You seem to be an earnest, articulate young man. therefore I emplore you, Research the origin of the book you rely so heavily on, I suggest 'The council of Nicea' as a starting point. Evolution as a concept doesn't deny the existense of God,it merely suggests his method of creation. I believe in creation through evolution. I also 'believe' that our consciousness has primacy over the physical universe. Hold up the book in your hand and look at it then consider:
@NeoLeaver ''The Bible is the word of God and the truth of his relationship to man''
''Really, How do you know?''
''Because it says so in the Bible''.
You are NOT asn unworthy sinner, there is NO original sin you need to concern yourself with. Use the wonderful gift of consciousness you have to explore the experience of your life in love, compassion and respect. There is so much more wonder and truth out there than in the pages of one old text. Love and best wishes.
Your silly man, the reason evolution gets brought up and inevitably will be brought up is because in the book where their god comes from it clearly states something different from evolution. If evolution is true this demonstrably proves that, that god, is not real. There are plenty more mistakes in the bible and to me that's enough lol but to the religious folk creation is a key factor to why they believe.
Let's stat this off correctly. I'm an atheist, but that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution makes no claim as to our origin. It just shows the mechanics once we're here. Creationist claim evolution doesn't exist simply because of a book of fiction, and they believe that book over all evidence since they literally believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Evolution is 100% fact and to go with that fact, we have the theory of evolution.
Evolution does not argue the specific existence of a deity, it argues against the need of a deity. It doesn't say "god" does not exist, it says that it doesn't need to exist. This frightens theist because their only argument for a deity to exist is that we "need" it to exist to have gotten here, and if we don't need it to exist then why even consider its existence. In fact if can prove abiogenesis, then we have given enough evidence to support the non existence of a deity through not needing 1
There is no need for quotation marks, no one said anything that you are quoting. Second, using ALL CAPS and numerous pretentious platitudes is not equivalent to profundity. There, that is who I am, which is also what I believe. I am a pedantic prick with no tolerance, and as such, I believe whatever I want. With all the cliche's, is there a "YOU"?
Allow me to set fire to your strawman argument. Dawkins does not argue that evolution disproves God. As with anyone who has a firm grip on epistomology Dawkins will happily tell you that it is impossible to disprove the existance of god or anything else. The fact that you can't disprove god, santa, pink unicorns, the tooth fairy, or anything else is most commonly explained by the use of "Russell's teapot" argument.
Evolution doesn't disprove god but it does support the physist stance on a god,
"if there was one, it wouldn't care what i did with my genitalia," basically a crude way of saying personal god isn't required or even logical or as biologists claim
"Why would an intelligent creator choose to create things in the only way that requires no creator,"
Basically only stance it accepts is the agnostic theist view, Also creationist fear evolution because is dis-empowers there bronze age god.
Well evolution is really irrelevant, people are making to much of a big deal about it I think. I made this video like a year ago so I don't remember my argument. I just think there are things much better you can be doing than arguing about this one biological theory.
If God used evolution to creates Humans then he employed the ONE way that seems as if he didn't exist in the first place. There is nothing entailed in Evolution that would suggest intelligent life is an outcome of any kind. You restart the evolutionary clock and you could get something completely different an eventual organism that wouldn't have the emotional necessity to create Religions.
You simply don't understand the reality of it. But make it fit if you can.
So...There are many much more convincing arguments for God's existence than from special creation. Second, we Christians are not under any obligation to provide evidence. Are beliefs are rational because they are properly basic.
Firstly, I never even conceded that 'special' creation, whatever that means, is evidence at all. Secondly, I reject any other bogus teleological/cosmological bullshit logic.
However! I completely understand properly basic belief. Its still bullshit but I understand what your trying to say. You call it properly basic I call it delusion.
At least we are occupying a little space on the metaphorical ven diagram. Good luck with the cult.
I just don't believe that purported Religious experiences are actually properly basic beliefs. I believe they are real. But I don't believe they point to any objective reality. This state of affairs can exist if you affirm reason as a properly basic belief.
In other words, to my understanding, Christians say that there experiences of Christ are properly basic and therefore no amount of evidence and reason can change there mind since they have replaced reason with the experience.
Most arguments for God can fit into these two broad categories, a posteriori, and a priori. The main a posteriori arguments are the cosmological and teleological arguments. The cosmological argument normally infers God's existence by the very fact of existence itself, "Why do contingent things exist?", or from some special aspect of it. While teleological arguments finds some aspect in existence that appears designed. "Why does the complex universe exist?" The answer to both is argued to be God.
I'll give you your arguments. But your still left with God as being a word for "shit you don't understand". You can't just say.. "hey there a bunch of stuff about the Universe we don't understand so therefore its God!".
That is why I said that both are argued to be God. There are many arguments theists have given to think that the solution to these problems is in fact God. A good book, that isn't a few thousand years old on the subject, that you should read is Richard Swinburne's the Existence of God, published at Oxford University Press. It, very cogently I might add, defines the God hypothesis and gives evidence for it as the ultimate explanation of everything.
