God of the Gaps & Frontier of Knowledge - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[acfixerdude]

4 Theists disliked this video...

[kasra20giv1]

there are many many gods, when there is talk on god which one do we mean by that?whare is the proof of its existence? how do we know that god exists?

[Liberteh]

@heyathere1000, You're funny as hell! (or is that an insult to you?:D)

[wlbarbo]

Oh, that damned Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil... it just f**ked up everything! Now we know 4% of too much!

[KevZen2000]

Until somebody provides empirical evidence for God, then its not an acceptable hypothesis,nor does it enable any real progress.

[heyathere1000]

If it was up to nature the world would of been destroyed millions of years ago, nature by nature is very sloopy, God does things decent and in order, the sun rise ans sun down is in decent and in order, nature is to dumb to do that. And thinking about the purpose of the sun for it's existance sure enough is evidence that is a God.

[nakomaru]

@heyathere1000 You say nature is too dumb to have the sun rise and set? This is the cause of the simple conservation of angular momentum. I don't know what else we can mean by "nature" if not basic physics.

You say the world would have been destroyed millions of years ago? Indeed, millions of worlds like ours, in the vastness of space, surely have been destroyed. But the fact that we find ourselves on one that made it should not be surprising for obvious, non-metaphysical reasons.

[heyathere1000]

@nakomaru Like I said If it was up to nature the world would of been destroyed millions of years ago, nature by nature is very sloopy, God does things decent and in order, the sun rise and go down is in decent and in order, nature is to dumb to do that. And thinking about the purpose of the sun for it's existence sure enough is evidence that is a God. The sun's only purpose comes out so that we can see and goes down only so that we can sleep, sorry nature is too dumb to do that only God can.

[ZombiePirateEddie]

@heyathere1000 "The sun's only purpose comes out so that we can see and goes down only so that we can sleep"? Then why does it create radiation that damages our skin? The is not completely benevolent and your assertion displays your ignorance on many simple facts about our sun. It makes many wonder if you are also ignorant about other things.

[calladus]

@heyathere1000 [citation needed]

[incaugnito37]

@heyathere1000 you're an idiot

[heyathere1000]

@incaugnito37 No you are, dimwit.

[heyathere1000]

1:55 Just because you didn't know something is not how we see that God exist, it's the "intellgence" of the world that we know God exist dummy. The sun just doesn't come out just to be shining, the sun doesn't know you or me, so why would the sun come out every single day just so that I can see, isn't that the only purpose of the sun is so that I can see? yes. God is providing for us. There's so much evidence of God by God's intellgence of the world's operation.

[heyathere1000]

That's man's problem, they want to know everything, well they never will, their minds are too finite. Man wants to know about the human body by cutting it open to see how it works, etc., the body is not suppose to be cut open, all the openings you have in your body is the only openings your suppose to have, but man wants to know everything so he cuts the body open anyway. Stop trying to know everything because you NEVER will. You don't see animals trying to know everything, they just live.

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh That's what philosophy is there for. Nobody said science could tell us everything about our existence. It simply studies natural phenomena, period, and it doesn't lead us to an "objective law" of any sort. Quite the opposite, in fact. The universe is fucking chaotic, but we have the illusion it's somehow "fine tuned" because we're in a comfy spot where stuff isn't really happening atm. For the last time, stop copypasting from that al-islam site. Come with your own arguments or go away.

[OmnipotentO]

This is why there is no shame in admitting "I don't know". That just means there is work to be done!

[xpez]

even though this man is obviously smart his rational is very simplistic.

[thunderfirebolt]

List of things in the universe humans understand: 4%

List of things Bill Reilly understands: -1%

[eigang]

In the end. God did nothing.

[xpez]

Son, God is going to whoop your ass! Just because you are figuring out the nature of God and the phenomenons of his Universe doesnt mean he doesnt exist.

The separation of matter in our existence is only an illusion created by light energy and atoms...

