philhellenes: Why Don't Scientists Fear Hell?

[zizi1234ful]

My paternalistic scientist: speaking for the scientists and non-scientists alike. Playing the God he denies the existence of.

[zizi1234ful]

The simple notion of a mathematical line stands against all the nonsense said here. When you can explain the mathematical line, I may start understanding what you are saying here.

Erudition in a discipline does not obviate all other knowledge.

[zizi1234ful]

If you can, for a moment, explain everything about the universe; Does this capacity make God irrelevant? Is it logical to make such a great leap to the non-existence of God?

[zizi1234ful]

HYPOTHESIS I: The more you know the less the existence of God.

HYPOTHESIS II: The more sophisticated you sound the less the existence of God.

Stupido maxima: 2000 years from today your ideas will be like a drop in a bucket, if not completely discarded. The scientists you mentioned also thought they were the alpha and omega of the scientific world. That gratuitous leap to the denial of God's existence is your innate pride coming out.

[belegulo]

@AntidoteY Well, my point is that SOME Christians are Christians because they fear hell, and some innocent people are innocent because they fear jail. However, this doesn't mean jail or hell are there for that. It makes no sense to become or still Christian because of hell, since it's easier to be atheist and don't think anymore about those possibilities.

[belegulo]

Christians don't fear hell. Do innocent people fear jail?

[AntidoteY]

...I don't get this comment.

Hell doesn't exist. Christians believe it does, and they definitely do fear it; it's a compelling reason to be a Christian, because if you're not, hell awaits your eternal after-life (an absurd thing in itself.)

[stallion4life]

While you can't provide any scientific evidence that God doesn't exist, you somehow think that the fact that scientists disproportionately don't believe in God somehow demonstrates a causal relationship between scientific practice and lack of religious belief. With all your nattering about science, have you never heard "correlation is not causation"?

[dannytibi]

@stallion4life Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but here it pretty clearly is the case that this correlation is indicative of the causation, else we wouldn't even have the concept of a divide between science and religion.

[kurtilein3]

@stallion4life

its not possible to prove a negative. to prove that god does not exist, we would ned to search the whole universe. But i can assume that god does not exist, and given the current situation that there is NO evidence FOR the existence of god, thats enough. Also, who makes the claim has to present the evidence, many people say that many gods exist, hinduism, islam, shintu, ... .. . You say the biblical god exists, i say i dont believe that without evidence.

[cossiedzieje]

@kurtilein3 Note: there would be no believing if you would have the evidence

[stallion4life]

"God confounding mechanisms of pure chance"? No, there's nothing in science that "confounds" the idea of an interventionist God. If anything, the mechanistic conceptions the prevailed before QM seemed most problematic. Somehow the idea of God is never so easily dismissed.

[illusionstateofmind]

great.

[Ihatemelee]

this is realy a great video

[silenthacker30]

I THINK GOD ITS JUST AN HUMAN PRIMITIVE IDEA JUST LIKE EGYPTIANS BELIEVED SUN AND IN THE FUTURE EVERYONE WILL OPEN THEY EYES AND UNDERSTAND THAT GOD DOESN'T EXISTS. And , i think most of people who believe in god, believe just from fear, because of the devil, of hell, of being punished.....its just fear, thats why you call god when you are scared or before dying...if you take a minute to analyse that, you will see im right...

[PurityandDeath]

You'd do well to learn a lot about religion or religious people before you keep sounding so ignorant. You often try to make these sweeping points that don't amount to much. If people actually know what you're trying to talk about, you sound kind of stupid sometimes. I think you're probably faring much worse trying to convince people that actually believe. Faith is a hard thing to reason away, especially when you try and make points no one really gives a shit about because they're baseless.

[jr14103]

@PurityandDeath HAHAHAHAHA. This coming from someone on the opposite side. You should watch more of his videos before you open your mouth. You know nothing of what you speak.