But what I am saying is that is a meaningless statement. God is just a word. What I'm saying is even if you can prove that the Universe needs a creator you still have to show some manifestation of it. Its like if scientists posited darwinian evolution but had none of the fossils and genetic proof. Even if this is some philosophical argument for the answer to the Universe how do you connect that to the biblical god. The Islamic God is equally capable of fitting such a description.
Oh well that I have a video series you can check out right now called, The Resurrection of Jesus. I believe that we have good historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, while Islam has no evidence whatsoever. I encourage you to watch it, it can be found in my playlists.
I do have a problem with your mouse trap metaphor. It doesn't really work. The mouse trap kills the mouse and ends its usefulness. It doesn't go on refining, reshaping, or improving itself to catch another mouse or even a large rat for that matter.
On the other hand, the man who perfects his ability to catch a mouse with his hands can then go on to perfect catching a rat with his hands... then a raccoon... then a rabbit.
I'm not quite sure how this video could accomplish such a thing. It has nothing to do with Atheism, nor does it have anything to do with Shintoism. This videos intention is to change the mind of Creationists, so that they understand modern biology.
You are right that proving or falsifying evolution has no bearing whatsoever on many modern versions of the 'god' concept.
I have a biblical question though:
At what point do you divide what is not to be taken literally with what is? For example? Is there really a God? Was there a flood and an ark? Did God really talked to people? Could Jesus do real magic? Did he rise from the grave?
How do you discern what is 'symbolic' from what should be believed to be real?
No I think the whole Bible should be read literally (although I consider whatever history tells us to be true is true), the passages can be interpreted in two ways, literal days, or literal long periods, the word Yam works either way.
Even if you accept the New Covenant of absolving your sins (which only applies to Jews, by the way) as undoing the backward moral lessons of the Old Testament, it says nothing about the wacky historical/practical/scientific lessons.
So, did the world-wide flood happen? Or was it a metaphor for purification? Did the resurrection happen? Or was it a metaphor for sacrifice?
I'm asking the classic pick-and-choose theology question.
"Of course, the answer to all of these questions is "there is no evidence whatsoever" and you have to take them on faith. " WRONG! Go watch my video series, on the origin of the universe, then watch, the resurrection of Jesus. Also your definition of faith is completely wrong. Faith is trusting, not blindly believing.
Well Genesis gives us a very theological feel the entire time. Its telling us how man fell away from God's grace, and how sin and death entered into the world.
well, Thats an a horse of a different color, If it just a theology with no correlation with known facts. Then You win. I cant argue your faith in faith.
"Well Genesis gives us a very theological feel the entire time. Its telling us how man fell away from God's grace, and how sin and death entered into the world."
OK. So, then how DID sin and death enter the world?
you should watch a video here in youtube of dawkins talking to the ex-vatican astronomer. Dawkins behaved for the most part and the priests had some interesting insights on science and genesis.
But, he was a little bit ignorant or timid with theology, that's what I felt. Still, a good series, check it out.
I really thought this video was going to be very different because of the title. I wish more would realize evolution cannot disprove God. I also see no conflict between God and evolution. Only extreme atheists like Dawkins seem to have a big problem with Christians accepting evolution.
I gave it that title so that I could attract crazy fundamentalist. And It has worked so far. And I agree that there is no conflict between God and evolution. Like Darwin himself said "It seems to me absurd that any man cannot be an ardent theist and an evolutionist".
"Similarly atheists think that they disprove god simply by disproving evolution."
Uh, no. If that's how you think our arguments go you haven't been listening to atheists, you've been listening to fanatical zealots talk about atheist arguments.
You don't listen very well. If you wish to quote me, then please quote my actual words. Trying to misquote me on my own video is a very dumb idea. I said "Similarly, the atheist thinks by PROVING evolution he disproves God" THAT is what I said.
Anyway, no intelligent atheist wastes his time on evolution, evolution actually damages naturalism. Real intelligent atheist, like David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russel, or even (maybe) Quentin Smith, make intelligent arguments (cont)
I knew it wasn't an exact quote, but that really didn't matter, did it? It means the exact same thing which makes you an idiot because it's not true at all. But it is precisely what religious bigots say about atheists.
Defending evolution is a rebutal to christians' teleological argument. But mostly just a simple defense of science from creationists. Atheists tend to be skeptics so we love attacking stupid ideas. Conspiracy theories, psychics, etc
Some atheist do in fact think that by proving evolution, they disprove God. I was in a debate once, an I gave my arguments for the existence of God, and the atheist gave arguments for the validity of evolution. Then he concluded that evolution disproves God. So my claim wasn't "stupid", it was based on experience. Don't be so quick to judge before you know the whole story, because then you look like the one who is in fact stupid.
Who? I suspect you're pulling this story out of your ass. Your credibility was defenestrated when you claimed that Richard Dawkins tries to disprove god with evolution.
If you can link me to a video in which an atheist makes the argument that if evolution is true theism is false I'll concede. But you can't.
