@bassbreaker Six in one hand, half dozen in the other. Randomly generated universe versus a universe created by a randomly generated intelligence. If anything, an intelligence capable of creating the universe would have to be, at the very least, as improbable as the universe; if not more so. I'll let Occam's Razor sort out which hypothesis we should favor...
There is so much we still do not know. That said, however, it does not mean we never will nor does it mean we should turn to superstitions such as a god to answer that which is difficult for us.
@Did007z Physicists don't confuse themselves. The world as it is is very confusing to creatures like us who have a cognition created for understanding a very specific part of the universe. Everything that is beyond our cognition is confusing to us.
All these people are fucking ugly as shit, I promote science but the stereotype of all of them being nerds and ugly is so true. Why can't any of these people care enough to look good?
@jkadoodle well the universe is expanding and logically if you reverse the clock (calculate the rate of expansion & the current size of the universe) you get the conclusion that at some point the universe was very, very small and then try go back a little further and supposedly that's the big bang. But are you suggesting that maybe the universe only expanded at some certain point in it's history and before that was static or?
Good to see that there's still a difference between scientists and priests. Ive started to see way to many similarities between them since the "anthropogenic climate change" hysteria started.
@Skandalos yay another person who disagrees with climate change so thinks they can say its just another religion. heard of the journals science or nature? the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world. go there and type in climate change. tell me how many studies can you find out of the thousands that support your position?
@Skandalos "Since when is the number of supporters an argument" Tell me did you even understand what I wrote or did you just deliberately make your own meaning from it? I said SCIENTIFIC STUDIES not a list of people who supported it. Do you know what studies are? EVIDENCE. so what people like you do is CHERRY PICK your evidence to suit your preconceived beliefs while real scientists look at the whole body of evidence.
@Skandalos The fact that you can make such a stupid argument misunderstanding what I said tells me you're one of those people who likes to go around saying there's been no warming since 1998 or 'climategate' quotes "mike's nature trick" or "hide the decline" means something. come on, I dare you hit me with one of those. I'll enjoy smashing your lies and half-truths. the only condition being when I tear each claim apart you have to admit you just got it from websites.
@Skandalos "become an adult" lol yet another petty and immature statement ignoring my comments about evidence. I may sound arrogant to you but its only because I have heard exactly the same arguments from dozens of morons like yourself and I grow tired of being polite to fools. you are too ignorant and immature to back your comments up, and too scared to go to the journals because they will shatter your brainwashed belief.
@mrcalarsenal Heh, I'm a 3rd year one too, and funnily I feel pretty at ease with Thermodynamics. What I have trouble with is cosmology! It's like I cannot comprehend the scale of things, and cannot grasp when simplifications are good approximations and when they start failing. Like no feeling whatsoever :(
@mrcalarsenal Heh, I'm a 3rd year one too, and funnily I feel pretty at ease with Thermodynamics. What I have trouble with is cosmology! It's like I cannot comprehend the scale of things, and cannot grasp when simplifications are good approximations and when they start failing. Like no feeling whatsoever :(
@Jipzorowns Yes, it is difficult and will bring you to your limits. It will definitely take loads of dedication. In my university, we had a >50% drop out rate within the first two years. But then, it is also very fascinating and rewarding. And it teaches you to think in ways that can be applied to many problems later in life. So you don't just get Physics, you get a toolbox that empowers you in virtually any career but perhaps sports. I'd do it again if I had to choose.
@Pazma1 nono, they are not. some are in certain areas. but the same disgusting human obtuseness you find at all layers of humanity is present in physicists as well.
try to get them to talk about ufos and you will quickly encounter massive mental blocks
This is nice. The humility (at least in part) of the real scientists, belies the intense arrogance of the ideologues of science, who insist, "proof" is the only truth.
@roryscanlon Isn't that really saying the same thing though? Just because you insist that proof is the only truth (which I stand by), doesn't mean that you claim to know everything.
The admission of confusion and lack of understanding stems from an understanding that it's difficult to really detect the processes or effects with your senses. For instance, pre-big-bang events, string theory, and relativity, are hard to understand because it's difficult to relate to the reality than we perceive.
@GeekProdigyGuy Well they weren't only confused around lack of data but also lack of understanding: I don't get this. Also the inability to look back far enough (before the bang) or small enough, etc. goes to the fact that scientific knowledge is not ultimate knowledge.
I found them (in part) more humble then the ideologues of science.
@roryscanlon Scientific knowledge is not ultimate knowledge, true, but it is the peak, as far as humanity is concerned. If we cannot derive it through science, then we cannot derive it at all (since science describes the only process with which we can extract knowledge).
I willingly admit that I can't understand everything, but I can still simultaneously claim that science is the only way anything can be properly understood.
@GeekProdigyGuy) That claim can't stand. For at least two reasons: Science does not address essential parts of common experience: say the emotion evoked by music, or the theories of grammar, or prayer... thus can't understand them.
Secondly the claim that science is the only proper understanding would itself have to be evaluated (it has to be understood after all), but it is not a scientific claim; its not lab-tested--i.e. it fails its own test for truth.
@roryscanlon How does science not address emotion, theories of grammar and prayer? Those are all parts of very common fields of study...
Also you are saying that an abstract concept needs to be proven. You may as well say that there is no way to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Science is the gathering of knowledge through use of the scientific method. It is 'proven' to work by the simple fact that our gain in knowledge through use of it has led to the scientific breakthroughs you are surrounded by.
@DakaSha I'm not sure if you were following our argument. I don't think conceptual claims are "provable," but they would have to be, if scientific proof were the only criteria for truth. The breakthroughs that surround me are very far indeed, from proving that modern science has an ultimate grasp on reality. For our technologies have not fulfilled us. And they don't resolve the big questions of life (good/evil, immortality, etc.)
@roryscanlon@DakaSha ) As for emotions, here's a good example I read recently: if you go to a Doctor and say you're in pain, but he says the pain receptor (or whatever it may be) in your brain is not firing, therefore you are not in pain.... well--he doesn't understand what pain is. Similarly, a sentence decoded into linguistic abstractions would no longer be readable.
These disciplines don't explain things, they observe regularities. (they're often abused--to explain things away!)
@roryscanlon DakaSha's reply fits well. Psychology, linguistics, and sociology DO cover those areas.
However, I do NOT agree with his answer regarding your "self-defeating" claim. This argument is NOT self-defeating, because it is exempt. To know anything at all requires that you make this first provisional assumption (that evidence is a way [and consequently the only way] to know), otherwise you willingly surrender under the claim that nothing can be known.
@GeekProdigyGuy I agree that we need first principles. But why just one?
There's the principles of intelligibility. which first involves the principle that we can think about what things are. and only then, afterwards, that we can think about how things are.
I first observe that a tree grows and then try to understand what its growth is, and then look into how it grows.
There are many assumptions and immediate intuitions required, and the How of modern science is just one of them.
