the lack of evidence, and that religious faith is NOT A Good Thing™.
And I will ALSO say that various religions make claims about their gods that CAN be proved untrue, like Noah's Ark and the flood, so SPECIFIC gods can be disproved even if you cannot prove that there is no god AT ALL.
BionicDance 2 years ago
well u will never disprove God's existence
brbjuke45 2 years ago
Of course not, but that isn't the issue. It's a matter of creditable evidence eitherway..............that being, the evidence favours non-existense, or at least the lack of need for God to exist
LitterboxDiorama 2 years ago
I don't have to; it's up to you theist types to PROVE god's existence, otherwise belief in the fucker is simply ludicrous.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Oh many have prove God"s existence. and theres the bible. And of course u dont believe in the bible well thats ur problem
brbjuke45 2 years ago
Clearly I'm superfluous; veggiescrub and BaileysBeads have done my arguing FOR me. Heh. ;)
Thanks, guys!
BionicDance 2 years ago
Do YOU believe the Bible? ALL of it?
And by "ALL" I mean ALL - flat earth, sun orbits the earth, talking snakes, etc.
Well, DO you?
Gooberlicious54 2 years ago
its better than what u believe in. Nothing created everyting, life came nowhere, and we evolved from monkeys
brbjuke45 2 years ago
i will look into the flat earth statement, and the sun orbit earth statement.
Now im fimiliar with the serpent who spoke.
I know it seems out of this world, in your mind. But the universe is full of mystery.
Even the notion of aliens and things is considered by skeptics and atheists or agnostics, etc.
We have to be open minded. Its the 21st century. We cant handicap ourselves with militant loyalty to mere logic and rationalism.
Modern science doesnt have all the answers.
fallenwillrise 2 years ago
MERE logic and rationalism?
Sorry, but that's all we can use to find actual answers.
FreePlay 2 years ago
dont apologize, i understand what you mean, but you have to understand that our human body, and its senses are very limited.
Im intrigued and fascinated with comments Immanuel Kant made concerning the metaphysical. He said that the human apparatus is very limited to perceive everything.
Its our own finite brains that have a great short coming. Just because we cant see it with our shabby excuse for vision, doesnt mean we have to rule it out totally.
Open your mind. Its exciting, trust me
fallenwillrise 2 years ago
"Just because we cant see it with our shabby excuse for vision, doesnt mean we have to rule it out totally."
It also doesn't mean we should believe it. And I'm well aware of Kant's concepts of the noumenon and phenomenon :)
FreePlay 2 years ago
really? :)
well, we dont HAVE to believe it. but i think its a respectable position to consider and hold.
Anyone who is intellectually honest will arrive at the conclusion that a creator is possible.
Whether they see it as probable enough in their book is a different story.
We lean one way or another...tword thinking and belief that a creator is real...or tword a more naturalistic leaning, minus a creator.
I want to order the book critique of practical reason' by Kant. Its interesting.
fallenwillrise 2 years ago
Yes, a creator is possible. I just don't particularly see any reason to believe it's likely. I don't see any reason to assume that, without a divine being behind it all, there should be nothing rather than something.
FreePlay 2 years ago
I liked the video. But i would say that the universe is far from being understood. Look at the brain we use. We dont use it at its highest volume notch, so to speak.
The fact that the conversation is still going and going about God is exciting to me.
I think spirituality will get a respectable place within science. or perhaps we need another term for a different sort of science.
Because remember, science isnt even totally for sure, within itself.
Be open minded. Faith isnt a bad thing
fallenwillrise 2 years ago
I'd hardly call not believing the Bible a problem.
FreePlay 2 years ago
well thats what u believe that the bible is fake. but its not
brbjuke45 2 years ago
I'm afraid it is. It's just a big book of mythology.
FreePlay 2 years ago
well yea be afraid of it. and how is it a book of mythology.
brbjuke45 2 years ago
Talking snakes and donkeys? Men living in fishes for three days? This doesn't seem like mythology to you?
Were you raised with the idea that Jack and the Beanstalk was a holy text and the Bible was a fairy tale, you'd be arguing precisely the same things, just for a different book.
