"Science is a philosophy of discovery, religion is a philosophy of ignorance."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
When people don't know the answers to questions, they start filling in the gaps with God(s). Even the greatest philosophers and scientist have done so throughout history.
That's deep stuff. I think it's weird that I am able to acknowlege that the universe was always here but at the same time it's uncomprehendable for me. But, then again look at all of the oblivious lifeforms that live among us.... they could not comprehend things us humans take for granted. I am sure there are beings in this universe that have the mental capacity to comprehend such philosophical issues such as this. I mean, you don't think humans have an infinate mental capacity do you?
So when it comes to how the universe operates, the God of the gaps concept has turned out to be wrong. But when it comes to how certain phenomena originated, the god of the gaps concept is getting stronger.
One could even claim (retrospectively) that the Genesis account of creation predicts this situation. How? It says that for 7 days, God CREATED (originated phenomena), but afterwards, He RESTED (allowed the natural laws He put in place to take over the normal operations of the universe).
@tubewatch59 here you're citing "Genesis" which has no factual basis whatsoever and is just a text of nonsense. You're not answering any questions - ESPECIALLY by somehow knowing how "god" may have operated (creating, resting, etc)
"here you're citing 'Genesis' which has no factual basis whatsoever and is just a text of nonsense."
I'm citing the claimed eyewitness. What you think about that text is kind of besides the point. I'm using it to show that it accounts for the fact that we do not observe God in the operation of the universe, which operates according to natural laws. On the other hand, the origins of the universe, it's fine tuning, and especially life, can't be explained via natural laws.
@tubewatch59 Can't be explained via natural laws *At the Moment* - since our science hasn't progressed enough to understand everything. But, just because we don't understand everything doesn't give us the right to create some arbitrary and totally random explanation (god) for the origins of the universe.
But you assume that it will answer those questions. But we don't know that. In science you draw tentative conclusions wiuth what you currently know, not with what you hope you will learn in the future.
Also, the God explanation is hardly arbitrary or random. On what basis would you think that?
There is either mindless natural laws, or the alternative, intelligent agents. If it's unlikely that we or aliens fit the ID, then God is the reasonable alternative.
@tubewatch59 Wow dude a lot of the stuff you are saying is true... I'm an Atheist but lately I find myself leaning towards agnosticism... Your right the laws of physics break down at the big bang. And for all we know the big bang theory could be wrong.... I am now a spiritual Atheist. I believe something is out there... What that something is? I don't know... But the Universe just can't simply pop into existence.... If the Universe has a creator, he would be simply put... The shit.
But you assume that it will answer those questions. But we don't know that. In science you draw tentative conclusions wiuth what you currently know, not with what you hope you will learn in the future.
Also, the God explanation is hardly arbitrary or random. On what basis would you think that?
There is either mindless natural laws, or the alternative, intelligent agents. If it's unlikely that we or aliens fit the ID, then God is the reasonable alternative.
@zanierrules Can't be explained via natural laws *At the Moment* - since our science hasn't ..., just because we don't understand everything doesn't give us the right to create some arbitrary and totally random explanation (god) for the origins of the universe.
___
Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
@zanierrules Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous *laws* and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@zanierrules Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that *law* and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous *laws of nature*?
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh This might be your most contradictory post of them all (they're all thoughtless spews meant to seem "articulated").
You dare criticize scientists for making claims about the origins of the universe even though they don't know a whole lot and there are still a lot of unknowns. Well, I make the same claim to you, how could you dare permit yourself to make the claim that Allah is the lord of the universe when you yourself doesn't know anymore about it than anyone else (actually less)?
@1tabligh Your answer, above all else and without studying (or attempting to, or trying to learn why it's here) is that Allah is the lord of the universe. You have no real reason for this other than you can't fathom why it would exist if it wasn't created by Allah.
I've never read comments more close-minded, ignorant, and all-around contradictory than yours. You're the new low when it comes to argumentative conversation about the origin of the universe.
@zanierrules The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
@1tabligh Personally I worship Ed who created God. Though I haven't figured out who created Ed yet or the creator of Ed or the creator of the creator of Ed..... What's that called? ohh I remember! Infinite regression. So you better look at the big picture since god/allah is pretty low on the list and Ed's holy book is vastly different from the bible, quran and torah. But hey cheer up no one knows yet what Ed's creator has to say about things.
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
@1tabligh Since your god didn't have a cause he doesn't follow the rule you stated that everything in this universe has a cause. So your god couldn't exist in this universe and is unknowable to anything within the universe. Im sure people will say well god can do anything but to me that's nonsense. If god existed why didnt didnt he send the same holy text to all the people of the earth at the same time. Abrahamic religions cant even get along or agree on the nature of a god.
@Chrisjseattle1 His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
@1tabligh Im not sure i understand what you mean. Wouldn't that be two seperate beings? Your saying that you believe the creator of the universe also created a copy of himself on the level of man?
@Chrisjseattle1 From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
@Chrisjseattle1 "Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@1tabligh So, after all your ranting about the universe and well-articulated thoughts related to such, even with your deepest thoughts and skepticism, your ultimate conclusion - after totally disregarding the chance of the universe creating itself because it's "mindless matter" - is that ALLAH is the lord of the universe. Now, I don't believe in a God creating the universe, but if I did it wouldn't be Allah... prove me wrong?
The gaps have not been closed (and are becoming more numerous) when we consider not the OPERATIONS of phenomena, but the ORIGINS of (certain) phenomena in the universe.
The more we learn, the more we actually can explain the OPERATION of observed phenomena according to natural laws. But the more we learn, the more we realize that we lack feasible explanations of the ORIGINS of certain phenomena (such as life). See the difference?
"God of the gaps fallacy" is what many will immediately think in response to my claims.
That's fine. I do not back away from the God of the gaps argument. If the argument ha no merit, the gaps would have been steadily closing (as is usually claimed to be the case). That's a misunderstanding of the issues at stake.
The many gaps that have been closed, are those relating to whether the universe requires supernatural intervention to operate. Observations indeed show that it does not...
The reason we can't "skip a step" and neglect to seriously question if there may have been a creator God, is because from our observations of the universe we note that the physical laws as observed cannot account for the origins of certain phenomena in the universe. If there comes a point in time at which natural laws really can account for such origins, THEN we'll be able to "skip that step". But as long as that isn't the case, we can't. Why should we? To be "courageous"? What's that mean?
@tubewatch59 It means there's no point in placing faith in things like "god" instead of trying to seek out the answer. It's courageous to the people who fear god and death and would rather believe some textual nonsense than seek any iota of truth
"It means there's no point in placing faith in things like 'god' instead of trying to seek out the answer."
We've been waiting for an explanation of the universe and life (an explanation soley in terms of mindless natural laws) for 150 years now, and all so far fail to account for the data. You know what that likely means?
(1) Scientists should keep trying to find a natural explanation.
(2) Scientists should admit they might be wrong in their naturalistic assumptions.
I could ask you why you keep placing faith in things like "natural laws" to explain origins, when so far they've failed? It's no good just sticking to your guns. Science has a basic rule that says an idea (naturalism) ought to be falsifiable. All the data is indicating so far (obviously though, it's an ongoing project) that mindless natural laws, can't explain origins. You should see that (until this situation changes), the data is falsifying your naturalistic assumptions.
