And lets not forget that the stars come before the planets or moons.
And I'm tired of people being hung up on the 'so we came from nothing' argument.
If energy cannot be created or destroyed then energy is infinite & does not need an intelligence to create it because it cannot be created. Then they say well 'something had to have created the energy.' Why? If you assert that a first cause, or god is infinite and was always there... then why can't energy be the same? I'm thinking, narcissism.
Recent science has show that the physical constants of our Universe are fine tuned to allow the exact conditions for life to exist. These were created at the Big Bang & odds of them being as they are are very very slim.
This is the reason for the Mutiverse of Bubble Universe or the many "infiinite Universe hypotheis" exist.
You need many rolls of the dice to create our Universe.
I keep getting this question over & over so please read some current Cosmology.
@Texmurphy51 Hypothetically, people (whatever sort of people they might be) in another universe may well be saying the exact same thing of the apparent fine-tuning of their universe. It's rather difficult to draw conclusions when we have only one universe to study.
I totally get that back when they were making this stuff up, this was the most plausible idea they could have had, the stars will have seemed to just be little blinks of light in the sky, simple stuff. It's the fact they cling on to this explanation even with the knowledge that they aren't little lights, they are huge gas bombs millions of miles away, that's what I give them a wide berth for.
This is pretty stupid...If God is allmighty (as they say he is), there would be no problem creating the stars in a day. Allso concidering that the earth with all life and variation is a bit more complex than a star. A star is basically a big ball of one thing. The earth is alittle more.
Not that the religious theory is valid at all, but this is not even close to a good argument.
@OxygenChrist If God is all mighty, why take 3 days to create the Earth? Why even take any amount of time to create the Earth? If he's all-powerful, surely he could create it instantaneously?
And a star isn't a big ball of one thing. There are many many things that happen within a star, mainly nuclear fusion. That means that hydrogen is converted into helium and helium into carbon. There. That's 3 things at least.
Time is actually a physical thing, though I agree that it would be quite silly for an omnipotent being to take any time to make something, let alone measure it in a unit based on something that doesn't exist yet.
I'm talking about our invention of time 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours. We Named that by the shadow of light. We put up a pillar and we observe the shadow on the ground from the pillar. We see the shadow changes in time it also changes direction and we measure them apart and NAME them. EX: Shadow points north we call it 12 shadow points east we call that 3, south = 6, west = 9.
12 of light + by counting in the dark the same length of time until day again 12 night = 1 day.
@Zeddersk Of course God COULD do that. God could allso create everything very slow. God could do anything if it (God, that is) is allmighty. None of this proves anything, it just begs the question of what being allmighty means.
And I know that stars are a bit more complicadet than what I said, but what I meant was, that even if a star in all its complexity is very impressive indeed, most stars are made up in basically the same way, and when compared to all the variation on earth...well...
@Zeddersk Of course there are, but I dare say, that according to what I know (which might not be enough) it´s safe to say that the varriety here on earth, with organic life, DNA etc. is ritcher in varriety and complexity. If that´s the case, then logically it´s faster and easier to create. Not that it matters when it comes to an allmighty entity, which is after all, what they claim did it.
@Zeddersk To make an analogy: It may take me 10 minutes to cook pasta for 10 people, but that does not mean it will take me 20 minutes to make a nobel prize dinner for 20 people.
@Zeddersk The answer is easy. God had some cowboy contractors doing all the work. Why do you think we don't live in a perfect Universe, they cut corners and stole some of the building supplies!
@Texmurphy51 What is being talked about here is the allmighty god as the bible describes it. To make an accurate argument about it, we must therefore assume the same basis. We cannot build a straw man and then knock it down, taking it as a win.
You say an omnicient God logically disproves itself. I´ve seen many argumets for that, but I´ve allso seen all of them be disproved. I´d be glad if you could show me what proof you are talking about.
@Texmurphy51 And yes, God does not need to exist in our universe, but I don´t see why that would be relevant? I can create something without being a part of it, so it would be very odd if this god cannot.
The amount of Theists with terrible grammar astounds me. You would think that with the amount of propaganda they distribute that the least they could do is spell correctly. And 'Jeans'... well done :D However debating with these people is impossible, the fact that they refuse to acknowledge the relevance of evidence means that any evidence we provide is dismissed; it is an impossible paradox that is asked of us when we are required to provide evidence for the relevance of evidence -_-
Sorry about the phrasing...I'm actually sitting in a scientific symposium about evidence-based medicine (cruising the internet during particularly boring interludes.)
What I mean is, if these broad time assertions are based on nothing more than personal belief without demonstrable evidential support, they are essentially meaningless.
so let me get this straight, it took god 3 days to make earth, but 1 day to make, BILLIONS or even TRILLIONS if stars... 3 days for earth, 1 to make every fucking thing else. and atheists are the crazy ones ಠ__ಠ
@bonkuraysan Well, you forget that the believers apply these things called "omnicience" and "being allmighty" and more. God in this case, can do anything, and I mean anything. God is not subject to logical or physical law, and that solves basically every problem that might come up. A pretty neat way go get away with it :P
@bonkuraysan That "he" didn´t is no proof "he" can´t. I can go out and make a snowman, but I wont. In fact, even if I´d never made a snow man in my entire life, that would be no proof that I can´t. Your argument fails.
@OxygenChrist saying he didnt and cant are 2 different things, but you can go make a snowman at any point( as long as there is snow)but from what has been said in the bible, he made earth in a few days, this is the all powerfull god that created everything else in existence in 1 day, so when i say that "he" cant, im saying he has shown no reason to believe he can, similarly, if in you entire life you refuse to make a snowman, i have no reason to believe you can.
@bonkuraysan Yes, but you can´t conclude from the lack of god doing so, that god could not. In fact, since god is allmighty, then it could do it.You only have one example of god making the earth in three days, and from that you draw the conclusion that this god could not make it faster? It does not hold water.
And would you not admit that I can jump up and down while saying "Buggybuggy beatle pie"? I´ve never done it, but would you say I can´t?
@OxygenChrist just like innocent till proven guilty, if there is no proof you can, we must assume you can't. and if we could just take their word on it, it would be the same as saying god exists, "well we can't truly prove there isn't a god, so there must be a god". just the fact that 'he" didn't is proof against the claim that he can., just like a man who says he can jump ten feet, yet only jumps 5 on his own choice every time, he says he can, but demonstrates otherwise.
@bonkuraysan You just said "saying he didnt and cant are 2 different things", and now you say "just the fact that 'he" didn't is proof against the claim that he can". Just that god did not do this very thing, is no proof that it (god) cannot do it. It´s one occasion we´re talking about, not a series of regular actions. If I claim to be able to jump ten feet, and fail over and over again, it´s a proof that I´m lying, and can´t do it. But if I say I can jut two feet but don´t, that proves nothing.
@bonkuraysan And allso, it´s not as easy as to say "If we can´t prove there isn´t a god, we must assume there is", or "If we can´t prove there is a god, we must assume there isn´t". Scientists haven´t proven the higgs boson yet, and it took them a long time to prove the electron (some still believe it does not excist), but they were still taken to be true, even it they were not proven.
The bible makes more sense if you read it as symbolics. Adam and Eve were not people, they are symbolic of universal duality. Jesus was not a man, either, he is symbolic of an idea of morality. "The heavens and earth were created in 7 days"...1 "day" is actually closer to 1 billion years.
@jeffthecoder and bronze age people had a real understanding the concept of billions too, that's why the earth is 3 billion years old and the universe is only a billion years old. and that moral symbol of jesus also felt slavery, discrimination, infanticide etc was to be indoctrinated into generations of followers by the scribblings of his insipid disciples in a book that is contrary and generally unpleasant.
@jasonliz000 Yeah, the whole "moral ways to treat your slave" stuff, and in the NIV version of the Bible, all that "Respect government, for it is of God" scriptures, I ended up concluding that if there is an "anti-christ", it is actually "christ". Did you know that in secluded communities when evil shamans used to put curses on people, the curses came true theoretically because the "cursed" person believed in the shaman power to the point that the mind "made it real"?
@jeffthecoder Perhaps it's simply the panacea or placebo that some people need to justify their existence, I find it disturbing that they feel the need to dumb themselves down or delude themselves towards any real personal development so that their world view remains consistent with the delusion they have accepted as absolute truth.
@jasonliz000 One day, a man who was "cursed" said "you have no power over me, shaman, I am with Jesus", and when he didn't die, droves of the indigenous people converted to christianity.