[PurityandDeath]

@jr14103 Opposite side of what? I usually know what I'm talking about. That was awhile ago but I recall him making some very grand and sweeping points that amounted to nothing. Especially nothing that would actually sway someone that believed. If I told you science is bullshit because scientists are wrong all the time and then when they figure out more they change their minds and thus science itself I'm 100% right but that's not going to change most people's minds. If they're really interested

[zizi1234ful]

@PurityandDeath It amounted to nothing because you do not understand it or why do you say it amounts to nothing.

[PurityandDeath]

@jr14103 in science they already know that. But if I were to say something semi-profound that would actually matter to someone interested in science, e.g., The "mass" which exists in our universe but isn't tangible (dark matter) is really just the observation of matter being manipulated by an intelligent being (perhaps a god) to form or move matter in such a way that it helped to create or protect sentient life bearing planets in the universe. That may make someone stop & think... For a minute.

[jr14103]

@PurityandDeath You are way too proud of yourself!!! You need a good firm backhand.

[PurityandDeath]

@jr14103 Too proud of myself? Backhand? What the hell is wrong with you? Speak like a rational human being and tell me what your point is and what you're talking about.

You're the one that sounds like you need a backhand. You sound like an uppity loudmouth 14 year old kid that thinks they know everything but in reality they're the most ignorant loudmouth fucking retard on the planet.

[jr14103]

@PurityandDeath You're right, my profanity and name calling was out of line. Thank you for showing me my true age. You are truly superior. Have a good day Mr. enlightened one.

[PurityandDeath]

@jr14103 Rgr.

[PurityandDeath]

Christians shouldn't fear hell at all. Quran is the only one of "the holy books" or scriptures that even mentions hell as any kind of fiery torment. Unless you're considering Dante's Inferno scripture.

[OpqHMg]

the whole concept of hell is so painfully stupid I can't believe the question of believing in it actually arises

[n1a1s1i1m]

Great, great video. Factually consistent, logically plausible.

Some comments make me laugh at humanity.

[zizi1234ful]

@n1a1s1i1m Contents make me laugh at the naivete of the so-called scientists that are playing God.

[TrollCatcher2010]

no such thing as a "quantum reaction" as far as i know, never heard one of my tutors mention that, not even docter o'brien who created the first nano particle, the carbon 60 molecule, and she WOULD know... loads of giveaway clues he know nothing - that one is a confusion of chemistry and physics terminology, as many believers learn "the language of god" to fit in if that what the society demands, many neo-atheists learn "the language of science" while knowing NOTHING of science at all, similar,w

[kurtilein3]

your nickname has troll in it, so instead of responding to your nonsensical comment ill just block you.

[ImAnotherZang]

@kurtilein3 that's what we do to trolls? thanks for the enlightenment now i can finally be free of them...

[Co0jq500080style]

@kurtilein3 That...was kinda harsh. I was looking forward to an insightful response to TrollCatcher2010's statement. Wot about God Particles? Keep in mind Im not a brilliant fellow.

[arsenelupin123]

@TrollCatcher2010

I don't agree with you. He does a very good vulgarisation job, and has proven time and time again that he has a very decent grasp of what he is talking about.

[arsenelupin123]

@TrollCatcher2010

By the way, there is no such thing as a confusion between physics and chemistry terminology, for chemistry is physics.

[TrollCatcher2010]

he knows even less than zoologist richard dawkins who is pretty puny intellectually too. agnostic, for the record, personally, but i can tell you how atom size emerges mathematically from the uncertainty principle which phil cannot, for a start, he couldnt even tell you why the sky is blue... ask if he has any sort of science degree? physics and philosophy at oxford university degree myself and i know he doesn't know, w...

[TrollCatcher2010]

phil knows next to nothing of science, for a start

[redice1024]

What, why arent you blocked

[GreatBigBore]

Hey, will someone contact philhellenes (author of this video) for me please? I think that he has confused me with an enemy. He blocked me and I can't subscribe or contact him. I'm for real, one of his biggest fans, not trying to scam anyone. Will someone check in with him? Thanks!

[MumbhaiMBBS]

ok - no one understands WHY fire burns as it burns. All philhelenes did was explain in detail HOW fire burns. so - science cant answer all questions.

