b) Our reality is a paradox...is the paradox that says we exist but don't exist.
c) Allows us to exist, but also forces us to accept the existence of something out side of our reality, that can reasonably answer how our reality has come into existence without falling into the same trap as our reality.
The existence non existence paradox is the poorer belief to uphold of the two.
When we cannot rationally understand a question...You can figure out the rest
If you accept that a separate reality exists in which the laws we know are no longer viable, the same logic must be applied to this reality. Until we can find a reality whose laws bend to answer the question without a paradox. However to say something exists outside of our reality is also a paradox. In which case the same thing about God can be said. Either
a) We do not exist
b) Our reality is a paradox
c) There is another reality that exists, which is a paradox.
This is true because if it followed the same laws as our reality, then the same logical steps will be employed until. A reality which does not obey the same laws as our reality is discovered. Or a paradox such as the infinite time paradox occurs. If you are willing to accept the infinite time paradox, you can not disprove God from contradictions because they are in themselves paradoxes.
Something you don't understand is that our reality being the only reality is impossible unless we either do not exist. Or reality has been in existence for an infinite period of time. In which case we do not exist. Because in OUR reality things only exist in time. You do not have to believe in God, however you have to be willing to accept we are a paradox or there is another form of reality that does not follow them same laws of our Reality.
It looks like Stefan Molyneux has never heard of Digital Physics, Wheeler's "It from bit," or Quantum Information Theory, because according to his definition of "existence," existence doesn't actually exist!
@MrTruthUnleashed No I'm real, as in the sense that "I exist." I'm just not "materially real" as science has shown that there is no such thing as matter, and that the universe is a quantum computer program at bottom.
I'm actually saying that Molyneux's argument is self-detonating because his definition of "existence" is internally contradictory. Existence (ie. a quantum computer program) does not have spatial extent nor does it have real matter -both of which are illusions.
I'd like to know how a naturalistic definition of 'exiistance' is the only valid one. Using it, the laws of logic do not exist, nor do numbers except as numerals. These are, by themselves, non-material, nor do they have any direct effect on material objects. Yet, many philosophers will agree that these do exist independent of any given person, and so the definition of 'existance' presented here is found wanting.
Personally if i was trying to find evidence of your magic dragon I'd of put a fair maiden out in a cage and wait for her to be carried off. Cause any dragon that's immune to narrative imperative isn't a dragon worth existing.
Consciousness doesn't exist without a brain?? What about the fact that plants grow without a brain? Or how about ants? and flies? If you want to take it down to the "matter" ..Take a look at the observer effect...Does this not suggest that "matter" has at least a primative form of consciousness? How does a particle know that you're observing it??
@lennyfloss Unfortunately scientists seem really bad at explaining the observer effect, so many people have this misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with what we're consciously aware of. (that would be magic) No, it's just that to observe something, you need to take actions which alter what you observe. For example to observe how bats behave in pitch black, you point a flashlight at them - changing how they behave. To observe an electron, you fire a photon at it - moving it. Etc.
@lennyfloss and how does the energy we are made of make our shapes :D great arguments there, best to "break the world down" consciousness is separate from the physical, hence the brain is not where this "effect" takes place, i see a plant, it is pretty, okay electrical impulses, but where does the image come from ? another question we can help argue :D
You have to rememember...Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibrational state...meaning that matter is only an object of your perception and that the only realit which exists ultimately is energy. We are energy/consciousness/God ...That doesn't mean we are omnipresent, but that doesn't rule out that there are aspects of ourselves which are
What if God was all? I really think this is the caseYou know..What about everything that you perceive is actually an activity in the mind of God...As you yourself and every being is an expression of God within God, made out of God/consciousness/spirit...
look into the hindu ideas of god.. alan watts explains them well.. and they make more sense than all of this stuff, the idea of god being 'outside' the universe is christian.. i wish people wouldnt lump every theory of god with the stupid christian theories of god, stupid shit like creation stories etc.. thats like discounting the mayan calender because you dont believe in noah's ark.. pshh
The galaxy superclusters are structured remarkably similarly to the neuronal structure of the brain - so it could be that this matter is "the brain of God" - ie we are just informational constructs of the brain of God - just as in our own brain of neurons - ideas are constructed - our ideas may be arguing amongst themselves about whether we exist or not.
matter and energy are crude approximations of more fundamental entities (quarks, quantum string fields etc) so we shouldnt limit definition of existence to matter and energy.
And even within our current limited paradigm of matter and energy - we accept that space and time exist even where no matter and energy exist.
We dont yet know the fundamental nature of spacetime - so its pretty grey arguing whether it exists - could be we imagine spacetime.
what about the bible huh? No archaeological discovery has ever proven wrong a Biblical reference. On the contrary, the accuracy of the Bible has been substantiated by archaeological discoveries. we have the bible as proof.
This video makes me, an atheist, have to defend Christianity. No theologian worth his or her stripes will deny that God is bound by the law of non-contradiction, they have done to great pains to make this clear through the millenia & shame on you for being ignorant of it because your unpreparedness makes us all look as bad. You ignore all of the respected "proofs" of God. The whole video is a straw-man with childish humor.
God "must be composed of matter and/or energy, or their measurable effects"?? if you mean "worldly" matter/energy, I disagree with your definition entirely. but I haven't watched the whole vid yet so I'm commenting on-the-fly.
As an active Christian it pains me to see all of these hateful words against GOD. You don't have to believe in him, but stop trying to force your point of view upon others
@TheYugioh2371 first of all, no hard words against your god. Even though i can confidently say that he is fiction, religion is somewhat helpful in some instances(even though no religion at all would be better ofc) So no forcing opinion, but if you enter a debate you can't expect anyone to neglect logic for your sake. If you don't want to challenge your faith, then I would recommend to stay away from all type of debates. Trust me, ignorance is bliss when it comes to faith. rationality>faith sorry
@samoyed1508 citation needed. Oh-- sorry. I misread your comment; I thought that you were Yugioh2371 and you were calling stefbot an ignoramus doip sheit.. my baid
obviously god isnt logical, its beyond humans, if you can prove youre a prophet or whatever, ill believe you....i think that no one came after muhammad, and he WAS said to be the last prophet at his time. i interpret god as a force of nature, but i do believe there's a reason why we still can believe. it' s faith in some sort of evidence.otherwise, there would be no point in an idea like heaven and hell
part3: The fun part about this is that there are so many times where there have been events that goes against christianity, which actually makes the odds WORSE than any made up religion. So it's more likely that you'll go to heaven by collecting all the seinfield dvd's than following the bible.
Argument falls apart at about 5:22. To assume something must be comprised of matter or energy to exist is extremely naive.
Another example is the experience of the conscience. This is caused by matter and energy, but is ultimately above it and beyond current explanations in science or philosophy. WIth that logic, we would have to conclude that the conscience does not exist because does not consist, in itself, of matter or energy.
@Hibbzzy what i mean is, without a material brain, there can be no conscienceness, and to claim that consciousness is therefore immaterial simply because we do not have a full understanding of it, is much grander a claim and much less likely than it simply being material. Also, consciousness can be affected by material means(such as someone's thought patterns changing after an accident due to neureological damage), and therefore must material.
The conscience isnt necessarily "above," but it is necessarily distinct.
“Without the material brain there can be no consciousness”. I agree, however, the cause of the conscience is different to its effect. The cause would be something that stimulates a feeling, the effect is the feeling itself. This feeling cannot be explained based on the physicality of even in infinite number of causes. Even if we understood matter that causes ones thoughts, the effect is always distinct.
@Hibbzzy it's naive to think that the human race is right on everything yet it is even more naive to think that everything we have learned by scientifical methods is false!
Conscience is NOT defined as matter or energy! Conscience is a measureable effect of matter and energy.
And even if, there was flaws in this argumentation(which there for the most part isn't) there would still be a massive amount of valid arguments against the existence of god, and NO valid for the existence of god.
@Hibbzzy part2:for your sake, let's assume that the definition of existence fails. Your god STILL lacks evidence AND logic, whcih makes it just as likely to exist as ANY given religion you can make up on the spot.
This equals to a percentage of 1 out an infinity, which is the closest you can ever come to 0. You can't even divide by 1 out of an infinity because in math is equals 0!!! To ignore all logic and evidence and STILL go with the 1 out of a infinity is just plain stupid.
To say that something doesnt exist because it is one out of infinity, would be the exact same as declaring that since the present is only instance in time, out of infinite time, it therefore doesnt exist. This seems equally, if not more "plain stupid."
Im open to different sides of these arguments, but dont try to use math to explain such philosophical concepts, it can help, but is not a proof.