Sure just hold on. I can't get the debate I had with the atheist because it wasn't recorded. Just watch some debates Dr. Craig has had, a good deal of the atheist he debated used evolution as an argument against God. And read all my messages in which I show that Dawkins does use evolution as an argument. Also your comments are going to start getting deleted unless you follow the rule of being polite.
Please direct me to the specific instance. I'm busy, I'm not going to dig through hours of video and forums to find what I don't believe is there. The burden of proof is on you.
Oh come on, you think I feel like doing that to. Beside who cares, it has nothing to do with my video, it has nothing to do with you. Why do you care about that? My video was meant for the following people, VenomFangX, NephilimFree, and AaronK, not atheist.
(cont) These guys never wasted there time using biological theories to disprove God. So don't you waste your time either. Imbeciles, like Richard Dawkins, like using these pointless arguments because he doesn't know any better . He isn't a philosopher. He doesn't have a degree in anything relevant, so its no wonder he's an atheist. (Animal behavior isn't a relevant field).
"These guys never wasted there time using biological theories to disprove God. So don't you waste your time either." I don't. Richard Dawkins doesn't either. I know of no atheist who thinks evolution disproves god. We defend evolution from creationists as a defense of science and a refutation to their teleological argument. That's all. When an atheist defends evolution it's always noted as a response to "creationism" not "theism" or "christianity". We know half the christians are evolutionists.
hahaha, Richard Dawkins most certainly does. Have you read his book "The Blind Watchmaker, why evolution shows a universe without design". His biggest argument against God is evolution.
The blind watchmaker is a refutation of the teleological argument. He also notes imperfect features of biology which indicates that a omniscient omnipotent being could not have designed us. But refuting the idea of a perfect designer is not the same as refuting theism in general, and he knows this.
Your missing the point of my video. Honestly, my video is not about atheist and evolution, I don't know why you care so much about this. This video was meant to be watched by creationist, I've sent it to VenomFangX, Nephlimfree, and Aaronk.
No atheist are pretty foolish. Ever seen an Amazing Atheist video? Or for crying out loud, read the God Delusion. It is probably the worst piece of atheist literature ever written. Each argument is so derisory that I doubt that any intellectual would find them convincing. David Hume, Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, those guys were smart atheist, who wrote highly insightful and profound critiques of religion. But these new atheist, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Htichens, are just pathetic.
I guess, but there is so many models. The concept I find most plausible is that the pre-BB universe existed in a quantum state, with the BB itself a quantum event. Causal explanations are disposed, since causality itself and most of physics becomes a non-issue at the quantum level.
Also, if the universe had a supernatural designer or intelligence to it, why didn't it begin with initial order and complexity? Instead it began in disorder and chaos and is still forming..
It certainly did begin with complexity and an extraordinary fine-tuning. Paul Davies has said in the Cosmic Blue print "The impression of design in the universe is overwhelming" Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the expansion rate of the universe one second after the big bang had been smaller by one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a hot ball of fire. There exist 50 such physical constants and quantities that must be accounted for (cont
How can a finite cause begin with complexity? And what do you mean by fine-tuning? Why would God need to fine-tune the universe? If he fine-tuned the universe for our existence, what fine-tuned the universe in order for Him exist? Also, how can a universe composed of less than 2% baryonic matter (protons, neutrons, and electrons), making dark matter the most common form of matter, and our universe far more suited for the creation black holes than it is for life, be finely-tuned for life?
(COnt) Each of them cannot work another way. It is not as if these constants are just the way they are just because they are. Like when playing a game of cards, any hand I get is improbable. However, this is not the case for the universe. It will not work another way. Frank Tipler and John Barrel estimate that a small change in gravity or the weak force, by only one part in ten to the one hundredth power, would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
Yeah, but the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. You cannot claim that the gravitational constant or the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, because they are clearly related. Another examaple is the electromagnetic force which is controlled by photons that travel at the speed of light, making the strength of its force related to the speed of light. Other relationships may soon be discovered. This is why the LHC was built.
Sorry I took so long to respond. Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies consider the search for a theory of everything (a theory that would unite the 4 fundamental constants) a pipe dream. Nothing more than wishful thinking. That is why Stephen Hawking prefers the idea of multiple universes. Even though Paul Davies thinks the idea of multiple universes is preposterous, and he prefers the design hypothesis. He has said "Why invent infinite worlds when one designer can finish the job"
Isn't creation finished and the fall now in session? Then why do we still see lyman-alpha blobs giving birth to galaxies and nebulae burping up suns? What was your God doing before our Sun existed and what will He do after it goes nova? The universe will still be here.
I don't get what your question is. Of course new stars are forming, how do you think the sun formed? God isn't going to stop the natural order of things for no reason. When God said the creation is finished he meant that he is no longer going to be messing around with the laws of nature. That way, as the Bible says, we may "Test everything, holdfast to that which is true."
If I'm talking about the Bible, then how can I be a deist? What I meant by that is, that God will no longer be screwing around capriciously with the laws of nature. Heres a Bible verse that says exactly that. Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved Now I know Psalms is a poetic book and not meant to be taken literally, but it does corroborate my point. Many other biblical verses state the same thing.
