as i see it bing bang theory is a religious explanaition very much similar to God but using scientific terms (we cannot claim it to be real science since it's only a theory and till it's not prooved thru the scientific method it will just be a theory comaparable to a philosophy). what i find a bit insulting is the perpetual repetition of IT being the creator instead of HE being the creator...one is blasphemy to science while the other is to other religions/ philosofies ...
@xbuster17 no, the big bang is a purely scientific explanation based on the evidence - the cosmic microwave background, the observable expansion of the universe, the laws of physics, etc. big bang theory simply describes the initial state of the universe, and the outcome of the expansion of this initial state. it doesnt posit anything unsupported by observable facts.
religion on the other hand, posits ONLY unprovable, untestable, unobservable nonsense, and demands the same respect as science.
and by the way, i cant believe people are STILL making the retarded mistake of misunderstanding the term 'theory'. seriously? are you really that ignorant of science and the meaning of the terms involved?
in science, the term 'theory' means a complex scientific framework with practical, predictive & explanatory power that best fits all available data, and has passed years of rigorous peer review. we have germ theory, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, are they 'just' theories too?
@matthewjumps yes. never heard of germ theory but atoms are no longer atoms, they broke down, theory was wrong, gravity, complex, still not understood, still a theory, big bang? used to be a collapse of 2 singularities or a singularity acting like a quasar now they change it and it's completely retarded. they claim that the known universe is the entire universe and everything else parallel shit un boubles that's how fucked up this theory is. get real. grow up
@xbuster17 atoms are no longer atoms? thats like saying people are no longer people, cause theyre made of cells. MORON. atomic theory still stands, atoms are still atoms, they just happen to be MADE OF SMALLER STUFF that we dont quite understand yet.
and this, again shows how you totally misunderstand the scientific term 'theory'. atomic theory is still valid in the framework it was developed to fit. its still used to create atomic clocks, particle accelerators, to explain chemistry, and more.
... just because atomic theory does not fit when applied to sub-atomic particles, doesnt mean atomic theory is WRONG. its the same with newtonian physics - while they dont apply to macro scales like galaxies, or micro scales like atoms, in the SPECIFIC AREA which the theory was used to explain, they are still incredibly accurate, incredibly useful, predictive and practical.
and thats the point - scientific theories make testable predictions, and when the tests are confirmed, the theory sticks.
so, in short, youre a babbling idiot who likes to spout pseudo-scientific nonsense and mis-represent what scientists claim, what a scientific theory means, as well as the status of well supported, well evidenced, useful and practical theories like the big bang and atoms.
you clearly think you are more qualified than the thousands of hardworking scientists out there, and when someones ego is that overinflated, i see no point in wasting any more time trying to talk some sense into you. your done.
actually big bang is 2 unlikely due to it being a one time event in the universe in the sense that we don't see it in nature in the phisical plane. for me both are equaly unlikely. the chance for 2 singularities (say mega super giant black holes or quasars or stars) to form the *known* universe is more likely and we have examples of it in nature everyday. now what could started this mess could had been 1 or more inteligent life forms casting this universe into it's state. kinda likely examples
@xbuster17 thats rubbish. by that logic we couldnt convict a murderer unless we actually SAW them commit the crime. one time events happen constantly, but they leave EVIDENCE. thats how science (and criminal investigations) work - we collect the evidence and follow where it leads.
then you start rambling about black holes and quasars, or other intelligent life starting this - again, you are INCREASING complexity, and DECREASING explanatory power by positing MORE universes and intelligences.
in closing, lets repeat something you just said - "Atheism isnt I dont believe. Its..i lack a belief."
are you serious? you have been playing ridiculous word games this whole time. honestly you think that sentence makes sense? if you dont believe, you LACK belief. belief is a property you DONT have. when you lack something, you DONT HAVE IT. i dont believe EQUALS i lack belief, they are the same concept, and by your attempts to seperate them you show what a babbling idiot you really are.
And here's the flaw in your presentation: the assumption that the Singularity is unintelligent. Consciousness did NOT evolve from dead matter and is not purely a biochemical process. The Singularity is God. Sentience is God being self-aware - conscious of itself. Man is God. There is no "outside agent." We are it. It is us. The Universe is interconnected and synergistic. All is One, All is God.
@RevJohn wheres the evidence to back up your claim consciousness didnt evolve? cause all the evidence shows that it DID evolve.
also, your definition of god is NOT the standard definition most believers use. most people think of god as a SEPARATE, UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL with his own personality, desires, demands and thoughts, not some kind of hippy 'all is one' god. if you call god consciousness, or 'everything' - fine, thats like saying 'i believe in leprechauns. by leprechauns i mean dust bunnies'
you say consciousness is not a biochemical process, but there isnt a single shred of evidence for that. all the evidence we have points to the contrary. consciousness is a function of a working brain, a biochemical structure subject to physics like everything else. and if u remove parts of the brain, you alter the mind. if you stimulate parts of the brain with electricity or drugs, you alter the mind. if you destroy the brain, all the evidence indicates the mind ends too. its pretty simple.
@matthewjumps I agree with you. I believe in the future humankind will be forced to redefine God as something completely different from what religion proposes. And consciousness is always evolving, continuously evolving, it never stops, but it didn't evolve from nothing. Same with the Universe, according to string theory.
@RevJohn consciousness evolved as an evolutionary advantage over simpler, immediately reactive nervous systems. as simpler organisms developed senses to investigate and survive the environment surrounding them. the nervous systems progressed to having short working memories, and the ability to process both these memories AND the current input while calculating responses, then the memory and processing improved. all brains show this evolutionary history, the brain stem being the simplest stage.
and as for the universe, look up 'zero sum universe'. this universe has a total sum of zero energy in it. the laws of physics permit this. there can be both positive and negative energy. coupled with the fact that the geometry of spacetime is confirmed to be flat, we have a clear picture that reality is the result of positive and negative energy summed. this also fits nicely with the already well known law that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; simplest explanation is total energy = 0
dont invoke scientific ideas like string theory or evolution in order to support your totally unfounded ideas about god or consciousness, in whatever form they take.
we have no evidence for anything other than consciousness as a biochemical process that evolved like all other aspects of biology - over time in order to give species an advantage. theres no evidence that this universe is anything more than an (albeit amazing) energy fluctuation. all talk of god is speculation and wishful thinking.
What kind of logic is is? Even your atheist hero and his atheist physicist don't share your "logic", God is the ONLY answer, and your supposed complexity cannot be applied to a creator, you are confusing the attributes of a creator with the attributes of creation, please watch my video: Atheists Blind Faith - Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg - God or the multiverse?: /watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE
@helasmoh your logic is flawed. it is essential that god be more powerful and more intelligent, therefore MORE COMPLEX, than the universe he supposedly created. Im not saying his complexity consists of physical matter, but WHATEVER state god exists in, he must by nature be more intricate and complex than this universe. If you are going to argue he is LESS complex, then he is INFERIOR to his own creation, and not a god.
Complexity is a measurement of our universe, you still confusing creator attributes to creation attributes, we have absolutely no idea what God is but we have an indisputable design in front of us that even the blind can see, but true blindness is not in the eyes but in your "complex" mind, sorry, I mean brain, obviously you don't believe that you have a mind.
@helasmoh youre right - you have NO idea what god is. you dont even know he exists, yet as a muslim you claim to know all about god, his personality, his desires, likes, dislikes, his plans & his purposes. kinda dishonest, huh?
complexity is not technically bound to this universe. and we do NOT have indisputable design in front of us. you have provided no evidence for any of your claims other than arguments from ignorance
a mind is simply a function of a working brain. you appear to lack both
anyway, how does the apparent design in the universe point to allah, and not zeus or jesus? or not a whole bunch of gods?
how do we tell designed things apart from undesigned things? if god designed the universe, down to the last atom, EVERYTHING is designed, so how do we make the distinction? what would an undesigned universe look like?
if god EXISTS in any sense, he has attributes. with each added attribute, you add complexity. with limitless power and intelligence, how is he not complex?
The Ancient Greeks were more correct as far as their thelogy was concerned only the called the Singularity "Chaos", and stated that everything that exists emerged from out of Chaos.
Everyone talks about chance. Chance is not knowing the outcome before hand. We perceive the universe this way because we cant predict what will always happen next. You cant just say a god is "more unlikely" than creation because your assuming that a god IS more unlikely simply because you cant understand it. A god that knows what will happen next (based on will or rules, which can be seen as the same) doesnt need chance. Wed see it that way because were inferior (by defn).
@vidfreak56 we are dealing with an unkown. we dont know for sure how the universe began or where it came from. when we are trying to investigate the unkown and we have multiple options for explanation, probablity comes into it - we weigh up the explanations given the facts, and then consider which is more likely/more probable, and which is less likely. and an explanation like 'god did it' only serves to INCREASE complexity, hence increasing the need for more explanations.
@matthewjumps i think you may just be bothered by my use of the word chance, which i understand in the truest sense only applies to future unkown events... however i am using the terms chance/probability more in the sense of 'likelyhood', as in, say i walk into my kitchen and find a bowl of cereal shattered on the floor and my cat licking up the milk, i would the the most 'probable' explanation is my cat knocked the bowl off the counter, and chances are it was NOT fairies or gremlins who did it.
@matthewjumps But likelyhood in this scenario is basically you rewinding time and trying to determine events that could not be foreseeable in order to explain what you perceive. You see the cat and most likely assume that the cat knocked the bowl over. You wouldnt assume faries or germlins did it because those things arent perceivable. The same thing is true of god. However, your perception doesnt necessarily mean your correct in all things perceived. A spilt bowl of milk pales vs existence
@matthewjumps Yes but probability can only determine what humans can perceive as possibilities because we can only understand reality based on our intelligence. Chance is only based on non-determined outcomes. So humans attach "unlikely" to a set of outcomes which they find to be less populated than another set of outcomes. However if everything happens deterministically then it matterts not what humans cant think is likely or unlikely, as everything that happens 100% or 0% of the time.
@vidfreak56 i understand your points, they still dont change the fact that when we have a past event (spilt milk or the universes beginning) with an unkown cause, it makes sense to retrospectively calculate which of the possible causes that are being offered to explain said event, is the most 'likely' or 'probable'. if a particular explanation incurs MORE complexity, more questions, and has no evidence for it, (eg fairies spilt the milk, or god created the universe), then it should be discarded.
@matthewjumps But even w/ spilt milk your not calculating anything when you simply say "its likely the cat did it". Youre deducing based on past outcomes involving cats and bowls of milk. In order to know the "likelyhood" you have to actually know all the possibilities of participants (from the wind to possible human error). This is never the case. Your just guessing. No evidence means you dont accept the presented premise. You dont reject all future premises based on that. God included.
@vidfreak56 far out we are playing word games now. its not hard to understand what im TRYING to say.
bottom line is - we DONT have any evidence for a god, and we DO know that god would intrinsically have to be MORE complex than everything in the universe, hence requiring EVEN MORE explanation.
when trying to explain the origins of the universe, it makes sense to favour the explanation that doesnt have the above failings, and is backed by scientific data. occams razor and all that... sheesh.
@matthewjumps And if you tried to understand what i was talking about in my first comment wed have ended this. We do know god would be more complex and would require more explanation yes (based on human perception). However you still cant say a god is more unlikely. Why? Because you cant undestand what a "god" really is. By not understanding its nature you cant even begin to make assumptions about its likelyhood. Probability of events dont say anything about god.
@vidfreak56 ok now your vanishing up your own asshole into obscurity. do you believe god exists or not? because if you are going to make statements like "you cant undestand what a god is. you cant even begin to make assumptions about its likelyhood", well that statement works both ways now doesnt it. if we cannot know or understand anything about a concept, how the hell can we posit it is unlikely OR likely, true OR false? that makes belief in such a concept totally intellectually dishonest.
and despite your claims, if you do believe in a god in any sense, you DO have specific ideas as to his properties and nature. and the more specific the ideas get, the easier it gets to show that this being is complex, and totally lacking in explanatory power (in fact, raising more questions than it answers). the less specific you are, then god becomes ever more irrelevant and again, totally unnecessary for explaining the origins of the universe. occams razor, know it and love it.