Plus - the rigid laws that phil so proudly boasts of - why does science fall short of questioning why the laws are as they are? Why are people like philhelenes satisfied with blind faith that the laws "just are". Clearly, this requires more blind faith than having to believe that there is a creator of these laws?

[kurtilein3]

lol ^^

are you trying to be ironic, or are you really that stupid?

things burn because someone or something puts them on fire. if i decide to put my car on fire, then it burns because i wanted it to be that way. if a tree somewhere in the wilderness is burning that noone set on fire, then maybe its burning because of a lightning, or maybe because a glass bottle in combination with sunlight ignited it.

science can almost always answer the question why something burns.

[kurtilein3]

how can you conclude that science cannot explain WHY something burns?

if a building burned down, scientists are damn good at finding out why it did burn. now if you look at 10000 cases of buildigs that burned, you cannot answer that question, BUT ONLY BECAUSE EACH BUILDING THAT BURNS CAN DO SO FOR A DIFFERENT REASON.

basic logic always fails religiots. just everyday common sense is something that religious people, in order to find arguments that support their delusion, need to switch off.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

ok - I thought you were smarter, but I guess I'll have to dumb it down a bit. all your responses were based on the logic of causality. I didn't ask what caused the fire to burn or how it would have started. I asked WHY does fire burn. in other words, why do the chemical reactions that are observedduring the burning of a fire take place. Science can't answer that.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

To illustrate my point - science tells us that 2 atoms of hydrogen combined with 1 atom of oxygen makes 1 molecule of water. Science can even explain in detail the nature of the interactions and what causes those interactions between the hydrogen and oxygen.

But science can't answer why it is H2O that makes water. and why such reactions result in the observable phenomenon. All science can do, and do very precisely, is explain the natural laws of the world. but not why they are so.

[kurtilein3]

you are pulling some shit out of your ass and flinging it on science.

water is the name that we gave to H2O before we knew that water is H2O. H2O IS WATER, IT DOESNT MAKE WATER.

now you want to convince me that science stinks (after you have been throwing your shit at it) because science cannot answer the question why water is water and why H2O is H2O and why both are the same.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

Asside from the filthy and absurd analogy, which you seem to have some weird and alarming affinity to - you still haven't addressed the point that science cannot explain the reason for the laws of nature. All it can do is explain the observable functions of these laws.

And it seems, trying to be civil with you is pointless. Hence, there is no point in continuing this conversation. Good luck with your atheism.

[kurtilein3]

"you still haven't addressed the point that science cannot explain the reason for the laws of nature. All it can do is explain the observable functions of these laws."

religion also doesnt explain the reason for the laws of nature. your explanation, that god did it, is meaningless unless you can show that god exists, explain why god made it this way and not any other way, and define god.

you want to introduce unnecessary junk into science, thats all you could ever accomplish.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

I'm not talking about any kind of religion 4 now. My line of arguement is that it is intuitive that there exists a creator 4 the laws of nature. The only other probabilities r that the universe is a result of an infinite set of past events or just happened by chance. The inifinite regression possibility is dicredited by the fact that if it were true, the universe wud never come into existence, as infinity is impossible to traverse. Since the universe does exist, infinite regression is illogical

[MumbhaiMBBS]

Now, Science canot answer the question on the origin of the laws of nature or the universe coz they are outside the realm of the physical time and space. As Stephen Hawkings states himself that time itself came into existence with the big bang. So, unless u can bring forth any other possibility that is more viable than the possibility of a creator of the universe - this possibility is the most logical by far. And as it is also intuitive, a counter intuitive arguement requires the burden of proof

[kurtilein3]

no creator, thats more viable, because the god hypothesis is not supported by any evidence.

thats the alternative. we limit ourselves to what actually exists, dont make shit up, dont rape logic in an attempt to make our delusions sound logical, and investigate the universe while being open for any possible result. ruling out any other option than that the judeao-christian god did it for NO REASON is intellectually dishonest.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

Why are you still stuck on religion? I am not talking about any God described by any religion for now. I am just talking on a neutral stand point - without any interference from religion.

