Easy way to beat the "Do you know everything" argument is to say 'yes', when they say "prove it", answer with "prove I dont" and from then on refuse to answer any questions on the grounds they are unworthy to know
@dechha1981 based on the chemical reactions in your head? (THIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS INTENTIONALLY INSULTING OR EVEN DISRESPECTFUL) I have yet to find someone that actually thinks there is no connection between their thoughts and reality and so refuting their own belief !
@pelonisas You don't even know what those chemicals do. Nor do you know the first thing about the Big Bang theory. Frankly I wonder if you know which way gravity makes things go.
@dechha1981I admit it, I have no scientific background, I will say however, that you have to very biased against any other world view not to admit that the big bang is something we know very little about since we cannot subject it to scientific experimentation and therefore should be classified as highly speculative.
@pelonisas What is this "Bias" and "World View" crap? I just think you're an idiot. Also you've clearly NEVER heard anything I've ever said about the Big Bang, or skepticism, which of course raises the question of why you would tell me what my position is on those things at all.
@dechha1981world view is the framework within which you interpret the evidence, and (if)
that's the only one you'll consider based on the skimpy evidence for the big bang then that's your bias. Idiot in this context simply means someone that thinks differently than you. By the way, you were the one that actually started with comments against my post in favor of the big bang.
@pelonisas Are you trying to actually set an argument or are you making fun of creationists here? I can believe either one. Furthermore, the big bang was a rapid expansion of space and time. Furthermore, the big bang is the furthest scientists can trace the universes history back. There is nothing that says there was nothing before.
@1234yersiman space time and matter according to some scientists, so it might just be ignorance on my part, what could you conceive that does not fit into those 3 categories?
@pelonisas What part of "furthest scientists can trace the universes history back" don't you get? All three that you mention are in the big bang, and nothing was "created" (that's only left for religious people). Yes, it is ignorance on your part.
@1234yersiman I'm simply telling you that the big bang is highly speculative due to the fact that such a thing cannot be observed in a natural occurrence or lab experiment. The idea that big objects fall faster than little objects was proven to be false by direct experimentation, in like manner only could this be if it could somehow be repeated.
@pelonisas Um no, the big bang theory was created through first observational cosmology, and then there are experiments that are being performed under high energy. Not only has it been repeated, it is the current accepted theory due to much of the observations and experiments.
@pelonisas I would like to direct you towards a few simple scientific evidences that we have for the big bang. The simplest would be the hubble deep field. Because light takes so long to reach us the more magnified we can make an image in the sky the further back in time we are looking. The hubble deep field is a series of photos taken of deep space showing how the early universe appeared. We can also use Cosmic background radiation to look even further, about 400,000 yrs after the big bang.
Oh gob it's so hard to get through ven's videos. I've seen it once hated my self for watching.
His videos are like if Bill Nye was a full blown wackoloon creationist with logic as wide as horse blinders.
Really weird camera work trying to teach you with bright lights and weird sounds but at the end you could unlearn stuff and be left confused with your mouth hanging down going Dahhhhhh like the raving rabbids.
I'm probably still going to watch your vids on it, if i keep my sanity.
the burden of proof is not on the atheists it is on the one makeing the assertion that there is something you cant disprove a negative you can only prove a positive you can't prove that i have a gnome sticking out my ass without proof and since you have no proof only FAITH you have lost the battle the war and my hope in humanity.
the fact that atheism cannot provide an explaination of the universe or the fine-tuning or the laws of logic does shift some burden of proof onto the atheist.
Nope, we don't fully understand the anthropic principals ins and outs, string theory will probably provide the answers to this, BUT in any case, atheism isn't a thing lol, it is simply a reaction to a religion, a lack of religion. How can not having a position mean there is any burden of proof?.
the person making the claim (the theist in this case) is solely responsible for proof of there claim. to say other wise is madness!.
Example , we find a car on the street, my position is that there were some sort of engineer that designed it . You could reject this position and claim it was not designed . I present evidence that the car was designed . However your position is not plausible unless you present evidence that it was not designed or a conceivable way in which it could have come about without a designer .
You know a car is designed, because you can go to a car factory and WATCH cars being made. Even if you couldn't do this, you can get the designs for the car, and build one yourself. There is no natural method for the car to come into being.
By contrast you cannot go to the universe factory, or find a people making machine. Yet there IS a natural method for people coming about, which is evolution, there is a natural method for life to come about, and the universe.