@roryscanlon 2) And of course, the principle of Freedom of the Will must be admitted as well, for any inquiry to progress. There's a wealth of philosophy parallel to science that can't be simply ignored. And, in addition, there are the endless (first principles) a priori intuitions of mathematics which are there own field, etc.
@roryscanlon 1) Because all those intuitions and assumptions are derived from sensory experience (i.e. causation, definition, property vs process).
2) Free will is not required. ex: I don't have to assume that I am independently choosing in order to know that the universe follows laws.
3) True, the abstract understanding of pain requires the first-hand experience. However, that is covered by the first assumption (all knowledge comes from sensory experience), and so is not a counter argument.
@GeekProdigyGuy Free will is required, because if we're not free we've no reason to believe we're observing anything at all; it makes more sense if we only feel as if we are choosing that we only feel as if we perceive truths. People have to choose to look for truth; without the belief in free will they will not choose the search (but we all have it).
Yes, all assumptions come by way of sense experience, I don't see what difference that makes.
@roryscanlon Since even our "self-evident" assumptions come from sensory experience, the original first principle (all knowledge comes from sensory experience) still holds true. Which is my claim.
As for free will -- we could be machines designed to search out the truth, for all we know. I'd like to point out that this does not violate the first principle. We only require sensory experience to derive knowledge, not free will.
@GeekProdigyGuy) if we were mere machines, the drive for truth would have no greater significance than that for survival, or pleasure, or cheese-its. We'd have no reason to care about what's really true--we would never find the truth behind appearances.
I agree, knowledge comes through the senses. Perhaps you're saying all knowledge is limited to sensory experience?
We know through sensing but not just of the sensible.
@roryscanlon 2) of course there is no such thing as truth if things are only the way they appear (like fear of passing shadows). But if you believe in a reality behind appearances (and we all do), then there is room for truth, and we are free to orient ourselves towards that truth--or not.
A part of this is the scientific "getting to the bottom of things."
@roryscanlon We cannot know anything that is not available through the senses, or derived from sensory experience. Again, my claim is that *all* knowledge comes from sensory experience.
We don't have to "care" about what's really true. A program that is well-designed for a specific purpose does not "care" about finding its solution, but will nonetheless spit it out. Desire (or at least purpose) and free will are not interdependent.
@GeekProdigyGuy So you'd argue that even knowledge itself is a form of sensory experience (or abbreviation from sensing)?
What reason could there be for believing that!?
But it seems you reject reason outright, because you've modelled the human being on a program. But we are the inventors of the programs and not vice versa. Programs don't desire nor know anything; they merely compute.
To know something you have to be free to consider it, i.e. to be a person.
@roryscanlon 2) Wouldn't it be right to say, that a computer program has a purpose only insofar as there is a programmer (person) who gives it that person and a user (person) who activates it in accordance with his (user's) intentions.
And, on its own, the program has no purpose, nor intention, nor knowledge.
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.
@iamjalapeno But why would there have to be anything at all? Why would there be rules about having nothing? These rules are things too, they're carried out by physical means aren't they?
@RSwtfboom By default. The anthropic principle! Since we're here to observe that there is in fact something, there must be something for us to be composed of to make an observation of something. That is why.
If there were nothing, there would inevitably come something, for in the infinite possibilities of somethings and nothing, nothing is only one possibility, and infinitely unlikely to exist.
@GeekProdigyGuy That doesn't answer why though, does it? Your first statement just clarifies that something does indeed exist. Your second statement requires the possibilities themselves to exist in the first place, where as if NOTHING existed (not nothing as in an empty universe composed on nothing where the laws themselves still exist, but no reality whatsover) these possibilities wouldn't be there. Why do these possibilities exist? What forces them to exist, aside from them already existing?
@rajenderian The sun is a lot larger but it's also a lot further away. By your logic the tide could've also been decided by a much larger star much further away and luckily it isn't.
@Bezemgast Using the formula F= G*m1*m2/(r^2), which takes mass and distance into account, it can be shown that Force due to Sun is ~100 times that of Moon.
@rajenderian What you say is right and my answer wasn't very informative so i'll be more specific (i'm sure you can find this by googling yourself). The tide is not caused by the size of the force but by the difference in gravity field across the earth. Since the earth is rather small compared to the distance to the sun, the difference in the force across the earth is smaller than that of the moon. That is why the moon has a bigger influence on the tide.
@rajenderian If you found the force due to the sun and force due to the moon you can multiply those by the earths radius divided by distance between the bodies and you'll find that the sun's force accounts between 39% and 48% of that of the moon.
I find it really interesting when it comes to string theory. The connection between the strong/weak nuclear forces, gravity and e&m is what einstein sought later in his life and was known as the MIND OF GOD. string theory seems to capture the essence of that. The metaphors and parallels with this idea are amazing. Throughout history we as a human race seem to characterize God as what we cannot explain and although string theory cannot be tested physicists seem to still have faith in it..strange
@mbcx9ts2 they have no reason to as long as the jig saw piece fits it don't need questioning. of course there are always people testing the theory as in all sciences theories but it is when a theory is not entirely compatible is when they look for something better
@31428571J No, It's just that if you're confused by it, your understanding of it is most likely better than someone who doesn't find it confusing. The degree to which you're confused by QM isn't necessarily commensurate to your understanding of it. It could be that one is simply an easily confused person. But no one has a plenary understanding of QM and I'd guess that no one will for some time. "Some time" being perhaps near the end of this century or so.
@MrTommyHodge Do you know what classical/modern physics implies? Classical physics is pre-1900 and modern physics in post-1900. Quantum theory was developed in mid-20's.
@CNTRI715 That's true. However in terms of human years, quantum mechanics has been around for almost a century. Although classical physics is usually described to be following Newton's Laws of motion. So relativity might count as modern physics.
@RasmusLastname Super modern? As opposed to hydraulics and pneumatics? Quantum physics is over a century old. Only theoretical constructions, like M theory, are significantly younger. Much of science either predates the fall of the Roman Empire or came about in the past 250 years, most of which is under a century old. Even Global Warming is only now hitting its century mark.
@RasmusLastname Quantum physics was used in the splitting of the atom... in the 40's and had its beginning turn of the century. I would consider that classic
@illdeletethis not trying to sound like im ignoring ignorance but ignorance itself may be the cause. or if not, we can agree to disagree and we can both believe what we want,
@illdeletethis thats because you can take almost any force or item in the universe and it can be explained, maybe not now and in rare cases maybe not ever but if physicists shut out all ideas of creation it severely limits idealism. for ex. light has been mesured to be a little slower than we mesured it four hundred years ago and the rate at wich it decays can be traced to almost infinitely fast only a few thousand years ago. hence we can see stars, im no physicist but look it up
i do got one question physicists say that light is massless correct? but then shouldnt it be able to get out of a blackhole becasue the equation of the attraction of gravity is mass1*mass2 all over the distance squared but if mass1 (light) is 0 therefore the answer is 0 because 0 times what ever is 0 and divided by the distance squared would be zero please correct me if im wrong im not sure if that equations called the force of gravity attractions
@TheBcrewkdbj light has no inertial mass, but inertial mass is not a prerequisite for gravitational attraction. The equation you are using is not a good description of whats actually going on with gravitational attraction. You've got to look in to general relativity.
