A response to thatonegirl2288

[CarpenterStudios]

1:11 yeah? well you're a cock.

[youVSmee]

The universe could only have arisen from an eternal state, OUTSIDE' itself.

The eternal source cannot be governed by materialistic properties,i.e. it must be composed of non-material properties.

We observe 'information' & we 'reform' information via intelligence. Intelligence is the only viable source capable of existing prior to matter & energy.

A good example of this is within the properties of a photon=non-material information.

[youVSmee]

Time does NOT stop within the planck scale. The moment 'motion' arose, time 'BEGAN."

Planck time is about 10-34 seconds AFTER the big bang. Seriously, "do you really believe that space itself can be divided into bits of an area? Time does NOT stop at planck time. Once it began it never stopped.

Planck second = smallest unit of time.

Planck length = the smallest known unit of space.

[youVSmee]

So the obvious problem then emerges. If, space-time is quantized via units, then one planck length per planck second equals speed of light within a vacuum, correct?

Obviously not. So, the moment time began, that created a 'progressive act of motion' via time, and that act of motion NEVER STOPPED within planck time.

[youVSmee]

Therefore, space-time actually must have a 'beginning non-quantization' state, i.e., it breaks down to a non-quantization state, which implies that space-time breaks down to a finite point, which eventually breaks down to a state of nothingness.

So, I guess violating our physical laws, i.e, Conservation of Energy by creating 'something from a state of nothingness" is a better solution?

You cannot use the mathematecal models in order to get to the point u wish and then 'burn it' ...

[youVSmee]

....so nobody else can use 'this same mathematecal model once its going to be used against your position?

No, it doesn't work that way. Our natural laws do not break down at the quantum level. The only thing that breaks down at that level is your eternal materialistic hypothesis , i.e., universe breaks down to a 'finite' point, but you cannot accept that, so you 'forbid' anything else from occurring within this quantum level.

[youVSmee]

Your 'densed' state has 'volume' which equals 1d x, 1dy, 1d z, & t."

The densed 'state' proves that it required 'non-eternal' properties in order to have a densed state to begin with.

You cannot BEGIN within somthing that is confined by '1d time x 1d lengths) within your densed state, and then imply that 'time & lengths' arose from the big bang itself.

[youVSmee]

You need to provide an 'eternal' state' which isn't confined by time, space, dimensions, density & mass.

A densed state= "density divided by VOLUME.

So, 'the densed state' is actually the beginning of time & lengths = non-eternal.

Time moves 'forward' from the densed state, via time x length.

Where is your eternal point within a densed state? Impossible. Density describes a volume of space already present, and THAT is not a 'dot', i.e., volumeLESS state.

VolumeLESS = no time or space.

[youVSmee]

Now, in regard to the photon. The photon is one of your fundamental elementary particleds, i.,e it cannot be broken down any further.

Therefore, the 'photon' is the particle which you must begin with. Again, photons have no mass, they are composed of 'information plus velocity" equals kinetic energy,i.e, kinetic information.

Where does 'information' come from PRIOR to any 'volume' equals time x lengths?

Information is neither matter nor energy, it exists within itself plus kinetic work

[youVSmee]

What was this eternal singularity? Describe to properties of this eternal singularity. I clearly show that 'information' is that 'singularity.'

The only thing that we 'observe' within this system which does exists, ( photon ) & isn't confined by 'two points."

The velocity plus 'information' = energy. Velocity requires 'two points', such as, ( 1) a line= two points= a dimension x 3 ( x, y, z).

2. Time via 'two points' via a 'beginning' plus 'distance' = T1 -T2 act of motion & change.

[youVSmee]

3. One-dimensional space = 'two point' via 'two separate points' , which 'creates' SPACE in between 'two points'.

Information on the other hand can exist within a 'single point' & CAN exists PRIOR to 'two points' of a line = 1d, & 2 separated points,i.e, space, and lastly, 'two points' are used as 'motion= kinetic' energy is 'activated.'

Think about it. The only thing that exists, which & existed PRIOR to time confined properties, is 'information."

Where does it come from?

[youVSmee]

What is your point? I guess your rail gun existed at the big bang and it is the source of all origins, correct?

