Flying Spaghetti monster?LOL Damn, atheists think they're so smart. What a futile and desperate attempt to disprove God's existance. Absolutely pathetic. Well, to be fair, not all atheists are intellectually at the same level. This is clearly a layman's attempt to disprove God's existance.
I am very disappointed at the way Mr. Craig so easily dismissed the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is our Creator, Lord and God. I know it in my heart that He exists and that He is the supreme creator of our universe. There is overwhelming evidence for His Noodly existence.
Mr. Craig, you have so insulted many of my fellow Pastafanarians when you called our god "ridiculous". I will pray for you that He may, one day, touch you with His Noodly Appendage.
This video is absolutely ridiculous! I can't believe WLC, who rates himself quite highly, would actually try to discount the FSM theory by talking about its spaghetti, meatbally form, as if that was the purpose of the theory!
If you actively advance the "Resurrection of Jesus Christ' argument (sorry, "argument"), you have no business calling the Flying Spaghetti Monster 'absurd' (lol, 'it's just obviously absurd!', he says)
First you pretend your understanding of evolution is right
Then you pretend your understanding of the FSM is right.
The appearance of FSM as made of spaghetti & meat balls is manifestation for us humans to perceive him (instead of a human with mutilated hands and feet on a wooden cross).
Even if that weren't the case, if he can create the universe, why can't he give himself a physical form ?
I wish he wouldn't insult the intelligence of his listeners.
The cause of the big bang does not have to be an external mechanism. At the time of the big bang there were no properties that we could possibly recognize (all forces like gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, time etc.) were non existent. So the mechanistic cause of that event is currently beyond our ability of reference or understanding.
he does not get that the FSM was not a material creature when it needed not to be. FSM is always right therefor whatever FSM said including that he created everything is nececearly true. see doctor craig, isnt it convineant. oh and you also got to remember that all oposing voices to the FSM theory are by default wrong cause FSM said so, which is in line with the previous fact that he always says truth. only FSM could have built such an ingenious loop thus proving further his transcendency.
Regardless of my personal beliefs, I think the FSM is a pathetic and childish argument. If Atheists want to free people from their beliefs do it in a much more logical and appealing manner. Don't vote down a video because he brings good arguments. If he doesn't bring a good argument, and you want to tell me, since most of you like to put ignorant responses... lay it out in a critical argument.
@JohnnieLouisRoesel I found it ridiculous that he states that there has to be a designer but it can't be labeled as a god and further more can't be labeled as a FSM. He makes assumptions on others god is limited. One of the points of the FSM is to point out that there are so many gods with different teachings; so why believe in your god and not the FMS? Another one is to point out how parts of religious text have been proven wrong, but others still follow in willful ignorance.
The pathetic thing about Craig's attack of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that he discounts it on the fact that it is material. He could be said to simply not know his FSM theology, which he likes to use as an argument against others. Jesus was supposedly an incarnation of God, why can the FSM not be the same? He intentionally takes the idea at face value in order to approach his argument with as little effort as possible.
He needs to brush up on his Pastafarian gospel. At no point is the FSM referred to as a physical being that can be touched and savoured, the FSM is everywhere and in everything. Therefore IS capable of so called intelligent design, or intoxicated design which is more the case....
Well, if the FSM does exist, Atheists no longer exist because they have created their own god which means the re is a religion that follows the FSM. That would be Pastafarianism... RAMEN!!! No more atheists. You ALL are now pastasfarians or closet pastafarians. Come out of the closet and feel his noodly apendages.
@gregrutz He didn't say he would teach that his god is the one true god in public school, did he? and he did prove that at least it cannot be a flying spaghetti monster, listen once again around minute 2:00 and he does explain why the flying spaghetti monster cannot be the cause of the big bang
No dr Craig, the flying Spaghetti Monster is NOT a physical object but rather it's a spiritual entity, and it did in fact create the universe. If you doubt what I say, prove me incorrect.
He isn't technically spaghetti though. He is a being that TAKES THE FORM of spaghetti. We could also argue that because the christian god took the form of Jesus the same rules would apply but like I pointed out, the rule doesn't apply here.
@f00tstep Not all Christians believe God and Jesus are the same being, and if a being takes the form of anything it will still be subject to the natural world. Unless of course it is God taking the form of a Spag Creature.
"The cause of the Big Bang has to exist beyond space and time and be the creator of all matter and energy in the universe." This statement is very false... The 2nd part of the sentence atleast.
@pedgarrett123 Why would a timeless, spaceless, personal being be incapable of creating the universe? (remember, "personal" is also one of WLC's criteria for a sufficient and necessary cause of the universe)
There cannot be a Creator because there was no creation. There is no evidence that absolute nothingness exists. It is no logical to assume that the singularity behind the Big Bang just appeared out of nothing. Clearly it is more likely that the universe is part of something larger and uncreated and there is no such thing as nothing. No one has ever observed nothing. Empty space is still something: It is swarming with virtual particles, has a shape, and whatever "vacuum energy" is.
Whenever people like this guy start spouting off shit like "immaterial," "timeless," "spaceless," and "omniscient" I can't help but wonder if they're thought this out beyond it's very obvious construction trying to counter logical empiricism. Our universe could have been easily spawned from another; a place with material, time, and space all its own. When you attribute to a thing absolutes like "timeless" and "spaceless" what you're essentially saying is senseless; it's nothingness.