@Hibbzzy I was only using math to illustrate how likely the existence of the christian god. But it's not really math, not any more math than counting apples. It's simply a comparison. Now does it disproof god? it does not, but it sure as hell makes it most unlikely, in fact more unlikely than any other religion you can make up on the spot(sorry for repeating myself). You cannot deny my argument, unless you got any argument that makes your god more likely than any made up religion :-)
@Hibbzzy I was only using math to illustrate how likely the existence of the christian god. But it's not really math, not any more math than counting apples. It's simply a comparison. Now does it disproof god? it does not, but it sure as hell makes it most unlikely, in fact more unlikely than any other religion you can make up on the spot(sorry for repeating myself). You cannot deny my argument, unless you got any argument that makes your god more likely than any made up religion :-) continue
@Interkomkomind part2 I'm afraid your argument against the 1 out of an infinity with the present is not valid. Assuming that einstein was right, time is measureable and one is able to proof and (most likely) manipulate time. This does not make a percentage of one out of an infinity. Your god though is unmeasureable, can't be proven and cannot be manipulated.You could say the same thing about quantum psysisk, which is why it is yet to be proven, but it is based on logic, which your god is not :-)
im not arguing for a christian god. In terms of the conception of how "large" god is, usually he is thought of as a part of everything (not 1 out of infinity) "god is everywhere" ooh ahh (lol). Also, lack of a proof for/against god doesnt mean he does/doesnt exist. Philosophy is also an obviously another category of thought to consider. If you look in a hole in the wall, try explaining it without describing its surroundings. Just because you cant, doesnt mean the hole isnt there
@Hibbzzy I have studied religious phliosophy in the university of Copenhagen, so i would say i'm fond of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion".
And to your point. You are repeating yourself. I addressed this very argument in my first message and i'll repeat MYSELF for you :) It would be naive to think that just because the human race have not discovered it yet doesn't disproof its existence, but it IS naive to think everything humans know are false,
@Interkomkomind "It would be naive to think that just because the human race have not discovered it yet doesn't disproof its existenc"
There are no doubt a zillion things that we have not discovered yet. That does not for an instant exhonerate believing things for which there is no rational evidence. The time to believe something is when there is both good reason and evidence for doing so.
Your argument sounds like a typical theistic apology, that fails to overturn rational disbelief.
@TheGodlessGuitarist yes that was my point exactly! I don't see why this message was adressed to me, i'm assuming it's a mistake. Though it does not disproof the possibility of a god, but it does make it as unlikely as anything else without any evidence, which equals to any given thing you can make up on the spot
@Hibbzzy How is it not 1 out of an infinity?1 is representing the chance of god?agree so far?
And because there is absolutly no kind of evidens or logic to gods existence it most be out of an infinity of possibilities. AND even if god is bigger than our minds why would we "know" of him or even suspect his existence when there is no proof? How can we comprehend his existence to start with?A big flaw in your logic And dawkins is not really in depth with disproval of god, more consequences of faith
If your interested in more atheist philosophies, read "the god delusion" dawkins is very scientifically influenced but also talks about different beliefs in god.Descartes "meditations" provides an interesting mind-body and first cause arguments. Also Nietzsche beyond good and evil will also be very enjoyable for atheists. There are way better arguments in those texts than we can produce here. You wont find a concrete answer, but will be able to understand both sides more clearly
@JohananRaatz I think what he is trying to say is that the very definition of "existance" is that it IS material. You are suggesting that something that does not exists, exists, when you say "Existance, not material existance." He is saying that by definition, there can be no other existance, because existance is defined, in the first place, by being material.
Existence is by definition the presence of matter or energy? This guy claims to have taken philosophy? LOL! He's jumping to all sorts of conclusions without any argumentation for how he got there. I can think right now of something in science that does not exist as matter or energy -the wave-function.
@ItsEasyIfYouThink No that's a positivist misconception of the wave-function. That is the "agnostic interpretation" of quantum mechanics. Basically it says we can't see it so it isn't there.
But a wave-like structure is clearly there or else we wouldn't get interference bands on the two-slit experiment for single electrons.
@JohananRaatz Uhm, i dont know that there is an "agnostic interpretation" of any term in quantum mechanics, or any other field of science, since true science is independent of social, economic, and religious affiliations whatsoever, but the wave function is simply the explanation of the phenomenon where particles act like waves.
@ItsEasyIfYouThink I wasn't saying that science wasn't dependent on any economic social or religious affiliations -just that Orch-OR implies that the wave-function in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is a mind. (draw what conclusions from that you will)
The 'agnostic interpretation' isn't about "agnosticism" it's about saying "we can't observe it therefore it isn't there -even though it clearly is indirectly observed. The word "agnostic" is just used in a different way here.
@8:30 Whoa whoa whoa slow down! Who says that because an entity is not observed empirically it can not be understood rationally or objectively? Rational/objective =/= empirical or otherwise such things as truth mathematics or logic could never be known rationally or objectively.
@JohananRaatz I know, and as a libertarian I find this segment an embarrasing piece to freedomain radio. If he follows the implications of his own naturalist "philosophy," then he must deny his own existence, the existence of other minds, and every empircal belief he holds because his subjective conscious experience of the external world could never be empirically verified by anyone.
Rock + Seagull is not impossible. Nothing is impossible, what if further into the universe, such a creature exists? 7 mins into this video and I feel like I'm in school where the more I learn..the less I know.
@protogurl I think what he is implying is that something cannot be molecularly a rock, and a seagull, because such a combination would be physically impossible on an atomic level. It cannot be.
I'm not a fan of "logic" in regard to discussing real things--I see logic as completely based in LANGUAGE; and it's only as good as the language is good. A hundred years ago, an argument that began with "light is both a particle AND a wave" could be dismissed on "logical" terms.
Gods are silly (er, have no objective basis) based on simple observation: Everybody (even DEVOUT believers--when it comes to OTHER gods) KNOWS that people have simply made them up, and some then PRETEND they're real.
Logic isnt completely based in human language; consider mathematics as an analogue. Mathematics can be used to model natural phenomenon; its rule governance is independent of natural phenomenon (inasmuch as the rules of logic are independent of language), yet it "tracks" natural phenomena in form remarkably well. However, there are situations in which mathematical results are nonsensical. The problem is not logic or mathematics simpliciter, but the extreme application of them that is problematic
And secondly, in regard to that problem in quantum mechanics-- its only a problem so long as physicists sensationalize what they mean as they so often do; I have no problem reconciling what they say with logic. Take the double slit experiment in QM for instance; the set of possible paths the electron can take does not violate all possible logical alternatives.
You say God has no objective basis. How do you know that? As a Christian, I'd say that refutes your empiricism; not the other way around
@Hydragurum "You say God has no objective basis. How do you know that? As a Christian, I'd say that refutes your empiricism; not the other way around."
I'll correct myself: gods have no objective basis THAT I'M AWARE OF. I'm ready to witness an objective unveiling of a "supernatural god," if you'd like to provide one.
You're being incredibly simplistic in your approach. There are several reasons why an "unveiling" of God wont happen in the way that you require. The first and most important one is that God's holiness excludes us as sinners from his presence (read what happened to Isaiah in Isaiah 6); God's presence is awesome and terrifying. Secondly, there is no shortage of empirical indicators of the existence of God-- the beauty of nature, the design and complexity of life, mans intellect, etc
@Hydragurum : "You're being incredibly simplistic in your approach."
The question is a simple one: the existence or not or the phenomenon being asserted.
"the beauty of nature, the design and complexity of life, mans intellect"
Everything...and nothing...can be explained as the product of a magic sky daddy. It's a cause that isn't a cause. It's an idea that can only begin to have utility if the god can be shown to exist.
@GetMeThere1 The question of God's existence is not peripheral in one's system of beliefs; its central. Recall the words of Mortimer Adler: "more consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of the existence of God than from any other basic question." Your response smuggles in a defunct epistemology and an attendant metaphysic. The kind of being God is determines the way in which we have knowledge of Him, and your requirement refuses to let God be who He is in advance
@Hydragurum : Your problem (in being objective on the issue) is that you don't recognize your biases. For those who weren't raised to believe in your god it's just a story, and all the characteristics of your god are just in your imagination.
Atheists don't (typically) have a bias regarding gods; show 'em, and we'll acknowledge 'em. Otherwise, it's apparent they're based on your BELIEF rather than your unbiased observation--just as you surely think about the gods of others.
You have no idea how wrong you are. First of all, even unbelieving philosophers have noted the impossibility of neutrality when it comes to worldview issues (Wittgenstein, Kuhn, Quine, etc). Since central issues (e.g. the existence of God) determine how one interprets the facts of this world, one cannot be non-committal either way-- your very first move in argument either presupposes God or denies Him; there's no other choice. You're simplistic and uncritical of your OWN incoherent assumptions.
Atheists are notorious for rejecting the simple truths of logic even to hold onto their unbelief. A. J. Ayer and A. Flew and their verificationist program for attempting to demonstrate the "meaninglessness" of religious language was a failure, as even their own colleagues noted; Michael Martin in his book "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" is content to depart from exemplars of rationality (e.g. first order predicate logic, causality) to make his case. Dont tell me atheists arent unbiased
@Hydragurum How do you know that the bible is correct and divinely inspired? Also, why you would you use to the bible to persuade someone who doesn't believe in the bible?
@GetMeThere1 "I'll correct myself: gods have no objective basis THAT I'M AWARE OF. I'm ready to witness an objective unveiling of a "supernatural god," if you'd like to provide one."