@matthewjumps I believe I told you what I believe. If you do believe in a god, and that belief is based on a guess (w/o proof). And I agree that there are tons of contradictions in the explanation of "god". And in finding the origins of the universe are we talking about finding an explanation for the beginning of all things. You cant assume whats necessary here. Occams razor is for people who want simpllicity and have an axe to grind. Useful yes, but not always.
@matthewjumps IF i were to say I did believe or didnt then id be guessing. Do you want me to guess? Ok then i guess I have no idea. I dont even know how to conceptualize gods existence. I therefore will see what plays out.
Yes precisely. We cant know shit about a concepts "truth" (or perceived truth) if we dont understand it completely. Any belief contrary to this reasoning is pure guessing, and is based on personal desires.
@vidfreak56 if you accept a claim is so difficult to even CONCEPTUALIZE, or understand, let alone to know anything about the truth of such a claim, then the ONLY rational stance is to WITHHOLD belief until we DO understand the claim and can provide a shred of real evidence to support it.
until then the only honest position on such an absurd claim is disbelief. this should be clear to any working brain. belief in anything is a positive stance that rests on evidence. dont you agree?
@matthewjumps Did I say you didnt withhold a belief? You do realize that withholding a belief is different from rejecting a premise.
YOU CANT by logical extention support the opposite claim. Youd simply be guessing. That isnt anything honest. You claim disbelief because there is no evidence that would lead to a belief. The only honest answer is you dont know.
when someone makes an un-evidenced POSITIVE TRUTH CLAIM (god exists, i have a fairy in this box, i saw bigfoot) the DEFAULT position is to WITHHOLD belief until the claim can be supported by evidence. obscuring the concept doesnt change that.
'i dont know' is NOT incompatible with 'i dont believe', if you think it is, youre a moron. agnosticism (i cant know for sure) is totally compatible with atheism (i dont believe), most atheists are agnostic.
this conversation is over. youre clearly trying to support the nonsensical notion that we can only ever say "i dont know", without also adding "because there is no evidence yet, and probably no way of getting it or falsifying it, I DONT BELIEVE". the fact im having to even try to explain this to you is absurd. belief is PROVISIONAL, granted only when sufficient evidence warrants it. without such evidence, belief is withheld. its like light and darkness, darkness is simply an ABSENCE of light.
@matthewjumps LOL well now youre just making things up. So nice attempt at a final rant here. Its clear you dont understand what my position is and never will.
You dont know because of no evidence, yes. YOu dont believe means you have evidence to not believe (but you dont). Hence the anti-belief is an opinion not a fact. And hence you cant be sure. The unknown scares most ppl. Even w/o a belief there is always the question: is it possible?
@matthewjumps The issue that you seem to be having is thinking that "I dont know" is a belief that one should be withholding. The statement "I dont know" means you dont have a belief either way. One can say this and believe it because they know that they dont have a belief in either truth or falsehood. By saying one doesnt know, one doesnt say theyll never know. You're implying something that you cant.
What is the simplest explanation? That human thought, eyes that can SEE a universe that cells couldnt know exist, sound it doesnt know it can hear, space and time and laws to govern reality all came from a theoretical unproven blob of junk or that God planned it that way? God is not in Time..he doesnt require a cause.
If you really "know the arguments" then you know there are more atoms in the universe than chances of a random universe. YOU just wont turn to Christ = Lost
@Rizzy55 your ramblings prove nothing other than your own ignorance.
human thought, perception and existence can be explained without invoking supernatural mumbo jumbo. we live in a physical universe, and to this day no evidence has been presented for any other realm of existence, where supernatural beings exist.
oh and your logic can easily be used like this : 'Zeus planned it that way. Zeus is not in time, he doesnt require a cause. You just wont return to Zeus = Lost."
But heres the funny thing..there is no point in even trying to convince these arrogant know it alls that their logic fails at all points because they are so ludicrous as to believe that a blob of matter designed the universe.
Its sad to think of the blob of doodie that will drop in their pants when are explaining their arrogance to God. As Christ said..they will now live in everlasting regret.
... The study of logic has proven to lead to madness. Therefor, the most intelligent possibility is chaos. The singularity is God, and the so called intelligent Universe ... is the life body of the God singularity.
If intelligence requires something to create it, so does chaos. If chaos is the most intelligent ... we're all one. We are the singularity experiencing itself subjectively - our name is God ... but only on Tuesday.
Anyway, I forgot to finish the point. Shouldn't the Singularity and God both be at the arbitrary "4" for likelihood? Even in the illustration, God does not create the singularity, he its place. It seems like a toss up. There's a chance this is all sprung from the black hole of a larger universe, and then we've got a bazillion more universes shooting out of our black holes. Tracing the origin of all things back through the layers is going to end at some "100% unlikely" incident either way.
@freenachos no, remember god MUST be, by defition, MORE complex than the universe and the singularity - because god has added properties that the unintelligent, impersonal singularity does NOT have. god is supposedly a super-intelligence being who exists BEFORE any of the emergent complexity we see after the big bang.
Can't God and the singularity be the same thing? The singularity existed in a place where there was no time, no before or after, and when it sprung to life, time started. God apparently lived in "eternity" and was just always there and one day decided to make stuff. Maybe he's not a personal force who any of us could ever meet, just a consciousness. I figure since the likelyhood of either event is basically infinite, both have the same chance of being true.
@freenachos again, no, occams razor applies here - if there are 2 options, and one of them is less complex (the unintelligent, unconscious, impersonal singularity) and the other creates more questions than it answers, and is MUCH more complex (a conscious superbeing with a whole list of unique properties and an inherent complexity that outweighs the universe and everything in it) - then the 'explanatory power' of god is completelly invalid, and the simpler answer makes the most sense.
Anyways, I'm sorry if the comment I made 5 months ago offended anyone. I guess for the most part is that I want people to see that there is more to life than things like this. Mathew's uploads are mostly these debating types of videos. And that's great, he likes this sort of thing, I get that. But why can't he just like make videos that are fun and the like? I guess my view of life is to just be social with it, and that includes respecting other's beliefs. I'll leave at that. Have a great day :D
@XeroShade i have personally been hurt by religion. my father was abusive in many ways, religion was a big part of that. i have now lost contact with my family due to cult shunning practices.
im not sure you understand this, because it probably hasnt happened to you. out of sight, out of mind i guess. but lets get one thing very clear:
Religion. Hurts. People.
And not just a few people. A LOT of people. And this is unacceptable, being 'fun' is irrelevant.
@matthewjumps I can understand that. My father is verbally and mentally abusive on a monthly basis. He abuses prescription drugs. And I get that, that was his mistake for even having ideas of doing something as stupid as that. But that doesn't mean that everyone who takes prescription drugs (mental, and painkillers etc) is a failure as a person. I guess what I'm saying, is that my situation is a bit like yours. There is a good part of society, and a bad part of society.
@matthewjumps But because my father did that, it doesn't mean that I'm going to go tell people that prescription drugs are stupid. Religion is like a drug. It can be handled responsibly, and it can be abused. And I'm really just going to end this here. Like I said, I don't like argueing, debating, or whatever you want to call it, with people. I respect your opinions, and I wish you the best of luck through life.
@XeroShade i understand your point, however i think the drug illustration is not quite fitting.
drugs have specific, tested purposes, and while they can be abused, they exist to fix problems we currently have no better solution for.
religion is based on falsehoods, fallacies, myths, superstitions, lies and fear. there are scientific explanations and secular worldviews that are much better, and dont incur the emotional and rational cost religion does.
@matthewjumps For some people, religion fills the gap of understanding, and helps guide their lives according to so and so. Religion is also a big part of history. There are cultures and cultures on this earth that revolve around religion. Killing religion, would be cutting off a leg or an arm of diversity. Anyways, I'm seriously going to leave it at this. Again, I'm sorry for making that comment 5 months ago, and for not ignoring this discussion.
@XeroShade you dont need to apologize, why are you saying sorry?
filling gaps in understanding with nonsense is NOT acceptable. humanity has been ignorant for too long, and we suffer for it. knowledge and truth is available, why dilute or ignore it?
genocide, sexism, racism, these have all been part of human history. doesnt mean we shouldnt stamp them out. muslim cultures still treat women like second class citizens, is that ok? diversity at the cost of human rights and freedom doesnt fly.
i don't think people realize that religion can be eradicated. people think it'll always be around, and never fully vanish. but, they are wrong..all we need to do is eliminate doctrine. spirituality will always exist as long as the human mind exists, but, if we eliminate these insane doctrines, future spirituality will hinge upon knowledge and understanding, not superstitious doctrine. all that's needed to eliminate doctrine, is a sound education. or maybe i'm just being too optimistic.
@itzahazylife Too optimistic mate, unfortunately. I'm sure you've had a religious argument before? Remember how bloody defensive they got? And then they started whipping out bullshit arguments such as : "BUT ITS IN THE FUCKING BOOOK!". A sound education does not eradicate human gullibility, nor does it erase the psychological fear of non-existence. Think about non-existence and describe it to yourself. You can't lol, but you can make one up ; )
i guess you're right..but maybe if we eradicate the 3 main ridiculous doctrines from civilization, the new ones that will inevitably arise, won't be so outlandish, since civilization will naturally be more refined..do u think if the 3 main religious tenets disappear, future civilizations will invent equally outlandish ones?..i'd like to believe not...i know the belief in an afterlife will always be around, but, my main point is, will the hideous specifics of doctrine stay?
@itzahazylife I'm 100% in the same boat friend. I do strongly wish and believe that eventually we as humanity will have rid ourselves of any religion at all, and focus on unfolding our universe with rationality and scientific vigor. In response to your question, I believe that doctrine is on it's way out. Atheist statistics are climbing rapidly, though the media only shows statistics of pro-religion researchers. Science is, and always was, the leading force of humanity.
people may always be gullible when it comes to believing in fantasy based superstition, but, as long as those doctrines go, there will no longer be an organized, mass concentrated, juggernaut to provide an outlet for individual superstition to become some wide spread world view..it'll remain a personal belief, with no doctrine, and thus no way to claim divinity over someone elses personal belief.
@matthewjumps It's good to admit our biases. God creating the universe...or not, is not equal to organized religion. Religion is man-made, God may be too, but they're not the same man-made thing. It's cynical and irrational to say absolutely that religion "hurts" people. Rocks, water, sugar...hurt people, but are not evil. Reality is malleable.
My mom is religious. She goes to Russia, Katrina or Joplin, MO to help out and rebuild. No forcing beliefs, nothing in return, just helping out.
@freenachos you clearly have biases here too, based on your own anecdotal experience.
religions are based on dogma and beliefs, which ultimately have NEVER been proven to be true, and almost always can very quickly be logically proven to be contradictory, unscientific, irational and unreliable.
lies and delusions are NEVER a good thing. your biases have perhaps blinded you to this, but religion has been peddling its bullshit for far too long because of people like you making excuses for it.
everything good religion does, can be done without religion,but,everything bad religion does, can only be done with religion. for example, we can do charity work, we can preach peace and love, we can learn not to steal and murder, all without religion. but, only with religion, do u get people killing others in the name of a god. or having the Pope teach Africans that condoms are evil because they're a sin. it's being, and has been, very detrimental to society. it's just unnecessary.
Great video! You make an excellent point, and do so with very simple math. I'm almost ashamed that I didn't think of this argument before. Was this your own idea, or did you base it off something else?
This is a very good refutation of the complexity argument. The argument basically claims that things which are more complex are unlikely to have been created naturally--that their must be an intelligent creator. A related argument claims that everything that exists, had to begin at some point. So if God created the universe, he must be more complex, and therefore must be extremely unlikely to have begun to exist without an intelligent, more complex, creator--a never ending tautology.