What you forget is that ALL of the triumph of science which has been so successful, is because it has catalogued how natural laws explain the operation of the universe and of life. But that does not transfer over to origins. Natual laws do not seem to be able to explain that. You need to take that into account in forming your opinions.
Step outside of this paradigm and think of things without these terms and limitations. There's so much to learn about: Life/dna on earth did not originate here but somewhere else in space. The forces which govern our universe. Consciousness. Multiple universes, etc. Nothing is as simple as "God" and "evolution." God is more like a name for Creation and Knowing (aka consciousness?) Evolution is how we see things progress, not how or why it all started. We know so little. Live&love.
@usernameUNAVBL Having read the Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, I'm pretty sure he would have preferred assertive atheism over religious bigotry and ignorance, by a wide margin. :-)
If you accept a naturalistic worldview, think of god as an ultimate natural cause in a chain of causes, blank out the question why there is a rational structured cosmos and not chaos in the first place, ignore the universal religious experiences of mankind, and deny the possibility of revelation - then Carl Sagan's suggestions make perfect sense. If ...
I love this. He basically says that god may exsist and he may not... that we should pursue the answer and always be ready for whatever answer we find, never taking one side or the other, but, like a true scientist, be unconcerned with the answer and simply seek the truth whatever it may be. True wisdom.
@Aryacalanatha very true. as socrates said: we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. to some, the scientific discoveries lead them to atheism, some deism, or some theism. me? i'm at the deist stage.
@Aryacalanatha I agree with you completely. I am so tired of these stupid atheists and creationists/religious people arguing all the time, tired of them thinking that they are superior, that they are right. In the end, evolution cannot be proven as there is a missing link. In the end, God cannot be proven as well... he just can't be seen anywhere. R.I.P Carl Sagan, an intellectual man seeking only for that which is true.
What missing link? There have been many transitional fossils found.
Evolution being labeled a theory is actually misleading. Evolution is an observed fact, and no reputable scientist claims otherwise. It is natural selection, the means by which evolution occurs, that is a theory. Hence, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
@teawead No question is unimportant. Never stop questioning. That is when we fail. Every question has an answer if you are willing to go far enough to find it.
@teawead Questionings, exploration, experiments, logical assessment... If we utilize these correctly, and not allow our emotions to rule us, we will eventually find God or disprove it's existence. Everything can be proven. The secrets of the universe are out there and in my belief, we as a developing species have an obligation to understand our universe and harmonize with it... and for that we must explore. We must question everything, even our own questions. Seek the truth.
The beauty of science is that it is never fearful of admitting it may have been wrong. In fact it encourages and hungers for this continual revision, it is it's charter. This humility has served to validate it's existence. It's constituents are truth zealots, not spilling blood in an attempt to avoid alienating those who discover truth through words from outside lips. They spread no paranoid propaganda birthed from the ignorant rantings of dogma, our planets deadliest disease.
oh my god....negate negate doubth, what a kind of stupid believed that the universe always exist and god not??/,.....contradictions ...are believedor not dilemas be or not to be...and of course we are....
You cant say the universe always existed, because we know it had a beginning at the big bang Carl Sagan.
You dont need to have an explanation of the explanation to know if something is true. If we found machinery on the other side of the moon with screws and bolts we would conclude it was there by man, but if i ask an explanation of how man made it on to that side of the moon and you dont give me one, im in no position to then say well man didn't put this machinery on the moon.
Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep.
To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills.
=> for more information type in google "TheDeenShow"
Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid
He said "I'm agnostic."Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe
Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid
He said "I'm agnostic."Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe
@Texmurphy51 Wrong, athiesm has no doctrines or philosophies to be a religion. And plus, I think he really was an agnostic atheist. I think we can prove to an extent that a god with traits doesn't exist, i.e with the paradoxes that occur with the personality and abilities with God. Carl Sagan is a great man.
@Texmurphy51 - If Atheism is a philosophy, then it's 1 & only principle is the denial that god exist. Atheism is simply a consequence of theism. If there weren't any god claims, then atheism would be completely nugatory. There is NO doctrine or system of beliefs. Theists take atheism to be an ideology due to their own assumptions that the existence of god is factual. It's not a requisite of atheism to accept other theories or claims - only that I decline the claims that "god did it."
@Texmurphy51 - "Then Theism is a philosophy with 1 principal the denal that No God exists."
Which is a positive claim that god DOES INDEED exist. think!
To break it down to basics ...... Theism says: "There's a god (as defined by theist claims)." -- Atheism says: "I don't believe that."
Some atheists will go a step further and claim that there couldn't be a god, but that is not a requisite of atheism. It's important that you know what atheism is, moreso ... what it IS NOT!
@Texmurphy51 Call it semantics if you want, but DISbelief does not equal belief -- particularly when the subject matter is about things that are beyond human comprehension.
The disbelief in religious claims, in and of itself, is not a claim to know the truth - but based on what we've now come to understand about the universe ........... the god hypothesis just doesn't make logical sense. The definition of god simply changes with the introduction of new scientifc information.
@Texmurphy51 - You claimed that atheism is a belief system. Atheism is DISbelief, and disbelief does not equal belief. You have to make up your mind on how you're going to define things if we're ever to advance these discussions.
"Most Atheist I talk to equate man made god to claim of a Creator"
Maybe that's because most theists' idea of god is that of a creator?? I'm not sure what else you'd expect. Now, if you have an alternative definition of god, then please let me know what it is.
@Texmurphy51 - "Cosmology has changed DRASTICALLY in the last 15 years."
Science is all about new ideas, hypothesis, theories .... that are tested rigorously in an effort to DISprove them. Science allows evidence to lead it to conclusions. Religion has already posited an answer, and retrofits newly found scientific data to satisfy the conclusion.
Logic is subject to human understanding. Quantum physics/mechanics makes sense if you understand the data - same for evolution.
@Texmurphy51 - "to say the hypothesis of Creation not possible goes against basic Science."
Science DOES NOT say that creation is impossible. Science also does not say that the hypothesis for universe creating pixies is an impossibility. Anything is possible.
"You make the argument that Creation makes no logical sense"
I make the argument that a supernatural, intelligent agency that invests in human affairs (or "god") ... makes no logical sense. Please explain your idea of creation.
@Texmurphy51 - "PLEASE PLEASE stop talking about personal gods of Religion. That has NOTHING, to do what we are talking abouit."
Then please clarify exactly what it is that we're talking about. You were making an argument for theism. Now you're saying that it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You're coming and going. Please make a point and stick to it.
@Texmurphy51 - "Theism & Atheism are Religions that claim to KNOW the truth."
Making the same flawed arguement over & over again isn't going to make it any less flawed. Atheism is not a religion, and it doesn't claim to know the truth. Atheism rejects claims to the existence of a personal god of supernatural intelligence, that's interested in human affairs, answers prayers, punishes sins, resides in heaven, created the universe (so on & so on) . That is NOT a claim to know the truth.
@Texmurphy51 - "Atheism does claim to know there is no God, otherwise it would be Agnostism."
Disbelief is NOT a claim to knowledge - It's not even a claim to belief. Neither theism or atheism are a claim to knowledge. Theism is a claim to a belief, and atheism is the rejection of that belief. Belief doesn't equal knowledge, and DISbelief doesn't equal either of the 2.
You're either being intentionally combative, or you're having the damnest time clearly expressing your ideas.