It's not a "super"natural god but I have one:
1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (true by definition)
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Penrose's Orch-OR model of the mind)
So to mention X-rays or believe in them in the 15th century (according to this) would have been false but to believe in a flat world hypothesis would have been correct because that was the widely held belief at the time and it had not been logically dis-proven? I'm not trying to be combative or seem defensive... I think a healthy amount of skepticism is a good thing. I'm just trying to have a friendly debate and I hope that we can be friends. = )
"Until recently, modern science seemed to question the reality of unseen entities; but with Eddington's observation that the world is more like a mind than a machine, and astrophysicists' reports that 90% of the "matter" in the universe is invisible in the sense that it impacts none of their instruments, scientific skepticism has begun to subside." Huston Smith, pg. 319 'The World's Religions'
People that do know God ,know him in a spiritual way.God is eternal and all knowing.He also speaks to us in our dreams and audible if he wants to.He is every where present and no where absent.
@watershoe5 Wouldn't it make sense then that a loving god would have made his message perfectly clear to all of his children? I would be absolutely sure that my child understood me if it meant eternal damnation and I don't even have the power to drown the world or kill thousands of babies like ol Yahweh.
Minute 9 "you have to either see God materially or its effects"... so when you take a look at the universe, you either believe that since probability demonstrates the impossibility of a universe by chance out of nothing and due to nothing (big bang theory) then, the only choice is that it was intelligently designed.. the bible says " since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made...
When you look at the universe you see a UNIVERSE. That's all. That's it. It's there. Doesn't mean a god has to have made it. Doesn't mean the uncertainty principle has to have made it. The fact that anything exists at all must somehow defy our commonsense understanding of causality, since if we say everything needs a creator that sets us up for infinite progression, a logical fallacy. So just because the universe exists does not mean it has to have been created.
@Fetch: CommS.Causality? disregarding science.(big bang) Is probability CS.? throw a chess board up and see if you get the pieces to fall in place, (entropy) now try 3000 DNA aminoacids,oh but first, make them. Is CS that this place came out of nothing and cause of nothing?, The Creator idea is only illogic if you do not conceive that there can be one who is not restricted by the essence of his creation E.I. if I made a notebook, will you see me in two dimensions inside it? bound by the clips?
I didn't say the universe couldn't have been created. I said it does not demand a creator. To say it MUST have been created simply because it exists is a logical fallacy.
For you non-believing skeptics. If material exists and something always has to come from something. Something cant be made out of nothing. Then how does this universe and life exist? Obviously this moron ignored the Thomas Aquinas' five proofs of God. If he tried to argue those proofs he would have been stumped because they are literally inarguable. Ex. that this man is wrong. time is created by man in which if man didn't exist time doesn't either. Proving his philosophy wrong.
Think of him as a force, an effect that influences humans. He was never started or created just ever present. You can't measure how long he's been around because WE invented the measure of time.
i am not an atheist, i think it would be stupid to rule out a conscious first cause, a creator. i'm not saying that's that's what i believe, i just don't know. i don't know whether the bible or koran or torah are based on truth, but i THINK they are bullshit, pretty sure of it... but i don't know for certain.
a god could exist and not be subject to the laws of physics within our dimension/universe. we just don't know. this means your whole argument fails.
So, love exists, but love by definition is immaterial, therefore, it cannot exist and so the conclusion most awarded of all times: "Love does not exist".
@catroarb Interesing point. Though love is a feeling, an emotion. Disharmony, peace...God is a feeling, an emotion. Our oral languages doesn't fully express abstract concepts or what is absolutely meant.
@romanianskill apparently you can measure meditation and religious proclivities in the brain. Researchers think "visions from God/gods" prophets from all sorts of religious sects had temporal epilepsy. Have you heard of the God helmutt or seen this video?-watch?v=OZmtVf3vVeg. Also NPR's Brain on God.
@romanianskill : nice!, God is a Spirit who's power can be meassured in the incredible number of stars in the universe, all working harmoniously, (black force, and gravity working perfectly tunned so that it does not collapse) and His intelligence in the incredibly complex design of something as simple as a bacteria...and we got the design blueprints E.I. ADN, so intelligent we ca not even understand them...
@YesEthan: My point is that there is abstract things that we by no chance would deny exist; EI: Morals, mathematics, even the past...find proof that a job you were doing 30 min a go was not done six months a go...yet those are things even scientists accept that exist, so disregarding God by defining that anything that is not material does not exist, would by definition be false, because you would have to include those things in my example plus another 1000 more... with all due respect.
So, love exists, but love by definition is immaterial, therefore, it cannot exist and so the conclusion most awarded in all times: Love does not exist.
The only thing i know is that "God and religion" gives millions of people world wide a reason to live. Try to replace that before telling people its nonsense. I am not a big beliver myself, but i dont see any things wrong in beliving in religion in a normal level. to argue about if god exist ore not is bogus in my mind.
@mrthunderelk religion has also cause horrible bloodshed since (at least) the bronze age collapse when the original Jewish Tribes took over the Canaanite Peoples in the belief that their God had proclaimed it their "promised land". So it may give people the reason to live but it also gives them a reason to kill. Al Quaeda, the Crusades, and pogroms are all great examples of how religion leads to death.
@LordAgonis Oooh Yes i agree people of religion have failed in many ways in past and present history. But if you read i my comment i say there is nothing wrong in beliving in a religion in a "NORMAL" level. Do you follow me on that one??
@mrthunderelk i get where you're coming from, and i speak only for myself and my opinion here but i mean any irrational belief will allow for more irrational beliefs. if you believe in jesus, you can hate jews and muslims. if you can hate other religious groups, you can kill them. if you can kill one religious minority, you can commit a holocaust against them. Irrationality crowds out rational thought and leads to medievalist savagery and regression.
actually you are really ignorant in your atheistic rant on why religion is bad. It doesnt give people the reason to kill and it doesnt make people kill. IF YOU FOLLOW ANY RELIGION TRULY TO THE TEACHINGS THERE WOULDNT BE ANY VIOLENCE. But your ignorant ass cant comprehend that. All killings done in the name of faith have been abuse of power for the things that start wars today such as greed, envy, and power
@hardyAMDG95 Crusades. Jihad. 30-Yrs War. Witch Trials ("thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"), Leviticus 18:22.Holy Roman Empire. Inquisition. Genocide of Native Americans in the name Christianity. Misogyny of Catholic Church. Holocaust. Pogroms. I've actually read the Bible cover to cover, which is how I know how evil your religion is.
@hardyAMDG95 If you follow Christianity "truly to the teachings" (whatever the hell that means), you will end up killing nonbelievers....
But no, you're right....other than the Spanish Inquisition, Fatwahs, ethnic cleansing, the systematic repression of homosexuals and women, human sacrifices, the condoning of slavery (Thanks, Catholicism!), arraigned marriages to children, and most wars, religion is completely nonviolent!
You are a teacher , and you do not know these things that take place on earth, ? We speak that which we know and testify of that which we have seen, and yet you do not receive our testimony.
Adjust your heavenly receiver ; Jesus answered and said to him, ''Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God....... Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'' To see and enter requires a new birth, another dimension.
@treasureinvessel I could not, would not, in a house. I would not, could not, with a mouse. I would not eat them with a fox. I would not eat them in a box. I would not eat them here or there. I would not eat them anywhere. I would not eat green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
But a soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know them because they are discerned spiritually. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, "He grasps the wise in their craftiness''For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God, said Paul
@treasureinvessel ; Christianity is not only foolishness but it is childish nonsense and a religion born out of ignorance and superstition. Quote all the babble verses you want not even based on reason and logic.
@nogogma Nopolion; ' 'Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; ..... Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. . . I am a man; none else is like Jesus Christ, was more than a man. . . . . . . Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years '' i say AMEN to this ! Now 2000 years !
@treasureinvessel ; Jesus is still fiction no matter what famous person said about him ... typical argument from popularity which is just another form of the desperate attempt at propping up your Jesus myth. Nice try though.
@nogogma something is proven when it stands against time and place when it exceed your lifetime and your logic . When a tree lives for two thousand years it has proven its existence and its power and authority. Its authority to stand in the way and its power over death.
@nogogma Allow the little children to come to Me (Jesus). Do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God.
Jesus answered and said, I extol You, Father, Lord of heaven and of earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. The more you think you are wise and prove you are intelligent the more you prove God is hidden for you and the more you prove you are not owing the Kingdom and have no idea what i am talking about.
i agree with your ideas except for this one. im not religious at all, but everything comes from something. If you break every form of matter down to the smallest possible form it still has to come from something, which would ultimately be a creator. It has nothing to do with faith for me, its just that i dont understand how the universe could begin to exist without something being created. Maybe i am not educated enough on the subject, if u dont mind maybe you can give me a book name or person
@EAScreenplay I'll just leave you with a simple question... Why? Why do you feel there must ultimately be a creator? That is far more important than any answer you can be pointed to, none of us know for certain how the universe started, its all speculative. So the most important thing is why do you feel it must have happened a particular way given no evidence for that?