You haven't brough any arguement that logically disproves the notion of the existence of a creator. All you do is just state "it's illogical", "it's intellectual dishonesty". Please provide an arguement why a creator is not plausible.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

If you only depend on physical and emperical evidence - then how do you believe in te big bang theory which states the existance of an inifnitely dense mass that's infinitely small? Which is a contradiction to everything that we can see and observe in the universe? You are willing to accept this absurd paradox for the initial conditions for the theory, but not the idea that something created this because it sounds absurd? intellectual dishonesty?

[kurtilein3]

the universe is expanding.

then we have the cosmic microwave background.

then we have the distribution and evolution of chemical elements in our universe.

thats some of the facts on which the big bang theory is based. it doesnt surprise me that you are ignorant about all these facts, many of your comments show that you are ignorant about the most important scientific theories, even including the theory of evolution.

i might as well talk to a brick.

[zizi1234ful]

@MumbhaiMBBS Expand this thinking to even the simple notion of a mathematical line that most people know of.

[kurtilein3]

i know it, you dont, that doesnt mean that science cannot answer it.

it means that you are an uneducated person. did you ever play with fire as a child? probarbly not. did you watch the video above? do you know that wood burns? probarbly. well, wood can react with the oxygen in the air. it only takes some energy to start the reaction. thats why it burns. we have oxygen in air, and lots of stuff that can react with oxygen in wood.

but you put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALAA.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

"how much" this and "how much" that - all just speculation. And all the speculation is as if we are living in the dark ages, where if you don't conform to a church, you are going to be hung on a cross or something. pfft.

[kurtilein3]

you cannot answer why things burn.

"god did it" is an answer that is convincing only to children, retarded people, and religiots. and to the last category only when you choose the right god. if you ask me why the sun looks orange, and i say "wotan did it" or "zeus did it", you would not accept it.

now WHY DOES FIRE BURN? answer the question, otherwise you have no right to accuse us of not knowing it.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

I never said anything about God. All I said was about an intuitive idea of a creator behind the laws of the natural world. At this point, it could be anything - zeus, wotan, god, purple duck flying around pluto - anything. But the idea is logical and intuitive that there is a creator behind the laws. If u oppose this idea, than u r supporting a counter-intuitive notion, in which case, the burden of proof is on u - hence there is no obligation on me to explain WHY fire burns, but rather on you.

[kurtilein3]

search wikipedia for the anthropic principle, but im sure you will be unable to understand it.

IF the laws of nature would have been designed by a creator, given the size and scale of the universe, this creator would not care about this planet. but you religious idiots always claim that this creator hates homosexuals and abortion doctors and punished the people of haiti for their sin. thats your logic. and that supposed creator wrote the bible, and non-believers burn in hell.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

this is my last attempt at having a civil conversation with u. anymore ridiculous or filthy analogies or examples, and u can enjoy those depravities with yourself.

[kurtilein3]

also, you failed to answer my question:

why does fire burn?

[MumbhaiMBBS]

you see - you state there is a "Principle" known as the Anthropic Principle. Intuitively, the existence of a principle infers the existence of a creator of that principle. yet u have no problem beliveing in the existence of that principle, but make a knowledge claim denying the existence of a creator of that principle without any evidence to support. You don't see any problem with that?

[MumbhaiMBBS]

what that creator is like is an epistimological arguement, which I am not dealing with at the moment. I am talking about an ontological arguement about the existence of some kind of creator. The epistomology comes after confirmation of the ontlogical arguement. so far. u havnt brought any evidence to support the idea that there no creator exists at all. I'm not talking abt the creator described in the bible , not the epistimology of God. I'm just talking about the existence of a creator.