Its as if you were just a molecule in a red blood cell traveling through an artery inside a brain questioning the existence of something greater than the mass of cells that create the circulatory system...

One day we may see the entire body

[megustaface]

@xpez Keep dreaming until the day you die and nothing happens. Love it, suckers giving 10% each and every paycheck to pay for their own fear of mortality.

[xpez]

@megustaface OK buddy say hi to Lucifer down in the HOt spa resort at the LAKE OF FIRE...MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[megustaface]

@xpez You will be there too, judge not and all that nonsense. You just sinned sonny jim.

Also I can repent all my sins with a single thought the instant before I die. Thats my get outta lake of fire free card.

[ikutsu2001]

@xpez This God guy sounds like a violent deity. I suppose the Bible was right in that sense.

[Jimbodawg]

The caveman analogy wasn't the greatest. The cavemen got to where we are today. Not doubting Neil in anyway, just pointing out what's hardly relevant.

[bkeeblur]

@Jimbodawg I think he was more trying to make a point that if the cavemen were like people today, where they don't trust science and want to just pray for things to happen by giving it "up to god", even they wouldn't have survived.

[chrisclan1903]

Yet another reason to love Neil.

[WuTubeish]

Neil is a genius!

[khoops66]

Dave fucking Silverman. That's the atheist guy Dr. :)

[TheSaltyAdmiral]

@khoops66

Thats an rare middle name:)

[jonrotten31]

basically bill o reilly's argument was god of the gaps except for the fact it werent even a gap! lol

[nakomaru]

"saying the universe "just happens to exist" is not a sufficient answer"

saying a timeless god "just happens to exist" apparently is, though.

[MrNobody47710]

Appeal to ignorance... "god of the gaps"... LULZ

[sirdelrio]

Amen, brother!

[AegeanKing]

Paul Davies has admitted that the Multiverse theory was thought up to avoid the problem of the singularity which pointed to a creator.

[nakomaru]

@AegeanKing Lawrence Krauss has admitted that the multiverse hypothesis is scientifically grounded. See "A Universe From Nothing" or v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Interesting use of words, by the way. In a "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of way, I am to presume that singularities are of theological origin.

[AegeanKing]

@nakomaru I never said that the theory is not scientifically grounded. I said that once cosmologists figured out that there was a beginning of space and time, that immediately brought up the question of God. The Multiverse is a way to get around God. Also, Paul davies has also stated that the Multiverse is just as bad as theism because it supposes a universe generator without having to give an explanation for that. Not to mention multiverse is not observable or testable....

[nakomaru]

@AegeanKing The multiverse is a possible explanation for how the universe was created (see Krauss' speech for details, anyone). It is merely that. The extent that it is based on a correct interpretation of physics is the extent that modern science supports its claims - the same with any. In this way it is very different from theism.

The problem with Davies' point of view is that a singularity does not 'point to' a creator any more than a UFO points to aliens. It is only unexplained.

[AegeanKing]

Your comparison is flawed. Specifically, what is the UFO doing? Whats its shape? Does its flight pattern and speed exceed anything known to man? If a completely un-aerodynamic vehicle in the shape of an egg is hovering above your house and then from a stand still hover takes off into outerspace in a flash, than that would be EVIDENCE, not proof, of a vehicle manned by extra-terrestrial beings. The singularity, is strong EVIDENCE(not proof) for a designer. Many atheist cosmologists agree.

[nakomaru]

@AegeanKing Thanks for giving us some examples of argument from ignorance, argument from authority, and god of the gaps. :)

[AegeanKing]

@nakomaru There is no argument from ignorance. You need to take a logic and rhetoric class so you can learn the proper definition of fallacies. If I asserted that God existed with certainity than that would be an argument from ignroance. But I didnt do that. i simply said that a singulairty is EVIDENCE for a designer. I didnt say it was proof. You really are dim. Secondly, There is no argument from authority because I did not say that "Davies says it so it must be true". (continued)

[AegeanKing]

I said that Davies and other cosmologists admit that the singularity is points strongly to a designer. So as you see, my statement is NOT argument from authority. Lastly, I did not say that a creator IS the explanation for the singularity, I said that a creator is a POSSIBILITY which means that my statement is NOT a God of the gaps fallacy. Seriously, learn the definition of these fallacies before you make yourself look so damn stupid. Invest in a logic class at your local community college...