@karozans so making yourself look foolish at the biggest atheist joke is doing something right ..huh ??? instead of i duno PROOF ....yup this guy gets it !
Well, mr William Lane Craig. I don't care whether what you are saying is right or wrong. I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Creator of the Universe, because it says so in the Book. And I also believe that you have been sent by The Devil to Earth to make people betray their faith in the absolute God who is the FSM.
Given omnipotence etc i am very comfortable in my beliefs that the flying spahetti monster is able, at will, to exist in space and time as well as outside space and time. Otherwise, how could the undenaible fact that the christian god was born out of the left arm of the flying spaghetti monsters second cousin the day before the big bang, be true!??!! It would be just silly to argue against this fact.
Craig's contention that our universe is the product of a supernatural creation source is plausible as long as he demonstrates the proper humility and intellectual honesty and leaves it there. After all, as far as I know, a Phd in philosophy does not also include an all access pass to the supernatural so the only words to come out of his mouth should be "I don't know." But when he slaps his Christian god label on this creation source his contention devolves into an intellectually dishonest mess.
The intelligent designers do the switcheroo ("Well we never said it was God, did we?")
The christians drive in for the touchdown.
What a predictable strategy! Still theres no proof that the FSM isnt the designer we all seek. Plus i think he looks like Cthulu, so thats even more proof!
Of course the parody is right, a imaterial spaceless timeless being is just an absurd claim based on no evidence after all, just some supernatural stuff to explain the origin of the universe. He is not a scientist and doesn't know some basic principles of phisics, that's sad. But even more sadly he convinces a lot of people by claiming to have "philosofical arguments", just another way to say arguments based on evidence whatsoever.
@ScyL0n I dont think ID = Extraterrestrial Designers. As he points out if your going to argue that a "thing" made everything. The only way it could of done that is to be outside of the place its creating. ID is a pathetic attempt to say "science doesnt know everything, but if we invoke the designer argument we can neatly fill all the holes we dont understand" as opposed to saying this best suits the evidence we have and we just dont know!
Wow... I'm pretty sure he wins 'How Many Logical Fallacies Can I Use In One Argument'. I don't even have the time (much less the inclination) to point them all out. Have yourself some fun identifying them though.
Actually, WLC missed the point. The FSM was to show how absurd the "teach all sides of the debate" idea is - ID has no positive case at all and is just presented as "some people think this". Well, maybe some people think FSM is an alternative and we should therefore teach that alongside.
Although it's rather amusing to see this idiot having to disprove the FSM, since his own ridiculous beliefs are such that the FSM must seriously be considered.
It's stupid , irresponsible & dangerous to BELIEVE things of this weight before one has enough evidence to support a conclusion. We can't know if the universe was intentionally created. Though it seems incredibly highly unlikely to me, I can't say with 100% certainty that it wasn't. What bugs me.... if eventually we figure out that some force created the universe... do we not then need to regress further to find out what created that force? Then the force which created the force, and so on?
So Dr WLC believes in God, however there are many people who believe in God and are extremely educated and put science first. When something can explained through science it's completely natural to do so. The argument to say God comes before science makes no sense. Sadly Dr WLC puts a lot of other people down in an arrogant way like Dawkins who are very respected. WLC has no technical ability in Maths,Physics,Biology,Chemistry world,he's like a caveman lost in a debate trying to start a fire
@theapeman10 He said God comes before science? No. He said that God is the cause of space and time. How can he be "BEFORE" space and time. Before only has meaning w.r.t. time.
@theapeman10 There's no question that Dawkins is well respected in regards to his scientific teachings and ideas. However, Where Dawkins is strong in scientific knowledge, WLC is strong in philosophical reasoning. That may be why Dawkins is avoiding (scared?) debating numerous Creationists like WLC.
@theapeman10 you comment on technical ability as if it has any bearing on philosophical discussion. see, this is where dr. craig actually has his skillset. reason, logic, and thought are his talents. these are things that dawkins doesn't know anything about with regards to philosophical discussions. thats why dawkins crashes and burns every time he tries to deal with that subject matter. thats why dawkins writes ridiculous books that are very eloquent yet incredibly ignorant.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper sry what i meant was he takes it very seriously although its clearly a joke designed to do nothing more than humorously criticize intelligent design. Like, he debates the plausibility of it even though its just a joke.
So if intelligent design does not imply that god is the designer why is it that you never see well repsected atheist scientists actively trying to debunk the theory of evolution? Why is it that only the pseudo-scientific theists do so?
Of course it couldn't be that it just so happens to contradict their 2000 year old self-help guide, could it? What a strange coincedence.
I believe he's wrong about what the FSM was supposed to do. The FSM was originally conceived to be an alternate explanation to gravity, to parody the idea that seemingly magical beings could be an alternate explanation to evolution.
It's hilarious how easily dr. Craig misses the point. Does he not see how so many of these objections are brought up against the God he argues for and then he uses a magic hand waive to make the problems go away?
@mjhallfs So you think that if intelligent design was taught, then the Christian God would be taught? And the FSM would be taught. I don't think the state should force ID to be taught either, but my reasoning is not because of the FSM. In this video, Craig is commenting on how irrevelent the FSM is as an arguement against why ID should not be taught. And he is correct. FSM is an invalid argument against teaching ID.