Just as I thought - you're being intentionally combative. You get to have your own opinions, you get to have your own logic ..., but you DON'T get to have your own facts. Atheism IS indeed a disbelief. To argue that is preposterous.
"Atheism is as much of a Religion as Theism because each claims to "KNOW"
Neither claims to KNOW. Theism professes a BELIEF .... and atheism rejects that belief. You're wrong - accept it!
@MrKeenoRossi sez "Atheism IS indeed a disbelief" Your using semantics. There are 2 choices. 1 Belief in God 2 Belief in No God. You cannot choose not to make a choice. "atheism rejects that belief" YES the Belief of a Man Created Myth God. but Atheism extends that as proof that the Universe was not Created. There is no connection between Myth Religion & how the Universe came to be. Atheism is a BELIEF in No God. A Belief System on creation is a Religion. Look up the definition
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
i believe in God. life is pointless otherwise, and we may as well live like animals without a conscience.
the difference between dogs and humans is when someone puts a bloody steak in front of 3 dogs, they will instinctively fight for it and the strongest one will win. put food in front of 3 humans and they will give it to the hungriest one, or at least split it three ways. where does that sense of fairness come from? and why don't the animals have it too? answer that please.
The orphan living alone on an island says to himself "Where did I come from? Did I have a beginning? Well maybe I had parents of sorts. But where did they come from? lets save a step and just say that I have always been here." - But is that correct?
Unity: [. . .but I say there will never be a way for us to know one way or the other.]
Thus, you're nailing up a certainty on the way out. You betray yourself as agnostic-in-name-only. Remove the "never" as certainty statement and you'll be a true agnostic.
As for Santa and the Tooth Fairy, both are limited to specific forms. I am arguing to an omnipotent being, thus the attribute of omnipotence rules out singular mythical forms. Try again.
RE: 0:46 This question is a classic appeal to "Turtles all the way down," yet this is not an unanswerable question*. "God" by definition is a being who is self-sufficient. If not self-sufficient, then not truly God. In any case, you cannot conclude that the universe is eternal, since it begs the question of causation (a double-violation) and threatens a "turtles" fallacy of its own. Fair is fair.
* It's been 30 years since this 1st aired, I think we've had enough time to mull it over.
The does not need to be a beginning or end to the universe. It could have always been here. The rest of your comment makes no sense. Especially since I reject your definition of God and I reject your definition of self-sufficient.
Unity: [The does not need to be a beginning or end to the universe.]
Then you are arguing against the law of causality. The law of causality is a law of logic. Thus, you are responding in an irrational way. Secondly, in order to reject my definition of God, you must minimize it, which is intellectually dishonest.
@Paulomycin "God" is also by definition super-natural, or above nature. At the level of abstraction that Sagan is working on, infinite "God" or infinite universe, it hardly seems to matter which one you choose. I should say the "self" in "self-sufficient" you were referring to is clearly not embodied literally. The real question is what "God" you are talking about. You haven't resolved anything, but fallen deeper into the still unanswered--and unanswerable--question.
@Paulomycin If god requires praise, he is not self sufficient, for the definition of self sufficient is something that requires nothing. So, either he does not need praise and your notion of an anthropomorphic god is inherently fallacious, or, he does need praise, and is not self sufficient. (Or ofcourse the obvious answer, there is no god.) In any case, the bible is proven demonstrably and unavoidably wrong. Fair is Fair indeed.
@Texmurphy51 No, it's actually very easy to cause The Universe. It is ALL interconnected and if you haven't heard the news WE ARE ALL ONE. I am causing The Universe right now as I type this comment (and it causes me simultaneously). It begins here & now. My pull - is its push, and my push - is its pull. And it is NOT a belief, - it is a REALIZATION. In Reality, there is no past and there is no future. All memories and expectations exist NOW, and now ONLY.
@Texmurphy51 Well... There's a Buddhist Koan that's asks "if there's a tree falling in a forest, and no one with ears is anywhere near enough hear it, will there be a sound?" - and the truth is that there will be some vibrations in the air, there just wouldn't be an ear to process those vibrations and turn it into sound.
...The Universe is Life, it IS All of Existence, and it is aware of itself. Through us. We are an aperture, through which the Universe looks at itself. This isn't philosophy.;)
@Texmurphy51 I don't claim that Atheist is a realization of the truth. I don't consider myself an atheist (nor a buddhist). And JEEZ, get it already, that this IS modern science. It applies to it perfectly. And just so you know, Buddhism isn't like Christianity at all. It's not a teaching. And it changes as science changes. Buddhism may be ancient, but it doesn't say that the Earth is flat, like Christianity. It got over that, lol. It's dynamic, and it can evolve. We ARE one and that is a fact.
@Texmurphy51 OBVIOUSLY we both could be wrong - the fact is we both take on opposite views in this conversation. That's what I meant. In your view you are right, and in my view I am. In my view you are wrong, and in your view I am wrong. All of that can change and we can both ACTUALLY come to be right, but then we will be both on one side of this particular argument, and there will be 2 other people that would be "wrong" - it's just opposite views, that's all. Both are secretly One Whole.
@Texmurphy51 There's no such thing as a PRE Universe... if anything at all as such - then there was Nothing. There's Nothing and Everything at the same time right now... Like space and solid, and sound with silence for example... but if there is nothing and everything at the same time then the Universe can cause itself... If there is nothing then there has to be something/anything/everything as well, because that is opposite to nothing. One cannot exist without the other. It's still here now...
@Texmurphy51 Yeah, really. The Yin Yang principle explains A LOT of things. Really. I personally stand on the position that the Universe was always here, no matter HOW, even without space-time, or any matter at all - it still has always been here - and that is Consciousness... That is the only thing that is always there somehow. Who is it that knows there is no Self?
@Texmurphy51 Well that is pretty much an agnostic's source of such information/knowledge... Everything that science tells us can apply to my point of view, sooo... You know... ;D
@KaiTendo174 ...then the Universe can cause itself...
____
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
@1tabligh You cracked me up, man. For a second there, I thought you were going somewhere with this. Brainwashed atheists? C'mon...
I'm not even going to say anything... Pshh... Allah... And the Christians could've written the same thing, except it would end with "All praise is due to God, the Lord of the Universe." Now, who's right? Are you, or are they? Or me? :D
@KaiTendo174 Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
@1tabligh Hey fella, no problem you pray to your allah all you want ass long as you want while we science fans and sympathizers just ignore you and continou developping science and if you get sick maybe one of those scientist will find you a cure , Not much allah can do for you, can he ?!!??
@Borat911 Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@Texmurphy51 Everything, that we experience right now is a vibration. Sound is a rapid alteration between sound and silence, but we get the illusion that there is like "a constant sound"... you know what I mean. So yeah, there needs to be Nothing in order for the there to be Everything.
@Texmurphy51 You need to have Two of something, in order to get something to happen...Right now in have a conversation there needs to be the two of us. If you didn't think I was wrong, you wouldn't be able to know that you are right. This interconnection of two polar opposites is crucial for anything. It's like Left and Right - you don't know Right, unless you know Left,and vice versa. Although appearing to be Two, they are indeed One... because you can't have one without the other!Same with Uni
Humans are scared and they know they're going to die so they make up gods and worship them. Use the logic side of your mind and spend your life wisely. No one will send you to heaven or hell, get the best out of it, and don't worship something that was never here, and never will be. Worship your time here on our planet. There's no reason as to why you're here, you just are.