The rail gun is 'non-eternal" by the way. You need to find an eternal source, just in case you got lost in thought.

[youVSmee]

Yes, a photon is 'energy', but you are missing the points.

My job is to show that the 'information' within the photon 'exists' without a physical medium.

Did you get that? The "informational package' is ITS OWN physical medium. There isn't any physical medium besides 'INFORMATION."

Dissect the photon and what do you have? All you have is 'velocity + information", and this combinational force is your, 'energy.'

In this case, u have the 'velocity' alone which creates the 'mass."

[youVSmee]

But, THEN you have to remember that the 'package of information' ITSELF, it what is being used to create mass in the first place.

In short, you cannot have 'anything creating WORK, i.e, thermal heat or mass, if it wasn't for the 'package of informaition' in the first place.

You are concentrating too much on the 'velocity= motion= energy", but u conveniently leave out, 'the package of information' which is causing the 'kinetic energy.'

Take away the 'informational package'= no energy

[youVSmee]

And as you take away the 'velocity'= motion, you are left once again with a 'motionLESS' & 'volulmeless' potential state, and this potential state ONLY has 'potential information' within a state of REST.

By dissecting the photon, if you take away the 'kinetic energy= motion", you are left with 'potential energy= information."

Information exists PRIOR to time, prior to dimensions, prior to a single dimension of space.

E= velocity cannot exists UNLESS an area of 1D space x 1D time exists.

[youVSmee]

Information does exists within a 'dot',i.e., single point. The fact that 'information' can exists within a 'single dot' shows that 'information' alone is eternal.

A 'dot' has 'no dimensions', no time, no volume of space. The photon has no volume of space, yet its only composed of 'informaition & VOLUMELESS' space' = no space.

[youVSmee]

In short, you have nothing around, except 'information' within a potential state via PE(i) is replaced with "PI(i)= Potential Information.

Once PI begins to move, the it becomes a 'photon' with a package of instructional information.'

All you end up with is , 'information' moving through space via a photon.

[youVSmee]

The photon itself cannot exists, unless its 'moving' = velocity = kinetic energy= energy.

Where did this 'non-material' information come from PRIOR to, time, dimensions, & volume of space?

What is non-material information? What is non-material intelligence? What is a mind?

What came first, intelligence or information?

[youVSmee]

I am saying that, 'something within an eternal realm' created the universe. The universe has a beginning state no matter how you look at it.

The universe was an 'open system' BEFORE it became a closed system. The reason I say that is because the universe began from a 'volumeless' dot. A volumeless dot 'cannot' have any 'density/mass' and any 'motion/velocity' = energy.

[youVSmee]

The only thing that has been proven to exist within a 'volumeLESS state is 'information." Where does information come from?

[youVSmee]

Energy = velocity = distance divided by time, which equals 'motion." Molecules in motion = thermal heat,i.e., energy.

Now, you cannot have 'energy' without first having a 'two point' dimensional area of space. Think about it, energy cannot have any velocity without having a physical AREA to move within.

Separeate your hands, the distance between your hands equals 'two points."

The distance between your hands = a line, a dimension.

As 'energy 'moves, it BRINGS time within it & ......

[youVSmee]

..creates a 'two point' separation between 'two different objects. Whatever is 'first' = your potential energy= T1 position, and then your 'second object is your 'second point."

That's why 'time' is described as your fourth dimension, since 'time is brought along via FORWARD time."

Since 'energy' requires '1D space' in order to move ( no space = no motion= no energy), energy cannot be eternal.

Energy cannot exists unless its 'moving" within an 'area of space" PRIOR to it.

[youVSmee]

Remember,, the spatial dimensions of space ( x, y, z ) are three different directions/vectors via x= length, y = height, & z = width.

The BB began from a 'dot' ( single point) and expanded via 'motion' thereby created your 3D of space via 'motion'= forward time.

Forward time began once energy & matter were used via motion in order to 'expand' from a 'volumeLESS' dot ( singularity, & expanded & became a '3D volume' of space.

You have three spatial dimension & one time dimension=4D.

[youVSmee]

The Conservation of Energy, is due to the 'belief' that energy & matter have always been 'recycling', i.e., transforming from E to M & visa versa, without any beginning conditions PRIOR to this recycling process.