@Ammdar yes i agree with you totally, nobody knows how the universe was created, so the fact that atheist think that they no there is not a god is absurd. It is just my opinion that there is a creator no one can prove that im wrong. But im not gonna make a video about it trying to convince people that I'm right when I dont know everything for sure. I just dont understand why there are people that think they have all the answers..its just pretentious in my opinion
@EAScreenplay I honestly don't know of any atheist who pretends to know all the answers. There are several things that there is an overwhelming sum of evidence for, evolution springs to mind, and I freely admit to being frustrated at times and perhaps even sounding arrogant when refuting an empty rebuttal to it for the 5 billionth time. But, in all that I, as most atheists do, freely admit ignorance to the origins of the universe, ask yourself honestly if saying god did it is the same?
@Ammdar yes religion is ignorant. but not just because of what they believe, but because religion tries to force ideas onto people just because thats what that religion believes is true, and force eventually creates negative outcomes such as violence. in my opinon an atheist like stefbot who makes a youtube video trying to educate and convince people that there is no god is just as bad as someone trying to tell me why Jesus is my savior
@EAScreenplay Not sure I could qualify a video on youtube as equivalent to say sending missionaries to foriegn countries or imposing your religious views as a law (as is the case in several islamic countries ). No one is forced to watch the video, it is purely optional, no one is forcing anyone to believe anything. He is merely putting the information out there, as he is free to do so, is it pretentious? Maybe. Do you have the right not to like it? certainly. But its your choice isn't it.
First of all, God is not "defined" as "consciousness without material form". Please provide a single quotation from any great Theist philosopher in the last from Aquinas back to Aristotle who defines God in that way. God is said to be pure Act, pure Intellect, but Intellect does not mean "consciousness". Animals have consciousness but not intellect. Also, even if I let you slide on that one, this is another circular argument since you assume mind cannot exist without matter, which is precisely..
@tumbleweedjoe ..the kind of metaphysical claim that a theist would dispute. So again, your "proof" is nothing but a tautology: Matter is all there is, therefore, matter is all there is. Nice try smart guy. Riddle me this: If the intellect is material, how is it possible to do a geometrical proof (which involves an idealized, perfect polygon) given that no perfect material polygon exists? Where is the polygon? In your intellect? Impossible if it's material as well.
You equate "objective" and "material" (around 8:50), which is to assume your own conclusion. Your argument is circular. Whether or not an enitity can be material is a metaphysical question, not an empirical question. I can easily give you an example of something which is objective, yet not material. Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean theoreom. There are, in the material world, no perfect lines, triangles,etc, but that proof is objective not subjective. Likewise, the content of any proposition.
Great video. Arguing something that is inarguable.
Quantum physics is not precise, it is probabilities.
God is defined as God, eternal, omnipresent, which matter/energy is not.
The law of conservation of matter/mass, states matter can not create matter nor destroy it, similarly with time, therefore God is our creator. Tell me the contradiction here.
Your definitions fail, everyone of them.
Faith is believing without knowing.
To support science you must support possibilities.
So you say that matter cannot create matter and because God in your eyes is not matter that somehow mkes God responsible for all creation. No there is no logic in that, light, energy, radiation are all "non-matter" things that have reportedly caused the big bang. So I guess you worship a giant cloud of radiation.
I don't even believe in the big bang theorey but I can still acknowledge that makes more sense than some omnipotent asshole making us from dirt and a rib. Grow up please.
Haha, you need you look up the words light, energy and radiation, those are are made of or described as sub atomic particles photons, protons, electrons, etc. In other words matter. Theory of relativity shows that energy and mass/matter are the same thing, hence e=mc2.
It still doesn't equal an intelligent designer. You still fail to show me how that works.You know why? Because it doesnt. If you really want to "stump" me why don't you give me proof for talking animals, giants, demons, angels, ghosts, witches, wizards oh an d all of Jesus Christ's miracles while you're at it. Because your bible tells you such things exsist. Yet you still believe in them. You can argue all you want about intelligenty design but then WHAT intelligent designer is it?
Science has failed us all, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it has it's faults and is only part of the whole. Like looking down at the back of your hand, not seeing the palm or the whole body. Hawking said it best, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the results will not contradict the theory..."
I do agree with you that science does not hold all of the answers and that not everything they say is the truth. I don't believe in thew big bang theory for example. but science has shown to be accurate more times than not. Like the Bible taught that Heaven is simply above us, it alsmost percieved as a physical realm. However we know that if we were to go further than the sky we do not reach heaven we reach endless space.
Forgot to mention,
b) Our reality is a paradox...is the paradox that says we exist but don't exist.
c) Allows us to exist, but also forces us to accept the existence of something out side of our reality, that can reasonably answer how our reality has come into existence without falling into the same trap as our reality.
The existence non existence paradox is the poorer belief to uphold of the two.
When we cannot rationally understand a question...You can figure out the rest
RIVirtuoso 1 week ago
I am not saying you need to believe in God, but to say you can possibly disprove God is well not true.
RIVirtuoso 1 week ago
If you accept that a separate reality exists in which the laws we know are no longer viable, the same logic must be applied to this reality. Until we can find a reality whose laws bend to answer the question without a paradox. However to say something exists outside of our reality is also a paradox. In which case the same thing about God can be said. Either
a) We do not exist
b) Our reality is a paradox
c) There is another reality that exists, which is a paradox.
Pick your poison.
RIVirtuoso 1 week ago
This is true because if it followed the same laws as our reality, then the same logical steps will be employed until. A reality which does not obey the same laws as our reality is discovered. Or a paradox such as the infinite time paradox occurs. If you are willing to accept the infinite time paradox, you can not disprove God from contradictions because they are in themselves paradoxes.
RIVirtuoso 1 week ago
Something you don't understand is that our reality being the only reality is impossible unless we either do not exist. Or reality has been in existence for an infinite period of time. In which case we do not exist. Because in OUR reality things only exist in time. You do not have to believe in God, however you have to be willing to accept we are a paradox or there is another form of reality that does not follow them same laws of our Reality.
RIVirtuoso 1 week ago
its funny the true 5 proofs of God was discoverd by a philosopher
xPray2die2dayx 3 weeks ago
There cannot be a conflict between human logic and evidence, as logic is presupposed and is true apriori
gdmk1000 3 weeks ago
It looks like Stefan Molyneux has never heard of Digital Physics, Wheeler's "It from bit," or Quantum Information Theory, because according to his definition of "existence," existence doesn't actually exist!
There is no spoon.
watch?v=6xKUass7G8w
&
watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww
JohananRaatz 1 month ago 6
@JohananRaatz So you're not real? You have to exist in order to say and prove that existence does not exist. Self-detonating argument.
MrTruthUnleashed 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrTruthUnleashed No I'm real, as in the sense that "I exist." I'm just not "materially real" as science has shown that there is no such thing as matter, and that the universe is a quantum computer program at bottom.
I'm actually saying that Molyneux's argument is self-detonating because his definition of "existence" is internally contradictory. Existence (ie. a quantum computer program) does not have spatial extent nor does it have real matter -both of which are illusions.
JohananRaatz 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DarthVadent2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrTruthUnleashed Just ignore him. JohananRaatz nonsensical objections regarding existence have already been refuted and addressed by Dhorpatan.
DarthVadent2 2 weeks ago
God is, by definition, the most concrete and falsifiable thing in the universe. I can prove it. Try me.
fdasherv 1 month ago
@fdasherv Prove it. :)
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS youre gonna be waiting for a long...looooooong time lol.
dopplerking91 1 month ago
@dopplerking91 Haha, I genuinely want an answer though... :(
M3PanoS 1 month ago
Interesting.
I'd like to know how a naturalistic definition of 'exiistance' is the only valid one. Using it, the laws of logic do not exist, nor do numbers except as numerals. These are, by themselves, non-material, nor do they have any direct effect on material objects. Yet, many philosophers will agree that these do exist independent of any given person, and so the definition of 'existance' presented here is found wanting.
AMWOODco 1 month ago
@AMWOODco
A point made in my latest video which contains a short critique of this equivocation used by Stef.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
21:02 to 24:25 LMAO!!! That covers the entire "debate" very well.
YJohannM 2 months ago
Personally if i was trying to find evidence of your magic dragon I'd of put a fair maiden out in a cage and wait for her to be carried off. Cause any dragon that's immune to narrative imperative isn't a dragon worth existing.
mrdarkevilme 3 months ago
Consciousness doesn't exist without a brain?? What about the fact that plants grow without a brain? Or how about ants? and flies? If you want to take it down to the "matter" ..Take a look at the observer effect...Does this not suggest that "matter" has at least a primative form of consciousness? How does a particle know that you're observing it??
lennyfloss 3 months ago 2
@lennyfloss Unfortunately scientists seem really bad at explaining the observer effect, so many people have this misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with what we're consciously aware of. (that would be magic) No, it's just that to observe something, you need to take actions which alter what you observe. For example to observe how bats behave in pitch black, you point a flashlight at them - changing how they behave. To observe an electron, you fire a photon at it - moving it. Etc.