@chromosome24 ohhh i see never mind then what is the equation of gravity attraction then? my grandpa told me that and i wasnt sure if he was right because the units come out like grams squared over distance squared and i thought gravity was in meters per second per second but im only in highschool haha so i know better to question him cause ill get a lecture over god knows what but thanks for correcting me
@TheBcrewkdbj it really depends on your perspective. That is, how you are observing gravity. If it's from the point of interacting objects then the classical F=M1*M2*G/r^2 works just fine, but if you want a more fundamental understanding of gravity, or anything in physics for that matter, you're going to have to use more abstract mathematical descriptions of the phenomena. I'm no expert on general relativity but that's the best place to start looking if your interested in knowing more.
@motionapplied "blend your opposite" I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this statement.
"You are obviously stuck in assuming that "insulters" or obvious discriminators are a problem."
I was only pointing out the irony of Greenehh's response. The main discussion had little to do with insult or discrimination. I never said it was a problem; only that it was ironic, since Greenehh was responding to me in the same way flaaressence was of the video, which Greenehh criticized.
@motionapplied Well I was referring to myself. I think it's pretty safe to say he doesn't know anything about me personally outside of this discussion.
I think you are correct, though. Insult was a poor term, as I wasn't actually insulted. I was more or less building off of what I quoted of him without actually thinking much about it. An ad hominem or attempt to insult may have been a more accurate choice of words.
too confused about modern day religions and negative influences they have towards the image of people that believe. i believe there is God but i see Christianity, Catholics and all other of these religions incorrect with there practices, and do stupid things. I believe the Bible that is my religion, not a church with a priest or the pope who decieve peoples beliefs, and athiests seem to be the most ignorant people out. and those 2 bitches in this video annoy the fuck out of me :)
@flaaressence Atheists are some of the most ignorant people out; yet you procede to insult two people in this video, of which you know little about, by negatively commenting on their gender. Nice. Also you realise the old testament agrees with slavery, racism and sexism? After all Eve was a gift to Adam to relieve his duties; ever since that women have been looked at as inferior to men in many if not all religions. I'd argue that religion is the cause of sexism.
@Greenehh it was defianantly not a sexist comment i can just feel the complete bitchyness and ignorance in there voice and attitude. and i know about the old testament and i dont fully understand it all yet, and you wouldnt either, im only 17 afterall and im just trying to work it all out my self, but yes i believe in God, from my own expereiences in life and no it hasnt been 'shoved down my throat' or whatever these people perceive all religion to be. its pathetic
@flaaressence So you're going off a tiny piece of evidence no-one else notices? Having met one of the women I thought she was quite nice and respetful. You don't understand the bible, yet come onto a science video to preach? Work it out for yourself, no-one has any right to stop you and anyone with respect won't try to; but don't claim you're doing it for yourself after insulting atheists for no reason. Im 18 and have my head set, Agnostic with a hatred for all human religions
@flaaressence lololololololol. i won't claim to be mature since im engaging in this with you, but do you say this is your comedy channel because you find the ideas silly?
@Greenehh could you and your aquantaince, flaaressence, please stop debating about religion. Personally, I am an athiest, I am twelve years old, and if you consider an individual such as myself to be ignorant the I do not respect that person. if you think i am ignorant, well then ill have you know that my IQ in 1st grade happened to be 126. I am not here to argue about athiest versus religious followers, i am just asking for your debate to stop because it is very childish.
@ThatOneADDKid 1) Since when were you in charge of what people could say? 2) Your mature attidtude is flawed by the fact that you feel the need to start a debate expressing your own opinions and 'amazing' IQ rather than moving to a different video, ignoring our 'childish' argument. 3) Your level of IQ is in no way linked to ignorance, some of the most intellectual people in history refused to accept theories we now take for granted due to their ignorance or, stubborness. School'd
@Greenehh You do realize that agnosticism has nothing to do with your belief or lack of belief in god, don't you? It has more to do with what you believe you can or cannot know about the existence of a god.
Ask yourself this question: Do I believe in a theistic god? (yes or no)
If yes, you're a theist. If no, your an atheist. Agnosticism isn't an in-between state of the two.
You may want to think twice before saying that "Atheists are some of the most ignorant people".
@TheGlassDot Thanks for bringing up a conservation that died months ago; however, through your misguided response you seem to have ignorantly misread my previous conservation and instead, disguised your intellect with long words. I never stated atheists are igorant, i stated it as to quote the person i was replying to. Regretably i did not used quotation marks, but hey, you're smart right?
@TheGlassDot Also, your initial point about agnostics seems to be a very picky and useless one. The belief of the existence of a god is surely related to the belief of a god and so they can be classed under the same thing. Wikipedia agnosticism. The first few lines state that an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in something. Thanks for making yourself look a fool and getting involved with something that has nothing to do with you though!
@Greenehh Long words? What, agnosticism? It's a rather natural development from "agnostic".
Yes, that definition fits well with what I said, because agnosticism has nothing to do with your belief or lack of belief in a god. It's not "The belief of the existence of a god", it's what you believe is capable knowledge.
If you think one of your youtube spars are too old to be brought back up, you may think of going back and removing them. And, yes I see now that you were quoting someone. My mistake!
@TheGlassDot This is pathetic and petty picking over words. i'm not going to argue with you over your perceived definition of agnosticism. As i said, wikipedia it, get your facts sorted. And when i referred to long words, i was reffering to the way you had structured your sentences to make you appear to be intelligent when, as proven, you have the childs capabilities of understanding a 'youtube spar'.
@Greenehh Are you really upset over the way I structure my sentences? That's a pretty poor red herring.
Ok wiki: "agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief ... there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that)."
I don't see where I contradicted this. Gnosticism does not replace theism.
@TheGlassDot Nice, now trying to belittle me. Good one.
What are you on about now? You're definition was to do with the existence of god, and not the belief; you even stated agnosticism WASN'T to do with belief. Yet, as you just quoted :"agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge....agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility)"...So, quite clearly it's about belief, you moron.
@Greenehh *I'm* belittling *you*? What conversation are you reading? Pointing out a red herring is not belittling. You on the other hand have said that I have made myself look like a fool, have childish capabilities, and have now called me a moron.... wow.
"So, quite clearly it's about belief"
Are you ignoring that it is defining the phrase "agnostic *atheists*"? The "do not deny it as a possibility" refers to agnosticism, not the "do not believe any deity exists".
@TheGlassDot Oh man, you really got me there! I never should have ever tried to compete with your intellect; I mean, i can just tell you're sat in your harvard dorm, hard at work doing complicated calculations to help decipher the neutrino puzzle at CERN and just for fun, you're taking on a simple minded idiot like me, by arguing over the definition of a word. Jeez, Don't i feel silly! Lolz tlk 2 u l8r bbz
@Greenehh Yes yes... draw the discussion even further away from the point. Here we can hurl pointless insults and build up strawmen to easily knock down.