@yllierutube if the greatest philosophers and scientists have done it then that should tell you something.
tnmusicman1 22 hours ago
He's floating downwards
ChazzMcNas 1 week ago
"Science is a philosophy of discovery, religion is a philosophy of ignorance."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
When people don't know the answers to questions, they start filling in the gaps with God(s). Even the greatest philosophers and scientist have done so throughout history.
yllierutube 3 weeks ago 6
That's deep stuff. I think it's weird that I am able to acknowlege that the universe was always here but at the same time it's uncomprehendable for me. But, then again look at all of the oblivious lifeforms that live among us.... they could not comprehend things us humans take for granted. I am sure there are beings in this universe that have the mental capacity to comprehend such philosophical issues such as this. I mean, you don't think humans have an infinate mental capacity do you?
MrStuPidassle 1 month ago
i believe that sagan is right
georgedPOLLUX 1 month ago
So when it comes to how the universe operates, the God of the gaps concept has turned out to be wrong. But when it comes to how certain phenomena originated, the god of the gaps concept is getting stronger.
One could even claim (retrospectively) that the Genesis account of creation predicts this situation. How? It says that for 7 days, God CREATED (originated phenomena), but afterwards, He RESTED (allowed the natural laws He put in place to take over the normal operations of the universe).
tubewatch59 1 month ago
@tubewatch59 here you're citing "Genesis" which has no factual basis whatsoever and is just a text of nonsense. You're not answering any questions - ESPECIALLY by somehow knowing how "god" may have operated (creating, resting, etc)
zanierrules 1 month ago
@zanierrules
"here you're citing 'Genesis' which has no factual basis whatsoever and is just a text of nonsense."
I'm citing the claimed eyewitness. What you think about that text is kind of besides the point. I'm using it to show that it accounts for the fact that we do not observe God in the operation of the universe, which operates according to natural laws. On the other hand, the origins of the universe, it's fine tuning, and especially life, can't be explained via natural laws.
tubewatch59 1 month ago
@tubewatch59 Can't be explained via natural laws *At the Moment* - since our science hasn't progressed enough to understand everything. But, just because we don't understand everything doesn't give us the right to create some arbitrary and totally random explanation (god) for the origins of the universe.
zanierrules 1 month ago
@zanierrules
But you assume that it will answer those questions. But we don't know that. In science you draw tentative conclusions wiuth what you currently know, not with what you hope you will learn in the future.
Also, the God explanation is hardly arbitrary or random. On what basis would you think that?
There is either mindless natural laws, or the alternative, intelligent agents. If it's unlikely that we or aliens fit the ID, then God is the reasonable alternative.
tubewatch59 1 month ago
@tubewatch59 Wow dude a lot of the stuff you are saying is true... I'm an Atheist but lately I find myself leaning towards agnosticism... Your right the laws of physics break down at the big bang. And for all we know the big bang theory could be wrong.... I am now a spiritual Atheist. I believe something is out there... What that something is? I don't know... But the Universe just can't simply pop into existence.... If the Universe has a creator, he would be simply put... The shit.
MrCracker21 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zanierrules
But you assume that it will answer those questions. But we don't know that. In science you draw tentative conclusions wiuth what you currently know, not with what you hope you will learn in the future.
Also, the God explanation is hardly arbitrary or random. On what basis would you think that?
There is either mindless natural laws, or the alternative, intelligent agents. If it's unlikely that we or aliens fit the ID, then God is the reasonable alternative.
tubewatch59 1 month ago
@zanierrules Can't be explained via natural laws *At the Moment* - since our science hasn't ..., just because we don't understand everything doesn't give us the right to create some arbitrary and totally random explanation (god) for the origins of the universe.
___
Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@zanierrules Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous *laws* and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@zanierrules Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that *law* and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous *laws of nature*?
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@zanierrules God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@zanierrules The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh This might be your most contradictory post of them all (they're all thoughtless spews meant to seem "articulated").
You dare criticize scientists for making claims about the origins of the universe even though they don't know a whole lot and there are still a lot of unknowns. Well, I make the same claim to you, how could you dare permit yourself to make the claim that Allah is the lord of the universe when you yourself doesn't know anymore about it than anyone else (actually less)?
zanierrules 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Your answer, above all else and without studying (or attempting to, or trying to learn why it's here) is that Allah is the lord of the universe. You have no real reason for this other than you can't fathom why it would exist if it wasn't created by Allah.
I've never read comments more close-minded, ignorant, and all-around contradictory than yours. You're the new low when it comes to argumentative conversation about the origin of the universe.
zanierrules 2 weeks ago
@zanierrules The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
@1tabligh Personally I worship Ed who created God. Though I haven't figured out who created Ed yet or the creator of Ed or the creator of the creator of Ed..... What's that called? ohh I remember! Infinite regression. So you better look at the big picture since god/allah is pretty low on the list and Ed's holy book is vastly different from the bible, quran and torah. But hey cheer up no one knows yet what Ed's creator has to say about things.
Chrisjseattle1 15 hours ago
Who created God?
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
1tabligh 9 hours ago
@Chrisjseattle1 But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
1tabligh 9 hours ago
@1tabligh Since your god didn't have a cause he doesn't follow the rule you stated that everything in this universe has a cause. So your god couldn't exist in this universe and is unknowable to anything within the universe. Im sure people will say well god can do anything but to me that's nonsense. If god existed why didnt didnt he send the same holy text to all the people of the earth at the same time. Abrahamic religions cant even get along or agree on the nature of a god.
Chrisjseattle1 8 hours ago
@Chrisjseattle1 His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
1tabligh 8 hours ago
@1tabligh Im not sure i understand what you mean. Wouldn't that be two seperate beings? Your saying that you believe the creator of the universe also created a copy of himself on the level of man?
Chrisjseattle1 6 hours ago
@Chrisjseattle1 From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
1tabligh 6 hours ago
@Chrisjseattle1 "Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
1tabligh 6 hours ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
@1tabligh So, after all your ranting about the universe and well-articulated thoughts related to such, even with your deepest thoughts and skepticism, your ultimate conclusion - after totally disregarding the chance of the universe creating itself because it's "mindless matter" - is that ALLAH is the lord of the universe. Now, I don't believe in a God creating the universe, but if I did it wouldn't be Allah... prove me wrong?
zanierrules 2 weeks ago
So in what way have the "gaps" not been closed?
The gaps have not been closed (and are becoming more numerous) when we consider not the OPERATIONS of phenomena, but the ORIGINS of (certain) phenomena in the universe.
The more we learn, the more we actually can explain the OPERATION of observed phenomena according to natural laws. But the more we learn, the more we realize that we lack feasible explanations of the ORIGINS of certain phenomena (such as life). See the difference?
tubewatch59 1 month ago
"God of the gaps fallacy" is what many will immediately think in response to my claims.
That's fine. I do not back away from the God of the gaps argument. If the argument ha no merit, the gaps would have been steadily closing (as is usually claimed to be the case). That's a misunderstanding of the issues at stake.