@ZeusHelios It's an original thought, I suppose. I mean, I never really read it anywhere. See, when I was growing up I was bombarded with BOTH ideologies of christianity AND evolutionism. As a kid, I never seen them as "competing" ideologies, I figured they were both true, so in my mind I concocted a sort of hybrid belief system.
@jeffthecoder-cont- In fact as we read on we discover that an evening and morning is simply a beginning and end to parts of creation. For example the beginning and end of creating light was the first part referred to in the bible as the first day. So the evening and the morning was any period of time as it was merely the beginning of something till the end of it. The evening represents the beginning because its not clear till the morning when it is more clear or complete or understood.
@jeffthecoder I see. Thanks for the response. I guess I can see how you came up with this thought. In fact Its a thought that has crossed my mind. And I wondered how you came up with the same thought. But you could be right. In the bible it talks about an evening and the morning. Many people think this is a 24 hour earthly day. But this is incorrect. As further on in genesis makes that clear. The sun was not created untill the fourth day. So evening and morning must have another meaning.-cont
@jeffthecoder In fact as we read on we discover that an evening and morning is simply a beginning and end to parts of creation. For example the beginning and end of creating light was the first part referred to in the bible as the first day. So the evening and the morning was any period of time as it was merely the beginning of something till the end of it. The evening represents the beginning because its not clear till the morning when it is more clear or complete or understood. -cont-
@jeffthecoder Some theist think the evening and morning is either a 1000yrs or 7000yrs. 7000 years would make sense as 7 represent perfection or completion. This now represent our days. For on the 7th day God rested. And he wanted us to have a day of rest to keep for him. Sorry if I have sent you the same messages. There had been an error and some messages may have been sent twice
@donfishmaster Are you referring to my personal belief all theist personal belief. There are reason for this belief. No one can have a personal belief in the bible It must speak for itself.
@jeffthecoder if those all were symbolic concepts it implies that they are imaginary which yet again implies that whole bible is fiction therefor god also. if people understood that there wouldn't be religion and world would be a totally different place... maybe better maybe worse...
@Texmurphy51 You don't have to think you are smarter than Sagan to disagree with him. And I disagree with him on the definition of atheist. I haven't seen any evidence for a creature (god) that has created this universe, therefore I take the default position on that subject and assume this creature doesn't exist. If I'm presented with convincing evidence I will change my mind. So I'm an agnostic atheist.
@Texmurphy51 evidence of no god? You cannot prove a negative statement. Prove I didn't launch a teacup into space two years ago. Go aheah... prove it. You see, its up to me to prove that I DID launch the teacup, just like its up to you to prove god exists.
@theblakedestroyer Name something that we know to 99%? Gravity? nope, its probably closer to 60%. Evolution has more evidence for it than gravity, probably as high as 90% so is it "truer"? My point is that proof is a word for the ignorant. Evidence is what is required... not proof.
@jeans1515 sez"You cannot prove a negative statement"
Then ALL hypothesis of how the Universe was created are "negative statements" since NON can be proven. The concept of a creator however is thrown out because of myth Religion.
Your teacup example is a strawman argument because it is an obvious myth.
You simply Believe that creation is not a viable alternative to multiverse, infinite univese or any of the others.
Can you definitively explain how the Universe came to be????
@Texmurphy51 again... "prove" is not a scientific word because you cannot prove that we are real in the first place. Evidence is what is required, and the burden is on you to collect evidence.Big Bang, Evolution, gravity, particles, these are all explanations for what we see around us, they are good explanations and could easily be shown to be wrong if only anyone could find contrary evidence. I will reply again to explain a little further...
sez"You cannot, of course, it IS a myth... but according to the evidence, so is god"
You see your comparing a KNOWN myth to an hypotheis of how the universe was created. Would you make the same claim that Multiverse do not exist for the same reason?
Ironically the teapot WOULD exist in one of the infinite multiverse, as would every permutation that you can imagine.
Now Atheist can easly accept that, but reject Creation out of hand.
@Texmurphy51 No, not surprisingly, your missing the point. The point is not that I believe in the teapot, but not god... the point is that without EVIDENCE I "believe" in neither. Evidence, is the only issue I have with god (aside from his "written" instructions to kill disobedient children, and his love of slavery, war, racism etc). please understand that if I had evidence, I would see god as being real. There is simply no evidence.
'Is your believe in something informed by positive evidence, or is it that you think that yours is the more simple explanation and no good evidence exists to challenge it?'
@josephdorrell Evidence. Simple evidence. Although the evidence is difficult to understand, it is the best explanation. From a lifetime of reading, and observing all I can do is make my decision based on evidence. There is so much evidence out there supporting the views held by science, it only takes discipline and time to learn it. The simplest answer is not what anyone with a brain is after, the answer that relies on the fewest unknowns is perhaps the better way to phrase that.
@jeans1515 or... the answer with the fewest assumptions. Theists assume that a) their brand of religiosity is the correct one to the exclusion of others; b) their god(s) are the only ones capable of existing to the exclusion of all others; c) their book(s) written by committee over several thousand years are infallible and indisputable. Those alone make it impossible to believe without some sort of evidence. I would like someone to name three baseless assumptions from science.
@Texmurphy51 No, no, no. Again. I have read the evidence for the big bang, and for evolution and a theistic explanation simply does stack up against it. Infinity? Where have I ever mentioned it? what does it have to do with anything. Perhaps you should simply study a few grade school science textbooks.
@Texmurphy51 not from my perspective. If this would be trial, christians so called "evidence" wouldnt count shit. all you have is faith, aka ignorance. And theres diffrence between fact and opinion... you should know that.
@Texmurphy51 Oh my... I dont think you have a grade school understanding of science to say something as inane as "There is Zero evidence for ANY hypotheis in science until it is found so do we not talk about them also?" eech.
@Texmurphy51 Oh certainly, you can bring up the infinite regression to pluck holes in cosmology. However, it is very possible and even likely that there was no time before the big bang, and no real existence. It sure is not clear, but its fascinating to explore the notions of a pre-big bang universe. The same issue certainly arises when discussing any kind of magical creation being; there must have been something to create IT, and something that would create the creator of the creator etc...
@Texmurphy51 We ALMOST understand each other. I just require more evidence. You still have yet to convince me that you have studied the scientific claims you claim to reject.
@Texmurphy51 The explanations provided by the evidence (science) could well be wrong, and it would be delightful to find another explanation supported by evidence. And yet, after more than 150 years of searching, not a shred of contrary evidence has been found. So no, I can no better explain with 100% certainty how the universe came to be... but neither can you. I at least, have evidence to support my claim. I challenge you to find a single scientist who claims a negative statement can be proven
@Texmurphy51 As for the teacup. There very well could be, in fact, with all the junk we have thrown into space it is quite likely to be there. Prove to me it is not there, and I will eat my shoe. You cannot, of course, it IS a myth... but according to the evidence, so is god. Do you see how the two are related? How a negative cannot be proven. It is not a straw man at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, my claim is that there is a teapot. The burden of proof is on me.
@Texmurphy51 "What evidence do you have of No God?"
This is just...wow...
Statistically weighted evidence for a deity = asymptotically approaching zero.
The rest of the area above this statistical curve represents a lack of a deity(s)'s evidence, and that area grows incrementally as the body of scientific evidence expands and is refined. So the question is, do you accept this shrinking area (7th,8th,9th std. deviation) as true OR do we use this huge body of data as a working model?
@Texmurphy51 "he kind of carries more impact than your opinion." Does the fact that he reach out to a broader audience than me makes his opinion more valid?
I haven't seen evidence for ET life, but I have seen evidence for T life which opens for that there is ET life to. I don't believe in infinity. And yes, I've seen evidence for dark matter (its what explains why the stars at the edge of galaxies can have their speed and still orbit around it) and energy (expansion of universe).
@hennybonny sez"haven't seen evidence for ET life, but I have seen evidence for T life which opens for that there is ET life"
Theists see the same evidence for a God because of the complexity of the Universe & the EXACT conditions required for life to exist.
Science has confirmed the unlikely probability that our Universe could have been created (as is). This is why the Multiverse,(infinite regression) hypothesis was created to beat the odds
@Texmurphy51 "We need infinite #s to create our universe". No! we need one universe to create our universe and that is this one. We don't know how the laws of this universe was determined so we can't start calculate the probability that they have ended up like they are.
To the "ET vs. T life" issue.
1. I know there is life on earth.
2. earth is a planet in the universe.
