@CartesianTheist Jesus TYPES in random CAPS and uses TOO much exclamation and question MARKS and smileys because HE can!! B-) If you DON'T write IN random caps you're going TO hell!!?!?!?
@CartesianTheist So let me get this straight: You want physical evidence for the existence of physical evidence? You want proof that it’s not just all a figment of your imagination? Implying, I imagine, that saying “But I believe it to be so” is on par with years of careful analysis by scores of scientists?
@TomFynn I think CartesianTheist's point was this: The claim that "without recourse to physical evidence there is no truth" cannot be verified empirically. So, if it is true, then it is false.
@sweenith Then let me rephrase that: Without open, demonstrable, physical evidence, no one is under any obligation to recognize a claim about the world outside our heads as true.
@TomFynn I think that would still run into the same problem:
if it's true that "without demonstrable physical evidence no one is under obligation to recognize a claim about the world outside our heads as true" ,
and since that's a claim about the world (or at least about us, who-if you are a materialist- are part of the world), then, no one is under obligation to assent to that unless there's physical evidence which demonstrates it to be true (which there isn't, far as i know).
@sweenith Then you have no recourse but to assume that it is all in your head. Not only is such a stance incredibly narcissistic, it is also pointless. Since when trying to explain any phenomena you have no way to judge with explanation is the correct one. See David Deutsch "The Fabric of Reality" on this.
Samuel Johnson once was asked how he would refute solipsism. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone...
@TomFynn No I'm not denying that there are claims for which physical evidence is required (in order for it to be a justified belief, or one we're rationally-bound to accept). Of course there are - most of our everyday assertions are of this sort I think.
All I'm saying is that according to your own statement, nobody need believe it unless you can provide physical evidence to demonstrative that statement.
Actually hypotheses are evaluated on their simplicity too (not just explanatory power)
@TomFynn I'm familiar with that illustration. It's about as good as Moore's "here is a hand" argument, I suppose. Neither are sound arguments against skepticism though, since (for example) it's completely compatible with my being a brain in a vat that I mistakenly believe I have just kicked a stone, or that I have a hand, when in fact a mad-scientist is deceiving me. So they beg the question. (I'm not at all a solipsist btw, nor a skeptic)
@sweenith A hypothesis that's compatible with anything is a hypothesis that is completely arbitrary and as such has no explanatory power. You might explain the movement of planets by the movement of angels pushing them around, but then you have no way of predicting any constellation. Your explanation must therefore necessarily be more complex than an explanation that assumes a reality independent of what goes on in your head. Actually your explanation must be more complex than reality *itself*.
@CartesianTheist If you’d bothered to reread all the comments nowhere I stated that physical evidence leads to truth. Logic or no. But that without recourse to physical evidence there is no truth. Only claims.
Physical evidence obtained by careful observation, demonstrably repeatable to everybody, correlated with the findings of others and with thorough application of Occam’s razor is. That is the method. That method works.
What’s the method for the unphysical? Blind obedience?
@CartesianTheist Well, since your IQ is - hopefully - in the double figures, feel free to go back half a page and find it. I just can't be bothered. That's an option too.
@CartesianTheist You are like those monotheists you mentioned. Whenever you get answers, you claim that you asked a different question. I would answer if I knew what the [expletive] you are asking for.
@CartesianTheist So you're asking whether there is proof of the existence of things outside of your head? On Youtube? Over the Internet? A pointless question if there ever was one.
What monotheists believe is one to me. They tend to change their belief so they don’t appear silly when one of their claims turned out to be BS. Without a precise method of observation to assert or falsify a claim that works independently of the performer, that's all they have: claims.
@CartesianTheist I gave you the method on how knowledge of the physical is obtained. By observation and corroboration of independently obtained results we obtain knowledge on that which we did not know before . That method works (see Neptune). If you doubt that method you might as well doubt your own existence. Feel free to tell me about the method of obtaining knowledge of the unphysical. Until then I'll stick with the physical.
@CartesianTheist What you claim to have asked is not my concern. What you asked is. And what you asked is for me to prove the non-existence of something. Which, as Bertrand Russell noticed, is impossible. If you make claims of the unphysical, it's up to you to back 'em up. Until you have found a way to do that, beyond personal account, hearsay, assertion or simply "Because I say so", the unphysical is BS.
@CartesianTheist In 1846, Neptune was discovered within 1° of where Le Verrier had predicted it to be, calculated from Newton's theory based on Bouvard's data on Uranus's orbit. In 1989 Voyager 2 went by, sending the first images on it. If there's any proof for the unphysical as conclusive as for Neptune, feel free to tell me. Until there is, the unphysical is BS.
@CartesianTheist Yes. Without evidence, available and accessible to everyone, predictions precise and specific enough to be tested repeatably against that evidence to be falsified or confirmed, there is no knowledge. Only self-deception and empty phrases.
@CartesianTheist If it ain't empirical science it explains exactly nothing. TE is just a way of saying "I don't know" for people who lack the courage to admit to that. Platinga included.
@CartesianTheist Darwin couldn’t have had a problem with TE, since TE – other than his theory - gives no functional explanation. TE is like shouting “First” on YT. TE makes no prediction specific enough to be tested and so is compatible with anything. Instead of saying: God must have made man, since we can’t imagine how else he could have come to be, TE is saying: Well, God didn’t make man, yes, but He made the universe. Without stating *how*. Same crap as before. Only on a bigger scale.
@CartesianTheist What Darwin means neither you nor I know, only what he's written. Seniority does not matter. Darwin stated that he is an agnostic as he also indicates further down in the letter to Fordyce. And while he stated that you can be theist and think evolution correct, he also states that his theory is not in need of god. So Occam's razor applies. Thus guided evolution - for which there is no evidence - is vapid BS. Anyone who believes in it is an IDiot.
"But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process." Darwin, letter to Joseph Hooker (1863).
As for abiogenesis:
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." Barlow, Nora ed. 1958 "The autobiography of Charles Darwin" 1809-1882, p. 94
@CartesianTheist "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." Final sentence, "The Origin of Species", C. Darwin, 1st Ed.
@CartesianTheist "To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so."
Plantinga, Alvin (1974). The Nature of Necessity, pp. 166–167
So a world with moral evil supposedly created by God looks *exactly* like one produced by evolution.
Meaning that a simple application of Occam's razor leaves us with evolution.
@CartesianTheist PZ Myers never claimed to be one. He is, however, a biologist, who dismantled Platingas notion of evolution on which Platingas argument is based. And evolution is biology.
"Guided evolution" aka ID for people who know long words but don't know what they mean. See "Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name", on PZ Myers Blog "Pharyngula", May 29, 2009 10:26 AM on scienceblogs.
@CartesianTheist "Central to Reformed epistemology is the idea that belief in God is a "properly basic belief": it doesn't need to be inferred from other truths in order to be reasonable." - See Wiki.
"Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence intelligently designed. [...] Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution"
"Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers". The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 11, 2010.
@CartesianTheist Because Platingas "argument" that everything is true until proven wrong is like bullshit. Everything is true that has massive evidence in it's favor and had not been conclusively falsified.
I noticed much of Jung thought in your oratory. As a Scientist, you should be open to anything which remains Theory until either proven or disproven such as much of Einstein's works. God, as Spanoza would put it, is what man created,Although; One must remember the great paradox',out of disorder comes order and from order comes disorder. You showed a negitive attitude towards A " Good Orderly Direction" . you spoke of sufferage, man's mind is in conflict with his consciousness of reality.
Science is a truly wonderful methodology for describing the material universe around us. It has shown us many truths about our existence (i.e. natural selection) However many people take it too far in my opinion and assume that the material is all that there is. This is philosophy, not science. The idea that matter and energy is all that makes up reality (materialism) is an unsupported claim, just like supernaturalism. Non-existent and unverifiable are not the same thing.
People shouldn't go around acting like their unverifiable claims are incredibly profound. Unverifiable claims are the ultimate kind of shallowness. It's incredibly easy to just make something up and say "I'm off the hook - it's unfalsifiable!" That's why we can't accept this sort of reasoning. It opens the door to any crap that anyone can pull out of his ass, provided that he's careful to specify that science can't detect the smell of his shit.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@eulercircles Scientists know that the creation requires the Creator.