FreePlay 2 years ago
no its not. thats all u focues on. what about what jesus did for u
brbjuke45 2 years ago
Jesus did nothing for me. He died. That's it.
FreePlay 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
exactly. he died for u. he died for all of us. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16)
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (Luke 19:10) Jesus loves u man
brbjuke45 2 years ago
He didn't die for me. He just died, like everyone else that dies.
FreePlay 2 years ago
Are u kidding me? he only came to earth to died for u. its in the bible.
brbjuke45 2 years ago
The Bible is a fairy tale.
FreePlay 2 years ago
Ah yes... the bible. A book where all its claims is only supported with its own references stated inside the very same book. Yay! Rock solid evidence!
Koss42 2 years ago
first of all, if knew anything about the bible, is the it has many book written by many different people in different times. i bet u really really never read a bible huh
brbjuke45 2 years ago
I hope you get it now. We are not trying to disprove, it's not possible. We are waiting for you to prove, and try to explain why a god would create a universe, and create creatures simply to have the vast majority of them fail. And the only thing required of them to pass is to pick the right god and believe in him, with no evidence as to why that god and not any of the others. OK. I lets assume you are right, and there is a god, now what? Which one? and which interpretation of that one?
veggiescrub 2 years ago
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
Awesome video, especially right now that this issue of whether science and religion can be reconciled is being debated in so many science blogs. I agree that religion is science cannot be reconciled.
Also, great use of the B5 music : )
mjr256 2 years ago
HOWEVER - where "a" religion makes an empirical claim (for example, "the universe was created by some kind of being...") then of course that can also be a scientific claim. So, Dawkins is correct too. I don't think Gould meant to say that the Hale-Bopp Comet religion/cult's claim that there was a spaceship in the tail of the comet is NOMA. Gould's language is clear that he was talking about morality claims, not empirical ones. (Hopefully this won't make you angry).
prospero811 2 years ago
Gould said, "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)." Gould here is limiting religion to the ephemeral questions, and in that regard religion and science are NOMA.
prospero811 2 years ago
Thank you! I never understood what Dawkins meant by "the universe created by a God is a different one from the universe which isn't created". After watching your video, that's totally clear. Very well explained, thanks! And the pictures are extremely lovely!
dattelpalme83 2 years ago
where seed has no life soil is not live but when both comes together its ALLAH who makes thousands of grains from a single seed can ur science make it ,.................can ur science create a rain can ur science stop death can ur science stop age...........& ur science is clueless ........SCIENCE IS ONLY A MEDIUM FOR GOD NOT ULTIMATE OPTION
MUMTAJIZ 2 years ago
Look, I don't want to suppress your opinion or anything, but...right now you're being more disruptive than reasonably contributing; I don't feel inclined to respond to this as presented.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Any reasoned comparison of my posts with yours will reveal that I have been polite and to the point, and stuck strictly within the constraints of the challenge you made. I thought that you had dared people to respond - double dog dared. I suppose instead you were soliciting agreement. O.k., you're smarter than Stephen J. Gould, and his NOMA idea is pure idiocy. He's full of crap. Happy? Cheers. Last post.
prospero811 2 years ago
What is the science behind a seed becomng a BIG TREE?
MUMTAJIZ 2 years ago
Science doesn't seek to answer questions concerning whether jerking off is good or bad, for example. Making people feel guilty about diddling themselves is the province of religion. :-)
prospero811 2 years ago
Of COURSE science seeks to answer questions like that! If jerking off is BAD, medical science will discover it!
But if by "bad", you mean MORALLY bad, certainly science has a thing or two to say about where human morality even COMES from in the first place, so again, it's a matter for science.
You keep trying to draw a stark dividing line, but where there are lines AT ALL, they are very fuzzy and murky, and not drawn straight.
BionicDance 2 years ago
No, medical science can determine whether jerking off is medically harmful, helpful, or neither. Whether it is "bad" is a value judgment - like whether or not premarital sex is bad.
If you've got a peer reviewed article where science has studied whether a certain action is moral or immoral, I'd love to see it.
Whoever said anything about fuzzy, murky or stark lines? You are saying there is no line at all.
prospero811 2 years ago
Why humanity considers such a thing good or bad is a function of the BRAIN. And brains are part of medical science, thus...a matter for science!