The many gaps that have been closed, are those relating to whether the universe requires supernatural intervention to operate. Observations indeed show that it does not...
tubewatch59 1 month ago
The reason we can't "skip a step" and neglect to seriously question if there may have been a creator God, is because from our observations of the universe we note that the physical laws as observed cannot account for the origins of certain phenomena in the universe. If there comes a point in time at which natural laws really can account for such origins, THEN we'll be able to "skip that step". But as long as that isn't the case, we can't. Why should we? To be "courageous"? What's that mean?
tubewatch59 1 month ago
@tubewatch59 It means there's no point in placing faith in things like "god" instead of trying to seek out the answer. It's courageous to the people who fear god and death and would rather believe some textual nonsense than seek any iota of truth
zanierrules 1 month ago
@zanierrules
"It means there's no point in placing faith in things like 'god' instead of trying to seek out the answer."
We've been waiting for an explanation of the universe and life (an explanation soley in terms of mindless natural laws) for 150 years now, and all so far fail to account for the data. You know what that likely means?
(1) Scientists should keep trying to find a natural explanation.
(2) Scientists should admit they might be wrong in their naturalistic assumptions.
tubewatch59 1 month ago
@zanierrules
I could ask you why you keep placing faith in things like "natural laws" to explain origins, when so far they've failed? It's no good just sticking to your guns. Science has a basic rule that says an idea (naturalism) ought to be falsifiable. All the data is indicating so far (obviously though, it's an ongoing project) that mindless natural laws, can't explain origins. You should see that (until this situation changes), the data is falsifying your naturalistic assumptions.
tubewatch59 1 month ago
@zanierrules
What you forget is that ALL of the triumph of science which has been so successful, is because it has catalogued how natural laws explain the operation of the universe and of life. But that does not transfer over to origins. Natual laws do not seem to be able to explain that. You need to take that into account in forming your opinions.
tubewatch59 1 month ago
haha proves nothing.... He argued neither have the ultimate answer. Go Carl, god rest your soul
alienmorals 1 month ago
Step outside of this paradigm and think of things without these terms and limitations. There's so much to learn about: Life/dna on earth did not originate here but somewhere else in space. The forces which govern our universe. Consciousness. Multiple universes, etc. Nothing is as simple as "God" and "evolution." God is more like a name for Creation and Knowing (aka consciousness?) Evolution is how we see things progress, not how or why it all started. We know so little. Live&love.
ThatsNotPoetry 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Universe had a begining so it cannot always exist , it has to be created by someone else who always existed !
MrCobra811 2 months ago
0 comes before 1. or does it?
stringquartet 2 months ago
I love this guy! uhm,...Does anyone else think that they based the character Spock from Star Trek on Carl Sagan....
MissBehavin1111 2 months ago
@MissBehavin1111 Possibly? :D.
Jpear5000 1 month ago
What video is this from?
Fryguysun 2 months ago
Universe was created by.
well there are many explanations for how.
many of them are so speculative and need belief that they are in no way more valid or stupid in the belief of God creating the Universe.
We also take the idea of there being many planes of dimensions many which are not perceivable to us, are taken as a granted.
Bangelibangladesh 2 months ago
If people listen to Carl Sagan, they wouldn't be so settled on athiesm....Carl would be so sad to see the state of people's minds today :(
usernameUNAVBL 2 months ago
@usernameUNAVBL Having read the Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, I'm pretty sure he would have preferred assertive atheism over religious bigotry and ignorance, by a wide margin. :-)
GluttonForSex 2 months ago
what was he standing on?
xGlorifiedHobbitx 2 months ago
Comment removed
Razwell 2 months ago
@Razwell underSTOOD science as WELL as anybody....unlike some in regards to proper grammar. :) heh
OkamsRazer 2 months ago
@OkamsRazer
What in the world is wrong with that grammar?
Razwell 2 months ago
@OkamsRazer
I just saw my mistake now. I wrote it under the influence late at night. LOL ! I was quadriple tasking. I apologize. My bad. I must be more careful.
Carl Sagan UNDERSTOOD science as well as anybody. Anthony Colpo is a CRANK.
Razwell 2 months ago
If you accept a naturalistic worldview, think of god as an ultimate natural cause in a chain of causes, blank out the question why there is a rational structured cosmos and not chaos in the first place, ignore the universal religious experiences of mankind, and deny the possibility of revelation - then Carl Sagan's suggestions make perfect sense. If ...
TimotheosCauvin 2 months ago
I love this. He basically says that god may exsist and he may not... that we should pursue the answer and always be ready for whatever answer we find, never taking one side or the other, but, like a true scientist, be unconcerned with the answer and simply seek the truth whatever it may be. True wisdom.
Aryacalanatha 2 months ago 39
@Aryacalanatha very true. as socrates said: we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. to some, the scientific discoveries lead them to atheism, some deism, or some theism. me? i'm at the deist stage.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@Aryacalanatha I agree with you completely. I am so tired of these stupid atheists and creationists/religious people arguing all the time, tired of them thinking that they are superior, that they are right. In the end, evolution cannot be proven as there is a missing link. In the end, God cannot be proven as well... he just can't be seen anywhere. R.I.P Carl Sagan, an intellectual man seeking only for that which is true.
mAwesome334 2 months ago
@mAwesome334 "there is a missing link"
What missing link? There have been many transitional fossils found.
Evolution being labeled a theory is actually misleading. Evolution is an observed fact, and no reputable scientist claims otherwise. It is natural selection, the means by which evolution occurs, that is a theory. Hence, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
killerkerara 2 months ago
@killerkerara I googled for found missing links. And wow... that is interesting. I didn't know haha. :)
mAwesome334 2 months ago
@Aryacalanatha And he is very gentlemanly at that.
halliehater 1 month ago
@Aryacalanatha The questions that truly matter may never be answered, but that doesn't make it any less worthwile to try.
jono9167 1 month ago
@Aryacalanatha
I think his answer was, it's unimportant question, a question that has no answer.
teawead 1 month ago
@teawead No question is unimportant. Never stop questioning. That is when we fail. Every question has an answer if you are willing to go far enough to find it.
Aryacalanatha 1 month ago
@Aryacalanatha
So you simply put, after long hard questionings, we would somehow find the answer of God?
teawead 1 month ago
@teawead Questionings, exploration, experiments, logical assessment... If we utilize these correctly, and not allow our emotions to rule us, we will eventually find God or disprove it's existence. Everything can be proven. The secrets of the universe are out there and in my belief, we as a developing species have an obligation to understand our universe and harmonize with it... and for that we must explore. We must question everything, even our own questions. Seek the truth.
Aryacalanatha 4 weeks ago
you want to explain how the universe was created?
I've got a better question:
Why is there a rock hurtling through space covered in talking monkeys?
FanServiceGod 2 months ago 21
@FanServiceGod Why not? Asshole
MrFlibble2011 2 months ago
@FanServiceGod but monkeys don't talk, what have you been smoking??...
OkamsRazer 2 months ago
@FanServiceGod ...and I got the sarcasm, I was just being trollish.
OkamsRazer 2 months ago
@FanServiceGod Dude. It's the same question.
Soapygold 1 month ago
@FanServiceGod with all the possibilities that exist, I ask "why not?"