And thus, the correct judgment..."without excuse"....
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Ro 1:20)
Only ONE Hope..
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope;" (1Ti 1:1)
@trac4yt You're right, creation would require a creator. However, there is no reason to suppose that the universe is a creation. Read Stenger's books, God: The Failed Hypothesis, The Comprehensible Cosmos, and Quantum Gods to understand why this is so. Before you recommend reading the Bible, I have. That's one reason I am an atheist.
We don't just not have a need for supernatural explanations. There is no such thing as a 'supernatural explanation' since the supernatural does not follow any predictable set of rules. It only follows what the imagination wants to claim about it. Stop saying that supernatural explanations are unnecessary, and say the truth: Supernatural 'explanations' only appear to be explanations, but are nothing of the kind.
Every religious friend I've ever had growing up has professed they think they are the second coming of Jesus. No joke.
I always politely reminded them, "there would have to be a first coming, for that to happen". But don't try to explain causality to someone, who thinks they are Jesus reincarnated.
@niginit Just walk around with a Post-It saying "I'm Jesus." You can say you claimed it first, yell "Nuh uh!" and slap that on their forehead when they dare to rebut. Meet like with like.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
lol
I laughed at how he offset the logical implications of the probability factor which was very legit btw with indoctrination arguments. Which is nothing but a diversion from the obvious.
Not to mention the complete and utter useless responses he gives to explain the overwhelming issue that follow.
Yet more proof that the issues raised by people of faith or whatever we want to call them have raised a significant and lasting point to ponder.
Watch it again, SmalltimR. Maybe you missed the destruction of the fine-tuning argument and the refutation of the anthropic principle.
Stenger is in the process of writing a book about fine tuning titled »The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning -- Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us«. A link to the draft is in the header of his recent article at the Huffington Post (»Absence of Evidence *Is* Evidence of Absence«, 2010-08-14, emphasis mine).
why are you qouting me a mumbo jumbo statement? i got one for you
"Im a Real Boy!" (Pinnoccio)
thats the same thing you pretty much quoted me...a verse that someone made up..
Here is a logic trap for you...jesus commin back...ok lets say he comes back...so your automatically going to believe any asshole that says hes jesus... Whats ironic is that the 2nd comming of jesus would have to be a person who learned the history just like everyone else...and then claim hes god, or gods son
you know i can think of a a few million self righteous god complex christians that are stupid enough to want to claim they are the son of god...its all too familiar and its been done before and as long as this childish religion still exists there will be many more people that have a god complex, people dont ave any touch with reality...
you should question your own IQ before passing judgment on another...To my intellectual understanding Phil is using something Called "humor" because he understands that jesus was never a real person in the first place, it is a created EGO in the human mind, and when millions beleive in it it takes on a life of its own, it is more or less just an ideology and never had a physical form, at least thats what study of REAL history and sociology and psychology has shown as evident
lol using social norm types of words that are associated as "bad" does not make someones IQ low...What makes a persons IQ low is not understanding the nature of why the word was used and how the word origionated in our culture to begin with, it is contratictory of you to make a judgement upon his IQ when you yourself are using similar types of social norm words in retaliation, and unproven methods of how he has to correct his language isn't very intelligent "soap in the mouth" wont correct that
@EVOxNS I agree that, 'God, the failed hypothesis' is excellent. Have you tried the superb ' The reason driven life' by Robert M Price who is an expert in higher criticism of the Bible. Other good authors Valerie Tarico, John W Loftus, Dan Barker, Richard Carrier, Ken Humphreys, Bart Ehrman, Keith Parsons, Ken Pulliam, Gary Greenberg. Truth-saves, Talkorigins
@zytigon Thanks for the list of authors. I have books by most of them including ' The reason driven life' by Robert M Price.Now that you insist I keep it close by to read it next. Right now I am reading "The Greatest Show On Planet" by Richard Dawkins - If you read "Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, please let me know what you think about it. Thank you.
Oh thats because of the pictures of him by people that never laid eyes on him ahhhh that all makes perfect sense, i wonder if he used good fine razors and state of the art shaving creame to make a perfect shave withought rashes or cuts, he must of used perm+ and anti dandruff shampoo to, and lets not forget that he kept out of the sun a lot too to protect from tanning!!! lol myth believing douchebags lol
My bologna detector is going off too...but I can tell just by looking at these two guys in the video that there's not gonna be lunchmeat of any kind left in the building.
I warned you my fellow Christians, THE END IS COMING! Depart now from all form of unrighteousness such as fornication, homosexuality, pornography, watching violent entertainment, drug abuse, smoking, gambling, cursing, bullying, revelries, pursuit of money and idolatry etc. LEST YOU BE FOUND NOT WORTHY TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
A volcano situated in the US will erupt not far from now, when this happen you will know that this warning is from God.
I witnessed the second coming of our lord jesus Christ but I didn't want to break tradition so I nailed him to my front door, painted a red spot on his nipple and won the award for worlds most original doorbell.
I know both my parents and you ain't one of them. Yes I swear a lot... you'll get over it and so will everyone else. Low IQ? Check your comment SON. Written in Slack-jawed retard speak. I poo on thee.
I'm not going to argue. i'm just going to call you a cunt. CUNT.
I really hope you're right and your little god does exist because then I can feel all warm and cosy about you burning in hell and having your genitals mutilated by demons... but sadly i think you'll probably die and go nowhere. Hey ho, still fun to speculate.
Mr, M = a new-style Christian, trying to spread the "gospel of salvation" by much speaking, and getting the last word or by insulting and devaluing the lost sheep he should be caring for - admit that your true goal is to win. not to save anyone. You are a Christian bombast full of cleverness and pride.... By your own dogma you are undone. If I were a believer any longer, I would urge you to humble yourself before the lord YOUR god. but i am a naturalist and can no longer say that....
You say- "Their major problem is that IF evolution is true, then these claims to truth are environmentally determined..." The problem is IF evolution is true, then we are no longer talking about CLAIMS.. or maybe it should have said clams. haha.
Just so you know, I won't be replying to or even reading any of your messages (inbox notifications will be automatically deleted), nor will I be checking back here. I've decided I have better things to do than to worry about a 30year old who rejects the most well verified theory in science for the sake of an imaginary friend. While I've been doing actual work, you've been obsessing on this forum for months! Plus YOU contacted ME - and yet you think I'M the one with an "audience" here! Fuckhead.
More retard talk. NO ONE in science talks like this. You sound like a complete fucking idiot, throwing words around like confetti. Get a life, you Bible-thumping One Nation motherfucker.
"ccepting various things, as you say, is simply the result of your environmental conditioning, and so it follows that your accepting things as true,"
Right, and how does that suddenly change just because you've read the Bible, which magically you regard as not part of the environment? Or better still, how does it suddenly change when you look at the "evidence" you keep bitching about (but haven't once provided), of the "design" we see in the environment?
By the way, get an education. Then come back and discuss this with adults. Until then, I'll regard you as a sad little nitwit, and so will everyone else, which is as it should be.
You just love to misuse and twist words, don't you? (typical for a no-hoper)
"IF, evolution is true is STILL enviromentally determined and not objective in any universal sense at all."
Yeah, that's retarded. Evolution is accepted as true because the evidence is what we would expect it to be IF evolution is true. The evidence conforms to basic predictions that flow from evolutionary theory. All this fluff about "environmental determinism" is just an excuse on your part because you've lost.
It's because the basic premise is retarded (don't worry, I don't expect you to notice why). it's nothing to do with being "unable" to answer it. It's that the assumption is that you're exempt from "environmental determinism". Of course, you have no idea what "environment" actually means, given that you don't know squat about biology.
Okay, good boy. Just keep repeating yourself. Hitler said that a lie repeated often enough will eventually be seen as the truth. I guess that applies to you, judging by the way you've been carrying on.
"Accepting various things, as you say, is simply the result of your environmental conditioning"
As though that doesn't apply to you. Of course, you SAY it doesn't (as though that constitutes "proof") but you have to be completely fucked not to notice that everything you've said applies to me applies just as much to you.
Here's the answer: it's false. You've got a completely false view of the environment, evolution and the nature of belief. So your "challenge" is no challenge at all, but rather a silly and worthless misunderstanding.
"Um no moron, I believe in God and not evolution so on my view my truth statements are not enviromentally determined like yours: what a moron you are."