3. there are more planets in the universe
4. there might be more planets with life in the universe.
@Texmurphy51 We do not know how the laws of this universe got their value. We don't know the shape of the dices, therefore you can't calculate probability! (tell me the probability to get a 1 on a dice you know nothing about).
Is it the "many worlds interpretation", the "chaotic inflation theory" or the "M-theory" you claim spawned from the idea that "the probability of our universe 'as is' from one random event is almost zero."?
@Texmurphy51 Didn't have room for the last two points.
"Your looking for a SPECIFIC type of (god), they one described by mans myth religion to saisify your needs". No, I'm not looking for that and I don't know what needs this god would satisfy.
"What evidence do you have of No God?" First we have to define god. If you define god as Mike Patton then I would say that there is plenty of evidence he exist and I would consider my self a theist to that god. But we need a definition...
@Texmurphy51 Its gnostic vs. agnostic and you have theist vs. atheist. Gnosis means knowledge, and an agnostic person will say you can't gain knowledge of the matter while a gnostic person would say you can. So agnostic does not exclude the possibility of being a theist nor an atheist.
And its not an atheist work that have explained the laws of this universe, it is a scientific work. But science can only explain the explainable.
@hennybonny sez"So agnostic does not exclude the possibility of being a theist nor an atheist."
Sure it does.
An Atheist or Theist Believe in their conclusion about God dispite any possible knowledge obtained. They may claim "PROOF" will change their minds but we both know that ANY proof can be explained away.
Agnostics Belive in God or Not but know that they can be wrong & do not have
-cont- Because at the beginning of creating something is not clear or understood or is not quite visible to make out until the morning or its completion.
Its thought that God did not literary create the earth in 6 /24hour days. Check it out in Genesis. The sun was not created till the fourth day So the evening and the morning cant possible be referring to literal days. Ask yourself why the evening and the morning and not the morning and the evening. What the evening and morning means is a period of time. Of which some say is 1000yrs or 7000yrs. The evening is the beginning of and the morning is the end of a creation-cont-
@ZeusHelios Well you are wrong. The bible talks about light and night on the first day before the sun. Even though the sun provides our light but anyway's it says he made light and night the first day and then explained that was what makes a day. From dawn one day till dawn the next day is one day. First page of the bible even. Comments like this then people wonder why christians fail test on the content of the bible.
@chiefsforpres You clearly have no idea of the scriptures. Your comment has highlighted you total ignorance of that verse. Its no wonder your an athesit. You read scripture and think that you have logically discerned its meaning. But your logic if in a court against a Christian would simply make your interpretations of scripture laughable. Let me enlighten you on that verse. But I know it will make no difference to you. You will continue to hold on to your ignorance. -Continued-
@chiefsforpres Genesis 2-5 In the creation of light God separated the light from the darkness and called the light day and the darkness night. This section is merely the creation of light and God naming them in order to distinguish them. Its nothing to do with a 24 hour period of time or a day as we know it. G5 And the evening and the morning were the first day. Is merely stating that its the beginning and the ending of his first creation or of a period of time. Now ask your self--cont-
@chiefsforpres cont-How can it be the first day when God has just completed it. How can the sun rise and set before God has created it. It certainly did not take God all day to call the light day and call the darkness night.. NOW go to G14-19. Here is where the sun was created as it says. ----to DIVIDE the day from the night etc.etc ----and for days and years. Its now do we have a 24 hour day. But God continues with his original start and end time of each of his Creation.
@chiefsforpres' I suppose you will come back with more pointless post. I have already explained the first part of Genesis to you. But you will not accept it. And you will continue to post unintelligent comments in order to escape from your obvious ignorance from you previous post to me. And also to try and justify your previous comment so that you do not look so ignorant. I will not be arguing at length with you. I have explained Genesis to you and that is that.
@ZeusHelios Not surprising though when you realize that to believe the bible in the first place you would have to be a complete imbecile and total dip shit. So anyone stupid enough for the bible is inherently going to do terrible on any test. Being stupid enough for the bible and being a utter moron go hand in hand.
@chiefsforpres If you have any evidence (which you dont have) to back your statement then lets here it. Otherwise dont waste anyone's time on such pointless posts. You saying such things prove nothing. And neither can you prove that you comment holds even one iota of truth. But such comments shows everyone the low level of intelligence that you have.
Ya know, it would have saved a lot of people, a lot of time, if the first line of Genesis was written "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and the Earth is ROUND, and travels around the sun".. would have saved a whole of people a whole lot of time... just saying...
However, the good thing abt science is: we find new evidence, and then we reflect on ourselves and wt was believed to be true. Religion never allow u to do so, unless sth really bad had happened. If it's moronic for someone to use the bible to "prove" how the universe was created, then it's really not the scientists' fault. (No one use this crap in science, and the one who uses this should hv their PhD annulled)
Also, plenty of atheists are open to an existence of some type of God/Gods, just not the made up ridiculous organized religion versions.
Atheists don't have an answer for the origin paradox and they don't purport to have one.
But atheists don't make storybook dogmatic assumptions about the nature of God. Atheists admit they don't have the answers and before choosing to "believe" in something, they want some evidence.
What kind of software would God have used? I reckon Photoshop would only give a 2D world, maybe a 3D rendering system like 3Ds Max or Maya but life is a challenge and there's also an end so it was maybe like a games engine such as the CryEngine or Frostbite.
@KuraIthys and where in yur bible does it say god used this "tiny bit of code"? matter of fact, where does god explain anything he does? you people believe people were made by dirt, the world is 6,000 years old, talking snakds and everyone was created by jus 2 ppl. plz dnt argument with me if yu stand by the bible.
@danieldvs100 MY bible? Lol. You have me confused for a religious person. Your point is moot, because I don't believe in the bible to begin with. The point I'm making is that the basis for the argument in this video is logically flawed. Extrapolation from actual, real-world 'creators', implies the reasoning being used is faulty. Mine is otherwise not an argument for or against the existence of a god of any kind. Flawed logic is flawed logic. Regardless of what you are claiming.
ever heard of a word limit, i had to improvise, im just late replying because i tend not to look at things that are a fuckin waste of time, by the way, satan said ``see you soon``
How could you be confused? It did not take God 3 entire days to create the earth. It took him the time it takes him to say "let it be" once a day. He could create something more complex then any of the above and do it in the excact time of 0. You could think of it in your limited intelectual standards as "Its Just The Way It Is" I want to say 4 words in 8 days.I can say a lot more words than that in 10 seconds.The best part is God can do all that without expending any energy at all.
@KuraIthys "In fact, the effort required to create something is frequently proportional to the attention to detail required, and not how big it is." even excepting this fact, there was 1 planet earth, N then the rest of the universe. no matter how you put it, nnot even you're omnipotent god could admit it takes longer to make 1 planet then it will it make million of planets and stars. lets not even bring up galaxies...
@danieldvs100 Have you ever seen games like elite, or in more recent times, minecraft? With a tiny bit of code you can generate a near infinite universe. Yet if you want it to be EXACTLY a certain way, you'll be at it forever.
OK, these are funny, but the argument here is a bit... Retarded. As someone who actually creates worlds at times. (Game programmer...), the time required to create something isn't necessarily proportional to it's size. In fact, the effort required to create something is frequently proportional to the attention to detail required, and not how big it is. (Nor is it proportional to complexity. Just, hand-crafted details are significant)
@KuraIthys I'm sure that if you go to other universes, you won't suddenly find that the graphics quality turns to shit when compared to Earth. I'm also wondering how being a video game programmer makes you an authority on creating planets and universes.
@werebee If you're going to argue about the idea of an intelligent designer for the universe, it stands to reason that you make reference to the intelligent designers that exist. Also it doesn't imply the graphics quality turns to shit; Compare the randomly generated world in minecraft to the things people have spent ages building one block at a time.
Same level of detail, exponentially more time spent on creating something. It's extrapolation from available evidence.
@KuraIthys So God just used a random generation program to generate the rest of the universe, and then focused on making Earth, much like I make a wood house in Minecraft. I'm just...are you really using video game programming to argue for God as the creator of the universe? I think the formation of the entire universe might be a little different from video game programming.
@werebee No, you're confusing the issue. I'm not arguing FOR God, I'm extrapolating from a known point of reference, what the implications would be of the universe having an intelligent designer. That is not an argument for or against there being a creator, merely a thought experiment for what kind of implications it would have, based on whatever point of reference there actually is for 'intelligent designers'. (Eg. Human beings who create things.)