[nakomaru]

@AegeanKing I suppose we may add argument ad hominem to the list.

Quote of the day: "I said that Davies and other cosmologists admit that the singularity is points strongly to a designer. So as you see, my statement is NOT argument from authority."

[AegeanKing]

@nakomaru No, Ad hominem is only the first on the list. My other statements were sound.

[nakomaru]

@AegeanKing For posterity (and my own comprehension), I have compiled the list of your sound arguments:

(argument from ignorance, god of the gaps) We don't know what created the universe: it's probably a creator!

(argument from authority, ad hominem) Davies probably has sound logic, even though I cannot present it. You're a nobody!

For some flavor, I've pointed out a distinction without a difference: Who created the creator? ad infinitum

[AegeanKing]

@nakomaru You need to read over my statements again because even after your silly comment you INSIST on misrepresenting what I said. I did not say "its probably a creator". I said, that the fact that time, space and matter came into existence from non existence is strong evidence for a creator. I did not say that a creator definitely exists or that it is most likely the answer. I said, for the last time, that the singularity is strong evidence for a creator. (CONTINUED)

[AegeanKing]

Secondly, I have already pointed out why my statements is not a God of the gaps argument. It seems that you dont even know the definition of the god of the gaps argument because if you did you would see that it is obvious that i did not make that argument. Lastly, I NEVER said that God exists therefore none of my statements can be labeled as an argument from ignorance. I HIGHLY suggest you invest in a basic logic 101 class so you can learn the different fallacies because you are clueless.

[AegeanKing]

There is no argument from authority fallacy because I did not say that "because Davies said it is true". If I did say that, then that would be argument from authority. Seriously, I am completely blown away by how clueless you are when it comes to properly identifying fallacies. It seems that you do not know the BASIC definition of any of these fallacies. In the future, please be familiar with the fallacies before you accuse somebody of a fallacious argument and make urself look stupid.

[AegeanKing]

@nakomaru Lastly, who created the creator is a FALLACIOUS argument. The question "who created the creator" is a complete red herring when it comes to identifying the cause of the Universe. In order to recognize the best explanation for a particular cause, I do not need to have an explanation for my explanation. In order to recognize that a car must have a designer, I do not need to know who designed the designer. Do you have anymore fallacious arguments???

[nakomaru]

@AegeanKing As you are somehow able to make suppositions without having to defend them, I leave any conclusions as an exercise for the reader.

For those who want to take an honest look at the distinction without a difference, Sagan perhaps asks more congenially: v=4E-_DdX8Ke0

And for others that are interested, this video also deals with nonsensical claims: v=5wV_REEdvxo

[TurboDally]

@AegeanKing

Not sure I would call it that. There's an escape claus that theists have come up with saying "but the creator is beyond time"- in which case this being would have no will as where there's no time, there's no before, etc. Also saying things like "he's eternal", sure this is well and fine, and consistent even...But all it is, is an assertion, there's no evidence, it's just an assertion. Just as saying that an invisible unicorn can't be pink even though unicorns don't exist.

[AegeanKing]

@TurboDally That is not an escape clause. That has been Judeo-Christian Theology from ancient times. Every prominent ancient theologian like Saint Augustine or Saint Thomas Aquinas says that God is outside of time. Also, please come up with something more original than unicorns.

[bky1701]

@AegeanKing

Same old, same old...

If god has to be outside of time to make creationism make sense, then why can we not go with the simpler answer that time is a property of the universe, and thus, "creation" ceases to have much meaning.

