People have a right to believe in "made up shit" to fill in the gaps of what they do not know. Those damned hateful atheists need to stop calling it "made up shit" and informing people of stuff they don't know. Just let people believe whatever "made up shit" and we can live in harmony on a world of "made up shit".
A gay comedian said, "the only group of people obsessed about gay sex than gays...is the catholic church."
Here, it can be said, 'the only group of people more interested in religion than religious folks...are the atheists.
When a believer shows up and claims some form of 'science' or 'reasonable faith', every swingin' dick atheist shows up with comments bespeaking of a hominid.
1. Something exists, therefore god. But, god didn't need a god to create him. 2. Mathematics, created to describe reality, is unreasonable because it describes reality. 3. Something came from nothing equivocation fallacy without showing nothing can and does exist anywhere. 4. We require a fine tuned universe to exist so god must require a fine tuned environment for his existence. 5. Absolute morality denies freedom so cannot be moral. Tired of watching his god BS, back to real science.
@gotrootdude #1 is a plausible option. Please watch YouTube video DjJAWuzno9Y at the 30:21 mark. It is logical, and any logical person would concede, that it is illogical to assume that the cycle would go on forever and that there is no exception to this rule. Matter must have been created by something external, something that was not subject to the same laws that matter obeys and therefore does not require a creator itself, otherwise you would have an infinite regress problem.
@gotrootdude #2 You don't understand his point. He wasn't trying to say that mathematics is unreasonable. He was saying that it is marvelous and seemingly beyond reason how mathematics could describe the universe so well. Coupled with what he said about physical constants, you can see in video ID DjJAWuzno9Y at 28:50 that he meant that mathematics discovers the rules of the universe that had already existed, and he is in awe that they were already there to be discovered.
@gnolmahp Math can describe more than exists. We only take the portions that are logically consistent to use for our explanatory purposes because our universe behaves in a logically consistent manner. It doesn't have to behave logically consistent in it's behavior but I can't imagine a creature developing math (a logically consistent framework) in a illogical universe.
@gotrootdude Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@5tonyvvvv Experimentation is no longer required to prove DNA self-replication. It's a common medical technique called PCR. I'd say a lot of theists have worked in labs making DNA self-replicate. It's sad that you don't know this already. Has your religion kept you from learning simple stuff like this?
@gotrootdude Your religion of ATHEISM wont allow you understand the INFORMATION age we are living in today! Amino acids do not organize themselves. DNA does not write it self! Learn homochirality stubborn atheist!!!
@gotrootdude Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001) Please give references of study for your claims, otherwise I'll have to assume you are repeating some made up crap.
@gotrootdude "A simple peptide replicator" LOL, All conducted in a controlled laboratory atmosphere!!! These reactions are not undirected natural processes! INFORMATION and starting materials are DESIGNED!! and scientists always use templates! Wake up atheist MORON!!
@5tonyvvvv I understand you. You want to claim higher morality than others by denying science. You don't have great morality, you just want to claim it. Here's the deal. The fact that Christianity is false is not enough for me to fight it. I would offer support a white lie that was good for humanity. But, I fight against Christianity because it's immoral. The religion and it's followers make false and immoral claims of higher morality in attempts to control and deny others.
@gotrootdude Atheists believe something came from NOTHING!! LOL! The Universe created it self with enough Time matter and energy! Then molecules assembled them selves! Homochirality is a disaster for atheism! This is what led Frances collins to leave atheism! But let me guess you know more than Francis collins!! OK MORON!!!
@5tonyvvvv Not all atheists believe in a universe from nothing but all theists believe in a god from nothing. How did your god get created? Let me guess, you think you know more than every atheist scientist on the planet, OK MORON!
@gotrootdude God is eternal, needs no creator! I can see you are an extreme atheist MORON! How did natural processes create the Universe ? Its takes faith on both sides dumb fuck!
@gotrootdude #4 If God indeed does exist, then you and I can conclude at this very moment that we don't know enough about God to say that he needs a certain environment to exist. Assuming God's existence implies that he is supernatural and more capable beyond our imagination, so your claim does not suffice. Again, see my point about #1, since your point is also embracing on the infinite regress problem, this time regarding a fine-tuned existence.
@gotrootdude #5 Currently we humans lack absolute morality. This should be more than evident in every day we live. We can conclude that we have free will, and if merely by replying to YouTube posts you fail to see free will, then you have bigger problems to worry about.
His presentation is anything but BS. A person who gave reasons, grounds, explanations, and answers questions in such a sincere and composed manner does not convey a "BS" presentation.
@gnolmahp Who's absolute morality? Yours or mine? I don't lack absolute morality, mine is just different than yours. I cannot conclude that we have free will. We do not have free will to choose what to believe and what not to believe. We do not have free will to decide where to be born, who our parents are, who we come into contact with during our lives, etc.
@gotrootdude 1.) "I cannot conclude that we have free will." How can you not? That's like saying you cannot conclude you exist, and here you are replying to my comment. "We do not have free will to choose what to believe and what not to believe." So your current belief was forced upon you? Your last sentence does have some merit.
2.) *Assuming* God exists, then absolute morality must have originated from him. Therefore our definitions of morality should be measured up to that.
Everybody should believe in this GREAT god !!Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, kill them. those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of god !!
Collin's gives the free will theodicy to the problem of evil. Wow. I wish he does not stop thinking there! Any theodicy for the problem of evil directly contradicts any obligation to moral behavior. Also, it does not explain, why god did not simply create those humans, which do good freely.
In the end I have to say - he is a great scientist. But he's a lousy theologean, and he sure was a lousy agnostic. I hope, he will never come to the point where he denies data to stick to dear held beliefs.
@smarthandsomeguy He admitted he was not a theologean. He also admitted he was a lousy agnostic because he was one of those that "didn't really want to think about this", and that was the source for his dissatisfaction with his agnostic position.
He never blindly denied data to uphold his beliefs. On the contrary, he embraced evidence from science to validate evolution. His point was that, even in embracing science, there is still room to compatibly believe in a creator.
Of course - as long as one defines god in a way that is unfalsifiable, that belief is eternally safe from being falsified. :-)
But one can not honestly achieve any degree of certainty regarding such beliefs.
There is a potentially infinite number of equally unfalsifiable claims. Any number of them might be true, but their truth value can not be established and they have no explanatory power.
He should have mentioned the other half of his point.
It does not matter if god is outside of space and time. If he knows what I will do, I am a robot. If hell exists, then he created me fully knowing, that I would go down. While that may be true, it's the opposite of a loving God.
@smarthandsomeguy Knowing what someone will do ahead of time does not mean that person has to be a robot. If you attend a university, and I stake a claim that you will graduate, does that make you a robot?
If anyone is serious about spirituality, then at some point in their life they will find a strong desire to search for answers. Hell, if it exists, is intended for those that take life as a joke and don't embark on this journey.
@gnolmahp >"Hell, if it exists, is intended for those that take life as a joke and don't embark on this journey"
That's an interesting version of hell. Hell as proposed in the bible is for sinners (old testament) and those who do not repent/accept Jesus in the new testament.
A religion that offers the ultimate price to followers, and the ultimate punishment to outsiders will ultimately attract more people than a religion that does not do so. Add "doubt is bad" and you have a good mind virus.
Collin's, please. Your god is an unfalsifiable claim. Of course, no thinking person would try to falsify an unfalsifyable claim. I could say 'God created the universe 10 minutes ago', and Dawkins would not disagree that this is possible. You really missed the point entirely.
@smarthandsomeguy He did indeed claim that his position cannot be proved, but he says that there is compelling evidence for it. Why do you diss him even after he made that disclaimer?
@smarthandsomeguy How can you be disappointed when a person makes rational claims? In 2 sentences you try to topple his points made in over 90 minutes. He could easily say the same about you, and yet you don't lead us to your viewpoints as extensively as he did. He led the Human Genome Project with decades of scientific experience and thought, and you claim that a couple of articles on Wikipedia should be able to humble him? He sounds incredibly humble to me.
if a top scientist can believe in God , all scientist can.(but sometimes arrogance given by knowledge of matter prevent to accept that is a Maker of that matter. )
People have a right to believe in "made up shit" to fill in the gaps of what they do not know. Those damned hateful atheists need to stop calling it "made up shit" and informing people of stuff they don't know. Just let people believe whatever "made up shit" and we can live in harmony on a world of "made up shit".
gotrootdude 1 month ago
A gay comedian said, "the only group of people obsessed about gay sex than gays...is the catholic church."
Here, it can be said, 'the only group of people more interested in religion than religious folks...are the atheists.
When a believer shows up and claims some form of 'science' or 'reasonable faith', every swingin' dick atheist shows up with comments bespeaking of a hominid.
cliffandy 3 months ago
i bet hes a jehowa witness
johnymst 3 months ago
argument from incredulty, being used in 2009 by the leader of the human genome project. i barely ever had such a laugh.
olllj 3 months ago
1. Something exists, therefore god. But, god didn't need a god to create him. 2. Mathematics, created to describe reality, is unreasonable because it describes reality. 3. Something came from nothing equivocation fallacy without showing nothing can and does exist anywhere. 4. We require a fine tuned universe to exist so god must require a fine tuned environment for his existence. 5. Absolute morality denies freedom so cannot be moral. Tired of watching his god BS, back to real science.
gotrootdude 3 months ago
@gotrootdude #1 is a plausible option. Please watch YouTube video DjJAWuzno9Y at the 30:21 mark. It is logical, and any logical person would concede, that it is illogical to assume that the cycle would go on forever and that there is no exception to this rule. Matter must have been created by something external, something that was not subject to the same laws that matter obeys and therefore does not require a creator itself, otherwise you would have an infinite regress problem.
gnolmahp 2 months ago
@gotrootdude #2 You don't understand his point. He wasn't trying to say that mathematics is unreasonable. He was saying that it is marvelous and seemingly beyond reason how mathematics could describe the universe so well. Coupled with what he said about physical constants, you can see in video ID DjJAWuzno9Y at 28:50 that he meant that mathematics discovers the rules of the universe that had already existed, and he is in awe that they were already there to be discovered.
gnolmahp 2 months ago
@gnolmahp Math can describe more than exists. We only take the portions that are logically consistent to use for our explanatory purposes because our universe behaves in a logically consistent manner. It doesn't have to behave logically consistent in it's behavior but I can't imagine a creature developing math (a logically consistent framework) in a illogical universe.
gotrootdude 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gotrootdude Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@gotrootdude How many atheist morons have conducted experiments to show DNA assembling it self???
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@5tonyvvvv Experimentation is no longer required to prove DNA self-replication. It's a common medical technique called PCR. I'd say a lot of theists have worked in labs making DNA self-replicate. It's sad that you don't know this already. Has your religion kept you from learning simple stuff like this?
gotrootdude 1 month ago
@gotrootdude Your religion of ATHEISM wont allow you understand the INFORMATION age we are living in today! Amino acids do not organize themselves. DNA does not write it self! Learn homochirality stubborn atheist!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@gotrootdude Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@5tonyvvvv
A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001) Please give references of study for your claims, otherwise I'll have to assume you are repeating some made up crap.
gotrootdude 1 month ago
@gotrootdude "A simple peptide replicator" LOL, All conducted in a controlled laboratory atmosphere!!! These reactions are not undirected natural processes! INFORMATION and starting materials are DESIGNED!! and scientists always use templates! Wake up atheist MORON!!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@5tonyvvvv I understand you. You want to claim higher morality than others by denying science. You don't have great morality, you just want to claim it. Here's the deal. The fact that Christianity is false is not enough for me to fight it. I would offer support a white lie that was good for humanity. But, I fight against Christianity because it's immoral. The religion and it's followers make false and immoral claims of higher morality in attempts to control and deny others.
gotrootdude 1 month ago
@gotrootdude Atheists believe something came from NOTHING!! LOL! The Universe created it self with enough Time matter and energy! Then molecules assembled them selves! Homochirality is a disaster for atheism! This is what led Frances collins to leave atheism! But let me guess you know more than Francis collins!! OK MORON!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@5tonyvvvv Not all atheists believe in a universe from nothing but all theists believe in a god from nothing. How did your god get created? Let me guess, you think you know more than every atheist scientist on the planet, OK MORON!
gotrootdude 1 month ago
@gotrootdude God is eternal, needs no creator! I can see you are an extreme atheist MORON! How did natural processes create the Universe ? Its takes faith on both sides dumb fuck!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@gotrootdude #4 If God indeed does exist, then you and I can conclude at this very moment that we don't know enough about God to say that he needs a certain environment to exist. Assuming God's existence implies that he is supernatural and more capable beyond our imagination, so your claim does not suffice. Again, see my point about #1, since your point is also embracing on the infinite regress problem, this time regarding a fine-tuned existence.
gnolmahp 2 months ago
@gotrootdude #5 Currently we humans lack absolute morality. This should be more than evident in every day we live. We can conclude that we have free will, and if merely by replying to YouTube posts you fail to see free will, then you have bigger problems to worry about.
His presentation is anything but BS. A person who gave reasons, grounds, explanations, and answers questions in such a sincere and composed manner does not convey a "BS" presentation.
gnolmahp 2 months ago
@gnolmahp Who's absolute morality? Yours or mine? I don't lack absolute morality, mine is just different than yours. I cannot conclude that we have free will. We do not have free will to choose what to believe and what not to believe. We do not have free will to decide where to be born, who our parents are, who we come into contact with during our lives, etc.
gotrootdude 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gotrootdude 1.) "I cannot conclude that we have free will." How can you not? That's like saying you cannot conclude you exist, and here you are replying to my comment. "We do not have free will to choose what to believe and what not to believe." So your current belief was forced upon you? Your last sentence does have some merit.
2.) *Assuming* God exists, then absolute morality must have originated from him. Therefore our definitions of morality should be measured up to that.
gnolmahp 2 months ago
Comment removed
gotrootdude 2 months ago
TIL that the leader of the human genome project turned into a religious SCAMMER. well, everyone can become stupid and corrupt.
olllj 3 months ago
Everybody should believe in this GREAT god !!Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, kill them. those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of god !!
ndzoko 4 months ago
God as a Scientist
The action, when the God of Everything, compressed the
whole Universe into his palm, the scientists named
‘a singular point’
And the action, when the God of Everything, opened his palm the people named ‘Big Bang’
But we don’t know when He think to compress His great palm
(with the whole Universe) again in His fist and again create the ‘ singular point’
socratus1 5 months ago
God bless Francis Collins He's amazing! :)
lukehase 5 months ago
Collin's gives the free will theodicy to the problem of evil. Wow. I wish he does not stop thinking there! Any theodicy for the problem of evil directly contradicts any obligation to moral behavior. Also, it does not explain, why god did not simply create those humans, which do good freely.
smarthandsomeguy 8 months ago
@vinzdevency >"psychosentience"
What is that supposed to be?
smarthandsomeguy 8 months ago
In the end I have to say - he is a great scientist. But he's a lousy theologean, and he sure was a lousy agnostic. I hope, he will never come to the point where he denies data to stick to dear held beliefs.
smarthandsomeguy 8 months ago
@smarthandsomeguy He admitted he was not a theologean. He also admitted he was a lousy agnostic because he was one of those that "didn't really want to think about this", and that was the source for his dissatisfaction with his agnostic position.
He never blindly denied data to uphold his beliefs. On the contrary, he embraced evidence from science to validate evolution. His point was that, even in embracing science, there is still room to compatibly believe in a creator.
gnolmahp 2 months ago
@gnolmahp >"there is still room"
Of course - as long as one defines god in a way that is unfalsifiable, that belief is eternally safe from being falsified. :-)
But one can not honestly achieve any degree of certainty regarding such beliefs.
There is a potentially infinite number of equally unfalsifiable claims. Any number of them might be true, but their truth value can not be established and they have no explanatory power.
He should have mentioned the other half of his point.
smarthandsomeguy 2 months ago
It does not matter if god is outside of space and time. If he knows what I will do, I am a robot. If hell exists, then he created me fully knowing, that I would go down. While that may be true, it's the opposite of a loving God.
smarthandsomeguy 8 months ago
@smarthandsomeguy Knowing what someone will do ahead of time does not mean that person has to be a robot. If you attend a university, and I stake a claim that you will graduate, does that make you a robot?
If anyone is serious about spirituality, then at some point in their life they will find a strong desire to search for answers. Hell, if it exists, is intended for those that take life as a joke and don't embark on this journey.
gnolmahp 2 months ago
@gnolmahp >"I stake a claim that you will graduate"
If God's omniscience is about as good as your ability to predict if someone will graduate, he's not really not much of a god, is he? ;-)
The point about God's omniscience (as usually put forward) is, that he not only knows what will happen, but has an actual plan for what will happen.
But let's face it: it's a comforting thing people say to other people in bad situations.
If it's true, we are robots, and the universe runs like a clockwork.
smarthandsomeguy 2 months ago
@gnolmahp >"Hell, if it exists, is intended for those that take life as a joke and don't embark on this journey"
That's an interesting version of hell. Hell as proposed in the bible is for sinners (old testament) and those who do not repent/accept Jesus in the new testament.
A religion that offers the ultimate price to followers, and the ultimate punishment to outsiders will ultimately attract more people than a religion that does not do so. Add "doubt is bad" and you have a good mind virus.
smarthandsomeguy 2 months ago
Collin's, please. Your god is an unfalsifiable claim. Of course, no thinking person would try to falsify an unfalsifyable claim. I could say 'God created the universe 10 minutes ago', and Dawkins would not disagree that this is possible. You really missed the point entirely.
smarthandsomeguy 8 months ago
@smarthandsomeguy He did indeed claim that his position cannot be proved, but he says that there is compelling evidence for it. Why do you diss him even after he made that disclaimer?
gnolmahp 2 months ago
I am disappointed. At least today he could look up some of the points he raised on wikipedia and maybe feel humbled afterwards.
smarthandsomeguy 8 months ago
@smarthandsomeguy How can you be disappointed when a person makes rational claims? In 2 sentences you try to topple his points made in over 90 minutes. He could easily say the same about you, and yet you don't lead us to your viewpoints as extensively as he did. He led the Human Genome Project with decades of scientific experience and thought, and you claim that a couple of articles on Wikipedia should be able to humble him? He sounds incredibly humble to me.
gnolmahp 2 months ago
if a top scientist can believe in God , all scientist can.(but sometimes arrogance given by knowledge of matter prevent to accept that is a Maker of that matter. )
nicolaupapa11 1 year ago