Pay attention to the words in which I speak. God will not be capriciously messing around with the laws of nature. Miracles are not capricious, each miracle served a purpose. Yes the Big Bang was the moment of creation. And your first point about the earth getting hit is irrelevant. God! Will not be messing around with the earth, not natural things like asteroids of comets.
Not what I have read it isn't. The Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin model shows that the universe is past incomplete, that everything in the universe had an origin at the Big Bang. Paul Davies has said that the Big Bang has been shown to imply the "Creation Event" of not only matter and energy, but of space and time itself.
I can accept looking at the stories as alegories nowadays, but not that modern Christians are somehow misreading them as literal and ancient peoples knew better than to take silly myths as literal history. Enough people were executed for blasphemy for suggesting the stories weren't 100% accurate that we can see they really were supposed to be literal.
No, the authors of Genesis meant them not to be taken so literally as the modern creationist takes them to be. Genesis was meant to show how man is the cause of all evil's and sufferings in the world and that God originally had great things planned for us, until we messed it up. It wasn't meant to be read as 100% literal account for the origin of the universe.
You make good points about the futility of trying to prove theology with biology or the other way around, but I disagree that the biblical story of creation iscompatible with modern biology. The idea that it was never meant to be taken literally doesn't make sense. I see no reason to think they didn't take these stories literally, since they had no scientific basis to weigh the likelihood of such things being true.
You seem to be an earnest, articulate young man. therefore I emplore you, Research the origin of the book you rely so heavily on, I suggest 'The council of Nicea' as a starting point. Evolution as a concept doesn't deny the existense of God,it merely suggests his method of creation. I believe in creation through evolution. I also 'believe' that our consciousness has primacy over the physical universe. Hold up the book in your hand and look at it then consider:
NeoLeaver 21 hours ago
@NeoLeaver ''The Bible is the word of God and the truth of his relationship to man''
''Really, How do you know?''
''Because it says so in the Bible''.
You are NOT asn unworthy sinner, there is NO original sin you need to concern yourself with. Use the wonderful gift of consciousness you have to explore the experience of your life in love, compassion and respect. There is so much more wonder and truth out there than in the pages of one old text. Love and best wishes.
NeoLeaver 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your silly man, the reason evolution gets brought up and inevitably will be brought up is because in the book where their god comes from it clearly states something different from evolution. If evolution is true this demonstrably proves that, that god, is not real. There are plenty more mistakes in the bible and to me that's enough lol but to the religious folk creation is a key factor to why they believe.
ThorTheOdinSon 5 months ago
Comment removed
ThorTheOdinSon 5 months ago
Idiot.
odinata 7 months ago
@odinata explain
The6thseal 3 months ago
Let's stat this off correctly. I'm an atheist, but that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution makes no claim as to our origin. It just shows the mechanics once we're here. Creationist claim evolution doesn't exist simply because of a book of fiction, and they believe that book over all evidence since they literally believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Evolution is 100% fact and to go with that fact, we have the theory of evolution.
colbuckshot 7 months ago
im from Denmark in europe we all LAUGH at ur belives... seriously America... wake up this is 2011 not 1411
dokkedal 8 months ago
@dokkedal
laugh at whose beliefs?
AbdielAbiram 8 months ago
I cant take a video seriously of somebody who cant even spell the topic they are talking about -.- seriously
zxHazxz 11 months ago
@zxHazxz
Im hoping what your saying is a joke...because the video's title is a parody
AbdielAbiram 11 months ago
Evolution does not argue the specific existence of a deity, it argues against the need of a deity. It doesn't say "god" does not exist, it says that it doesn't need to exist. This frightens theist because their only argument for a deity to exist is that we "need" it to exist to have gotten here, and if we don't need it to exist then why even consider its existence. In fact if can prove abiogenesis, then we have given enough evidence to support the non existence of a deity through not needing 1
Roc099 1 year ago
@Roc099
"Their only argument for a deity to exist is that we "need" it to"
nope
AbdielAbiram 1 year ago
@AbdielAbiram Your right there is no reason.
bebop7c2 9 months ago
If you can't 'say it' without 'reading it', you don't 'know it'. Let us hear what YOU believe and why. Is there a 'YOU'?
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
@yeshuahfullofit
There is no need for quotation marks, no one said anything that you are quoting. Second, using ALL CAPS and numerous pretentious platitudes is not equivalent to profundity. There, that is who I am, which is also what I believe. I am a pedantic prick with no tolerance, and as such, I believe whatever I want. With all the cliche's, is there a "YOU"?
AbdielAbiram 1 year ago
@AbdielAbiram You used a lot of words, yet still did not tell me what you believe and why.
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago 2
"Boom boom ain't it great to be CRAZY, Boom boom ain't it great to be . . . . "
livy1962 1 year ago
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD ARE YOU THAT STUPID!