However, if a 'photon' ( fundamental particle) requires 'forward motion' in order to exist, then it requires '1d space x 1d time in order to have the pre-existence of this 'area of space."

In short, a marble cannot move inside a basketball without it having space to move.

[youVSmee]

Potential energy is 'not' philosophical. Do you realize that the Law of Conservation is based on 'potential energy?"

You see, PE(i) is that which exists within a state of rest, yet, KE(i) is the result of having something within the potential state.

The KE(i) represents 'motion', therefore, if you have a 'rock' for example on top of a mountain, the 'rock' has 'potential energy, and 'once it begins to MOVE', then you have 'kinetic energy."

So, 'potential energy' isn't Philosophical."

[youVSmee]

In short, PE(i) + KE(i) = PE(f) + KE(f)= Conservation of Energy.

However, when you replace "E" with "I", you have the same conserved state.

The reason for that is that, "instructional information' within the 'photon' actually is existing within a 'volumeLESS' state.

That means that, 'info is existing' within a 'potential state', its ready to 'move' via kinetic = motion.

That's exacltly what occurs when the photon 'moves' it carries a 'package of information' within a VOLUMELESS state.

[youVSmee]

Therefore, 'instructional information' is the only entity, which exists 'without' a 'two point' dimension of space, which also implies that information is not confined by a 'two point' volume of space = no dimensions, no time, no space = volumeLESS = potential state.

This proves that 'information' is NOT confined by time, dimensions, nor space= eternal.

Eternal is the absence of time, absence of dimensions, absence of 'two points'.

Info exists within a 'single' volumeLESS point= eternal

[youVSmee]

Eternal is the ABSENCE of time. Anything confined by 'time' is not eternal. Time had a beginning via T1 ( now) through T2

( later).

Anything confined by dimensions and space is 'not' eternal.

Eternal is the absence of a beginning, an end; being WITHOUT time.

[youVSmee]

This universe is a 4D universe via x, y, z, & t. All experiments are done in 4D format.

X= length, Y= height, Z = width, T= Time.

The only way u can have any dimensions at all is if '"E" brings time with it."

The moment time began, it created the 'now' and the 'later' which equals 'two points.

Two points create a line, i.e, a dimension. Do you recall any basic geometry? A potential point has no volume of space, its a 'single point." A line equals 2 points, & 3D =3 sets of 'two points."

[youVSmee]

You cannot have a zero point without FIRST using 'two points' which equals T1 ( now ) through T2 ( later) in order to create your 'zero point."

T1 -T2 is two points, and three things require T1-T2, and they are, ( 1) time, (2) space, (3) dimensions.

Basic geometry shows that you cannot have a dimensional line without 'two points." Yet, you cannot have '1d space' without 'two points' either.

In order to have a 'zero point' which involved 'time, space, & dimensons' PRIOR to having a "zp."

[youVSmee]

Draw a line from the north pole to the north pole. Philosophical arguments are NOT mathematecal models, therefore NOT science.

The moment you make contact with the paper, you are creating the initial 'point."

Time does not go 'backwards', it only goes 'forward."

It doesn't matter when the initial 'point' began ( time), it could have occurred BEFORE the BB for all I care, the fact is that time could have began BEFORE the BB, and was 'activated' at the BB.

But time did not....

[youVSmee]

...occur at the BB and then REGRESS backwards in time. Hawkings uses 'imaginary numbers & imaginary time' in order to create an imaginary infinite state.

When something 'begins'( time) it goes forward in time. He magically uses the 'square root of negative 1 in order to regress time into an infinite state.

But that mathematecal model does not portray 'reality.' When energy 'began' it brought time along with it. E= motion= 'molecules' in motion. E requires '1d space via time' to exist

[youVSmee]

The Conservation of Energy is violated when energy has to wait for 1D time & 1D length in order for it to have any 'AREA' of space in order for it to 'move',i.e, work.

Time, space, energy, & matter simultaneously 'came into existence' and expanded at the same time.

Information on the other hand is non-material, and was required within photons ( energy ) in order for the photon to exist.

No informaiton = no photons = no E.