Fuck you're a stupid-shit. Your so-called argument makes no sense whatsoever. Believing inn evolution is the result of looking at and accepting various things, JUST LIKE believing in God is. Both are environmentally "determined", unless you're so clueless that you don't know what the word "environment" means in a biological context.
Nah, it doesn't show that. Almost all biologists are evolutionists, ESPECIALLY geneticists and developmental biologists. They know full well that the sorts of systems they look at every day are too convoluted and have too many ad hoc features that are what we would expect of a mindless process, not design.
"Flew says that he simply: had to go where the evidence leads"
And on that basis, he rejects ID, contrary to your lies. So stop changing the subject by talking about his theism, because you brought him up as an ID advocate, which he isn't. To combat evolution, Flew is useless to you, yet you cling to him because you've got nothing else to go on.
"observes Americas pre-eminent philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga"
Yeah, "pre-eminent". Even though his views on evolution are so laughable.
Yeah, funny. Exccept that if you knew the first thing about biology (which you don't, hence your need to quote mine and provide false views of the beliefs of professors who you want to use as a crutch for your antiquated beliefs) you'd know that sexual conflict is one of the most intensively researched areas in biology. It's a HUGE area, and it's off limits to pawns like you.
And one more thing, little boy: next year I'm going to be doing my Honours thesis on sexual conflict. I'll be more than happy to keep you up to date with it and to send you the final copy, which is far more than can be said you you. You won't even say what you did your "research" in, where, or with who. There's one of us who deserves the designation "little boy", and it ain't me.
It speaks volumes that you have to use the example of Flew to get your point across, where as if you knew anything at all about that case you'd know that he later announced quite openly that he had allowed himself to be taken in by the claims of a physicist who is an ID advocate. He's more open to deism, but not ID, which he rejected.
No, it didn't make any sense because it made improper use of words in a sentence. Please rewrite it so as to make it intelligible, instead of blaming me for your failure to think at the level of a 15 year old.
"being critised as seriously flawed in so many areas"
Sure it is. What you fail to mention is that it's predominantly the likes of Answers in Gensis who are among those leading the screeching circus saying it's "flawed" (even though it continues to be used in medicine, agriculture, ecology and farming, unlike useless creationism). By the way, liar, Flew later said that he was embarrassed to have been suckered into believing the claims of ID. Funny how you didn't mention that.
"Thesists arguments are so good that Anthony Flew, teh great atheist now believes in God."
Nice to see God-boy here still flogging a dead horse. I still remember your retarded "arguments" against evolution. You're an intellectual feather-weight.
Interesting that videos like this attract the odd 'god-bot.' I wonder why a person like that would find an interview like this. Do they google "things that would challenge a god-botherer"?
Stenger is brilliant - haven't read his book yet, but I've seen a couple of interviews and his book is in my on-deck circle.
God sets the methodology whereby men are judged with their so-called, "proofs".
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Ro 1:20)
ScienTISTS ultimately have no say in the matter. Their arguments will prove to be folly.
Failed hypothesis: the chapters on cosmology contain information found little else e.g how the concept of "nothingness" is not physically tenable and how absolute vaccum (nothing) is so unstable that it begets "something". He also talks about sponatneous symmetry break-down and the fallacy of the fine tuning argument.
Apart from these three chapters the rest of the book, tackling the existence of evil and the soul...etc from a scientific viewpoint are not half as impressive.
This book can transform your views on life completely. Depending on how strong your scientific background you may be blown away (like I was) by his discussion on the nature of force, how the concept is fictitious and only introduced into everyday language, including mathematical formulations, to preserve various properties of existence including symmetry and point-of-view invariance.
Catch is: don't approach unless you're comfortable with graduate level mathematics.
Interesting.. sort of helps with the question of why there's something instead of nothing. However, there obviously has to be a degree of set stability (the constants, for example) for galaxies to continue to exist, etc. Or does there? Might the stability come from black holes and the like, which are otherwise destructive in nature? What's the spontaneous symmetry breakdown idea say? Also, what was Stenger's ultimate thesis of the fallacy of the fine tuning argument?
Problem of evil is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. I'm skeptical when scientists try to apply an objective subject into a purely subjective question.
He references his own research. He ran simulations after altering constants by several orders of magnitude. Half of the resultant universes contained stars that lived long enough to support life. The main fallacy, according to him, was that previous work did not allow for the interdependence between the constants. When you change one, this causes compensatory changes in others.
Symmetry breakdown is the mechanism by which the laws are seen to arise spontaneously without a designer. It's a mathematical model and conclusion that Vic describes in both books.
What do think about the big bounce theory in quantum gravitation? The constants are simply adjusting within every cycle of universal phases. Perhaps, even for the sake of attaining greater balance and stability. There was an article on it in a newer issue of "Scientific American". Any thoughts on that?
Haven't read Sci Am for a while but thanks for alerting me to the article. Why don't you pay us a visit at the Richard Dawkins official website. Articles pertaining to cosmology and high energy particles physics are regularly updated. Some of the visitors are physicists and some are just well read about the subject.
Of course we have our share of eccentrics and the politically polarised but if you'll sure get some very interesting responses if you mention that particular theory.
That's my point, believing in something doesn't make it true. How come people who honestly search for God come up with COMPLETELY different answers, or are you so arrogant to say those that chose Islam or Buddhism over Christianity really weren't trying?
As for bias, my argument only works against your side. If we are not biased, then why is it so generally accepted to we are? We'd have to be biased to get that wrong. If we are, then belief is not a proper qualifyer for eternity.
Humans are proven bias, that is FACT. There is a good explanation from evolution for this, but if God made us, he wouldn't want there to be bias, especially the subconscious biases we have. Why would he create people who can honestly search for the truth, and come to a lie? People do this all the time! Different people have different beliefs, and SOME of them have to be wrong, but yet so many in all beliefs HONESTLY believe it.
God knows "evidence" isn't the READ issue with men. That's simply "smoke-and-mirrors" to dodge accountability for sin.
In Christ's day, they had PLENTY of evidence.
"But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy." (Mr 15:9-10)
You seem to go adhere to "repeat a lie enough and people will believe it".
We are engineered for survival, whether God made us or through evolution. However, if you admit that people are biased, how can our salvation be determined by something for which we cannot do: find truth. If we cannot find truth, how is it our fault if we don't find Jesus? Perceptions are fallible, you're living proof. It should be said that we survive BY finding truth. The closer we get, the better we are.
Also, take any crystal formation. The chances that every single atom would lay down in the exact specific order\arragement is just as statistically impossible than creationists say life is. Yet you cannot have a crystal unless it does form in some type of patter.
Roll 12 dice, all different colors. The chance of any combination of numbers and colors is in the billions. Yet every time we roll the dice, we get a combination. Considering the size of the universe, not surprising life exists.
Ah the anthropic principal . . . a fine misrepresentations of statistics that makes severe jumps of logic.
Life seems fine tuned to exist. Move anything and life AS WE KNOW IT doesn't exist, it is statistically impossible for life to have formed by chance.
Fail. First off, life could exist in many forms we are not aware of, especially if we change the laws of nature. Scientists are on the verge of creating an artificial protocell capable of self-replication.
Umm . . . how should I say this . . . no. Evolutioni isn't a collapsing theory, unless you can produce some type of peer-reviewed paper or study . . . any type of evidence. ID, Irreducible complexity, flood explanation . . . all have been debunked repeatidly.
A good argument, except when soley philosophical, can stand up to experimentation and science, my dear. A book referencing itself is not any sort of proof, it has to be verified by independent sources.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Here they are "bumping their gums" emitting thoughts via words without a clue to the incomparable neuronal complexity concerning what God made possible through their vocal chords...
..and they would deny their Creator!
Someone has been calculating roller skate acceleration, down inclines, for WAY too long.
:-)
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (Joh 1:3)
It's funny how the Sun comes up for the day, then the Moon comes up for the night. Or how perfect solar eclipses happen. Do these things need to happen? Not at all, but they do none the less and it's very symmetrical and story book like. Just a natural thing to think for me. Beyond that I'm not sure what to believe.