Allow me to set fire to your strawman argument. Dawkins does not argue that evolution disproves God. As with anyone who has a firm grip on epistomology Dawkins will happily tell you that it is impossible to disprove the existance of god or anything else. The fact that you can't disprove god, santa, pink unicorns, the tooth fairy, or anything else is most commonly explained by the use of "Russell's teapot" argument.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago 2
Evolution doesn't disprove god but it does support the physist stance on a god,
"if there was one, it wouldn't care what i did with my genitalia," basically a crude way of saying personal god isn't required or even logical or as biologists claim
"Why would an intelligent creator choose to create things in the only way that requires no creator,"
Basically only stance it accepts is the agnostic theist view, Also creationist fear evolution because is dis-empowers there bronze age god.
whydid666 2 years ago
Well evolution is really irrelevant, people are making to much of a big deal about it I think. I made this video like a year ago so I don't remember my argument. I just think there are things much better you can be doing than arguing about this one biological theory.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
And few shots medical science combating germ, viral and parasite mutation, drugs having to cope with human resistance and T-cell adaptation.
No these things evolutionary science is applied to are completely useless right?
whydid666 2 years ago
I believe its clear from what I had previously said that I was referring toward its relevancy in the question of God.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
If God used evolution to creates Humans then he employed the ONE way that seems as if he didn't exist in the first place. There is nothing entailed in Evolution that would suggest intelligent life is an outcome of any kind. You restart the evolutionary clock and you could get something completely different an eventual organism that wouldn't have the emotional necessity to create Religions.
You simply don't understand the reality of it. But make it fit if you can.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
So...There are many much more convincing arguments for God's existence than from special creation. Second, we Christians are not under any obligation to provide evidence. Are beliefs are rational because they are properly basic.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
Firstly, I never even conceded that 'special' creation, whatever that means, is evidence at all. Secondly, I reject any other bogus teleological/cosmological bullshit logic.
However! I completely understand properly basic belief. Its still bullshit but I understand what your trying to say. You call it properly basic I call it delusion.
At least we are occupying a little space on the metaphorical ven diagram. Good luck with the cult.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
w...t.....f. I never said either 'special creationism' was evidence either, because it is so totally and utterly refuted by modern biology.
And are you seriously rejecting foundationalism?
"I completely understand properly basic belief. Its still bullshit"
Please tell me I am misunderstanding.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
I just don't believe that purported Religious experiences are actually properly basic beliefs. I believe they are real. But I don't believe they point to any objective reality. This state of affairs can exist if you affirm reason as a properly basic belief.
In other words, to my understanding, Christians say that there experiences of Christ are properly basic and therefore no amount of evidence and reason can change there mind since they have replaced reason with the experience.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Then you are misunderstanding. In order for me to reject my belief, and be rational, would be for you to provide a sufficient defeater for theism.
However, I also think the "proofs" for God's existence led me to conclude his existence, which you have also not shown to be fallacious.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
Well I just don't believe there are any "proofs" for God's existence. Could you give me an example of one?
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Most arguments for God can fit into these two broad categories, a posteriori, and a priori. The main a posteriori arguments are the cosmological and teleological arguments. The cosmological argument normally infers God's existence by the very fact of existence itself, "Why do contingent things exist?", or from some special aspect of it. While teleological arguments finds some aspect in existence that appears designed. "Why does the complex universe exist?" The answer to both is argued to be God.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
I'll give you your arguments. But your still left with God as being a word for "shit you don't understand". You can't just say.. "hey there a bunch of stuff about the Universe we don't understand so therefore its God!".
VarialProductions 2 years ago
That is why I said that both are argued to be God. There are many arguments theists have given to think that the solution to these problems is in fact God. A good book, that isn't a few thousand years old on the subject, that you should read is Richard Swinburne's the Existence of God, published at Oxford University Press. It, very cogently I might add, defines the God hypothesis and gives evidence for it as the ultimate explanation of everything.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
But what I am saying is that is a meaningless statement. God is just a word. What I'm saying is even if you can prove that the Universe needs a creator you still have to show some manifestation of it. Its like if scientists posited darwinian evolution but had none of the fossils and genetic proof. Even if this is some philosophical argument for the answer to the Universe how do you connect that to the biblical god. The Islamic God is equally capable of fitting such a description.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Oh well that I have a video series you can check out right now called, The Resurrection of Jesus. I believe that we have good historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, while Islam has no evidence whatsoever. I encourage you to watch it, it can be found in my playlists.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
I liked your title. Nice typography.
I do have a problem with your mouse trap metaphor. It doesn't really work. The mouse trap kills the mouse and ends its usefulness. It doesn't go on refining, reshaping, or improving itself to catch another mouse or even a large rat for that matter.
On the other hand, the man who perfects his ability to catch a mouse with his hands can then go on to perfect catching a rat with his hands... then a raccoon... then a rabbit.
Pretty soon, he'll have some stew.
makstad 2 years ago
Brother that is right donkeys and elephants. A thousands years from now people will properly think we worships those animals.
To me God is EVERLASTING. God will only SHOW his true form at everyone's day of judgement (the day we die).