[AegeanKing]

@bky1701 First, what do you mean by creationism? Do you mean Creationism in terms of "special creation" of human beings or creation of the universe? I believe in evolution so I am not sure what you mean by that. Secondly, saying the universe "just happens to exist" is not a sufficient answer. Especially when the vast majority of cosmologists agree that the Universe had a beginning. Lastly, your statement "There is no evidence for God, therefore he does not exist" is fallacious in the extreme.

[bky1701]

@AegeanKing

Who created the creator is fallacious? Not sure, but it is the argument creationism makes. "The earth could not POSSIBLY exist without a creator! Who created it? Hm.... god!"

The universe did not need to be created. If GOD can just happen to exist, the universe can just happen to exist as well, and we don't need god to explain it. God thus does not improve our understanding of the universe, and there is no evidence for god: therefore, god does not exist. End of story.

[1tabligh]

@bky1701 The atheist Delusion!

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Wrong. Science doesn't make claims when there's no evidence about it. Even with evidence, there's never absolutes in science. It's rather a degree of certainty. We are fairly certain that the force of gravity will pull things together, but we're not certain enough about the origins of the universe to deliver something that's as close to certainty as the force of gravity. Your imaginary god is merely a placeholder until we come up with something that makes sense.

[1tabligh]

Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?

No?

Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[nakomaru]

@1tabligh Observing and quantifying a pattern about the natural world says nothing about its source. Postulating that, given our current body of knowledge, a certain process (nucleosynthesis) occurred in the early universe to produce hydrogen and helium nuclei appears to be the most likely origin of atoms - says nothing about what one believes. It is merely the simplest theory which explains the most things.

Nobody is decreeing any laws. They are just plotting curves which fit the dots.

[1tabligh]

@nakomaru Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?

[nakomaru]

@1tabligh Like I was trying to say: it is not believed. It is merely unknown. What causes the fundamental forces? Well, bosons. What causes bosons to exist in the first place? Unknown.

Those who are unable to accept that certain things are not known will invent their own reasons and beliefs. This process is called religion.

[1tabligh]

@nakomaru How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh The proof for this is what Neil described in the video. Back in the day, many natural phenomena were attributed to gods, but nowadays we understand how these things work, so there's no need for fairytales to describe how things happen. A couple examples: Thunger was believed to be caused by an angry god (zeus or thor), Tides were believed to be caused by a god (poseidon). The problem is when religions exploit these knowledge gaps to hide their made up fantasies to keep people in line.

[1tabligh]

@hellhammerz666 The atheist Delusion!

Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.

Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh It indeed has nothing to do with logic, but that's not the point here. Science can't tell anything about gods or other imaginary characters because they are NOT observable within the physical world, which science studies. I wouldn't have any problem admiting there's a god if one was proven to be real, but people have been trying to figure out that one for centuries and so far they all have failed. It isn't up to scientists to prove or disproof your imaginary friend, that's your job.

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh You see, invoking logic without actually following it makes your reasoning seem sloppy. When you make a positive claim (god exists), it's not up to others to provide evidence for your claim. It's up to you to provide enough evidence so your claim meets it's burden of proof, hence convincing others that it is true. Would you require me to provide evidence for an extraordinary claim, such as, there's a magic midget bouncing over your head creating magic sparkles?

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Bottom line, there's no delusion within the atheist mindset in regards to being skeptical to unproven fairytales like your god and every other mankind has ever made up to try to understand a complex universe. You can't be deluded if you don't believe stuff without evidence. Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed there was no god, but that there's little evidence for their existence. Therefore, my skepticism towards your claim (god exists) is perfectly justified.

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Finally, what unproven theories am i basing my "illusion" of not believing an unproven claim, according to you?

[1tabligh]

@hellhammerz666 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.

[1tabligh]

God and Empirical Logic.

One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".

Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh If not to logic, what should we resource to in order to understand the universe? Fairytales? Give me a break, please.... Science may have it's own limitations. Heck, there are a lot of crazy natural phenomena that simply don't make sense, but that doesn't mena you get to get away with sliding your imaginary god into the gaps. Stop preaching, your so-called logic can be crumbled down by a simple question: Where did your god come from? How did he come into existence?