Actually the moon does come out during the day . . . and obviously the sun does because that is what makes day. I know you know the moon comes out during the day because you mention a solar eclipse, something that only happens when the moon is in between the earth and sun. Perfect solar eclipses are rare, sometimes the moon is larger or smaller than the sun, depending on its orbit, which fluctuates.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (Joh 5:24)
:-)
Don't let your rebellion to God prevent you from receiving Christ.
Typically, there's all kind of talk about God at a "rational scientist"'s funeral.
Why? It's ultimate answer time.
Thus, it's better to face the issue earlier before the dead-end coffin.
Get a jump start on the REAL spiritual facts..
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (Joh 6:40)
Logic Fails? Wow, what a brain fart! lol...god is a non-issue with a rational scientist. Perhaps you're talking about those politically bought off pseudo-scientist who are paid off by the Discovery Institutes or The Templeton Foundation....Paid for by: you guessed it, billions of evangelical dollars. Intellectually laughable if it weren't sooooo sad.
lol...god is a non-issue with a rational scientist. Perhaps you're talking about those politically bought off pseudo-scientist who are paid by the Discovery Institutes or The Templeton Foundation....sponsored by: you guessed it, billions of evangelical dollars. Intellectually laughable if it weren't so pathetically sad.
In order for one to assertain that someone did something, one CANNOT assume said something was done and then propose that as evidence said someone did it. There are more logical fallacies in that argument than I feel like pointing out. The only Satanic religion, is Satanism. Unfalsifiable and Infallible do not equate.
That's the most sound logic I've ever heard. Maybe next time you could reach into your bag of tricks and provide emperical evidence of your one of thousands of gods that have claimed existence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
caye,
Science cannot create 1 living cell of anything due to its inability to create the spiritual base. It then continues peddling backwards on 2 flat tires, imagining the atoms-only mythology.
Agreed, there's good money in the evolution industrial complex.
"And God CREATED great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." (Ge 1:21)
By the way everyone, scientists have discovered a "frogmander" - an intermediate form with a mosaic of features from the two groups. This is precisely the sort of fossil that we would expect exists if evolution is true. The creationist can only make the excuse that we now have more gaps, or else to say something like "Well, prove that it evolved and that God didn't create it." This, even after they were saying "Provide just ONE example of an intermediate form." Desperately,they've rigged it.
Mattetho's still at it, trying to convince everyone that he's capable of deep thinking. Part of his rigorous, science-based musings include explaining that speciation can't happen, yet he knows nothing about genetics! He does, on the other hand, know how to quote-mine, which is kind of weird given that he claims to have as his "colleagues" actual scientists. Yet he won't even make his studies available for consideration by others. Lucky for him, the anonymity of the Internet.
If you still disagree with my sentiments you can start writing that research paper for the ASL telling them that they're wrong about the classification of causal arguments and scientific arguments under inductive reasoning. Don't bother messaging me or my boy Steven {Mjavok} till you get published.
@CartesianTheist Jesus TYPES in random CAPS and uses TOO much exclamation and question MARKS and smileys because HE can!! B-) If you DON'T write IN random caps you're going TO hell!!?!?!?
drrobertoboogie97 5 months ago in playlist Victor Stenger: The New Atheism
Comment removed
drrobertoboogie97 5 months ago in playlist Victor Stenger: The New Atheism
@CartesianTheist So let me get this straight: You want physical evidence for the existence of physical evidence? You want proof that it’s not just all a figment of your imagination? Implying, I imagine, that saying “But I believe it to be so” is on par with years of careful analysis by scores of scientists?
TomFynn 9 months ago
@TomFynn I think CartesianTheist's point was this: The claim that "without recourse to physical evidence there is no truth" cannot be verified empirically. So, if it is true, then it is false.
sweenith 4 months ago
@sweenith Then let me rephrase that: Without open, demonstrable, physical evidence, no one is under any obligation to recognize a claim about the world outside our heads as true.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn I think that would still run into the same problem:
if it's true that "without demonstrable physical evidence no one is under obligation to recognize a claim about the world outside our heads as true" ,
and since that's a claim about the world (or at least about us, who-if you are a materialist- are part of the world), then, no one is under obligation to assent to that unless there's physical evidence which demonstrates it to be true (which there isn't, far as i know).
sweenith 4 months ago
@sweenith Then you have no recourse but to assume that it is all in your head. Not only is such a stance incredibly narcissistic, it is also pointless. Since when trying to explain any phenomena you have no way to judge with explanation is the correct one. See David Deutsch "The Fabric of Reality" on this.
Samuel Johnson once was asked how he would refute solipsism. He said "I refute it thus" and kicked a stone...
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn No I'm not denying that there are claims for which physical evidence is required (in order for it to be a justified belief, or one we're rationally-bound to accept). Of course there are - most of our everyday assertions are of this sort I think.
All I'm saying is that according to your own statement, nobody need believe it unless you can provide physical evidence to demonstrative that statement.
Actually hypotheses are evaluated on their simplicity too (not just explanatory power)
sweenith 4 months ago
@TomFynn I'm familiar with that illustration. It's about as good as Moore's "here is a hand" argument, I suppose. Neither are sound arguments against skepticism though, since (for example) it's completely compatible with my being a brain in a vat that I mistakenly believe I have just kicked a stone, or that I have a hand, when in fact a mad-scientist is deceiving me. So they beg the question. (I'm not at all a solipsist btw, nor a skeptic)
sweenith 4 months ago
@sweenith A hypothesis that's compatible with anything is a hypothesis that is completely arbitrary and as such has no explanatory power. You might explain the movement of planets by the movement of angels pushing them around, but then you have no way of predicting any constellation. Your explanation must therefore necessarily be more complex than an explanation that assumes a reality independent of what goes on in your head. Actually your explanation must be more complex than reality *itself*.
TomFynn 3 months ago
@CartesianTheist If you’d bothered to reread all the comments nowhere I stated that physical evidence leads to truth. Logic or no. But that without recourse to physical evidence there is no truth. Only claims.
Physical evidence obtained by careful observation, demonstrably repeatable to everybody, correlated with the findings of others and with thorough application of Occam’s razor is. That is the method. That method works.
What’s the method for the unphysical? Blind obedience?
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist Well, since your IQ is - hopefully - in the double figures, feel free to go back half a page and find it. I just can't be bothered. That's an option too.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist You are like those monotheists you mentioned. Whenever you get answers, you claim that you asked a different question. I would answer if I knew what the [expletive] you are asking for.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist So you're asking whether there is proof of the existence of things outside of your head? On Youtube? Over the Internet? A pointless question if there ever was one.
What monotheists believe is one to me. They tend to change their belief so they don’t appear silly when one of their claims turned out to be BS. Without a precise method of observation to assert or falsify a claim that works independently of the performer, that's all they have: claims.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist I gave you the method on how knowledge of the physical is obtained. By observation and corroboration of independently obtained results we obtain knowledge on that which we did not know before . That method works (see Neptune). If you doubt that method you might as well doubt your own existence. Feel free to tell me about the method of obtaining knowledge of the unphysical. Until then I'll stick with the physical.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist What you claim to have asked is not my concern. What you asked is. And what you asked is for me to prove the non-existence of something. Which, as Bertrand Russell noticed, is impossible. If you make claims of the unphysical, it's up to you to back 'em up. Until you have found a way to do that, beyond personal account, hearsay, assertion or simply "Because I say so", the unphysical is BS.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist In 1846, Neptune was discovered within 1° of where Le Verrier had predicted it to be, calculated from Newton's theory based on Bouvard's data on Uranus's orbit. In 1989 Voyager 2 went by, sending the first images on it. If there's any proof for the unphysical as conclusive as for Neptune, feel free to tell me. Until there is, the unphysical is BS.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist Yes. Without evidence, available and accessible to everyone, predictions precise and specific enough to be tested repeatably against that evidence to be falsified or confirmed, there is no knowledge. Only self-deception and empty phrases.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist If it ain't empirical science it explains exactly nothing. TE is just a way of saying "I don't know" for people who lack the courage to admit to that. Platinga included.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist Darwin couldn’t have had a problem with TE, since TE – other than his theory - gives no functional explanation. TE is like shouting “First” on YT. TE makes no prediction specific enough to be tested and so is compatible with anything. Instead of saying: God must have made man, since we can’t imagine how else he could have come to be, TE is saying: Well, God didn’t make man, yes, but He made the universe. Without stating *how*. Same crap as before. Only on a bigger scale.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist What Darwin means neither you nor I know, only what he's written. Seniority does not matter. Darwin stated that he is an agnostic as he also indicates further down in the letter to Fordyce. And while he stated that you can be theist and think evolution correct, he also states that his theory is not in need of god. So Occam's razor applies. Thus guided evolution - for which there is no evidence - is vapid BS. Anyone who believes in it is an IDiot.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist
On whether evolution needs "God":
"But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process." Darwin, letter to Joseph Hooker (1863).