Again,if it's something in or of the empirical realm, it's a matter for science one way or another.
Cope.
BionicDance 2 years ago
I am not sure that you are coping here. Whether philosophy can exist without biology or whether the brain function is required to make a determination of right and wrong does not mean that questions of morality and art appreciation are scientific ones.
Once again - how is the assertion that Marcus Aurelius's Meditations is a better guide to right behavior than the Norse Havamal a scientific question?
prospero811 2 years ago
I've already explained why it IS a scientific question,and you don't seem to even UNDERSTAND the answer. How about you explain why you think it ISN'T a scientific question? Lay your cards on the table and let's see where the disconnect is.
BionicDance 2 years ago
First of all, no you haven't explained why any of my specific examples are scientific question. However, I will assert that art appreciation is not a matter of scientific inquiry because it is a matter of personal opinion, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and whether one is better than the other cannot be measured scientifically. Similarly, whether Aurelius'sMeditations or the Havamal is a better guide to a good life or right behavior depends on subjective concepts (what is good, etc.)
prospero811 2 years ago
First of all, I'm NOT GOING to explain why your specific examples are matters for scientific inquiry because you could do that FOREVER. Each of those specific examples if part of a larger umbrella of topics which ARE matters for scientific inquiry, so THAT'S the answer you get.
And, again, opinions are formed in the brain, the brain is a matter for science.
You still haven't explained WHY you think matters of opinion aren't matters for science. Explain how science is exclued from the question
BionicDance 2 years ago
I've explained how my examples are not matters for science. You can't explain how they are, and in fact you've acknowledged that they, in fact, aren't. You've merely claimed that they are part of a "larger ubrella." That's like saying that biology wouldn't exist without chemistry, therefore biology is really chemistry (the larger umbrella) and chemistry wouldn't exist without nuclear physics, so therefore it's all nuclear physics.
prospero811 2 years ago
Sure, of course opinions are formed in the brain. That doesn't mean that whether Objectivism is a correct philosophy or Epicureanism is a better one is a scientific question. It's a philosophical question. It makes not one bit of difference that the brain's structure and origin can be explained by science. The rightness of a philosophy can't.
prospero811 2 years ago
NOMA is all about differentiating the "what" and "how" questions (science) from the "why?" questions (religion/philosophy). However, your point is obviously valid insofar as when religious people make claims about the physical world (virgin births, winged horses, waters parting, arks, floods, energy fields, energy transfers curing disease (reiki/chakras), etc.), then obviously they trespass into the "what/how" area.
prospero811 2 years ago
The way NOMA is used--especially with regards to evolution, but also with regards to the existence of god--is to say that matters of science and matters of god do not intersect.
And, frankly, I have never seen evidence to indicate that there is anything BUT the physical world, and all things are dependent upon it; if you have evidence otherwise, do please share with the group.
BionicDance 2 years ago
NOMA, when I've heard it explained, distinguishes the "why" questions from the scientific ones. It's kind of like saying that science can build a gun, but it doesn't tell you when it's right to fire it. Can science tell us whether a shooting was justified?
I've not posited anything about something existing other than the "physical" world. I assume, however, that with the word "physical" you ware including thoughts, feelings, consciousness, gravity, strong/weak forces, electromagnetsm...
prospero811 2 years ago
By "physical", I meant "empirical".
Thoughts and feelings are governed by biology, an empirical science. And it's the same with all the others.
There is NOTHING about this world that isn't governed by the empirical realm. Nothing.
BionicDance 2 years ago
How is the assertion that Wagner was a great composer, but Beethoven sucked, or vice versa, a matter for science?
prospero811 2 years ago
Opinions are formed by brains and cultures, both of which are matters for various branches of science.
You cannot escape that; without a brain, NONE of these opinions would be possible, therefore they are matters for science. EVERYTHING comes down to science.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Again - science can explain how a mind works, how it evolved, how to fix it, what it's made of, etc. etc. - but it can't tell us who is better, Metallica or Megadeth. That does not come down to science. Does it? If so, explain how science can tell us who is better, Metallica or Megadeth.
prospero811 2 years ago
That's being NEITHER is better; OPINIONS ARE NOT ABSOLUTES, and the question is, frankly, entirely moot. It has no answer.
