Omg you Fucking Red-Neck Fuck Tards who believe that intelligent design is science are being brainwashed by these fucking retards. Just Shut The Fuck Up and accept that we came from FUCKING MONKEYS.
Nothing was "made" in the big bang. Stuff that already existed began to take on spacial volume, which has increased over time. That's it. No need for a "creation", no need for a "god" who has an entire universe to consider and yet spends all his time sweating over what a particular bunch of primates do with their genitals. You want to mull over "stupid" ideas, consider that doozy.
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
Sorry, but your wordplay doesn't rescue your god. If the universe is his creation, then by definition he was not "infinitely" complex, because he just added to the complexity of existence. If you can add to the "infinite", then what was "infinite" before that? Evidently, less than infinite.
@tabligh "Use the reply button instead!" I'm familiar enough with your comments to know that you would just treat such replies as an excuse to copy/paste more of your pre-written drivel instead of engaging in an actual discussion; your reply to me is a perfect example of this because it doesn't actually address anything that I said.
This is one of the best speeches I've seen on evolutionary biology. There is NO WAY to bridge the education gap without being inclusive of religious belief in this way.
@tabligh "...decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world" The "laws" of the universe are not prescriptive laws like that, they're descriptive constructs that humans have made up in order to help us understand reality. Your refusal to accept this doesn't make it any less true.
"How could some of the scientists permit themselves..." Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we know can nothing. All people like you have is denialism.
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
@1tabligh "Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter"
A) On what basis do you hold this to be the case, and
B) even if you are correct, since the contents of the universe prior to its taking on physical dimensions ("the Big Bang") was not composed of matter (matter requiring dimensionality to exist), what problem does the universe have then with being eternal and requiring no creator god to justify its existence?
@PatchesRips 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?
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?
@1tabligh "How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction"
Because its posits that the complexity of the universe requires a creator, and that creator by definition must be at least as, if not more complex than, its creation. If your reason for positing a creator is complexity, then by definition this creator himself requires an even MORE complex creator, as does that creator, etc., etc.
@1tabligh (cont'd) On the other hand, the idea that the "stuff" of the universe has always existed violates no property of existence, requires no further explanation, and is, in fact, essentially a requirement of the laws of thermodynamics.
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning. The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
@1tabligh "The second principle of thermodynamics... teaches us that... the world certainly did have a beginning"
No. It has nothing to do with that. What that principle states is that in a closed system, the energy unavailable to do work will increase over time. That doesn't mean that the universe began to exist from non-existence at some point. What it means is that, eventually, the universe will return to a static and unchanging state.
@1tabligh (cont'd) Meanwhile, the FIRST law states that matter and energy cannot be either created nor destroyed. If they cannot be created, they do not require creation nor a creator; ergo the stuff of the universe has always existed.
@PatchesRips He's simply replacing an unknown: "How is it that a universe that's always existed can not have exhausted all its usable energy by now?" with raw speculation and a magical answer.
Of course, he'd have to be omniscient himself to know there can be no natural explanation, or that Allah did it (after waiting an infinite amount of time, it seems). It's the classic argument from ignorance. He can't think of a natural explanation, therefore no natural explanation can possibly exist.
@Pat...The universe is constantly advancing toward collapse and dissolution. For the energies existing in the world are gradually becoming dulled; atoms become energy, and active energy becomes inactive and motionless. Once the atoms are uniformly and equally divided, *nothing* remains but absolute silence and immobility. It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being, and there is *no* choice but to regard the world as created.
@1tabligh "It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being"
Of course it is. All you've described is a situation in which matter has decayed back into energy, and the energy has no opportunity to do work. If nothing changes, there is no rate of change (a.k.a. "time") to measure, and the universe resumes a state of eternity. Note that the energy, the "stuff" of the universe, has not ceased to exist. Where is the god in this?
@PatchesRips If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is *not* possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass
@1tabligh "all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago"
Matter isn't infinitely old. It dates to the big bang, 14 billion years ago. You're confusing matter with the stuff from which it self-assembles given an environment that has volume: something the universe was lacking before the big bang.
"perishable energies"
Energy isn't perishable; that's the point. It can cease to do work, but it doesn't cease to exist.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has *originated* in time.
@1tabligh "once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place"
Again, so what? It's an unhappy prospect, subjectively speaking, but that doesn't make it any less true.
"it is clear that the world has *originated* in time."
Time does haven an independent existence. It's a concept we use to measure rate of change. Prior to the big bang, the universe was a singularity. It didn't change; hence there was nothing to measure as "time". It was eternal.
@PatchesRips The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a *proof* of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.
We see, then, that the natural sciences have *expelled* matter/energy from the stronghold of *eternity*. Science not *only* proves the createdness of the world but *also* bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
@1tabligh "they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion"
But the stuff of the universe will continue to exist. It doesn't matter that it won't be in a form recognizable to us today; neither was it before the big bang. Again: what need is there for a god in any of this?
"Science not *only* proves the createdness of the world"
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
Who says it did? The big bang is when the universe began expanding--that is, taking on the property of dimensionality--from a singular state. It already existed; what happened at the big bang is that it began having a volume. In accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there was never a time when it didn't exist. The stuff of the universe can neither be destroyed nor created... hence, no creator.
@PatchesRips The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was *necessary* for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature.
How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
@1tabligh "The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated."
That's not the case. Differentiation was initial at the big bang. As to "formless", on what basis does the congealing of matter out of energy require a god? It happens every day. What sort of universe is so shabby it requires its creator constantly sticking his finger in like some supernatural Dutch boy at a universe-size dyke?
@1tabligh "How could an environment devoid of all active energy"
The universe was initially little BUT active energy. It's out of that energy that matter coalesced.
"serve as the origin of motion"
Motion was nicely supplied by the expansion of the universe that is the big bang, which is still going on.
"and life"
Life is simply an emergent property of matter; one way it organizes under appropriate conditions. As impressive as it is, there's nothing magic about it.
@PatchesRips Mechanics tells us that a motionless body is always motionless *unless* it becomes subject to a force *external* to itself. This law represents an inviolable principle in our material world, and we *cannot*, therefore, believe in a theory of probability *or* accident.
@gorilla199uncensored God is only One, and there is no God but He, the Almighty, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsistent, the Infinite in life, knowledge, and power. Jesus is not ever-living. He was born less than 2000 years ago, and according to the gospels, he died after a very short life. He is not almighty because he was a subject of persecution; nor was he infinite.