@zozefup That's not correct. What makes the myth of FSM creation more valid than Christian god creation? Craig is presuming to know all the characteristics of the FSM, but it's clearly impossible for him to know whether the FSM exists outside of time or not -- or even whether that is truly a requirement as he asserts it is.
Allowing ID means allowing creation myth which has no evidence to back it. FSM has just as much evidence supporting it as Christian god, therefore equal claim in being taught
@BigMikeMcBastard I don't care if FSM is just as valid as the Christian God. The point of this video is: The FSM is a bad argument against teaching intelligent design.
The Christian God wouldn't be taught in intelligent design. The budda God wouldn't be taught in intelligent design. So why the heck are you talking about the FSM as an argument against intelligent design?
You may have valid reasons against teaching intelligent design, but the FSM is not one of those valid arguments.
@zozefup Intelligent design is quite obviously (Christian) creationism in disguise, and was proven as being such in court, so I am having a hard time understanding why you think the Christian creation myth would be absent in a classroom teaching creationism/"intelligent design". The only reason ID exists is because Christian fundamentalists are trying to circumvent the law forbidding the teaching of religion in schools. And, again, that has been proven in court.
@BigMikeMcBastard You are assuming that they are teaching the Christian God when they teach intelligent design. You argue that if the Christian God is taught, then every God must be taught. I agree that intelligent design should not be taught. But your arguement is flawed because the Christian God is not taught in intelligent design. The science of intelligent design looks for objects that cannot be explained by the natural forces we know about. It makes no claim about they type of God.
@zozefup They ARE teaching the Christian god when they teach intelligent design. ID has been proven to be nothing more than a dressed-up version of creationism. While I imagine Muslim creationists might teach ID somewhat different that Christian ones, in the US it goes without saying that Christian teachers will of course be teaching the Christian version of it to their students in schools were they legally able to.
It's been to court. There was a big debate over it. It's done with.
@BigMikeMcBastard If you have solid evidence that intelligent design is teaching the Christian God, then that is enough to ban it from public schools. You don't need the FSM argument. So either way, the FSM is irreverent to this debate.
@zozefup FSM isn't relevant to the issue of banning it, it's relevant to the issue of the kinds of doors you open if you were to accept ID in public schools.
@BigMikeMcBastard No. The FSM tells you the kinds of doors you would open if you allowed CHRISTIANITY to be taught in schools. If someone says "Christianity should be taught in schools!!" then say "The FSM should be taught in schools!!!" Virtually no one wants Christianity taught in schools though, so the FSM is really just beating a dead horse.
@mjhallfs Right. But this is talking about the FSM as it relates to the teaching of intelligent design. Not God, nor aliens, nor the FSM would be taught in schools. The argument is that "If you teach intelligent design in schools, then you would have to teach the FSM too!" But that is false because intelligent design theory makes no claim about what the intelligent designer is, it only points that some things appear to be intelligently designed.
Consider the historical evidence of Christ even those whom hated him have documented who he he was n miracles he did which were signs. Jews don't except him yet Christ is clearly thru the OT in Psalms eg 103:12 n Isaiah53. Prophecies of things to come n the NT of the fullfillment of them. Same author over thousands of years. Check it. Creation is to complex to be random chances. Water bears iz a good one. Laminin protein molecule goes with Col1:15-23 n x-structure. No real evidence 4 evolution!
Why would anyone dislike this video? Even if you are an atheist and hate Christians, surely you can see the fallacys in the flying spaghetti monster as it relates to intelligent design.
@punnet2 Actually amino acids can only form in very specific environments and this was not the environment of the early earth. But still if it was right the probability of a non-living amino acid producing the special structure of living matter by chance is one in 10 to the 123rd power.
10 with 123 zeros behind it is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. As you can see the random emergence of life is a mathematical impossibility.
@unitethechurch Correct, the conditions of the Miller experiment did not accurately reproduce the conditions of early Earth as originally thought, but that is beside the point. The experiment nonetheless confirms that the building blocks of life can emerge from basic elements; no magic required.
Please cite your source for that 10 ^ 123 figure. However, even if it that is accurate, it does not amount to a mathematical impossibility; a mathematical impossibility would be a probability of 0.
3. Your further obstinacy in reference to nucleic acids and proteins is simply an argument from ignorance. You're essentially saying that since science currently have a fully articulated explanation for the development of proteins, the only alternate explanation is that there must be a god who magically produced them.
@nubbs the cause of the universe is beyond physics, physics is the study of the material universe. These things are in fact best left to philosophers since they are beyond the material universe.
@TheRgordon16 *the bible states that every non-nose breathing creature (except the ones on the boat ) died during the flood. which means humans, dinosaurs, cows, ect.. fossils, would all be found at the same level in the ground - not the case -
*everything on the boat would have died without its necessary diets
*it rained 40 days & nights ( freshwater ) meaning all the salt water fish would have died. its more but 3 is enough, the story is not true
@mrfwest Oh really? Well now, tell me what you think is not true. I was only pointing out the fact that GnosticReality was right when he says belief in a Supernatural Being who created the universe is a naural thing. This is why there is so many different "gods" in the world because it is naturally apart of man's character. They just don't know who or what He is but they naturally believe He exists.
@TheRgordon16 well i think all the supernatural parts are untrue but the is no way to prove that. the simple things like Noah's ark, Adam and eve, but its not my job to disprove the bible it's your job to prove it.