Where did this information come from PRIOR to having a mind

[youVSmee]

An eternal singularity? Really? What is the definition of eternal? Eternal is the absence of time, the absence of a beginning, & the absence of an end.

Everything within this 'closed system' is confined by 'two points' via T1 ( now ) through T2 ( later) = time.

As energy moved through 1d space, it brough along time with it. As time was activated via T1 through T2, space & dimensions were also created.

Show me a zero point which didn't use 'time & 1D space' in order to create a 0 point.

[youVSmee]

The whole universe began from a 'dot' which describes the absence of T1 ( now ) through T2 ( later) time. Anything without time can be eternal so long as it doesn't require 'two points' of space in order for it to exist.

Information can exists within a photon which is a volumeless particle, however, the photon itself cannot exists UNTIL there is 'two points' of space in order to 'move' within these 'two points' of space.

[youVSmee]

Two points equals a dimension of space, a dimension of time & a single dimension via x, y or z.

A photon is composed of information & no volume whatsoever. Its velocity is that which gives it mass. Without any velocity, a photon has no mass. A photon cannot have any velocity UNTIL there is a 'two point' presence of time via T1 ( now ) through T2 ( later ), which creates a one-dimensional volume of space, which again allows 'motion' to occur within these two separate points.

[youVSmee]

So a photon CANNOT exist unless time & space pre-exists. However, the information within the photon is clearly existing within a volumeless state. Therefore, information is non-material, it exists without any time confined materialistic dimensions via two points.

Anything that is able to exist within a volumeless state, i.e, a state of REST = potential state, is in fact eternal. A photon requires "C" in order to exist via two separate points equals 1d space & 1d time.

[youVSmee]

If "C" = resting potential volumeless dot, then information already exists within it, but the photon itself has NOT yet begun to exist, since 'two points' are required for it to 'move',i.e., work.

A 'dot' is a volumeless single point. Anything that exists within this state, yet not dependent on space, dimensions, or time, then this entity which actually can exist within a 'single dot' is actually existing without 'two points' of time, dimensions & space, which equals eternal.

[youVSmee]

Two,

Can kinetic energy exist without a, "two point' dimension of space?

Can a 'two point' dimension of space exist without 1D time?

Eternal is the absence of time, yet u believe that this universe is ,'uncaused',i.e, eternal?

This universe violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, " M & E cannot be created nor destroyey...only transform from one to the other."

It doesn't really matter that they transform from one to the other, "since E cannot exist w/out 1d time x 1d length= volume.

[youVSmee]

Does 'non-material information exists? Yes. All forms of information ( abstract, linguistic, coded ) are not energy nor matter.

"Information is information, it is neither matter nor energy." Norbert Weiner, Father of Cybernetics.

Instructional information existed withn the BB itself. Virtual particles & photons require instructional information in order to exists.

Information within particles instructs the particles how to 'spin" & within photons, its used to communicate between them.

[ludora420]

As for the reason of the Bible (any Bible, old, new, christian, muslim, hebru or otherwise)'s existence in the first place, I think the answer is obvious and simple: it was created by humans, for humans, as an explanation for what could not be explained at the time. And was (and still is) also very useful to manipulate the simple minded for VERY "human" purposes - power and money.

All the best to the free thinkers all over this crowded Earth!

[ludora420]

You are a great free thinker! It is very soothing to see more and more people expressing their thoughts like that: within reason and without misplaced passion. Cos' we humans are, like all other animals, inclined to act upon our feelings rather than our educated thinking. This could be an argument in itself in favor of Evolutionism vs. Religion.

[nemo3590]

5 stars for the black cat.

[nigelred]

askegg = Ernst Stavro Blofeld, with black cat...

[Diefzilla]

Five stars for your special guest! :D

[Crayshack]

Askegg is controled by basement cat!

[Satanicallyfree]

Yeah I agree for the most part askegg. We'll just have to study the universe more and wait. The answers will come we just have to find them. What the person your arguing with addresses is covered very extensively and indepth by Richard Dawkins. He among other things helped me make the final steps towards becoming a full on atheist and not a deist.

[ogjimkenobi]

I'm fine with the red on red, although I think it would go over better if you were rock'n the shades.