Do we all really have to keep going on with the whole "Your wrong, We're right." argument? People can believe what they want to believe. It's not anyone's job nor business to try and change their thinking over something so trivial. If you believe in Science, your not any more of a person than a Creationist, and vice versa. There's no need to slam on other's beliefs.
that live and let live shit is nonsense..i don't know if you're aware, but many southern states have been thru court cases where creationists have been trying to teach creationism in public schools. the catholic church preached to aids ridden Africans, that condoms were sinful. our ex president Bush, said Jesus was his adviser, and told him to invade Iraq. i care about peoples beliefs..beliefs inform actions. ignorant and evil beliefs cause societal problems.
@itzahazylife exactly, XeroShade and people like him are a massive part of the problem. There IS a need to destroy false beliefs and ideas, because wether religious nuts like it or not, reality DOES exist, and their stupid beliefs are fucking reality up for other people.
this wishy-washy, politically correct 'people can believe whatever' rubbish enables all these extreme, retarded, and totally insane ideas to continue to propogate, when they should be stamped out.
@itzahazylife I'm not trying to start an arguement with you or anything, but not everyone who believes in God go to such extremes that you have listed. That's all I'm going to say on this...I'm not one to argue with people...
@XeroShade everyone is aware that not all believers do, but if people persist in believing things despite demonstrably false arguments and a total lack of evidence, and even a small percentage of these people go on to use those beliefs as an excuse to be intolerant, bigotted, violent, or to hinder scientific progress, then the rational, sensible community should not be content to sit idly by as science, truth and freedom are subverted by superstition, logical fallacies, ignorance and fairytales.
u assert your opinion. and then when someone challenges your opinion, u don't wanna argue? lol..but anyway, it's no problem, and i do know what u mean..of course there are people who have religious beliefs who aren't extremists. but, in your comment u made a general statement. u said that people can believe whatever they wanna believe. naturally, i assumed u meant anybody and any belief, which i disagree with.
@itzahazylife I don't want to argue, because arguing doesn't really solve anything (especially over the internet). That comment that I made 5 months ago was made mostly because at the time I was being pestered by people about this subject, and it sort of happened. When people have arguments such as this on YouTube, it just doesn't feel right. I mean, I'm not trying to sound like a hippy or whatever you want to call it (lolol), but if we argue here does that mean that we forever would be enemies?
it's not really an argument..i see it as more of a debate so far..and debates are great for learning because it challenges the other persons opinions and ideas..the more our beliefs and opinions are challenged, the more we refine them, or change them.
@itzahazylife Tell you the truth, debating isn't really my thing. I've always been under stress by things that people try to push on me. The things that we believe in, and the things that we do, are what shape us as a human being. When it boils right down to it, we're all human, and what we believe in is what makes us unique. I'd rather spend time learning about other people's beliefs than criticizing them for them. I've never taken a class on debating or anything, so I try to avoid it :P
i like truth. in order to dig for it, critical thinking is pivotal..i challenge others, so they challenge back..somewhere in this process, the truth usually stands..i also agree that learning and understanding peoples beliefs are important. but, only so we can criticize (not insult) them. only when we criticize beliefs, and see how well they match up with reality, do we know if they are detrimental in reality. if they are, we can then advise against them.
@itzahazylife This I can understand, for most of these points you have made. At the start of this discussion, I was a bit uncomfortable because the comments made against me. I really don't want to reply to Mathew's comments mostly because they sound a bit violent and insulting, and I have enough of that in my life as it is. My view on these sorts of things isn't much, but I just want to keep living with a feeling that I can get along with people with different views on things without debating :)
he is making good points though..religion really isn't an understanding. it's an understanding of the bible. but, the bible is full of all kinds of false claims, and superstitious dark aged myths. so, what are they really understanding?..they are "understanding" things that don't match up with reality..that's the hallmark of ignorance. and ignorance is a very dangerous thing..sure, it has some good, but, the same good philosophies in the bible, can be found outside of the bible..
I said the numbers were just arbitrarily assigned for arguments sake.
Normally probabilities are expressed as either fractions or percentages. But for eases sake and to make a simple point (which you seem to have failed to grasp) I altered things a little.
To put it simply, god MUST be more complex than ALL the complexity in the universe, however you add or multiply it. Therefore, when dealing with the question of the origins of the universe and its complexity, god is a less probable option.
I really liked this argument, I don't think I had heard it before. I believe its conclusion before you make it, so might be biased. I fear it might have a problem, though, hard to see. It's a fine refutation of the "This universe is too complex to come from a big bang" argument. However, it can be shown that objects of great complexity arise from things of LOWER complexity. Take chemistry as an example. Only works as a reductio against creationism, but good philosophy!
1) Even though you said the numbers are absolutely irrelevant, you summed the1+1+1+1 under Singularity, plus an extra 1, BUT YOU SAID THE NUMBERS ARE IRRELEVANT, SO GOD SHOULD ALSO GET A 1. Your logic is greatly flawed.
2) At the most basic level, you should multiply the values, not add them(obviously it matters more if the variables had digits other than one), but like you said the numbers are totally irrelevant, however your method is simply incorrect.
Very interesting and well made video.The concept of god that creationists postulate is extremely complex,so complex that proponents of the bizarre idea of a god often use its hypothetical complexity as an argument in favour of their unreasonable hypothesis.It's often said that god is mysterious so he cannot be understood.Then the same people,in virtually the same moment,attempt to use the mysteries of the universe as 'evidence' for something that they claim is mysterious beyond comprehension.
you already begin by putting god and the big bang as if they were two different options, when the big bang is exactly used as evidence for the existence of god in therms of creation!
I think you commit a misunderstanding regarding creationism in therms of Creation and creationism in therms of Young Earth Creationism - which, than, is opposed to the big bang theory.
@marteco no, the 2 options are an UNINTELLIGENT, unguided big bang, or the INTELLIGENT creative process theists claim is necessary to explain the complexity of the universe.
the video is simply showing that citing the universes complexity as a reason that it must have been created is totally illogical since the 'solution' to the 'problem' of the universes complexity that you (and all theists) propose is actually MORE complex than the universe, hence its not a solution at all, rather a step BACK
in modern science, in the Beginning there was ONLY ONE. Don*t you get it? You can NOT depict singularity, because there was NO SPACE, and there was NO NOTHING, because there was no SOMETHING. ("In the Beginning, GOD created Heaven and Earth") or "In the Beginning, there was LOGOS and LOGOS was in GOD and GOD WAS LOGOS"
@JohnDowl I've read the bible, its a disgusting book of violence, bigotry, genocide, intolerance, contradictions and innacuracies.
What is your evidence for the claim that god IS the singularity? The bible is about as much evidence for god existing (or being a singularity) as the Star Wars series is evidence for Darth Vader existing.
Dont you get it? Your stupid bronze age book is just a retarded fairy tale. Grow up, move on.
This is by far, the most laughable point I've ever heard ANYONE try to make. It took this level of retardation to get me to post my first post on Youtube. Congrats, you win the award.
@smotheredmate1 Elaborate. Do you disagree that god, by definition, would have to be more complex than all his creations? If the universe is more complex, hes not really the ultimate being he is claimed to be.
If you agree that god is more complex, then why is it absurd, when faced with the unkown possiblity of god always existing or the singularity always existing, to say the LESS complex singluarity is more likely? Creationists love to use dodgy probabilities, but two can play at that game.
Oh and Im not saying this proves anything - the whole point of this video was that creationists use retarded claims of probability based on complexity (eg 'the chance of the first cell appearing is 1 in a squillion' or some nonsense like that)
But if you are going to call things unlikely or impossible becase they are complex, then god MUST be the MOST unlikely and the MOST impossible, because he would have to be MORE COMPLEX than EVERYTHING.
Probability is NOT on creationists side, thats all.
the evidence that mvayne80 speaks of is real and there is a distinction between church and religion and science regarding metaphysical origins and place in the universe is pretty much just an afterthought. i wouldn't qualify for the united negro college fund but that wouldn't make those who are negro fundies. if i use soup cans for communications but can't get satellite radio that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. this had everything to do with jesus speaking in parables.
The bible also says in so many words that God has revealed Himself through His creation so the world is without excuse, but obviously not everyone feels that way. Improper use of our free will (as far as God's concerned) can cause a person to become blind, but if they repent and want to change they are heading in the direction of God. As a person continues on this lifelong journey, they will begin to see God's footsteps everywhere and will wonder how they could have been so blind before.
@mvayne80 What a disgusting god you worship then. He could save many more people by simply showing himself to them (which is supposedly in his power, & which the bible says he has done before, eg the miraculous appearance to Saul which turned him into Paul) but instead he chooses NOT TO, & uses the ambiguous, weak-assed & downright UNCONVINCING TO ANYONE BUT A TOTAL GULLIBLE MORON method of 'revealing himself thru creation', & as a result, intelligent, good people are not convinced and not saved
@matthewjumps Well thats one terrible but common way to look at it lol. The signs are there but people like you who choose to do their own thing and dont want to listen are left in the dark. Why do non-believers think that they are so intelligent when they are not any smarter than believers? lol. I have seen a trend there and that could be part of the problem. Your own ego blocks you off from God so try to humble yourself a little bit and just maybe God will enlighten you.
@mvayne80 I want proof before I believe something. The bigger the claim, the more proof I need. Thats not ego, thats just logic. Otherwhise whats to stop me believing every ridiculous claim every ridiculous religion makes?
The problem with using the universe as supposed proof is twofold: 1, science is showing time and again how things dont need a creator, & 2, more importantly, even if there was ANY evidence the universe needed a creator (there is none), it wouldnt point to any SPECIFIC GOD.
@matthewjumps The bible outlines how a person should live which will show you God is real but no one wants to do what it says unless they have some serious motivation. Living by the bible is difficult but your life changes as a result. Show me evidence that science has for not needing a creator. Science does not know how the universe exploded from nothing. All speculation at best.
@mvayne80 science never said the universe exploded from nothing. And science admits it doesnt know everything, thats why I respect it and see it as far superior to religion. Religion is intent on telling everyone it has all the answers, when in reality it has almost NONE.
As for morals in the bible, the bible commands woman marry their rapists. It tells Israel to slaughter children, and take virgin girls as spoils of war. It commands all manner of disgusting shit. Morals come from people.
@matthewjumps Religion doesnt claim to know everything, it claims God does. God only reveals a little. I am not biblical scholar and cannot explain all of the events that took place in the bible, but I know Jesus came claiming to be God and preached the new covenant between God and man. I just wanted to come and tell you about Jesus and if you choose to deny Him that is your right to do so. I am only giving testimony that Jesus Christ is who said He was.
@mvayne80 how are you giving testimony jesus is who he said he was? youre not presenting evidence. like i said, counltess loonies over the ages have claimed to be the son of god/gods - if the only evidence you have is the fact he CLAIMED to be gods son, and that people 2000 years ago CLAIM he did miracles, that is BULLSHIT.
As for the universes origins, the singularity is NOT nothing. The singularity may well have existed outside the boundaries of what we know as time and space.
@matthewjumps Like I explained in my other comments you have to find out for yourself. I am not expecting you to take my word for it because spiritual experiences are phenomena, not things that can be put under a microscope.
@matthewjumps Concerning the big bang, a singularity is an infinitely small, infinitely dense version of our universe, and it defies our current understanding of physics. If the name for our condensed universe is a singularity than why would you say the universe exploded from a singularity when you know that is not what I meant. Where did the singularity come from? People like you claim logical thinking but logic does not explain the singularity's origins.
@mvayne80 Actually there are several theories regarding "where the singularity came from"... For example, there is a hypothesis that I would describe as "universe evolution", meaning that universes are created and give birth to other universes with slightly different properties (perhaps through black hole formation). There are other theories that deal with multiple or infinite "versions" of the universe with different properties, etc.
@ferrett78 "why did he create evil in the first place?" God did not create evil beings, he created beings with free will that could chose to do good or evil..
@mvayne80 God created the angels. One of those "fell" and became the embodiment of all evil. Thus, either the creation of said angel was flawed (because up until then there was no concept of evil) OR it was specifically designed by God who is "infallible" to become evil. Either way, you can only have the choice of evil if there is a knowledge of evil to begin with, and since everything comes from God, Evil MUST come from him.
