ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE ( In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil) ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works doesn't mean there's no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the apparatus exists to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not arrange or produce. If a variation survives then that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION COULDN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Personally I love the way people who use this argument shoot themselves in the foot almost as soon as they open their mouths because all the arguments they use to show that morality is objective are actually evidence that it is subjective.
They say things like "everyone agrees that raping children is bad". Well obviously not, because if they did it would never happen! Of course most of us do agree that raping children is disgusting beyond belief. But somewhere their are bastards who disagree.
You're under the impression that the world does not conform to what we believe, but all of existence must be explainable?
You sir are missing the point of religion. The belief is in a God who is beyond human comprehension, of a 'perfect' love human beings cannot lay claim to or define. G.K Chesterton, C.S Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, Frank Morison, and plenty other great thinkers believed this.
What is the magic bullet that allows you to understand the universe? Even Christians don't claim that.
Then our very central doctrine makes no logical sense: God is Love.
I think that's why belief is a matter of faith rather then logic. We may question our belief, may delve logically into many aspects, but at the last reason having attained it's zenith only faith continues it's ascent.
I think there are such things as paradigms of existence, inexplicable. If you continue to question all the way to the source of meaning, that is where Christians believe you will find God.
If we accept faith beyond reason's zenith, then we would never progress. Thanks to our not doing so, we have seen reason's zenith climb and climb to explain more and more of the things that people used to use faith to explain. And with reason, we have the means to distinguish between truth and fiction - with faith, we do not.
When you say that God is Love, I cannot accept that as meaningful. Love is an emotion, not a being.
Well, that would explain why you are not a person of faith.
I'm simply saying in your own subjective reality you do not have a monopoly on the truth.
Also consider that many things have many different definitions. 'Love' means different things. Certainly one type of love is an emotion, one type is a verb, but perfect love Christians believe to be a being, manifest as something beyond comprehension.
It just strikes me as arrogant to believe you understand everything, and can define it.
If my reality were indeed subjective, then I would indeed have a monopoly on truth - subjective reality is relativism! I am not a relativist.
Reason however, is an objective standard by which we judge our subjective ideas about the world - as is the scientific method.
Yes, Love has different uses, and if you wish to include a use that refers to a being, that's fine. But the uses, emotion, verb, or being, are distinct.
Reason is objective? I supposed reason was one means to understanding, but apparently it's the only means. What you mean by 'I am not a relativist' is 'I put my whole faith in logical thinking'?
That's like saying evolution is an exact science.
To claim something is objective while even permitting subjectivity suggests sovereignty of meaning. From where does that authority come? Majority opinion? Scientific proof?
I should also point out that I do not think that all existence must be explainable.
An explanation must include something other than what it is that is to be explained. However, there is nothing that is not included in 'everthing' by which to explain everything.
It is enough to explain some things with reference to other things but as a simple point of logic, everything does not require explanation.
I'm thankful for your response and dissertation. I just felt you might have been hard on Venomfangx a tad (as everyone has been) and rose to his defense instinctively.
It might interest you to know Venomfangx is gone from Youtube due to death threats.
I do not believe that I was too hard on Venomfangx.
He employed the tools of reason to make his case and I used the same tools to show that it was flawed. I described his case as lame because it really was. He constructed a very lazy argument and should expect to be taken to task for that.
I am aware that he has left Youtube but I cannot be certain of the reasons. However, he has only himself to blame for people's lack of trust.
It's simply that your meaning seems to run thus...
'Logic is the be all and end all and every concept therein is objective without question.'
'God does not fit logical concepts'
'Therefore God does not fit into meaning at all'
That seems impenetrable. If you put your full faith in understanding and discount things beyond understanding offhand then there's little to say except 'what if there are things greater then understanding?'
I am not saying don't question. I'm saying 'consider'.
OK. You don't mean the logic of the argument given in the film but my actaul adherence to reason and logic.
This is not that small a subject but I don't want to just dismiss this or your other post.