@mrfwest When a person hears the message of the Gospel and believes what it has to say and acts upon it. That person will discover what the bible has to say is true. They will experience the supernatural themselvse. The words in the bible are activated through FAITH not human reasoning. If you don't believe then you won't see. But even if you don't believe it doesnt change the fact that the supernatural is real. Even those who are involved witchcraft or voodoo have experienced the supernatural.
@TheRgordon16 it is the parents and church job to teach religion. what a person chooses to believe in his or her own mind is their own business. scientist cant prove or disprove the supernatural nor do they want to. there may be a god, but S.D was trying to prove the bible using science and the science part didn't make sense. the story about Noah's ark and many others aren't true. ask yourself, why do you have to believe the bible for the bible to be true. true is true.
@mrfwest Did you know through DNA the science world have discovered that we are all related and that we all came from one woman? And did you know many ancient cultures speak of a world wide flood?
@TheRgordon16 DNA doesn't say anything like that. the fossils are layered which goes along with evolution and disagrees with the story of Noah's ark. also the diversity of the genes also disagree with Noah's ark.
@TheRgordon16 No, science has not discovered that. If you're talking about "mitochondrial Eve", that is in no way a confirmation of the genesis account. The DNA indicates we are related to all other living things (not just other humans).
The geological evidence in no way indicates a global flood, regardless how many "ancient cultures" wrote of one. Did you know how many ancient cultures speak of a flat earth?
@punnet2 I disagree. The mitochondrial Eve hypothesis doesn't prove the Bible's account of the human race coming from one woman. BUT, it is CONSISTENT with the Bible's account. Also DNA doesnt prove all species on earth are related. It only shows us that the Creator used the same material to designing all life on Earth. The fossil records do not show each species gradually evolving into something else. There are huge gaps in the fossil records. It shows us as they WERE not what they BECAME.
@mrfwest Science does not say "There is no God" But scientist who have an agenda say "there is no God" The study of the Universe and all it contains shows or demonstrates knowledge, wisdom, creativity, art, complexities, systems, information, data, input, output, direction, order, beauty, design, purpose,etc. Everything that expresses "Intellegent thought process" is clearly conveyed thoughout all the Universe. This is why some honest scientists have rejected atheism. They are not in denial.
@mrfwest According to the Bible mankind does have a natural instinct in him that tells him there is someone out there that created all of this. It says that which is kown about this "someone" (God) is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. How? Through Creation thats how. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made" So it is natural to believe God exists.
@gnosticreality I never claimed to be trying to dismiss god. I was refuting your claim that scientific inquiry has only demonstrated the limits of science. Quite the contrary. Science is constantly updated and modified as we discover more about our universe. Of course there are questions whose answers are unknown to us. That does not, however, mean that they are unknowable. It just means we haven't figured it out yet. The fact that we haven't figured something out yet does not mean there is a s
A scientist will be the first to tell you that science has hard limits, that is not a fault but a basic understanding of what science is. Science is not a religion and does not claim to even be capable of addressing everything. Science has nothing direct to say as far as the very existence of God is concerned. Scientific understanding changes, what science IS does not.
@sixstrings126 Does science address man's behavior twards one another? Does it give instructions on how a man should treat his wife? Does it teach children how they should respect their parents? Can science solve the problems in the inner cities where the African American family has been destroyed? Does science address racism? Does it address all the sins that have and are being commited by mankind? Does it even acknowledge sin or evil? If the answer is no, then science is infact limited
The difference between amoral and immoral is not a lexical nuance. To be immoral requires intention. Was the Japanese tsunami immoral or amoral? And if someone had caused that tsunami willfully would they be immoral or amoral?
You have proved my point about the croissant. "The life/dead analogy depict polar opposites, thus crossant here has no relation." Hence it is 'without' distinction between life and death, and so the prefix 'A' can apply.
Atheist is not to claim the negative is true, but to reject the positive.
Say I flip a coin, and someone says "I know that it is going to land on its edge." I don't have to make the claim "I know it won't." in order to disbelieve the other person's assumption.
An agnostic atheist is therefore someone who does not know, or claim to know that God isn't real, but will act as if God isn't until sufficient evidence can change their mind.
of Rome at the time wasn't even the one the bible claims.
Many of the more mythical biblical tales are also mirrored. Most cultures have a flood story, and in the last decade alone we have seen two events that could easily explain their inspirations and origins.
The internal contradiction of the God hypothesis demonstrates it's failed attempt at understanding the world. Craig often uses the Kalam or 'first cause' argument despite it's easily accessible refutation.
Sigh. Try to find an actual primary source (Zeitgeist doesn't count) to support your claims about Jesus' story being similar to that of horus/mithras/whoever. Good luck; if you find anything convincing you'll be the first. Also, if we are indeed spiritual beings by nature (i.e. we are souls) then of course we find spirituality in every culture. there is no reason to think spirituality is an inevitable consequence of intelligence or natural selection. chicken / egg?
There is a reason to think spirituality is a consequence of evolution. There are such things as "useful falsehoods" claims that are not true but that benefit us when we believe them. It is basically a self-induced placebo effect that could have increased our ancestors' chances of survival.
There is an inordinate amount of data on hundreds of gods. Do you expect me to list book titles authors and page numbers for you, or original research papers?