TheJohnnapiranha 6 days ago
he answered the perfect question with the perfect answer
RECKOGNING1 3 months ago
@RECKOGNING1 Agreed
KaiTendo174 2 months ago
@KaiTendo174 indeed thx 4 ur opinion
RECKOGNING1 2 months ago
The beauty of science is that it is never fearful of admitting it may have been wrong. In fact it encourages and hungers for this continual revision, it is it's charter. This humility has served to validate it's existence. It's constituents are truth zealots, not spilling blood in an attempt to avoid alienating those who discover truth through words from outside lips. They spread no paranoid propaganda birthed from the ignorant rantings of dogma, our planets deadliest disease.
saganemc2 3 months ago
I love Carl Sagan, but, as Spock said, "Logic is not enough." - "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."
jedirambo 3 months ago
oh my god....negate negate doubth, what a kind of stupid believed that the universe always exist and god not??/,.....contradictions ...are believedor not dilemas be or not to be...and of course we are....
doloresquin01 3 months ago
Carl Sagan was baked erry day
Ballisticob 3 months ago
lol There still has been one person that couldn't face this type of argumentation.
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
I could listen to Carl Sagan speak all day
DaSurge26 3 months ago
You cant say the universe always existed, because we know it had a beginning at the big bang Carl Sagan.
You dont need to have an explanation of the explanation to know if something is true. If we found machinery on the other side of the moon with screws and bolts we would conclude it was there by man, but if i ask an explanation of how man made it on to that side of the moon and you dont give me one, im in no position to then say well man didn't put this machinery on the moon.
tublet13 3 months ago
Grand master Sagan puts it lightly but beautifully - there is no need for the God hypothesis.
akallabror 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep.
To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills.
=> for more information type in google "TheDeenShow"
akeello 3 months ago
good
SiNgHayStyle 4 months ago in playlist More videos from angryatheistdotnet
Did you know;
Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid
He said "I'm agnostic."Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe
Sorry Atheists he was not part of your Religion
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
Did you know;
Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid
He said "I'm agnostic."Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe
Sorry Atheists he was not part of your Religion
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Wrong, athiesm has no doctrines or philosophies to be a religion. And plus, I think he really was an agnostic atheist. I think we can prove to an extent that a god with traits doesn't exist, i.e with the paradoxes that occur with the personality and abilities with God. Carl Sagan is a great man.
retrogamerist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@retrogamerist "athiesm has no doctrines or philosophies "
Look again, Atheism IS a philosophy, it has many books written on it by some of the most famous Philosophers in History.
Doctrines are simply Beliefs & teachings associated with the Religion
Atheists Believe in No God, their teachings can be seen in books & all over Youtube
Omnicient Superman gods of mans Religions are self defeating
That has nothing to do with how the Universe was created
Your thought is too narrow
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - If Atheism is a philosophy, then it's 1 & only principle is the denial that god exist. Atheism is simply a consequence of theism. If there weren't any god claims, then atheism would be completely nugatory. There is NO doctrine or system of beliefs. Theists take atheism to be an ideology due to their own assumptions that the existence of god is factual. It's not a requisite of atheism to accept other theories or claims - only that I decline the claims that "god did it."
MrKeenoRossi 4 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi "If Atheism is a philosophy, then it's 1 & only principle is the denial that god exist"
Then Theism is a philosophy with 1 principal the denal that No God exists.
You see I can use semantics also. Fact is both are Belief Systems.
"If there weren't any god claims,...completely nugatory"
You mean if there were no man made RELIGION.
Atheist Doctrine is simply Belief in No God
Atheism exists as an opposite Belief System to Theism.
What is Reality does not depend on either
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - "Then Theism is a philosophy with 1 principal the denal that No God exists."
Which is a positive claim that god DOES INDEED exist. think!
To break it down to basics ...... Theism says: "There's a god (as defined by theist claims)." -- Atheism says: "I don't believe that."
Some atheists will go a step further and claim that there couldn't be a god, but that is not a requisite of atheism. It's important that you know what atheism is, moreso ... what it IS NOT!
MrKeenoRossi 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Call it semantics if you want, but DISbelief does not equal belief -- particularly when the subject matter is about things that are beyond human comprehension.
The disbelief in religious claims, in and of itself, is not a claim to know the truth - but based on what we've now come to understand about the universe ........... the god hypothesis just doesn't make logical sense. The definition of god simply changes with the introduction of new scientifc information.
MrKeenoRossi 4 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi "DISbelief does not equal belief "
I never said that it did. I said your DISbelief is of a man made superman god.
"disbelief in religious claims, in and of itself, is not a claim to know the truth "
Really? Most Atheist I talk to equate man made god to claim of a Creator.
"The definition of god .. new scientifc information"
So does Science itself. Cosmology has changed DRASTICALLY in the last 15 years.
I ask you... Does Quantum Theory make "logical sense"????
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - You claimed that atheism is a belief system. Atheism is DISbelief, and disbelief does not equal belief. You have to make up your mind on how you're going to define things if we're ever to advance these discussions.
"Most Atheist I talk to equate man made god to claim of a Creator"
Maybe that's because most theists' idea of god is that of a creator?? I'm not sure what else you'd expect. Now, if you have an alternative definition of god, then please let me know what it is.
MrKeenoRossi 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - "Cosmology has changed DRASTICALLY in the last 15 years."
Science is all about new ideas, hypothesis, theories .... that are tested rigorously in an effort to DISprove them. Science allows evidence to lead it to conclusions. Religion has already posited an answer, and retrofits newly found scientific data to satisfy the conclusion.
Logic is subject to human understanding. Quantum physics/mechanics makes sense if you understand the data - same for evolution.
MrKeenoRossi 4 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi "Science is all about new ideas, hypothesis, theories .... "
EXACTLY, so to say the hypothesis of Creation not possible goes against basic Science.
You make the argument that Creation makes no logical sense, the same can be said for Quantum Theory.
It does not play by the normal rules of matter.
PLEASE PLEASE stop talking about personal gods of Religion. That has NOTHING, to do what we are talking abouit.
Your using Religion as a reference because you Reality is based on it
Texmurphy51 4 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - "to say the hypothesis of Creation not possible goes against basic Science."
Science DOES NOT say that creation is impossible. Science also does not say that the hypothesis for universe creating pixies is an impossibility. Anything is possible.
"You make the argument that Creation makes no logical sense"
I make the argument that a supernatural, intelligent agency that invests in human affairs (or "god") ... makes no logical sense. Please explain your idea of creation.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - "PLEASE PLEASE stop talking about personal gods of Religion. That has NOTHING, to do what we are talking abouit."
Then please clarify exactly what it is that we're talking about. You were making an argument for theism. Now you're saying that it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You're coming and going. Please make a point and stick to it.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi I am NOT making an argument for Theism. I am saying that Creation is a possible senerio of how our Universe was created.
Theism & Atheism are Religions that claim to KNOW the truth.
I am an Agnostic who says that without knowledge one cant determine how it happened.
As Sagan himself said
"An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid"
I agree with him. Sagan was an Agnostic who saw Atheism as a Belief System
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - "I am NOT making an argument for Theism"
Here's your quote from earlier: "Then Theism is a philosophy with 1 principal the denal that No God exists.
You see I can use semantics also."
At the very least, this leaves the impression that you're making an argument for theism.
"Creation is a possible senerio of how our Universe was created."
So your argument is that creation is POSSIBLE? Can you take any softer a position? Does your idea of creation NOT involve a god?
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - "Theism & Atheism are Religions that claim to KNOW the truth."
Making the same flawed arguement over & over again isn't going to make it any less flawed. Atheism is not a religion, and it doesn't claim to know the truth. Atheism rejects claims to the existence of a personal god of supernatural intelligence, that's interested in human affairs, answers prayers, punishes sins, resides in heaven, created the universe (so on & so on) . That is NOT a claim to know the truth.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi "Making the same flawed arguement over & over again isn't going to make it any less flawed"
Corrrect so why dont you stop doing it.