But the formation of opinion IS a matter for science. And thus, the question ITSELF is a matter for science because of the biological brains which form it and which form opinions ON it.
BionicDance 2 years ago
So, if whether Wagner is better than Beethoven is a matter for science, then explain how the question can be answered scientifically? What kind of theory would be propounded to explain it? Have similar theories been published in peer reviewed journals? Of course not. You're basically admitting that I'm right when you say "opinions are not absolutes" and "it has no answer." Why not just admit that I rose to your challenge? Art appreciation is not a matter for science.- it's mere opinion.
prospero811 2 years ago
Opinions ARE a matter for science, like I've been saying.
And I am REALLY close to insulting you for being so obtuse and forcing me to say the same thing over and over and over.
Either come up with an ACTUAL counter to that argument, bring up something new, shut up, or be blocked; pick one.
BionicDance 2 years ago
You are really taking this rather personally. I'm obtuse because I understand what Stephen J. Gould and the National Academy of Sciences and others like Eugenie Scott mean when they propound the NOMA. Of course science can venture into the existence of gods. However, as Gould propounded methodological naturalism upon which science is based offers no insight into what is morally right (and the "why?" questions).
prospero811 2 years ago
And, I never said opinions weren't a matter for science. YOU are the one who brought up the idea that the opinion on "which is better?" was impossible to answer and "moot." But, it's NOT impossible to answer because people answer it all the time in art appreciation and philosophy classes. They develop arguments about which is better, and some opinions become more persuasive than others, but science takes no side. That's why there are things that science can't answer: NOMA.
prospero811 2 years ago
No, they DON'T "answer" these questions, that's the point; they render OPINIONS, not provide ANSWERS.
And I'm sick of arguing this with you; you don't have the LEAST clue what you're talking about, you refuse to actually answer any of my questions in any reasonable way, and you just keep repeating the same bullshit over and over as if it actually MEANS something. *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 2 years ago
Science doesn't either. And that was your question - whether there were things outside of the purview of science. Of course morality or right/wrong behavior, or quality of art or music is a matter of opinion. One person's answer may be that Taoism is the right way and another's may be that Shintoism is the right way or Hinduism, etc. Your question was "name me something that isn't a matter for science." These matters of opinion are not matters for science. I've shown that clearly.
prospero811 2 years ago
I am not sure why you are getting so vitriolic. My posts clearly show that I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about and I'm quite familiar with the NOMA arguments of both Gould and Eugenie Scott. I have answered your questions and I've done so in detail and politely. You asked the question - you did - you invited the public to answer your question - no, you dared, actually. So, I did so. Now I'm a bit sorry I have. Cheers.
prospero811 2 years ago
No. All your posts clearly show is that you are very confident in what you're saying, not that you aren't talking crap.
And when someone points out where it's crap and why, you ignore it and just spew the same bullshit over and over as if it'll change anything.
I'm done talking to you, Brickwall.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Ummm...of course I'm confident in what I'm saying. I'm correct on this issue. It is really silly to say that whether Taoism is a good guide for right/wrong behavior or morality is a scientific matter. Your only retort was to say that the origin of the brain is a matter for science therefore everything the brain things is a matter for science. Your argument in that regard is simply specious. You obviously flew into a hissy fit over it. Relax. Contrary opinions are not attacks on you.
prospero811 2 years ago
You're an idiot. An overconfident, arrogant idiot who is actually WRONG but can't admit it and refuses to even consider contrary opinions, and evidenced by your inability to let anything another person says actually impact your thinking even the tiniest bit.
And I'm done talking to you.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Wow. You are projecting, big time. I've been engaging in a rational discussion. You apparently like to pepper your statements with name calling.
For the record, if you had said anything that even remotely approached demonstrating that I was wrong, I would happily admit it. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again. I'm not, however, wrong now.
I absolutely have considered contrary opinions, including yours. I've rejected yours based on reason and evidence.
prospero811 2 years ago
No, you have NOT been engaging in a rational position; "rational" does not include simply repeating the same thing over and over and hoping it sticks.