@ferrett78 . God was thinking at a much higher level than you or I, obviously, when it came to creating beings. Instead of creating robots that love Him, He wanted to create beings that could choose to love Him or not. A lot more meaningful I think.. Who said there was no knowledge of evil before satan fell? Satan/Lucifer knew what good was and did the opposite, thus the birth of evil was brought into existence. "Satan fell like lightning."
@mvayne80 The point still stands that, in a universe with evil, creation was either flawed and "accidentally" allowed evil, or the concept of evil and thus the possibility to do evil was deliberately incorporated by God, thus making God, at best, neutral.
@ferrett78 SO what is your argument based on? How do you know there was no knowledge of evil?? God created all things good with free will to make their own decisions which is a good thing. Without free will there is no love, but with free will comes the option of not doing good, which brings about evil.
@mvayne80 because God, seeing as He is all-powerful, has it in his all-powerfulness to create a universe where even the concept of evil is not possible. The very thought of "doing the opposite of good" would not enter our (or anythings) mind.
Free will has nothing to do with the concept of love, only the choice to show it. Same with evil. There is a LARGE difference between "not doing good" and "willfully doing evil"
@ferrett78 You are either not getting what I say or you are playing games. God wanted to create beings that think for themselves, not robots.. Why did God create things the way He did? No one knows because no one knows the mind of God. Its apparent that if we both decide to continue this discussion it could go around and around in circles for days and days.
@mvayne80 I understand your argument, but even assuming there WAS a god, your reasoning is incorrect. Essentially, my argument boils down to "god created everything. "Evil" is a subset of everything, therefore God created Evil." Not to mention, wouldn't sending someone to for eternal damnation and torture because they don't share your beliefs be classed as evil?
@ferrett78 Well there is a saying and it goes "if you can wrap your head around it, its not God." I dont claim to know all the answers but I know God is infinite in all areas.. There are many examples of this kind of thinking in the bible. In Job, Job was asked some questions by God after he cursed the day he was born because he was dealing w/ loss. Basically God was asking Job questions as if he was God and was around before time began.
@ferrett78 "classed as evil?" I wouldnt class that as evil. God created everything so He calls the shots. He is known as a just God. He gave man the opportunity for mercy when He sent Christ to earth. God gives two options: Live a sinless life and follow His commandments or Believe Jesus and follow His teachings.
@ferrett78 No one knows how God judges each individual. Only God can measure out and take all things into consideration. "To who much is given, much is expected." "Those who didnt know will receive few stripes, and those who did know will receive many." I do not want anyone (including me) to go to hell, and neither does God.He makes life meaningful by giving people options. Personally I would rather have the assurance of heaven from the start, but Im not God.
@matthewjumps If someone was deciding on a religion I would think common sense would tell them to choose the one that makes the most sense, not the easier, or more hip one. Common sense tells me to pick the one that has the character claiming to be God in human form that performed miracles and essentially came to show mankind how to live. Its all up to the individual to decide for themselves.
@mvayne80 well all i can say is your common sense is more like common stupidity and ignorance.
You hit the nail on the head when you said "CLAIMING" to be god. And you do realise jesus wasnt the only person who claimed to be god, and claimed to perform miracles. Have you CONFIRMED jesus miracles? Are they fact? Or are they just superstitious ramblings of ignorant people from 1000s of years ago.
Im sorry, 2000 year old chinese whispers of miracles are not proof to anyone with a brain.
@matthewjumps Tell me some of the other people in history that claimed to be God and we can talk about it one at a time, because I know there are others. I will break it down for you so you can see the difference.
@mvayne80 If God is all-powerful, why did He need to send someone to tell us how to live? Why not create us in such a way that we would naturally live like that? And why did He need to create miracles to get us to believe in Him instead of just making us believe (through his all-powerful-ness)? And if He wanted us to embrace him and spurn evil, why did he create evil in the first place?
By own experience, I realize that personal experience is not considered hard evidence to non-believers. I'm sure that you have learned by now that God does not perform miracles, or something along those lines, for all the world to see that He exists (although He could). People don't find God, but God reveals Himself according to His own will. The hard evidence an atheist wants will not be found in a science book, or on an archaeological dig.
@pigknuckles211 ok what other scenarios of relevance are there? the 2 main options are the big bang followed by abiogenesis followed by evolution, versus god/intelligent design/creator of sorts... even if you postulate aliens created us, or some other magical being, its all really the same as saying god did it...
Or am i missing some point you are trying to make?
so your argument is that if something is or has complex/ity then it requires a higher being of higher complexity to have sparked it. well i'm certainly more complex than my crayolas or my lego set for that matter. i certainly couldn't duplicate even a cell or a nanobot but we both exist. think about it at that theoretical singularity everything that exists today: gum on the sidewalk, dmvs, traffic school, jury duty.. -all was predestined at that infinitesimal whatever it was..
@pigknuckles211 no pig, thats the CREATIONIST argument. Im simply exposing a FLAW in that argument - if you say that the universe is so complex it needs an intelligent creator, then that creator himself MUST be so complex that HE TOO requires a creator. You cant argue that the universe needs a creator then defeat your argument by saying god doesnt.
And if something always existed, god is LESS likely to be that something, seeing as he would be immensely more complex than the entire universe.
Very nicely done. However you left out a whole scnenario. That scenario is God causing your singularity. You left out what caused the big bang. what caused a super dense, super hot, and importantly, totally unintelligent ball of energy called a singularity to rapidly expand and cool to form the universe? You even left out the part of - How a singularity even came to be in existence in the first place.
@ladivadivala and if we follow your logic, YOU are leaving out a more important item - what caused your super powerful, super intelligent, super complicated god to come into existence? If you can accept that your god existed outside of the constraints of time, then so can the singularity. The fundamental laws fall apart before the first planck time after the big bang... whats to say time itself wasnt a completely different beast before the singularity expanded?
@matthewjumps The only difference is that our own logic and science tells us over and over again - Cause and Effect. The only thing is that we can't grasp how in the world someone could be Self Existent. However you are going a stretch further to believe that anything simply came from Nothing. And that is what you have to do to deny God.
@ladivadivala youre being an idiot. I never said I believed anything came from NOTHING, youre putting words in my mouth and using a lame strawman argument.
Im saying that the singularity, or whatever came before, always existed, most likely outside the boundaries of what we know as time... If youre allowed to believe that you magical sky-daddy can always have existed, so can the singularity. You cant have it both ways.
@matthewjumps Okay, then let's follow your logic completely. You say that the singularity most likely existed outside the bounaries of what we know as time. And you are still saying that something, whatever you want to believe that something may or may not be was simply "Just There". You still have something without a cause. So if youre explanation is Possible why is mine not possible?
@ladivadivala I never said your explanation was NOT possible. When did I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for god to exist? I said god is more UNLIKELY to have existed. Im saying, if I had to gamble between a non-intelligent, non-complex object always existing, & a super-complex, super-intelligent object, I would bet on the LESS complex option as being more likely
And really Im just hilighting the hypocrisy of creationists, of whom many say that the singularity MUST have a beginning, but god doesnt have to
@ladivadivala no i havent seen that particular video, but ive seen other attempts to use mathematical sequences inherent in nature as some kind of lame proof of god
You know what would actually count as a 'fingerprint of god'? Instead of vague, ambiguous sequences of numbers we can find in nature, it would have to be a distinct MESSAGE, say, encoded in our DNA? Maybe if every human on this planet had the message "jesus is the way and the life, praise the lord amen", coded into our DNA?
@matthewjumps Well Matthewjumps I'm going to bet that we won't find that in our DNA. So do you think that Man made up God to deal with the complexities around us? I have a hard time trying to grasp how God has simply always been, but I am Positive that he does exist. I equally have a hard time grasping how anything just simply existed so the Singularity doesn't give me an answer. It is just my nature to believe in Cause & Effect.
@ladivadivala of course we dont find that message there. The entire universe is completely free of ANY specific, unambiguos messages from god.
Just because you have a hard time grasping things doesnt change wether they are true or not. And you seem to fail to grasp that just like you suppose GOD is the 'first cause', the singularity fits the 'first cause' description JUST AS WELL.
Clearly, SOMETHING had to have always existed, both the singularity and god are possible explanations.
@matthewjumps I actually agree with you on that one. The only thing I would add is that the abundant order and beauty of the universe point to an intelligent creator to me. However, I'm not going to knock you for believing the way you do. I do understand you though; The Singularity is your possible explanation and mine is God. Are you one hundred percent sure that God does not exist? I'm just asking.
@ladivadivala no Im not sure god doesnt exist. He might. But there is no specific evidence he does, no reason to believe in him.
Stating that the universe is ordered and beautiful, that doesnt prove anything. You are 'of' this universe, you have evolved on this planet, of course you find it beautiful.
At the end of the day, inventing a magical being to explain the natural world is unnecessary and unscientific. god would be more complex than all the things you are attempting to explain with him
@matthewjumps Well I would want to be sure. Maybe the evidence is all around us and it is up to us to recognize it. At least most of us get the chance to formulate our own opinions. I say most because I have known enough people who just simply accept whatever is put on their plate. At least you have done some investigating. I hope we can both agree that that is important.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. ...
as i see it bing bang theory is a religious explanaition very much similar to God but using scientific terms (we cannot claim it to be real science since it's only a theory and till it's not prooved thru the scientific method it will just be a theory comaparable to a philosophy). what i find a bit insulting is the perpetual repetition of IT being the creator instead of HE being the creator...one is blasphemy to science while the other is to other religions/ philosofies ...
xbuster17 1 month ago
@xbuster17 no, the big bang is a purely scientific explanation based on the evidence - the cosmic microwave background, the observable expansion of the universe, the laws of physics, etc. big bang theory simply describes the initial state of the universe, and the outcome of the expansion of this initial state. it doesnt posit anything unsupported by observable facts.
religion on the other hand, posits ONLY unprovable, untestable, unobservable nonsense, and demands the same respect as science.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
and by the way, i cant believe people are STILL making the retarded mistake of misunderstanding the term 'theory'. seriously? are you really that ignorant of science and the meaning of the terms involved?
in science, the term 'theory' means a complex scientific framework with practical, predictive & explanatory power that best fits all available data, and has passed years of rigorous peer review. we have germ theory, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, are they 'just' theories too?
matthewjumps 1 month ago
@matthewjumps yes. never heard of germ theory but atoms are no longer atoms, they broke down, theory was wrong, gravity, complex, still not understood, still a theory, big bang? used to be a collapse of 2 singularities or a singularity acting like a quasar now they change it and it's completely retarded. they claim that the known universe is the entire universe and everything else parallel shit un boubles that's how fucked up this theory is. get real. grow up
xbuster17 1 month ago
@xbuster17 atoms are no longer atoms? thats like saying people are no longer people, cause theyre made of cells. MORON. atomic theory still stands, atoms are still atoms, they just happen to be MADE OF SMALLER STUFF that we dont quite understand yet.
and this, again shows how you totally misunderstand the scientific term 'theory'. atomic theory is still valid in the framework it was developed to fit. its still used to create atomic clocks, particle accelerators, to explain chemistry, and more.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
... just because atomic theory does not fit when applied to sub-atomic particles, doesnt mean atomic theory is WRONG. its the same with newtonian physics - while they dont apply to macro scales like galaxies, or micro scales like atoms, in the SPECIFIC AREA which the theory was used to explain, they are still incredibly accurate, incredibly useful, predictive and practical.
and thats the point - scientific theories make testable predictions, and when the tests are confirmed, the theory sticks.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
so, in short, youre a babbling idiot who likes to spout pseudo-scientific nonsense and mis-represent what scientists claim, what a scientific theory means, as well as the status of well supported, well evidenced, useful and practical theories like the big bang and atoms.
you clearly think you are more qualified than the thousands of hardworking scientists out there, and when someones ego is that overinflated, i see no point in wasting any more time trying to talk some sense into you. your done.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
actually big bang is 2 unlikely due to it being a one time event in the universe in the sense that we don't see it in nature in the phisical plane. for me both are equaly unlikely. the chance for 2 singularities (say mega super giant black holes or quasars or stars) to form the *known* universe is more likely and we have examples of it in nature everyday. now what could started this mess could had been 1 or more inteligent life forms casting this universe into it's state. kinda likely examples
xbuster17 1 month ago
@xbuster17 thats rubbish. by that logic we couldnt convict a murderer unless we actually SAW them commit the crime. one time events happen constantly, but they leave EVIDENCE. thats how science (and criminal investigations) work - we collect the evidence and follow where it leads.
then you start rambling about black holes and quasars, or other intelligent life starting this - again, you are INCREASING complexity, and DECREASING explanatory power by positing MORE universes and intelligences.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
in closing, lets repeat something you just said - "Atheism isnt I dont believe. Its..i lack a belief."
are you serious? you have been playing ridiculous word games this whole time. honestly you think that sentence makes sense? if you dont believe, you LACK belief. belief is a property you DONT have. when you lack something, you DONT HAVE IT. i dont believe EQUALS i lack belief, they are the same concept, and by your attempts to seperate them you show what a babbling idiot you really are.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
And here's the flaw in your presentation: the assumption that the Singularity is unintelligent. Consciousness did NOT evolve from dead matter and is not purely a biochemical process. The Singularity is God. Sentience is God being self-aware - conscious of itself. Man is God. There is no "outside agent." We are it. It is us. The Universe is interconnected and synergistic. All is One, All is God.