@FruKaos - Horus and Mithras for example: both born of a virgin, both with a well documented life of religious teachings and performed miracles, both with a following of disciples who referred to them as the light of the world, both died and were resurrected. Mithras' religion was even based in Italy and had a leader called a 'Papas'. Sound familiar? The list of similar deities goes on.
There is the falsehood of the bible stories - there was no census at the time of Jesus birth, the emperor
My apologies, it seems I have more than one comment on this video that sparks occasional conversation.
The evidence that God is made up is quite staggering. For starters we have the natural tendency throughout history for humans to posit supernatural explanations for the unknown. The endless list of creation myths for each and every culture attests to this. Then we have the similarities between the story of Jesus and many other religious icons, many of which precede Jesus -
If the creator of the earth and us is not god and not beyond the scope of this universe then we can assume that our creator must have had a creator and that creator a creator and that, logically, there can be no source of origin as an initial creator could not have existed. As an atheist and someone pursuing a background in the sciences, why is it so hard to say "we don't know" and stand by that. Because no matter what you believe that is the most honest stance on what we know about creation.
His first argument that the FSM is an aspect of Intelligent design is true, but he doesn't notice the disconnect he does when he says the universe had to be separate from the creator, yet somehow he believes his creator goes into that existence and obviously has to obey the laws governing it to appear as jesus, just as the FSM would do. The argument for FSM is against religion, and the absurdity of any supreme being, not poking holes in His philosophical tap dancing around god's probability.
All we need to do is list all the properies of God (that WLC things that God must have) and the simply claim that the flying spagetti monster has all those properies.
This is too good, he is actually trying to prove why IDFSM is false.If it is so obviously a parody, why do you need to point out why it is fake? The point of a parody is that it is fake.
@rykoodasr Because some guys think that the FSM is proving something about God and the belief in Christ. Obviously it doesn't but still there are some teenies who think it does.
That Dr. Craig could think that people who equate belief in God as the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant he is of the works of Hitchens , Adams and Harris whose libraries are filled with the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present...
@talover403 You use evidence far less obvious on a daily basis. Nothing ever comes out of nothing and everything that exist has got a cause. The universe exist and therefore must a) come out of something and b) have a cause.
@FruKaos The reason your argument fails is that there was never "nothing" in the literal sense. Prior to the Big Bang, everything (not nothing) was centered at one point, including space and time. Singularity rapidly expanded (or, everything exploded). Time and space are constants, and neither could exist without the other. If you feel otherwise, provide evidence for it. If you have some groundbreaking research that disproves this fact, publish it.
Philosophers trying to argue science (especially physics and biology) always makes me laugh. If you want the best examples of uncogent arguments and strawman arguments, look to the philosophers trying to argue that they are relevant in fields they have absolutely no qualifications in.
@FruKaos I think it is you that misunderstand, I did not say that the FSM was science, in fact that was my point. Just because you can create a philosophic proposition doe not mean that it is true. Aristotle proposed a geocentric solar system based off of his philosophy, but just because it fit philosophically doesn't make it less wrong. What we need to do is keep amending our idea of the universe as we learn more, not just hold onto a dogmatic "truth".
@runryrorun You can test philosophical arguments against logic. That is how it works. We can only use science to learn about what is in our world. Science can never tell us WHY the universe became just how. As a christian I am very interested in what science can teach us about how but also in what God tell us about WHY. And for dogmatic truth I think you could say that to scientists as well.
@FruKaos I took philosophy in college and know enough about it. Its only good to ponder over and wonder. Nothing wrong with that but when you make a public claim about something of that caliber, you HAVE to back it up by evidence. Its that simple. If you want proofs of things, go read a science book. There are all kinds of proofs for all kinds of subjects. Too many of them to list here. Email me and I will give you a list.
What Craig doesnt realize that the FSM can take on ANY FORM it wants to.....just like god. Neither has any scientific backing, and both have a doctrine that can be read, followed, and even worshipped.
@talover403 Logically the FSM cannot be the creator while God can. There are several reasonings that all end with the conclusion that God has to exist. I am not sure what you mean with scientific backings but leading philosophers of today admits that the only plausible reason for our universe to exist is God. None of them thinks the FSM is a good explanation. So I'd say Craig is making a very strong case for a God and against the FSM.
@FruKaos You are making that assertion. FSM, the pink unicorn,aliens, or doodleblaps are ALL candidates for a creator. Doesnt matter what you say your creator is, the fact is that god is undefined and so you can put ANY type of deity you want to define what your god is. That was the whole basis for the FSM in the first place that Craig has missed. Any creator claim (God, FSM, or whatever) with NO evidence can be made into what you perceive it to be.
@talover403 I disagree. God is NOT undefined. There are quite a few characteristics you can derive from just looking at the creation. (Timeless, Spaceless, personal etc..) All these defines what God is. Of course you could say that the FSM is all that as well but then all you have done is given God a name. You could call him Greg if you want but that isn't really making an alternative to God mererly giving Him a name.
@FruKaos You actually have to believe in creation before you can "define it." Since creation is not scientific, and not fact based, you can define god any way you want to to suit your needs......but that does not make it true because you are basing it on faith and faith will never be a pathway to truth......only through factual evidence can something be true.
@talover403 The problem with science is that it can't prove anything outside the physical laws and even then it is hard to prove what you call facts. Science will change what it states as true (and proven) over time. That is where philosophy and logic comes in handy. Statements like "out of nothing comes nothing" and "everything has a cause" can be tested logically. It is actually quite hard to prove that anything exist without philosophy...