[HonestDiscussioner]

It's a kitty!

[HonestDiscussioner]

Well her point only works towards strong atheists. I don't state "there are no gods" only that the Christian\Muslim\Hindu\any other theists god does not exist.

[fakeham]

Kitty!

good vid btw

[DistantJ]

I gotta admit though, hers is one of the better theist videos I've seen.

I gotta say, all this talk about "there is something bigger out there" is always looked at as a theist/deist argument but... Certainly isn't that what Science is all about? Rather than labelling everything as a creation, outright admitting that there's higher and bigger things out there which we couldn't even scratch the surface of.

[HonestDiscussioner]

I don't think she's actually a theist. Seems the opposite actually. I could be wrong.

[Satanicallyfree]

We don't know what's out there. Time didn't start until the big bang. We could be part of a multitude of universes, as they die they could be sparking new ones like stars in a continuous process. It's just ridiculous to jump to one thing and say "that's it I know all I need to know we can stop looking now".

[ginmortal1]

It's also impossible to believe (for some folks), that we just came to be as a result of chance, we are just an accident like most everything else. Some of us aren't content with the notion of having a life to live, it's just mindboggling, so there has to be a "higher" motive.

We just are... get over it!

[Abengoshis]

Your cat is like mine! :D

Gotta love cats...

[dewonthegrass]

"Misfiring of our evolutionary past." Very well said.

Why can't Christians see that god has all the characteristics that show that he is a human invention? A lot of the explanations can be seen in what we know about our evolution. Oh, I forgot, they don't "believe" in evolution, let alone study it. Pity.

[Temuldjin]

well i would say that the bible disprofe the god of the bible...

ofc there is some few goods think in the bible... but if you spew out 3000 random stuff a sertent % of that will be "good" ? :P

[Shigren]

Lap kitty!

[benperkins1]

why all red?

[NeedsEvidence]

Nicely done. askegg.

It would good if you would speak in a room w/o echo, for sake of intelligibility. Many of us are not native English.

[askegg]

Yes - I need to do something about the room's echo in general anyway.

[StrangeGlobal]

To the point and well spoken. As always!

[billythefifer]

You know when the first sentence has I believe that that somehow god or a creator being is coming along in at the end of the sentence or paragraph. And that evidence is a pick and mix.

[Dwicker64]

If pigs had gods, they would look like pigs. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. "Hitchens"

[JosephPatrickMcmahon]

I am not as happy with his refutation as I am usually with your work....not because you are mistaken just because its format/presentation was less attractive. If you are going to the Atheist conference in March I would love to have a couple of beers. Kind regards Joe

[askegg]

I will be there and rarely refuse the offers of beer. Seems a few people did not like the red on red; it did not even occur to me when recording.

[smhussain62]

Oh. Glad you're saying it. I vote against red-on-red in future. I don't think you want your subscribers coming back to you with Health and Safety litigation due to eye strain.

I couldn't watch. I just had to follow the audio as if it was a radio show.

:-D

[Satanicallyfree]

I like the red on red. Favorite color.

[BaileysBeads]

Wrong shirt mate, wrong shirt.

[Celticking36]

Spot on egg

[chalkers]

One word: camouflage

[bewarethelizards42]

Think with your head not your heart.. great video :D

[erkd1]

Askegg's kung fu is superior! 5 stars

[styrofoamheart]

it's called wishful thinking.

[seriouslymatsteele]

That may have been one of the best arguments for why people feel the need for a god that I've ever heard.

[newexperiment]

Awsome response. I don't think she knows that the burden of proof (or at least probability) is on her. Or if she knows I don't think she understand why. I would have gone into that a little, but... good video all the same.

[JBSauce]

I like her voice. Very breathy.

[Widgetas]

So long as one who believes in the "higher power" does not mind those of us who don't asking a shed load of questions about it - fair game.

I was party to a discussion last night where someone 'just believed' in a higher power but couldn't explain why. And then got upset when we pressed him.

ps - Nice moggy.

[askegg]

That my undead cat. Poor boy is falling apart,

[stardust005]

He (or was it she?) looks like a very nice cat c:

[Widgetas]

He does look a bit ropey around the mush, I have to say. 20s?