It's ironic that your initial discussion started with you scolding someone: "you procede to insult two people in this video, of which you know little about"
And it ends with *you* insulting a person you know absolutely nothing about.
@TheGlassDot What are you talking about? I'm congratulating you on your fine victory which, may i say was well worth it. My initial discussion was only meant to defend agnostics/atheists, however, by carefully picking over the definition of a word, you really showed me who's boss and who's the idiot. When i became aggrovated by your persistece of the importance of the definition of a word, i vented my anger. You soon showed me how foolish i was! Well done sir!
The simple confounds the wise ...
TheIAMINU 1 day ago
Religious person:GOD DID IT!
DoNotLaughAtMe 2 days ago
@DoNotLaughAtMe Yet many scientists will claim randomness did it.
bassbreaker 1 day ago
@bassbreaker Six in one hand, half dozen in the other. Randomly generated universe versus a universe created by a randomly generated intelligence. If anything, an intelligence capable of creating the universe would have to be, at the very least, as improbable as the universe; if not more so. I'll let Occam's Razor sort out which hypothesis we should favor...
J0shReed 6 hours ago
Woohoo I dont understand either XD
CloudysGuitarChannel 6 days ago
There is so much we still do not know. That said, however, it does not mean we never will nor does it mean we should turn to superstitions such as a god to answer that which is difficult for us.
shredder767 1 week ago
THE ANSWER IS 42!!! lol!
gredangeo 1 week ago
@gredangeo But what was the question?
therealjammit 5 days ago
i think physicists confuse themselves
Did007z 1 week ago
@Did007z Physicists don't confuse themselves. The world as it is is very confusing to creatures like us who have a cognition created for understanding a very specific part of the universe. Everything that is beyond our cognition is confusing to us.
astroboomboy 1 week ago
@Jipzorowns - hey, I'd say that the subject is conceptually difficult in my case (rather than the Mathematics).
The first year isn't too hard as it builds upon A-levels/IB etc and sets a foundation for the course over the following two or three years.
Overall it is difficult obviously, but with enough practice it can be done. The key is understanding the methods, not just memorising them.
Good luck and hope you enjoy it if you take it. Feel free to ask anything else :)
mrcalarsenal 1 week ago
So, we get the usuals:
"General Relativity"
"What happened before the Big Bang?"
"Thermodynamics"
"Why the hell those assholes care about String Theory"
"Intergalactic astrophysics."
And then the dude in the auditorium:
"Um, you know, that's a good question, what does confuse me?" -- 10 minute cut -- drumroll --
"Quantum Computation"
MultiPaulinator 1 week ago
All these people are fucking ugly as shit, I promote science but the stereotype of all of them being nerds and ugly is so true. Why can't any of these people care enough to look good?
All fatasses/nerds wearing glasses
Kyuutoryuu 1 week ago
@Kyuutoryuu they make the world go 'round! Or at least describe how it goes 'round:)
levistephenjohnson1 1 week ago
@Kyuutoryuu Awwwww, shucks. We love you too.
Philip (glasses-wearing nerdy fecker at ~ 1:09)
Moriarty2112 1 week ago
I'm not religious but I also don't believe in the big bang theory, it just doesn't sound right to me.
jkadoodle 1 week ago
@jkadoodle well the universe is expanding and logically if you reverse the clock (calculate the rate of expansion & the current size of the universe) you get the conclusion that at some point the universe was very, very small and then try go back a little further and supposedly that's the big bang. But are you suggesting that maybe the universe only expanded at some certain point in it's history and before that was static or?
AntiSpeciesistWorld 1 week ago
@jkadoodle Haha, you would't make a very good scientist if you base your perception of reality on what "sound right"!
kiemul136 1 week ago
So... Quantum Physics eh... Challenge Accepted!
m00g33k 2 weeks ago
Good to see that there's still a difference between scientists and priests. Ive started to see way to many similarities between them since the "anthropogenic climate change" hysteria started.
Skandalos 2 weeks ago
@Skandalos yay another person who disagrees with climate change so thinks they can say its just another religion. heard of the journals science or nature? the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world. go there and type in climate change. tell me how many studies can you find out of the thousands that support your position?
AussiePolitics 2 weeks ago
@AussiePolitics Since when is the number of supporters an argument for a case? How stupid do you have to be to even consider bragging about it?
Skandalos 2 weeks ago
@Skandalos "Since when is the number of supporters an argument" Tell me did you even understand what I wrote or did you just deliberately make your own meaning from it? I said SCIENTIFIC STUDIES not a list of people who supported it. Do you know what studies are? EVIDENCE. so what people like you do is CHERRY PICK your evidence to suit your preconceived beliefs while real scientists look at the whole body of evidence.
AussiePolitics 2 weeks ago
@Skandalos The fact that you can make such a stupid argument misunderstanding what I said tells me you're one of those people who likes to go around saying there's been no warming since 1998 or 'climategate' quotes "mike's nature trick" or "hide the decline" means something. come on, I dare you hit me with one of those. I'll enjoy smashing your lies and half-truths. the only condition being when I tear each claim apart you have to admit you just got it from websites.
AussiePolitics 2 weeks ago
@AussiePolitics dude ... ever considered to become an adult?
Skandalos 2 weeks ago
@Skandalos "become an adult" lol yet another petty and immature statement ignoring my comments about evidence. I may sound arrogant to you but its only because I have heard exactly the same arguments from dozens of morons like yourself and I grow tired of being polite to fools. you are too ignorant and immature to back your comments up, and too scared to go to the journals because they will shatter your brainwashed belief.
AussiePolitics 2 weeks ago
are they from Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics?
robthebuilder321 2 weeks ago
my theory is that this isnt the first time the universe has been in existence
PuffSmelly 3 weeks ago
@PuffSmelly I agree with that. It would make sense if the universe's existence was a cycle, simply expanding and collapsing over and over again.
SubwayStar7 2 weeks ago
@SubwayStar7 scary shit isnt it
PuffSmelly 2 weeks ago
classic like quantum physics? the physics that is applied to non-classical mechanics? Thats classic!!!!
MrDelusive 4 weeks ago
"Just cause its beautiful....doesn't make it right." Well said Professor, well said.
Trielectify 4 weeks ago
The more I learn, the more I know how little I understand.
ghuegel 4 weeks ago
I am a 3rd year Physicist at the moment and I have to agree with the Thermodynamics mention!
mrcalarsenal 4 weeks ago 19
@mrcalarsenal Heh, I'm a 3rd year one too, and funnily I feel pretty at ease with Thermodynamics. What I have trouble with is cosmology! It's like I cannot comprehend the scale of things, and cannot grasp when simplifications are good approximations and when they start failing. Like no feeling whatsoever :(
TakesTwoToTango 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrcalarsenal Heh, I'm a 3rd year one too, and funnily I feel pretty at ease with Thermodynamics. What I have trouble with is cosmology! It's like I cannot comprehend the scale of things, and cannot grasp when simplifications are good approximations and when they start failing. Like no feeling whatsoever :(
TakesTwoToTango 1 week ago
@mrcalarsenal
is it difficult? I really want to study physics!