[kurtilein3]

you cannot claim that something exists without properly defining it.

there is no reason to even attempt to disprove god, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. so far, you dont have evidence for the existence of a creator, and you fail to define the properties of a creator. so you might as well convince me that there are faeries at the bottom of the lake. or dragons living at the core of our planet. universe-creating dragons that created us, maybe. convincing? no.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

Well - I am defining the existence of this creator. From what I have stated so far, it can be deduced that this creator is uncaused, is timeless and is personal in the fact that there is a conscious decision to bring the universe into existence. Now, what this God looks like or behaves like is a different arguement (epistomology).

[MumbhaiMBBS]

However, science cannot answer the question of the reason for the creation of the universe, because it is outside the physical realm. The only way to prove or disprove any possibilities is with the use of rationale and logic. So far, I have shown that the existence of an uncaused, timeless and consciuos creator is the most logical, rational and intuitive answer to the rerason of the existence of the universe. science doesnt provide any other altenatives, nor can it disprove this possibility.

[kurtilein3]

you claim that something that cannot be created (matter and energy) was created by an entity that cannot be created (god).

we do have evidence that matter and energy actually exist. i would say this is beyond doubt. now compare this to the evidence we have for the existence of your god-hypothesis. no physical evidence at all. only some fallacious arguments, that only convince people that have already been indoctrinated as children by their parents or some church-people.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

Ok - what about the evidence of the existence of this matter that is infinitely dense and infinitely small that is required for the big bang theory? There is no physical evidence that such a particle exists, yet you don't have any problem believing in it?

It seems you are unable to converse without bringing religion up and bashing it. I am not bashing atheists or calling them names. Are you so incapable of civilised and intellectual discourse?

[kurtilein3]

"From what I have stated so far, it can be deduced that this creator is uncaused, is timeless and is personal"

bullshit, you cannot deduce that without evidence.

we know for a fact that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. so matter and energy is timeless and uncaused. no need to pull this creator-thing out of thin air, unless you want to believe in ancient mythology.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

I disagree. The only thing scientists are certain of is the initial conditions for the big bang theory that are logically inferable.

Science cannot physically prove anything before time 0. Nor can it actually prove that such a particle as stipulated in the theory actually existed as they cannot recreate one, nor have observed one. All else is speculation in the meta-physical.

So matter being timeless is not a fact, because it cannot be proven according to ur own standards - physical evidence

[kurtilein3]

could you please destroy or create some matter/energy, or can you point me towards an experiment that succeeded in doing so?

[kurtilein3]

the anthropic principle was created by humans. we know that.

you religious people also fail when it comes to defining god. you are not specific enough. you also need to explain how god was created, or why god exists.

we have evidence that the universe exists. so we investigate it. give evidence that god does exist, or at least a definition to work with, then (but only then) scientists will maybe take a look at it. otherwise, your claims about god have to be dismissed.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

wrong. The anthropic principle has existed since the beginning of time. The naming of this phenomenon as a principle is done by humans. That's what I've been trying to say this whole time. Science hasn't created any laws of nature - it has only helped us understand these laws. The existence of these laws intuitively points towards a creator of these laws. So , in a way, Sciecne does point towards the existence of a creator by the way of discovering tht these laws exist.

[kurtilein3]

science points to the existence of the laws of nature.

this does in no way imply the existence of allah. i will now call your god allah, because then we have something to talk about. you refuse to come up with a definition, so ill just pick one, allah.

so how does the discovery of laws point to the existence of this allah-character? and why is he sending so many people to hell, and where is that place anyway?

[MumbhaiMBBS]

again - I see you find it very difficult conversing with just logic and not delving into religion bashing. hel and heaven are not within the scope of this conversation, because those are beliefs within a religious structure. And since we are not talking about religion, I don't see the point in talking about such things.

So far you haven't provided any logical refutation to my sugestion of the existence of a creator, nor an alternative that science provides for to disprove my thesis.

[kurtilein3]

this video is about religion, or more specifically about hellfire.

and people dont believe in your hypothetical creator-entity. people believe in allah or god or other religious concepts that have very real consequences in their behavior. you are trying to convince me that this is about this ominous underdefined creator-entity, while in fact the topic is religious belief.

i dont need to disprove your hypothesis. its enough to point out that it is not convincing, and why it is not convincing.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

Again - I am not talking about any religion or religious notion about god at the moment. I amjust using rationale and logic to point towards the most plausible reason for the existence of the universe.