Your entire attitude thus far has been one of SUPREME arrogance and unwarranted surety in your position and a THOROUGH unwillingness to listen to anybody but yourself. I know you don't think that's the case, but that's just a symptom of exactly what I'm describing, bucko.
Now go away; I have reasonable people to talk to.
BionicDance 2 years ago
"rational" does not include simply repeating the same thing over and over and hoping it sticks"
It doesn't, Kate?? But, then, um.....what method can the theists use? Don't take away ALL their toys! lol
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
Oh, I'm not taking away ALL their toys...
...they can still molest altar boys. :P
BionicDance 2 years ago
Ahahahahahahah!
Koss42 2 years ago
Lol. How dare you give her what she asked for and stay calm about it!?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Dude, I've gotten into it with her before. I understand completely what you're saying. Though Bionic Dance is honest and sincere about what she believes, which definitely counts, you've got to be gentle, she's a warrior princess:)
Basically she asked The Youtube community to show her something that science cannot answer. You did. Now it's your fault:)
She's cool, just gets a little feisty.
vbfl920 2 years ago
I like feisty.
prospero811 2 years ago
Would you incorporate your "well toned and shapely heiney" in your next video please? :-) And, don't you mean that they want to eat their cake and have it too? :-)
prospero811 2 years ago
Art and music appreciation are not matters for science either.
prospero811 2 years ago
Oh, I see where you're gong with this.
But those ARE matters for science, when it comes right down to it.
After all, what appreciates music? Your brain. And brains are a matter for science.
And musical theory IS a science in and of itself, which musical appreciation studies.
It's all connected.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Philosophy is not a matter of science. Moral teachings, etc., are not scientifically discernible.
prospero811 2 years ago
But existence is not a question of philosophy, nor is it a moral teaching; existence it's a matter for science.
Thus, the existence of god is a scientific question.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Yes, sure, whether there exists a god or gods can be a question that a scientist seeks to answer. However, your question was "name me something that isn't a matter for science in one shape or form - I dare you - I double dog dare you" at 1 minute into your video. You bet you could tell us how it was "a matter for science whatever aspect of the universe you bring up..."
prospero811 2 years ago
Yes, well, again, I point to the fact that these are matters of the human brain; philosophy and morality did not just pop into existence.
Anthropology, archeology, biology, etc...these are all sciences which would discover the origins of things like morality and philosophy. How humans come up with them, what social pressures shaped them, etc.
It ALL comes down to science in the end.
BionicDance 2 years ago
The origins of morality have been studied in terms of a product of evolutionary biology, sure. However, whether one subscribes to a Kantian, Hegelian, Objectivist, Existentialist, Aristotelian, or some other philosophical milieu, or whether one derives their system of morality from Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism, Judaism, or whatever, is not a matter I've seen published in any peer reviewed journals. And, whether one enjoys Bach or Brahms or Metallica is likewise not subject to such study.
prospero811 2 years ago
Oh, of COURSE it is; the study of human behavior, psychology, etc.
Surely you don't think those decisions come out of NOWHERE, do you? That they're entirely random?
Those decisions come from human brains and CAN be studied.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Science can tell us whether Sartes existentialism is correct and Rand's objectivism is wrong? Or can science determine that Pisarev's nihilism is the right thing? Or, does science tell us that Marcus Aurelius's Meditations are better guidance for right behavior than the Norse Havamal?
prospero811 2 years ago
Yes. The problem is, you won't like the answer because it's not a stark black-or-white, yes-or-no answer.
Turns out that the universe is full of NUANCE. Shame, that.
BionicDance 2 years ago
I've not posited anything having a stark yes or no answer. I've simply explained that what Gould and the NOMA proponents mean is that science doesn't explain "why" an action is moral or immoral or whether a certain philosophy is better or worse than another. That's what they mean. Where religion trespasses on science by making claims about the physical universe (origin of life, for example), then by all means - absolutely - that's a scientific area.
prospero811 2 years ago
Philosophy cannot exist without biology. Thus, NOMA is a load of crap.
BionicDance 2 years ago
NOMA is a load of crap if someone advances it to say that science should not examine the question "do any gods exist?" That I do agree with. However, NOMA is not a load of crap when one asks a question of whether one should follow the Tao Te Ching's Taoist thought or Ayn Rand's Objectivism to govern their behavior.
prospero811 2 years ago
How do you figure?