Jipzorowns 1 week ago
@Jipzorowns Yes, it is difficult and will bring you to your limits. It will definitely take loads of dedication. In my university, we had a >50% drop out rate within the first two years. But then, it is also very fascinating and rewarding. And it teaches you to think in ways that can be applied to many problems later in life. So you don't just get Physics, you get a toolbox that empowers you in virtually any career but perhaps sports. I'd do it again if I had to choose.
gcfgreve 1 week ago
Gotta love people being honest about their limitations. That's when the real adventure begins, when you are bold enough to say; "I don't know..."
HKragh 1 month ago
if me getting more confused by physics means i'm closer to understanding it, then my professor needs to consider raising my grade by two letters
crazystrongtower 1 month ago
0:46 Oh dear god... and then she hits the screen -_-
TheDigitalStone 1 month ago
@roryscanion
Have to agree. The honesty here is quite nice.
Ibrahim1109 1 month ago
This is why I love science and scientists, they're comfortable with saying "I don't know"!
Pazma1 1 month ago 99
@Pazma1 every1 apart from theoretical physicist Sheldon Cooper...
DEVILMATE1996 3 weeks ago
@DEVILMATE1996 Bazzinga!
Pazma1 3 weeks ago
@Pazma1 Not all are like that, but yeah, those willing to admit that things are still perplexing are the ones worth trusting.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
@Pazma1 Even though the point in this video was that it is frustrating when you don't know something..?
CircadianR 2 weeks ago
@Pazma1
Until it comes to the subject of religion:-)
31428571J 1 week ago
@Pazma1 nono, they are not. some are in certain areas. but the same disgusting human obtuseness you find at all layers of humanity is present in physicists as well.
try to get them to talk about ufos and you will quickly encounter massive mental blocks
DanFrederiksen 1 day ago
@Pazma1 Smart people hardly deny the fact of not knowing so they CAN try to actually know
ZSeriosly 13 hours ago
This is nice. The humility (at least in part) of the real scientists, belies the intense arrogance of the ideologues of science, who insist, "proof" is the only truth.
And you can see the humanity of them.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon Isn't that really saying the same thing though? Just because you insist that proof is the only truth (which I stand by), doesn't mean that you claim to know everything.
The admission of confusion and lack of understanding stems from an understanding that it's difficult to really detect the processes or effects with your senses. For instance, pre-big-bang events, string theory, and relativity, are hard to understand because it's difficult to relate to the reality than we perceive.
GeekProdigyGuy 1 month ago
@GeekProdigyGuy Well they weren't only confused around lack of data but also lack of understanding: I don't get this. Also the inability to look back far enough (before the bang) or small enough, etc. goes to the fact that scientific knowledge is not ultimate knowledge.
I found them (in part) more humble then the ideologues of science.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon Scientific knowledge is not ultimate knowledge, true, but it is the peak, as far as humanity is concerned. If we cannot derive it through science, then we cannot derive it at all (since science describes the only process with which we can extract knowledge).
I willingly admit that I can't understand everything, but I can still simultaneously claim that science is the only way anything can be properly understood.
GeekProdigyGuy 1 month ago
@GeekProdigyGuy) That claim can't stand. For at least two reasons: Science does not address essential parts of common experience: say the emotion evoked by music, or the theories of grammar, or prayer... thus can't understand them.
Secondly the claim that science is the only proper understanding would itself have to be evaluated (it has to be understood after all), but it is not a scientific claim; its not lab-tested--i.e. it fails its own test for truth.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon How does science not address emotion, theories of grammar and prayer? Those are all parts of very common fields of study...
Also you are saying that an abstract concept needs to be proven. You may as well say that there is no way to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Science is the gathering of knowledge through use of the scientific method. It is 'proven' to work by the simple fact that our gain in knowledge through use of it has led to the scientific breakthroughs you are surrounded by.
DakaSha 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@DakaSha I'm not sure if you were following our argument. I don't think conceptual claims are "provable," but they would have to be, if scientific proof were the only criteria for truth. The breakthroughs that surround me are very far indeed, from proving that modern science has an ultimate grasp on reality. For our technologies have not fulfilled us. And they don't resolve the big questions of life (good/evil, immortality, etc.)
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon @DakaSha ) As for emotions, here's a good example I read recently: if you go to a Doctor and say you're in pain, but he says the pain receptor (or whatever it may be) in your brain is not firing, therefore you are not in pain.... well--he doesn't understand what pain is. Similarly, a sentence decoded into linguistic abstractions would no longer be readable.
These disciplines don't explain things, they observe regularities. (they're often abused--to explain things away!)
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon DakaSha's reply fits well. Psychology, linguistics, and sociology DO cover those areas.
However, I do NOT agree with his answer regarding your "self-defeating" claim. This argument is NOT self-defeating, because it is exempt. To know anything at all requires that you make this first provisional assumption (that evidence is a way [and consequently the only way] to know), otherwise you willingly surrender under the claim that nothing can be known.
GeekProdigyGuy 1 month ago
Comment removed
roryscanlon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeekProdigyGuy I agree that we need first principles. But why just one?
There's the principles of intelligibility. which first involves the principle that we can think about what things are. and only then, afterwards, that we can think about how things are.
I first observe that a tree grows and then try to understand what its growth is, and then look into how it grows.
There are many assumptions and immediate intuitions required, and the How of modern science is just one of them.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon 2) And of course, the principle of Freedom of the Will must be admitted as well, for any inquiry to progress. There's a wealth of philosophy parallel to science that can't be simply ignored. And, in addition, there are the endless (first principles) a priori intuitions of mathematics which are there own field, etc.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon 1) Because all those intuitions and assumptions are derived from sensory experience (i.e. causation, definition, property vs process).
2) Free will is not required. ex: I don't have to assume that I am independently choosing in order to know that the universe follows laws.
3) True, the abstract understanding of pain requires the first-hand experience. However, that is covered by the first assumption (all knowledge comes from sensory experience), and so is not a counter argument.
GeekProdigyGuy 1 month ago
@GeekProdigyGuy Free will is required, because if we're not free we've no reason to believe we're observing anything at all; it makes more sense if we only feel as if we are choosing that we only feel as if we perceive truths. People have to choose to look for truth; without the belief in free will they will not choose the search (but we all have it).
Yes, all assumptions come by way of sense experience, I don't see what difference that makes.
roryscanlon 4 weeks ago
@roryscanlon Since even our "self-evident" assumptions come from sensory experience, the original first principle (all knowledge comes from sensory experience) still holds true. Which is my claim.
As for free will -- we could be machines designed to search out the truth, for all we know. I'd like to point out that this does not violate the first principle. We only require sensory experience to derive knowledge, not free will.