[1tabligh]

everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.

To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.

Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim,

[1tabligh]

to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.

Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Btw, how about we stop playing this copypaste game and come up with your own words, yes? I know you're puling this shit out of some stupid islam propaganda website. Is this the best you can do? Can't think on your own?

[1tabligh]

@hellhammerz666 How did he come into existence?

____

His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.

If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. ...

[1tabligh]

The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.

Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.

[1tabligh]

But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.

From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange,

[1tabligh]

and compounding with other bodies.

"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)

[1tabligh]

Answer the question!

Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?

Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!

Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!

Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh First of all, why should we assume your god is the first source of existence? Second, your god isn't "necessary in essence", or even necessary at all. You can't prove your claim, you can't even type your own fucking words. I'm done with you, i have no interest in replying to a fucking copypasting machine that can't even copypaste shit that makes sense at all, but just copypastes arguments from personal incredulity. Loser.

[1tabligh]

@hellhammerz666 fucking words...copypaste shit ....some stupid islam propaganda ...

___

So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!

The argument of an IGNORANT!

Hiding your ignorance and arrogance under your stupid pretext of " fucking words...copypaste shit ....some stupid islam propaganda ...."!

Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?

Ever heard "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."?

[1tabligh]

You still don't get it, do you?

I have already in my inbox more then 11464 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!

What makes you think, you are a special duped wannabe monkey?

No wasting time!

Talk science and answer the questions otherwise clock off!

Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!

[1tabligh]

You still don't get it, do you?

I have already in my inbox more then 11464 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!

What makes you think, you are a special duped wannabe monkey?

No wasting time!

Talk science and answer the questions otherwise clock off!

Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!

[1tabligh]

Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings. You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed.

To make it more clear: You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on.

[1tabligh]

You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve. If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children. By eliminating the first generation, you eliminate the second and what is beyond it. Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself. But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there.

[1tabligh]

Now you may bring YOUR darwinian monkey tricks of evolution and say: But there was no Adam and Eve, we come fom monkeys, chimps blah blah blah! Granted, Even then if you deny the existence of the first beings, you would be eliminating the whole evolution!

So much science for this stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!

Poor fella!

[1tabligh]

When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case,

[1tabligh]

fucking words...copypaste shit ....some stupid islam propaganda ...

___

Talking like a 6 years old kid!

When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause

[1tabligh]

and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.

Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system;

[1tabligh]

they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.

Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!

Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!

How is that for YOUR " fucking words...copypaste shit ....some stupid islam propaganda ..." and answer the question instead?!

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Very nice, indeed. However, your petty insults don't really make up for using a fundamentally flawed argument. All you do is copypaste the bullshit  in that al islam website without even thinking about it rationally. Lets see, we are clear evidence of the existence of adam and eve? How so? Do you honestly buy into that fairytale? Got any dna tracks we can follow? Or is this allegorical bullshit actually translating into literal stuff in your copypasting brain?

[1tabligh]

@hellhammerz666 Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?

Do you understand english distinctly?

No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!

YES OR NO?

Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Why would his discoveries lead him to believe some imaginary guy made it all? You also don't seem to have a clue about what you're trying to dismiss. Humans and chimps are both part of the same family, known as the great apes (hominidae). This means that both humans and chimps (among other great apes) share a common point that makes us close relatives. Every species shares common ancestry, regardless of how distant their appearance may seem.

[1tabligh]

@hellhammerz666 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh You're kidding, right? It's not about me denying the existence of your imaginary friend. It's about you FAILING at proving he's real in the first place. This is why science can't say absolutely anything about gods and other mythical characters. They don't belong to the field of study pertinent to science. This is why anyone claiming science proves (or disproves) god is a liar. However, science leads us to skepticism towards religious claims, because they constantly escape scrutiny.

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh To answer your stupid question in a concrete way:

NO. SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES DON'T LEAD SCIENTISTS TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE'S A CREATOR OF EVERYTHING.