Having evidence that the universe exists makes the possibility of the existence of a creator all the more plausible - rationally and logically.

[kurtilein3]

only religious people believe in god.

and the muslims believe in a god that will send all christians to hell. and the christians believe in a god that would send all muslims to hell. so only one of both can exist, because they logically exclude each other. people cannot go to heaven and hell at the same time.

if buddhism is right, then both islam and christianity would be wrong.

so you have to say which god you are talking about. who does your universe-creator send to hell?

[MumbhaiMBBS]

Again - I am not talking about any definition of God as gived by any religion. You need to first acknowledge that a God exists as a pre-requisite to ask "which God are you talking about".

As an atheist, as I understand it, that is a contradictory position, since your initial position is that there is no God. I am arguing from a neutral perspective. Forget all the attributes of God as described by various religions. First let's see if it is viable that no notion of some creator is logical

[MumbhaiMBBS]

All anyone can do is use rationale and logic to deduce the reason for the existence of the universe. Now, if you can rationally and logically provide a better explanation for the reason of the existence of the universe, that will pretty much disprove the possibility of the creator.

I have given you a definition of what this creator is - uncaused, timeless and conscious. disprove these claims rationally and logically.

[kurtilein3]

the problem with your crator-concept is that it cannot be disproven, if there is a problem you can just change the definitions.

the hypothesis that there are universe-creating dragons living at the center of our planet, also cannot be disproven. but its not convincing without evidence. even if people would actually believe in those dragons, lets say a billion people, that wouldnt make it more convincing. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

So far I haven't canged anything about te definition I have provided so far about this uncaused creator. ALthough, I must admit you aven't even provided any arguementation against my definitions.

Whether this creator is a dragon, a bucket, a purple dove - that is a question once you admit that there is some kind of creator in the first place. Since you seem to ask this qustion so often, can I take it as an implicit acceptance tat there exists some kind of creator of the uhniverse?

[kurtilein3]

"Since you seem to ask this qustion so often, can I take it as an implicit acceptance tat there exists some kind of creator of the uhniverse?"

you are an intellectually dishonest person. how often do i have to repeat myself: it is irrational to assume such an extraordinary claim to be true without any evidence. as long as there is no evidence, all you will get is explicit nonacceptance of your claim.

[Jelly50cent]

You have done a fine job of spelling it out. Luv it!

[Toughndeadly]

Saynotodarwin: you are a nob. "god is the mover?" prove that god made these people find the knowledge when they did. Why didn't he do it earlier? You nobs always say the same rubbish. Why can't he help the thousands dying in Haiti? If there is a god he's shit, dunno why u worship such a stupid waste of space.

[masticina]

@saynotodarwin

Oooh them well lets say I have to disagree with how to call that List of people. Not sure if they are the paragorn of good so to say. Actually they seem rather how to say corrupted.

But if you feel they are prophets well that is you if you so desire.

[masticina]

@saynotodarwin

You got an interesting definition of reality

Quite unlike the usual I hear..

[kurtilein3]

you appear to have grown up on a different planet than i have.

while i have been growing up on planet earth, you must have been somewhere else, in some kind of fantasy-dreamworld, disattached from the knowledge of our time.

[kurtilein3]

you are making a quite extraordinary claim here.

you claim that modern science was inspired by noone less than your god. well, prove it. you are making the claim, i only see some brilliant people putting their brains to work with brilliant results. not because of, but in spite of religion: many of them were threatened and prosecuted by the religiofascist dictators of the time.

[atticana]

Naughtie then went on to ask SirMR what he thought of Hawking as a physicist. SirMR tried to evade the question by praising Hawking for overcoming his disability. But Naughtie pressed him...after a long pause SirMR merely said that future generations of physicists would have to decide on the value of Hawking's work. Interesting. You see philhellenes, unlike Pope John Paul II, I am not afraid of what scientists get up to.