THEUTUBEHATER 2 years ago
you have completely opened my mind. i m no longer a atheist. i now practice Shintoism because it is the only true religion
squeaky17 2 years ago
I'm not quite sure how this video could accomplish such a thing. It has nothing to do with Atheism, nor does it have anything to do with Shintoism. This videos intention is to change the mind of Creationists, so that they understand modern biology.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
ppfff just live ! ok
vyrgo84 2 years ago
???
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
Hi Abdiel, nice vid!
You are right that proving or falsifying evolution has no bearing whatsoever on many modern versions of the 'god' concept.
I have a biblical question though:
At what point do you divide what is not to be taken literally with what is? For example? Is there really a God? Was there a flood and an ark? Did God really talked to people? Could Jesus do real magic? Did he rise from the grave?
How do you discern what is 'symbolic' from what should be believed to be real?
jrparri 2 years ago
No I think the whole Bible should be read literally (although I consider whatever history tells us to be true is true), the passages can be interpreted in two ways, literal days, or literal long periods, the word Yam works either way.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
"I think the whole Bible should be read literally ..."
So whenever there's a passage that contradicts knowledge or morals of today, we can assume that it's a matter of interpretation.
Well - I can't argue with that.
jrparri 2 years ago
I don't understand what thats suppose to mean. Have you ever heard of the New Covenant?
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
Even if you accept the New Covenant of absolving your sins (which only applies to Jews, by the way) as undoing the backward moral lessons of the Old Testament, it says nothing about the wacky historical/practical/scientific lessons.
So, did the world-wide flood happen? Or was it a metaphor for purification? Did the resurrection happen? Or was it a metaphor for sacrifice?
I'm asking the classic pick-and-choose theology question.
jrparri 2 years ago
Yeah I know, and its getting irritating. I told you, what ever the evidence points too, I believe.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
This is excellent!
Now! What evidence points to:
1) The existence of "sin".
2) The divinity of a man called Jesus.
3) That Jesus' words or subsequent lynching absolves "sins".
4) That Jesus was resurrected.
5) Just to be obnoxious: The existence of God.
Of course, the answer to all of these questions is "there is no evidence whatsoever" and you have to take them on faith.
So everyone who is not an atheist, by their own admission and definition of faith, is willfully deluded.
jrparri 2 years ago
"Of course, the answer to all of these questions is "there is no evidence whatsoever" and you have to take them on faith. " WRONG! Go watch my video series, on the origin of the universe, then watch, the resurrection of Jesus. Also your definition of faith is completely wrong. Faith is trusting, not blindly believing.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
So what is the story of creation for if not to tell us about the actual creation in some sense?
Greathiway 3 years ago
Well Genesis gives us a very theological feel the entire time. Its telling us how man fell away from God's grace, and how sin and death entered into the world.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
well, Thats an a horse of a different color, If it just a theology with no correlation with known facts. Then You win. I cant argue your faith in faith.
I dont know why credulity is good.
I guess Its just divinely reveled truth.
So why try to convince anyone?
Greathiway 3 years ago
Proving the Truth of the Catholic Faith has nothing to do with proving the truth of a particular account of creation.
The argument for God's existence is a philosophical question, that has been argued by philosophers for 2300 years.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
"Well Genesis gives us a very theological feel the entire time. Its telling us how man fell away from God's grace, and how sin and death entered into the world."
OK. So, then how DID sin and death enter the world?
jrparri 2 years ago
By sin death came into the world.
AbdielAbiram 2 years ago
you should watch a video here in youtube of dawkins talking to the ex-vatican astronomer. Dawkins behaved for the most part and the priests had some interesting insights on science and genesis.
But, he was a little bit ignorant or timid with theology, that's what I felt. Still, a good series, check it out.
"totus tuus,Mariae."
Suarist 2 years ago
I really thought this video was going to be very different because of the title. I wish more would realize evolution cannot disprove God. I also see no conflict between God and evolution. Only extreme atheists like Dawkins seem to have a big problem with Christians accepting evolution.
SexyScientist6 3 years ago
I gave it that title so that I could attract crazy fundamentalist. And It has worked so far. And I agree that there is no conflict between God and evolution. Like Darwin himself said "It seems to me absurd that any man cannot be an ardent theist and an evolutionist".
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
Read the rules, people who use profane language get their comments deleted. You may comment again as long as you don't use curse words.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAH you didn't watch the video did you? The title is a parody of creationist!
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
who said anything about the title?
driftingsmoke 3 years ago
He didn't watch the video, for he thinks I actually tried to refute the fact of evolution. Probably because of my misleading title.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
so you deleted his comment
driftingsmoke 3 years ago
Now I did, to spare him of his embarrassment.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
That's rather ignorant.
"Similarly atheists think that they disprove god simply by disproving evolution."
Uh, no. If that's how you think our arguments go you haven't been listening to atheists, you've been listening to fanatical zealots talk about atheist arguments.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
You don't listen very well. If you wish to quote me, then please quote my actual words. Trying to misquote me on my own video is a very dumb idea. I said "Similarly, the atheist thinks by PROVING evolution he disproves God" THAT is what I said.