As funny as this is christians do say the that the whole 7 days thing probably dosent actually mean the same thing as week today, but its still stupid. Just saying at least they do realize that would be ridiculous.
does anyone else want a Jeffery?
ash19898989 1 day ago
And lets not forget that the stars come before the planets or moons.
And I'm tired of people being hung up on the 'so we came from nothing' argument.
If energy cannot be created or destroyed then energy is infinite & does not need an intelligence to create it because it cannot be created. Then they say well 'something had to have created the energy.' Why? If you assert that a first cause, or god is infinite and was always there... then why can't energy be the same? I'm thinking, narcissism.
allfitch84 1 day ago
Recent science has show that the physical constants of our Universe are fine tuned to allow the exact conditions for life to exist. These were created at the Big Bang & odds of them being as they are are very very slim.
This is the reason for the Mutiverse of Bubble Universe or the many "infiinite Universe hypotheis" exist.
You need many rolls of the dice to create our Universe.
I keep getting this question over & over so please read some current Cosmology.
Look at Michio Kaku work
Texmurphy51 1 day ago
@Texmurphy51 Hypothetically, people (whatever sort of people they might be) in another universe may well be saying the exact same thing of the apparent fine-tuning of their universe. It's rather difficult to draw conclusions when we have only one universe to study.
Pinage 21 hours ago
god stopped time and did some "Magic!" LOL
candynsweetslife 1 day ago
haha good video
dudeman84204 2 days ago
I totally get that back when they were making this stuff up, this was the most plausible idea they could have had, the stars will have seemed to just be little blinks of light in the sky, simple stuff. It's the fact they cling on to this explanation even with the knowledge that they aren't little lights, they are huge gas bombs millions of miles away, that's what I give them a wide berth for.
Arkesus 2 days ago
It took me 3 hours to finish my math homework.
All I've got left to do is all the assignments from every Collage course available.
I'll finish that in about an hour.
SuperFlameRing 2 days ago
just erase it and put in a fucking 4, lol
TylorBirley1 2 days ago
Anyone else notice that Moses sounds a lot like John Travolta?
yuothineyesasian 3 days ago
This is pretty stupid...If God is allmighty (as they say he is), there would be no problem creating the stars in a day. Allso concidering that the earth with all life and variation is a bit more complex than a star. A star is basically a big ball of one thing. The earth is alittle more.
Not that the religious theory is valid at all, but this is not even close to a good argument.
OxygenChrist 3 days ago
@OxygenChrist If God is all mighty, why take 3 days to create the Earth? Why even take any amount of time to create the Earth? If he's all-powerful, surely he could create it instantaneously?
And a star isn't a big ball of one thing. There are many many things that happen within a star, mainly nuclear fusion. That means that hydrogen is converted into helium and helium into carbon. There. That's 3 things at least.
Zeddersk 3 days ago 8
@Zeddersk Yes and also, The Ancient Egyptians divided the day into two 12-hour periods, and used large obelisks to track the movement of the SUN.
This means we only know time by the rotation of the earth and the light from the SUN.
WE Humans invented time, not God. How the heck did he know he made things in a day or any time for that matter. It is absurd.
TheAgnosticApe 2 days ago 6
@TheAgnosticApe
YEAH dude, DarkMatter2525 needs to say something about that too.
CartoonCaptain 2 days ago
@TheAgnosticApe
Time is actually a physical thing, though I agree that it would be quite silly for an omnipotent being to take any time to make something, let alone measure it in a unit based on something that doesn't exist yet.
inverseactuality 5 hours ago
@inverseactuality
I'm talking about our invention of time 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours. We Named that by the shadow of light. We put up a pillar and we observe the shadow on the ground from the pillar. We see the shadow changes in time it also changes direction and we measure them apart and NAME them. EX: Shadow points north we call it 12 shadow points east we call that 3, south = 6, west = 9.
12 of light + by counting in the dark the same length of time until day again 12 night = 1 day.
TheAgnosticApe 4 hours ago
@Zeddersk Of course God COULD do that. God could allso create everything very slow. God could do anything if it (God, that is) is allmighty. None of this proves anything, it just begs the question of what being allmighty means.
And I know that stars are a bit more complicadet than what I said, but what I meant was, that even if a star in all its complexity is very impressive indeed, most stars are made up in basically the same way, and when compared to all the variation on earth...well...
OxygenChrist 1 day ago
@OxygenChrist No. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Just do some research into all the different types of stars. There is a HUGE variety.
Zeddersk 1 day ago
@Zeddersk Of course there are, but I dare say, that according to what I know (which might not be enough) it´s safe to say that the varriety here on earth, with organic life, DNA etc. is ritcher in varriety and complexity. If that´s the case, then logically it´s faster and easier to create. Not that it matters when it comes to an allmighty entity, which is after all, what they claim did it.
OxygenChrist 1 day ago
@Zeddersk To make an analogy: It may take me 10 minutes to cook pasta for 10 people, but that does not mean it will take me 20 minutes to make a nobel prize dinner for 20 people.
OxygenChrist 1 day ago
@Zeddersk The answer is easy. God had some cowboy contractors doing all the work. Why do you think we don't live in a perfect Universe, they cut corners and stole some of the building supplies!
VinnyMonster1 18 hours ago
@OxygenChrist sez"If God is allmighty (as they say he is), "
Your confusing the man made superman, omnicient god with the possibility of the Creator of the Universe.
The omnicient god logically disproves itself but a God could have created the Universe & thats it.
The God does not have to have a presence in or existing Universe.
Texmurphy51 2 days ago
@Texmurphy51 What is being talked about here is the allmighty god as the bible describes it. To make an accurate argument about it, we must therefore assume the same basis. We cannot build a straw man and then knock it down, taking it as a win.
You say an omnicient God logically disproves itself. I´ve seen many argumets for that, but I´ve allso seen all of them be disproved. I´d be glad if you could show me what proof you are talking about.
OxygenChrist 1 day ago
@Texmurphy51 And yes, God does not need to exist in our universe, but I don´t see why that would be relevant? I can create something without being a part of it, so it would be very odd if this god cannot.
OxygenChrist 1 day ago
@Texmurphy51 We can simply assert that (insert cause here) created the universe, excluding God from the equation via alternative explanation.
ThisHaloFan 3 days ago
The amount of Theists with terrible grammar astounds me. You would think that with the amount of propaganda they distribute that the least they could do is spell correctly. And 'Jeans'... well done :D However debating with these people is impossible, the fact that they refuse to acknowledge the relevance of evidence means that any evidence we provide is dismissed; it is an impossible paradox that is asked of us when we are required to provide evidence for the relevance of evidence -_-
teamdylz666 4 days ago
I say, good sir, this video is hilariously awesome.
Gragthor 4 days ago
wesome.
spiffaz 4 days ago
Sorry about the phrasing...I'm actually sitting in a scientific symposium about evidence-based medicine (cruising the internet during particularly boring interludes.)
What I mean is, if these broad time assertions are based on nothing more than personal belief without demonstrable evidential support, they are essentially meaningless.
donfishmaster 4 days ago
so let me get this straight, it took god 3 days to make earth, but 1 day to make, BILLIONS or even TRILLIONS if stars... 3 days for earth, 1 to make every fucking thing else. and atheists are the crazy ones ಠ__ಠ
bonkuraysan 5 days ago 10
@bonkuraysan Perhaps even septillions.
greghmn 5 days ago
@bonkuraysan Octillians :P
chrism4n14 3 days ago
@bonkuraysan +400 billion galaxys. with 600 billion stars and 500 billion planets in each (on average)
valtonen77 2 days ago
@bonkuraysan sextillions of stars!!! Put some attentíon to J. calculations. -.-
GalliadII 1 day ago
@bonkuraysan Well, you forget that the believers apply these things called "omnicience" and "being allmighty" and more. God in this case, can do anything, and I mean anything. God is not subject to logical or physical law, and that solves basically every problem that might come up. A pretty neat way go get away with it :P
OxygenChrist 1 day ago
@OxygenChrist yeah he can do anything, except (apparently) make the earth in 1 friggin day.
bonkuraysan 1 day ago
@bonkuraysan That "he" didn´t is no proof "he" can´t. I can go out and make a snowman, but I wont. In fact, even if I´d never made a snow man in my entire life, that would be no proof that I can´t. Your argument fails.