I should clarify, while you know what I mean, it is unlikely creationists will. I meant an ultimate origin machine, with a sign saying "insert dirt here" which can bring human beings into existence bypassing abiogenesis and gradual evolution.
If you found a snowflake on mars, a amazing complex structure, perfectly symmetrical crystal. You would conclude that it is formed by aliens would you?
No, because you have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of a snowflake crystal. We know how they form.
We could also look at the alien spaceship, we have no natural explanation for its formation.
However in terms of life, and the universe we DO have a natural explanation for their origin.
Now before you do what most creationists do and mix up abiogenesis, the big bang, and evolution. I shall explain the differences.
The big bang is cosmology, it deals with the origin of the universe.
Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life from non-life. Through simple non-random chemical processes we can observe happening today.
Evolution is what happens AFTER you have life. It is about how things change over time through reproduction with variation and environmental attrition.
Well, seeing as how atheism just means no belief in God and that's it, then there is no reason it should try to explain the universe. It isn't a religion, but a word.
Life adapts to it's surroundings, the surroundings don't adapt for life.
You'd realize this if you KNEW a single THING about biology.
(Now for the completely related ad hominem)
But it's obvious you know less the nothing about anything, because you're a Christian, and therefore suffer from some incredibly disabilitating brain tumor or something.
Good, empirical evidence seems to indicate most creationists cannot distinguish the difference between abiogensis, the big bang and evolution. Largely due to lies spread by people like Kent Hovind who make a phenominal amount of money by misleading people.
If you are not within this group, then congratulations.
You did however state that universes do not reproduce, which seemed to indicate you thought that evolution applies to anything outside of biology.
I agree . Kent hovind isn't too bright (or honest) .
I was just trying to show OccamKant that evolution didn't falsify the entire argument from design - and the universe still requires a valid explaination for its existence.
Even with the big bang, and the theory of evolution, it could still be designed in some strange M-theory manner. This claim however cannot be verified or falsified, therefore it is not science.
Unlike cars we have no evidence to show that the universe and life were designed, we do have natural explanations for the universe. I mean snowflake crystals are amazingly structured and complex, yet we do not reach for a deity to explain how they come about, because we have a natural explanation.
Oh and I second OccamKant's suggestion that you get 'A brief history of time' It is a very good book, and if you are interested in the origins of the universe it is a must have.
Of COURSE atheism "cannot provide an explaination of the universe or the fine-tuning or the laws of logic" Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. NOTHING is explained by a lack of belief in something. Your lack of belief in vampires doesn't explain the complex intricate details of the internet, either.
I'm afraid I'm picky about people actually useing the words they mean. I will not allow Theists to say "Evolution" when they mean Abiogenesis, or worse, the formation of planets. I will not let Theists get away with calling me an "Evolutionist" without INSISTING that they also call me a gravitationist, an Aerodynamicsist, a Geologist...
So, again, how exactly is a lack of belief in a god or gods supposed to explain anything?
Let's say i was an A-evolutionist(hypothetically speaking).
Evolution explains the fossil records and transitional species and genetic similarities between creatures.
unless I can provide some explaination for these features or can equally explain these features- I have no rational basis for rejecting the theory of evolution or becoming an a-evolutionist.
Wrong. Say the theory of evolution states that X evolved from Y and Y evolved from X. It would then be logically incoherent and I can reject it without presenting an alternative.
I consider most concepts of gods illogical. Certainly the abrahamic ones. They also tend to be in violation of observed reality.( prayer can't be demonstrated to do anything, which it should if christianity was true) Again I can reject them without an alternative.
//prayer can't be demonstrated to do anything, which it should if christianity was true//
Lets see how you reached that conclusion.You disregard all the people who say they their prayers have been answered as chance or self-fulfillment.Take only those people who say their prayer have not worked and use that to base your sample.
Is that an accurate description of your methodology?
//Deist gods aren't illogical, but are irrelevant. //
And if i wanted to be really tricky I could redefine theism as a lack of belief in metaphysical naturalism-and then theists wouldn't have to explain anything.
If you mean that the BIG BANG THEORY doesn't explain where the universe came from, then SAY the Big Bang Theory doesn't explain where the universe comes from. If you want to say SCIENCE doesn't explain something then SAY Science doesn't explain something.