Is that clear enough? or are you gonna keep hiding behind retarded questions to try and veil your fallacious arguments again?

I strongly advise you to watch a video recorded during one of Dr. Tyson's conferences. You can find it under the name "the god of the gaps".

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh In that video, Dr Tyson demonstrates with many examples from great scientists that the only way scientists have come to the conclusion of a god behind it all is simply when their current knowledge doesn't suffice to provide an explaination for problems they try to solve, hence the name "god of the gaps". You can try to hide your imaginary friend in any area of scientific ignorance, but eventually the explanations are developed, defeating the "need" for supercrapural explanations.

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Dr Tyson demonstrates with many examples from great scientists that the only way scientists have come to the conclusion of a god behind it all is when their current knowledge doesn't suffice to provide an explaination for problems they try to solve, hence the name "god of the gaps". Before you jump to try and twist it around to say your question's answer is yes, this only demonstrates gods are hidden in areas of scientific ignorance. Once we know how stuff works they become worthless.

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Some more for you to think about: How the heck can you tell your imaginary friend made it all? We can agree everything needs a beginning, so what exactly created your god? If your answer is "oh he's infinite!", then how can you claim this without providing a single shred of evidence and expect to be taken seriously? How can you have been so careless to actually claim science proves god, when scientists themselves have established stuff outside the physical world don't concern science?

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh The fact that science develops thanks to religious scientists doesn't mean science is made using religion. In fact, both science and religiuon are fundamentally incompatible. Religion bases on belief without evidence (aka faith), while science DEMANDS thorough scrutiny and observation. Learn the difference and learn to think about the crap you copypaste before you actually do it. Claiming science proves religion makes you a stupid lying bufoon, period.

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Btw, you're still copypasting silly propaganda. Still unable to bring forward arguments of your own? Thanks for proving my point right. It's funny, albeit, PATHETIC, not even the insult "pseudo scientific demagoguery" is original. You're simply terrible, man. Can't even come up with your own insults (not like it matters, anyways...). Very sad.

Back to the topic, how the fuck can you claim science proves this bullshit when you say there were "2 original human beings"?

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh It's even funnier when you consider those first human beings are not even 10000 years old. That is, unless you want to twist words around and pretend this allegorical fairytale for brianless idiots like you actually talks about millions of years ago. Either way it doesn''t matter. There has NEVER been 2 original individuals of any species. I hope this won't destroy your idealization of Noah's ark. Oops!

[hellhammerz666]

@1tabligh Science studies natural phenomena in our physical reality. It has nothing to do with metaphysical crap, regardless if the motivation for curiosity has a spiritual nature. Perhaps your god exists, but most likely according to the current state of evidence for his case, he does not. Wanna change that fact? Go ahead and provide solid evidence for his existence. Otherwise, it's just baseless speculation from your copypasted website (since you can't seem to provide arguments of your own).

[1tabligh]

What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.

All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.

[AegeanKing]

@nakomaru A singularity does not point to a creator? Knowing that space, time and matter did not exist at one point and then it all came into existence does not point to a creator? Also, you are in no place to criticize Davies. He is a world class physicist and you are just some guy with a youtube channel. If he criticizes the multiverse theory than I am sure he has logical grounds for doing so. Also, he isnt the only one that criticizes the multiverse hypothesis.

[marcmmayes]

We all know that Bill simply loves ratings by being controversial or aligning himself with controversial opinions and people with them. And, although it appears that, that is his only motive, I sometimes wonder if he isn't so cowardly hiding his true feelings regarding people of color. Although that in itself is a subjest of controversy for which yet again is a perfect subject for him to surround himself in for his ratings. At least he's good at something!

[xDroflmao1337]

Neil pwns the hell out of Bill, dude, its ridiculous that Bill has so many viewers and Neil doesn't.

[MalakiMask]

He NEEDS to go on Bill'oRielly's bitch ass show