If you are interested, I could try to make a film setting out my position on this. I am working on a couple of other films at the moment, so it couldn't be this week but perhaps in a fortnight - I could then message you with a link and we could use that as a springboard into the debate.
The main image and the titles were created in a 3D program called Carrara. You can get Carrara 6 Pro free with some magazines at the moment (3D Artist issue 1 has it - but might not be out in the States for a couple of weeks). The animated speach was created using Crazy Talk 5, which will animate any still image - and is a lot faster than rendering a full 3D animation. Animations is very new to me, so I'm still learning.
It's great you're now making videos. I've heard you announce this on the aeclectic forum. You've learned quite a bit I must say. Pretty well put together.
I'm still getting things sorted - I have a better set up and intro animation. I hope to have the first tarocchi film posted next weekend. I'm working on a script for the second and then it's heads down to design tutorials - I'll have yet another program to learn to animate the cards.
Thank you - it was a bit rushed though. I'm working on a better set up which should be ready for my next film. Still getting used to the software though. Lots to learn!
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE ( In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil) ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works doesn't mean there's no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the apparatus exists to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not arrange or produce. If a variation survives then that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION COULDN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
Personally I love the way people who use this argument shoot themselves in the foot almost as soon as they open their mouths because all the arguments they use to show that morality is objective are actually evidence that it is subjective.
They say things like "everyone agrees that raping children is bad". Well obviously not, because if they did it would never happen! Of course most of us do agree that raping children is disgusting beyond belief. But somewhere their are bastards who disagree.
kandtell 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If your neighbours work on Saturday, kill them.
If your child throws oatmeal at you, kill him.
If your mom plants corn and pumpkins in the same field, kill her.
If your sister has premarital sex, kill her
(but don't think twice about her sex partner).
If the folks in the next town aren't Christians,
kill them all and take their baby girls home for sex slaves.
It's all there, advice for a perfect life.
Just read the Bible!
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
You're under the impression that the world does not conform to what we believe, but all of existence must be explainable?
You sir are missing the point of religion. The belief is in a God who is beyond human comprehension, of a 'perfect' love human beings cannot lay claim to or define. G.K Chesterton, C.S Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, Frank Morison, and plenty other great thinkers believed this.
What is the magic bullet that allows you to understand the universe? Even Christians don't claim that.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
Without being able to give some kind of definition as to what we believe, how can a declaration of belief be at all meaningful?
If I claim to believe that 'x' exists but cannot tell you anything about what 'x' is, then my claim doesn't seem to mean anything.
ANIideas 2 years ago
Then our very central doctrine makes no logical sense: God is Love.
I think that's why belief is a matter of faith rather then logic. We may question our belief, may delve logically into many aspects, but at the last reason having attained it's zenith only faith continues it's ascent.
I think there are such things as paradigms of existence, inexplicable. If you continue to question all the way to the source of meaning, that is where Christians believe you will find God.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
If we accept faith beyond reason's zenith, then we would never progress. Thanks to our not doing so, we have seen reason's zenith climb and climb to explain more and more of the things that people used to use faith to explain. And with reason, we have the means to distinguish between truth and fiction - with faith, we do not.
When you say that God is Love, I cannot accept that as meaningful. Love is an emotion, not a being.
ANIideas 2 years ago
Well, that would explain why you are not a person of faith.
I'm simply saying in your own subjective reality you do not have a monopoly on the truth.
Also consider that many things have many different definitions. 'Love' means different things. Certainly one type of love is an emotion, one type is a verb, but perfect love Christians believe to be a being, manifest as something beyond comprehension.
It just strikes me as arrogant to believe you understand everything, and can define it.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
If my reality were indeed subjective, then I would indeed have a monopoly on truth - subjective reality is relativism! I am not a relativist.
Reason however, is an objective standard by which we judge our subjective ideas about the world - as is the scientific method.