GeekProdigyGuy 4 weeks ago
@GeekProdigyGuy) if we were mere machines, the drive for truth would have no greater significance than that for survival, or pleasure, or cheese-its. We'd have no reason to care about what's really true--we would never find the truth behind appearances.
I agree, knowledge comes through the senses. Perhaps you're saying all knowledge is limited to sensory experience?
We know through sensing but not just of the sensible.
roryscanlon 3 weeks ago
@roryscanlon 2) of course there is no such thing as truth if things are only the way they appear (like fear of passing shadows). But if you believe in a reality behind appearances (and we all do), then there is room for truth, and we are free to orient ourselves towards that truth--or not.
A part of this is the scientific "getting to the bottom of things."
roryscanlon 3 weeks ago
@roryscanlon We cannot know anything that is not available through the senses, or derived from sensory experience. Again, my claim is that *all* knowledge comes from sensory experience.
We don't have to "care" about what's really true. A program that is well-designed for a specific purpose does not "care" about finding its solution, but will nonetheless spit it out. Desire (or at least purpose) and free will are not interdependent.
GeekProdigyGuy 3 weeks ago
@GeekProdigyGuy So you'd argue that even knowledge itself is a form of sensory experience (or abbreviation from sensing)?
What reason could there be for believing that!?
But it seems you reject reason outright, because you've modelled the human being on a program. But we are the inventors of the programs and not vice versa. Programs don't desire nor know anything; they merely compute.
To know something you have to be free to consider it, i.e. to be a person.
And computers are not persons.
roryscanlon 3 weeks ago
@roryscanlon 2) Wouldn't it be right to say, that a computer program has a purpose only insofar as there is a programmer (person) who gives it that person and a user (person) who activates it in accordance with his (user's) intentions.
And, on its own, the program has no purpose, nor intention, nor knowledge.
?
roryscanlon 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
roryscanlon 1 month ago
People who believe in the supernatural. That's gotta confuse a physicist. It confuses me.
KamekoBruns 1 month ago
@KamekoBruns I ain't scared of no ghost.
harlowsolid 1 month ago
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.
harlowsolid 1 month ago
@harlowsolid That's an amazingly scientific description.
KamekoBruns 1 month ago
i would have expected that they would be confused about human interraction.
Ramsez 1 month ago
The thing that confuses me the most... why is there SOMETHING (matter, the universe, etc etc) instead of NOTHING? How? :(
RSwtfboom 1 month ago
@RSwtfboom Because you can't have nothing without something... and you can't have something without nothing.... seems legit.
iamjalapeno 1 month ago
@iamjalapeno But why would there have to be anything at all? Why would there be rules about having nothing? These rules are things too, they're carried out by physical means aren't they?
RSwtfboom 1 month ago
@RSwtfboom I smell a philosophy student
Foxclass 1 month ago
@Foxclass I always found physics more interesting strangely.
RSwtfboom 1 month ago
@RSwtfboom Strangely? Physics is awesome.
Foxclass 1 month ago
@Foxclass (Chemistry is more interesting though *troll face*)
Foxclass 1 month ago
@RSwtfboom By default. The anthropic principle! Since we're here to observe that there is in fact something, there must be something for us to be composed of to make an observation of something. That is why.
If there were nothing, there would inevitably come something, for in the infinite possibilities of somethings and nothing, nothing is only one possibility, and infinitely unlikely to exist.
GeekProdigyGuy 1 month ago
@GeekProdigyGuy That doesn't answer why though, does it? Your first statement just clarifies that something does indeed exist. Your second statement requires the possibilities themselves to exist in the first place, where as if NOTHING existed (not nothing as in an empty universe composed on nothing where the laws themselves still exist, but no reality whatsover) these possibilities wouldn't be there. Why do these possibilities exist? What forces them to exist, aside from them already existing?
RSwtfboom 4 weeks ago
So... What confuses physicists? Physics.
7CellarDoors 1 month ago 2
And all this time I thought it was just me (cept for the thermo-dynamics)
skoockum 1 month ago
Regardless, I work hard to learn it. "work" being a bad analogy....
xXDEICIDE216Xx 1 month ago
How about simple things, like how waves can perfectly cancel out. It's amazing think about it!
Shankovich 1 month ago
@Shankovich Its not really... Though according to the video, because I understand it, I must evidently not.
7CellarDoors 1 month ago
Thermodynamics D-:<
colouredmirrorball 1 month ago
Why the tides occur because of Moon's gravitational force and not Sun's, tough the gravitational force of Sun is much much larger?
rajenderian 1 month ago
@rajenderian The sun is a lot larger but it's also a lot further away. By your logic the tide could've also been decided by a much larger star much further away and luckily it isn't.
Bezemgast 1 month ago
@Bezemgast Using the formula F= G*m1*m2/(r^2), which takes mass and distance into account, it can be shown that Force due to Sun is ~100 times that of Moon.
rajenderian 1 month ago
@rajenderian What you say is right and my answer wasn't very informative so i'll be more specific (i'm sure you can find this by googling yourself). The tide is not caused by the size of the force but by the difference in gravity field across the earth. Since the earth is rather small compared to the distance to the sun, the difference in the force across the earth is smaller than that of the moon. That is why the moon has a bigger influence on the tide.
Bezemgast 1 month ago
@rajenderian If you found the force due to the sun and force due to the moon you can multiply those by the earths radius divided by distance between the bodies and you'll find that the sun's force accounts between 39% and 48% of that of the moon.
Bezemgast 1 month ago
@Bezemgast Thanks for the explanation. So the tides are caused by rate of change of Force (dF/dr) implying a 1/(r^3) dependence.
rajenderian 1 month ago
@rajenderian The sun is much much further away than the moon you know?
Meb8Rappa 1 month ago
I find it really interesting when it comes to string theory. The connection between the strong/weak nuclear forces, gravity and e&m is what einstein sought later in his life and was known as the MIND OF GOD. string theory seems to capture the essence of that. The metaphors and parallels with this idea are amazing. Throughout history we as a human race seem to characterize God as what we cannot explain and although string theory cannot be tested physicists seem to still have faith in it..strange
BPROMETHEAN 1 month ago
@BPROMETHEAN Yes faith because no physicist ever questions string theory.
mbcx9ts2 1 month ago
@mbcx9ts2 they have no reason to as long as the jig saw piece fits it don't need questioning. of course there are always people testing the theory as in all sciences theories but it is when a theory is not entirely compatible is when they look for something better
MrJarth 1 month ago
@BPROMETHEAN The string theory is based on scientific evidence and solid mathematics. Religion is based on a lack thereof.
commetsmasher 1 month ago
So all those who are entirely confused by QM are those who completely understand it then?:-)
31428571J 1 month ago
@31428571J No, It's just that if you're confused by it, your understanding of it is most likely better than someone who doesn't find it confusing. The degree to which you're confused by QM isn't necessarily commensurate to your understanding of it. It could be that one is simply an easily confused person. But no one has a plenary understanding of QM and I'd guess that no one will for some time. "Some time" being perhaps near the end of this century or so.