RevJohn 1 month ago
@RevJohn wheres the evidence to back up your claim consciousness didnt evolve? cause all the evidence shows that it DID evolve.
also, your definition of god is NOT the standard definition most believers use. most people think of god as a SEPARATE, UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL with his own personality, desires, demands and thoughts, not some kind of hippy 'all is one' god. if you call god consciousness, or 'everything' - fine, thats like saying 'i believe in leprechauns. by leprechauns i mean dust bunnies'
matthewjumps 1 month ago
you say consciousness is not a biochemical process, but there isnt a single shred of evidence for that. all the evidence we have points to the contrary. consciousness is a function of a working brain, a biochemical structure subject to physics like everything else. and if u remove parts of the brain, you alter the mind. if you stimulate parts of the brain with electricity or drugs, you alter the mind. if you destroy the brain, all the evidence indicates the mind ends too. its pretty simple.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
@matthewjumps I agree with you. I believe in the future humankind will be forced to redefine God as something completely different from what religion proposes. And consciousness is always evolving, continuously evolving, it never stops, but it didn't evolve from nothing. Same with the Universe, according to string theory.
RevJohn 1 month ago
@RevJohn consciousness evolved as an evolutionary advantage over simpler, immediately reactive nervous systems. as simpler organisms developed senses to investigate and survive the environment surrounding them. the nervous systems progressed to having short working memories, and the ability to process both these memories AND the current input while calculating responses, then the memory and processing improved. all brains show this evolutionary history, the brain stem being the simplest stage.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
and as for the universe, look up 'zero sum universe'. this universe has a total sum of zero energy in it. the laws of physics permit this. there can be both positive and negative energy. coupled with the fact that the geometry of spacetime is confirmed to be flat, we have a clear picture that reality is the result of positive and negative energy summed. this also fits nicely with the already well known law that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; simplest explanation is total energy = 0
matthewjumps 1 month ago
dont invoke scientific ideas like string theory or evolution in order to support your totally unfounded ideas about god or consciousness, in whatever form they take.
we have no evidence for anything other than consciousness as a biochemical process that evolved like all other aspects of biology - over time in order to give species an advantage. theres no evidence that this universe is anything more than an (albeit amazing) energy fluctuation. all talk of god is speculation and wishful thinking.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
What kind of logic is is? Even your atheist hero and his atheist physicist don't share your "logic", God is the ONLY answer, and your supposed complexity cannot be applied to a creator, you are confusing the attributes of a creator with the attributes of creation, please watch my video: Atheists Blind Faith - Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg - God or the multiverse?: /watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE
helasmoh 1 month ago
@helasmoh your logic is flawed. it is essential that god be more powerful and more intelligent, therefore MORE COMPLEX, than the universe he supposedly created. Im not saying his complexity consists of physical matter, but WHATEVER state god exists in, he must by nature be more intricate and complex than this universe. If you are going to argue he is LESS complex, then he is INFERIOR to his own creation, and not a god.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
@matthewjumps
Complexity is a measurement of our universe, you still confusing creator attributes to creation attributes, we have absolutely no idea what God is but we have an indisputable design in front of us that even the blind can see, but true blindness is not in the eyes but in your "complex" mind, sorry, I mean brain, obviously you don't believe that you have a mind.
helasmoh 1 month ago
@helasmoh youre right - you have NO idea what god is. you dont even know he exists, yet as a muslim you claim to know all about god, his personality, his desires, likes, dislikes, his plans & his purposes. kinda dishonest, huh?
complexity is not technically bound to this universe. and we do NOT have indisputable design in front of us. you have provided no evidence for any of your claims other than arguments from ignorance
a mind is simply a function of a working brain. you appear to lack both
matthewjumps 1 month ago
anyway, how does the apparent design in the universe point to allah, and not zeus or jesus? or not a whole bunch of gods?
how do we tell designed things apart from undesigned things? if god designed the universe, down to the last atom, EVERYTHING is designed, so how do we make the distinction? what would an undesigned universe look like?
if god EXISTS in any sense, he has attributes. with each added attribute, you add complexity. with limitless power and intelligence, how is he not complex?
matthewjumps 1 month ago
The Ancient Greeks were more correct as far as their thelogy was concerned only the called the Singularity "Chaos", and stated that everything that exists emerged from out of Chaos.
IAmTheUnison 2 months ago
Option 3, There are trillions of gods that could have created everything.
halolIlmao0 3 months ago
Everyone talks about chance. Chance is not knowing the outcome before hand. We perceive the universe this way because we cant predict what will always happen next. You cant just say a god is "more unlikely" than creation because your assuming that a god IS more unlikely simply because you cant understand it. A god that knows what will happen next (based on will or rules, which can be seen as the same) doesnt need chance. Wed see it that way because were inferior (by defn).
vidfreak56 3 months ago
@vidfreak56 we are dealing with an unkown. we dont know for sure how the universe began or where it came from. when we are trying to investigate the unkown and we have multiple options for explanation, probablity comes into it - we weigh up the explanations given the facts, and then consider which is more likely/more probable, and which is less likely. and an explanation like 'god did it' only serves to INCREASE complexity, hence increasing the need for more explanations.
matthewjumps 3 months ago
@matthewjumps i think you may just be bothered by my use of the word chance, which i understand in the truest sense only applies to future unkown events... however i am using the terms chance/probability more in the sense of 'likelyhood', as in, say i walk into my kitchen and find a bowl of cereal shattered on the floor and my cat licking up the milk, i would the the most 'probable' explanation is my cat knocked the bowl off the counter, and chances are it was NOT fairies or gremlins who did it.
matthewjumps 3 months ago
@matthewjumps But likelyhood in this scenario is basically you rewinding time and trying to determine events that could not be foreseeable in order to explain what you perceive. You see the cat and most likely assume that the cat knocked the bowl over. You wouldnt assume faries or germlins did it because those things arent perceivable. The same thing is true of god. However, your perception doesnt necessarily mean your correct in all things perceived. A spilt bowl of milk pales vs existence
vidfreak56 3 months ago
@matthewjumps and forgive me if i didnt respond to the right post, as it looks like you've responded to yourself here.
vidfreak56 3 months ago
@matthewjumps Yes but probability can only determine what humans can perceive as possibilities because we can only understand reality based on our intelligence. Chance is only based on non-determined outcomes. So humans attach "unlikely" to a set of outcomes which they find to be less populated than another set of outcomes. However if everything happens deterministically then it matterts not what humans cant think is likely or unlikely, as everything that happens 100% or 0% of the time.
vidfreak56 3 months ago
@vidfreak56 i understand your points, they still dont change the fact that when we have a past event (spilt milk or the universes beginning) with an unkown cause, it makes sense to retrospectively calculate which of the possible causes that are being offered to explain said event, is the most 'likely' or 'probable'. if a particular explanation incurs MORE complexity, more questions, and has no evidence for it, (eg fairies spilt the milk, or god created the universe), then it should be discarded.
matthewjumps 3 months ago
@matthewjumps But even w/ spilt milk your not calculating anything when you simply say "its likely the cat did it". Youre deducing based on past outcomes involving cats and bowls of milk. In order to know the "likelyhood" you have to actually know all the possibilities of participants (from the wind to possible human error). This is never the case. Your just guessing. No evidence means you dont accept the presented premise. You dont reject all future premises based on that. God included.
vidfreak56 3 months ago
@vidfreak56 far out we are playing word games now. its not hard to understand what im TRYING to say.
bottom line is - we DONT have any evidence for a god, and we DO know that god would intrinsically have to be MORE complex than everything in the universe, hence requiring EVEN MORE explanation.
when trying to explain the origins of the universe, it makes sense to favour the explanation that doesnt have the above failings, and is backed by scientific data. occams razor and all that... sheesh.
matthewjumps 3 months ago
@matthewjumps And if you tried to understand what i was talking about in my first comment wed have ended this. We do know god would be more complex and would require more explanation yes (based on human perception). However you still cant say a god is more unlikely. Why? Because you cant undestand what a "god" really is. By not understanding its nature you cant even begin to make assumptions about its likelyhood. Probability of events dont say anything about god.
vidfreak56 3 months ago
@vidfreak56 ok now your vanishing up your own asshole into obscurity. do you believe god exists or not? because if you are going to make statements like "you cant undestand what a god is. you cant even begin to make assumptions about its likelyhood", well that statement works both ways now doesnt it. if we cannot know or understand anything about a concept, how the hell can we posit it is unlikely OR likely, true OR false? that makes belief in such a concept totally intellectually dishonest.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
and despite your claims, if you do believe in a god in any sense, you DO have specific ideas as to his properties and nature. and the more specific the ideas get, the easier it gets to show that this being is complex, and totally lacking in explanatory power (in fact, raising more questions than it answers). the less specific you are, then god becomes ever more irrelevant and again, totally unnecessary for explaining the origins of the universe. occams razor, know it and love it.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
@matthewjumps I believe I told you what I believe. If you do believe in a god, and that belief is based on a guess (w/o proof). And I agree that there are tons of contradictions in the explanation of "god". And in finding the origins of the universe are we talking about finding an explanation for the beginning of all things. You cant assume whats necessary here. Occams razor is for people who want simpllicity and have an axe to grind. Useful yes, but not always.
vidfreak56 1 month ago
@matthewjumps IF i were to say I did believe or didnt then id be guessing. Do you want me to guess? Ok then i guess I have no idea. I dont even know how to conceptualize gods existence. I therefore will see what plays out.
Yes precisely. We cant know shit about a concepts "truth" (or perceived truth) if we dont understand it completely. Any belief contrary to this reasoning is pure guessing, and is based on personal desires.
vidfreak56 1 month ago
@vidfreak56 if you accept a claim is so difficult to even CONCEPTUALIZE, or understand, let alone to know anything about the truth of such a claim, then the ONLY rational stance is to WITHHOLD belief until we DO understand the claim and can provide a shred of real evidence to support it.
until then the only honest position on such an absurd claim is disbelief. this should be clear to any working brain. belief in anything is a positive stance that rests on evidence. dont you agree?
matthewjumps 1 month ago
@matthewjumps Did I say you didnt withhold a belief? You do realize that withholding a belief is different from rejecting a premise.