OxygenChrist 14 hours ago
@OxygenChrist saying he didnt and cant are 2 different things, but you can go make a snowman at any point( as long as there is snow)but from what has been said in the bible, he made earth in a few days, this is the all powerfull god that created everything else in existence in 1 day, so when i say that "he" cant, im saying he has shown no reason to believe he can, similarly, if in you entire life you refuse to make a snowman, i have no reason to believe you can.
bonkuraysan 13 hours ago
@bonkuraysan Yes, but you can´t conclude from the lack of god doing so, that god could not. In fact, since god is allmighty, then it could do it.You only have one example of god making the earth in three days, and from that you draw the conclusion that this god could not make it faster? It does not hold water.
And would you not admit that I can jump up and down while saying "Buggybuggy beatle pie"? I´ve never done it, but would you say I can´t?
OxygenChrist 11 hours ago
@OxygenChrist just like innocent till proven guilty, if there is no proof you can, we must assume you can't. and if we could just take their word on it, it would be the same as saying god exists, "well we can't truly prove there isn't a god, so there must be a god". just the fact that 'he" didn't is proof against the claim that he can., just like a man who says he can jump ten feet, yet only jumps 5 on his own choice every time, he says he can, but demonstrates otherwise.
bonkuraysan 13 hours ago
@bonkuraysan You just said "saying he didnt and cant are 2 different things", and now you say "just the fact that 'he" didn't is proof against the claim that he can". Just that god did not do this very thing, is no proof that it (god) cannot do it. It´s one occasion we´re talking about, not a series of regular actions. If I claim to be able to jump ten feet, and fail over and over again, it´s a proof that I´m lying, and can´t do it. But if I say I can jut two feet but don´t, that proves nothing.
OxygenChrist 11 hours ago
@bonkuraysan And allso, it´s not as easy as to say "If we can´t prove there isn´t a god, we must assume there is", or "If we can´t prove there is a god, we must assume there isn´t". Scientists haven´t proven the higgs boson yet, and it took them a long time to prove the electron (some still believe it does not excist), but they were still taken to be true, even it they were not proven.
OxygenChrist 11 hours ago
FUNNY!!!!!! Fell out of my chair funny!
WALDOoftheSHIRE 5 days ago
The bible makes more sense if you read it as symbolics. Adam and Eve were not people, they are symbolic of universal duality. Jesus was not a man, either, he is symbolic of an idea of morality. "The heavens and earth were created in 7 days"...1 "day" is actually closer to 1 billion years.
jeffthecoder 6 days ago
@jeffthecoder And it makes way more sense to just not bother.
alphaenemy 6 days ago
@jeffthecoder and bronze age people had a real understanding the concept of billions too, that's why the earth is 3 billion years old and the universe is only a billion years old. and that moral symbol of jesus also felt slavery, discrimination, infanticide etc was to be indoctrinated into generations of followers by the scribblings of his insipid disciples in a book that is contrary and generally unpleasant.
jasonliz000 5 days ago
@jasonliz000 Yeah, the whole "moral ways to treat your slave" stuff, and in the NIV version of the Bible, all that "Respect government, for it is of God" scriptures, I ended up concluding that if there is an "anti-christ", it is actually "christ". Did you know that in secluded communities when evil shamans used to put curses on people, the curses came true theoretically because the "cursed" person believed in the shaman power to the point that the mind "made it real"?
jeffthecoder 5 days ago
@jeffthecoder Perhaps it's simply the panacea or placebo that some people need to justify their existence, I find it disturbing that they feel the need to dumb themselves down or delude themselves towards any real personal development so that their world view remains consistent with the delusion they have accepted as absolute truth.
jasonliz000 5 days ago
@jasonliz000 One day, a man who was "cursed" said "you have no power over me, shaman, I am with Jesus", and when he didn't die, droves of the indigenous people converted to christianity.
jeffthecoder 5 days ago
@jeffthecoder I would be intereted to know where you got your 1 day been equal to a billion years.
ZeusHelios 5 days ago
@ZeusHelios It's an original thought, I suppose. I mean, I never really read it anywhere. See, when I was growing up I was bombarded with BOTH ideologies of christianity AND evolutionism. As a kid, I never seen them as "competing" ideologies, I figured they were both true, so in my mind I concocted a sort of hybrid belief system.
jeffthecoder 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeffthecoder-cont- In fact as we read on we discover that an evening and morning is simply a beginning and end to parts of creation. For example the beginning and end of creating light was the first part referred to in the bible as the first day. So the evening and the morning was any period of time as it was merely the beginning of something till the end of it. The evening represents the beginning because its not clear till the morning when it is more clear or complete or understood.
ZeusHelios 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeffthecoder I see. Thanks for the response. I guess I can see how you came up with this thought. In fact Its a thought that has crossed my mind. And I wondered how you came up with the same thought. But you could be right. In the bible it talks about an evening and the morning. Many people think this is a 24 hour earthly day. But this is incorrect. As further on in genesis makes that clear. The sun was not created untill the fourth day. So evening and morning must have another meaning.-cont
ZeusHelios 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeffthecoder In fact as we read on we discover that an evening and morning is simply a beginning and end to parts of creation. For example the beginning and end of creating light was the first part referred to in the bible as the first day. So the evening and the morning was any period of time as it was merely the beginning of something till the end of it. The evening represents the beginning because its not clear till the morning when it is more clear or complete or understood. -cont-
ZeusHelios 4 days ago
@jeffthecoder Some theist think the evening and morning is either a 1000yrs or 7000yrs. 7000 years would make sense as 7 represent perfection or completion. This now represent our days. For on the 7th day God rested. And he wanted us to have a day of rest to keep for him. Sorry if I have sent you the same messages. There had been an error and some messages may have been sent twice
ZeusHelios 4 days ago
@ZeusHelios "Some theist think the evening and morning is either a 1000yrs or 7000yrs."
Is this based on anything other than personal belief?
donfishmaster 4 days ago
@donfishmaster Are you referring to my personal belief all theist personal belief. There are reason for this belief. No one can have a personal belief in the bible It must speak for itself.
ZeusHelios 4 days ago
Comment removed
ZeusHelios 4 days ago
Comment removed
ZeusHelios 4 days ago
@jeffthecoder if those all were symbolic concepts it implies that they are imaginary which yet again implies that whole bible is fiction therefor god also. if people understood that there wouldn't be religion and world would be a totally different place... maybe better maybe worse...
Alexbl100 5 days ago
"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."[
Carl Sagan
Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove>
Lets here from those of you who think your smarter than Sagan.
Texmurphy51 1 week ago
@Texmurphy51 You don't have to think you are smarter than Sagan to disagree with him. And I disagree with him on the definition of atheist. I haven't seen any evidence for a creature (god) that has created this universe, therefore I take the default position on that subject and assume this creature doesn't exist. If I'm presented with convincing evidence I will change my mind. So I'm an agnostic atheist.
hennybonny 5 days ago
@hennybonny sez"You don't have to think you are smarter than Sagan to disagree with him"
True but he kind of carries more impact than your opinion.
"I haven't seen any evidence for a creature (god) that has created this universe"
Have you seen evidence of ET life?
How about infinity?
What about Dark Matter/Energy.
Your looking for a SPECIFIC type of (god), they one described by mans myth religion to saisify your needs.
What evidence do you have of No God?
Texmurphy51 4 days ago
@Texmurphy51 evidence of no god? You cannot prove a negative statement. Prove I didn't launch a teacup into space two years ago. Go aheah... prove it. You see, its up to me to prove that I DID launch the teacup, just like its up to you to prove god exists.
jeans1515 4 days ago
@jeans1515 actualy it depends how much facts about if u can proove it wrong u can proove that we r not made of a gas
theblakedestroyer 4 days ago
@theblakedestroyer No, what you "prove" (a stupid word in science) is that we ARE made up of liquids, solids AND gases. You cannot prove a negative.
jeans1515 4 days ago
@jeans1515 i meant entirly out of gas and ik we can never be 100% sure just some things can get to 99%
theblakedestroyer 4 days ago
@theblakedestroyer Name something that we know to 99%? Gravity? nope, its probably closer to 60%. Evolution has more evidence for it than gravity, probably as high as 90% so is it "truer"? My point is that proof is a word for the ignorant. Evidence is what is required... not proof.
jeans1515 4 days ago
ok u win thanks for proving me wrong
theblakedestroyer 4 days ago
@jeans1515 sez"You cannot prove a negative statement"
Then ALL hypothesis of how the Universe was created are "negative statements" since NON can be proven. The concept of a creator however is thrown out because of myth Religion.
Your teacup example is a strawman argument because it is an obvious myth.