As for abiogenesis:
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." Barlow, Nora ed. 1958 "The autobiography of Charles Darwin" 1809-1882, p. 94
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." Final sentence, "The Origin of Species", C. Darwin, 1st Ed.
No mention of God there.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist "To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so."
Plantinga, Alvin (1974). The Nature of Necessity, pp. 166–167
So a world with moral evil supposedly created by God looks *exactly* like one produced by evolution.
Meaning that a simple application of Occam's razor leaves us with evolution.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist PZ Myers never claimed to be one. He is, however, a biologist, who dismantled Platingas notion of evolution on which Platingas argument is based. And evolution is biology.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist
"Guided evolution" aka ID for people who know long words but don't know what they mean. See "Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name", on PZ Myers Blog "Pharyngula", May 29, 2009 10:26 AM on scienceblogs.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist "Central to Reformed epistemology is the idea that belief in God is a "properly basic belief": it doesn't need to be inferred from other truths in order to be reasonable." - See Wiki.
"Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence intelligently designed. [...] Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution"
"Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers". The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 11, 2010.
TomFynn 9 months ago
@CartesianTheist Because Platingas "argument" that everything is true until proven wrong is like bullshit. Everything is true that has massive evidence in it's favor and had not been conclusively falsified.
Oh, and he's an ID supporter. Case closed.
TomFynn 9 months ago
I noticed much of Jung thought in your oratory. As a Scientist, you should be open to anything which remains Theory until either proven or disproven such as much of Einstein's works. God, as Spanoza would put it, is what man created,Although; One must remember the great paradox',out of disorder comes order and from order comes disorder. You showed a negitive attitude towards A " Good Orderly Direction" . you spoke of sufferage, man's mind is in conflict with his consciousness of reality.
taeim43 1 year ago
"The Future of Naturalism?"---that's like writing a book on "The Future of Dinosaurs."
EastofForever 1 year ago
Deepak Chopra, quantum healing? What a fucking joke!
vdtmh 1 year ago 2
Science is a truly wonderful methodology for describing the material universe around us. It has shown us many truths about our existence (i.e. natural selection) However many people take it too far in my opinion and assume that the material is all that there is. This is philosophy, not science. The idea that matter and energy is all that makes up reality (materialism) is an unsupported claim, just like supernaturalism. Non-existent and unverifiable are not the same thing.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
@Keysteeze (horrible name)
People shouldn't go around acting like their unverifiable claims are incredibly profound. Unverifiable claims are the ultimate kind of shallowness. It's incredibly easy to just make something up and say "I'm off the hook - it's unfalsifiable!" That's why we can't accept this sort of reasoning. It opens the door to any crap that anyone can pull out of his ass, provided that he's careful to specify that science can't detect the smell of his shit.
vrazwer 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MadMAn12gauge
God has providentially preserved HIS Word perfect in the Bible via HIS promises. It is thus sacred, infallible, and final authority.
AFTER you become a NEW CREATION in Christ, a "sound mind" will be yours..
"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2Ti 1:7)
Spiritual realities are always foundational to the natural.
Learn quickly.
:-)
trac4yt 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@eulercircles Scientists know that the creation requires the Creator.
And thus, the correct judgment..."without excuse"....
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Ro 1:20)
Only ONE Hope..
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope;" (1Ti 1:1)
:-)
trac4yt 1 year ago
@trac4yt You're right, creation would require a creator. However, there is no reason to suppose that the universe is a creation. Read Stenger's books, God: The Failed Hypothesis, The Comprehensible Cosmos, and Quantum Gods to understand why this is so. Before you recommend reading the Bible, I have. That's one reason I am an atheist.
Kailoa36 10 months ago
We don't just not have a need for supernatural explanations. There is no such thing as a 'supernatural explanation' since the supernatural does not follow any predictable set of rules. It only follows what the imagination wants to claim about it. Stop saying that supernatural explanations are unnecessary, and say the truth: Supernatural 'explanations' only appear to be explanations, but are nothing of the kind.
eulercircles 1 year ago 2
Every religious friend I've ever had growing up has professed they think they are the second coming of Jesus. No joke.
I always politely reminded them, "there would have to be a first coming, for that to happen". But don't try to explain causality to someone, who thinks they are Jesus reincarnated.
niginit 1 year ago
@niginit Just walk around with a Post-It saying "I'm Jesus." You can say you claimed it first, yell "Nuh uh!" and slap that on their forehead when they dare to rebut. Meet like with like.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays
I like that idea. : )
niginit 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol
I laughed at how he offset the logical implications of the probability factor which was very legit btw with indoctrination arguments. Which is nothing but a diversion from the obvious.
Not to mention the complete and utter useless responses he gives to explain the overwhelming issue that follow.
Yet more proof that the issues raised by people of faith or whatever we want to call them have raised a significant and lasting point to ponder.
Nothing to see here folks.
SmalltimR 2 years ago
Watch it again, SmalltimR. Maybe you missed the destruction of the fine-tuning argument and the refutation of the anthropic principle.
Stenger is in the process of writing a book about fine tuning titled »The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning -- Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us«. A link to the draft is in the header of his recent article at the Huffington Post (»Absence of Evidence *Is* Evidence of Absence«, 2010-08-14, emphasis mine).
virumoz 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
madm,
Supposed PhysicsChemistry-onlyites cannot assess reality in any field...
..just chemical-based "guesses".
Thus, they can't even create 1 lving cell of anything.
Thus, back to infallible FACT..
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (Joh 2:19)
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
why are you qouting me a mumbo jumbo statement? i got one for you
"Im a Real Boy!" (Pinnoccio)
thats the same thing you pretty much quoted me...a verse that someone made up..
Here is a logic trap for you...jesus commin back...ok lets say he comes back...so your automatically going to believe any asshole that says hes jesus... Whats ironic is that the 2nd comming of jesus would have to be a person who learned the history just like everyone else...and then claim hes god, or gods son
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
you know i can think of a a few million self righteous god complex christians that are stupid enough to want to claim they are the son of god...its all too familiar and its been done before and as long as this childish religion still exists there will be many more people that have a god complex, people dont ave any touch with reality...
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
you should question your own IQ before passing judgment on another...To my intellectual understanding Phil is using something Called "humor" because he understands that jesus was never a real person in the first place, it is a created EGO in the human mind, and when millions beleive in it it takes on a life of its own, it is more or less just an ideology and never had a physical form, at least thats what study of REAL history and sociology and psychology has shown as evident
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago 3
lol using social norm types of words that are associated as "bad" does not make someones IQ low...What makes a persons IQ low is not understanding the nature of why the word was used and how the word origionated in our culture to begin with, it is contratictory of you to make a judgement upon his IQ when you yourself are using similar types of social norm words in retaliation, and unproven methods of how he has to correct his language isn't very intelligent "soap in the mouth" wont correct that
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
I have read the book it is amazing. Highly recommended-
EVOxNS 2 years ago 7
@EVOxNS I agree that, 'God, the failed hypothesis' is excellent. Have you tried the superb ' The reason driven life' by Robert M Price who is an expert in higher criticism of the Bible. Other good authors Valerie Tarico, John W Loftus, Dan Barker, Richard Carrier, Ken Humphreys, Bart Ehrman, Keith Parsons, Ken Pulliam, Gary Greenberg. Truth-saves, Talkorigins
zytigon 5 months ago
@zytigon Thanks for the list of authors. I have books by most of them including ' The reason driven life' by Robert M Price.Now that you insist I keep it close by to read it next. Right now I am reading "The Greatest Show On Planet" by Richard Dawkins - If you read "Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, please let me know what you think about it. Thank you.