Again, since you freely ADMIT that you CLEARLY meant Atheism and not Science, and since you for some reason expect that a lack of belief in a god or gods to explain ANYTHING even though your OWN lack of belief in vampires doesn't explain the internet, we're back to square one.
OK - If a are an a-mailman-ist but can't explain how the mail gets in your mailbox and don't think you need to conjecture an explaination-I think that says a lot about your position and how rational it is
Say EXACTLY what you mean. Say WHAT you think can't explain something. When you say EXACTLY what you mean, THEN I will answer your question. And don't say "Atheism" because, again, of course it doesn't. If you say "Science doesn't explain X" or "Theory A doesn't explain X" THEN we can talk.
Mail is a horribly analogy to reality because we know mail is created by humans, but ignoring that, consider this scenario:
I'm an amailmanist and two mailmanists challenge my beliefs. #1 suggests that a flying spaghetti monster creates and delivers the mail. #2 suggests that it might be naked pixies.
Explain to me why it is *rational* for me to select one of the above mailmanist belief systems and how this is better than saying "I reject all current explanations".
The problem you get when you make shit up is that you are almost guaranteed to be holding wrong beliefs about reality.
"X lives in my drawer"
is false for all or almost all X. If you don't look and still insist on substituting in something for X because you believe logic dictates that "something must live there" you're almost certain to be holding a false belief.
Because of this, any claim of existence that does not come with evidence is worthless and irrational.
No the rational conclusion someone would come to when they find mail in the mailbox is that there was a cause- an entity that put/created the mail there.
in the same way-it would be logical to conclude that from cosmology there was a first cause that exists outside time and space( basically a minimalist definition of god)
You could do that, but it would be outright false because theism is not just rejecting metaphysical naturalism - theism proposes the existence of a "god"(whatever that is). You don't get to that simply by rejecting MetaNat - existence is not a default position.
But theists don't have to explain how they reached the conclusion that this god UNLESS they seek to convince others. If they want to do this they are not going to get anywhere unless they are able to justify their claim in some way.
Similarly, to convince others, atheists need to undermine specific theistic positions that they are being challenged on.
For example, I can reject the tri-omni god via logical inconsistency between omnipotence and omniscience or omnibenevolence and the behaviour of the god in the OT.
Or some other argument depending on how the theist wants to define his own god(each theist has his own imo)
Do you have a valid reason for NOT accepting the creation of existence by the god Mithras or Zeus and the Primordials?
Dis-belief in a proposition is often based on a LACK of convincing evidence FOR that proposition. It is NOT often based on another proposition providing more abundant evidence.
IE. God Hypothesis can be rejected due to lack of evidence FOR the God Hypothesis. Another theory or hypothesis does not have to supplant it. It simply remains a "I don't know" proposition.
The creationist argument that "you don't have a better idea... so god wins" is a ridiculous play on the "god of the gaps".
If courts of law functioned like this, one would have to find a more likely suspect for a murder charge, before an otherwise innocent man would be allowed to go free.
Prosecution: "Well, did the defense succeed in finding a MORE suspicious suspect for this charge of murder? No?"
Why do I reject zeus and Mithras? Easy.Both were born in the physical realm within time at the universe pre-existed them.
thus they provide no explaination for the existence of the universe , laws of logic,the cause of time..etc (like the Abrahamic god does provide an explaination)
Actually, Genesis' Yahweh does NOT explain the origin of the physical universe nor time, since in Genesis he is in a realm of water upon which he speaks the earth into existence.
And it is stated on which "days" he "created" different aspects of the world, so time existed before the physical universe.
The christian god, Jesus, was born long AFTER the creation of the universe, just like Zeus. So, your logic fails in this regard since you would likewise have to reject Jesus as well.
Er...actually, you CAN prove or disprove a negative. The key is, you have to DEFINE what it is you're trying to prove or disprove. Case in point: I DEFINE what a perpetual motion engine is (basically an engine that does work without losing its stored energy) and then I can prove it CANNOT exist (10 - 5 = 10 is wrong).
BTW, for those few atheist who positively claim that there's no god or gods (i.e. making an assertion), the burden of proof is on them as well.
The Bible and Koran are full of false prophecies. Yahweh either doesn't exist, or he is a liar. You've moved the goalpost to "There is an all-loving God" to "God is a douchebag"
Of course,there are 30 million other gods we need to disprove, but we're working on it.