You simply Believe that creation is not a viable alternative to multiverse, infinite univese or any of the others.
Can you definitively explain how the Universe came to be????
Texmurphy51 4 days ago
@Texmurphy51 can you? without the weakest answer of all time "god did it". I am god. And I fuck dead rodents. because i'm awful
joemak13 4 days ago
@joemak13 Your answer is "god didn't do it"
How about YOUR explanation of how the Universe came to be and you better have proof.
Otherwise it is a Negative Claim
Texmurphy51 4 days ago
@Texmurphy51 again... "prove" is not a scientific word because you cannot prove that we are real in the first place. Evidence is what is required, and the burden is on you to collect evidence.Big Bang, Evolution, gravity, particles, these are all explanations for what we see around us, they are good explanations and could easily be shown to be wrong if only anyone could find contrary evidence. I will reply again to explain a little further...
jeans1515 4 days ago
@jeans1515 Part 1
sez"they are good explanations and could easily be shown to be wrong if only anyone could find contrary evidence"
Your talking about things that exist within our Universe that can be tested.
We are talking about BEFORE the Universe existed.
If you bother to study the subject you will find there is no Evidence to find.
All the hypotheisis are Occams Razor ideas.
continue
Texmurphy51 4 days ago
@jeans1515 Part 2
sez"You cannot, of course, it IS a myth... but according to the evidence, so is god"
You see your comparing a KNOWN myth to an hypotheis of how the universe was created. Would you make the same claim that Multiverse do not exist for the same reason?
Ironically the teapot WOULD exist in one of the infinite multiverse, as would every permutation that you can imagine.
Now Atheist can easly accept that, but reject Creation out of hand.
Its a Belief System/Religion
Texmurphy51 4 days ago
@Texmurphy51 No, not surprisingly, your missing the point. The point is not that I believe in the teapot, but not god... the point is that without EVIDENCE I "believe" in neither. Evidence, is the only issue I have with god (aside from his "written" instructions to kill disobedient children, and his love of slavery, war, racism etc). please understand that if I had evidence, I would see god as being real. There is simply no evidence.
jeans1515 3 days ago
@jeans1515 sez"aside from his "written" instructions to kill disobedient children"
YOU are missing my point. I am NOT definding the man made myth gods you keep using as "proof of no God"
No evidence does not mean no existence.
Again, show me evidence of infinity, ETs, dark matter/ energy, multiverses or any of the other explanations of how the universe began.
There is no more than God.
You simply BELIEVE there is No God because of Faith.
Just like a Theists Believes in a God
Texmurphy51 3 days ago
Hi @Texmurphy51 & @jeans1515, May I ask you both:
'Is your believe in something informed by positive evidence, or is it that you think that yours is the more simple explanation and no good evidence exists to challenge it?'
josephdorrell 3 days ago
@josephdorrell My contention is that Science has no positive evidence as to the Universe before the Big Bang.
All hypothesis as to what happened are based on sheer speculation.
If you think that the multiverse idea is the "more simple" so be it but to exclude all others is a Belief.
If that Belief is group organized & wants to surplant all other Beliefs/Faiths then it is a Religion.
Are you familiar with the current theories of cosmology?
Texmurphy51 3 days ago
@Texmurphy51 Joe, name a single book you have read on astrophysics? Chemistry? biology? Cosmology? Science?
jeans1515 3 days ago
@josephdorrell Evidence. Simple evidence. Although the evidence is difficult to understand, it is the best explanation. From a lifetime of reading, and observing all I can do is make my decision based on evidence. There is so much evidence out there supporting the views held by science, it only takes discipline and time to learn it. The simplest answer is not what anyone with a brain is after, the answer that relies on the fewest unknowns is perhaps the better way to phrase that.
jeans1515 3 days ago
@jeans1515 or... the answer with the fewest assumptions. Theists assume that a) their brand of religiosity is the correct one to the exclusion of others; b) their god(s) are the only ones capable of existing to the exclusion of all others; c) their book(s) written by committee over several thousand years are infallible and indisputable. Those alone make it impossible to believe without some sort of evidence. I would like someone to name three baseless assumptions from science.
jeans1515 3 days ago
@Texmurphy51 No, no, no. Again. I have read the evidence for the big bang, and for evolution and a theistic explanation simply does stack up against it. Infinity? Where have I ever mentioned it? what does it have to do with anything. Perhaps you should simply study a few grade school science textbooks.
jeans1515 3 days ago
@jeans1515 Your not getting my point as usual.
I am not saying the Big Bang is wrong, or there was no Evolution.
Read Carfullly, I do Not Support Thesistic Religions or Their Ideas.
Think of what happened BEFORE the Big Bang.
What it was is complete speculation. There is NO evidence or data.
Read some Science on it or at least watch the Science Channel when the subject comes up.
Science in does not support Theism but in no way disproves Creation.
Thats YOUR interpretation
Texmurphy51 2 days ago
@Texmurphy51 theres no reason to actually talk about some god, if theres zero evidence.
valtonen77 2 days ago
@valtonen77 "theres no reason to actually talk about some god, if theres zero evidence."
Then why is that all Atheists talk about?
Again, the "evidence" is zero from YOUR prespective, a Theist sees evidence.
There is Zero evidence for ANY hypotheis in science until it is found so do we not talk about them also?
Texmurphy51 2 days ago
@Texmurphy51 not from my perspective. If this would be trial, christians so called "evidence" wouldnt count shit. all you have is faith, aka ignorance. And theres diffrence between fact and opinion... you should know that.
valtonen77 2 days ago
@Texmurphy51 Oh my... I dont think you have a grade school understanding of science to say something as inane as "There is Zero evidence for ANY hypotheis in science until it is found so do we not talk about them also?" eech.
jeans1515 2 days ago
@jeans1515 sez"Oh my... I dont think you have a grade school understanding of science ..."
You dont seem to like it much when some calls you stupid do you, yet you do it all the time to others.
I am simply pointing out your MISTAKE when you claim no evidence for God PROVES non Existence.
As I said, there are many other hypothesis with no evidence that are no rejected offhand.
Only someone with a preconceived Belief would do so.
NO evidence would convince you otherwise
Texmurphy51 2 days ago
@Texmurphy51 Oh certainly, you can bring up the infinite regression to pluck holes in cosmology. However, it is very possible and even likely that there was no time before the big bang, and no real existence. It sure is not clear, but its fascinating to explore the notions of a pre-big bang universe. The same issue certainly arises when discussing any kind of magical creation being; there must have been something to create IT, and something that would create the creator of the creator etc...
jeans1515 2 days ago
@jeans1515 "However, it is very possible and even likely that there was no time before the big bang"
I agree, Spacetime as we now know it probably did not exist pre B.B.
I dont thing you can say "no real existence" unless you know the conditions,(& we dont).
Your reference to a magic creation being is your mental image based on experiance with mans myth religions.
As for creator of the creator you can make the same point as to Universe creating Universe to infinity.
Texmurphy51 2 days ago
@Texmurphy51 We ALMOST understand each other. I just require more evidence. You still have yet to convince me that you have studied the scientific claims you claim to reject.
jeans1515 6 hours ago
@Texmurphy51 The explanations provided by the evidence (science) could well be wrong, and it would be delightful to find another explanation supported by evidence. And yet, after more than 150 years of searching, not a shred of contrary evidence has been found. So no, I can no better explain with 100% certainty how the universe came to be... but neither can you. I at least, have evidence to support my claim. I challenge you to find a single scientist who claims a negative statement can be proven
jeans1515 4 days ago
@Texmurphy51 As for the teacup. There very well could be, in fact, with all the junk we have thrown into space it is quite likely to be there. Prove to me it is not there, and I will eat my shoe. You cannot, of course, it IS a myth... but according to the evidence, so is god. Do you see how the two are related? How a negative cannot be proven. It is not a straw man at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, my claim is that there is a teapot. The burden of proof is on me.
jeans1515 4 days ago
Comment removed
donfishmaster 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texmurphy51 "What evidence do you have of No God?"
This is just...wow...
Statistically weighted evidence for a deity = asymptotically approaching zero.
The rest of the area above this statistical curve represents a lack of a deity(s)'s evidence, and that area grows incrementally as the body of scientific evidence expands and is refined. So the question is, do you accept this shrinking area (7th,8th,9th std. deviation) as true OR do we use this huge body of data as a working model?
donfishmaster 4 days ago
@Texmurphy51 "he kind of carries more impact than your opinion." Does the fact that he reach out to a broader audience than me makes his opinion more valid?