EVOxNS 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jesus. Why can't we have more attractive looking scientists. At least it works in their favor regarding proving evolution (looking like apes)!
nigerlover18 2 years ago
lol how do you know jesus wasn't ugly?
Oh thats because of the pictures of him by people that never laid eyes on him ahhhh that all makes perfect sense, i wonder if he used good fine razors and state of the art shaving creame to make a perfect shave withought rashes or cuts, he must of used perm+ and anti dandruff shampoo to, and lets not forget that he kept out of the sun a lot too to protect from tanning!!! lol myth believing douchebags lol
MadMAn12gauge 2 years ago
Comment removed
ISDP1337 2 years ago
He looks like my Grand daddy :P
Offc. when ppl get this far in study, you will look rather diffrent... why dont you look in sports if you wanna see attractive meat ?
C0ldNerF 2 years ago
Ha. Tom looks like Santa. Ironic?
newcoyote 2 years ago
Great video, but it looks like it was filmed on Betamax circa 1981
TheIrishEd 2 years ago
all hail to the betamax, the lord of audio-visual information!
franzpolak 2 years ago
Great Topic.
biologicalbubble 2 years ago
My bologna detector is going off too...but I can tell just by looking at these two guys in the video that there's not gonna be lunchmeat of any kind left in the building.
Cashify 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
I warned you my fellow Christians, THE END IS COMING! Depart now from all form of unrighteousness such as fornication, homosexuality, pornography, watching violent entertainment, drug abuse, smoking, gambling, cursing, bullying, revelries, pursuit of money and idolatry etc. LEST YOU BE FOUND NOT WORTHY TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
A volcano situated in the US will erupt not far from now, when this happen you will know that this warning is from God.
.
conceil8 2 years ago
Hey is that an Amiga based Video Toaster / Flyer in the editing room?
SaganAppreciationSoc 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How does he know that we're the only ones here? Faith? Tunnel vision
1Solace 2 years ago
He doesn't say that "we're the only ones here". He says science makes it looks just as if we're probably the only ones here, in his book.
He makes no statement of certainty.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago 3
You should probably watch it again, and this time make sure you comprehend the words before you open your mouth.
angryafro 2 years ago 2
I'll get you next time gadget!!!
PhilBurningSkies 3 years ago 3
I witnessed the second coming of our lord jesus Christ but I didn't want to break tradition so I nailed him to my front door, painted a red spot on his nipple and won the award for worlds most original doorbell.
I know both my parents and you ain't one of them. Yes I swear a lot... you'll get over it and so will everyone else. Low IQ? Check your comment SON. Written in Slack-jawed retard speak. I poo on thee.
PhilBurningSkies 3 years ago
I'm not going to argue. i'm just going to call you a cunt. CUNT.
I really hope you're right and your little god does exist because then I can feel all warm and cosy about you burning in hell and having your genitals mutilated by demons... but sadly i think you'll probably die and go nowhere. Hey ho, still fun to speculate.
PhilBurningSkies 3 years ago
Mr, M = a new-style Christian, trying to spread the "gospel of salvation" by much speaking, and getting the last word or by insulting and devaluing the lost sheep he should be caring for - admit that your true goal is to win. not to save anyone. You are a Christian bombast full of cleverness and pride.... By your own dogma you are undone. If I were a believer any longer, I would urge you to humble yourself before the lord YOUR god. but i am a naturalist and can no longer say that....
PuzzledDragonVideo 3 years ago
The snag in your circular statement is this:
You say- "Their major problem is that IF evolution is true, then these claims to truth are environmentally determined..." The problem is IF evolution is true, then we are no longer talking about CLAIMS.. or maybe it should have said clams. haha.
PuzzledDragonVideo 3 years ago
Just so you know, I won't be replying to or even reading any of your messages (inbox notifications will be automatically deleted), nor will I be checking back here. I've decided I have better things to do than to worry about a 30year old who rejects the most well verified theory in science for the sake of an imaginary friend. While I've been doing actual work, you've been obsessing on this forum for months! Plus YOU contacted ME - and yet you think I'M the one with an "audience" here! Fuckhead.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
"Moron I don't believe in evolution"
A beautiful case of irony right there. You call me a moron, yet YOU'RE the one who doesn't believe in evolution.
"so I obviously dont accept that truth is environmentally determined"
That's because you're stupid. The evidence is ALWAYS part of the environment, freak. Including the Bye-bull.
"If evolution is true, why should we accept your views to be objective or true they are just enviromentally determined?"
Because of the evidence in favour of it. Duh.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
It's a stupid question, like I said, because the premises are flawed. Not that THAT ever stopped a creationist. Haha.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
More retard talk. NO ONE in science talks like this. You sound like a complete fucking idiot, throwing words around like confetti. Get a life, you Bible-thumping One Nation motherfucker.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
You really are a sad little lonely man.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
"ccepting various things, as you say, is simply the result of your environmental conditioning, and so it follows that your accepting things as true,"
Right, and how does that suddenly change just because you've read the Bible, which magically you regard as not part of the environment? Or better still, how does it suddenly change when you look at the "evidence" you keep bitching about (but haven't once provided), of the "design" we see in the environment?
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
By the way, get an education. Then come back and discuss this with adults. Until then, I'll regard you as a sad little nitwit, and so will everyone else, which is as it should be.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
You just love to misuse and twist words, don't you? (typical for a no-hoper)
"IF, evolution is true is STILL enviromentally determined and not objective in any universal sense at all."
Yeah, that's retarded. Evolution is accepted as true because the evidence is what we would expect it to be IF evolution is true. The evidence conforms to basic predictions that flow from evolutionary theory. All this fluff about "environmental determinism" is just an excuse on your part because you've lost.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
"I knoew you couldnt answer that!"
It's because the basic premise is retarded (don't worry, I don't expect you to notice why). it's nothing to do with being "unable" to answer it. It's that the assumption is that you're exempt from "environmental determinism". Of course, you have no idea what "environment" actually means, given that you don't know squat about biology.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Okay, good boy. Just keep repeating yourself. Hitler said that a lie repeated often enough will eventually be seen as the truth. I guess that applies to you, judging by the way you've been carrying on.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
"Accepting various things, as you say, is simply the result of your environmental conditioning"
As though that doesn't apply to you. Of course, you SAY it doesn't (as though that constitutes "proof") but you have to be completely fucked not to notice that everything you've said applies to me applies just as much to you.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
And he now rejects this view of biological complexity. Whether or not he rejects atheism is NOW a different matter, but he rejects ID.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Sorry, typo. I meant to say that I've read Plantinga on evolution and that I destroyed his case. I haven't read the evolutionist Flew on evolution.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Here's the answer: it's false. You've got a completely false view of the environment, evolution and the nature of belief. So your "challenge" is no challenge at all, but rather a silly and worthless misunderstanding.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
"Um no moron, I believe in God and not evolution so on my view my truth statements are not enviromentally determined like yours: what a moron you are."
Fuck you're a stupid-shit. Your so-called argument makes no sense whatsoever. Believing inn evolution is the result of looking at and accepting various things, JUST LIKE believing in God is. Both are environmentally "determined", unless you're so clueless that you don't know what the word "environment" means in a biological context.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
I've read Flew on evolution, and I destroyed his argument. I've got no problem whatsoever sending you my critique if you want to read it.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Nah, it doesn't show that. Almost all biologists are evolutionists, ESPECIALLY geneticists and developmental biologists. They know full well that the sorts of systems they look at every day are too convoluted and have too many ad hoc features that are what we would expect of a mindless process, not design.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
"Flew says that he simply: had to go where the evidence leads"
And on that basis, he rejects ID, contrary to your lies. So stop changing the subject by talking about his theism, because you brought him up as an ID advocate, which he isn't. To combat evolution, Flew is useless to you, yet you cling to him because you've got nothing else to go on.
"observes Americas pre-eminent philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga"
Yeah, "pre-eminent". Even though his views on evolution are so laughable.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Yeah, funny. Exccept that if you knew the first thing about biology (which you don't, hence your need to quote mine and provide false views of the beliefs of professors who you want to use as a crutch for your antiquated beliefs) you'd know that sexual conflict is one of the most intensively researched areas in biology. It's a HUGE area, and it's off limits to pawns like you.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Nah, I think they're a bunch of slime-balls.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Okay retard, I'll say it again since you can't think through a sentence. Flew ACCEPTS GOD, but NOT ID. Get it? It really is that simple.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
"evolution is true, your claims to truth are enviromentally determined. Get it?"