Anyway, no intelligent atheist wastes his time on evolution, evolution actually damages naturalism. Real intelligent atheist, like David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russel, or even (maybe) Quentin Smith, make intelligent arguments (cont)
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
I knew it wasn't an exact quote, but that really didn't matter, did it? It means the exact same thing which makes you an idiot because it's not true at all. But it is precisely what religious bigots say about atheists.
Defending evolution is a rebutal to christians' teleological argument. But mostly just a simple defense of science from creationists. Atheists tend to be skeptics so we love attacking stupid ideas. Conspiracy theories, psychics, etc
Libertarianist 3 years ago
Some atheist do in fact think that by proving evolution, they disprove God. I was in a debate once, an I gave my arguments for the existence of God, and the atheist gave arguments for the validity of evolution. Then he concluded that evolution disproves God. So my claim wasn't "stupid", it was based on experience. Don't be so quick to judge before you know the whole story, because then you look like the one who is in fact stupid.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
Who? I suspect you're pulling this story out of your ass. Your credibility was defenestrated when you claimed that Richard Dawkins tries to disprove god with evolution.
If you can link me to a video in which an atheist makes the argument that if evolution is true theism is false I'll concede. But you can't.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
Sure just hold on. I can't get the debate I had with the atheist because it wasn't recorded. Just watch some debates Dr. Craig has had, a good deal of the atheist he debated used evolution as an argument against God. And read all my messages in which I show that Dawkins does use evolution as an argument. Also your comments are going to start getting deleted unless you follow the rule of being polite.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
Please direct me to the specific instance. I'm busy, I'm not going to dig through hours of video and forums to find what I don't believe is there. The burden of proof is on you.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
Oh come on, you think I feel like doing that to. Beside who cares, it has nothing to do with my video, it has nothing to do with you. Why do you care about that? My video was meant for the following people, VenomFangX, NephilimFree, and AaronK, not atheist.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
"atheists think that they disprove god simply by disproving evolution, " Libertarianist
"the atheist thinks by PROVING evolution he disproves God," AbdielAbiram
"I knew it wasn't an exact quote, but that really didn't matter, did it? "Libertarianist
You're quite something, libertarianist, aren't you?
But, I've met ignorant atheists who think evolution disproves God.
And if I got a penny for everytime I heard "I don't believe in god, I believe in science." I would buy a new mac.
Suarist 2 years ago
(cont) These guys never wasted there time using biological theories to disprove God. So don't you waste your time either. Imbeciles, like Richard Dawkins, like using these pointless arguments because he doesn't know any better . He isn't a philosopher. He doesn't have a degree in anything relevant, so its no wonder he's an atheist. (Animal behavior isn't a relevant field).
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
"These guys never wasted there time using biological theories to disprove God. So don't you waste your time either." I don't. Richard Dawkins doesn't either. I know of no atheist who thinks evolution disproves god. We defend evolution from creationists as a defense of science and a refutation to their teleological argument. That's all. When an atheist defends evolution it's always noted as a response to "creationism" not "theism" or "christianity". We know half the christians are evolutionists.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
hahaha, Richard Dawkins most certainly does. Have you read his book "The Blind Watchmaker, why evolution shows a universe without design". His biggest argument against God is evolution.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
The blind watchmaker is a refutation of the teleological argument. He also notes imperfect features of biology which indicates that a omniscient omnipotent being could not have designed us. But refuting the idea of a perfect designer is not the same as refuting theism in general, and he knows this.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
Your missing the point of my video. Honestly, my video is not about atheist and evolution, I don't know why you care so much about this. This video was meant to be watched by creationist, I've sent it to VenomFangX, Nephlimfree, and Aaronk.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
I care because your comment is misleading. It portrays atheists as equally foolish, which simply isn't true.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
No atheist are pretty foolish. Ever seen an Amazing Atheist video? Or for crying out loud, read the God Delusion. It is probably the worst piece of atheist literature ever written. Each argument is so derisory that I doubt that any intellectual would find them convincing. David Hume, Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, those guys were smart atheist, who wrote highly insightful and profound critiques of religion. But these new atheist, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Htichens, are just pathetic.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
I guess, but there is so many models. The concept I find most plausible is that the pre-BB universe existed in a quantum state, with the BB itself a quantum event. Causal explanations are disposed, since causality itself and most of physics becomes a non-issue at the quantum level.