YOU CANT by logical extention support the opposite claim. Youd simply be guessing. That isnt anything honest. You claim disbelief because there is no evidence that would lead to a belief. The only honest answer is you dont know.
vidfreak56 1 month ago
@vidfreak56 um, no. it doesnt work like that.
when someone makes an un-evidenced POSITIVE TRUTH CLAIM (god exists, i have a fairy in this box, i saw bigfoot) the DEFAULT position is to WITHHOLD belief until the claim can be supported by evidence. obscuring the concept doesnt change that.
'i dont know' is NOT incompatible with 'i dont believe', if you think it is, youre a moron. agnosticism (i cant know for sure) is totally compatible with atheism (i dont believe), most atheists are agnostic.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
this conversation is over. youre clearly trying to support the nonsensical notion that we can only ever say "i dont know", without also adding "because there is no evidence yet, and probably no way of getting it or falsifying it, I DONT BELIEVE". the fact im having to even try to explain this to you is absurd. belief is PROVISIONAL, granted only when sufficient evidence warrants it. without such evidence, belief is withheld. its like light and darkness, darkness is simply an ABSENCE of light.
matthewjumps 1 month ago
@matthewjumps LOL well now youre just making things up. So nice attempt at a final rant here. Its clear you dont understand what my position is and never will.
You dont know because of no evidence, yes. YOu dont believe means you have evidence to not believe (but you dont). Hence the anti-belief is an opinion not a fact. And hence you cant be sure. The unknown scares most ppl. Even w/o a belief there is always the question: is it possible?
vidfreak56 1 month ago
@matthewjumps The issue that you seem to be having is thinking that "I dont know" is a belief that one should be withholding. The statement "I dont know" means you dont have a belief either way. One can say this and believe it because they know that they dont have a belief in either truth or falsehood. By saying one doesnt know, one doesnt say theyll never know. You're implying something that you cant.
vidfreak56 1 month ago
@matthewjumps And dont give me sheesh as if im supposed to just know this stuff. If you cant reading what you dont like, then i suggest you stop.
vidfreak56 3 months ago
THIS IS A FALSE DILEMMA
What is the simplest explanation? That human thought, eyes that can SEE a universe that cells couldnt know exist, sound it doesnt know it can hear, space and time and laws to govern reality all came from a theoretical unproven blob of junk or that God planned it that way? God is not in Time..he doesnt require a cause.
If you really "know the arguments" then you know there are more atoms in the universe than chances of a random universe. YOU just wont turn to Christ = Lost
Rizzy55 4 months ago
@Rizzy55 your ramblings prove nothing other than your own ignorance.
human thought, perception and existence can be explained without invoking supernatural mumbo jumbo. we live in a physical universe, and to this day no evidence has been presented for any other realm of existence, where supernatural beings exist.
oh and your logic can easily be used like this : 'Zeus planned it that way. Zeus is not in time, he doesnt require a cause. You just wont return to Zeus = Lost."
matthewjumps 3 months ago 4
Matter needs a beginning. Thought does not.
But heres the funny thing..there is no point in even trying to convince these arrogant know it alls that their logic fails at all points because they are so ludicrous as to believe that a blob of matter designed the universe.
Its sad to think of the blob of doodie that will drop in their pants when are explaining their arrogance to God. As Christ said..they will now live in everlasting regret.
Rizzy55 4 months ago
God is the singularity. Or he created it, you still start with energy with the Big Bang.
Collins1dan 4 months ago
brilliant
CarlosKillface 6 months ago
My treadmill is broken, I'm not getting anywhere.
singularity=function(){ ∞ // God life
}
If(∞){ singularity();
}else{ ∞ // God
}
sketch2k 6 months ago
... The study of logic has proven to lead to madness. Therefor, the most intelligent possibility is chaos. The singularity is God, and the so called intelligent Universe ... is the life body of the God singularity.
If intelligence requires something to create it, so does chaos. If chaos is the most intelligent ... we're all one. We are the singularity experiencing itself subjectively - our name is God ... but only on Tuesday.
...
The fuck?
sketch2k 6 months ago
Anyway, I forgot to finish the point. Shouldn't the Singularity and God both be at the arbitrary "4" for likelihood? Even in the illustration, God does not create the singularity, he its place. It seems like a toss up. There's a chance this is all sprung from the black hole of a larger universe, and then we've got a bazillion more universes shooting out of our black holes. Tracing the origin of all things back through the layers is going to end at some "100% unlikely" incident either way.
freenachos 6 months ago
@freenachos no, remember god MUST be, by defition, MORE complex than the universe and the singularity - because god has added properties that the unintelligent, impersonal singularity does NOT have. god is supposedly a super-intelligence being who exists BEFORE any of the emergent complexity we see after the big bang.
matthewjumps 6 months ago
Can't God and the singularity be the same thing? The singularity existed in a place where there was no time, no before or after, and when it sprung to life, time started. God apparently lived in "eternity" and was just always there and one day decided to make stuff. Maybe he's not a personal force who any of us could ever meet, just a consciousness. I figure since the likelyhood of either event is basically infinite, both have the same chance of being true.
freenachos 6 months ago
@freenachos again, no, occams razor applies here - if there are 2 options, and one of them is less complex (the unintelligent, unconscious, impersonal singularity) and the other creates more questions than it answers, and is MUCH more complex (a conscious superbeing with a whole list of unique properties and an inherent complexity that outweighs the universe and everything in it) - then the 'explanatory power' of god is completelly invalid, and the simpler answer makes the most sense.
matthewjumps 6 months ago
Anyways, I'm sorry if the comment I made 5 months ago offended anyone. I guess for the most part is that I want people to see that there is more to life than things like this. Mathew's uploads are mostly these debating types of videos. And that's great, he likes this sort of thing, I get that. But why can't he just like make videos that are fun and the like? I guess my view of life is to just be social with it, and that includes respecting other's beliefs. I'll leave at that. Have a great day :D
XeroShade 7 months ago
@XeroShade i have personally been hurt by religion. my father was abusive in many ways, religion was a big part of that. i have now lost contact with my family due to cult shunning practices.
im not sure you understand this, because it probably hasnt happened to you. out of sight, out of mind i guess. but lets get one thing very clear:
Religion. Hurts. People.
And not just a few people. A LOT of people. And this is unacceptable, being 'fun' is irrelevant.
matthewjumps 7 months ago
@matthewjumps I can understand that. My father is verbally and mentally abusive on a monthly basis. He abuses prescription drugs. And I get that, that was his mistake for even having ideas of doing something as stupid as that. But that doesn't mean that everyone who takes prescription drugs (mental, and painkillers etc) is a failure as a person. I guess what I'm saying, is that my situation is a bit like yours. There is a good part of society, and a bad part of society.
XeroShade 7 months ago
@matthewjumps But because my father did that, it doesn't mean that I'm going to go tell people that prescription drugs are stupid. Religion is like a drug. It can be handled responsibly, and it can be abused. And I'm really just going to end this here. Like I said, I don't like argueing, debating, or whatever you want to call it, with people. I respect your opinions, and I wish you the best of luck through life.
XeroShade 7 months ago
@XeroShade i understand your point, however i think the drug illustration is not quite fitting.
drugs have specific, tested purposes, and while they can be abused, they exist to fix problems we currently have no better solution for.
religion is based on falsehoods, fallacies, myths, superstitions, lies and fear. there are scientific explanations and secular worldviews that are much better, and dont incur the emotional and rational cost religion does.
religion is outdated and needs to die.
matthewjumps 7 months ago
@matthewjumps For some people, religion fills the gap of understanding, and helps guide their lives according to so and so. Religion is also a big part of history. There are cultures and cultures on this earth that revolve around religion. Killing religion, would be cutting off a leg or an arm of diversity. Anyways, I'm seriously going to leave it at this. Again, I'm sorry for making that comment 5 months ago, and for not ignoring this discussion.
XeroShade 7 months ago
@XeroShade you dont need to apologize, why are you saying sorry?
filling gaps in understanding with nonsense is NOT acceptable. humanity has been ignorant for too long, and we suffer for it. knowledge and truth is available, why dilute or ignore it?
genocide, sexism, racism, these have all been part of human history. doesnt mean we shouldnt stamp them out. muslim cultures still treat women like second class citizens, is that ok? diversity at the cost of human rights and freedom doesnt fly.
matthewjumps 7 months ago
@XeroShade
but anyway, don't bother replying back..i know u were done debating..i'm sorry, i had to give my opinion..i'm an opinionated son of a bitch lol.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
i don't think people realize that religion can be eradicated. people think it'll always be around, and never fully vanish. but, they are wrong..all we need to do is eliminate doctrine. spirituality will always exist as long as the human mind exists, but, if we eliminate these insane doctrines, future spirituality will hinge upon knowledge and understanding, not superstitious doctrine. all that's needed to eliminate doctrine, is a sound education. or maybe i'm just being too optimistic.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
@itzahazylife Too optimistic mate, unfortunately. I'm sure you've had a religious argument before? Remember how bloody defensive they got? And then they started whipping out bullshit arguments such as : "BUT ITS IN THE FUCKING BOOOK!". A sound education does not eradicate human gullibility, nor does it erase the psychological fear of non-existence. Think about non-existence and describe it to yourself. You can't lol, but you can make one up ; )
passthebreadsauce 6 months ago
@passthebreadsauce
i guess you're right..but maybe if we eradicate the 3 main ridiculous doctrines from civilization, the new ones that will inevitably arise, won't be so outlandish, since civilization will naturally be more refined..do u think if the 3 main religious tenets disappear, future civilizations will invent equally outlandish ones?..i'd like to believe not...i know the belief in an afterlife will always be around, but, my main point is, will the hideous specifics of doctrine stay?
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife I'm 100% in the same boat friend. I do strongly wish and believe that eventually we as humanity will have rid ourselves of any religion at all, and focus on unfolding our universe with rationality and scientific vigor. In response to your question, I believe that doctrine is on it's way out. Atheist statistics are climbing rapidly, though the media only shows statistics of pro-religion researchers. Science is, and always was, the leading force of humanity.
passthebreadsauce 6 months ago
@passthebreadsauce
people may always be gullible when it comes to believing in fantasy based superstition, but, as long as those doctrines go, there will no longer be an organized, mass concentrated, juggernaut to provide an outlet for individual superstition to become some wide spread world view..it'll remain a personal belief, with no doctrine, and thus no way to claim divinity over someone elses personal belief.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@matthewjumps It's good to admit our biases. God creating the universe...or not, is not equal to organized religion. Religion is man-made, God may be too, but they're not the same man-made thing. It's cynical and irrational to say absolutely that religion "hurts" people. Rocks, water, sugar...hurt people, but are not evil. Reality is malleable.
My mom is religious. She goes to Russia, Katrina or Joplin, MO to help out and rebuild. No forcing beliefs, nothing in return, just helping out.
freenachos 6 months ago
@freenachos you clearly have biases here too, based on your own anecdotal experience.
religions are based on dogma and beliefs, which ultimately have NEVER been proven to be true, and almost always can very quickly be logically proven to be contradictory, unscientific, irational and unreliable.
lies and delusions are NEVER a good thing. your biases have perhaps blinded you to this, but religion has been peddling its bullshit for far too long because of people like you making excuses for it.
matthewjumps 6 months ago
@XeroShade
everything good religion does, can be done without religion,but,everything bad religion does, can only be done with religion. for example, we can do charity work, we can preach peace and love, we can learn not to steal and murder, all without religion. but, only with religion, do u get people killing others in the name of a god. or having the Pope teach Africans that condoms are evil because they're a sin. it's being, and has been, very detrimental to society. it's just unnecessary.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
@XeroShade
people have missions in life..and sometimes those missions are not about having fun..
itzahazylife 6 months ago
You people are morons. God exists because it says so in the holy books. And holy books are true words of god, because it says so inside the pages.
trippplefive 9 months ago
Great video! You make an excellent point, and do so with very simple math. I'm almost ashamed that I didn't think of this argument before. Was this your own idea, or did you base it off something else?
slammminsam 11 months ago
This is a very good refutation of the complexity argument. The argument basically claims that things which are more complex are unlikely to have been created naturally--that their must be an intelligent creator. A related argument claims that everything that exists, had to begin at some point. So if God created the universe, he must be more complex, and therefore must be extremely unlikely to have begun to exist without an intelligent, more complex, creator--a never ending tautology.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
Do we all really have to keep going on with the whole "Your wrong, We're right." argument? People can believe what they want to believe. It's not anyone's job nor business to try and change their thinking over something so trivial. If you believe in Science, your not any more of a person than a Creationist, and vice versa. There's no need to slam on other's beliefs.