Flyborg 3 weeks ago
@lennyfloss and how does the energy we are made of make our shapes :D great arguments there, best to "break the world down" consciousness is separate from the physical, hence the brain is not where this "effect" takes place, i see a plant, it is pretty, okay electrical impulses, but where does the image come from ? another question we can help argue :D
MsMi321 3 weeks ago
You have to rememember...Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibrational state...meaning that matter is only an object of your perception and that the only realit which exists ultimately is energy. We are energy/consciousness/God ...That doesn't mean we are omnipresent, but that doesn't rule out that there are aspects of ourselves which are
lennyfloss 3 months ago
What if God was all? I really think this is the caseYou know..What about everything that you perceive is actually an activity in the mind of God...As you yourself and every being is an expression of God within God, made out of God/consciousness/spirit...
lennyfloss 3 months ago
You took the Dragon thing from Carl Sagan. Do you always rip off other people's work and pass it off as your own?
How is that ethical?
IntellectualPopulist 5 months ago
look into the hindu ideas of god.. alan watts explains them well.. and they make more sense than all of this stuff, the idea of god being 'outside' the universe is christian.. i wish people wouldnt lump every theory of god with the stupid christian theories of god, stupid shit like creation stories etc.. thats like discounting the mayan calender because you dont believe in noah's ark.. pshh
AbattoirDream 7 months ago
The galaxy superclusters are structured remarkably similarly to the neuronal structure of the brain - so it could be that this matter is "the brain of God" - ie we are just informational constructs of the brain of God - just as in our own brain of neurons - ideas are constructed - our ideas may be arguing amongst themselves about whether we exist or not.
BiggerThinking1 7 months ago
matter and energy are crude approximations of more fundamental entities (quarks, quantum string fields etc) so we shouldnt limit definition of existence to matter and energy.
And even within our current limited paradigm of matter and energy - we accept that space and time exist even where no matter and energy exist.
We dont yet know the fundamental nature of spacetime - so its pretty grey arguing whether it exists - could be we imagine spacetime.
Could also be imagination DEFINES existence.
BiggerThinking1 7 months ago
what about the bible huh? No archaeological discovery has ever proven wrong a Biblical reference. On the contrary, the accuracy of the Bible has been substantiated by archaeological discoveries. we have the bible as proof.
ifthisifthat 7 months ago
@ifthisifthat Got any proofs of a miracle?
OldWhig1688 6 months ago
This video makes me, an atheist, have to defend Christianity. No theologian worth his or her stripes will deny that God is bound by the law of non-contradiction, they have done to great pains to make this clear through the millenia & shame on you for being ignorant of it because your unpreparedness makes us all look as bad. You ignore all of the respected "proofs" of God. The whole video is a straw-man with childish humor.
LiberalCast 8 months ago
posted a video response to this here: watch?v=3jbgzJsY36Q
please approve! look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Frettsy 9 months ago
God "must be composed of matter and/or energy, or their measurable effects"?? if you mean "worldly" matter/energy, I disagree with your definition entirely. but I haven't watched the whole vid yet so I'm commenting on-the-fly.
Frettsy 9 months ago
Wonerful Wonerful .
samoyed1508 9 months ago
As an active Christian it pains me to see all of these hateful words against GOD. You don't have to believe in him, but stop trying to force your point of view upon others
TheYugioh2371 9 months ago
@TheYugioh2371 first of all, no hard words against your god. Even though i can confidently say that he is fiction, religion is somewhat helpful in some instances(even though no religion at all would be better ofc) So no forcing opinion, but if you enter a debate you can't expect anyone to neglect logic for your sake. If you don't want to challenge your faith, then I would recommend to stay away from all type of debates. Trust me, ignorance is bliss when it comes to faith. rationality>faith sorry
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
@TheYugioh2371 You really are an ignoramus dip sheit yugioh2371
samoyed1508 9 months ago
@samoyed1508 citation needed.
plarfusa 7 months ago
@samoyed1508 citation needed. Oh-- sorry. I misread your comment; I thought that you were Yugioh2371 and you were calling stefbot an ignoramus doip sheit.. my baid
plarfusa 7 months ago
@TheYugioh2371 lmfao are you kidding me?! WHAT DO YOU BLOODY FOOLS DO ALL YOUR LIVES??!?!?1?!?!
FORCE your damn point of view on everyone else and run arguments in circles forEVER because you donkey's can't agree to disagree.
jumppack1 8 months ago
@TheYugioh2371 lmfao are you kidding me?! WHAT DO YOU BLOODY FOOLS DO ALL YOUR LIVES??!?!?1?!?!
FORCE your damn point of view on everyone else and run arguments in circles forEVER because you donkeys can't agree to disagree.
jumppack1 8 months ago
ignorant person
Nasierso 9 months ago
obviously god isnt logical, its beyond humans, if you can prove youre a prophet or whatever, ill believe you....i think that no one came after muhammad, and he WAS said to be the last prophet at his time. i interpret god as a force of nature, but i do believe there's a reason why we still can believe. it' s faith in some sort of evidence.otherwise, there would be no point in an idea like heaven and hell
gamefreak903 9 months ago
part3: The fun part about this is that there are so many times where there have been events that goes against christianity, which actually makes the odds WORSE than any made up religion. So it's more likely that you'll go to heaven by collecting all the seinfield dvd's than following the bible.
the end :)
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
Argument falls apart at about 5:22. To assume something must be comprised of matter or energy to exist is extremely naive.
Another example is the experience of the conscience. This is caused by matter and energy, but is ultimately above it and beyond current explanations in science or philosophy. WIth that logic, we would have to conclude that the conscience does not exist because does not consist, in itself, of matter or energy.
Hibbzzy 10 months ago
@Hibbzzy Uhm, i believe consciousness is infact material, and consists of matter and energy. It is in no way above it.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 10 months ago
@Hibbzzy what i mean is, without a material brain, there can be no conscienceness, and to claim that consciousness is therefore immaterial simply because we do not have a full understanding of it, is much grander a claim and much less likely than it simply being material. Also, consciousness can be affected by material means(such as someone's thought patterns changing after an accident due to neureological damage), and therefore must material.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 10 months ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink
The conscience isnt necessarily "above," but it is necessarily distinct.
“Without the material brain there can be no consciousness”. I agree, however, the cause of the conscience is different to its effect. The cause would be something that stimulates a feeling, the effect is the feeling itself. This feeling cannot be explained based on the physicality of even in infinite number of causes. Even if we understood matter that causes ones thoughts, the effect is always distinct.
Hibbzzy 10 months ago
@Hibbzzy it's naive to think that the human race is right on everything yet it is even more naive to think that everything we have learned by scientifical methods is false!
Conscience is NOT defined as matter or energy! Conscience is a measureable effect of matter and energy.
And even if, there was flaws in this argumentation(which there for the most part isn't) there would still be a massive amount of valid arguments against the existence of god, and NO valid for the existence of god.
-continue
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
@Hibbzzy part2:for your sake, let's assume that the definition of existence fails. Your god STILL lacks evidence AND logic, whcih makes it just as likely to exist as ANY given religion you can make up on the spot.
This equals to a percentage of 1 out an infinity, which is the closest you can ever come to 0. You can't even divide by 1 out of an infinity because in math is equals 0!!! To ignore all logic and evidence and STILL go with the 1 out of a infinity is just plain stupid.
last part next
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
@Interkomkomind
To say that something doesnt exist because it is one out of infinity, would be the exact same as declaring that since the present is only instance in time, out of infinite time, it therefore doesnt exist. This seems equally, if not more "plain stupid."
Im open to different sides of these arguments, but dont try to use math to explain such philosophical concepts, it can help, but is not a proof.
Hibbzzy 9 months ago
@Hibbzzy I was only using math to illustrate how likely the existence of the christian god. But it's not really math, not any more math than counting apples. It's simply a comparison. Now does it disproof god? it does not, but it sure as hell makes it most unlikely, in fact more unlikely than any other religion you can make up on the spot(sorry for repeating myself). You cannot deny my argument, unless you got any argument that makes your god more likely than any made up religion :-)
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hibbzzy I was only using math to illustrate how likely the existence of the christian god. But it's not really math, not any more math than counting apples. It's simply a comparison. Now does it disproof god? it does not, but it sure as hell makes it most unlikely, in fact more unlikely than any other religion you can make up on the spot(sorry for repeating myself). You cannot deny my argument, unless you got any argument that makes your god more likely than any made up religion :-) continue
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
@Interkomkomind part2 I'm afraid your argument against the 1 out of an infinity with the present is not valid. Assuming that einstein was right, time is measureable and one is able to proof and (most likely) manipulate time. This does not make a percentage of one out of an infinity. Your god though is unmeasureable, can't be proven and cannot be manipulated.You could say the same thing about quantum psysisk, which is why it is yet to be proven, but it is based on logic, which your god is not :-)
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
@Interkomkomind
im not arguing for a christian god. In terms of the conception of how "large" god is, usually he is thought of as a part of everything (not 1 out of infinity) "god is everywhere" ooh ahh (lol). Also, lack of a proof for/against god doesnt mean he does/doesnt exist. Philosophy is also an obviously another category of thought to consider. If you look in a hole in the wall, try explaining it without describing its surroundings. Just because you cant, doesnt mean the hole isnt there
Hibbzzy 9 months ago
@Hibbzzy I have studied religious phliosophy in the university of Copenhagen, so i would say i'm fond of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion".