@FruKaos The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.
@talover403 I think the theories you put forward are very interesting but you can't prove those with science. Logically you should dismiss them those theories. And as I said. There are a lot of things we all "know" is true that science can't prove. Science can't prove objective good and evil. Science can't prove esthetics and, perhaps most interesting, science can't even prove science is true.
Oh, and by the way, radioactive decay has a cause. Your call ;)
@FruKaos By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
@talover403 Again I disagree, big surprise ;) The universe is bound to time and space and therefore needs a cause (like everything else in this world). God on the other hand is OUTSIDE time and space and does NOT need a cause. You could claim the universe to be eternal but I woulddn't recommend it :)
@FruKaos Dude that does NOT specify that god is outside of TIME and Space.....that simply says he is not from this world. There are a lot of things that exist that are not from this world. You are ASSERTING that god is outside of time and space......no evidence.
1. The creator of everything needs to be outside time and space.
2. God is claiming himself being the creator of everything.
3. Therefore God is outside time and space.
I am not sure if you believe that the bible is true. If not it is pointless for me to give you verses and passages since you will just dismiss them. If you on the other hand believe that the bible is the Holy word from God I would be more then happy to show you were it says God is outside Time AND Space.
@tovadaq If not a being, then something beyond the universe itself....a designer of some sort. The universe is finite...it had a beginning. Time and space came into being with the universe. Time itself is a finite construct of the universe. If time is finite, and space is finite (Cuz they had a beginning), and the universe cannot itself give a reason for its existence, then the "reason" for the universe's existence lies beyond the universe. Hence, I.D.
I am not convinced time or space are finite. It all hinges on several milliseconds, if not less.
Maybe the universe can give a reason, but we have not yet found a way to understand that reason. The question therefore is still open. Open questions are not a bad thing. Not every question has to have an answer.
The reason for the universe's existence lies beyond current Human Comprehension, I'll give you that.
This does *not* imply either ID ór a maker. It merely implies we don't know.
WLC's argument about the FSM being too specific and not identical to intelligent design is just ridiculous. The point was that intelligent design has no scientific backing, and neither does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Craig's basically saying that the FSM isn't identical in properties to intelligent design, therefore it doesn't have equal claim - which is obviously ridiculous. He missed the point by a mile. FSM's evidence is just as FLIMSY as intelligent design, therefore it's as valid.
@Stairc I think that there are proves that there has to be some sort of intelligence that created the universe. A thing (i.e. FSM) is bound to time and space and cannot be the creator. If you suggest that the FSM is outside space and time you have simply put another name for God. And believe me Craig is fully aware of what the FSM theory is all about. He might be wrong but he knows what he is talking about.
@FruKaos 1) WLC is using this as evidence for the christian god - which assigns the intelligence properties. A flying spaghetti monster works just as well as Christianity under these claims.
2) If there is evidence that an intelligence has to have created the universe, PLEASE share it. I've never heard a single logical argument towards this - and I'm beginning to doubt that I ever will. Even if the universe DID require a cause (which is itself causeless) there's no reason it must be intelligent
@Stairc The evidence is there but I guess you don't want to see them. Even like Stephen Hawkins and Einstein acknowledge that there has to be an intelligent power that started the evolution I'd say that there is really no controversial claim.
Even if you want to think that science is right you have no evidence. (Science can't prove itself true.) I believe that something outside time and space created the universe. To think that out of nothing everything became without a reason is admirable.
@FruKaos and YOU think you have all the answers just because YOU believe in something you cannot prove? YOu dont know any more than the rest of us.....face it. You are full of assertions, heresay, logical fallocies and just plain babble. At least science can back up their claims via evidence. Science is NOT based on absolutes.......NOTHING IS!! If you want absolutes, you will not find them on this planet. Science only proves what is reasonably true through the evidence they have.
@talover403 I do not think I have all the answers, far from it. It's a constant journey. I would say that most atheist think they have all the answers. The problem is that when you try to find out WHY everything was created you cannot use science. Science can at it's best tell us HOW. Whatever you want to believe when it comes to the big questions you have to pick some sort of faith. As I said, science can't even prove itself, still you believe in it. It's your religion.
@FruKaos We are not claiming to have all the answers either.........which is why we dont assert strange and delusional things the way that you do. We side with the scientists who also does not have all the answers. Some things are harder to explain and prove than others. no big deal. We will continue to explore different ways of answering tough questions via evidence and will never give up.....unlike you guys that assert and claim that an invisible entity created everything. What bullshit!
@talover403 I notice that your argumentation is moving towards mocking which is sad because that won't lead to any good. I have tried to answer your question but you haven't tried to answer me. You accuse me of theories without evidence and then put forward stuff like "alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe". And you still haven't tried to prove me wrong about science inability to prove itself correct.
@FruKaos You dont have any theories to offer me......why do you call them theories? Do you know what a theory is? Science has the theories.....all you have is at best just an opinion and nothing else. You have nothing to back up your claims......faith is not a back up....its a cop out.
@talover403 It's a pointless debate since you don't even try to answer my questions and you attack me with poor arguments that you then refuse to back up. I hope you sometime dare to open your mind for greater things. I wish you all good!
@FruKaos Of course its pointless..........All these debates are! Since its pointless its also a big waste of time. Neither will give an inch.....we are both stubborn......but one is right and one is wrong.