He could not be the Creator of the world because the world is over four billion years old,while he was
@gorilla199uncensored born less than two thousand years ago. He is not worthy of worship because he himself was a humble worshipper of God.
2. Jesus, is not a son of God. God does not have any son or child, because He is above that. Bodily parenthood is inconceivable in His case because He is not physical. Spiritual parenthood also is not conceivable, because He is the Creator of every spiritual and material being.
Your delusion 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 delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@PatchesRips How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
@PatchesRips In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
@1tabligh Now, WHY the universe went from being an unchanging singularity to taking on volume and permitting the expression of matter and the flow of energy through it to perform work is an intriguing question to which we might never have an answer. But not to put too fine a point on it, that doesn't justify leaping to the conclusion that "Ahha! Therefore an invisible magic man with a long white beard and list of things he doesn't want you to do with your penis must exist!"
@1tabligh "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?"
The Kansas Board of Education 's move to eliminate Evolution from the state's science curriculum struck me as high irony as these same people would no doubt bristle at the idea of removing god from the dollar bill. SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! ALL gods are MYTH!
Many people do not know Charles Darwin was a devout Christian until his daughter died. He blamed God on his daughter's death. Perfectly human reaction. His background in seminary training was fully alive on the Beagle. Charles often quoted Old Testament scriptures to ill-tempered sailor, to put it mildly. Contrary to atheists distorted representation of Charles' character, he was firm believer in Intelligent creation at the time he completed Origin of the Species. His background should be ack'd.
uhm... he didn't die in 1879. he didn't die an agnostic or a theist. And you quote mined the part where he clearly states, in the same line of reasoning that he doesn't believe in God.
" "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ"
@transtlantic What does Darwin's quote, "Science has nothing to do with Christ," mean to you? Atheist is not Theist. Charles Darwin says he is a THEIST! You are an aTHEIST? Darwin acknowledge his belief in Christ? If you are aTHEIST then who is aChrist??
@automatewithkorn Darwin was brought up Anglican, but stopped going to church in 1849 so I'm not so sure about any claims of "devout". In later life he described himself as agnostic.
@HarshColby Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church, but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist" and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. (Source: Wiki)
I just want to say THANK YOU to the poster of this video, it changed my life.
This video made me doubt the creditability of Christians to make rational decisions. Which brought the seed of doubt for one of my strongest pillars of faith which was the argument. "Then why do millions of other Christians believe in God?"
Once this pillar of faith was weaken, the rest of my pillars I stood on crumbed after a year.
3 years on, I have now been an Atheist for 2 years.
I cant say for certain, as I have to be humble & open to new evidences. But I dont think I could ever become a Christian again. Once I learned the arguments against God, I don't think my integrity would let me go back. It seems silly to me now, like trying to believe Thor or Zeus actually exist
When I was a Christan I NEVER thought Id stop believing completely. A day doesnt go by when I wonder what **** happened and why it was me that stopped believing & not others
@1tabligh your argument is an appeal to ignorance and it's what is called "god of the gaps". i suggest you do some research and educate yourself, stopping at "god did it" shouldn't suffice, it should scream at you for more. ignorance may be bliss but i would rather have the truth even if i don't like it so i stay away from the "god"fairy tales
We must be hoodwinked & lured into demeaning one another through the dogmatic strictures of animalism/animalitarianism ("atheism") in order: to deny Spiritualism; to wage total war; to value animal life above human life; to commit clinician-assisted murder by aborticide; to befoul the water with fluoride and pediatric serums with mercury; to becloud the air with aluminum oxide via military tanker jets; to burn tumorous growths with x-rays...
@TheMrgoku1985 They can believe what they want to believe, but without empirical repeatable evidence, your statement and their beliefs are simply conjecture and have no bearing on the Evolution process
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
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?
@1tabligh how could scientist - with close to zero knowledge make claims
REPLY - and this somehow makes the story from a damn magic book written by uneducated goat herder from the bronze age right ?? LOL What a joke for an argument for creationism. Every major university teaches evolution as science because evidence clearly points to it and not your silly bible fairytale.
You want to pretend you are standing in the middle of truth but the sad part is you'll tell kids the myth is true.
@Cuffsmaster 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 duped 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?
@1tabligh for your arguments to be true then the bible must first be proven correct.
SO prove the talking snake; burning bush/ ass - dome covering a flat earth - Tower of Babel theory of language - Samson's magic hair - any stupid Moses tale - salt woman - the unfucked birth - zombie jesus - water into wine - great murder by flood
You pretend you have and answer that trumps logic and science but offer nothing but smoke and mirrors to prove it. Pray to jesus to help you show proof LOL
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!
How can you delude yourself 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?
@1tabligh Of course! If only people would wake up and see with both eyes! Then they would SEE that all the knowledge of the world is written in two books: one created after the invasion of Israel by the Assyrian Empire and then another written at the end of the Roman Empire. It so obvious that the Earth is a flat disk supported by pillars around with rotates the sun, planets and stars. If the Earth was a globe then we would all fall off! If the Earth rotated then we would be able to feel it.
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
That book was written under the assertion(logical fallacy) the god of the OT did it.
This uncaused cause at lest your god the god of the OT to be specific is special pleading. You want us to grant a special exception for your god alone no one elses religion or god.
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
@TheMrgoku1985 In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
I asked for tested evidence the god of the OT specifically is the uncased cause you have given us nothing but special pleading. I dodged nothing you did.
@TheMrgoku1985 With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
@TheMrgoku1985 What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
This is irrelevant to the video this is about evolution you are trolling.
You keep using this special pleading a specific god did it with not evidence with regard to cosmology unrelated field and detraction technique. Prove the got of the ot specifically is real or gtfo.
@TheMrgoku1985 Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
@TheMrgoku1985 Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or *testing*.
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.
Materialism is all there is. Look at fire. Fire is energy, yet is the transformation of matter, three material things. Thus prior to fire there was matter, after matter there is something. Everything is only matter and energy.
again: how do you explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that they accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
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
@transtlantic No phenomenon becomes manifest in the world *until* a certain power is bestowed on it by one whose essence is *free* from need and is itself the very source from which being gushes forth. Were being inherent in the essences of phenomena, they would never follow the path of cessation and non-being.
fire only requires three things to occur, all of those things are material. There is no "power" to bestow. there is no "essence", there's matter. matter plus more matter does transform into more matter of different properties.
Yoru words are just useless salad, they don't express anything real, it's just you writing buy bull induced shit!
you can't explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory.
The brain is mindful matter, thus fairy named Allah does not exist.