Atheism does claim to know there is no God, otherwise it would be Agnostism.
Agnosticism is NOT Atheism according to the creator of the word, dispite Atheist attempt to absorb Agnostics into their Religion.
Your description of Atheism ONLY applies to Mans Religon
BUT Atheist extend this to Science which is a totally Flawed idea
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - "Atheism does claim to know there is no God, otherwise it would be Agnostism."
Disbelief is NOT a claim to knowledge - It's not even a claim to belief. Neither theism or atheism are a claim to knowledge. Theism is a claim to a belief, and atheism is the rejection of that belief. Belief doesn't equal knowledge, and DISbelief doesn't equal either of the 2.
You're either being intentionally combative, or you're having the damnest time clearly expressing your ideas.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi "Disbelief is NOT a claim to knowledge "
BUT Atheism is not a disbelief, it is Belief in No God with NO PROOF.
That is a claim to knowledge.
Its like if I claim to know ET life does not exists because there is no proof of evidence.
Agnostics say they dont know BECAUSE there is no knowledge of the facts.
Atheism is as much of a Religion as Theism because each claims to "KNOW"
Why is so much time & effort dedicated to convert people to Atheism if it is not a Religion?
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - "BUT Atheism is not a disbelief"
Just as I thought - you're being intentionally combative. You get to have your own opinions, you get to have your own logic ..., but you DON'T get to have your own facts. Atheism IS indeed a disbelief. To argue that is preposterous.
"Atheism is as much of a Religion as Theism because each claims to "KNOW"
Neither claims to KNOW. Theism professes a BELIEF .... and atheism rejects that belief. You're wrong - accept it!
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - "There are 2 choices.1 Belief in God 2 Belief in No God. You cannot choose not to make a choice."
Ok ..... So which do you choose?
"YES the Belief of a Man Created Myth God."
Are you inferring that there are gods that are NOT man made?
"but Atheism extends that as proof that the Universe was not Created."
Exactly what is your definition of "created" ...., and does it NOT require a god?
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@MrKeenoRossi sez "Ok ..... So which do you choose?"
Personally I Believe in No God but allow for the possiblity.
I do not belong to the Church of Atheism.
"Are you inferring that there are gods that are NOT man made?"
I am saying Atheists use Myth Gods as the basis for their Belief in No God.
Creation requires an intellligence. The term God is used because of definition.
I am saying our Universe could have been Created by intelligence.
The Atheist Religion Believes this is not so.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texmurphy51 - "Personally I Believe in No God but allow for the possiblity."
What relevance is there in "allowing for the possibility" ??? You're an atheist in denial.
"I am saying Atheists use Myth Gods as the basis for their Belief in No God."
Again, what other types of gods are there?
"I am saying our Universe could have been Created by intelligence."
Could've been created by ANYTHING, could've been created by NOTHING. Who knows?
This has gone on long enough.
MrKeenoRossi 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You are giving G-d a bad name.
4izm0v 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
i believe in God. life is pointless otherwise, and we may as well live like animals without a conscience.
the difference between dogs and humans is when someone puts a bloody steak in front of 3 dogs, they will instinctively fight for it and the strongest one will win. put food in front of 3 humans and they will give it to the hungriest one, or at least split it three ways. where does that sense of fairness come from? and why don't the animals have it too? answer that please.
funkstrman 7 months ago
The orphan living alone on an island says to himself "Where did I come from? Did I have a beginning? Well maybe I had parents of sorts. But where did they come from? lets save a step and just say that I have always been here." - But is that correct?
ShinhoDynasty7 8 months ago
the answer is easy of where god came from. god came from man.
mattehISme 11 months ago
Unity: [. . .but I say there will never be a way for us to know one way or the other.]
Thus, you're nailing up a certainty on the way out. You betray yourself as agnostic-in-name-only. Remove the "never" as certainty statement and you'll be a true agnostic.
As for Santa and the Tooth Fairy, both are limited to specific forms. I am arguing to an omnipotent being, thus the attribute of omnipotence rules out singular mythical forms. Try again.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
RE: 0:46 This question is a classic appeal to "Turtles all the way down," yet this is not an unanswerable question*. "God" by definition is a being who is self-sufficient. If not self-sufficient, then not truly God. In any case, you cannot conclude that the universe is eternal, since it begs the question of causation (a double-violation) and threatens a "turtles" fallacy of its own. Fair is fair.
* It's been 30 years since this 1st aired, I think we've had enough time to mull it over.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
It's been 2000 years since the bible was written, I think we've had enough time to mull it over.
angryatheistdotnet 2 years ago 41
Angry, I'm not arguing to the Bible. The Bible assumes a God at the outset. So let's put it to one side and start with the question of God.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
The does not need to be a beginning or end to the universe. It could have always been here. The rest of your comment makes no sense. Especially since I reject your definition of God and I reject your definition of self-sufficient.
unityindualitydotorg 2 years ago
Unity: [The does not need to be a beginning or end to the universe.]
Then you are arguing against the law of causality. The law of causality is a law of logic. Thus, you are responding in an irrational way. Secondly, in order to reject my definition of God, you must minimize it, which is intellectually dishonest.
Paulomycin 2 years ago
@Paulomycin "God" is also by definition super-natural, or above nature. At the level of abstraction that Sagan is working on, infinite "God" or infinite universe, it hardly seems to matter which one you choose. I should say the "self" in "self-sufficient" you were referring to is clearly not embodied literally. The real question is what "God" you are talking about. You haven't resolved anything, but fallen deeper into the still unanswered--and unanswerable--question.
likeafallingleaf 10 months ago
@Paulomycin If god requires praise, he is not self sufficient, for the definition of self sufficient is something that requires nothing. So, either he does not need praise and your notion of an anthropomorphic god is inherently fallacious, or, he does need praise, and is not self sufficient. (Or ofcourse the obvious answer, there is no god.) In any case, the bible is proven demonstrably and unavoidably wrong. Fair is Fair indeed.
TheManDave88 9 months ago
@Paulomycin The Universe doesn't have a first cause, and it causes itself eternally here and now... look up "what first cause?" in google...
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@KaiTendo174 "The Universe doesn't have a first cause"
There are scientific theories that disagree with that.
There is No Proof as to how the Universe came to be,
Caused, Created, Eternal
You cannot know so you cannot claim God, or No God
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 The Universe doesn't have a first cause. It's true. It causes itself man. Look up "what first cause?" in Google. Lol.
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@KaiTendo174 Yours is the Lol of ignorance.
Your simply arguing semantics, to call it an uncaused event instead of a caused event is meaningless since there is no way of knowing how it happened.
I DISBELEAVE in your hypothesis that the Universe caused itself.
You made the claim, so you must provide the Proof.
For the Universe to craused itself is like saying there is a Spaghetti Monster on mars.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 No, it's actually very easy to cause The Universe. It is ALL interconnected and if you haven't heard the news WE ARE ALL ONE. I am causing The Universe right now as I type this comment (and it causes me simultaneously). It begins here & now. My pull - is its push, and my push - is its pull. And it is NOT a belief, - it is a REALIZATION. In Reality, there is no past and there is no future. All memories and expectations exist NOW, and now ONLY.