I feel so sorry for Mr. Craig but he still has time to repent in the name of our noodly one. RAMEN.
dkthg 1 day ago
Flying Spaghetti monster?LOL Damn, atheists think they're so smart. What a futile and desperate attempt to disprove God's existance. Absolutely pathetic. Well, to be fair, not all atheists are intellectually at the same level. This is clearly a layman's attempt to disprove God's existance.
ooJUKEBOXHEROoo 2 weeks ago
I am very disappointed at the way Mr. Craig so easily dismissed the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is our Creator, Lord and God. I know it in my heart that He exists and that He is the supreme creator of our universe. There is overwhelming evidence for His Noodly existence.
Mr. Craig, you have so insulted many of my fellow Pastafanarians when you called our god "ridiculous". I will pray for you that He may, one day, touch you with His Noodly Appendage.
foojuice101 2 weeks ago 14
THE BIG BANG WAS WHEN THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER'S BALLS DROPPED/TOUCHED
xxlazylizardxx 3 weeks ago
Om-Nom-nipotence
AnAtheistAccount 1 month ago 10
Flying spaghetti monster is a ridiculous argument
Law19157 1 month ago
This video is absolutely ridiculous! I can't believe WLC, who rates himself quite highly, would actually try to discount the FSM theory by talking about its spaghetti, meatbally form, as if that was the purpose of the theory!
Pirosbor 1 month ago
If you actively advance the "Resurrection of Jesus Christ' argument (sorry, "argument"), you have no business calling the Flying Spaghetti Monster 'absurd' (lol, 'it's just obviously absurd!', he says)
MrJercules 1 month ago
Oh... Dr. WLC aren't you just precious.
First you pretend your understanding of evolution is right
Then you pretend your understanding of the FSM is right.
The appearance of FSM as made of spaghetti & meat balls is manifestation for us humans to perceive him (instead of a human with mutilated hands and feet on a wooden cross).
Even if that weren't the case, if he can create the universe, why can't he give himself a physical form ?
I wish he wouldn't insult the intelligence of his listeners.
test123ok 1 month ago 14
The cause of the big bang does not have to be an external mechanism. At the time of the big bang there were no properties that we could possibly recognize (all forces like gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, time etc.) were non existent. So the mechanistic cause of that event is currently beyond our ability of reference or understanding.
newbeats4 2 months ago
immaterial, spaceless, timeless being.
It's Nothing!!!
FeLiNe418 2 months ago 7
Craig should read the FSM Gospel to learn that we can't explain biological complexity without spaghetti.
TheAbyrwalg 2 months ago 2
Intelligent Design isn't a science. It's just doublespeak for creationism.
evelsteev 2 months ago 2
How is the Flying Spaghetti Monster absurd?? and god not?? These religious people have no answers! Oh My Science
Typho0n86 2 months ago 4
he does not get that the FSM was not a material creature when it needed not to be. FSM is always right therefor whatever FSM said including that he created everything is nececearly true. see doctor craig, isnt it convineant. oh and you also got to remember that all oposing voices to the FSM theory are by default wrong cause FSM said so, which is in line with the previous fact that he always says truth. only FSM could have built such an ingenious loop thus proving further his transcendency.
86Corvus 2 months ago 4
Regardless of my personal beliefs, I think the FSM is a pathetic and childish argument. If Atheists want to free people from their beliefs do it in a much more logical and appealing manner. Don't vote down a video because he brings good arguments. If he doesn't bring a good argument, and you want to tell me, since most of you like to put ignorant responses... lay it out in a critical argument.
JohnnieLouisRoesel 3 months ago 2
@JohnnieLouisRoesel I found it ridiculous that he states that there has to be a designer but it can't be labeled as a god and further more can't be labeled as a FSM. He makes assumptions on others god is limited. One of the points of the FSM is to point out that there are so many gods with different teachings; so why believe in your god and not the FMS? Another one is to point out how parts of religious text have been proven wrong, but others still follow in willful ignorance.
MrButerfinger 2 months ago 2
The spaghetti monster sounds a little like string theory, hah hah.
draphaelc 3 months ago 7
The pathetic thing about Craig's attack of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that he discounts it on the fact that it is material. He could be said to simply not know his FSM theology, which he likes to use as an argument against others. Jesus was supposedly an incarnation of God, why can the FSM not be the same? He intentionally takes the idea at face value in order to approach his argument with as little effort as possible.
LawngCat 3 months ago 3
He needs to brush up on his Pastafarian gospel. At no point is the FSM referred to as a physical being that can be touched and savoured, the FSM is everywhere and in everything. Therefore IS capable of so called intelligent design, or intoxicated design which is more the case....
SharpyShamrock 3 months ago 5
I don't care how rational this guy seems. Nothing will take away the faith I have in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
TheAlexBody 3 months ago 18
I lost it at 1:40. Is this guy just a really undercover troll? Because, if he is, bravo to him!
bournesh 3 months ago 4
Well, if the FSM does exist, Atheists no longer exist because they have created their own god which means the re is a religion that follows the FSM. That would be Pastafarianism... RAMEN!!! No more atheists. You ALL are now pastasfarians or closet pastafarians. Come out of the closet and feel his noodly apendages.
Landotter1 3 months ago 5
You missed the point DOCTOR.
1. we all know you mean god not designer. Who can make a Universe? a god only.