XeroShade 1 year ago
@XeroShade
that live and let live shit is nonsense..i don't know if you're aware, but many southern states have been thru court cases where creationists have been trying to teach creationism in public schools. the catholic church preached to aids ridden Africans, that condoms were sinful. our ex president Bush, said Jesus was his adviser, and told him to invade Iraq. i care about peoples beliefs..beliefs inform actions. ignorant and evil beliefs cause societal problems.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
@itzahazylife exactly, XeroShade and people like him are a massive part of the problem. There IS a need to destroy false beliefs and ideas, because wether religious nuts like it or not, reality DOES exist, and their stupid beliefs are fucking reality up for other people.
this wishy-washy, politically correct 'people can believe whatever' rubbish enables all these extreme, retarded, and totally insane ideas to continue to propogate, when they should be stamped out.
matthewjumps 7 months ago
@itzahazylife I'm not trying to start an arguement with you or anything, but not everyone who believes in God go to such extremes that you have listed. That's all I'm going to say on this...I'm not one to argue with people...
XeroShade 7 months ago
@XeroShade everyone is aware that not all believers do, but if people persist in believing things despite demonstrably false arguments and a total lack of evidence, and even a small percentage of these people go on to use those beliefs as an excuse to be intolerant, bigotted, violent, or to hinder scientific progress, then the rational, sensible community should not be content to sit idly by as science, truth and freedom are subverted by superstition, logical fallacies, ignorance and fairytales.
matthewjumps 7 months ago
@XeroShade
u assert your opinion. and then when someone challenges your opinion, u don't wanna argue? lol..but anyway, it's no problem, and i do know what u mean..of course there are people who have religious beliefs who aren't extremists. but, in your comment u made a general statement. u said that people can believe whatever they wanna believe. naturally, i assumed u meant anybody and any belief, which i disagree with.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
@itzahazylife I don't want to argue, because arguing doesn't really solve anything (especially over the internet). That comment that I made 5 months ago was made mostly because at the time I was being pestered by people about this subject, and it sort of happened. When people have arguments such as this on YouTube, it just doesn't feel right. I mean, I'm not trying to sound like a hippy or whatever you want to call it (lolol), but if we argue here does that mean that we forever would be enemies?
XeroShade 7 months ago
@XeroShade
it's not really an argument..i see it as more of a debate so far..and debates are great for learning because it challenges the other persons opinions and ideas..the more our beliefs and opinions are challenged, the more we refine them, or change them.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
@itzahazylife Tell you the truth, debating isn't really my thing. I've always been under stress by things that people try to push on me. The things that we believe in, and the things that we do, are what shape us as a human being. When it boils right down to it, we're all human, and what we believe in is what makes us unique. I'd rather spend time learning about other people's beliefs than criticizing them for them. I've never taken a class on debating or anything, so I try to avoid it :P
XeroShade 7 months ago
@XeroShade
i like truth. in order to dig for it, critical thinking is pivotal..i challenge others, so they challenge back..somewhere in this process, the truth usually stands..i also agree that learning and understanding peoples beliefs are important. but, only so we can criticize (not insult) them. only when we criticize beliefs, and see how well they match up with reality, do we know if they are detrimental in reality. if they are, we can then advise against them.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
@itzahazylife This I can understand, for most of these points you have made. At the start of this discussion, I was a bit uncomfortable because the comments made against me. I really don't want to reply to Mathew's comments mostly because they sound a bit violent and insulting, and I have enough of that in my life as it is. My view on these sorts of things isn't much, but I just want to keep living with a feeling that I can get along with people with different views on things without debating :)
XeroShade 7 months ago
@XeroShade
he is making good points though..religion really isn't an understanding. it's an understanding of the bible. but, the bible is full of all kinds of false claims, and superstitious dark aged myths. so, what are they really understanding?..they are "understanding" things that don't match up with reality..that's the hallmark of ignorance. and ignorance is a very dangerous thing..sure, it has some good, but, the same good philosophies in the bible, can be found outside of the bible..
itzahazylife 7 months ago
I said the numbers were just arbitrarily assigned for arguments sake.
Normally probabilities are expressed as either fractions or percentages. But for eases sake and to make a simple point (which you seem to have failed to grasp) I altered things a little.
To put it simply, god MUST be more complex than ALL the complexity in the universe, however you add or multiply it. Therefore, when dealing with the question of the origins of the universe and its complexity, god is a less probable option.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps
I really liked this argument, I don't think I had heard it before. I believe its conclusion before you make it, so might be biased. I fear it might have a problem, though, hard to see. It's a fine refutation of the "This universe is too complex to come from a big bang" argument. However, it can be shown that objects of great complexity arise from things of LOWER complexity. Take chemistry as an example. Only works as a reductio against creationism, but good philosophy!
shakagenghis 9 months ago
Mathematics fail by you sir.
1) Even though you said the numbers are absolutely irrelevant, you summed the1+1+1+1 under Singularity, plus an extra 1, BUT YOU SAID THE NUMBERS ARE IRRELEVANT, SO GOD SHOULD ALSO GET A 1. Your logic is greatly flawed.
2) At the most basic level, you should multiply the values, not add them(obviously it matters more if the variables had digits other than one), but like you said the numbers are totally irrelevant, however your method is simply incorrect.
maxpuffy 1 year ago
@maxpuffy ..ran out of space.
3) Lets assign values other than 1 to make it clearer. Assuming
-Singularity = 1
-Sun/Earth = 2
-Life = 3
-Man = 4
God's unlikeliness only has to be a 6 to be more complex than everything...the effects stack rather than sum.
Next time approach an argument with as little bias as possible maybe you won't make such catastrophic Mathematical errors
maxpuffy 1 year ago
@maxpuffy LOL edit God's unlikeliness only has to be a *5*!!! shameful by me haha
maxpuffy 1 year ago
Very interesting and well made video.The concept of god that creationists postulate is extremely complex,so complex that proponents of the bizarre idea of a god often use its hypothetical complexity as an argument in favour of their unreasonable hypothesis.It's often said that god is mysterious so he cannot be understood.Then the same people,in virtually the same moment,attempt to use the mysteries of the universe as 'evidence' for something that they claim is mysterious beyond comprehension.
henryporter101 1 year ago
@henryporter101 so true, i see it all the time and the hypocrisy and stupidity of theists who make these claims never ceases to amaze me.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bullshit ur a fucking creationist to
MrCoolsteven 1 year ago
you already begin by putting god and the big bang as if they were two different options, when the big bang is exactly used as evidence for the existence of god in therms of creation!
I think you commit a misunderstanding regarding creationism in therms of Creation and creationism in therms of Young Earth Creationism - which, than, is opposed to the big bang theory.
marteco 1 year ago
@marteco no, the 2 options are an UNINTELLIGENT, unguided big bang, or the INTELLIGENT creative process theists claim is necessary to explain the complexity of the universe.
the video is simply showing that citing the universes complexity as a reason that it must have been created is totally illogical since the 'solution' to the 'problem' of the universes complexity that you (and all theists) propose is actually MORE complex than the universe, hence its not a solution at all, rather a step BACK
matthewjumps 1 year ago
Don't you get it? Singularity IS God!
in modern science, in the Beginning there was ONLY ONE. Don*t you get it? You can NOT depict singularity, because there was NO SPACE, and there was NO NOTHING, because there was no SOMETHING. ("In the Beginning, GOD created Heaven and Earth") or "In the Beginning, there was LOGOS and LOGOS was in GOD and GOD WAS LOGOS"
Read Your bible.
JohnDowl 1 year ago
@JohnDowl I've read the bible, its a disgusting book of violence, bigotry, genocide, intolerance, contradictions and innacuracies.
What is your evidence for the claim that god IS the singularity? The bible is about as much evidence for god existing (or being a singularity) as the Star Wars series is evidence for Darth Vader existing.
Dont you get it? Your stupid bronze age book is just a retarded fairy tale. Grow up, move on.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
This is by far, the most laughable point I've ever heard ANYONE try to make. It took this level of retardation to get me to post my first post on Youtube. Congrats, you win the award.
smotheredmate1 1 year ago
@smotheredmate1 Elaborate. Do you disagree that god, by definition, would have to be more complex than all his creations? If the universe is more complex, hes not really the ultimate being he is claimed to be.
If you agree that god is more complex, then why is it absurd, when faced with the unkown possiblity of god always existing or the singularity always existing, to say the LESS complex singluarity is more likely? Creationists love to use dodgy probabilities, but two can play at that game.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
Oh and Im not saying this proves anything - the whole point of this video was that creationists use retarded claims of probability based on complexity (eg 'the chance of the first cell appearing is 1 in a squillion' or some nonsense like that)
But if you are going to call things unlikely or impossible becase they are complex, then god MUST be the MOST unlikely and the MOST impossible, because he would have to be MORE COMPLEX than EVERYTHING.
Probability is NOT on creationists side, thats all.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
AWESOME!!!!!! GOD BLESS !
sky01100111 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That was absolutely ridiculous. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
PoloViking 1 year ago
That was absolutely ridiculous. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
PoloViking 1 year ago
This is the conclusion I have arrived at through different paths also, excellent video by the way!
Innovater6 1 year ago
the evidence that mvayne80 speaks of is real and there is a distinction between church and religion and science regarding metaphysical origins and place in the universe is pretty much just an afterthought. i wouldn't qualify for the united negro college fund but that wouldn't make those who are negro fundies. if i use soup cans for communications but can't get satellite radio that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. this had everything to do with jesus speaking in parables.
pigknuckles211 1 year ago
The bible also says in so many words that God has revealed Himself through His creation so the world is without excuse, but obviously not everyone feels that way. Improper use of our free will (as far as God's concerned) can cause a person to become blind, but if they repent and want to change they are heading in the direction of God. As a person continues on this lifelong journey, they will begin to see God's footsteps everywhere and will wonder how they could have been so blind before.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 What a disgusting god you worship then. He could save many more people by simply showing himself to them (which is supposedly in his power, & which the bible says he has done before, eg the miraculous appearance to Saul which turned him into Paul) but instead he chooses NOT TO, & uses the ambiguous, weak-assed & downright UNCONVINCING TO ANYONE BUT A TOTAL GULLIBLE MORON method of 'revealing himself thru creation', & as a result, intelligent, good people are not convinced and not saved
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps Well thats one terrible but common way to look at it lol. The signs are there but people like you who choose to do their own thing and dont want to listen are left in the dark. Why do non-believers think that they are so intelligent when they are not any smarter than believers? lol. I have seen a trend there and that could be part of the problem. Your own ego blocks you off from God so try to humble yourself a little bit and just maybe God will enlighten you.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I want proof before I believe something. The bigger the claim, the more proof I need. Thats not ego, thats just logic. Otherwhise whats to stop me believing every ridiculous claim every ridiculous religion makes?
The problem with using the universe as supposed proof is twofold: 1, science is showing time and again how things dont need a creator, & 2, more importantly, even if there was ANY evidence the universe needed a creator (there is none), it wouldnt point to any SPECIFIC GOD.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps The bible outlines how a person should live which will show you God is real but no one wants to do what it says unless they have some serious motivation. Living by the bible is difficult but your life changes as a result. Show me evidence that science has for not needing a creator. Science does not know how the universe exploded from nothing. All speculation at best.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 science never said the universe exploded from nothing. And science admits it doesnt know everything, thats why I respect it and see it as far superior to religion. Religion is intent on telling everyone it has all the answers, when in reality it has almost NONE.