@transtlantic It is neediness that is inherent in their essences, so that even after their being is established in the order of creation, their attribute of *neediness* continues under all circumstances. They are *never* free of need for a cause; it is *impossible* that an effect should enjoy existence independently or continue to exist for a single instant *without* relying on a cause.
Fire requires three things, the things exist prior to fire, does there is no need or essences, just matter joining and transforming into fire. There is no creation, things exist prior to fire, only transformation occurs. Thus Allah does not exist.
Fire exists independently or continue to exist as long as the matter prior to it exist.
thus matter precedes your god. Thus allah is the product of imagination, a material brain imagines a god, but God never exists.
All phenomena—all contingent beings—derive at all times and in every instant from an infinite essence that bestows being—i.e, the Necessary Being, the Unique and Almighty Creator—the power and sustenance that permit them to come into being and remain in being."He it is Who from the plenitude of His essence has bestowed on us the capital of being." Quran (53:48) "O mankind, you are in need of your Lord; it is only His unique essence that is free of need and worthy of praise."(35:15)
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
actually all atheists know that there was no primary cause. "primary cause" is just more of your word salad. meaningless. Matter is a very ambiguous word. Oxygen and Iron are both matter, but not the same type of matter. Thus... a classification of matter exists.
There is no "Primary matter". there is no "law of causality". it's just you making shit up.
There is no "origin", there's only transformation: Fire is made out of three things, those things exist prior to fire. transform
@transtlantic In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception,
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
let's see...fire is the union of three things, there is no consciousness, there is no power of decision, just three material things coming together by chance and thus originating fire.
You keep failing to refute my argument. "essence"? word salad, matter is, it has no essence.
"essential motion"? what is non essential motion by opposition to your claim?
"essential stability"? according to thermodynamics, stability is a physical impossibility.
@transtlantic ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
a question implies a "?" at the end of the phrase. You clearly are mentally challenged...
"DOes you speak the english?" lolololol
now... Where is one single example of immutability of essence when clearly physics state: Nothing is created, nothing is utterly destroyed, everything transforms, nothing is eternally stable as proven with the Laws of thermodynamics.
Your word sald even lacks a practical example. You are a retarded troll.
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
Fire is proof that eternity is never stable. Matter is all there is. fire is made out of three things. you have things prior to fire and after fire. thus everything is always material, always transformation. Never a God.
Thus you are full of shit. "nature is devoid...matter"? really? show me one single piece of nature that complies to your claims... where is it?
@transtlantic The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
actually the very nature of matter promotes continuity. Fire is the transformation of three things. matter exists, past, present and future, some form or another.
There is no "Prime or absolute agent", you are just making shit up again.
@transtlantic All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
Beings, by definition, is a word that implies existence. Thus..a being is only a being when existent. there's no being, prior to being. But with do have three things transforming into fire. thus while fire is not before the three things are put together, the three things do exist. and fire is the result of the transformation of the three things.
Thus...matter is all there is.
Your buy bull induced shit doesn't actually held up to scrutiny.
@transtlantic We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation.
the existence of fire only requires three things. the cause of fire is the union of those three things. such union can be randomness, chance, just because. there is no such thing as "fate", as everything that exists is subject to randomness. free will proves the impossibility of "fate". "fate" is post hoc fallacy
Existence does not depend upon cause, but on what existed before. Thus matter is all there is
Ofc consciousness does not affect in any way anything. You are just full of shit
@transtlantic The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need, condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change.
@transtlantic "Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that
@transtlantic lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **** concoct **** beliefs pleasing to themselves..
@Ofir84 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 duped 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?
we don't know what existed before the big bang or what caused it, but it's not relevant. Time started at the big bang, witch makes it impossible to ever know what caused it or what happened before. Maybe it was a godlike being, maybe a scientific process we'll never understand. The Bible was written 14 billion years after the big bang and it's arrogant to pretend that it's the real and only truth
@Ofir84 we don't know what existed before the big bang
___
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
@Ofir84 The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
@Ofir84 How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
@Ofir84 sorry but you sound legitimately mentally ill
___
So much science for this uncivilized stupid brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Then how can you delude yourself 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?
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
for the last time: i never said that the universe created itself out of nothing
i said that we do not know what really created the universe at this time. maybe one day we will, maybe not. You are the one claiming to know how everything started.
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?
@turtle8714 thanks, now it all makes perfect sense
___
You are welcome.
All atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy.
@turtle8714 When the beings and bodies that are visible in this world wish to produce energy, they are compelled to change their original aspect and transform it into energy.
Now is this energy—the axis on which turn many of the motions and changes of the universe— visible or tangible?
@1tabligh Actually, you may be interested into looking at a bit of astrophysics. Every atom that exists was made inside stars. When a star 'dies' that matter is then sent throughout space. This matter will sometimes collect due to a 'gravitational' pull and eventually form planets, solar systems, etc. Every atom in your body was once an atom inside of a star. More than likely, every atom in your body was from a different star. Very interesting stuff.
@DasPinkKitty With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
Your delusion 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 delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
REPLY - Every major University and lab in the world accepts & teaches evolution. Oh you guys pretend there is a debate in science but that is just smoke and mirrors to cover your weakness and lack of proof. You do have that fool Behe's theory which has been badly slammed by real science and must state on his university page that his opinion is not that of the biology department of his own school. BUT fundamentalist still get a hard on over his words
@TheMrgoku1985 Now I'm a deist and therefore believe there may well be some intended cause behind the big bang that started the whole process including millions of years of evolution. However no evidence supports my belief and I could be wrong and it is just some natural phenomenon without any guiding hand. I don't know. BUT clearly all evidence disputes creation as told in the magic book of fairytales. Hell they didn't even know the earth was not covered with a dome.
It is appauling and disturbing that would be get in the snake oil sales man priest to talk to his imaginary friend. That university has no credability.
It's amazing how this video continues to get a steady stream of comments after so many years. I discovered it over two years ago and have listened many times myself. What an interesting & controversial topic it is!
@artman2oo3 i totally agree. i've only become interested in the subject for the last 2 years and i am still surprised at the amount of passion and time that everyday people, budding scientists or theologins put into this argument. im so happy that we live in a time where we can discuss this subject without serious provocation
even though there are a lot of likes on this vid, im still bothered by the number of dislikes. its one of the best talks on youtube, with so many great points, well delivered, interesting, it has everything. ive watched it 3 times over the years, it doesnt get boring.
no prizes for guessing who disliked it though .... shame.
and tbh, shameful for them, who im guessing would rather listen to a priest read from a fairy story than this great guy.