BionicDance 2 years ago
I figure because there is no falsifiable theory one can come up with to show that the Tao Te Ching or Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a better guide to moral or right behavior. There are no repeatable observations or tests that can be made to support the assertion that one is a better guide to right/moral behavior than the other. There are no testable predictions that can be made either. Thus the scientific method does not work here. That's how I figure. How do you figure science can test it?
prospero811 2 years ago
Indeed ★★★★★
Katalyzt 2 years ago
The cake has scientificaly been proven to be a lie.
devdred 2 years ago
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
BionicDance 2 years ago
awesome vid.
is the question of whether life has objective meaning a question for science? i would suggest philosophy
popeyroach 2 years ago
Here we go again with the white noise.
Presuppose a creator god and then attribute reality to it, why not? lulz
If.....
HumanStrategy 2 years ago
Thorns came after Adam's sin. Yeah, that makes sense.
But I can't figure out whether or not God created Adam and Eve with immune systems. If so, why, and if not, did He have to go back later and fix them?
In a similar vein, did God create Adam with reproductive organs? The same to questions apply?
I also can't understand why Jesus's crucifixion caused God to forgive us. If you were REALLY angry with some people and then they killed your child, wouldn't you be even angrier?
AlanCFA 2 years ago 2
Love your voice. Love your ideas.
216trixie 2 years ago
Was that god creating a terraformed Mars?
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago
It's just a picture I found on the intarwebz; no idea what it is. :)
BionicDance 2 years ago
"it's still WRONG to compare making decisions without 100% certainty and making existence claims without evidence!"
But we do it all the time. You simply fail to see the obvious and that is that our faith decisions do in fact create existence or reality. For a good marriage to exist two people must first decide to get married without any proof that the marriage will be a good marriage. All they have is trust or faith in each other.
You trust we live in a god less world so you do. Others...?
JohnFredricksen 2 years ago
You have no idea what the topic of this discussion is, you continue to make category errors, and we're simply talking past each other.
I'm done with you unless you can demonstrate even the tiniest ounce of comprehension.
Good day.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Fair enough. This is your turf and you have the right to dismiss me. I will leave you then to your own counsel. But just before doing so please take the time to consider the possibility that it is you who fail to comprehend the discussion posted here and that it is you not me who is making category errors.
Thanks for responding. I enjoy your videos and will continue to subscribe to you.
See ya.
JohnFredricksen 2 years ago
I am surprised you engaged him as long as you did....lights are on, but nobody's home.
biggregg5 2 years ago
I find it difficult to resist a good debate.
...which actually pisses off a lot of people, but hey... :)
BionicDance 2 years ago
"You trust we live in a god less world so you do."
What the hell? That sentence makes no sense. It would be like me saying "I trust I live in a world without rocks, therefore I do." No, I don't. There are still rocks, even if I'm absolutely certain there aren't. My own ignorance does not effect reality in any way.
God is the same way. If he exists, he exists, and people believing he doesn't have no impact on that.
Hooya2 2 years ago 2
Trusting that someone has the same emotions for you as you have for them before getting married is not them same as knowing for an absolute fact that that person, or being if you like, actually exists or not. You will never be able to fully grasp the questions raised in this video until you understand that concept.
gedt123 2 years ago
For me, there are lots of scientific explanations, complexities within human nature, and also even relevance from texts in the holy book that are enough to tell me that there is a Great, Superior designer behind the workings of the world.
Oh well, to each his own, yeah?
By the way,please don't generalize. I saw in another comment you assume many people use God to justify discrimination and wars. In my religion, I don't. Unjustified discrimination is wrong in the core of religion.
izzatiizzatiizzati 2 years ago
Maybe that's enough for you; to me it looks like a lot of wishful thinking and bullshit. When someone has solid, scientific FACTS, that's when I'll start conceding that the idea has any merit. And not before.