And to your point. You are repeating yourself. I addressed this very argument in my first message and i'll repeat MYSELF for you :) It would be naive to think that just because the human race have not discovered it yet doesn't disproof its existence, but it IS naive to think everything humans know are false,
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
@Interkomkomind "It would be naive to think that just because the human race have not discovered it yet doesn't disproof its existenc"
There are no doubt a zillion things that we have not discovered yet. That does not for an instant exhonerate believing things for which there is no rational evidence. The time to believe something is when there is both good reason and evidence for doing so.
Your argument sounds like a typical theistic apology, that fails to overturn rational disbelief.
TheGodlessGuitarist 9 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist yes that was my point exactly! I don't see why this message was adressed to me, i'm assuming it's a mistake. Though it does not disproof the possibility of a god, but it does make it as unlikely as anything else without any evidence, which equals to any given thing you can make up on the spot
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
@Interkomkomind
It was addressed to you as a response to your comment that I quoted.
It is not a disproof, and I align with your latter statement.
TheGodlessGuitarist 9 months ago
@Hibbzzy How is it not 1 out of an infinity?1 is representing the chance of god?agree so far?
And because there is absolutly no kind of evidens or logic to gods existence it most be out of an infinity of possibilities. AND even if god is bigger than our minds why would we "know" of him or even suspect his existence when there is no proof? How can we comprehend his existence to start with?A big flaw in your logic And dawkins is not really in depth with disproval of god, more consequences of faith
Interkomkomind 9 months ago
@Interkomkomind
If your interested in more atheist philosophies, read "the god delusion" dawkins is very scientifically influenced but also talks about different beliefs in god.Descartes "meditations" provides an interesting mind-body and first cause arguments. Also Nietzsche beyond good and evil will also be very enjoyable for atheists. There are way better arguments in those texts than we can produce here. You wont find a concrete answer, but will be able to understand both sides more clearly
Hibbzzy 9 months ago
Who said anything about "material existence?" LOL We are talking about existence not "material existence."
JohananRaatz 10 months ago
@JohananRaatz I think what he is trying to say is that the very definition of "existance" is that it IS material. You are suggesting that something that does not exists, exists, when you say "Existance, not material existance." He is saying that by definition, there can be no other existance, because existance is defined, in the first place, by being material.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 10 months ago
Existence is by definition the presence of matter or energy? This guy claims to have taken philosophy? LOL! He's jumping to all sorts of conclusions without any argumentation for how he got there. I can think right now of something in science that does not exist as matter or energy -the wave-function.
JohananRaatz 10 months ago
@JohananRaatz the wave function is simply a mathematical tool used to describe the quantum state of matter. It is not immaterial in any sense.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 10 months ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink No that's a positivist misconception of the wave-function. That is the "agnostic interpretation" of quantum mechanics. Basically it says we can't see it so it isn't there.
But a wave-like structure is clearly there or else we wouldn't get interference bands on the two-slit experiment for single electrons.
JohananRaatz 10 months ago
@JohananRaatz Uhm, i dont know that there is an "agnostic interpretation" of any term in quantum mechanics, or any other field of science, since true science is independent of social, economic, and religious affiliations whatsoever, but the wave function is simply the explanation of the phenomenon where particles act like waves.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 10 months ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink I wasn't saying that science wasn't dependent on any economic social or religious affiliations -just that Orch-OR implies that the wave-function in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is a mind. (draw what conclusions from that you will)
The 'agnostic interpretation' isn't about "agnosticism" it's about saying "we can't observe it therefore it isn't there -even though it clearly is indirectly observed. The word "agnostic" is just used in a different way here.
JohananRaatz 10 months ago
@8:30 Whoa whoa whoa slow down! Who says that because an entity is not observed empirically it can not be understood rationally or objectively? Rational/objective =/= empirical or otherwise such things as truth mathematics or logic could never be known rationally or objectively.
JohananRaatz 10 months ago
@JohananRaatz I know, and as a libertarian I find this segment an embarrasing piece to freedomain radio. If he follows the implications of his own naturalist "philosophy," then he must deny his own existence, the existence of other minds, and every empircal belief he holds because his subjective conscious experience of the external world could never be empirically verified by anyone.
OgadaNosaFasu 3 months ago 2
@OgadaNosaFasu By arguing that on Youtube, you are RELYING on the validity of the existence of other minds.
No seriously.
DoctorCapitalist 1 month ago
Rock + Seagull is not impossible. Nothing is impossible, what if further into the universe, such a creature exists? 7 mins into this video and I feel like I'm in school where the more I learn..the less I know.
protogurl 11 months ago
@protogurl I think what he is implying is that something cannot be molecularly a rock, and a seagull, because such a combination would be physically impossible on an atomic level. It cannot be.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 10 months ago
@ItsEasyIfYouThink
At an atomic level would mean the make-up of it, that a bird cannot be made of sulphur AND calcium?
protogurl 10 months ago
This video offends me. I AM a fern.
kingmerv00 1 year ago
@kingmerv00 haha that is some damn fine typing then!
stefbot 1 year ago
Lmao Curly Dragon made me laugh. NO NO NO, you can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste it.
i6o4 1 year ago
I'm not a fan of "logic" in regard to discussing real things--I see logic as completely based in LANGUAGE; and it's only as good as the language is good. A hundred years ago, an argument that began with "light is both a particle AND a wave" could be dismissed on "logical" terms.
Gods are silly (er, have no objective basis) based on simple observation: Everybody (even DEVOUT believers--when it comes to OTHER gods) KNOWS that people have simply made them up, and some then PRETEND they're real.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Logic isnt completely based in human language; consider mathematics as an analogue. Mathematics can be used to model natural phenomenon; its rule governance is independent of natural phenomenon (inasmuch as the rules of logic are independent of language), yet it "tracks" natural phenomena in form remarkably well. However, there are situations in which mathematical results are nonsensical. The problem is not logic or mathematics simpliciter, but the extreme application of them that is problematic
Hydragurum 1 year ago
And secondly, in regard to that problem in quantum mechanics-- its only a problem so long as physicists sensationalize what they mean as they so often do; I have no problem reconciling what they say with logic. Take the double slit experiment in QM for instance; the set of possible paths the electron can take does not violate all possible logical alternatives.
You say God has no objective basis. How do you know that? As a Christian, I'd say that refutes your empiricism; not the other way around
Hydragurum 1 year ago
@Hydragurum "You say God has no objective basis. How do you know that? As a Christian, I'd say that refutes your empiricism; not the other way around."
I'll correct myself: gods have no objective basis THAT I'M AWARE OF. I'm ready to witness an objective unveiling of a "supernatural god," if you'd like to provide one.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1
You're being incredibly simplistic in your approach. There are several reasons why an "unveiling" of God wont happen in the way that you require. The first and most important one is that God's holiness excludes us as sinners from his presence (read what happened to Isaiah in Isaiah 6); God's presence is awesome and terrifying. Secondly, there is no shortage of empirical indicators of the existence of God-- the beauty of nature, the design and complexity of life, mans intellect, etc
Hydragurum 1 year ago
@Hydragurum : "You're being incredibly simplistic in your approach."
The question is a simple one: the existence or not or the phenomenon being asserted.
"the beauty of nature, the design and complexity of life, mans intellect"
Everything...and nothing...can be explained as the product of a magic sky daddy. It's a cause that isn't a cause. It's an idea that can only begin to have utility if the god can be shown to exist.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 The question of God's existence is not peripheral in one's system of beliefs; its central. Recall the words of Mortimer Adler: "more consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of the existence of God than from any other basic question." Your response smuggles in a defunct epistemology and an attendant metaphysic. The kind of being God is determines the way in which we have knowledge of Him, and your requirement refuses to let God be who He is in advance
Hydragurum 1 year ago
@Hydragurum : Your problem (in being objective on the issue) is that you don't recognize your biases. For those who weren't raised to believe in your god it's just a story, and all the characteristics of your god are just in your imagination.
Atheists don't (typically) have a bias regarding gods; show 'em, and we'll acknowledge 'em. Otherwise, it's apparent they're based on your BELIEF rather than your unbiased observation--just as you surely think about the gods of others.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
You have no idea how wrong you are. First of all, even unbelieving philosophers have noted the impossibility of neutrality when it comes to worldview issues (Wittgenstein, Kuhn, Quine, etc). Since central issues (e.g. the existence of God) determine how one interprets the facts of this world, one cannot be non-committal either way-- your very first move in argument either presupposes God or denies Him; there's no other choice. You're simplistic and uncritical of your OWN incoherent assumptions.