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@KaiTendo174 "No, it's actually very easy to cause The Universe...."
Thats what you BELIEVE, you have no more proof than the God Believerse.
Your stating a Philosophy not Science.
What if we extinguishied all life in the Universe so there was no observation,
Would the Universe cease to exist or keep on as if nothing happened?
I think that the idea that our observation creates reality only applys your own mind.
Reality exists independent of mans observation.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Well... There's a Buddhist Koan that's asks "if there's a tree falling in a forest, and no one with ears is anywhere near enough hear it, will there be a sound?" - and the truth is that there will be some vibrations in the air, there just wouldn't be an ear to process those vibrations and turn it into sound.
...The Universe is Life, it IS All of Existence, and it is aware of itself. Through us. We are an aperture, through which the Universe looks at itself. This isn't philosophy.;)
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@KaiTendo174 You quote Buddhist writings that are ancient.
Writings of ancient Atheists as to the nature of the Universe sound the same.
So what are you trying to say?
Modern Science simply has more information on the state of matter & does not use such flowering language.
To claim there are Multi Universes is as much a stretch as your quote.
Your view on our conversation is also incorrect. We could BOTH be wrong.
I could say Theism is a Realization of the truth as you claim Atheism is.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I don't claim that Atheist is a realization of the truth. I don't consider myself an atheist (nor a buddhist). And JEEZ, get it already, that this IS modern science. It applies to it perfectly. And just so you know, Buddhism isn't like Christianity at all. It's not a teaching. And it changes as science changes. Buddhism may be ancient, but it doesn't say that the Earth is flat, like Christianity. It got over that, lol. It's dynamic, and it can evolve. We ARE one and that is a fact.
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 OBVIOUSLY we both could be wrong - the fact is we both take on opposite views in this conversation. That's what I meant. In your view you are right, and in my view I am. In my view you are wrong, and in your view I am wrong. All of that can change and we can both ACTUALLY come to be right, but then we will be both on one side of this particular argument, and there will be 2 other people that would be "wrong" - it's just opposite views, that's all. Both are secretly One Whole.
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@KaiTendo174 sez "In your view you are right, and in my view I am"
Wrong
I dont claim to be right, I claim not to know. Theism & Atheism both claim they are correct with incomplete knowledge.
If you understand Science then you could both be correct.
In quantum Theory we have Schrodingers Cat who is dead & alive at the same time
So in the box of the pre Big Bang Universe we could have a God & No God together.
Isnt this quantum Logic fun?
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 God and No God together, in a way, is certainly true. lol
It's funny that you somehow miss the argument I am making about "our views".
Look: "sez "In your view you are right, and in my view I am"
Wrong"
See? You said that what I've said was wrong. As I stated before, in your view I am wrong. We are opponents, do you not see?
Oh and as Neil Tyson (I believe is his name) said:
"We all connect biologically; to the Earth - chemically; to the rest of The Universe - atomically" ;) science
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@KaiTendo174 I dont claim to be absolutely correct in my views.
Atheism & Theism do, that is why they are Religions.
I am simply pointing out logic errors in your thinking, not that I am ABSOLUTELY correct as you (if your an Atheist Believe)
The Universe may be connected but we are discussing PRE Universe.
There was no spacetime or matter as we know it then.
What was there is unknown, thats the point.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 There's no such thing as a PRE Universe... if anything at all as such - then there was Nothing. There's Nothing and Everything at the same time right now... Like space and solid, and sound with silence for example... but if there is nothing and everything at the same time then the Universe can cause itself... If there is nothing then there has to be something/anything/everything as well, because that is opposite to nothing. One cannot exist without the other. It's still here now...
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@KaiTendo174 sez "There's no such thing as a PRE Universe"
Your spouting Philosophy not Science.
There are 3 basic theories,
1 Unknown Pre Universe, including infinite Universes
2 Cyclic Universe
3 Universe came from Nothing.
You may be correct in that matter seems to be a wavefront but its more complex than that.
You cannot know there was nothing before our Universe since there is no way of know that yet,(if ever)
"there needs to be Nothing in order for the there to be Everything."
Really?
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Yeah, really. The Yin Yang principle explains A LOT of things. Really. I personally stand on the position that the Universe was always here, no matter HOW, even without space-time, or any matter at all - it still has always been here - and that is Consciousness... That is the only thing that is always there somehow. Who is it that knows there is no Self?
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@KaiTendo174
I always liked the Cyclic Universe, where it expands to a certain point then crashes back in on itself in an infinite cycle.
Recent measurements have however determined that we are in an infinite expansion with no way of stopping it.
I dont know it that is true however because not all the data is in on Dark Matter/Energy
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Well that is pretty much an agnostic's source of such information/knowledge... Everything that science tells us can apply to my point of view, sooo... You know... ;D
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaiTendo174 "Everything that science tells us can apply to my point of view, sooo... "
Right Soooo to say one side is absolute correct is a Belief or Faith more than Science.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaiTendo174 ...then the Universe can cause itself...
____
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 months ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
Pork
KevinDemar76 2 months ago
@KevinDemar76 @1tabligh
Pork
___
Umm!
@KevinDemar76 Protons!
How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Answer the question!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh You cracked me up, man. For a second there, I thought you were going somewhere with this. Brainwashed atheists? C'mon...
I'm not even going to say anything... Pshh... Allah... And the Christians could've written the same thing, except it would end with "All praise is due to God, the Lord of the Universe." Now, who's right? Are you, or are they? Or me? :D
KaiTendo174 2 months ago
@KaiTendo174 Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Hey fella, no problem you pray to your allah all you want ass long as you want while we science fans and sympathizers just ignore you and continou developping science and if you get sick maybe one of those scientist will find you a cure , Not much allah can do for you, can he ?!!??
Borat911 2 months ago
@Borat911 Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@Borat911 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Everything, that we experience right now is a vibration. Sound is a rapid alteration between sound and silence, but we get the illusion that there is like "a constant sound"... you know what I mean. So yeah, there needs to be Nothing in order for the there to be Everything.
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 because you can't have one without the other, as I've said before. One implies the other one. It's mutual.
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You need to have Two of something, in order to get something to happen...Right now in have a conversation there needs to be the two of us. If you didn't think I was wrong, you wouldn't be able to know that you are right. This interconnection of two polar opposites is crucial for anything. It's like Left and Right - you don't know Right, unless you know Left,and vice versa. Although appearing to be Two, they are indeed One... because you can't have one without the other!Same with Uni
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Oh and you took out of context the fact that this is not a belief - it is a realization. You can come to realize this yourself.
KaiTendo174 3 months ago
@Paulomycin "God by definition is a being who is self-sufficient."
That's a bit of a cop out.
In that case, I could just copy you and say: the universe by definition is self-sufficient. Now there's no need for God, right?
See how your counter-argument doesn't work?
wreynolds1995 3 months ago
@Paulomycin Defining God into existence.
PascalsWager5 3 months ago
Humans are scared and they know they're going to die so they make up gods and worship them. Use the logic side of your mind and spend your life wisely. No one will send you to heaven or hell, get the best out of it, and don't worship something that was never here, and never will be. Worship your time here on our planet. There's no reason as to why you're here, you just are.
goreziad 2 years ago 18
@goreziad were it so simple
ShinhoDynasty7 8 months ago
@goreziad so do u believe in a form of life after death
MrMagnum786 6 months ago