[kurtilein3]

in science, there are no prophets. you always pick the great popularizers of science and put them on a pedestal, now its hawking, has been carl sagan.

in science, there is a saying that goes like this: "PUBLISH OR DIE". it refers to peer-reviewed papers, this is what makes science. writing a book doesnt count, even if its a bestseller. scientists also attempt to disprove and debunk each other all the time.

religiots never do that, they dont even question what they themselves believe.

[atticana]

And btw, when I used the phrase 'coach and horses' I was mischievously quoting what SirMR said about what the discovery of the BIg Bang did to what Stephen Hawking had previously been saying. It was an interview on the 'Today' programme with, I think James Naughtie back in the nineties. SirMR said that the Big Bang 'drives a coach and horses through what he's [Stephen Hawking] been saying'.

[kurtilein3]

as i already explained in a different comment, science consists of a pool of peer-reviewed scientific papers, and everything in that pool that can be debunked gets debunked and then moves from the collective scientific knowledge of humankind directly, and without any intermediate step, into the trashcan. so this is the source, and some stupid show called "today" just ISNT. is SirMR, whoever that might be, a scientist? scientists do have ph.d. titles (at least one) in the fields they work in.

[MrSkate4weed]

lol demon monster eh?

elaborate...please...

[atticana]

Philhellenes up to his old tricks again...trying to portray ALL religious people within the same fundamentalist framework. And 90% of those watching this video will think that religious belief can really be categorised in such a simplistic manner. But anyway, may I point out to you all that Sir Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal, believes in God. No doubt philhellenes, from his lofty pedestal, will say that Sir Martin Rees is just a big kid. Ho hum...

[kurtilein3]

your religion is going down the drain, and the rotation can already be felt.

the problem is that you keep losing the debates, people actually leave their religion, and more people learn more and more about science. wikipedia probarbly contributes a lot. human society progresses, new ideas developed and now reach the public mind, and some old ideas will be left behind. sir martin rees didnt get the memo, or he decided to ignore some of reality.

[atticana]

You clearly believe that God can be banished from society. But He keeps on coming back. In Western Europe people are trying to turn away from God and what happens?  Islam suddenly erupts in our midst! A terrible warning. And, speaking as a theist who doesn't like Islam, I think that it is nevertheless a far stronger force than Western secularism.

[kurtilein3]

i am not advocating any banishment, i am for freedom of belief and freedom of expression.

i want religion to be confronted with the facts. if this discredits it so that people stop believing it, then thats progress. when people leave islam, just like when they leave christianity, they often get interested in science and turn non-religious, many of them now advance to humanism. from my perspective, christianity and islam are just two different varieties of the same outdated madness.

[philhellenes]

Martin Rees does NOT believe in God. He just can't answer the question as Astronomer Royal.

"Let me say that I dont see any conflict between science and religion. I go to church as many other scientists do. I share with most religious people a sense of mystery and wonder at the universe and I want to participate in religious ritual and practices because theyre something that all humans can share. - Martin Rees.

Now YOU find a quote from him saying "I believe in God". You won't even try.

[atticana]

There is really no need for me to try. He has clearly left the door of his mind open to God; which is all that I ask. And ANYWAY, the quote you give drives a coach and horses through your basic position, namely that science and religion are mutually opposed.

[philhellenes]

The FACT that you won't try shows that you KNOW that NO such quote exists, thus revealing your DISHONESTY concerning Rees' position.

I didn't know you were prepared to lie. I do now. You revealed it very cheaply and easily. Shame on you.

I could quote Steven Weinberg and Richard Feynman, both Nobel Prize winners in physics, who have gone on record saying there IS a conflict between religious and scientific thought. Rees was just being diplomatic and protecting his tenure.

[atticana]

No, I didn't lie, I merely, MERELY, slightly misunderstood SirMR. And how do you know that he's 'just being diplomatic'? Are you clairvoyant? And I'll bet that the two physics wallahs you quote are militant atheists anyway, so they WOULD say that WOULDN'T they?

[philhellenes]

"Only a fool would argue with the dishonest man."