ToaoRaj 1 month ago
@ToaoRaj
Sorry, I was trying to make a joke (looks like it backfired:-).
['I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics' Richard Feynman]
31428571J 1 month ago
Classic things like quantum physics? It's super modern though lmao
RasmusLastname 1 month ago 22
@RasmusLastname You say that, but the quantum mechanical "scene" came around before any of these people where born.
MrTommyHodge 1 month ago
@MrTommyHodge Do you know what classical/modern physics implies? Classical physics is pre-1900 and modern physics in post-1900. Quantum theory was developed in mid-20's.
RasmusLastname 1 month ago
@RasmusLastname it's actually fairly old.
notThePiper 1 month ago 31
@notThePiper Do you know what classical physics implies? It means pre-1900s. Quantum theory was postulated in the 20s.
RasmusLastname 1 month ago
@notThePiper Not compared to mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc.
CNTRI715 1 month ago
@CNTRI715 That's true. However in terms of human years, quantum mechanics has been around for almost a century. Although classical physics is usually described to be following Newton's Laws of motion. So relativity might count as modern physics.
But whatever, semantics is overrated.
notThePiper 1 month ago
@notThePiper but it's still up to date. I think that's what he meant.
Zoidmatrix 1 month ago
@RasmusLastname Early to mid 20th century: not that modern :P
NotRelatedToBob 1 month ago
@NotRelatedToBob Do you know what classical physics implies? It means pre-1900s. Quantum theory was postulated in the 20s.
RasmusLastname 1 month ago
@RasmusLastname she meant classic as in an answer which most people say
jamesreilly100 1 month ago
@RasmusLastname Super modern? As opposed to hydraulics and pneumatics? Quantum physics is over a century old. Only theoretical constructions, like M theory, are significantly younger. Much of science either predates the fall of the Roman Empire or came about in the past 250 years, most of which is under a century old. Even Global Warming is only now hitting its century mark.
akashashen 1 month ago
@RasmusLastname Quantum physics was used in the splitting of the atom... in the 40's and had its beginning turn of the century. I would consider that classic
iamjalapeno 1 month ago
@RasmusLastname
Idiot.
mecrazy5 1 month ago
@illdeletethis not trying to sound like im ignoring ignorance but ignorance itself may be the cause. or if not, we can agree to disagree and we can both believe what we want,
bville51555 1 month ago
@illdeletethis thats because you can take almost any force or item in the universe and it can be explained, maybe not now and in rare cases maybe not ever but if physicists shut out all ideas of creation it severely limits idealism. for ex. light has been mesured to be a little slower than we mesured it four hundred years ago and the rate at wich it decays can be traced to almost infinitely fast only a few thousand years ago. hence we can see stars, im no physicist but look it up
bville51555 1 month ago
which parts of quantum mechanics are said to not be able to be understood
Rannyfash 1 month ago
i do got one question physicists say that light is massless correct? but then shouldnt it be able to get out of a blackhole becasue the equation of the attraction of gravity is mass1*mass2 all over the distance squared but if mass1 (light) is 0 therefore the answer is 0 because 0 times what ever is 0 and divided by the distance squared would be zero please correct me if im wrong im not sure if that equations called the force of gravity attractions
TheBcrewkdbj 1 month ago
@TheBcrewkdbj light has no inertial mass, but inertial mass is not a prerequisite for gravitational attraction. The equation you are using is not a good description of whats actually going on with gravitational attraction. You've got to look in to general relativity.
chromosome24 1 month ago
@chromosome24 ohhh i see never mind then what is the equation of gravity attraction then? my grandpa told me that and i wasnt sure if he was right because the units come out like grams squared over distance squared and i thought gravity was in meters per second per second but im only in highschool haha so i know better to question him cause ill get a lecture over god knows what but thanks for correcting me
TheBcrewkdbj 1 month ago
@TheBcrewkdbj it really depends on your perspective. That is, how you are observing gravity. If it's from the point of interacting objects then the classical F=M1*M2*G/r^2 works just fine, but if you want a more fundamental understanding of gravity, or anything in physics for that matter, you're going to have to use more abstract mathematical descriptions of the phenomena. I'm no expert on general relativity but that's the best place to start looking if your interested in knowing more.
chromosome24 1 month ago
@TheBcrewkdbj in short your grandpa isn't wrong, its just that its not the whole story.
chromosome24 1 month ago
Schrodinger in quantum-physics is super confusing to me
DeathG4n 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@motionapplied "blend your opposite" I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this statement.
"You are obviously stuck in assuming that "insulters" or obvious discriminators are a problem."
I was only pointing out the irony of Greenehh's response. The main discussion had little to do with insult or discrimination. I never said it was a problem; only that it was ironic, since Greenehh was responding to me in the same way flaaressence was of the video, which Greenehh criticized.
TheGlassDot 1 month ago
@motionapplied Well I was referring to myself. I think it's pretty safe to say he doesn't know anything about me personally outside of this discussion.
I think you are correct, though. Insult was a poor term, as I wasn't actually insulted. I was more or less building off of what I quoted of him without actually thinking much about it. An ad hominem or attempt to insult may have been a more accurate choice of words.
TheGlassDot 1 month ago
I'd really love to learn from these people :)
budtib 1 month ago
@illdeletethis It's because believing is much easier then thinking
smokeysky 2 months ago
How can a physicist has such a nice pair of juggles?
kousoulides 2 months ago
In an A level physics book it described magnets as "a mysterious force"
shoottherunner8008 2 months ago 30
@shoottherunner8008 Fucking magnets, how do they work?
MOSpr0ductz 1 month ago
@shoottherunner8008 magnets is photon exchange
Rannyfash 1 month ago
@shoottherunner8008
magnets,how do they work?
ThePoorShogun 1 month ago
@shoottherunner8008 Which one is that?
akashashen 1 month ago
Liars! Specially men physicists:They forgot the Ultimate mistery in the Universe: Women.
ivanosito 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From The CDS (Creationist Dyslexic Society)
The dog didn't I tell you, it's always the dog.
frostyuk2007 2 months ago
Comment removed
frostyuk2007 2 months ago
too confused about modern day religions and negative influences they have towards the image of people that believe. i believe there is God but i see Christianity, Catholics and all other of these religions incorrect with there practices, and do stupid things. I believe the Bible that is my religion, not a church with a priest or the pope who decieve peoples beliefs, and athiests seem to be the most ignorant people out. and those 2 bitches in this video annoy the fuck out of me :)
flaaressence 2 months ago
@flaaressence Atheists are some of the most ignorant people out; yet you procede to insult two people in this video, of which you know little about, by negatively commenting on their gender. Nice. Also you realise the old testament agrees with slavery, racism and sexism? After all Eve was a gift to Adam to relieve his duties; ever since that women have been looked at as inferior to men in many if not all religions. I'd argue that religion is the cause of sexism.