@Iazadify Just as there's no major uproar regarding people that believe in UFOs, I don't think there'd be a major uproar about religious beliefs if the religious would leave everyone else alone. Things like pushing religion into science classes is exactly the sort of thing which makes their beliefs have a detrimental impact on all of us. We can either let the religious tell everyone else how they must live, or we can fight it. Unfortunately the fight will be a long one.
Hidden in Our Inspirations and Hidden all over this planet in the Landscaping- God Hid Watermarks and in them He tells things about the past, present and future. I found them and made videos out of some of them. I found the Garden of Eden and I found what happened right before that and it shows pictures of God in them. Please come look and see something really fascinating. God's real and I can prove it. Please help me share this.
I'll predict that Yami's "debunking" of the quran's inaccuracies and contradictions will be the same sort of apologetics bs that many christians use to get around the contradictions, inaccuracies, etc. in their own holy book.
I feel I should clarify my use of "retard" when relating to Creationists and Idiot Design happy-clappers. Normally retard refers to a mentally-handicapped person, but it's a bit pejorative for people who've the disadvantage to be born mentally impaired.
Creationists and Idiot Design cretins are apparently whole humans, yet they ACT like mentally-defective morons by their total abstention from Reality. These idiots are retards in EVERY sense of the word, because they've NO excuse for ignorance.
@allieron It's amazing how easily you are seemingly angered by your use of petty insults, and capitalized words. It's also amazing how much your thoughts and beliefs are influenced by assumptions and opinions. It's amazing how God can always prove others wrong who do not believe in him with some of the smallest things in this world. Go test polonium halos and granite. I'd love to see a "Master Geologist" test the theory of evolution and how the world came to be in a lab. ;)
1:14:15 European left hostile against science and technology.
I don't know left guys that are hostile against science and technology.
And I know a lot!
So about what is he talking...?
C32347K17732 1 day ago
Lol this guy is actually Catholic
gogolplex74 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creationism is easy. I mean biology, evolution, DNA, Darwin, etc. is just way too hard. Just say "God did it" and smile along with the other idiots.
MrTurbochargd 2 days ago
Omg you Fucking Red-Neck Fuck Tards who believe that intelligent design is science are being brainwashed by these fucking retards. Just Shut The Fuck Up and accept that we came from FUCKING MONKEYS.
OnePieceSH 2 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "the *big bang* made itself twice"
Nothing was "made" in the big bang. Stuff that already existed began to take on spacial volume, which has increased over time. That's it. No need for a "creation", no need for a "god" who has an entire universe to consider and yet spends all his time sweating over what a particular bunch of primates do with their genitals. You want to mull over "stupid" ideas, consider that doozy.
PatchesRips 2 days ago
Comment removed
PatchesRips 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone look up the following video title: "Protect IP Bill is WORSE than S.978 and being RUSHED". It's a matter of saving or losing good videos like this.
jityr2 3 days ago in playlist My Vlog
@PatchesRips Unless God is infinitely complex
seraph595 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seraph595 "Unless God is infinitely complex"
Sorry, but your wordplay doesn't rescue your god. If the universe is his creation, then by definition he was not "infinitely" complex, because he just added to the complexity of existence. If you can add to the "infinite", then what was "infinite" before that? Evidently, less than infinite.
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@tabligh "Use the reply button instead!" I'm familiar enough with your comments to know that you would just treat such replies as an excuse to copy/paste more of your pre-written drivel instead of engaging in an actual discussion; your reply to me is a perfect example of this because it doesn't actually address anything that I said.
ArcanaKnight 4 days ago
This is one of the best speeches I've seen on evolutionary biology. There is NO WAY to bridge the education gap without being inclusive of religious belief in this way.
turtle8714 5 days ago
Next they will want to start teaching the stork theory of human reproduction
None of this nasty sex stuff
CzechTechnik 5 days ago
@tabligh "...decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world" The "laws" of the universe are not prescriptive laws like that, they're descriptive constructs that humans have made up in order to help us understand reality. Your refusal to accept this doesn't make it any less true.
"How could some of the scientists permit themselves..." Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we know can nothing. All people like you have is denialism.
ArcanaKnight 6 days ago
@ArcanaKnight his "arguments" are the same word salad over and over again.
Ofir84 6 days ago
@ArcanaKnight Use the reply button instead!
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
1tabligh 4 days ago
@1tabligh "Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter"
A) On what basis do you hold this to be the case, and
B) even if you are correct, since the contents of the universe prior to its taking on physical dimensions ("the Big Bang") was not composed of matter (matter requiring dimensionality to exist), what problem does the universe have then with being eternal and requiring no creator god to justify its existence?
PatchesRips 4 days ago
@PatchesRips 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?
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?
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh "How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction"
Because its posits that the complexity of the universe requires a creator, and that creator by definition must be at least as, if not more complex than, its creation. If your reason for positing a creator is complexity, then by definition this creator himself requires an even MORE complex creator, as does that creator, etc., etc.
(cont'd)
PatchesRips 3 days ago
@1tabligh (cont'd) On the other hand, the idea that the "stuff" of the universe has always existed violates no property of existence, requires no further explanation, and is, in fact, essentially a requirement of the laws of thermodynamics.
PatchesRips 3 days ago
in fact, ...the laws of thermodynamics.
___
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning. The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh "The second principle of thermodynamics... teaches us that... the world certainly did have a beginning"
No. It has nothing to do with that. What that principle states is that in a closed system, the energy unavailable to do work will increase over time. That doesn't mean that the universe began to exist from non-existence at some point. What it means is that, eventually, the universe will return to a static and unchanging state.
(cont'd)
PatchesRips 3 days ago
@1tabligh (cont'd) Meanwhile, the FIRST law states that matter and energy cannot be either created nor destroyed. If they cannot be created, they do not require creation nor a creator; ergo the stuff of the universe has always existed.
PatchesRips 3 days ago
@PatchesRips He's simply replacing an unknown: "How is it that a universe that's always existed can not have exhausted all its usable energy by now?" with raw speculation and a magical answer.
Of course, he'd have to be omniscient himself to know there can be no natural explanation, or that Allah did it (after waiting an infinite amount of time, it seems). It's the classic argument from ignorance. He can't think of a natural explanation, therefore no natural explanation can possibly exist.
HarshColby 3 days ago
@Pat...The universe is constantly advancing toward collapse and dissolution. For the energies existing in the world are gradually becoming dulled; atoms become energy, and active energy becomes inactive and motionless. Once the atoms are uniformly and equally divided, *nothing* remains but absolute silence and immobility. It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being, and there is *no* choice but to regard the world as created.