Hydragurum 1 year ago
Atheists are notorious for rejecting the simple truths of logic even to hold onto their unbelief. A. J. Ayer and A. Flew and their verificationist program for attempting to demonstrate the "meaninglessness" of religious language was a failure, as even their own colleagues noted; Michael Martin in his book "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" is content to depart from exemplars of rationality (e.g. first order predicate logic, causality) to make his case. Dont tell me atheists arent unbiased
Hydragurum 1 year ago
**Dont tell me that they are unbiased.
Hydragurum 1 year ago
@Hydragurum : Are you William Lane Craig, btw? He likes to misuse philosophy to help him sell magic sky daddies, too.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@Hydragurum How do you know that the bible is correct and divinely inspired? Also, why you would you use to the bible to persuade someone who doesn't believe in the bible?
mavs2147 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GetMeThere1 "I'll correct myself: gods have no objective basis THAT I'M AWARE OF. I'm ready to witness an objective unveiling of a "supernatural god," if you'd like to provide one."
It's not a "super"natural god but I have one:
1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (true by definition)
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Penrose's Orch-OR model of the mind)
Therefore: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
JohananRaatz 10 months ago
tx.
andthereisntone 1 year ago
So to mention X-rays or believe in them in the 15th century (according to this) would have been false but to believe in a flat world hypothesis would have been correct because that was the widely held belief at the time and it had not been logically dis-proven? I'm not trying to be combative or seem defensive... I think a healthy amount of skepticism is a good thing. I'm just trying to have a friendly debate and I hope that we can be friends. = )
AriloeuLaleelae 1 year ago
"Until recently, modern science seemed to question the reality of unseen entities; but with Eddington's observation that the world is more like a mind than a machine, and astrophysicists' reports that 90% of the "matter" in the universe is invisible in the sense that it impacts none of their instruments, scientific skepticism has begun to subside." Huston Smith, pg. 319 'The World's Religions'
AriloeuLaleelae 1 year ago
People that do know God ,know him in a spiritual way.God is eternal and all knowing.He also speaks to us in our dreams and audible if he wants to.He is every where present and no where absent.
watershoe5 1 year ago
@watershoe5 Wouldn't it make sense then that a loving god would have made his message perfectly clear to all of his children? I would be absolutely sure that my child understood me if it meant eternal damnation and I don't even have the power to drown the world or kill thousands of babies like ol Yahweh.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
Nog defubar!
Huvas didoogie?..
mlonster 1 year ago
Minute 9 "you have to either see God materially or its effects"... so when you take a look at the universe, you either believe that since probability demonstrates the impossibility of a universe by chance out of nothing and due to nothing (big bang theory) then, the only choice is that it was intelligently designed.. the bible says " since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made...
catroarb 1 year ago
@catroarb
When you look at the universe you see a UNIVERSE. That's all. That's it. It's there. Doesn't mean a god has to have made it. Doesn't mean the uncertainty principle has to have made it. The fact that anything exists at all must somehow defy our commonsense understanding of causality, since if we say everything needs a creator that sets us up for infinite progression, a logical fallacy. So just because the universe exists does not mean it has to have been created.
Fetchdafish 1 year ago
@Fetch: CommS.Causality? disregarding science.(big bang) Is probability CS.? throw a chess board up and see if you get the pieces to fall in place, (entropy) now try 3000 DNA aminoacids,oh but first, make them. Is CS that this place came out of nothing and cause of nothing?, The Creator idea is only illogic if you do not conceive that there can be one who is not restricted by the essence of his creation E.I. if I made a notebook, will you see me in two dimensions inside it? bound by the clips?
catroarb 1 year ago
@catroarb
I didn't say the universe couldn't have been created. I said it does not demand a creator. To say it MUST have been created simply because it exists is a logical fallacy.
Fetchdafish 1 year ago
For you non-believing skeptics. If material exists and something always has to come from something. Something cant be made out of nothing. Then how does this universe and life exist? Obviously this moron ignored the Thomas Aquinas' five proofs of God. If he tried to argue those proofs he would have been stumped because they are literally inarguable. Ex. that this man is wrong. time is created by man in which if man didn't exist time doesn't either. Proving his philosophy wrong.
hardyAMDG95 1 year ago
@hardyAMDG95
Errr.... Everything has to come from something. Where did he came from?
TheShiftingStudios 1 year ago
@TheShiftingStudios
Think of him as a force, an effect that influences humans. He was never started or created just ever present. You can't measure how long he's been around because WE invented the measure of time.
hardyAMDG95 1 year ago
WoW! I FREAKING love you! If a guy could do to my Vagina what you did to my mind, I would need stitches! <3
Yuna0316 1 year ago
I can understand this video with a bit of analysis , but I doubt any religious nut is intelligent enough to understand it lol.
WillKillalol 1 year ago
i am not an atheist, i think it would be stupid to rule out a conscious first cause, a creator. i'm not saying that's that's what i believe, i just don't know. i don't know whether the bible or koran or torah are based on truth, but i THINK they are bullshit, pretty sure of it... but i don't know for certain.
a god could exist and not be subject to the laws of physics within our dimension/universe. we just don't know. this means your whole argument fails.
romanianskill 1 year ago
@romanianskill you didnt watch the video, because he addresses this.
LordAgonis 1 year ago
I dont know why I keep "liking" your videos when I know full-well I will like them all, even if I don't always agree
LordAgonis 1 year ago
all knowing, all powerful and perfect? ... greek gods???
not watching your video...
romanianskill 1 year ago
Comment removed
Iamfatbrain 1 year ago
So, love exists, but love by definition is immaterial, therefore, it cannot exist and so the conclusion most awarded of all times: "Love does not exist".
catroarb 1 year ago
@catroarb Interesing point. Though love is a feeling, an emotion. Disharmony, peace...God is a feeling, an emotion. Our oral languages doesn't fully express abstract concepts or what is absolutely meant.
YesEthan 1 year ago
@YesEthan love is an emotion which can be measured... it is the sending and receiving of electricity and chemicals in the brain...
romanianskill 1 year ago
@romanianskill apparently you can measure meditation and religious proclivities in the brain. Researchers think "visions from God/gods" prophets from all sorts of religious sects had temporal epilepsy. Have you heard of the God helmutt or seen this video?-watch?v=OZmtVf3vVeg. Also NPR's Brain on God.
YesEthan 1 year ago
@romanianskill 2003 BBC Horizon - God On The Brain 3 of 5
YesEthan 1 year ago
@romanianskill : nice!, God is a Spirit who's power can be meassured in the incredible number of stars in the universe, all working harmoniously, (black force, and gravity working perfectly tunned so that it does not collapse) and His intelligence in the incredibly complex design of something as simple as a bacteria...and we got the design blueprints E.I. ADN, so intelligent we ca not even understand them...
catroarb 1 year ago
@YesEthan: My point is that there is abstract things that we by no chance would deny exist; EI: Morals, mathematics, even the past...find proof that a job you were doing 30 min a go was not done six months a go...yet those are things even scientists accept that exist, so disregarding God by defining that anything that is not material does not exist, would by definition be false, because you would have to include those things in my example plus another 1000 more... with all due respect.
catroarb 1 year ago
So, love exists, but love by definition is immaterial, therefore, it cannot exist and so the conclusion most awarded in all times: Love does not exist.
catroarb 1 year ago
Wow! I'm very glad I found your videos, and Freedomain Radio. I'll be looking forward to seeing your other vids and the radio program.
Thanks
Cootabux 1 year ago
god cant be morally perfect bceause morality is subjective
blazereef 1 year ago
The only thing i know is that "God and religion" gives millions of people world wide a reason to live. Try to replace that before telling people its nonsense. I am not a big beliver myself, but i dont see any things wrong in beliving in religion in a normal level. to argue about if god exist ore not is bogus in my mind.
mrthunderelk 1 year ago
@mrthunderelk religion has also cause horrible bloodshed since (at least) the bronze age collapse when the original Jewish Tribes took over the Canaanite Peoples in the belief that their God had proclaimed it their "promised land". So it may give people the reason to live but it also gives them a reason to kill. Al Quaeda, the Crusades, and pogroms are all great examples of how religion leads to death.
LordAgonis 1 year ago
@LordAgonis Oooh Yes i agree people of religion have failed in many ways in past and present history. But if you read i my comment i say there is nothing wrong in beliving in a religion in a "NORMAL" level. Do you follow me on that one??
mrthunderelk 1 year ago
@mrthunderelk i get where you're coming from, and i speak only for myself and my opinion here but i mean any irrational belief will allow for more irrational beliefs. if you believe in jesus, you can hate jews and muslims. if you can hate other religious groups, you can kill them. if you can kill one religious minority, you can commit a holocaust against them. Irrationality crowds out rational thought and leads to medievalist savagery and regression.
LordAgonis 1 year ago
@LordAgonis
actually you are really ignorant in your atheistic rant on why religion is bad. It doesnt give people the reason to kill and it doesnt make people kill. IF YOU FOLLOW ANY RELIGION TRULY TO THE TEACHINGS THERE WOULDNT BE ANY VIOLENCE. But your ignorant ass cant comprehend that. All killings done in the name of faith have been abuse of power for the things that start wars today such as greed, envy, and power
hardyAMDG95 1 year ago
@hardyAMDG95 Crusades. Jihad. 30-Yrs War. Witch Trials ("thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"), Leviticus 18:22.Holy Roman Empire. Inquisition. Genocide of Native Americans in the name Christianity. Misogyny of Catholic Church. Holocaust. Pogroms. I've actually read the Bible cover to cover, which is how I know how evil your religion is.