I haven't seen evidence for ET life, but I have seen evidence for T life which opens for that there is ET life to. I don't believe in infinity. And yes, I've seen evidence for dark matter (its what explains why the stars at the edge of galaxies can have their speed and still orbit around it) and energy (expansion of universe).
hennybonny 2 days ago
@hennybonny sez"haven't seen evidence for ET life, but I have seen evidence for T life which opens for that there is ET life"
Theists see the same evidence for a God because of the complexity of the Universe & the EXACT conditions required for life to exist.
Science has confirmed the unlikely probability that our Universe could have been created (as is). This is why the Multiverse,(infinite regression) hypothesis was created to beat the odds
We need infinite #s to create our universe
Texmurphy51 2 days ago
@Texmurphy51 "We need infinite #s to create our universe". No! we need one universe to create our universe and that is this one. We don't know how the laws of this universe was determined so we can't start calculate the probability that they have ended up like they are.
To the "ET vs. T life" issue.
1. I know there is life on earth.
2. earth is a planet in the universe.
3. there are more planets in the universe
4. there might be more planets with life in the universe.
No proof!
hennybonny 1 day ago
@hennybonny sez"No! we need one universe to create our universe and that is this one"
You dont get it, the probability of our universe "as is" from one random event is almost zero.
Read some current science on it. Thats why the Multiverse idea was spawned.
You need an infinite number of universe (rolls of the dice) to get the exact conditions for ours to exist.
Its like life. There needed to be many events in early earth for life to spawn from random molecules.
Texmurphy51 1 day ago
@Texmurphy51 We do not know how the laws of this universe got their value. We don't know the shape of the dices, therefore you can't calculate probability! (tell me the probability to get a 1 on a dice you know nothing about).
Is it the "many worlds interpretation", the "chaotic inflation theory" or the "M-theory" you claim spawned from the idea that "the probability of our universe 'as is' from one random event is almost zero."?
hennybonny 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hennybonny sez"We do not know how the laws of this universe got their value."
Again with the"WE", are you a Cosmologist?
"therefore you can't calculate probability! "
Oh but you CAN because the metrics are know & the possible permutations.
Your statements are compeletly contradicting current Science
As I said the improbability is why Multiverse theory was spawned.
It is the only way of explaining how the even happend.
Infinite Universes create many rolls of the dice.
Texmurphy51 1 day ago
@Texmurphy51 Didn't have room for the last two points.
"Your looking for a SPECIFIC type of (god), they one described by mans myth religion to saisify your needs". No, I'm not looking for that and I don't know what needs this god would satisfy.
"What evidence do you have of No God?" First we have to define god. If you define god as Mike Patton then I would say that there is plenty of evidence he exist and I would consider my self a theist to that god. But we need a definition...
hennybonny 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hennybonny sez"No, I'm not looking for that and I don't know what needs this god would satisfy"
Satisfy what "needs" God is simply creator of the Universe, does not have to satisify any needs unless you want a Personal God.
sez "First we have to define god"
No it has already been done, "Creator of the Universe"
Your looking for the superman, omnicient, knows past present future God of Myth.
Thats why you reject the possibility of Creation.
Your stuck in the Atheist Paradigm
Texmurphy51 2 days ago
God creates Earth, Moon Sun, and all of creation in 7 days.
Needs rib from Adam to make Eve. Something's not quite right,
TonyEvans96 1 week ago
"Fuck it, I'll pull an all nighter."
The funniest line i've heard in the last 20 years.
MikeNashFlash 1 week ago
frazzzer8888 sez"Plenty of atheists are open to an existance of some type of God or Gods"
Then they are Agnostics not Atheists
"it's just that atheist don't make storybook dogmatic assumptions about the nature of God;"
Sure they do, they Believe there is No God, take Scientific data & weave a tale of how the Universe came into existence.
This is what Creation Science does to prove god.
Texmurphy51 1 week ago
@Texmurphy51 Its gnostic vs. agnostic and you have theist vs. atheist. Gnosis means knowledge, and an agnostic person will say you can't gain knowledge of the matter while a gnostic person would say you can. So agnostic does not exclude the possibility of being a theist nor an atheist.
And its not an atheist work that have explained the laws of this universe, it is a scientific work. But science can only explain the explainable.
hennybonny 1 week ago
@hennybonny sez"So agnostic does not exclude the possibility of being a theist nor an atheist."
Sure it does.
An Atheist or Theist Believe in their conclusion about God dispite any possible knowledge obtained. They may claim "PROOF" will change their minds but we both know that ANY proof can be explained away.
Agnostics Belive in God or Not but know that they can be wrong & do not have
FAITH in their Belief as do Theists & Atheists.
Atheists have as much Faith as Theist do.
Texmurphy51 1 week ago
-cont- Because at the beginning of creating something is not clear or understood or is not quite visible to make out until the morning or its completion.
ZeusHelios 1 week ago
Its thought that God did not literary create the earth in 6 /24hour days. Check it out in Genesis. The sun was not created till the fourth day So the evening and the morning cant possible be referring to literal days. Ask yourself why the evening and the morning and not the morning and the evening. What the evening and morning means is a period of time. Of which some say is 1000yrs or 7000yrs. The evening is the beginning of and the morning is the end of a creation-cont-
ZeusHelios 1 week ago
@ZeusHelios Well you are wrong. The bible talks about light and night on the first day before the sun. Even though the sun provides our light but anyway's it says he made light and night the first day and then explained that was what makes a day. From dawn one day till dawn the next day is one day. First page of the bible even. Comments like this then people wonder why christians fail test on the content of the bible.
chiefsforpres 6 days ago
@chiefsforpres You clearly have no idea of the scriptures. Your comment has highlighted you total ignorance of that verse. Its no wonder your an athesit. You read scripture and think that you have logically discerned its meaning. But your logic if in a court against a Christian would simply make your interpretations of scripture laughable. Let me enlighten you on that verse. But I know it will make no difference to you. You will continue to hold on to your ignorance. -Continued-
ZeusHelios 6 days ago
Comment removed
ZeusHelios 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chiefsforpres Genesis 2-5 In the creation of light God separated the light from the darkness and called the light day and the darkness night. This section is merely the creation of light and God naming them in order to distinguish them. Its nothing to do with a 24 hour period of time or a day as we know it. G5 And the evening and the morning were the first day. Is merely stating that its the beginning and the ending of his first creation or of a period of time. Now ask your self--cont-
ZeusHelios 6 days ago
@chiefsforpres cont-How can it be the first day when God has just completed it. How can the sun rise and set before God has created it. It certainly did not take God all day to call the light day and call the darkness night.. NOW go to G14-19. Here is where the sun was created as it says. ----to DIVIDE the day from the night etc.etc ----and for days and years. Its now do we have a 24 hour day. But God continues with his original start and end time of each of his Creation.
ZeusHelios 6 days ago
@chiefsforpres' I suppose you will come back with more pointless post. I have already explained the first part of Genesis to you. But you will not accept it. And you will continue to post unintelligent comments in order to escape from your obvious ignorance from you previous post to me. And also to try and justify your previous comment so that you do not look so ignorant. I will not be arguing at length with you. I have explained Genesis to you and that is that.
ZeusHelios 6 days ago
@ZeusHelios Not surprising though when you realize that to believe the bible in the first place you would have to be a complete imbecile and total dip shit. So anyone stupid enough for the bible is inherently going to do terrible on any test. Being stupid enough for the bible and being a utter moron go hand in hand.
chiefsforpres 6 days ago
@chiefsforpres If you have any evidence (which you dont have) to back your statement then lets here it. Otherwise dont waste anyone's time on such pointless posts. You saying such things prove nothing. And neither can you prove that you comment holds even one iota of truth. But such comments shows everyone the low level of intelligence that you have.
ZeusHelios 6 days ago
Haha the bible is such a fail :P
AntiSpeciesistWorld 1 week ago
does anybody know the name of the song that begines to play at the end?
mrimpey1 1 week ago
If the sun was created after the creation of earth. How could it have taken three days since days weren't created?
FooDanger 1 week ago
Ya know, it would have saved a lot of people, a lot of time, if the first line of Genesis was written "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and the Earth is ROUND, and travels around the sun".. would have saved a whole of people a whole lot of time... just saying...
limestonemedia 1 week ago
@limestonemedia indeed, it would have saved us a couple of thousands of years of primitive science :/
nachoijp 1 week ago
Jeez, Darkmatter2525, you are so clevur.