How did I move the post? I'm not even Christian..yeah, I don't even have a goalpost. And who says that the Bible or the Koran knows anything about god or gods (apart from the Bible and the Koran and their followers, obviously)?
Here's something for you to try and disprove. If someone concentrates enough laser beams on a single point to raise the temperature to a high enough degree, he'll create a new, separate and independent universe (Kaku and Guth), becoming a creator-god.
Actually, there's another way. You can try to disprove the mathematics behind it. Look up Alan Guth and bubble theory. So no, there's not "only one way".
Easy way to beat the "Do you know everything" argument is to say 'yes', when they say "prove it", answer with "prove I dont" and from then on refuse to answer any questions on the grounds they are unworthy to know
AtlasSniperman 2 weeks ago
@AtlasSniperman
I like it.
Seems like the kind of thing that should only be used on Theists that have already displayed similar logic, though.
dechha1981 2 weeks ago
the big bang is actually very simple, first there was nothing...............then it exploded! Chuck Missler.
pelonisas 1 year ago
@pelonisas You're an idiot.
dechha1981 1 year ago
@dechha1981 based on the chemical reactions in your head? (THIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS INTENTIONALLY INSULTING OR EVEN DISRESPECTFUL) I have yet to find someone that actually thinks there is no connection between their thoughts and reality and so refuting their own belief !
pelonisas 1 year ago
@pelonisas You don't even know what those chemicals do. Nor do you know the first thing about the Big Bang theory. Frankly I wonder if you know which way gravity makes things go.
dechha1981 1 year ago
@dechha1981I admit it, I have no scientific background, I will say however, that you have to very biased against any other world view not to admit that the big bang is something we know very little about since we cannot subject it to scientific experimentation and therefore should be classified as highly speculative.
pelonisas 1 year ago
@pelonisas What is this "Bias" and "World View" crap? I just think you're an idiot. Also you've clearly NEVER heard anything I've ever said about the Big Bang, or skepticism, which of course raises the question of why you would tell me what my position is on those things at all.
dechha1981 1 year ago
@dechha1981world view is the framework within which you interpret the evidence, and (if)
that's the only one you'll consider based on the skimpy evidence for the big bang then that's your bias. Idiot in this context simply means someone that thinks differently than you. By the way, you were the one that actually started with comments against my post in favor of the big bang.
pelonisas 1 year ago
@pelonisas Are you trying to actually set an argument or are you making fun of creationists here? I can believe either one. Furthermore, the big bang was a rapid expansion of space and time. Furthermore, the big bang is the furthest scientists can trace the universes history back. There is nothing that says there was nothing before.
1234yersiman 1 year ago
@1234yersiman space time and matter according to some scientists, so it might just be ignorance on my part, what could you conceive that does not fit into those 3 categories?
pelonisas 1 year ago
@pelonisas What part of "furthest scientists can trace the universes history back" don't you get? All three that you mention are in the big bang, and nothing was "created" (that's only left for religious people). Yes, it is ignorance on your part.
1234yersiman 1 year ago
@1234yersiman I'm simply telling you that the big bang is highly speculative due to the fact that such a thing cannot be observed in a natural occurrence or lab experiment. The idea that big objects fall faster than little objects was proven to be false by direct experimentation, in like manner only could this be if it could somehow be repeated.
pelonisas 1 year ago
@pelonisas It's BASED on observcations you dickhead.
dechha1981 1 year ago
@pelonisas Um no, the big bang theory was created through first observational cosmology, and then there are experiments that are being performed under high energy. Not only has it been repeated, it is the current accepted theory due to much of the observations and experiments.
1234yersiman 1 year ago
@pelonisas I would like to direct you towards a few simple scientific evidences that we have for the big bang. The simplest would be the hubble deep field. Because light takes so long to reach us the more magnified we can make an image in the sky the further back in time we are looking. The hubble deep field is a series of photos taken of deep space showing how the early universe appeared. We can also use Cosmic background radiation to look even further, about 400,000 yrs after the big bang.
Andjealous 10 months ago
I cant understand this, the sound is bad :/
RavenofDenmark 1 year ago
Evolutiion says...>>>....strawman follows
gregrutz 2 years ago
omg, 6:00-7:00 true story
gmastalank 2 years ago
7:02 satellites are proof of god? LOL
hoodmilk 2 years ago
The womans voice sounds offensive to my ears really. it was awful.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
Is the voice ABC-s?