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh "It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being"
Of course it is. All you've described is a situation in which matter has decayed back into energy, and the energy has no opportunity to do work. If nothing changes, there is no rate of change (a.k.a. "time") to measure, and the universe resumes a state of eternity. Note that the energy, the "stuff" of the universe, has not ceased to exist. Where is the god in this?
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@PatchesRips If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is *not* possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass
1tabligh 2 days ago
@1tabligh "all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago"
Matter isn't infinitely old. It dates to the big bang, 14 billion years ago. You're confusing matter with the stuff from which it self-assembles given an environment that has volume: something the universe was lacking before the big bang.
"perishable energies"
Energy isn't perishable; that's the point. It can cease to do work, but it doesn't cease to exist.
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@1tabligh "It is *not* possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass"
Who says it has to be? So the universe eventually becomes something that doesn't support existence like ours. And?
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@PatchesRips comfortable to the world of being.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has *originated* in time.
1tabligh 2 days ago
@1tabligh "once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place"
Again, so what? It's an unhappy prospect, subjectively speaking, but that doesn't make it any less true.
"it is clear that the world has *originated* in time."
Time does haven an independent existence. It's a concept we use to measure rate of change. Prior to the big bang, the universe was a singularity. It didn't change; hence there was nothing to measure as "time". It was eternal.
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@PatchesRips The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a *proof* of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.
We see, then, that the natural sciences have *expelled* matter/energy from the stronghold of *eternity*. Science not *only* proves the createdness of the world but *also* bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
1tabligh 2 days ago
@1tabligh "they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion"
But the stuff of the universe will continue to exist. It doesn't matter that it won't be in a form recognizable to us today; neither was it before the big bang. Again: what need is there for a god in any of this?
"Science not *only* proves the createdness of the world"
How?
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@1tabligh "but *also* bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time"
No, it bears witness to the fact that a previously-existing universe began to take on the property of volume 14 billion years ago.
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@PatchesRips ....the big bang....
___
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
cont..
1tabligh 2 days ago
@1tabligh "when this *big bang* created itself"
Who says it did? The big bang is when the universe began expanding--that is, taking on the property of dimensionality--from a singular state. It already existed; what happened at the big bang is that it began having a volume. In accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there was never a time when it didn't exist. The stuff of the universe can neither be destroyed nor created... hence, no creator.
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@1tabligh "it is impossible for a thing to create its own self"
That's why most of us don't believe in these gods of yours.
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@PatchesRips The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was *necessary* for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature.
How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
1tabligh 2 days ago
@1tabligh "The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated."
That's not the case. Differentiation was initial at the big bang. As to "formless", on what basis does the congealing of matter out of energy require a god? It happens every day. What sort of universe is so shabby it requires its creator constantly sticking his finger in like some supernatural Dutch boy at a universe-size dyke?
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@1tabligh "How could an environment devoid of all active energy"
The universe was initially little BUT active energy. It's out of that energy that matter coalesced.
"serve as the origin of motion"
Motion was nicely supplied by the expansion of the universe that is the big bang, which is still going on.
"and life"
Life is simply an emergent property of matter; one way it organizes under appropriate conditions. As impressive as it is, there's nothing magic about it.
PatchesRips 2 days ago
@PatchesRips Mechanics tells us that a motionless body is always motionless *unless* it becomes subject to a force *external* to itself. This law represents an inviolable principle in our material world, and we *cannot*, therefore, believe in a theory of probability *or* accident.
1tabligh 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "Mechanics tells us that a motionless body is always motionless *unless* it becomes subject to a force *external* to itself."
Which was initially supplied by the expansion of the universe, yes. Again, there's no need for an imaginary friend to wear the "prime motivator" hat.
PatchesRips 1 day ago
@1tabligh
WOW you have no idea about science 3rd world muslim boy.
gorilla199uncensored 1 day ago
@gorilla199uncensored God is only One, and there is no God but He, the Almighty, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsistent, the Infinite in life, knowledge, and power. Jesus is not ever-living. He was born less than 2000 years ago, and according to the gospels, he died after a very short life. He is not almighty because he was a subject of persecution; nor was he infinite.
He could not be the Creator of the world because the world is over four billion years old,while he was
1tabligh 19 hours ago
@gorilla199uncensored born less than two thousand years ago. He is not worthy of worship because he himself was a humble worshipper of God.
2. Jesus, is not a son of God. God does not have any son or child, because He is above that. Bodily parenthood is inconceivable in His case because He is not physical. Spiritual parenthood also is not conceivable, because He is the Creator of every spiritual and material being.
1tabligh 19 hours ago
@gorilla199uncensored The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion 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 delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 19 hours ago
@1tabligh
LOL
Provide evidence
Your god exists
It did it
You wont as you cant as none exists.
gorilla199uncensored 6 hours ago
@PatchesRips How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
1tabligh 2 days ago
@PatchesRips In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
The Quran 21:30
1tabligh 2 days ago
Comment removed
PatchesRips 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh Now, WHY the universe went from being an unchanging singularity to taking on volume and permitting the expression of matter and the flow of energy through it to perform work is an intriguing question to which we might never have an answer. But not to put too fine a point on it, that doesn't justify leaping to the conclusion that "Ahha! Therefore an invisible magic man with a long white beard and list of things he doesn't want you to do with your penis must exist!"
PatchesRips 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "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?"
Do you know what an "emergent property" is?
PatchesRips 3 days ago
The Kansas Board of Education 's move to eliminate Evolution from the state's science curriculum struck me as high irony as these same people would no doubt bristle at the idea of removing god from the dollar bill. SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! ALL gods are MYTH!
detroitboy65 1 week ago
Many people do not know Charles Darwin was a devout Christian until his daughter died. He blamed God on his daughter's death. Perfectly human reaction. His background in seminary training was fully alive on the Beagle. Charles often quoted Old Testament scriptures to ill-tempered sailor, to put it mildly. Contrary to atheists distorted representation of Charles' character, he was firm believer in Intelligent creation at the time he completed Origin of the Species. His background should be ack'd.
automatewithkorn 1 week ago
@automatewithkorn
where is your proof that darwin was a devout christian and he blamed God? Name one single line of darwin's writings appealing to IC?
Btw...can you explain Plant speciation w/out using darwinism?
just asking...considering you are JUST full of uneducated shit.
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic "...1879 he (Charles Darwin) wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God..."
automatewithkorn 1 week ago
@automatewithkorn
uhm... he didn't die in 1879. he didn't die an agnostic or a theist. And you quote mined the part where he clearly states, in the same line of reasoning that he doesn't believe in God.
" "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ"
transtlantic 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transtlantic What does Darwin's quote, "Science has nothing to do with Christ," mean to you? Atheist is not Theist. Charles Darwin says he is a THEIST! You are an aTHEIST? Darwin acknowledge his belief in Christ? If you are aTHEIST then who is aChrist??
automatewithkorn 1 week ago
@automatewithkorn Darwin was brought up Anglican, but stopped going to church in 1849 so I'm not so sure about any claims of "devout". In later life he described himself as agnostic.
HarshColby 1 week ago
@HarshColby Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church, but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist" and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. (Source: Wiki)
automatewithkorn 1 week ago
I just want to say THANK YOU to the poster of this video, it changed my life.
This video made me doubt the creditability of Christians to make rational decisions. Which brought the seed of doubt for one of my strongest pillars of faith which was the argument. "Then why do millions of other Christians believe in God?"
Once this pillar of faith was weaken, the rest of my pillars I stood on crumbed after a year.
3 years on, I have now been an Atheist for 2 years.
Thank you.
truckcompany 1 week ago
@truckcompany So are you still an atheist or have you turned Christian again?
TacticalPie 3 days ago
@TacticalPie
I cant say for certain, as I have to be humble & open to new evidences. But I dont think I could ever become a Christian again. Once I learned the arguments against God, I don't think my integrity would let me go back. It seems silly to me now, like trying to believe Thor or Zeus actually exist
When I was a Christan I NEVER thought Id stop believing completely. A day doesnt go by when I wonder what **** happened and why it was me that stopped believing & not others
truckcompany 3 days ago
@1tabligh your argument is an appeal to ignorance and it's what is called "god of the gaps". i suggest you do some research and educate yourself, stopping at "god did it" shouldn't suffice, it should scream at you for more. ignorance may be bliss but i would rather have the truth even if i don't like it so i stay away from the "god"fairy tales
NewZj 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We must be hoodwinked & lured into demeaning one another through the dogmatic strictures of animalism/animalitarianism ("atheism") in order: to deny Spiritualism; to wage total war; to value animal life above human life; to commit clinician-assisted murder by aborticide; to befoul the water with fluoride and pediatric serums with mercury; to becloud the air with aluminum oxide via military tanker jets; to burn tumorous growths with x-rays...
procommenter 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 They can believe what they want to believe, but without empirical repeatable evidence, your statement and their beliefs are simply conjecture and have no bearing on the Evolution process
NewZj 2 weeks ago
@NewZj The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 1 week ago in playlist planetary intelligent design
@NewZj 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?
1tabligh 1 week ago in playlist planetary intelligent design
@1tabligh how could scientist - with close to zero knowledge make claims
REPLY - and this somehow makes the story from a damn magic book written by uneducated goat herder from the bronze age right ?? LOL What a joke for an argument for creationism. Every major university teaches evolution as science because evidence clearly points to it and not your silly bible fairytale.
You want to pretend you are standing in the middle of truth but the sad part is you'll tell kids the myth is true.
Cuffsmaster 1 week ago
@Cuffsmaster 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 duped 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?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh for your arguments to be true then the bible must first be proven correct.
SO prove the talking snake; burning bush/ ass - dome covering a flat earth - Tower of Babel theory of language - Samson's magic hair - any stupid Moses tale - salt woman - the unfucked birth - zombie jesus - water into wine - great murder by flood
You pretend you have and answer that trumps logic and science but offer nothing but smoke and mirrors to prove it. Pray to jesus to help you show proof LOL
Cuffsmaster 1 week ago
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!
How can you delude yourself 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?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh Of course! If only people would wake up and see with both eyes! Then they would SEE that all the knowledge of the world is written in two books: one created after the invasion of Israel by the Assyrian Empire and then another written at the end of the Roman Empire. It so obvious that the Earth is a flat disk supported by pillars around with rotates the sun, planets and stars. If the Earth was a globe then we would all fall off! If the Earth rotated then we would be able to feel it.
38dragoon38 1 week ago
@38dragoon38 The atheist Delusion!
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
That book was written under the assertion(logical fallacy) the god of the OT did it.
This uncaused cause at lest your god the god of the OT to be specific is special pleading. You want us to grant a special exception for your god alone no one elses religion or god.
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Matter and Motion
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Asserting the god of the OT did it special pleading.
You want us to give a special exception to the god of the old testament to be specific with no no tested evidence.
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
What part of special pleading do you not understand?
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Answer the question!
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!
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh \
I asked for tested evidence the god of the OT specifically is the uncased cause you have given us nothing but special pleading. I dodged nothing you did.
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
This is a video on evolution you are taking things off topic as a detraction technique.
I also asked you to prove your claims you gave us NO test.
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 [In other words], why did the essential completion pertain to some atoms and not to others?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Asking questions does not prove your god the got of the OT and you keep going off topic.
Why?
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
This is irrelevant to the video this is about evolution you are trolling.
You keep using this special pleading a specific god did it with not evidence with regard to cosmology unrelated field and detraction technique. Prove the got of the ot specifically is real or gtfo.
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Troll quit with the detraction I asked for proof of the god of the Old Testament specifically you gave me none outside special pleading.
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
An argument is NOT proof of shit I asked for tested evidence specifically for the god of the OT over all other gods or causes.
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 I asked for tested evidence
____
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or *testing*.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 NOT proof of shit
___
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.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
you keep ignoring that matter is both in motion and the mover.
I answer to your question, i prove you wrong and then you just assert your ignorance and denial again.
it's hilarious. because this following fact is true: you are an ignorant fuck.
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic you are an ignorant fuck.
____
Answer the questions!
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!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh you are a retarded fuck
Materialism is all there is. Look at fire. Fire is energy, yet is the transformation of matter, three material things. Thus prior to fire there was matter, after matter there is something. Everything is only matter and energy.
again: how do you explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
transtlantic 1 week ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that they accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Bla bla bla I did not ask for a generalized conclusion I asked for tested proof the god of the OT specifically was the uncaused cause.
You gave us nothing but words.
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
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
1tabligh 1 week ago
@Cuffsmaster Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
NO WASTING TIME!
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
You keep writing a ton of buy bull induced shit.
How do you explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory?
matter is the source of all things, as proven. Why don't you accept that fact?
"single dimensioN"? have you ever heard about 3D?
You have no evidence for the fairy god that you call Allah, does you provide no reason to believe in what you preach.
now fuck off. no one is dodging, except you.
now answer my challenge.
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic No phenomenon becomes manifest in the world *until* a certain power is bestowed on it by one whose essence is *free* from need and is itself the very source from which being gushes forth. Were being inherent in the essences of phenomena, they would never follow the path of cessation and non-being.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
fire only requires three things to occur, all of those things are material. There is no "power" to bestow. there is no "essence", there's matter. matter plus more matter does transform into more matter of different properties.
Yoru words are just useless salad, they don't express anything real, it's just you writing buy bull induced shit!
you can't explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory.
The brain is mindful matter, thus fairy named Allah does not exist.
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic It is neediness that is inherent in their essences, so that even after their being is established in the order of creation, their attribute of *neediness* continues under all circumstances. They are *never* free of need for a cause; it is *impossible* that an effect should enjoy existence independently or continue to exist for a single instant *without* relying on a cause.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Fire requires three things, the things exist prior to fire, does there is no need or essences, just matter joining and transforming into fire. There is no creation, things exist prior to fire, only transformation occurs. Thus Allah does not exist.
Fire exists independently or continue to exist as long as the matter prior to it exist.
thus matter precedes your god. Thus allah is the product of imagination, a material brain imagines a god, but God never exists.
you lose.
transtlantic 1 week ago
All phenomena—all contingent beings—derive at all times and in every instant from an infinite essence that bestows being—i.e, the Necessary Being, the Unique and Almighty Creator—the power and sustenance that permit them to come into being and remain in being."He it is Who from the plenitude of His essence has bestowed on us the capital of being." Quran (53:48) "O mankind, you are in need of your Lord; it is only His unique essence that is free of need and worthy of praise."(35:15)
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
"contingent beings"? word salad.
"essence"? proof for that crap.
Where's the evidence for the "creator"?
FACT: you can't explain Plant speciation w/out using evolution theory, thus you provide no reason to believe in a "creator"
transtlantic 1 week ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
actually all atheists know that there was no primary cause. "primary cause" is just more of your word salad. meaningless. Matter is a very ambiguous word. Oxygen and Iron are both matter, but not the same type of matter. Thus... a classification of matter exists.
There is no "Primary matter". there is no "law of causality". it's just you making shit up.
There is no "origin", there's only transformation: Fire is made out of three things, those things exist prior to fire. transform
transtlantic 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Fire is a phenomena that occurs when three material things come together. Thus there is no "power" to bestow, only material non essence things.
Your bullshit it retarded. You can't even present a practical example that complies to your claims.
A simple fire proves that ALL things suffer transformation, neither creation or annhilation
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception,
1tabligh 1 week ago
@transtlantic nor the power of decision.
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
let's see...fire is the union of three things, there is no consciousness, there is no power of decision, just three material things coming together by chance and thus originating fire.
You keep failing to refute my argument. "essence"? word salad, matter is, it has no essence.
"essential motion"? what is non essential motion by opposition to your claim?
"essential stability"? according to thermodynamics, stability is a physical impossibility.
you are just full of shit.
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
"stable"? name one single immutable or eternally stable thing? answer: there is none.
According to the laws of thermodynamics -everything randomly transforms. period.
"essence"- word salad, practical example?
Fire is made out of three things. those things exist prior to the fire. thus everything is just transformation, never creation or utterly destroyed.
Thus a fairy named Allah does not exist. No evidence, you see?
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
a question implies a "?" at the end of the phrase. You clearly are mentally challenged...
"DOes you speak the english?" lolololol
now... Where is one single example of immutability of essence when clearly physics state: Nothing is created, nothing is utterly destroyed, everything transforms, nothing is eternally stable as proven with the Laws of thermodynamics.
Your word sald even lacks a practical example. You are a retarded troll.
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic
Poor fella!
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Fire is proof that eternity is never stable. Matter is all there is. fire is made out of three things. you have things prior to fire and after fire. thus everything is always material, always transformation. Never a God.
Thus you are full of shit. "nature is devoid...matter"? really? show me one single piece of nature that complies to your claims... where is it?
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
actually the very nature of matter promotes continuity. Fire is the transformation of three things. matter exists, past, present and future, some form or another.
There is no "Prime or absolute agent", you are just making shit up again.
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Beings, by definition, is a word that implies existence. Thus..a being is only a being when existent. there's no being, prior to being. But with do have three things transforming into fire. thus while fire is not before the three things are put together, the three things do exist. and fire is the result of the transformation of the three things.
Thus...matter is all there is.
Your buy bull induced shit doesn't actually held up to scrutiny.
How do you explain speciation w/out evo?
transtlantic 1 week ago
@transtlantic We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
the existence of fire only requires three things. the cause of fire is the union of those three things. such union can be randomness, chance, just because. there is no such thing as "fate", as everything that exists is subject to randomness. free will proves the impossibility of "fate". "fate" is post hoc fallacy
Existence does not depend upon cause, but on what existed before. Thus matter is all there is
Ofc consciousness does not affect in any way anything. You are just full of shit
transtlantic 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@transtlantic The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need, condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change.
How is that for YOUR "full of shit"?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@transtlantic "Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that
1tabligh 1 week ago
@transtlantic lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **** concoct **** beliefs pleasing to themselves..
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh did you swallow a thesaurus?
your insane ramblings remind me of schizophrenic word salad
get down from your high horse, your use of big words make your ramblings even less sane
Ofir84 1 week ago
@Ofir84 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 duped 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?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh stop rambling
we don't know what existed before the big bang or what caused it, but it's not relevant. Time started at the big bang, witch makes it impossible to ever know what caused it or what happened before. Maybe it was a godlike being, maybe a scientific process we'll never understand. The Bible was written 14 billion years after the big bang and it's arrogant to pretend that it's the real and only truth
Ofir84 1 week ago
@Ofir84 we don't know what existed before the big bang
___
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
1tabligh 6 days ago
@Ofir84 The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
1tabligh 6 days ago
@Ofir84 How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
1tabligh 6 days ago
@Ofir84
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
The Quran 21:30
1tabligh 6 days ago
@1tabligh
sorry but you sound legitimately mentally ill. you need professional help
my assertion was that its very likely we will never know what created the big bang
maybe it was the work of a godlike being, maybe not. We'll never know.
Ofir84 6 days ago
@Ofir84 sorry but you sound legitimately mentally ill
___
So much science for this uncivilized stupid brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Then how can you delude yourself 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?