Greenehh 2 months ago
@Greenehh it was defianantly not a sexist comment i can just feel the complete bitchyness and ignorance in there voice and attitude. and i know about the old testament and i dont fully understand it all yet, and you wouldnt either, im only 17 afterall and im just trying to work it all out my self, but yes i believe in God, from my own expereiences in life and no it hasnt been 'shoved down my throat' or whatever these people perceive all religion to be. its pathetic
flaaressence 2 months ago
@flaaressence So you're going off a tiny piece of evidence no-one else notices? Having met one of the women I thought she was quite nice and respetful. You don't understand the bible, yet come onto a science video to preach? Work it out for yourself, no-one has any right to stop you and anyone with respect won't try to; but don't claim you're doing it for yourself after insulting atheists for no reason. Im 18 and have my head set, Agnostic with a hatred for all human religions
Greenehh 2 months ago
@Greenehh i dont come here to preach, these videos are my comedy channel
flaaressence 2 months ago
@flaaressence please dont insult us athiests.
ThatOneADDKid 2 months ago
@flaaressence lololololololol. i won't claim to be mature since im engaging in this with you, but do you say this is your comedy channel because you find the ideas silly?
noahsego 2 months ago
@Greenehh could you and your aquantaince, flaaressence, please stop debating about religion. Personally, I am an athiest, I am twelve years old, and if you consider an individual such as myself to be ignorant the I do not respect that person. if you think i am ignorant, well then ill have you know that my IQ in 1st grade happened to be 126. I am not here to argue about athiest versus religious followers, i am just asking for your debate to stop because it is very childish.
ThatOneADDKid 2 months ago
@ThatOneADDKid 1) Since when were you in charge of what people could say? 2) Your mature attidtude is flawed by the fact that you feel the need to start a debate expressing your own opinions and 'amazing' IQ rather than moving to a different video, ignoring our 'childish' argument. 3) Your level of IQ is in no way linked to ignorance, some of the most intellectual people in history refused to accept theories we now take for granted due to their ignorance or, stubborness. School'd
Greenehh 2 months ago
@ThatOneADDKid yez sir
mdtwiztid 2 months ago
@Greenehh You do realize that agnosticism has nothing to do with your belief or lack of belief in god, don't you? It has more to do with what you believe you can or cannot know about the existence of a god.
Ask yourself this question: Do I believe in a theistic god? (yes or no)
If yes, you're a theist. If no, your an atheist. Agnosticism isn't an in-between state of the two.
You may want to think twice before saying that "Atheists are some of the most ignorant people".
TheGlassDot 2 months ago
@TheGlassDot Thanks for bringing up a conservation that died months ago; however, through your misguided response you seem to have ignorantly misread my previous conservation and instead, disguised your intellect with long words. I never stated atheists are igorant, i stated it as to quote the person i was replying to. Regretably i did not used quotation marks, but hey, you're smart right?
Greenehh 2 months ago
@TheGlassDot Also, your initial point about agnostics seems to be a very picky and useless one. The belief of the existence of a god is surely related to the belief of a god and so they can be classed under the same thing. Wikipedia agnosticism. The first few lines state that an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in something. Thanks for making yourself look a fool and getting involved with something that has nothing to do with you though!
Greenehh 2 months ago
@Greenehh Long words? What, agnosticism? It's a rather natural development from "agnostic".
Yes, that definition fits well with what I said, because agnosticism has nothing to do with your belief or lack of belief in a god. It's not "The belief of the existence of a god", it's what you believe is capable knowledge.
If you think one of your youtube spars are too old to be brought back up, you may think of going back and removing them. And, yes I see now that you were quoting someone. My mistake!
TheGlassDot 2 months ago
@TheGlassDot This is pathetic and petty picking over words. i'm not going to argue with you over your perceived definition of agnosticism. As i said, wikipedia it, get your facts sorted. And when i referred to long words, i was reffering to the way you had structured your sentences to make you appear to be intelligent when, as proven, you have the childs capabilities of understanding a 'youtube spar'.
Greenehh 2 months ago
@Greenehh Are you really upset over the way I structure my sentences? That's a pretty poor red herring.
Ok wiki: "agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief ... there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that)."
I don't see where I contradicted this. Gnosticism does not replace theism.
TheGlassDot 2 months ago
@TheGlassDot Nice, now trying to belittle me. Good one.
What are you on about now? You're definition was to do with the existence of god, and not the belief; you even stated agnosticism WASN'T to do with belief. Yet, as you just quoted :"agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge....agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility)"...So, quite clearly it's about belief, you moron.
Greenehh 2 months ago
@Greenehh *I'm* belittling *you*? What conversation are you reading? Pointing out a red herring is not belittling. You on the other hand have said that I have made myself look like a fool, have childish capabilities, and have now called me a moron.... wow.
"So, quite clearly it's about belief"
Are you ignoring that it is defining the phrase "agnostic *atheists*"? The "do not deny it as a possibility" refers to agnosticism, not the "do not believe any deity exists".
TheGlassDot 2 months ago
@TheGlassDot "Are you REALLY upset over my sentence structure?" - Belittling.
"agnosticism is a stance about the difference between BELIEF and knowledge".
Can't believe i have to point out everything i do. You only re-enforce my previous statement that you have a childs' brain. Work it out for yourself.
I'm sick of this, it's pathetic.
Greenehh 2 months ago
@Greenehh That's called an honest question. Because to me, it just looks like a red herring...
Yes, let's finish that sentence from wiki, shall we?
"agnosticism is a stance about the *difference between* belief and knowledge, *rather than about any specific claim or belief* "
There's two questions to be asked:
Do you believe in god?
Do you know if there is a god?
The first will answer whether one is a theist or an atheist, the second will answer whether one is gnostic or agnostic.
TheGlassDot 2 months ago
@Greenehh I'll just ignore the name calling. It's not a wonder that you find this pathetic when you have to prop up your argument with insults.
TheGlassDot 2 months ago
@TheGlassDot Oh man, you really got me there! I never should have ever tried to compete with your intellect; I mean, i can just tell you're sat in your harvard dorm, hard at work doing complicated calculations to help decipher the neutrino puzzle at CERN and just for fun, you're taking on a simple minded idiot like me, by arguing over the definition of a word. Jeez, Don't i feel silly! Lolz tlk 2 u l8r bbz
Greenehh 2 months ago
@Greenehh Yes yes... draw the discussion even further away from the point. Here we can hurl pointless insults and build up strawmen to easily knock down.
It's ironic that your initial discussion started with you scolding someone: "you procede to insult two people in this video, of which you know little about"
And it ends with *you* insulting a person you know absolutely nothing about.
TheGlassDot 2 months ago
@TheGlassDot What are you talking about? I'm congratulating you on your fine victory which, may i say was well worth it. My initial discussion was only meant to defend agnostics/atheists, however, by carefully picking over the definition of a word, you really showed me who's boss and who's the idiot. When i became aggrovated by your persistece of the importance of the definition of a word, i vented my anger. You soon showed me how foolish i was! Well done sir!
Greenehh 2 months ago