As for morals in the bible, the bible commands woman marry their rapists. It tells Israel to slaughter children, and take virgin girls as spoils of war. It commands all manner of disgusting shit. Morals come from people.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps Religion doesnt claim to know everything, it claims God does. God only reveals a little. I am not biblical scholar and cannot explain all of the events that took place in the bible, but I know Jesus came claiming to be God and preached the new covenant between God and man. I just wanted to come and tell you about Jesus and if you choose to deny Him that is your right to do so. I am only giving testimony that Jesus Christ is who said He was.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@matthewjumps If science never said the universe exploded from nothing then what does it say??
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 how are you giving testimony jesus is who he said he was? youre not presenting evidence. like i said, counltess loonies over the ages have claimed to be the son of god/gods - if the only evidence you have is the fact he CLAIMED to be gods son, and that people 2000 years ago CLAIM he did miracles, that is BULLSHIT.
As for the universes origins, the singularity is NOT nothing. The singularity may well have existed outside the boundaries of what we know as time and space.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps Like I explained in my other comments you have to find out for yourself. I am not expecting you to take my word for it because spiritual experiences are phenomena, not things that can be put under a microscope.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@matthewjumps Concerning the big bang, a singularity is an infinitely small, infinitely dense version of our universe, and it defies our current understanding of physics. If the name for our condensed universe is a singularity than why would you say the universe exploded from a singularity when you know that is not what I meant. Where did the singularity come from? People like you claim logical thinking but logic does not explain the singularity's origins.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 Actually there are several theories regarding "where the singularity came from"... For example, there is a hypothesis that I would describe as "universe evolution", meaning that universes are created and give birth to other universes with slightly different properties (perhaps through black hole formation). There are other theories that deal with multiple or infinite "versions" of the universe with different properties, etc.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 "why did he create evil in the first place?" God did not create evil beings, he created beings with free will that could chose to do good or evil..
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 God created the angels. One of those "fell" and became the embodiment of all evil. Thus, either the creation of said angel was flawed (because up until then there was no concept of evil) OR it was specifically designed by God who is "infallible" to become evil. Either way, you can only have the choice of evil if there is a knowledge of evil to begin with, and since everything comes from God, Evil MUST come from him.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 . God was thinking at a much higher level than you or I, obviously, when it came to creating beings. Instead of creating robots that love Him, He wanted to create beings that could choose to love Him or not. A lot more meaningful I think.. Who said there was no knowledge of evil before satan fell? Satan/Lucifer knew what good was and did the opposite, thus the birth of evil was brought into existence. "Satan fell like lightning."
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 The point still stands that, in a universe with evil, creation was either flawed and "accidentally" allowed evil, or the concept of evil and thus the possibility to do evil was deliberately incorporated by God, thus making God, at best, neutral.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 SO what is your argument based on? How do you know there was no knowledge of evil?? God created all things good with free will to make their own decisions which is a good thing. Without free will there is no love, but with free will comes the option of not doing good, which brings about evil.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 because God, seeing as He is all-powerful, has it in his all-powerfulness to create a universe where even the concept of evil is not possible. The very thought of "doing the opposite of good" would not enter our (or anythings) mind.
Free will has nothing to do with the concept of love, only the choice to show it. Same with evil. There is a LARGE difference between "not doing good" and "willfully doing evil"
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 You are either not getting what I say or you are playing games. God wanted to create beings that think for themselves, not robots.. Why did God create things the way He did? No one knows because no one knows the mind of God. Its apparent that if we both decide to continue this discussion it could go around and around in circles for days and days.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 I understand your argument, but even assuming there WAS a god, your reasoning is incorrect. Essentially, my argument boils down to "god created everything. "Evil" is a subset of everything, therefore God created Evil." Not to mention, wouldn't sending someone to for eternal damnation and torture because they don't share your beliefs be classed as evil?
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 Well there is a saying and it goes "if you can wrap your head around it, its not God." I dont claim to know all the answers but I know God is infinite in all areas.. There are many examples of this kind of thinking in the bible. In Job, Job was asked some questions by God after he cursed the day he was born because he was dealing w/ loss. Basically God was asking Job questions as if he was God and was around before time began.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@ferrett78 "classed as evil?" I wouldnt class that as evil. God created everything so He calls the shots. He is known as a just God. He gave man the opportunity for mercy when He sent Christ to earth. God gives two options: Live a sinless life and follow His commandments or Believe Jesus and follow His teachings.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@ferrett78 No one knows how God judges each individual. Only God can measure out and take all things into consideration. "To who much is given, much is expected." "Those who didnt know will receive few stripes, and those who did know will receive many." I do not want anyone (including me) to go to hell, and neither does God.He makes life meaningful by giving people options. Personally I would rather have the assurance of heaven from the start, but Im not God.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@matthewjumps If someone was deciding on a religion I would think common sense would tell them to choose the one that makes the most sense, not the easier, or more hip one. Common sense tells me to pick the one that has the character claiming to be God in human form that performed miracles and essentially came to show mankind how to live. Its all up to the individual to decide for themselves.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 well all i can say is your common sense is more like common stupidity and ignorance.
You hit the nail on the head when you said "CLAIMING" to be god. And you do realise jesus wasnt the only person who claimed to be god, and claimed to perform miracles. Have you CONFIRMED jesus miracles? Are they fact? Or are they just superstitious ramblings of ignorant people from 1000s of years ago.
Im sorry, 2000 year old chinese whispers of miracles are not proof to anyone with a brain.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps Tell me some of the other people in history that claimed to be God and we can talk about it one at a time, because I know there are others. I will break it down for you so you can see the difference.
mvayne80 1 year ago
@mvayne80 If God is all-powerful, why did He need to send someone to tell us how to live? Why not create us in such a way that we would naturally live like that? And why did He need to create miracles to get us to believe in Him instead of just making us believe (through his all-powerful-ness)? And if He wanted us to embrace him and spurn evil, why did he create evil in the first place?
ferrett78 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ferrett78 "If God is all-powerful, why.."
"Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" Romans 11-34
mvayne80 1 year ago
By own experience, I realize that personal experience is not considered hard evidence to non-believers. I'm sure that you have learned by now that God does not perform miracles, or something along those lines, for all the world to see that He exists (although He could). People don't find God, but God reveals Himself according to His own will. The hard evidence an atheist wants will not be found in a science book, or on an archaeological dig.
mvayne80 1 year ago
..and there were no other scenarios probable or possible.
pigknuckles211 1 year ago
@pigknuckles211 ok what other scenarios of relevance are there? the 2 main options are the big bang followed by abiogenesis followed by evolution, versus god/intelligent design/creator of sorts... even if you postulate aliens created us, or some other magical being, its all really the same as saying god did it...
Or am i missing some point you are trying to make?
matthewjumps 1 year ago
so your argument is that if something is or has complex/ity then it requires a higher being of higher complexity to have sparked it. well i'm certainly more complex than my crayolas or my lego set for that matter. i certainly couldn't duplicate even a cell or a nanobot but we both exist. think about it at that theoretical singularity everything that exists today: gum on the sidewalk, dmvs, traffic school, jury duty.. -all was predestined at that infinitesimal whatever it was..
pigknuckles211 1 year ago
@pigknuckles211 no pig, thats the CREATIONIST argument. Im simply exposing a FLAW in that argument - if you say that the universe is so complex it needs an intelligent creator, then that creator himself MUST be so complex that HE TOO requires a creator. You cant argue that the universe needs a creator then defeat your argument by saying god doesnt.
And if something always existed, god is LESS likely to be that something, seeing as he would be immensely more complex than the entire universe.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
Simplistically speaking God is a metaphor for the state of potential as is the singularity
nusphere 1 year ago
Creationists and evolutionists playing Yahtzee using their own(or willful ignorance of the) understanding of evolution who would win?
robvlob 1 year ago
Very nicely done. However you left out a whole scnenario. That scenario is God causing your singularity. You left out what caused the big bang. what caused a super dense, super hot, and importantly, totally unintelligent ball of energy called a singularity to rapidly expand and cool to form the universe? You even left out the part of - How a singularity even came to be in existence in the first place.
ladivadivala 1 year ago
@ladivadivala and if we follow your logic, YOU are leaving out a more important item - what caused your super powerful, super intelligent, super complicated god to come into existence? If you can accept that your god existed outside of the constraints of time, then so can the singularity. The fundamental laws fall apart before the first planck time after the big bang... whats to say time itself wasnt a completely different beast before the singularity expanded?
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps The only difference is that our own logic and science tells us over and over again - Cause and Effect. The only thing is that we can't grasp how in the world someone could be Self Existent. However you are going a stretch further to believe that anything simply came from Nothing. And that is what you have to do to deny God.
ladivadivala 1 year ago
@ladivadivala youre being an idiot. I never said I believed anything came from NOTHING, youre putting words in my mouth and using a lame strawman argument.
Im saying that the singularity, or whatever came before, always existed, most likely outside the boundaries of what we know as time... If youre allowed to believe that you magical sky-daddy can always have existed, so can the singularity. You cant have it both ways.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps Okay, then let's follow your logic completely. You say that the singularity most likely existed outside the bounaries of what we know as time. And you are still saying that something, whatever you want to believe that something may or may not be was simply "Just There". You still have something without a cause. So if youre explanation is Possible why is mine not possible?
ladivadivala 1 year ago
@ladivadivala I never said your explanation was NOT possible. When did I say it is IMPOSSIBLE for god to exist? I said god is more UNLIKELY to have existed. Im saying, if I had to gamble between a non-intelligent, non-complex object always existing, & a super-complex, super-intelligent object, I would bet on the LESS complex option as being more likely
And really Im just hilighting the hypocrisy of creationists, of whom many say that the singularity MUST have a beginning, but god doesnt have to
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps Have you seen this video? "Fibonacci Numbers - The Fingerprint of God".
ladivadivala 1 year ago
@ladivadivala no i havent seen that particular video, but ive seen other attempts to use mathematical sequences inherent in nature as some kind of lame proof of god
You know what would actually count as a 'fingerprint of god'? Instead of vague, ambiguous sequences of numbers we can find in nature, it would have to be a distinct MESSAGE, say, encoded in our DNA? Maybe if every human on this planet had the message "jesus is the way and the life, praise the lord amen", coded into our DNA?
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps Well Matthewjumps I'm going to bet that we won't find that in our DNA. So do you think that Man made up God to deal with the complexities around us? I have a hard time trying to grasp how God has simply always been, but I am Positive that he does exist. I equally have a hard time grasping how anything just simply existed so the Singularity doesn't give me an answer. It is just my nature to believe in Cause & Effect.
ladivadivala 1 year ago
@ladivadivala of course we dont find that message there. The entire universe is completely free of ANY specific, unambiguos messages from god.
Just because you have a hard time grasping things doesnt change wether they are true or not. And you seem to fail to grasp that just like you suppose GOD is the 'first cause', the singularity fits the 'first cause' description JUST AS WELL.
Clearly, SOMETHING had to have always existed, both the singularity and god are possible explanations.
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps I actually agree with you on that one. The only thing I would add is that the abundant order and beauty of the universe point to an intelligent creator to me. However, I'm not going to knock you for believing the way you do. I do understand you though; The Singularity is your possible explanation and mine is God. Are you one hundred percent sure that God does not exist? I'm just asking.
ladivadivala 1 year ago
@ladivadivala no Im not sure god doesnt exist. He might. But there is no specific evidence he does, no reason to believe in him.
Stating that the universe is ordered and beautiful, that doesnt prove anything. You are 'of' this universe, you have evolved on this planet, of course you find it beautiful.
At the end of the day, inventing a magical being to explain the natural world is unnecessary and unscientific. god would be more complex than all the things you are attempting to explain with him
matthewjumps 1 year ago
@matthewjumps Well I would want to be sure. Maybe the evidence is all around us and it is up to us to recognize it. At least most of us get the chance to formulate our own opinions. I say most because I have known enough people who just simply accept whatever is put on their plate. At least you have done some investigating. I hope we can both agree that that is important.
ladivadivala 1 year ago
@matthewjumps ...god to come into existence?
_______
The Manifestations of God in Nature.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago