@affinity2412 That's basically what I heard because he couldn't even say like 80% of the words he was trying to say. People like this make me facepalm so hard.
People just can't except the possiblilty that our pathetic brains probably can't
understand how the universe came into existence because we are all trapped in linear time. Saying it was a god doesn't answer the question because noone can
explain how something could have always existed with no beginning.
it's timeless and .... uhh... created the universe because ...uhh... it's got electrolytes. And plants crave electrolytes, so that means god made the universe
Ye gods!! The caller has no clue what he is trying to say. He seems to be able to read, but not pronounce the big words, let alone understand what he is reading. He can not speak either. He is also clueless on how to present his side. It is so very obvious that he is trying, and failing badly, to read from a text. Painful to watch.
lol. If you listen to this with ear buds on, you can hear the crew in the background laughing at this guy. If I were sitting on the panel, and hearing my crew laughing, theres NO WAY I could keep a straight face.
"Big Bang Cosmology supports the evidence for a creator."
What does "supports the evidence" even mean? It's either evidence or it isn't. And no, the Big Bang only means that the universe as we know it was once very small, very dense and very hot. That's all.
@mas03 a creator creating the universe could look very much like the big bang but there is jack all evidence for it. at this point you only have a hypothesis, now design an experiment to prove it.
@morpheuskibbe you CANT PROVE IT...we can only have good evidence for it, and thats damn near good evidence. We accept things based on overwhelming evidence
@mas03 good evidence is near good evidence and that's overwhelming evidence? COMMANDER TAUTOLOGY STRIKES AGAIN. and no, the fact that it could have happened one way and cant be proven that it didn't is NOT proof that it did. its not even evidence that it did. someone COULD have given me a soda, them giving me a soda would explain why i have a soda, but that's not proof or evidence that i DIDN'T just buy my soda.
@visible1976 Earth is not perfectly designed to support life. In fact, most of the Earth is uninhabitable (and often downright hostile) to human beings.
We now know that our universe contains trillions of other planets. Even if only a tiny, tiny fraction of them support life, many other worlds besides our own are likely to be life-bearing.
@visible1976 The word theory has very different meanings depending on the context. In colloquial use, theory is often used to convey the idea of a hunch or a guess.
Scientists do not employ the word theory in the same manner. For scientists, a theory is a comprehensive model that explains phenomena and accurately makes predictions. Theories are the pinnacle of the scientific community's efforts. Though never "proven," a theory becomes stronger through repeated testing over time.
Listening to him was much like my first attempts at comedy...I stole ideas from everyone else....comedy (and deep thinking) only are funny or profound...if you work out your own ideas and thoughts...its totally ok to learn from others about delivery, timing, cadence, and thought pattern, but critical thinking must be done in the crucible of ones own mind and life...
Well, some people(like my self) think that it is highly unlikely that in this vast universe, we are the only creatures (along with our other inhabitants). I myself can't see why not. space exploration isn't necessarily about finding other life forms(that would be kick ass if we did though) , it is about exploration, purely. Also I don't see if it were the case, why it is so bad; Humans spend lots of money on wasteful things, (makeup, fast food service, etc)
As for the statement for life on other planets, the big bang did not disperse things evenly, it simply gave birth to the universe, gravity is what formed the things we see today(solar systems,galaxies) . Space is REALLY big, there for chances of finding life are obviously difficult. The nearest star to us (besides are sun) would take 44 million ( if not more) to get there. By universe terms it is close to us by human terms, that is pretty damn far. we haven't found life due to how large it is
Perfect design? Sir, Earth wasn't designed for us, it is life that evolved, along side Earth that got us where we are today. Earth is littered with dangerous animals, problematic weather (hurricane, thunderstorms), dangerous geological events(volcanoes, earthquake), disease, and not to mention threats from space, (comets, asteroids gamma ray burst etc) The Earth wasn't "designed" to hold life, animals/plants evolved to endure the given environment, but were far from perfect.
I have believed in many irrational things in my life, and luckily for me personally, I have always welcomed that the person I am conversing with may have information that would allow me to realize whether I am right or wrong about my beliefs.
I have empathy for those of us who see debate as a win-lose fight, instead of a learning-teaching experience.
@ProtestantsRUs You must be from norn iron, i'm an atheist but to you i'd be a protestant atheist, is that better than a fenian? LOL (that's laugh out loud not loyal orange lodge!). If you fancy some banter, tell me why the presenters are idiots. Do they not understand the kalam argument?
@ProtestantsRUs How do you support that claim? They in simple terms proved that a mind cannot be a creator of the universe, and thus spacetime, without already existing in space and time, which would discredit the idea of a god.
I do think that perhaps the host on the right wasn't respectful to the caller, but they aren't certainly idiots.
The caller is right lol again the host are ignorant biased men. Weather he read this from a book or website is irrelevant because atheist people try to explain thing from facts and logic. Well based on all the facts of time, gravity, space, everything we know cannot be explain without some sort of supreme being. What is the caller getting his facts from? SCIENTISTS. People who have written laws of physics', things we learn in school. The big bang theory, single cells organisms, all make n
p.s. saying "i don't know how it works" is not an argument for something. You can't say we don't know how the universe came into existence therefore God did it. That's not an argument.
@ReconFan117 "Well based on all the facts of time, gravity, space, everything we know cannot be explain without some sort of supreme being" I am amazed at the amount of fallacies you manage to include in one sentence.
"What is the caller getting his facts from? SCIENTISTS" Yes. Followed by a non-scientific conclusion which is dishonestly presented as if it also comes from scientists.
Dear Me , I wonder if that guy woke up in the morning in a pile of beer cans. "Damn! normally I just piss on a police car and sleep in a hedge , but yesterday I went on TV and REALLY fucked it up !"
I really hate both of these hosts. Both of them should have screamed ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM the very moment this guy defined his 'proof'. Of course neither of them did.
All the callers want to find a reason to believe. It's bred into their phych by the parents. They are struggling with faith and what the world tells them. They should be helped to understand not mocked by comments. They are brainwashed.
Simple to debunk. If you have to resort to an eternal being that created the universe then why can´t the universe be Eternal?. check mate. The Cosmological Argument is just as dumb as dumb can be, but it has had a lot of press, it is the Mike Myers of Argumentation. Big load of crap if you ask anyone with some filosophical background.
@DrErkencho oooooooh i'm totally with ya but it's a little unfair on mike myers if you ask me... yeah he's not the best but surely there are better examples of overrated comics - dennis leary maybe?
hehe, (laughter) yeap bud, Dennis Leary would do. When this argument meets a real Filosopher is like a Dennis Leary vs. Lewis Black night!!. BTW, for those who care, the universe quite posibly HAD a begining, AND IS ETERNAL -both-. How so? the freaking singularity, "before" the inflation (big bang) time seaces to exist. Not your average reading for a toilet visit but you can find literature on the subject, as well as lenghty cosmology careers to spare your monkey brains on. ];)
Step One: If you're going to call an argue a topic, you should *probably* know what you're talking about first lol. This was so embarrassing to watch.
Lol this guy is fucking retarted, people who believe in bullshit they have no proof for are retarted, just kill yourself and see how fast it takes you to get to heaven
@sansdeity420 Not being a pussy, but I'm not labeling myself as something I'm not, if something's proven then I have absolutely no problem believing it, but if there's nothing being disproved I'm not going to dismiss it all together...
Russels Tea Pot right from the first sentance, nice try. And the Big Bang is one of several contempary theories on the "origin" of the universe. Also, this guy might be on a low dose of mushrooms.
"I know that's not the definition of 'proof'." lol I wish I could do that in court. "I know that the fingerprints, DNA, and video you have show I murdered that person, but I'm going tell you that fingerprints, DNA, and video evidence do not count. Do we agree on that? Well, we have to agree on that for my argument to work. Therefore I didn't commit the murder and you have to let me go. Good day to all in the countroom. Goodbye."
PS. The caller failed to properly argue the reasoning behind the creator having a mind. The thinking is, There can be nothing in the universe that the creating process does not possess.Consciousness is in the universe, therefor the creator must possess consciousness. However, the current scientific model doesn't attribute some special status to consciousness, it's a physical process that occurs at the end of a very long line of chemical reactions. The brain is NOT an irreducibly complex organ.
Lol, this is a basic philosophical argument for the existence of god. I can agree with all the conclusions about the process(or being) that caused creation except the argument that the thing would need to have a mind. The Idea of a mind that is outside of time is nonsense idea, what does that even mean? Minds process store and recall information based on linear time...
no sientific proof of god can exist and if theres a scientific proof then its not god since god should be supernatural hence not bound by laws of nature.end of story
Hahaha he doesn't even understand what he is saying, he obviously just googled "proof of god" and read what was on the screen, and when these guys raise issues with it he's just like "uhhh"
@helloyouregarbage Well if you listen they state that they just spent the start of the show talking about why this argument is flawed. This gentleman just called in unknowingly and asked all the same questions again.
@Mikeelshamy The argument isn't flawed. At all. The Atheist Experience, is, however. LOL They're concerned with where he got the argument from? GARBAGE. They're going to try and discredit the guy, after not even letting him finish, and, they ask him totally irrelevant questions. Get as far away from the argument as possible and then call it speculatioin. Atheism is PURE speculation.
@helloyouregarbage LOL no I think you missed the point. The episode started with discussion of the argument and its many flaws and when they concluded the argument as speculative they took calls. LOL This is when the clip begins and caller again raises the topic as if they had not addressed it LOL. LOL they ask him where he got this from because he seemed to be reading, LOL, and not really know what he was reading LOL. How is atheism Speculation? It's the rejection of a claim for lack of proof.
Just saying, isn't it all speculation? Aren't religious/spiritual people speculating too? We can't know what is unknowable, so we're all just speculating. haha Let's not forget to throw the baby (religion) OUT with the bathwater (atheism), in that case! None of us know, so let's stop arguing about what none of us know and just focus on the knowable -- the world and its millions of problems.
I love how every time they respond to what he says he gets a really high pitched voice and whines about them not letting him finish. This clearly did not go down the way he thought it would.
@BastEternal Not necessarily. He's just not able to articulate it and these guys start darting questions at him in efforts to confuse him. Don't care what you say, atheists main weapon is confusion.
"What does a mind have to do with it?"
You see where these guys are lacking?? What does a mind have to do with coming up with something so infinitely complex, that we're able to be here "debating" that "mind".
I'ts fucking CONSCIOUSNESS! LMFAO Strike fear in the hearts of scientists
LOL @ 2:09 "this idiot proclaims "ANY OBJECTIONS?" like he just made an original and very intelligent argument. Too bad he completely stole it, besides the fact it's a horrible argument that he doesn't even comprehend.
@mmeasy123 An argument doesn't have to be "original". In fact, almost all "ideas" are decidedly NOT original. Nearly all "derived" from some other. Ironically, atheists get all their "humanist" perspectives from, oh, wait for it, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIONS (i.e. humanity). Consciousness is a stream, sparking in the present leaving a very tangible trail in it's wake. So atheists find themselves borrowing, very evidently, from religion at the same time openly and very vocally condemning it.
@helloyouregarbage You're kidding right? Atheists get there morals from religion? Did you think at all before you posted that or are you just trolling for a reaction?
@helloyouregarbage Sure Atheists borrow some concepts from religions. They have had some good ideas over time (I think far more bad ideas than good). Some of Jesus' teachings were decent enough. We just reject the notion of the super natural. If a religion says do not murder I think that is a good idea, I just want to separate that from some silly notion of a god. Also remember all modern religions have pretty much stolen their stories from past religions. So I dont think this is so ironic.
@helloyouregarbage yes i do believe that we borrowed ideas from religion like morality, being good, kind and being fair but not those scientific nonsense and irrationality what most religions say. you can be good, kind, fair, you can feed the poor, you can help, you can be moral even without engaging in any religion
@helloyouregarbage im with you on your point that it doesn matter where he got his argument. on your other point. where do religions get their morals? god? and you know that because some guy in the bible or hell in a veda wrote it ?
i love how those nutjobs try to to proof their god by some theorie that religion, if it still had had the power, would have crushed in its infancy. Im sorry but an argument like that can only come from an idiot
It's hilarious. He doesn't even understand what he's reading. He couldn't break that down into layman's terms, and that's the hallmark of all "higher" Christian apologetics. They figure that if they just devolve into semantic arguments or abstract philosophy, that that will somehow awe into silence people who are intelligent. Really, the only people impressed by such incomprehensible garbage are the Christians who don't understand it and aren't able to see the flaws.
My name is also Ken, and I can prove God exists: God is mad at those guys for being Atheists, so he made them lose their hair. The guy on the left isn't as big of an atheist, so he only suffers from thinning hair. Matt, the biggest Atheist of them all, has absolutely NO HAIR!!!
@IpponDropkick Yes, I've seen Thuderf00t. I was joking. I've posted that same comment about Matt several dozen times, waiting for someone to swallow the bait, and run with it. As Edward Current would say "Checkmate, Atheist"!
@jonyzion Flawed premise, argument from ignorance and straw man fallacy. Now then, since we do not CURRENTLY know what "caused" the universe (not sure a cause is reasonable), that automatically means your god did it? That's the argument from ignorance fallacy. Would you care to restate or are you going to so what all theists do and use ad hominem when their internal logic is challenged?
You cannot cause the quality of "cause and effect". That is nonsensical. There is no "cause and effect" unless there is time, and time was part of the thing "caused", therefore "caused" is the wrong word entirely. It's like saying one has to have SuperNorth that is North of the exact north pole which caused the North pole and allows for a southerly direction at every other place on earth. Nonsense.
how is he stupid? I've personally had a good one on one conversation Martin and he is pretty far from stupid, i'd like to hear what your opinion on his intellect is and why.
@Feralus69 Hi, Feral. I admit my reaction was a bit over-stated but what I meant was that, after the caller gave his first couple of points, the host said that all he was discussing were "completely speculative ideas." It amazes me that people like this actually downplay the big bang and deny the law of causality because they support theism. You know darn well that they wouldn't make that claim if it supported atheism. What if I claimed evolution was just a "speculative idea"? (cont.)
Well the "law of causality" only complies to things we know have a cause, which is what a law is. What the point was from my understanding was the caller was taking that law out of context to try and say that everything in existence has a cause or a beginning, which we don't know. He was confusing the big bang start with the start of everything in general and the big bang never says anything before it, I think this was the major misunderstanding that he simply couldnt understand.
@Feralus69 To my knowledge, no one ever makes the claim that EVERYTHING has a cause. But everything that comes to exist has a cause. If the universe were eternal we wouldn't need God, but it is not eternal so it had a beginning and requires a cause. The law of causality is not so much a law like gravity. It's more like a law of logic. It would still be valid in an other universe.
"But everything that comes to exist has a cause. If the universe were eternal we wouldn't need God, but it is not eternal so it had a beginning"
How do you know it had a cause, what if the universe is eternal in one form or another? The big bang is just the start of the universe as we know it, not the absolute beginning.
@Feralus69 "what if the universe is eternal in one form or another?" Cosmologists and astrophysicists say it had a beginning. An eternal number of big bangs is impossible due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
"You know darn well that they wouldn't make that claim if it supported atheism."
I don't understand this statement, atheism cannot be supported unless it can be proven that no god exists which in itself is unfalsifiable. And I'm sure they would be honest either way, I have yet to come across any of the hosts of TAE being dishonest.
@Feralus69 The "they" in my statement here was referring to atheists in general - not the hosts of this show. An eternal universe would support atheism. In fact, scientists made that claim for centuries and it was they who rejected the big gang evidence because it sounded a little to much like the Bible's description of the beginning of the universe. Now that we know the universe had a beginning, they have to deny the evidence for the big bang and the law of causality.
No they didn't, show me, then i'll show you how your wrong.
"Thats not why it was rejected." Wanna bet?"
Yes, I'll confidently bet my left testicle.
"Yes. It would eliminate the need for God which is why you are fighting for it so hard."
No, it wouldnt, an eternal universe would not falsify an "eternal" god, all it would falsify is the creation, that's it, not the god. And I dont care if one exists or not, im not fighting "so hard" to not believe.
@bestvalue "I have tons of books full of evidence for God." No, you don't. "1/ The cosmological argument" LOL "2/ The anthropic principle" Double LOL "3/ The moral argument" triple LOL, really dude, if you don't understand why those aren't fallacious or not proving any type of god I doubt anything I could say would unbrainwash you. "I said that already and math is not science." Math is part of science. And yes, you said it, which is why I dont understand why you said otherwise.
"Well science doesn't give you "proof" but mathematics and logic do so"
I agree but when talking to the uneducated proof and evidence kinda are interchangeable to get to the point of the argument. I bet if you talked to most any layman on what evidence or proof is they would generally define them both as pretty much the same thing, I think the hosts were trying to dumb everything down for the caller to understand their points.
LOL@creationists... fucking morons
outlaw87100 7 hours ago
These guys say Ahhhhhh... way too much!
keter1234 5 days ago
All I heard from the caller was "hurrrrrrrrr durrrrrr."
affinity2412 1 week ago
@affinity2412 That's basically what I heard because he couldn't even say like 80% of the words he was trying to say. People like this make me facepalm so hard.
66gt40lm 5 days ago
I've always thought Russell looks like a skinny/dorky version of Bill Goldberg.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 1 week ago
poor guy. completely confused. I could have defended the cause he suggested way better than him
InfinityDz 3 weeks ago
"Did you hear the things I just said?" he says, as if he can't comprehend that he didn't just blow their minds and turn them both into theists.
GuacamoleKun 1 month ago
These are the people that WLC has backing him, haha.
BER2ERKER 1 month ago 3
@BER2ERKER Still sad that so many people are blind to the logical fallacies in this argument.
thomaseshuis 2 weeks ago
Proof that this guy is Cleveland Brown: He pronounces 'materials' as 'meturials'
SmiliSkater8P 1 month ago
Why is it stupid people don't seem to realise how stupid they are?
They should shut the hell up for a while, go read something / learn something,
and then come back when they can formulate a sentence.
( They would probably still be wrong, but hey, at least hopefully one could ask them a question without having to explain things 3 plus times? )
PiskieBenWa 2 months ago
Attempt is the key word.
PiskieBenWa 2 months ago
Gods don't have to be accountable for their actions who really wants that?
MrPurpose79 2 months ago
@MrPurpose79 You just heated a point, because pretty much people believe what they want to believe!
Peristerygr 1 month ago
A lot of these people are asleep to the fact that trading all their freedom for
immortality is actually a nightmare and they only believe because they want
their god to do ONLY the things they WANT:)
MrPurpose79 2 months ago
People just can't except the possiblilty that our pathetic brains probably can't
understand how the universe came into existence because we are all trapped in linear time. Saying it was a god doesn't answer the question because noone can
explain how something could have always existed with no beginning.
MrPurpose79 2 months ago
Did this douche actually just read from WLC?
Ematched 3 months ago
at 1:30 moohammad is like "ugh, what an udder fool!"
Enkarashaddam 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it's timeless and .... uhh... created the universe because ...uhh... it's got electrolytes. And plants crave electrolytes, so that means god made the universe
joejohnoptimus 3 months ago
Comment removed
joejohnoptimus 3 months ago
lol
Ollychamberlain 3 months ago
Ye gods!! The caller has no clue what he is trying to say. He seems to be able to read, but not pronounce the big words, let alone understand what he is reading. He can not speak either. He is also clueless on how to present his side. It is so very obvious that he is trying, and failing badly, to read from a text. Painful to watch.
AthenaSchroedinger 3 months ago
lol. If you listen to this with ear buds on, you can hear the crew in the background laughing at this guy. If I were sitting on the panel, and hearing my crew laughing, theres NO WAY I could keep a straight face.
jgm1234567 3 months ago
The caller obviously has no idea what he is spouting. Another example of a mindless drone. *sigh*
manazoa 3 months ago
He might have done a bit better if he at least attempted to understand the argument before reading it out.
gextvedde 4 months ago
caller: Heres my argument! Ha you can't denie that can you!
Host: We spent the first 20 minutes pointing out the flaws in the argument that you just read us after typing in the topic in google....
caller: but but but but...
neverfearchrisishere 4 months ago 9
listening to this caller think is like watching a toddler trying to learn how to ice skate. the poor guy just falls on his ass with every step.
hardinmichael1981 4 months ago
This caller is a total idiot...he couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.
mikefromwa 5 months ago
I feel sorry for this guy. He clearly thought he was going to destroy them by simply reading out loud. And I agree; he has no idea what he's reading.
crabbieappleton 5 months ago
Big Bang Cosmology supports the evidence for a creator.
mas03 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mas03
"Big Bang Cosmology supports the evidence for a creator."
What does "supports the evidence" even mean? It's either evidence or it isn't. And no, the Big Bang only means that the universe as we know it was once very small, very dense and very hot. That's all.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mas03 "Big Bang Cosmology supports the evidence for a creator."
How so?
Landofjello 4 months ago
@mas03 a creator creating the universe could look very much like the big bang but there is jack all evidence for it. at this point you only have a hypothesis, now design an experiment to prove it.
morpheuskibbe 4 months ago
@morpheuskibbe you CANT PROVE IT...we can only have good evidence for it, and thats damn near good evidence. We accept things based on overwhelming evidence
mas03 4 months ago
@mas03 good evidence is near good evidence and that's overwhelming evidence? COMMANDER TAUTOLOGY STRIKES AGAIN. and no, the fact that it could have happened one way and cant be proven that it didn't is NOT proof that it did. its not even evidence that it did. someone COULD have given me a soda, them giving me a soda would explain why i have a soda, but that's not proof or evidence that i DIDN'T just buy my soda.
morpheuskibbe 4 months ago
@visible1976 Earth is not perfectly designed to support life. In fact, most of the Earth is uninhabitable (and often downright hostile) to human beings.
We now know that our universe contains trillions of other planets. Even if only a tiny, tiny fraction of them support life, many other worlds besides our own are likely to be life-bearing.
llkeith77 5 months ago
@visible1976 The word theory has very different meanings depending on the context. In colloquial use, theory is often used to convey the idea of a hunch or a guess.
Scientists do not employ the word theory in the same manner. For scientists, a theory is a comprehensive model that explains phenomena and accurately makes predictions. Theories are the pinnacle of the scientific community's efforts. Though never "proven," a theory becomes stronger through repeated testing over time.
llkeith77 5 months ago
this is painful to listen to, and i wonder if he even understands what he's saying
turdwithau 5 months ago
Listening to him was much like my first attempts at comedy...I stole ideas from everyone else....comedy (and deep thinking) only are funny or profound...if you work out your own ideas and thoughts...its totally ok to learn from others about delivery, timing, cadence, and thought pattern, but critical thinking must be done in the crucible of ones own mind and life...
scootkh 5 months ago
poor kenny, he's obviously reading off of a script, and doesn't even understand his own argument.
spacewolf5462 5 months ago
@visible1976
Well, some people(like my self) think that it is highly unlikely that in this vast universe, we are the only creatures (along with our other inhabitants). I myself can't see why not. space exploration isn't necessarily about finding other life forms(that would be kick ass if we did though) , it is about exploration, purely. Also I don't see if it were the case, why it is so bad; Humans spend lots of money on wasteful things, (makeup, fast food service, etc)
Collective122 5 months ago
'ok' , 'ok?', 'ok', 'ok'
Heffsta02 5 months ago
As for the statement for life on other planets, the big bang did not disperse things evenly, it simply gave birth to the universe, gravity is what formed the things we see today(solar systems,galaxies) . Space is REALLY big, there for chances of finding life are obviously difficult. The nearest star to us (besides are sun) would take 44 million ( if not more) to get there. By universe terms it is close to us by human terms, that is pretty damn far. we haven't found life due to how large it is
Collective122 5 months ago
@visible1976
Perfect design? Sir, Earth wasn't designed for us, it is life that evolved, along side Earth that got us where we are today. Earth is littered with dangerous animals, problematic weather (hurricane, thunderstorms), dangerous geological events(volcanoes, earthquake), disease, and not to mention threats from space, (comets, asteroids gamma ray burst etc) The Earth wasn't "designed" to hold life, animals/plants evolved to endure the given environment, but were far from perfect.
Collective122 5 months ago
I have believed in many irrational things in my life, and luckily for me personally, I have always welcomed that the person I am conversing with may have information that would allow me to realize whether I am right or wrong about my beliefs.
I have empathy for those of us who see debate as a win-lose fight, instead of a learning-teaching experience.
WickeDFate4 6 months ago
astronomically stupid
allanoliver1985 6 months ago
you gotta give it to the callers....they keep getting their ass handed to them and still they keep comming for more....
are they brave?commited?crazy?hopeful?tenacious?
sabin97 6 months ago
if matt was on he would of cut him off 2 minutes in
TheGamerDrone 6 months ago
2:00 definition of bored.
blakdust3 6 months ago
Both the hosts are idiots. The caller has no clue, but the hosts are barely more intelligent...
ProtestantsRUs 6 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs You must be from norn iron, i'm an atheist but to you i'd be a protestant atheist, is that better than a fenian? LOL (that's laugh out loud not loyal orange lodge!). If you fancy some banter, tell me why the presenters are idiots. Do they not understand the kalam argument?
1empathy 6 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs How do you support that claim? They in simple terms proved that a mind cannot be a creator of the universe, and thus spacetime, without already existing in space and time, which would discredit the idea of a god.
I do think that perhaps the host on the right wasn't respectful to the caller, but they aren't certainly idiots.
SREproducciones 5 months ago
The caller is right lol again the host are ignorant biased men. Weather he read this from a book or website is irrelevant because atheist people try to explain thing from facts and logic. Well based on all the facts of time, gravity, space, everything we know cannot be explain without some sort of supreme being. What is the caller getting his facts from? SCIENTISTS. People who have written laws of physics', things we learn in school. The big bang theory, single cells organisms, all make n
ReconFan117 6 months ago
@ReconFan117 LOL "weather"
p.s. saying "i don't know how it works" is not an argument for something. You can't say we don't know how the universe came into existence therefore God did it. That's not an argument.
ImmaDwarfKicker 6 months ago
@ReconFan117 "Well based on all the facts of time, gravity, space, everything we know cannot be explain without some sort of supreme being" I am amazed at the amount of fallacies you manage to include in one sentence.
"What is the caller getting his facts from? SCIENTISTS" Yes. Followed by a non-scientific conclusion which is dishonestly presented as if it also comes from scientists.
ScientificBob 6 months ago
Dear Me , I wonder if that guy woke up in the morning in a pile of beer cans. "Damn! normally I just piss on a police car and sleep in a hedge , but yesterday I went on TV and REALLY fucked it up !"
ilikezappa 6 months ago
I really hate both of these hosts. Both of them should have screamed ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIUM the very moment this guy defined his 'proof'. Of course neither of them did.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
I was going to that--I'm almost done guys...
cowboyweightlifter 7 months ago
It could just create it spontaneously.
AEVautomatic 7 months ago
I'm almost done guys....
oneznzeroz 7 months ago
Arguments are best made when the arguer knows whats he's arguing.
gabeasher187 7 months ago
omg 5.39 "Only a tree agent" did I just hear that right?
jomahubo 7 months ago
@jomahubo
Damn 'f's and 't's look so similar >_<
ChiliTomatoNoodle 7 months ago
painful.
trident3b 7 months ago
@trident3b So, so painful,
theanvilcracks 7 months ago
It's not exactly the Kalam... I'm just making it up as I go along.
klutterkicker 7 months ago
I want that plush cow, so cute.
aierce 7 months ago
Close up on the cow?
tetrahydroscope 7 months ago
All the callers want to find a reason to believe. It's bred into their phych by the parents. They are struggling with faith and what the world tells them. They should be helped to understand not mocked by comments. They are brainwashed.
thomask365 8 months ago
Let me also note that if something is unchanging then it cant be a 1st cause.
PaperNun 8 months ago
@28 That's called an argument from silence, which is a fallacy.
PaperNun 8 months ago
William Lane Craig is a classic example of how dumb highly intelligent people can become when they endeavor to defend and sell Christianity.
nosajj12345 8 months ago
Where can I get one of those sacred cows??
Do these guys sell them by any chance.
nosajj12345 8 months ago
Simple to debunk. If you have to resort to an eternal being that created the universe then why can´t the universe be Eternal?. check mate. The Cosmological Argument is just as dumb as dumb can be, but it has had a lot of press, it is the Mike Myers of Argumentation. Big load of crap if you ask anyone with some filosophical background.
DrErkencho 8 months ago
@DrErkencho oooooooh i'm totally with ya but it's a little unfair on mike myers if you ask me... yeah he's not the best but surely there are better examples of overrated comics - dennis leary maybe?
PlanetBongoSan 8 months ago
@PlanetBongoSan
hehe, (laughter) yeap bud, Dennis Leary would do. When this argument meets a real Filosopher is like a Dennis Leary vs. Lewis Black night!!. BTW, for those who care, the universe quite posibly HAD a begining, AND IS ETERNAL -both-. How so? the freaking singularity, "before" the inflation (big bang) time seaces to exist. Not your average reading for a toilet visit but you can find literature on the subject, as well as lenghty cosmology careers to spare your monkey brains on. ];)
DrErkencho 8 months ago
He is reading it of of "Naturalism, A Critical analisys" from William Lane Craig - Rootledge 2001.
];)
DrErkencho 8 months ago
Step One: If you're going to call an argue a topic, you should *probably* know what you're talking about first lol. This was so embarrassing to watch.
MadamAtheist 8 months ago
I think the caller is broken!
Lesouder2222Music 8 months ago
"first off, what are you reading from?"
lol, i don't know why, but i found like kind of funny :).
belladonna4577 8 months ago
Lol this guy is fucking retarted, people who believe in bullshit they have no proof for are retarted, just kill yourself and see how fast it takes you to get to heaven
Stryker795 8 months ago
@Stryker795
You really should not use the word retarded when you can't spell it properly. Just sayin'
1ProudFemaleAtheist 8 months ago
Why do all theists that call this show soundlike retards.
Is it the local variety.?
tilemacro 8 months ago
@tilemacro Because they are
petion2010 8 months ago
@tilemacro it's Austin Texas guy,it's really hard to find smarter than this caller.
molyvenson 8 months ago
@tilemacro Is the worldwide variety
LesPaul2006 8 months ago
"Here is how i define fact"
"i know thats not the definition of fact"
What a moron
deathman1021 9 months ago
I'm agnostic, but your objection referring to the line of creation, how was the tempered atom created before the big bang?
SandPaperCookies 9 months ago
@SandPaperCookies No one knows, but science does not claim to know in fact its proud that weve gotten this far in our investigation.
Anyone that tells you they know for a fact is not telling the truth *Cough* Christians *cough*
Never beleive anyone that tells you a "fact" with no proof
deathman1021 9 months ago 2
@SandPaperCookies look up 'agnostic'. if you have no belief in god/s, you're an atheist. stop being a pussy and label yourself correctly
sansdeity420 8 months ago
@sansdeity420 Not being a pussy, but I'm not labeling myself as something I'm not, if something's proven then I have absolutely no problem believing it, but if there's nothing being disproved I'm not going to dismiss it all together...
SandPaperCookies 8 months ago
Russels Tea Pot right from the first sentance, nice try. And the Big Bang is one of several contempary theories on the "origin" of the universe. Also, this guy might be on a low dose of mushrooms.
CatFacedKillers 9 months ago
Russels Tea Pot right from the first sentance, nice try.
CatFacedKillers 9 months ago
These guys are clowns. And so are their staged phone calls.
MrLas74 9 months ago
@MrLas74
well that is a bold claim
what evidence do you have to conclude that sir?
matereymate 9 months ago
@MrLas74 Oh yeah, and I suppose 9/11 was an inside job? You're just as bad as these callers.
foxmcloud555 8 months ago
"I know that's not the definition of 'proof'." lol I wish I could do that in court. "I know that the fingerprints, DNA, and video you have show I murdered that person, but I'm going tell you that fingerprints, DNA, and video evidence do not count. Do we agree on that? Well, we have to agree on that for my argument to work. Therefore I didn't commit the murder and you have to let me go. Good day to all in the countroom. Goodbye."
greyeyed123 9 months ago
This Ken guy is annoying.
STGManagment 9 months ago
Wow he is trying to just read the whole WLC argument and pass it off as his own without any real discussion.
Airmanf7 9 months ago
I knew it was William Craig Lane right away.
MrGreeneggsnham 9 months ago
Reading out loud fail.
hairychris444 9 months ago
PS. The caller failed to properly argue the reasoning behind the creator having a mind. The thinking is, There can be nothing in the universe that the creating process does not possess.Consciousness is in the universe, therefor the creator must possess consciousness. However, the current scientific model doesn't attribute some special status to consciousness, it's a physical process that occurs at the end of a very long line of chemical reactions. The brain is NOT an irreducibly complex organ.
Kajintoz 10 months ago
Lol, this is a basic philosophical argument for the existence of god. I can agree with all the conclusions about the process(or being) that caused creation except the argument that the thing would need to have a mind. The Idea of a mind that is outside of time is nonsense idea, what does that even mean? Minds process store and recall information based on linear time...
Kajintoz 10 months ago
Pfff...boring....
no sientific proof of god can exist and if theres a scientific proof then its not god since god should be supernatural hence not bound by laws of nature.end of story
Fireonmyhand 10 months ago
Hahaha he doesn't even understand what he is saying, he obviously just googled "proof of god" and read what was on the screen, and when these guys raise issues with it he's just like "uhhh"
GarretsShadow 10 months ago
What are these guys? LOL GARBAGE! Never refuted the argument. AT ALL!
helloyouregarbage 10 months ago
@helloyouregarbage Well if you listen they state that they just spent the start of the show talking about why this argument is flawed. This gentleman just called in unknowingly and asked all the same questions again.
Mikeelshamy 10 months ago
@Mikeelshamy The argument isn't flawed. At all. The Atheist Experience, is, however. LOL They're concerned with where he got the argument from? GARBAGE. They're going to try and discredit the guy, after not even letting him finish, and, they ask him totally irrelevant questions. Get as far away from the argument as possible and then call it speculatioin. Atheism is PURE speculation.
helloyouregarbage 10 months ago
@helloyouregarbage LOL no I think you missed the point. The episode started with discussion of the argument and its many flaws and when they concluded the argument as speculative they took calls. LOL This is when the clip begins and caller again raises the topic as if they had not addressed it LOL. LOL they ask him where he got this from because he seemed to be reading, LOL, and not really know what he was reading LOL. How is atheism Speculation? It's the rejection of a claim for lack of proof.
Mikeelshamy 10 months ago
Also side note When talking to people try not to use things like 'lol' when you type it makes you look like an ass.
Mikeelshamy 10 months ago
@helloyouregarbage
Just saying, isn't it all speculation? Aren't religious/spiritual people speculating too? We can't know what is unknowable, so we're all just speculating. haha Let's not forget to throw the baby (religion) OUT with the bathwater (atheism), in that case! None of us know, so let's stop arguing about what none of us know and just focus on the knowable -- the world and its millions of problems.
arc27 8 months ago
@helloyouregarbage
And if the two guys in the video were unfairly trying to discredit the apologist, I wouldn't know because I'm at work and I can't turn up the volume.
arc27 8 months ago
He sounds like he's reading a script.
Southparker100000000 10 months ago
I love how every time they respond to what he says he gets a really high pitched voice and whines about them not letting him finish. This clearly did not go down the way he thought it would.
RichT519 10 months ago
Caller: "Pacifically..." 3:15
*LOL*
With that said, obviously he's not paraphrasing..he's reading a bunch of esoteric nonsense that even HE can't understand.
If he truly understood his position, he wouldn't be reading from something to explain it.
BastEternal 10 months ago
@BastEternal Not necessarily. He's just not able to articulate it and these guys start darting questions at him in efforts to confuse him. Don't care what you say, atheists main weapon is confusion.
"What does a mind have to do with it?"
You see where these guys are lacking?? What does a mind have to do with coming up with something so infinitely complex, that we're able to be here "debating" that "mind".
I'ts fucking CONSCIOUSNESS! LMFAO Strike fear in the hearts of scientists
helloyouregarbage 10 months ago
ok? ok. ok. ok? ok. wait. ok. ok?
oliverjre 10 months ago
@oliverjre hahahaha
mmeasy123 10 months ago
LOL @ 2:09 "this idiot proclaims "ANY OBJECTIONS?" like he just made an original and very intelligent argument. Too bad he completely stole it, besides the fact it's a horrible argument that he doesn't even comprehend.
mmeasy123 10 months ago
@mmeasy123 An argument doesn't have to be "original". In fact, almost all "ideas" are decidedly NOT original. Nearly all "derived" from some other. Ironically, atheists get all their "humanist" perspectives from, oh, wait for it, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIONS (i.e. humanity). Consciousness is a stream, sparking in the present leaving a very tangible trail in it's wake. So atheists find themselves borrowing, very evidently, from religion at the same time openly and very vocally condemning it.
helloyouregarbage 10 months ago
@helloyouregarbage You're kidding right? Atheists get there morals from religion? Did you think at all before you posted that or are you just trolling for a reaction?
mmeasy123 10 months ago
@helloyouregarbage Sure Atheists borrow some concepts from religions. They have had some good ideas over time (I think far more bad ideas than good). Some of Jesus' teachings were decent enough. We just reject the notion of the super natural. If a religion says do not murder I think that is a good idea, I just want to separate that from some silly notion of a god. Also remember all modern religions have pretty much stolen their stories from past religions. So I dont think this is so ironic.
Mikeelshamy 10 months ago
@helloyouregarbage yes i do believe that we borrowed ideas from religion like morality, being good, kind and being fair but not those scientific nonsense and irrationality what most religions say. you can be good, kind, fair, you can feed the poor, you can help, you can be moral even without engaging in any religion
chriss061810 10 months ago
@helloyouregarbage im with you on your point that it doesn matter where he got his argument. on your other point. where do religions get their morals? god? and you know that because some guy in the bible or hell in a veda wrote it ?
Fireonmyhand 10 months ago
Im a creationists, and I facepalm at these callers -.-
THClypse 10 months ago
Wheres your proof? THIS WEED GIVES ME PROOF!
kalebird 10 months ago
What's with the cow?
lavacape 10 months ago
@lavacape It's The Holy Cow.
GakitUp 10 months ago
@lavacape Its "Moohammad" the Holy Cow.
pythor2 10 months ago
It's not smart to try and argue a point that you don't fully understand.
xxxrobert123xxx 11 months ago
Words and Sentences for Dummies (c)
namnack 11 months ago
8:44 = Cow mind for the WIN!
freephil630 11 months ago
hahaha everyone sounds intellegent when they cite wikipedia
bulletproofKevlar 11 months ago
@bulletproofKevlar Everyone........except this guy!
Ellie8969 11 months ago
i love how those nutjobs try to to proof their god by some theorie that religion, if it still had had the power, would have crushed in its infancy. Im sorry but an argument like that can only come from an idiot
managarm1349 11 months ago
Why does the first cause keep on existing after its caused?
gulbirk 11 months ago
Listening to the caller you can actually hear the stupid forming and dropping to the ground like little juicy turds.
ciaochowbella 11 months ago
It's hilarious. He doesn't even understand what he's reading. He couldn't break that down into layman's terms, and that's the hallmark of all "higher" Christian apologetics. They figure that if they just devolve into semantic arguments or abstract philosophy, that that will somehow awe into silence people who are intelligent. Really, the only people impressed by such incomprehensible garbage are the Christians who don't understand it and aren't able to see the flaws.
LordBizarre112233 11 months ago 43
@LordBizarre112233 Very well put!!
nosajj12345 11 months ago
This is like listening to a first grader read his/her english book.
7926645 11 months ago
How is it speculation?? I READ IT ON THE INTERNET!!
gigisdad 11 months ago 24
The caller is a mindless drone who does not understand what he is reading?
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 11 months ago
Where-whe-wher-where
How-how-ho-howhow-how
let me-let me-let-lemme-le-let m-what
MoonwalkerWorshiper 11 months ago
Why did they feel they had to give this guy the time they did. He was clearly a mental defective, sad really but not entertaining at all.
kiwicalibre 1 year ago
I would have loved to have said, when he first stopped reading, "OK, now explain what you have just read."
besidemymind 1 year ago
My name is also Ken, and I can prove God exists: God is mad at those guys for being Atheists, so he made them lose their hair. The guy on the left isn't as big of an atheist, so he only suffers from thinning hair. Matt, the biggest Atheist of them all, has absolutely NO HAIR!!!
xcellken1 1 year ago
@xcellken1 have you ever seen Thunderf00t here on youtube? He's an atheist and has a ponytail and a beard!
Your move sir!
IpponDropkick 11 months ago
@IpponDropkick Yes, I've seen Thuderf00t. I was joking. I've posted that same comment about Matt several dozen times, waiting for someone to swallow the bait, and run with it. As Edward Current would say "Checkmate, Atheist"!
xcellken1 11 months ago
@xcellken1 So was I man, so was I.
I thought my "Your move!" would tip you off that it was a joke but it doesn't translat on the web.
IpponDropkick 11 months ago
@IpponDropkick And that's why I quoted Edward Current,an atheist jokestir extraordinaire.
I was really hoping a fundie would take the bait, and then I could see how long I could string them along.
xcellken1 11 months ago
@xcellken1 You son of a....why did you have to introduce me to Edward Current's channel?
I WANTED TO SLEEP TONIGHT.
Now I will spend it all on youtube.
IpponDropkick 11 months ago 2
All this show does is bring in a smart guy (redhead) and a skeptical semi-smart guy
and they tear this poor challenged caller a new one.
Its not so hard to refute this argument with the claim "that is a possibilty but is it a necessity?"
DO YOU THINK THAT IF THE UNIVERSE WAS NOT CAUSED BY ANYTHING IT IS ENTITLED TO THE TITLE "SELF CAUSING" OR MERELY "THAT WHICH HAS NO EXPLANATION"?
jonyzion 1 year ago
@jonyzion Flawed premise, argument from ignorance and straw man fallacy. Now then, since we do not CURRENTLY know what "caused" the universe (not sure a cause is reasonable), that automatically means your god did it? That's the argument from ignorance fallacy. Would you care to restate or are you going to so what all theists do and use ad hominem when their internal logic is challenged?
percivul 1 year ago
You cannot cause the quality of "cause and effect". That is nonsensical. There is no "cause and effect" unless there is time, and time was part of the thing "caused", therefore "caused" is the wrong word entirely. It's like saying one has to have SuperNorth that is North of the exact north pole which caused the North pole and allows for a southerly direction at every other place on earth. Nonsense.
greyeyed123 1 year ago
HAHA hes like "what do you mean? Everything i said was perfect." And there like your a boofoon.
LBTennis 1 year ago
wow. he needs to seriously stop reading and start understanding the science behind it...
WowUrFcknHxC 1 year ago
Holy mackeral, Ken!
88Savant 1 year ago
Oops! The guy on the right just beat him by making the "who made God?" argument. Really lame.
bestvalue 1 year ago
The guy on the left is quite possibly the stupidest atheist I've ever seen (and that's saying a lot).
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
how is he stupid? I've personally had a good one on one conversation Martin and he is pretty far from stupid, i'd like to hear what your opinion on his intellect is and why.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 Hi, Feral. I admit my reaction was a bit over-stated but what I meant was that, after the caller gave his first couple of points, the host said that all he was discussing were "completely speculative ideas." It amazes me that people like this actually downplay the big bang and deny the law of causality because they support theism. You know darn well that they wouldn't make that claim if it supported atheism. What if I claimed evolution was just a "speculative idea"? (cont.)
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
Well the "law of causality" only complies to things we know have a cause, which is what a law is. What the point was from my understanding was the caller was taking that law out of context to try and say that everything in existence has a cause or a beginning, which we don't know. He was confusing the big bang start with the start of everything in general and the big bang never says anything before it, I think this was the major misunderstanding that he simply couldnt understand.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 To my knowledge, no one ever makes the claim that EVERYTHING has a cause. But everything that comes to exist has a cause. If the universe were eternal we wouldn't need God, but it is not eternal so it had a beginning and requires a cause. The law of causality is not so much a law like gravity. It's more like a law of logic. It would still be valid in an other universe.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
"But everything that comes to exist has a cause. If the universe were eternal we wouldn't need God, but it is not eternal so it had a beginning"
How do you know it had a cause, what if the universe is eternal in one form or another? The big bang is just the start of the universe as we know it, not the absolute beginning.
"It would still be valid in an other universe."
How do you know this?
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 "what if the universe is eternal in one form or another?" Cosmologists and astrophysicists say it had a beginning. An eternal number of big bangs is impossible due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
"Cosmologists and astrophysicists say it had a beginning."
our universe in its current form did, not the universe as a thing. Might wanna look into it.
"An eternal number of big bangs is impossible due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
lolwut? That doesn't say its impossible.
"I would disagree and I've proved it on YouTube more than once"
You are talking to a few atheists then blanketing, you are aware that most buddhists are atheists right? and raliens.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@bestvalue
"You know darn well that they wouldn't make that claim if it supported atheism."
I don't understand this statement, atheism cannot be supported unless it can be proven that no god exists which in itself is unfalsifiable. And I'm sure they would be honest either way, I have yet to come across any of the hosts of TAE being dishonest.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 The "they" in my statement here was referring to atheists in general - not the hosts of this show. An eternal universe would support atheism. In fact, scientists made that claim for centuries and it was they who rejected the big gang evidence because it sounded a little to much like the Bible's description of the beginning of the universe. Now that we know the universe had a beginning, they have to deny the evidence for the big bang and the law of causality.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
"The "they" in my statement here was referring to atheists in general - not the hosts of this show."
Atheists arent in a group, there is no way to blanket statement atheists since there is no set of beliefs.
"An eternal universe would support atheism."
No it wouldn't
"In fact, scientists made that claim for centuries"
No they didn't, it's a hypothesis
"like the Bible's description of the beginning of the universe"
Thats not why it was rejected. Science doesnt work that way
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 "there is no way to blanket statement atheists since there is no set of beliefs."
I would disagree and I've proved it on YouTube more than once but okay, the atheists I've had contact with.
"An eternal universe would support atheism." "No it wouldn't" Yes. It would eliminate the need for God which is why you are fighting for it so hard.
"In fact, scientists made that claim for centuries" "No they didn't, it's a hypothesis" Yes they did.
Thats not why it was rejected." Wanna bet?
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
"Yes they did."
No they didn't, show me, then i'll show you how your wrong.
"Thats not why it was rejected." Wanna bet?"
Yes, I'll confidently bet my left testicle.
"Yes. It would eliminate the need for God which is why you are fighting for it so hard."
No, it wouldnt, an eternal universe would not falsify an "eternal" god, all it would falsify is the creation, that's it, not the god. And I dont care if one exists or not, im not fighting "so hard" to not believe.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@bestvalue
"Now that we know the universe had a beginning"
We dont know that, we know that there was a beginning to this current state, not the universe as a thing.
"You really believe that they were dumbing it down for the caller?"
Yea, did you listen to him?
"There is lots of evidence for the existence of God"
Give one, you would be the first.
"In fact, neither can anything in science."
Mathematics can.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 "Give one, you would be the first."
Please. As if. I have tons of books full of evidence for God. But here's 3:
1/ The cosmological argument
2/ The anthropic principle and
3/ The moral argument
"Mathematics can."
I said that already and math is not science.
bestvalue 1 year ago
Feralus69 1 year ago
@bestvalue
"Well science doesn't give you "proof" but mathematics and logic do so"
I agree but when talking to the uneducated proof and evidence kinda are interchangeable to get to the point of the argument. I bet if you talked to most any layman on what evidence or proof is they would generally define them both as pretty much the same thing, I think the hosts were trying to dumb everything down for the caller to understand their points.
Feralus69 1 year ago