Baszottbivaly 3 years ago
Yes it is!
dechha1981 3 years ago
She's doing a Russian accent because I asked her to do an impression of HotForWords.
dechha1981 3 years ago
the women was reallya annoying
mark3105 3 years ago
Marinna is hotter!
cynisturb 3 years ago
That leprechaun bit was brilliant.
TheStephenation 3 years ago
Oh god, bikini babe is plastic, robotic, and lurking at the bottom of the uncanny valley! Otherwise, nice vid!
GrumpyMrGruff 3 years ago
Excellent vid! I love your simple but effective animation. What software are you using for it?
OccamKant 3 years ago
Poser 7
dechha1981 3 years ago
I couldnt watch anymore. Sorry m8. That accent was irritating.
Apologies
gingergreek 3 years ago
Oh gob it's so hard to get through ven's videos. I've seen it once hated my self for watching.
His videos are like if Bill Nye was a full blown wackoloon creationist with logic as wide as horse blinders.
Really weird camera work trying to teach you with bright lights and weird sounds but at the end you could unlearn stuff and be left confused with your mouth hanging down going Dahhhhhh like the raving rabbids.
I'm probably still going to watch your vids on it, if i keep my sanity.
EmperorEva0001 3 years ago
That's not how she looks like. She's much skinnier.
JohnTraviss 3 years ago
hehe....I love the Jehovah Agnostic bit......mind if I use that?
ShinoHina4eva 3 years ago
Go ahead. I even made a whole video on that paticular subject called "What I specifically believe".
dechha1981 3 years ago
cool vid, and my pic...nice move
zzbullan 3 years ago 2
the burden of proof is not on the atheists it is on the one makeing the assertion that there is something you cant disprove a negative you can only prove a positive you can't prove that i have a gnome sticking out my ass without proof and since you have no proof only FAITH you have lost the battle the war and my hope in humanity.
beyondDMC4 3 years ago 3
the fact that atheism cannot provide an explaination of the universe or the fine-tuning or the laws of logic does shift some burden of proof onto the atheist.
(and faith is rust in god)
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
Nope, we don't fully understand the anthropic principals ins and outs, string theory will probably provide the answers to this, BUT in any case, atheism isn't a thing lol, it is simply a reaction to a religion, a lack of religion. How can not having a position mean there is any burden of proof?.
the person making the claim (the theist in this case) is solely responsible for proof of there claim. to say other wise is madness!.
joebot1 3 years ago
Example , we find a car on the street, my position is that there were some sort of engineer that designed it . You could reject this position and claim it was not designed . I present evidence that the car was designed . However your position is not plausible unless you present evidence that it was not designed or a conceivable way in which it could have come about without a designer .
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
Are you trying to use paleys' argument? The watch on the heath?
Geez man, that's been refuted ages ago.
Here's a hint: cars and watches don't reproduce.
OccamKant 3 years ago 2
...and neither does the universe.
Your point?
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
Why would the universe need to reproduce...
Ohhhh! You're doing that crazy creationist thing and mixing up cosmology and evolution!
That's so cute!
OccamKant 3 years ago 2
I was talking about cosmology and the first cause argument he looked at in his video.(I guess you missed that)Wasn't talking about evolution.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
You know a car is designed, because you can go to a car factory and WATCH cars being made. Even if you couldn't do this, you can get the designs for the car, and build one yourself. There is no natural method for the car to come into being.
By contrast you cannot go to the universe factory, or find a people making machine. Yet there IS a natural method for people coming about, which is evolution, there is a natural method for life to come about, and the universe.
The watch argument is dumb
Xorinite 3 years ago
Actually, Xorinite, people making machines are walking around all over. ;) You're probably one yourself. Or at least, you're 1/2 of one.
That's the point - living organisms are self replicating machines. Unlike cars and watches.
(This is not a disagreement, just a tweak)
OccamKant 3 years ago
Thanks for the correction. :)
I should clarify, while you know what I mean, it is unlikely creationists will. I meant an ultimate origin machine, with a sign saying "insert dirt here" which can bring human beings into existence bypassing abiogenesis and gradual evolution.
Xorinite 3 years ago
"insert dirt here" - LOL!
OccamKant 3 years ago
Let's say we found an alien spacecraft on Mars-Would you need to see the "factory" to come to a conclusion that aliens probaly exist?
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
If you found a snowflake on mars, a amazing complex structure, perfectly symmetrical crystal. You would conclude that it is formed by aliens would you?
No, because you have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of a snowflake crystal. We know how they form.
We could also look at the alien spaceship, we have no natural explanation for its formation.
However in terms of life, and the universe we DO have a natural explanation for their origin.
Xorinite 3 years ago
Now before you do what most creationists do and mix up abiogenesis, the big bang, and evolution. I shall explain the differences.
The big bang is cosmology, it deals with the origin of the universe.
Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life from non-life. Through simple non-random chemical processes we can observe happening today.
Evolution is what happens AFTER you have life. It is about how things change over time through reproduction with variation and environmental attrition.
Xorinite 3 years ago
Well, seeing as how atheism just means no belief in God and that's it, then there is no reason it should try to explain the universe. It isn't a religion, but a word.
eurohim 3 years ago
Atheism doesn't need to explain anything any more than a-santaism or a-toothfairyism needs to explain anything.
Science is the tool we use to discover and explain the universe, and it does.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Atheism has to give a good reason to reject the god hypothesis-and provide a superior explaination .
(I can provide a superior explaination for how children receive presents-so I would say a-santaism is much more plausible)
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
Life adapts to it's surroundings, the surroundings don't adapt for life.
You'd realize this if you KNEW a single THING about biology.
(Now for the completely related ad hominem)
But it's obvious you know less the nothing about anything, because you're a Christian, and therefore suffer from some incredibly disabilitating brain tumor or something.
EziekielNightwind 3 years ago
I wasn't arguing about the origin of life????
And you guys always accuse Christians of confusing cosmology and biology.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
You're still mixing evolution or abiogenesis with cosmology.
Read "A Brief History of Time" - Stephen Hawking has a pretty clear explanation for the development of our universe after the big bang.
And before you ask, NO, we don't know what came before the big bang.
But so what? We don't know YET. Doesn't mean you get to say "Aha! God did it". The god of the bible most CERTAINLY did NOT do it.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Good, empirical evidence seems to indicate most creationists cannot distinguish the difference between abiogensis, the big bang and evolution. Largely due to lies spread by people like Kent Hovind who make a phenominal amount of money by misleading people.
If you are not within this group, then congratulations.
You did however state that universes do not reproduce, which seemed to indicate you thought that evolution applies to anything outside of biology.
Xorinite 3 years ago
I agree . Kent hovind isn't too bright (or honest) .
I was just trying to show OccamKant that evolution didn't falsify the entire argument from design - and the universe still requires a valid explaination for its existence.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
"and the universe still requires a valid explaination for its existence."
I repeat myself: Go read "A Brief History of Time". Explanation is in there.
OccamKant 3 years ago
Even with the big bang, and the theory of evolution, it could still be designed in some strange M-theory manner. This claim however cannot be verified or falsified, therefore it is not science.
Unlike cars we have no evidence to show that the universe and life were designed, we do have natural explanations for the universe. I mean snowflake crystals are amazingly structured and complex, yet we do not reach for a deity to explain how they come about, because we have a natural explanation.
Xorinite 3 years ago
Oh and I second OccamKant's suggestion that you get 'A brief history of time' It is a very good book, and if you are interested in the origins of the universe it is a must have.
Xorinite 3 years ago
Lets not play into the creationist false dichotomy.
DonExodus2 is a Christian and yet he is a very good scientist and produces plenty of youtube videos debunking creationist claims.
Most christians world wide are NOT creationists. It is only 15% minority of christians who are creationists. Most creationists are Muslim and Hindu.
Xorinite 3 years ago
Of COURSE atheism "cannot provide an explaination of the universe or the fine-tuning or the laws of logic" Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. NOTHING is explained by a lack of belief in something. Your lack of belief in vampires doesn't explain the complex intricate details of the internet, either.
dechha1981 3 years ago
(bangs head against the wall)
unless atheism can provide an equally valid explaination, Atheists have no valid reason to reject the god hypothesis.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
How is a lack of belief in a god or gods supposed to provide an explanation for anything? How does your avampirism explain the internet?
dechha1981 3 years ago
I'm afraid I'm picky about people actually useing the words they mean. I will not allow Theists to say "Evolution" when they mean Abiogenesis, or worse, the formation of planets. I will not let Theists get away with calling me an "Evolutionist" without INSISTING that they also call me a gravitationist, an Aerodynamicsist, a Geologist...