[askegg]

22. All skin and bone. I have to give him pills twice a day to help with various conditions.

[VoodooSixxx]

since the bible is the source of information for the christian god, showing the idiocy in it relates directly to the idiocy of belief in this particular god.

and so on and down the line to one god after another....

[thatonegirl2288]

Thanks for that response, I enjoyed it. I agree with you that I have no proof for I'm saying, it's just a belief, much like religion, I suppose. There's no proof for any of it and it's unlikely that we'll ever have any. My point was, I believe in something, but it isn't the thing that religious texts tell of... I don't care to get anyone to feel the way that I feel, nor do I know with certainty that I'm right...not at all.

[askegg]

I agree with you. I think many people tick the Christian box because they do believe in some higher power and the predominate religion has hijacked the word "god". Proofs for god (besides being very bad) go nowhere near demonstrating any one god in particular.

[saxmanchiro]

thatonegirl

What neurosensor are you using to 'know' this deity? Is it a chemical stim, photons, pressure, tissue damage(pain fibers) or maybe mechanical? How can you be sure of it's existence, after admitting the lack of evidence for this being? How can someone who seems rational in thought be so deluded by irrational thoughts?

[generationalist]

I think I know the feeling. You may want to look up Spinoza and if you find Spinoza agreeable then you might try watching - Jonathan Miller. A Rough History Of Disbelief here on YT. I love this series and have watched it a couple of times. I would buy it but only the interviews are available for sale and not the series. The interviews are very good but without the history of disbelief the interviews lose context.

[HarshColby]

"Feeling" there is a god has no bearing on the veracity of the belief.

[alphacause]

thatonegirl2288 has a point that criticism of the Bible is not a complete refutation of God in all instances, just a refutation of the fundamentalist Christian God. Yet, no argument propounded for God, in any GENERAL sense, is very convincing either. Furthermore, even if such a general higher spirit were to be proven, he would prove to be so enigmatic to be practically useless to us.

[saxmanchiro]

Every theist I know or ever came in contact with, all back up their bullshit god worship with some holy book they claim is god's word. This lady is messed up with her argument. It falls flat on it's holy face.

[thatonegirl2288]

Does one have to be a theist to believe in something bigger? If the answer is yes, then I guess I am a theist that does not worship a holy book, and so are many I have come to know. As I've said, the belief in God, or whatever you want to call a non-physical consciousness, is not black and white. There are a lot of grey areas.

[askegg]

The belief in a higher power makes you a deist. The belief in a personal god who takes an interest in you is a theist. Many gods and you're an polytheist. Hope that helps :)

[generationalist]

thatonegirl2288 could be a Spinoza rationalist which doesn't seem to fit any category very well. Some call it deism and some call it pantheism but neither really fit because Spinoza was addressing the physical universe and it's laws - as - a non-interventionist, naturalistic entity he called god. For many years I was a Spinoza rationalist until I heard Daniel Dennett speak and ask the question - if it doesn't walk like god or talk like god - why call it god. Then I was finished.

[saxmanchiro]

thatonegirl

What neurosensors are you stimulating to be 'knowing' of this 'something bigger' god thing? Is it thermal, pressure, photons, tissue destruction(pain) chemicals of some sort? Really, how do you 'know' of this deity? Why do you trust this sensation to be giving you a truth or could it just maybe be a delusion?

[stardust005]

Good point. Trust no one; trust nothing, especially your own emotions.

[DeflocculatedDentist]

As great as non-physical consciousness sounds, I think physical consciousness is an absolutely beautiful and spectacular thing. We are the essence of the universe. We are made of the stars. We are the part of the universe that can KNOW itself, that can understand the universe. That has so many spiritual, beautiful implications to me.

It really has nothing to do with what you said, but I thought I'd share. :)

[stardust005]

That is most certainly true, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that any claims of such an existence are logically invalid and unsupported by evidence. (Occam's Razor itself can invalidate any deist argument). Also, the classification of your belief into a certain category is not so much as important as the belief you hold; we aren't playing word games here. Just some words from a former moderate christian; I essentially became a deist before renouncing faith in a god entirely.