And if you AREN'T using god to justify discrimination and wars, then you're not doing it right; all that shit's right there in your holy books, if you go take a look. Think about that, chief; I'll wait.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Hello. The actions of violent so-called extremists don't determine my religion as a whole. I am a Muslim, and in the Holy Quran, it states that yes we have to fight in self-defense, but .. "..Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.." Al-Baqarah, Verse 193. We are only allowed to do so against oppressors. How is that discrimination instead of self defense?
izzatiizzatiizzati 2 years ago
Oh, please; one has only to look at the sheer brutality of Islam in the Middle East and the riots over cartoons in Denmark to know that Islam is only a religion of peace when it's convenient.
BionicDance 2 years ago
You know what. I actually usually don't mind debating or discussing issues with atheists.. But not ones who are ignorant, judgmental, close-minded like you :) Sorry for coming across your videos and disturbing your space. Can't be bothered to discuss with you further. Goodbye~ sayonara
izzatiizzatiizzati 2 years ago
There is nothing closed-minded about demanding evidence for the claims people make, and I'd hardly call myself ignorant, but suit yourself.
BionicDance 2 years ago
I just showed you a tiny piece of evidence (from the book). Being quick to generalize a group of people based on their faith without questioning the generalization - is close-minded. But yeah I guess to each his own. Last comment, bye.
izzatiizzatiizzati 2 years ago
You think I'm QUICK to generalize a group of people? You think you're the FIRST religious person I've met, Muslim or not? You think this is the FIRST time I've encountered these religious ideas?
Seriously???
BionicDance 2 years ago
Actions speak louderr than words.
Ing213 2 years ago
LOL @ the hurt spiritual feeling. oh he's so touchy!!
Don't get him started or he might get so religiously insulted he'll have no option but to start a holy war :P
gedt123 2 years ago
Thanks for accepting the video reponse; I thought with you being an animator you might enjoy my creative collab work. I wasn't aware you did the C666 Olympic animation until NSC mentioned you. Did Coughlan ever credit you for doing that for him?
I'm currently seeking out creative folk of a like mind and would certainly be interested in doing something in the future. Please let me know if you're interested. My next vid will give you a better idea of what I have in mind that might interest you.
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago
Well, I admit that I was a little confused by that video response, since it wasn't related to the topic of my vid, but it WAS an interesting watch.
Coughlan mentioned me once in a blogTV chatroom, but I've basically let that go; I remembered that I did it primarily to be part of the event, and not to be sung from the rooftops.
Anyway, I might be willing to collaborate, though my webcomic is taking up the bulk of my free time these days. But if I like the project...
BionicDance 2 years ago
Thank you. I'll keep in touch.
And whatever you may say, I think a credit on the graphic would have been the decent thing to do. Using someone else's work without accreditation just isn't very nice - it's just like using someone, really. I know I'd feel screwed over by that, but anyhoo, enough about that.
Keep on with the vid making; they're great.
And good luck with the comic. I look forward to checking it out.
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago
You can check out the comic NOW, if you like; there'z only about seven pages up so far, but you can find it at:
kanirabaxter(dot)comicgenesis(dot)com (Sorry about the formatting; you know how YouTube doesn't allow URLs...)
BionicDance 2 years ago
Good stuff! A few questions. What software do you use to create that? How long have you been doing this line of work? Are you still out of work? I hope it ain't so!
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago
Mostly i used Adobe Premiere, though some of the graphics were done in 3D Studio MAX.
I've been doing 3D animation since about 1992, though only professionally since 1999.
And yes, still out of work. But I've started a webcomic for which I can probably sell merchandise and applied for YouTube partnership; that should keep me in booze and hookers for a while, neh?
BionicDance 2 years ago
Hehe. Will work for booze and hookers - sounds good to me!
Good luck on the YT partnership.
ArtificialCleverenAI 2 years ago
Thanks! :)
I think I have a good chance; my subscriber base is increasing steadily, my account is in good standing, I'm reliably putting out a vid a week...true, ads are annoying, but frankly, I'd like to think my subs would WANT me to, you know, have money so I can KEEP making vids, so ads would be a small price to pay, neh? :)
Thanks for watching!