So, again, how exactly is a lack of belief in a god or gods supposed to explain anything?
dechha1981 3 years ago
unless avampirism can provide an equally valid explaination, Avampirists have no valid reason to reject the elves made the internet hypothesis.
Seriously; How is a lack of belief supposed to explain anything?
dechha1981 3 years ago
Let's say i was an A-evolutionist(hypothetically speaking).
Evolution explains the fossil records and transitional species and genetic similarities between creatures.
unless I can provide some explaination for these features or can equally explain these features- I have no rational basis for rejecting the theory of evolution or becoming an a-evolutionist.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
Wrong. Say the theory of evolution states that X evolved from Y and Y evolved from X. It would then be logically incoherent and I can reject it without presenting an alternative.
I consider most concepts of gods illogical. Certainly the abrahamic ones. They also tend to be in violation of observed reality.( prayer can't be demonstrated to do anything, which it should if christianity was true) Again I can reject them without an alternative.
Deist gods aren't illogical, but are irrelevant.
FaithIsImaginary 3 years ago
//prayer can't be demonstrated to do anything, which it should if christianity was true//
Lets see how you reached that conclusion.You disregard all the people who say they their prayers have been answered as chance or self-fulfillment.Take only those people who say their prayer have not worked and use that to base your sample.
Is that an accurate description of your methodology?
//Deist gods aren't illogical, but are irrelevant. //
Why reject deism then?
MrFreeThinker 3 years ago
And if i wanted to be really tricky I could redefine theism as a lack of belief in metaphysical naturalism-and then theists wouldn't have to explain anything.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
That would be just making up definitions.
If you mean that the BIG BANG THEORY doesn't explain where the universe came from, then SAY the Big Bang Theory doesn't explain where the universe comes from. If you want to say SCIENCE doesn't explain something then SAY Science doesn't explain something.
dechha1981 3 years ago
I was critiquing atheism- not science.
MrFreeThinker 3 years ago
That makes no sense whatsoever.
dechha1981 3 years ago
Again, since you freely ADMIT that you CLEARLY meant Atheism and not Science, and since you for some reason expect that a lack of belief in a god or gods to explain ANYTHING even though your OWN lack of belief in vampires doesn't explain the internet, we're back to square one.
SAY WHAT YOU FUCKING MEAN!
dechha1981 3 years ago
OK - If a are an a-mailman-ist but can't explain how the mail gets in your mailbox and don't think you need to conjecture an explaination-I think that says a lot about your position and how rational it is
MrFreeThinker 3 years ago
Do me a favour;
Say EXACTLY what you mean. Say WHAT you think can't explain something. When you say EXACTLY what you mean, THEN I will answer your question. And don't say "Atheism" because, again, of course it doesn't. If you say "Science doesn't explain X" or "Theory A doesn't explain X" THEN we can talk.
dechha1981 3 years ago
Mail is a horribly analogy to reality because we know mail is created by humans, but ignoring that, consider this scenario:
I'm an amailmanist and two mailmanists challenge my beliefs. #1 suggests that a flying spaghetti monster creates and delivers the mail. #2 suggests that it might be naked pixies.
Explain to me why it is *rational* for me to select one of the above mailmanist belief systems and how this is better than saying "I reject all current explanations".
FaithIsImaginary 3 years ago
The problem you get when you make shit up is that you are almost guaranteed to be holding wrong beliefs about reality.
"X lives in my drawer"
is false for all or almost all X. If you don't look and still insist on substituting in something for X because you believe logic dictates that "something must live there" you're almost certain to be holding a false belief.
Because of this, any claim of existence that does not come with evidence is worthless and irrational.
FaithIsImaginary 3 years ago
No the rational conclusion someone would come to when they find mail in the mailbox is that there was a cause- an entity that put/created the mail there.
in the same way-it would be logical to conclude that from cosmology there was a first cause that exists outside time and space( basically a minimalist definition of god)
MrFreeThinker 3 years ago
You could do that, but it would be outright false because theism is not just rejecting metaphysical naturalism - theism proposes the existence of a "god"(whatever that is). You don't get to that simply by rejecting MetaNat - existence is not a default position.
But theists don't have to explain how they reached the conclusion that this god UNLESS they seek to convince others. If they want to do this they are not going to get anywhere unless they are able to justify their claim in some way.
FaithIsImaginary 3 years ago
Similarly, to convince others, atheists need to undermine specific theistic positions that they are being challenged on.