AutoTerminator 1 week ago in playlist More videos from DarkMatter2525
Guess what, go back 20 years & read Scientific theories on Cosmology.
They are wrong also by orders of magnitude.
Dark Matter & Energy made quite a difference
The idiocy of the Scientific argument in this video is that ...
If there was a God, he could done this because, time didnt exists before the Universe existed.
To take the ancient writings of ignorent people & use it to disprove or prove how the Universe was created is moronic.
Texmurphy51 1 week ago
@Texmurphy51 In another words, the bible is deadly wrong and nobody, believers and non beliavers, should trust it
GreaterPhenom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GreaterPhenom sez"In another words, the bible is deadly wrong and nobody, believers and non beliavers, should trust it"
Well some historical facts in it are correct & it does have good life lessons but the god stories are all myths.
Texmurphy51 1 week ago
@Texmurphy51 if time did not exist, then why does it say it took days. (3) to make a planet? if there was no time, then why would it say that?
GamingFreeksGameplay 1 week ago
@GamingFreeksGameplay sez"if time did not exist, then why does it say it took days. (3) to make a planet?"
Ha Ha, that planet creation is a myth story, it was ancient mans first ideas of how everythihg came to be.
Science now believes time started with the beginning of our Universe.
Before the Big Bang, time as we know it didnt exist.
Texmurphy51 1 week ago
@Texmurphy51 no shit shirlock. i was going through the theist's logic. Which makes no sence.
GamingFreeksGameplay 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GamingFreeksGameplay sez"i was going through the theist's logic. Which makes no sence."
Of course but neither does using mythical theists logic to disprove God.
You cant take ancient man made myths & somehow tell us how the Universe was Not created.
There is no connection between the two except in peoples minds.
Texmurphy51 1 week ago
@Texmurphy51
However, the good thing abt science is: we find new evidence, and then we reflect on ourselves and wt was believed to be true. Religion never allow u to do so, unless sth really bad had happened. If it's moronic for someone to use the bible to "prove" how the universe was created, then it's really not the scientists' fault. (No one use this crap in science, and the one who uses this should hv their PhD annulled)
AkasakaS2000 1 week ago
@AkasakaS2000 sez"the good thing abt science is: we find new evidence"
Who is this WE shit? are you a Scientist?
Like I said, NO evidence found would convince an Atheist to consider God a possibility.
Thats why its as much of a Religion as Theism.
Science does not support either side, each side takes scientific data & creates a story of their Beliefs.
Religions do not prove or disprove Creation.
There is no evidence to support Multiverse than Creation
Texmurphy51 1 week ago
@Texmurphy51 "we" means him, along with every single other person in the world who isnt a religious nutjob.
Weemancake 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Weemancake "...the world who isnt a religious nutjob"
But he IS a Religious nuttjob.
He Believes that there is No God as much as any Theist Believes there is a God.
Why would he proselytize the Atheist Religion via these videos otherwise?
These videos target the Christian Religion to prove No God
That does not even make sense.
How can disproving a myth, prove there is No God or Creation?
Texmurphy51 1 week ago
Comment removed
frazzzer8888 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texmurphy51
No moron. Atheism is not a religion at all.
Also, plenty of atheists are open to an existence of some type of God/Gods, just not the made up ridiculous organized religion versions.
Atheists don't have an answer for the origin paradox and they don't purport to have one.
But atheists don't make storybook dogmatic assumptions about the nature of God. Atheists admit they don't have the answers and before choosing to "believe" in something, they want some evidence.
frazzzer8888 1 week ago
What kind of software would God have used? I reckon Photoshop would only give a 2D world, maybe a 3D rendering system like 3Ds Max or Maya but life is a challenge and there's also an end so it was maybe like a games engine such as the CryEngine or Frostbite.
speckyprick 1 week ago
@KuraIthys and where in yur bible does it say god used this "tiny bit of code"? matter of fact, where does god explain anything he does? you people believe people were made by dirt, the world is 6,000 years old, talking snakds and everyone was created by jus 2 ppl. plz dnt argument with me if yu stand by the bible.
danieldvs100 1 week ago
@danieldvs100 MY bible? Lol. You have me confused for a religious person. Your point is moot, because I don't believe in the bible to begin with. The point I'm making is that the basis for the argument in this video is logically flawed. Extrapolation from actual, real-world 'creators', implies the reasoning being used is faulty. Mine is otherwise not an argument for or against the existence of a god of any kind. Flawed logic is flawed logic. Regardless of what you are claiming.
KuraIthys 1 week ago
@dan91709
u say what now
brisdale123 1 week ago
@rabidsi
aww, maybe i wont but the guy below will... BYE-BYE
brisdale123 1 week ago
@onealhart54
ever heard of a word limit, i had to improvise, im just late replying because i tend not to look at things that are a fuckin waste of time, by the way, satan said ``see you soon``
brisdale123 1 week ago
@goliathlup1
why are you talkin about yourself, last i checked it was a different subject
brisdale123 1 week ago
How could you be confused? It did not take God 3 entire days to create the earth. It took him the time it takes him to say "let it be" once a day. He could create something more complex then any of the above and do it in the excact time of 0. You could think of it in your limited intelectual standards as "Its Just The Way It Is" I want to say 4 words in 8 days.I can say a lot more words than that in 10 seconds.The best part is God can do all that without expending any energy at all.
ClayMeansImmortal 1 week ago
@KuraIthys "In fact, the effort required to create something is frequently proportional to the attention to detail required, and not how big it is." even excepting this fact, there was 1 planet earth, N then the rest of the universe. no matter how you put it, nnot even you're omnipotent god could admit it takes longer to make 1 planet then it will it make million of planets and stars. lets not even bring up galaxies...
danieldvs100 1 week ago
@danieldvs100 Have you ever seen games like elite, or in more recent times, minecraft? With a tiny bit of code you can generate a near infinite universe. Yet if you want it to be EXACTLY a certain way, you'll be at it forever.
KuraIthys 1 week ago
Best video EVER
Bonnogreen 1 week ago
It makes sense if God has a time machine.
onthespoke2 1 week ago
OK, these are funny, but the argument here is a bit... Retarded. As someone who actually creates worlds at times. (Game programmer...), the time required to create something isn't necessarily proportional to it's size. In fact, the effort required to create something is frequently proportional to the attention to detail required, and not how big it is. (Nor is it proportional to complexity. Just, hand-crafted details are significant)
KuraIthys 1 week ago
@KuraIthys I'm sure that if you go to other universes, you won't suddenly find that the graphics quality turns to shit when compared to Earth. I'm also wondering how being a video game programmer makes you an authority on creating planets and universes.
werebee 1 week ago
@werebee If you're going to argue about the idea of an intelligent designer for the universe, it stands to reason that you make reference to the intelligent designers that exist. Also it doesn't imply the graphics quality turns to shit; Compare the randomly generated world in minecraft to the things people have spent ages building one block at a time.
Same level of detail, exponentially more time spent on creating something. It's extrapolation from available evidence.
KuraIthys 1 week ago
@KuraIthys So God just used a random generation program to generate the rest of the universe, and then focused on making Earth, much like I make a wood house in Minecraft. I'm just...are you really using video game programming to argue for God as the creator of the universe? I think the formation of the entire universe might be a little different from video game programming.
werebee 1 week ago
@werebee No, you're confusing the issue. I'm not arguing FOR God, I'm extrapolating from a known point of reference, what the implications would be of the universe having an intelligent designer. That is not an argument for or against there being a creator, merely a thought experiment for what kind of implications it would have, based on whatever point of reference there actually is for 'intelligent designers'. (Eg. Human beings who create things.)
KuraIthys 1 week ago
"Fuck it, I'll pull an all-nighter" - I had to pause it for 5 minutes while I finished LMAO at this. Most I've ever laughed - thanks
ArcanePath360 1 week ago
As funny as this is christians do say the that the whole 7 days thing probably dosent actually mean the same thing as week today, but its still stupid. Just saying at least they do realize that would be ridiculous.
lost85times 1 week ago
Actually, Moses would probably have said, "27 zeros? What's a zero?" And then, God would have said, "Oh fuck it! Just make it the fourth day."
Kailoa36 2 weeks ago
I don't think hebrew even had one zero, let alone 26.
ODaemienE 2 weeks ago
Today has been on of the best days ever!
I found clownfish.
SeventhRisk 2 weeks ago in playlist God & Jeffery
I`m god !!!
10centGUN 2 weeks ago