BionicDance 2 years ago
Very important video! And it's not only Gould, this argument is still raging (if science and religion are compatible). You have a wonderful argument here. Not entirely new, philhelenes touched on this, I forget in which video - in his book, Steven Hawkins tells about a delegation of scientists to the Vatican, talking to the Pope. And the Pope says: "Ok, you study the universe in the past to the big bang, but not beyond that". And philhelenes said ; Why stop? Lets study how god did it?
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
Maybe he has had an effect but made it look like he didn't :-) after all, with empirical evidence that proved god existed why would we need faith?
932016 2 years ago
Why DO we need faith? Why is faith a Good Thing?
It seems to me that it ISN'T.
As far as I can tell, faith is just a lie we tell ourselves; it has nothing to do with the truth. Faith is a hope that has overgrown itself, faith is a guess on steroids; it has nothing to do with reality. We might be right, we might be wrong...but I'd rather be right than wrong, frankly, and it takes KNOWLEDGE to know the difference.
Faith can never give us that. So why is having faith a good thing?
BionicDance 2 years ago
I agree.... but this is what a theist might say. Faith is a fundamental part of their religion that they believe is required by their god for some great unknowable reason and is their fore good no matter what you say.
*shrugs shoulders* Its nuts i know but we aren't dealing with rational people here.
932016 2 years ago
Well, just ONCE I'd like for one of 'em to articulate WHY faith is so damned good.
BionicDance 2 years ago
I am not quite sure if I am accurate about what you meant by "faith" in this sense.
Well how about having faith in your own thoughts..If you believe that faith is just a lie, then how can you have enough faith to believe that you can trust your own scientific reasoning and deductive thoughts when you know you still have a lot of limitations?
Like it or not, unconsciously or consciously, faith is somewhat intertwined with our being. Each of us just define or grow to understand it differently.
izzatiizzatiizzati 2 years ago
Faith, in the religious sense, means "belief without proof"; you don't get see interact with god on an empirical level, not in any way that is CLEARLY distinct from your own thoughts and feelings, yet you're told you must believe anyway.
...which means you COULD just be talking to yourself or engaging in self-hypnosis; there is no reason to believe that god is real.
THAT kind of faith, I cannot have. And it's radically different from the kind of faith you just talked about.
BionicDance 2 years ago
There are a lot of abstract things in this world that do not require scientific reasoning - like the complexities within love and friendship, you cannot even define them in Science, how does it make any of those things less real?
How is believing in God - "belief without proof" just because we cannot see God with our eyes or physically feel God's presence? In actual fact, our knowledge is not only limited to just accepting things that can only be seen with the naked human eye or physically felt
izzatiizzatiizzati 2 years ago
You are right. Human existence without faith--trust--in and on many levels would be all but impossible.We have, for example, faith or trust that the unverse as it is revealed to our senses or the senses of the scientist is in fact real. But is it? Certainly some branches or schools of physics should cause all of us to question our faith in the realness of the universe and our separation from the universe. I have faith therefore I exist.
JohnFredricksen 2 years ago
I sometime think if I couldn't emperically prove I love my wife some of you gee-whiz-hyper-science groupies would say my love doesn't exist, that it isn't real, etc. etc. etc.
JohnFredricksen 2 years ago
But what IS love?
People talk about love being "real" as if it were an object, as if it had an existence outside of one's own head.
Isn't love really just a very, very strong opinion, when you come right down to it? Does love have any existence independent of you and your mind? When you feel love for someone, is that love independent of you?
I would say no. This does not devalue it in any way, but let's call a spade a spade here; love doesn't "exist" outside of your own self.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Perhaps when it comes to love the poets speak more eloquently than do scientists. Not everything that is important to human beings needs to be proven. Some things like love need only be celebrated and appreciated not proven.
See my objection to your video does not rest on whether god exists or not, but the notion that only one group of people are allowed to speak for the human experience: scientists.
This is too restrictive...
JohnFredricksen 2 years ago
See, I wasn't TALKING about the human experience; that wasn't the point of the video.
The question is about what exists, what is REAL. If god doesn't exist, that changes a lot of things. Many, many people use god as an excuse to be really crappy to other people, to scare them, the discriminate against them, to control their lives, to start wars; if god isn't real, I want to know it! If gos IS real, I want to know it.
So I can put a stop to that kind of bullshit.
BionicDance 2 years ago