For example, I can reject the tri-omni god via logical inconsistency between omnipotence and omniscience or omnibenevolence and the behaviour of the god in the OT.
Or some other argument depending on how the theist wants to define his own god(each theist has his own imo)
FaithIsImaginary 3 years ago
Do you have a valid reason for NOT accepting the creation of existence by the god Mithras or Zeus and the Primordials?
Dis-belief in a proposition is often based on a LACK of convincing evidence FOR that proposition. It is NOT often based on another proposition providing more abundant evidence.
IE. God Hypothesis can be rejected due to lack of evidence FOR the God Hypothesis. Another theory or hypothesis does not have to supplant it. It simply remains a "I don't know" proposition.
smaugfrost 3 years ago
The creationist argument that "you don't have a better idea... so god wins" is a ridiculous play on the "god of the gaps".
If courts of law functioned like this, one would have to find a more likely suspect for a murder charge, before an otherwise innocent man would be allowed to go free.
Prosecution: "Well, did the defense succeed in finding a MORE suspicious suspect for this charge of murder? No?"
smaugfrost 3 years ago
Why do I reject zeus and Mithras? Easy.Both were born in the physical realm within time at the universe pre-existed them.
thus they provide no explaination for the existence of the universe , laws of logic,the cause of time..etc (like the Abrahamic god does provide an explaination)
MrFreeThinker 3 years ago
Actually, Genesis' Yahweh does NOT explain the origin of the physical universe nor time, since in Genesis he is in a realm of water upon which he speaks the earth into existence.
And it is stated on which "days" he "created" different aspects of the world, so time existed before the physical universe.
The christian god, Jesus, was born long AFTER the creation of the universe, just like Zeus. So, your logic fails in this regard since you would likewise have to reject Jesus as well.
smaugfrost 3 years ago
A Realm of water???
John 1:1 In the beginnning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god .
Nope Jesus existed in the beginning with Yahweh
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
In Gen 1:2, a realm of water exists in a void of darkness (space). Where did the water come from if the earth and atmosphere had not been formed yet?
Again in Gen 1:3; then god creates night and day. There is no sun, moon or stars until Day four.
Apparently this god does not know where light originates.
He also creates plants (Day 3) before there is sunlight (Day 4) to facilitate their growth. He does not understand photosynthesis either.
smaugfrost 3 years ago
I'm not going to address aall ut there is some linguistic data that indicates "days" of the genesis story may be running concurrently.
You should check out "Framework hypothesis" interpretation of genesis.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
@beyondDMC4
Er...actually, you CAN prove or disprove a negative. The key is, you have to DEFINE what it is you're trying to prove or disprove. Case in point: I DEFINE what a perpetual motion engine is (basically an engine that does work without losing its stored energy) and then I can prove it CANNOT exist (10 - 5 = 10 is wrong).
BTW, for those few atheist who positively claim that there's no god or gods (i.e. making an assertion), the burden of proof is on them as well.
LordQuixote 9 months ago
@LordQuixote
Well, let's take a look, shall we.
The Bible and Koran are full of false prophecies. Yahweh either doesn't exist, or he is a liar. You've moved the goalpost to "There is an all-loving God" to "God is a douchebag"
Of course,there are 30 million other gods we need to disprove, but we're working on it.
Mectrixctic 9 months ago
@Mectrixctic
How did I move the post? I'm not even Christian..yeah, I don't even have a goalpost. And who says that the Bible or the Koran knows anything about god or gods (apart from the Bible and the Koran and their followers, obviously)?
Here's something for you to try and disprove. If someone concentrates enough laser beams on a single point to raise the temperature to a high enough degree, he'll create a new, separate and independent universe (Kaku and Guth), becoming a creator-god.
LordQuixote 9 months ago
@LordQuixote
Sorry, I mean "They".
And there's only one way to find out. Fire yer lazers!
Mectrixctic 9 months ago
@Mectrixctic
Actually, there's another way. You can try to disprove the mathematics behind it. Look up Alan Guth and bubble theory. So no, there's not "only one way".
LordQuixote 9 months ago
@LordQuixote
i was being sarcastic, as you can see with my mispelled words.
Mectrixctic 9 months ago
@Mectrixctic
Okie...and I thought you were supposed to above Christian chicanery....
Nevermind, I guess.
LordQuixote 9 months ago
How Awesome! ABC Rocks! i was wondering what she looked like!
cozmikzen 3 years ago 2