- Chinese Proverb.

[atticana]

Stick to arguments old bean, not insults.

[MumbhaiMBBS]

lol - good one.

[RDog4484]

this video is amazing. no matter how many times i watch it i'm still in awe of it.

[peteq1972]

i`m subsribed to philhellenes` channel. He makes astounding videos! Yes this is one of the greats.

[DarkMatter2525]

Thank you for mirroring this brilliant video. Phil told me it was taken down for hate speech. That was quite shocking, needless to say. You've done a great service in supporting him.

[kurtilein3]

yes, the original one is still offline, i wonder why he doesnt make videos about it or cause it to go viral.

i re-uploaded it long before this happened, without expecting something like this, simply because i wanted my subscribers to know about his channel by re-uploading one of his best videos.

[Yukkid]

this video makes me happy

[TruthSurge]

It is a good vid! Thanks fer mirroring it. More people need to hear brilliant vids.

[D3D8]

it makes sence to me that more complex it is, then the more likely it is to come from something much smarter then we are, rather then nothing at all, and the fact there is alot of it, rather then from nothing at all.

science is nothing if u can't use it with a sence of logic. can't we agree with that? i mean comon, it seems pretty strait forword to me.

[kurtilein3]

D3D8:

logic? logic tells us that its illogical to explain complexity by assuming even more complexity, which then cannot be explained. this way, you only make the problem bigger (more complexity that needs to be explained).

there is only one reason i can see why someone should follow such a line of thinking: you already think you know what this "bigger more complex" thing is, and you want to be able to continue to believe in it, so you try to find a place to put it.

[m4ngki]

science does reduce this complexity: it's all atoms.

what does your explanation do? it says "there is this huge entity that just rules it all." well, what does it consist of, where did it come from, what's it's thoughts? its a pretty complex entity, your god (which one, by the way?).

[Jacksonstreet71]

I notice rather than addressing the doctrine of hell or the reality of hell as covered in the video most of the theists posting comments on mirrors of this video tend to raise arguments similar to yours. As to suggesting we come from nothing, I haven't hear anyone suggest that we did.

[kurtilein3]

natter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. since we do have clear evidence that matter exists, you can disregard all the people that say otherwise.

we did not come from nothing. E=mc² . we consist of matter, we are nothing other than matter. only some scientifically illiterate uneducated religious fundamentalists claim that we came from nothing. if they show up, just punch them.

[atticana]

...'just punch them'. What a profound mind you must have.

[kurtilein3]

its definitively one of the best :)

but there is competition out there... i personally would consider for example this one to be more brilliant: watch?v=LF5uT5LrTAY

[05800580]

one GOD

[kurtilein3]

which one?

[revjimbob]

His one.

[TheAtheistSwede]

This is an excellent video. Thanks for the mirror.

[nawaikido]

It's incredible your explain, even directed to someone like me that is a scientist.

It's very strong.

I'm searchin' God inside me to believe him.

[kurtilein3]

i see it this way:

there is an hypothesis out there, that says that a god exists. without physical evidence, without any way to disprove or test the hypothesis, i see no need for that hypothesis. so i drop it. but at least, if you dont believe in scripture but only in some concept, there is a chance that what you believe in cannot be disproven, and if thats the case then it probarbly doesnt interfere with science.

[Creammacker]

So what kind of science would teach this, for a science major in college

[kurtilein3]

the chemical reactions involved would be chemistry. chemistry also tells us what the similarities between rusting and burning are.

emission of photons is physics, but chemistry tells you how much energy the reaction will provide in total, and then some of this energy is emitted as photons.

black body radiation is physics, or thermodynamics to be more precise. emission of photons and reactions involving photons are described by quantum electrodynamics.

[danielnz1]

" Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open."

(James Dewar)

[AlmightyAtheismo]

When I first saw this in my subscription queue, I thought it had been flagged or something.

[kurtilein3]

not this time, maybe next time ;)

[GodofVengence]

I was kind of mesmerized by this video when I watched it like an hour ago.

[EyesLikeHoles]

Very well done.