Also, if the universe had a supernatural designer or intelligence to it, why didn't it begin with initial order and complexity? Instead it began in disorder and chaos and is still forming..
rglioybrra 3 years ago
It certainly did begin with complexity and an extraordinary fine-tuning. Paul Davies has said in the Cosmic Blue print "The impression of design in the universe is overwhelming" Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the expansion rate of the universe one second after the big bang had been smaller by one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a hot ball of fire. There exist 50 such physical constants and quantities that must be accounted for (cont
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
How can a finite cause begin with complexity? And what do you mean by fine-tuning? Why would God need to fine-tune the universe? If he fine-tuned the universe for our existence, what fine-tuned the universe in order for Him exist? Also, how can a universe composed of less than 2% baryonic matter (protons, neutrons, and electrons), making dark matter the most common form of matter, and our universe far more suited for the creation black holes than it is for life, be finely-tuned for life?
rglioybrra 3 years ago
(COnt) Each of them cannot work another way. It is not as if these constants are just the way they are just because they are. Like when playing a game of cards, any hand I get is improbable. However, this is not the case for the universe. It will not work another way. Frank Tipler and John Barrel estimate that a small change in gravity or the weak force, by only one part in ten to the one hundredth power, would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
Comment removed
rglioybrra 3 years ago
Yeah, but the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. You cannot claim that the gravitational constant or the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, because they are clearly related. Another examaple is the electromagnetic force which is controlled by photons that travel at the speed of light, making the strength of its force related to the speed of light. Other relationships may soon be discovered. This is why the LHC was built.
rglioybrra 3 years ago
Sorry I took so long to respond. Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies consider the search for a theory of everything (a theory that would unite the 4 fundamental constants) a pipe dream. Nothing more than wishful thinking. That is why Stephen Hawking prefers the idea of multiple universes. Even though Paul Davies thinks the idea of multiple universes is preposterous, and he prefers the design hypothesis. He has said "Why invent infinite worlds when one designer can finish the job"
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
Isn't creation finished and the fall now in session? Then why do we still see lyman-alpha blobs giving birth to galaxies and nebulae burping up suns? What was your God doing before our Sun existed and what will He do after it goes nova? The universe will still be here.
rglioybrra 3 years ago
No, creation is ruined. God must remake it. As spoken about in 1 Cor. and Revelation.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
Comment removed
rglioybrra 3 years ago
Comment removed
rglioybrra 3 years ago
That's what I said!
spitzer,caltech,edu/Media/medi aimages/zooms/ssc2008-11a/inde x,html
But why do we still see massive amounts of nebulae/star forming regions within our own galaxy?
seds,lpl,arizona,edu/Messier/P ics/Hi-res/m42hst6_prop_galler y,jpg
We can even observe suns that are forming planets!
Why is this still happening then if creation is finished?
rglioybrra 3 years ago
I don't get what your question is. Of course new stars are forming, how do you think the sun formed? God isn't going to stop the natural order of things for no reason. When God said the creation is finished he meant that he is no longer going to be messing around with the laws of nature. That way, as the Bible says, we may "Test everything, holdfast to that which is true."
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
"When God said the creation is finished he meant that he is no longer going to be messing around with the laws of nature."
Now your a deist? How can you be a theist after saying that?
rglioybrra 3 years ago
If I'm talking about the Bible, then how can I be a deist? What I meant by that is, that God will no longer be screwing around capriciously with the laws of nature. Heres a Bible verse that says exactly that. Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved Now I know Psalms is a poetic book and not meant to be taken literally, but it does corroborate my point. Many other biblical verses state the same thing.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
"it can never be moved"
So you reject the evidence that tells us Earth was hit by 6 planetoids in the past?
"When God said the creation is finished he meant that he is no longer going to be messing around with the laws of nature"
By creation you mean the Big Bang?
"What I meant by that is, that God will no longer be screwing around capriciously with the laws of nature."
Then why did he perform miracles (things that defy the laws of nature)?
rglioybrra 3 years ago
Pay attention to the words in which I speak. God will not be capriciously messing around with the laws of nature. Miracles are not capricious, each miracle served a purpose. Yes the Big Bang was the moment of creation. And your first point about the earth getting hit is irrelevant. God! Will not be messing around with the earth, not natural things like asteroids of comets.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
I'm confused. I call Occam's razor. :p
"the Big Bang was the moment of creation."
Not really. It was more of a quantum fluctuation.
"
rglioybrra 3 years ago
Not what I have read it isn't. The Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin model shows that the universe is past incomplete, that everything in the universe had an origin at the Big Bang. Paul Davies has said that the Big Bang has been shown to imply the "Creation Event" of not only matter and energy, but of space and time itself.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
Comment removed
rglioybrra 3 years ago
Comment removed
Shooriko 3 years ago
I can accept looking at the stories as alegories nowadays, but not that modern Christians are somehow misreading them as literal and ancient peoples knew better than to take silly myths as literal history. Enough people were executed for blasphemy for suggesting the stories weren't 100% accurate that we can see they really were supposed to be literal.
AbbeyNormal 3 years ago
No, the authors of Genesis meant them not to be taken so literally as the modern creationist takes them to be. Genesis was meant to show how man is the cause of all evil's and sufferings in the world and that God originally had great things planned for us, until we messed it up. It wasn't meant to be read as 100% literal account for the origin of the universe.
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago
You make good points about the futility of trying to prove theology with biology or the other way around, but I disagree that the biblical story of creation iscompatible with modern biology. The idea that it was never meant to be taken literally doesn't make sense. I see no reason to think they didn't take these stories literally, since they had no scientific basis to weigh the likelihood of such things being true.
AbbeyNormal 3 years ago
Brilliant
TheIrrationalAtheist 3 years ago