Right, and yours aren't (because your read the Bible).
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
And one more thing, little boy: next year I'm going to be doing my Honours thesis on sexual conflict. I'll be more than happy to keep you up to date with it and to send you the final copy, which is far more than can be said you you. You won't even say what you did your "research" in, where, or with who. There's one of us who deserves the designation "little boy", and it ain't me.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
It speaks volumes that you have to use the example of Flew to get your point across, where as if you knew anything at all about that case you'd know that he later announced quite openly that he had allowed himself to be taken in by the claims of a physicist who is an ID advocate. He's more open to deism, but not ID, which he rejected.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
No, it didn't make any sense because it made improper use of words in a sentence. Please rewrite it so as to make it intelligible, instead of blaming me for your failure to think at the level of a 15 year old.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
"being critised as seriously flawed in so many areas"
Sure it is. What you fail to mention is that it's predominantly the likes of Answers in Gensis who are among those leading the screeching circus saying it's "flawed" (even though it continues to be used in medicine, agriculture, ecology and farming, unlike useless creationism). By the way, liar, Flew later said that he was embarrassed to have been suckered into believing the claims of ID. Funny how you didn't mention that.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Ummm, yeah. That didn't make any sense.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Indeed - Mr. M is verbally spastic, without form nor substanse. He spins and spins out argument and there is nothing in it...
PuzzledDragonVideo 3 years ago
"Thesists arguments are so good that Anthony Flew, teh great atheist now believes in God."
Nice to see God-boy here still flogging a dead horse. I still remember your retarded "arguments" against evolution. You're an intellectual feather-weight.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
lol, you're so full of shit mattetho. Either that or you're a comedian messing us around.
DionysianAssassin 3 years ago
Unfortunately, i think he really is that retarded.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Interesting that videos like this attract the odd 'god-bot.' I wonder why a person like that would find an interview like this. Do they google "things that would challenge a god-botherer"?
Stenger is brilliant - haven't read his book yet, but I've seen a couple of interviews and his book is in my on-deck circle.
Andraste77 3 years ago
denn,
God sets the methodology whereby men are judged with their so-called, "proofs".
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Ro 1:20)
ScienTISTS ultimately have no say in the matter. Their arguments will prove to be folly.
BUT some get saved.
Yippee!
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
No physics professor raises the dead.
Neither did Paul Erdos.
Thus, credibility is needed..
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (Joh 2:19)
Physics hobbies will soon be over.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
no one did. If so, prove it.
dennoow 3 years ago
thanks for putting this up!!!
depechemodevilla 3 years ago
How's his book? Anyone read it?
Savagecuntfart 3 years ago
Failed hypothesis: the chapters on cosmology contain information found little else e.g how the concept of "nothingness" is not physically tenable and how absolute vaccum (nothing) is so unstable that it begets "something". He also talks about sponatneous symmetry break-down and the fallacy of the fine tuning argument.
Apart from these three chapters the rest of the book, tackling the existence of evil and the soul...etc from a scientific viewpoint are not half as impressive.
Godcreateddisease 3 years ago
Comprehensible Cosmos:
This book can transform your views on life completely. Depending on how strong your scientific background you may be blown away (like I was) by his discussion on the nature of force, how the concept is fictitious and only introduced into everyday language, including mathematical formulations, to preserve various properties of existence including symmetry and point-of-view invariance.
Catch is: don't approach unless you're comfortable with graduate level mathematics.
Godcreateddisease 3 years ago
Interesting.. sort of helps with the question of why there's something instead of nothing. However, there obviously has to be a degree of set stability (the constants, for example) for galaxies to continue to exist, etc. Or does there? Might the stability come from black holes and the like, which are otherwise destructive in nature? What's the spontaneous symmetry breakdown idea say? Also, what was Stenger's ultimate thesis of the fallacy of the fine tuning argument?
Savagecuntfart 3 years ago
Problem of evil is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. I'm skeptical when scientists try to apply an objective subject into a purely subjective question.
Savagecuntfart 3 years ago
He references his own research. He ran simulations after altering constants by several orders of magnitude. Half of the resultant universes contained stars that lived long enough to support life. The main fallacy, according to him, was that previous work did not allow for the interdependence between the constants. When you change one, this causes compensatory changes in others.
Godcreateddisease 3 years ago
Symmetry breakdown is the mechanism by which the laws are seen to arise spontaneously without a designer. It's a mathematical model and conclusion that Vic describes in both books.
Godcreateddisease 3 years ago
What do think about the big bounce theory in quantum gravitation? The constants are simply adjusting within every cycle of universal phases. Perhaps, even for the sake of attaining greater balance and stability. There was an article on it in a newer issue of "Scientific American". Any thoughts on that?
Savagecuntfart 3 years ago
Haven't read Sci Am for a while but thanks for alerting me to the article. Why don't you pay us a visit at the Richard Dawkins official website. Articles pertaining to cosmology and high energy particles physics are regularly updated. Some of the visitors are physicists and some are just well read about the subject.
Of course we have our share of eccentrics and the politically polarised but if you'll sure get some very interesting responses if you mention that particular theory.
Cheers.
Godcreateddisease 3 years ago
That interviewer looks like a fat version of Wolf Blitzer.
AnotherSoulSaved 3 years ago
That's my point, believing in something doesn't make it true. How come people who honestly search for God come up with COMPLETELY different answers, or are you so arrogant to say those that chose Islam or Buddhism over Christianity really weren't trying?
As for bias, my argument only works against your side. If we are not biased, then why is it so generally accepted to we are? We'd have to be biased to get that wrong. If we are, then belief is not a proper qualifyer for eternity.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago 2
Consider the simplest example of the anthropic principle.
Fish shaped animals evolve in the water, but not on land.
Why?
Because they evolve to suit and adapt to their environment.
We evolved to take advantage of the natural laws of our universe, because that was our only choice.
The universe also follows these natural laws because there is no other option.
JohnDeBunkTest 3 years ago 2
Do you believe it is opposite day or something?
Humans are proven bias, that is FACT. There is a good explanation from evolution for this, but if God made us, he wouldn't want there to be bias, especially the subconscious biases we have. Why would he create people who can honestly search for the truth, and come to a lie? People do this all the time! Different people have different beliefs, and SOME of them have to be wrong, but yet so many in all beliefs HONESTLY believe it.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
hd,
God works according to HIS purposes.
Thus, HIS terms.
Sinful men DO NOT LIKE THIS.
"This BEGINNING of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him." (Joh 2:11)
To know God, one must come to Him HIS way.
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." (1Co 3:19)
Man's fundamental problem is moral and spiritual, not "intellectual".
trac4yt 3 years ago
Oh, shut up.
revjimbob 3 years ago
rev,
Do you work for these guys?..
"But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name." (Ac 4:17)
If so, switch sides.
"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." (Mt 4:19)
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
Oh shut up!
revjimbob 3 years ago
hone,
"honey"? hahahahaha
Anyway, HD..
God knows "evidence" isn't the READ issue with men. That's simply "smoke-and-mirrors" to dodge accountability for sin.
In Christ's day, they had PLENTY of evidence.
"But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy." (Mr 15:9-10)
When sin is exposed, people don't LIKE it.
Yet, God provides His solution.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
You seem to go adhere to "repeat a lie enough and people will believe it".
We are engineered for survival, whether God made us or through evolution. However, if you admit that people are biased, how can our salvation be determined by something for which we cannot do: find truth. If we cannot find truth, how is it our fault if we don't find Jesus? Perceptions are fallible, you're living proof. It should be said that we survive BY finding truth. The closer we get, the better we are.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
Also, take any crystal formation. The chances that every single atom would lay down in the exact specific order\arragement is just as statistically impossible than creationists say life is. Yet you cannot have a crystal unless it does form in some type of patter.
Roll 12 dice, all different colors. The chance of any combination of numbers and colors is in the billions. Yet every time we roll the dice, we get a combination. Considering the size of the universe, not surprising life exists.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
Ah the anthropic principal . . . a fine misrepresentations of statistics that makes severe jumps of logic.