Yes, Love has different uses, and if you wish to include a use that refers to a being, that's fine. But the uses, emotion, verb, or being, are distinct.
ANIideas 2 years ago
Reason is objective? I supposed reason was one means to understanding, but apparently it's the only means. What you mean by 'I am not a relativist' is 'I put my whole faith in logical thinking'?
That's like saying evolution is an exact science.
To claim something is objective while even permitting subjectivity suggests sovereignty of meaning. From where does that authority come? Majority opinion? Scientific proof?
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
@ANIideas
That looks to me like an appeal to consequences. =P
Obversity 2 years ago
I should also point out that I do not think that all existence must be explainable.
An explanation must include something other than what it is that is to be explained. However, there is nothing that is not included in 'everthing' by which to explain everything.
It is enough to explain some things with reference to other things but as a simple point of logic, everything does not require explanation.
ANIideas 2 years ago
I'm thankful for your response and dissertation. I just felt you might have been hard on Venomfangx a tad (as everyone has been) and rose to his defense instinctively.
It might interest you to know Venomfangx is gone from Youtube due to death threats.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
I do not believe that I was too hard on Venomfangx.
He employed the tools of reason to make his case and I used the same tools to show that it was flawed. I described his case as lame because it really was. He constructed a very lazy argument and should expect to be taken to task for that.
I am aware that he has left Youtube but I cannot be certain of the reasons. However, he has only himself to blame for people's lack of trust.
ANIideas 2 years ago
It sounded as if he raised your ire.
Luckily for you your logic is reciprocal and impenetrable.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
I am sorry if you found any of my logic impenetrable.
ANIideas 2 years ago
It's simply that your meaning seems to run thus...
'Logic is the be all and end all and every concept therein is objective without question.'
'God does not fit logical concepts'
'Therefore God does not fit into meaning at all'
That seems impenetrable. If you put your full faith in understanding and discount things beyond understanding offhand then there's little to say except 'what if there are things greater then understanding?'
I am not saying don't question. I'm saying 'consider'.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
OK. You don't mean the logic of the argument given in the film but my actaul adherence to reason and logic.
This is not that small a subject but I don't want to just dismiss this or your other post.
If you are interested, I could try to make a film setting out my position on this. I am working on a couple of other films at the moment, so it couldn't be this week but perhaps in a fortnight - I could then message you with a link and we could use that as a springboard into the debate.
ANIideas 2 years ago
God Loves you :)
ziberteck 2 years ago
I'm reminded here of a quote I've read many years ago. "No 'is' imlies an 'ought" Hume.
Oudler 2 years ago
Hey great video. mind if i ask what software you are using?
steve198520 2 years ago
Hi.
The main image and the titles were created in a 3D program called Carrara. You can get Carrara 6 Pro free with some magazines at the moment (3D Artist issue 1 has it - but might not be out in the States for a couple of weeks). The animated speach was created using Crazy Talk 5, which will animate any still image - and is a lot faster than rendering a full 3D animation. Animations is very new to me, so I'm still learning.
ANIideas 2 years ago
It's great you're now making videos. I've heard you announce this on the aeclectic forum. You've learned quite a bit I must say. Pretty well put together.
Oudler 2 years ago
Hi there,
I'm still getting things sorted - I have a better set up and intro animation. I hope to have the first tarocchi film posted next weekend. I'm working on a script for the second and then it's heads down to design tutorials - I'll have yet another program to learn to animate the cards.
ANIideas 2 years ago
nice animation :)
boonie1994 2 years ago
Thank you - it was a bit rushed though. I'm working on a better set up which should be ready for my next film. Still getting used to the software though. Lots to learn!
ANIideas 2 years ago
Probability that VFX follows what you said or has even heard of the Euthyphro = 0.
Nevertheless, that's probably the clearest summary of that dialog that I've ever read.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Great video, 5* and subbed
hal2017 2 years ago
VERY well done. logical, factual and respectful.
justbekindtooall 2 years ago