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 6 days ago
@1tabligh
for the last time: i never said that the universe created itself out of nothing
i said that we do not know what really created the universe at this time. maybe one day we will, maybe not. You are the one claiming to know how everything started.
Ofir84 6 days ago
@Ofir84 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?
1tabligh 6 days ago
@1tabligh
Oh, thanks, now it all makes perfect sense....
turtle8714 5 days ago
@turtle8714 thanks, now it all makes perfect sense
___
You are welcome.
All atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy.
1tabligh 4 days ago
@turtle8714 When the beings and bodies that are visible in this world wish to produce energy, they are compelled to change their original aspect and transform it into energy.
Now is this energy—the axis on which turn many of the motions and changes of the universe— visible or tangible?
1tabligh 4 days ago
@1tabligh Actually, you may be interested into looking at a bit of astrophysics. Every atom that exists was made inside stars. When a star 'dies' that matter is then sent throughout space. This matter will sometimes collect due to a 'gravitational' pull and eventually form planets, solar systems, etc. Every atom in your body was once an atom inside of a star. More than likely, every atom in your body was from a different star. Very interesting stuff.
DasPinkKitty 1 week ago
@DasPinkKitty With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
1tabligh 6 days ago
@1tabligh dogging all the question.
REPLY - you pretend an answer lies in a magic book of fairytales written by uneducated fools.
Cuffsmaster 1 week ago
@Cuffsmaster The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion 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 delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh when confronted with a whole mass of unknows concerning this very earth
REPLY -- I am sure the talking snake and talking burning bush has the answer lol
Cuffsmaster 1 week ago
Lets start the ID bashing with a prayer. LOLS!
NewZj 2 weeks ago
@NewZj
Many grate scientist believe there god creates thou a natural process.
TheMrgoku1985 2 weeks ago
@TheMrgoku1985 many scientist blah blah
REPLY - Every major University and lab in the world accepts & teaches evolution. Oh you guys pretend there is a debate in science but that is just smoke and mirrors to cover your weakness and lack of proof. You do have that fool Behe's theory which has been badly slammed by real science and must state on his university page that his opinion is not that of the biology department of his own school. BUT fundamentalist still get a hard on over his words
Cuffsmaster 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Now I'm a deist and therefore believe there may well be some intended cause behind the big bang that started the whole process including millions of years of evolution. However no evidence supports my belief and I could be wrong and it is just some natural phenomenon without any guiding hand. I don't know. BUT clearly all evidence disputes creation as told in the magic book of fairytales. Hell they didn't even know the earth was not covered with a dome.
Cuffsmaster 1 week ago
It is appauling and disturbing that would be get in the snake oil sales man priest to talk to his imaginary friend. That university has no credability.
gorilla199uncensored 2 weeks ago
It's amazing how this video continues to get a steady stream of comments after so many years. I discovered it over two years ago and have listened many times myself. What an interesting & controversial topic it is!
artman2oo3 2 weeks ago
@artman2oo3 i totally agree. i've only become interested in the subject for the last 2 years and i am still surprised at the amount of passion and time that everyday people, budding scientists or theologins put into this argument. im so happy that we live in a time where we can discuss this subject without serious provocation
mrpinkroo 2 weeks ago
If intelligent design were real there woulad be a such thing as Glitter Cobras.
DannyGloverIsAwesome 2 weeks ago
Is the guy commenting @1:33:30 (one hour thirty three minuets) Lawrence Krauss?
53iBro 2 weeks ago
@53iBro Yes.
HarshColby 2 weeks ago
even though there are a lot of likes on this vid, im still bothered by the number of dislikes. its one of the best talks on youtube, with so many great points, well delivered, interesting, it has everything. ive watched it 3 times over the years, it doesnt get boring.
no prizes for guessing who disliked it though .... shame.
and tbh, shameful for them, who im guessing would rather listen to a priest read from a fairy story than this great guy.
retard jesusists
mikesomething 2 weeks ago
What is the difference between "Atheists" and people of Religion?
hen both refuse to Live and Let Live.
None of us were around when the world formed, who or what created makes no difference.
Fact is you and I are here. Live your life with your Beliefs or non-beliefs and values.
Don't tell me what I believe is False and I have no right to dictate what is your way of life.
With that said, PUBLIC education systems are right to teach Science alone. Religous schools or classes have their own place
Iazadify 2 weeks ago
@Iazadify Just as there's no major uproar regarding people that believe in UFOs, I don't think there'd be a major uproar about religious beliefs if the religious would leave everyone else alone. Things like pushing religion into science classes is exactly the sort of thing which makes their beliefs have a detrimental impact on all of us. We can either let the religious tell everyone else how they must live, or we can fight it. Unfortunately the fight will be a long one.
HarshColby 2 weeks ago
I would LOVE to be in class taught by Dr Miller.
wowamonn 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hidden in Our Inspirations and Hidden all over this planet in the Landscaping- God Hid Watermarks and in them He tells things about the past, present and future. I found them and made videos out of some of them. I found the Garden of Eden and I found what happened right before that and it shows pictures of God in them. Please come look and see something really fascinating. God's real and I can prove it. Please help me share this.
downyourtube 2 weeks ago
I'll predict that Yami's "debunking" of the quran's inaccuracies and contradictions will be the same sort of apologetics bs that many christians use to get around the contradictions, inaccuracies, etc. in their own holy book.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight The one thing that is truly universal is the Stupid. The Stupid crosses races, creeds and cults easier than Moses fleeing from Egypt.
Islam just appears more belligerent because its members make camels look like geniuses.
allieron 2 weeks ago
I feel I should clarify my use of "retard" when relating to Creationists and Idiot Design happy-clappers. Normally retard refers to a mentally-handicapped person, but it's a bit pejorative for people who've the disadvantage to be born mentally impaired.
Creationists and Idiot Design cretins are apparently whole humans, yet they ACT like mentally-defective morons by their total abstention from Reality. These idiots are retards in EVERY sense of the word, because they've NO excuse for ignorance.
allieron 3 weeks ago
@allieron It's amazing how easily you are seemingly angered by your use of petty insults, and capitalized words. It's also amazing how much your thoughts and beliefs are influenced by assumptions and opinions. It's amazing how God can always prove others wrong who do not believe in him with some of the smallest things in this world. Go test polonium halos and granite. I'd love to see a "Master Geologist" test the theory of evolution and how the world came to be in a lab. ;)
pur3carnageCuh 3 weeks ago