Life seems fine tuned to exist. Move anything and life AS WE KNOW IT doesn't exist, it is statistically impossible for life to have formed by chance.
Fail. First off, life could exist in many forms we are not aware of, especially if we change the laws of nature. Scientists are on the verge of creating an artificial protocell capable of self-replication.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
Umm . . . how should I say this . . . no. Evolutioni isn't a collapsing theory, unless you can produce some type of peer-reviewed paper or study . . . any type of evidence. ID, Irreducible complexity, flood explanation . . . all have been debunked repeatidly.
A good argument, except when soley philosophical, can stand up to experimentation and science, my dear. A book referencing itself is not any sort of proof, it has to be verified by independent sources.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here they are "bumping their gums" emitting thoughts via words without a clue to the incomparable neuronal complexity concerning what God made possible through their vocal chords...
..and they would deny their Creator!
Someone has been calculating roller skate acceleration, down inclines, for WAY too long.
:-)
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (Joh 1:3)
trac4yt 3 years ago
wait, wait, wait....we don't need god? wow if i start laughing i will never stop..
nbvcx678 3 years ago
We do not need something that does not exist.
AceGikmo45 3 years ago 3
lol think what ya want
nbvcx678 3 years ago
ok, HE DOESN'T FUCKIN EXIST period.
xXbrett217GuitaristX 3 years ago 2
I know he does not exist. You "think" that he does. I put think in quotation marks because I know you do not actually think.
AceGikmo45 3 years ago
That is the video I was waiting for!
Thank for posting
soundoflight 3 years ago
It's funny how the Sun comes up for the day, then the Moon comes up for the night. Or how perfect solar eclipses happen. Do these things need to happen? Not at all, but they do none the less and it's very symmetrical and story book like. Just a natural thing to think for me. Beyond that I'm not sure what to believe.
silvercade 3 years ago
Actually the moon does come out during the day . . . and obviously the sun does because that is what makes day. I know you know the moon comes out during the day because you mention a solar eclipse, something that only happens when the moon is in between the earth and sun. Perfect solar eclipses are rare, sometimes the moon is larger or smaller than the sun, depending on its orbit, which fluctuates.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
日本ではこのような文学形態は受け入れられないようで、YouTubeを表現として使っています。言葉は死んだろうか・・・？
TJ7531 3 years ago
huh??!!?
xXbrett217GuitaristX 3 years ago
rico,
Physicists need Christ also.
My physics teacher couldn't raise the dead.
Thus, we must look elsewhere..
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (Joh 5:24)
:-)
Don't let your rebellion to God prevent you from receiving Christ.
You'll then have REST in HIM.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
Not physicist but medical doctor do it often!!
I would love to fuck jesus mouth and ass....since he is love and love everything, he will probably love it a lot!
Im ready to receive him right now! :p
soundoflight 3 years ago
blaz,
Typically, there's all kind of talk about God at a "rational scientist"'s funeral.
Why? It's ultimate answer time.
Thus, it's better to face the issue earlier before the dead-end coffin.
Get a jump start on the REAL spiritual facts..
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (Joh 6:40)
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
Alas...finally an intellectual!
blaziermissy 3 years ago
Vic Stenger is extremely awesome!
ricoatheist 3 years ago
reido,
Logic fails.
That's why they talk about God a lot, at the funeral of scientists.
Funeral home directors yawn at the power of physics and chemistry.
But they come to life when reviewing the size of the bank deposits.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
Logic Fails? Wow, what a brain fart! lol...god is a non-issue with a rational scientist. Perhaps you're talking about those politically bought off pseudo-scientist who are paid off by the Discovery Institutes or The Templeton Foundation....Paid for by: you guessed it, billions of evangelical dollars. Intellectually laughable if it weren't sooooo sad.
blaziermissy 3 years ago
Indeed. The creationist's have spammed this video and channel with all sorts of biblical garbage.
ricoatheist 3 years ago
nocto,
"The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one];" (Mt 13:38)
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1Jo 2:22)
Only deliverance via Jesus Christ saves one from the same destiny as the devil.
Thus, receive Christ.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
what is your experince in asking for god and jesus? How did it feel?
Reido2828 3 years ago
lol...god is a non-issue with a rational scientist. Perhaps you're talking about those politically bought off pseudo-scientist who are paid by the Discovery Institutes or The Templeton Foundation....sponsored by: you guessed it, billions of evangelical dollars. Intellectually laughable if it weren't so pathetically sad.
blaziermissy 3 years ago 2
nocto,
Welcome to final authority!
The best commentary on the infallible Bible is the infallible Bible.
"Thus saith the Lord" 413x in the Bible.
:-)
Learn from Pharaoh hearing the Word of God via Moses. One choice..
..compliance.
trac4yt 3 years ago
chb,
The creation around you IS proof of the Creator. Denial is actually, defiance.
And that Creator has provided HIS revelation in the Bible.
Satanic counterfeit religions popped up along the way from Babel.
ONLY the Bible records the infallible record and lineage pointing to God manifest in flesh..
..Jesus Christ.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
In order for one to assertain that someone did something, one CANNOT assume said something was done and then propose that as evidence said someone did it. There are more logical fallacies in that argument than I feel like pointing out. The only Satanic religion, is Satanism. Unfalsifiable and Infallible do not equate.
~one less god~
Noctokage 3 years ago
crazy,
BECAUSE of God, men can ponder science.
Because of sin, they turn away from God and claim, "science did it, look at ME".
"..vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (Ro 1:21)
:-0
trac4yt 3 years ago
Crazy,
BECAUSE your assume god exists, he does.
That's the most sound logic I've ever heard. Maybe next time you could reach into your bag of tricks and provide emperical evidence of your one of thousands of gods that have claimed existence.
chbrules 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
caye,
Thank God for granting peculiar skills to science folks for designing the automatic transmission.
But it doesn't mean a postmortemite can put it in Drive and screech out of a casket.
There's limits to science.
Let's not make an idol out of it.
For ultimate answers, see Bible.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
Cum and lard! The scientific method is dead!
Michaelas11 3 years ago
Huh?
saintkamus14 3 years ago
What?
Michaelas11 3 years ago
Say that while you keep using Western technology that wouldn't even exist without the scientific method, you hypocrite idiot.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
caye,
Science cannot create 1 living cell of anything due to its inability to create the spiritual base. It then continues peddling backwards on 2 flat tires, imagining the atoms-only mythology.
Agreed, there's good money in the evolution industrial complex.
"And God CREATED great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." (Ge 1:21)
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
What? god?
I thought superman had been sent to save us, he can hear evryone in the world, he's really strong, and helps people in need.
How dare you, create this "god" to challenge my superman belif?
saintkamus14 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
caye,
Just because you find a dead dog with a kitten sized ear doesn't mean it's relatives used to be cats.
But what people will buy popcorn for, is the animation pixar will dream up to make it a reality.
After that, it's fed to the public schools.
trac4yt 3 years ago
Where is your reality? Where is your proof? Creationist.
FromBoomTown 3 years ago
Are you fucken retarded or something? Do you know how completely stupid that just sounded?
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
By the way everyone, scientists have discovered a "frogmander" - an intermediate form with a mosaic of features from the two groups. This is precisely the sort of fossil that we would expect exists if evolution is true. The creationist can only make the excuse that we now have more gaps, or else to say something like "Well, prove that it evolved and that God didn't create it." This, even after they were saying "Provide just ONE example of an intermediate form." Desperately,they've rigged it.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
Mattetho's still at it, trying to convince everyone that he's capable of deep thinking. Part of his rigorous, science-based musings include explaining that speciation can't happen, yet he knows nothing about genetics! He does, on the other hand, know how to quote-mine, which is kind of weird given that he claims to have as his "colleagues" actual scientists. Yet he won't even make his studies available for consideration by others. Lucky for him, the anonymity of the Internet.
cayetanoluis 3 years ago
I would recommend you read any book on logic.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
"DOGMA? that's what you are using, dogma!"
Please cite examples.
Once again you say little of substance. It is quite embarrassing.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
If you still disagree with my sentiments you can start writing that research paper for the ASL telling them that they're wrong about the classification of causal arguments and scientific arguments under inductive reasoning. Don't bother messaging me or my boy Steven {Mjavok} till you get published.
axisaudio 3 years ago