LordAgonis 1 year ago
@hardyAMDG95 If you follow Christianity "truly to the teachings" (whatever the hell that means), you will end up killing nonbelievers....
But no, you're right....other than the Spanish Inquisition, Fatwahs, ethnic cleansing, the systematic repression of homosexuals and women, human sacrifices, the condoning of slavery (Thanks, Catholicism!), arraigned marriages to children, and most wars, religion is completely nonviolent!
cjrsoccer1 1 year ago
You are a teacher , and you do not know these things that take place on earth, ? We speak that which we know and testify of that which we have seen, and yet you do not receive our testimony.
Adjust your heavenly receiver ; Jesus answered and said to him, ''Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God....... Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'' To see and enter requires a new birth, another dimension.
treasureinvessel 1 year ago
@treasureinvessel I could not, would not, in a house. I would not, could not, with a mouse. I would not eat them with a fox. I would not eat them in a box. I would not eat them here or there. I would not eat them anywhere. I would not eat green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull Is that how is sounds to your ears ?
treasureinvessel 1 year ago
@treasureinvessel I just get more out of it I suppose:)
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull get what ?
treasureinvessel 1 year ago
@treasureinvessel Substantiate your claims.
McMaster94 1 year ago
But a soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know them because they are discerned spiritually. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, "He grasps the wise in their craftiness''For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God, said Paul
treasureinvessel 1 year ago
@treasureinvessel ; Christianity is not only foolishness but it is childish nonsense and a religion born out of ignorance and superstition. Quote all the babble verses you want not even based on reason and logic.
nogogma 1 year ago
@nogogma Nopolion; ' 'Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; ..... Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. . . I am a man; none else is like Jesus Christ, was more than a man. . . . . . . Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years '' i say AMEN to this ! Now 2000 years !
treasureinvessel 1 year ago
@treasureinvessel ; Jesus is still fiction no matter what famous person said about him ... typical argument from popularity which is just another form of the desperate attempt at propping up your Jesus myth. Nice try though.
nogogma 1 year ago
@nogogma something is proven when it stands against time and place when it exceed your lifetime and your logic . When a tree lives for two thousand years it has proven its existence and its power and authority. Its authority to stand in the way and its power over death.
treasureinvessel 1 year ago
Comment removed
treasureinvessel 1 year ago
@nogogma Allow the little children to come to Me (Jesus). Do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God.
Jesus answered and said, I extol You, Father, Lord of heaven and of earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. The more you think you are wise and prove you are intelligent the more you prove God is hidden for you and the more you prove you are not owing the Kingdom and have no idea what i am talking about.
treasureinvessel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@treasureinvessel ; You proved you are mentally retarded and deluded ...
nogogma 1 year ago
@treasureinvessel ; Tell the little children they will go to hell for not bowing down to the dictator Jesus ! Christianity is mental child abuse.
nogogma 1 year ago
Respect from a Christian, dude!
Moshikashitenai 1 year ago
Hey stefbot, do you still stand by this video?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
There's a dragon in my garage too XD
dopejoel 1 year ago
i agree with your ideas except for this one. im not religious at all, but everything comes from something. If you break every form of matter down to the smallest possible form it still has to come from something, which would ultimately be a creator. It has nothing to do with faith for me, its just that i dont understand how the universe could begin to exist without something being created. Maybe i am not educated enough on the subject, if u dont mind maybe you can give me a book name or person
EAScreenplay 1 year ago
@EAScreenplay I'll just leave you with a simple question... Why? Why do you feel there must ultimately be a creator? That is far more important than any answer you can be pointed to, none of us know for certain how the universe started, its all speculative. So the most important thing is why do you feel it must have happened a particular way given no evidence for that?
Ammdar 1 year ago
@Ammdar yes i agree with you totally, nobody knows how the universe was created, so the fact that atheist think that they no there is not a god is absurd. It is just my opinion that there is a creator no one can prove that im wrong. But im not gonna make a video about it trying to convince people that I'm right when I dont know everything for sure. I just dont understand why there are people that think they have all the answers..its just pretentious in my opinion
EAScreenplay 1 year ago
@EAScreenplay I honestly don't know of any atheist who pretends to know all the answers. There are several things that there is an overwhelming sum of evidence for, evolution springs to mind, and I freely admit to being frustrated at times and perhaps even sounding arrogant when refuting an empty rebuttal to it for the 5 billionth time. But, in all that I, as most atheists do, freely admit ignorance to the origins of the universe, ask yourself honestly if saying god did it is the same?
Ammdar 1 year ago
@Ammdar yes religion is ignorant. but not just because of what they believe, but because religion tries to force ideas onto people just because thats what that religion believes is true, and force eventually creates negative outcomes such as violence. in my opinon an atheist like stefbot who makes a youtube video trying to educate and convince people that there is no god is just as bad as someone trying to tell me why Jesus is my savior
EAScreenplay 1 year ago
@EAScreenplay Not sure I could qualify a video on youtube as equivalent to say sending missionaries to foriegn countries or imposing your religious views as a law (as is the case in several islamic countries ). No one is forced to watch the video, it is purely optional, no one is forcing anyone to believe anything. He is merely putting the information out there, as he is free to do so, is it pretentious? Maybe. Do you have the right not to like it? certainly. But its your choice isn't it.
Ammdar 1 year ago
God disappears in a puff of logic
druidic6 1 year ago
First of all, God is not "defined" as "consciousness without material form". Please provide a single quotation from any great Theist philosopher in the last from Aquinas back to Aristotle who defines God in that way. God is said to be pure Act, pure Intellect, but Intellect does not mean "consciousness". Animals have consciousness but not intellect. Also, even if I let you slide on that one, this is another circular argument since you assume mind cannot exist without matter, which is precisely..
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe ..the kind of metaphysical claim that a theist would dispute. So again, your "proof" is nothing but a tautology: Matter is all there is, therefore, matter is all there is. Nice try smart guy. Riddle me this: If the intellect is material, how is it possible to do a geometrical proof (which involves an idealized, perfect polygon) given that no perfect material polygon exists? Where is the polygon? In your intellect? Impossible if it's material as well.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
You equate "objective" and "material" (around 8:50), which is to assume your own conclusion. Your argument is circular. Whether or not an enitity can be material is a metaphysical question, not an empirical question. I can easily give you an example of something which is objective, yet not material. Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean theoreom. There are, in the material world, no perfect lines, triangles,etc, but that proof is objective not subjective. Likewise, the content of any proposition.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe *whether or not an entity can be *immaterial* is a metaphysical question
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
Stefbot, you owned these God arguments. This video is one of the best videos on Atheism..
KevZen2000 1 year ago
Did Stefan come up with that argument at 9:41 right there on his own? If so, then I dub it the "Molyneux Paradox". Has a nice ring to it, no?
Onirayushizobura 1 year ago
@Onirayushizobura: Nah, it's a very old noe.
andyissemicool 1 year ago
Comment removed
rdubtastic 1 year ago
Great video. Arguing something that is inarguable.
Quantum physics is not precise, it is probabilities.
God is defined as God, eternal, omnipresent, which matter/energy is not.
The law of conservation of matter/mass, states matter can not create matter nor destroy it, similarly with time, therefore God is our creator. Tell me the contradiction here.
Your definitions fail, everyone of them.
Faith is believing without knowing.
To support science you must support possibilities.
PLEASE REPLY.
AnnymsVoice 2 years ago
So you say that matter cannot create matter and because God in your eyes is not matter that somehow mkes God responsible for all creation. No there is no logic in that, light, energy, radiation are all "non-matter" things that have reportedly caused the big bang. So I guess you worship a giant cloud of radiation.
I don't even believe in the big bang theorey but I can still acknowledge that makes more sense than some omnipotent asshole making us from dirt and a rib. Grow up please.
piemakesmelol 1 year ago
Haha, you need you look up the words light, energy and radiation, those are are made of or described as sub atomic particles photons, protons, electrons, etc. In other words matter. Theory of relativity shows that energy and mass/matter are the same thing, hence e=mc2.
Try again.
AnnymsVoice 1 year ago
It still doesn't equal an intelligent designer. You still fail to show me how that works.You know why? Because it doesnt. If you really want to "stump" me why don't you give me proof for talking animals, giants, demons, angels, ghosts, witches, wizards oh an d all of Jesus Christ's miracles while you're at it. Because your bible tells you such things exsist. Yet you still believe in them. You can argue all you want about intelligenty design but then WHAT intelligent designer is it?
piemakesmelol 1 year ago
Science has failed us all, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it has it's faults and is only part of the whole. Like looking down at the back of your hand, not seeing the palm or the whole body. Hawking said it best, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the results will not contradict the theory..."
AnnymsVoice 1 year ago
I do agree with you that science does not hold all of the answers and that not everything they say is the truth. I don't believe in thew big bang theory for example. but science has shown to be accurate more times than not. Like the Bible taught that Heaven is simply above us, it alsmost percieved as a physical realm. However we know that if we were to go further than the sky we do not reach heaven we reach endless space.
piemakesmelol 1 year ago