2. you can't prove the FSM isn't the one true god.
In other words, if you can prove there is a god, you still can't prove your god is the one true god, get it?
RAmen and god bless you.
gregrutz 4 months ago 12
@gregrutz He didn't say he would teach that his god is the one true god in public school, did he? and he did prove that at least it cannot be a flying spaghetti monster, listen once again around minute 2:00 and he does explain why the flying spaghetti monster cannot be the cause of the big bang
sethdbeebe 3 months ago
No dr Craig, the flying Spaghetti Monster is NOT a physical object but rather it's a spiritual entity, and it did in fact create the universe. If you doubt what I say, prove me incorrect.
99minerkc 4 months ago 7
As shockofFSM would say; Do you have proof and evidence which is accurate and correct, that Yahweh exists?
eat666shit 4 months ago 4
He isn't technically spaghetti though. He is a being that TAKES THE FORM of spaghetti. We could also argue that because the christian god took the form of Jesus the same rules would apply but like I pointed out, the rule doesn't apply here.
f00tstep 5 months ago 5
@f00tstep Not all Christians believe God and Jesus are the same being, and if a being takes the form of anything it will still be subject to the natural world. Unless of course it is God taking the form of a Spag Creature.
DopeJedi 4 months ago
@DopeJedi that by definition, would mean they are not Christian (according to the creeds of the early Christian church).
Horvath321 4 months ago
I love the fact that WLC is seriously discussing the FSM. Doesn't that sum up his overall loopiness quite well?
ChipArgyle 5 months ago 12
It's humorous that he's continuing the discussion and hasn't stepped back to realise the absurdity.
LAnonHubbard 4 months ago 6
Hehehe. Only William Lane Craig could take the flying spaghetti monster as a serious hypothesis and then explain how it fails. God bless that man.
Lukyo1984 5 months ago 13
"The cause of the Big Bang has to exist beyond space and time and be the creator of all matter and energy in the universe." This statement is very false... The 2nd part of the sentence atleast.
Minkar 5 months ago
A timeless, spaceless being is unable to make decisions and therefore would not be capable of designing the universe. This man's god does not exist.
pedgarrett123 5 months ago
@pedgarrett123 Why would a timeless, spaceless, personal being be incapable of creating the universe? (remember, "personal" is also one of WLC's criteria for a sufficient and necessary cause of the universe)
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
There cannot be a Creator because there was no creation. There is no evidence that absolute nothingness exists. It is no logical to assume that the singularity behind the Big Bang just appeared out of nothing. Clearly it is more likely that the universe is part of something larger and uncreated and there is no such thing as nothing. No one has ever observed nothing. Empty space is still something: It is swarming with virtual particles, has a shape, and whatever "vacuum energy" is.
Vincentaneous 5 months ago
Whenever people like this guy start spouting off shit like "immaterial," "timeless," "spaceless," and "omniscient" I can't help but wonder if they're thought this out beyond it's very obvious construction trying to counter logical empiricism. Our universe could have been easily spawned from another; a place with material, time, and space all its own. When you attribute to a thing absolutes like "timeless" and "spaceless" what you're essentially saying is senseless; it's nothingness.
AletheianAeon 5 months ago
Wow! I see all the silly comments from the atheists below and it is wonderful.
With all the atheist panties in a wad, Clearly Dr. Craig is doing something right.
karozans 5 months ago
@karozans so making yourself look foolish at the biggest atheist joke is doing something right ..huh ??? instead of i duno PROOF ....yup this guy gets it !
crackthecorn 5 months ago 4
Well, mr William Lane Craig. I don't care whether what you are saying is right or wrong. I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Creator of the Universe, because it says so in the Book. And I also believe that you have been sent by The Devil to Earth to make people betray their faith in the absolute God who is the FSM.
tushkanch1k 5 months ago 3
I love how he's trying to disprove the flying spaghetti monster.
All hail the flying spaghetti monster. Let the power of the holy ragu wash over you.
InsanoGerbil 5 months ago
@InsanoGerbil I think he's trying to disprove it because this is what atheists try and use as evidence against God.
hughesjd83 5 months ago
Given omnipotence etc i am very comfortable in my beliefs that the flying spahetti monster is able, at will, to exist in space and time as well as outside space and time. Otherwise, how could the undenaible fact that the christian god was born out of the left arm of the flying spaghetti monsters second cousin the day before the big bang, be true!??!! It would be just silly to argue against this fact.
grusplan123 5 months ago 5
Craig's contention that our universe is the product of a supernatural creation source is plausible as long as he demonstrates the proper humility and intellectual honesty and leaves it there. After all, as far as I know, a Phd in philosophy does not also include an all access pass to the supernatural so the only words to come out of his mouth should be "I don't know." But when he slaps his Christian god label on this creation source his contention devolves into an intellectually dishonest mess.
TryTheRedPill 6 months ago
Craig throws up the smokescreen
The intelligent designers do the switcheroo ("Well we never said it was God, did we?")
The christians drive in for the touchdown.
What a predictable strategy! Still theres no proof that the FSM isnt the designer we all seek. Plus i think he looks like Cthulu, so thats even more proof!
cycophile 6 months ago
Of course the parody is right, a imaterial spaceless timeless being is just an absurd claim based on no evidence after all, just some supernatural stuff to explain the origin of the universe. He is not a scientist and doesn't know some basic principles of phisics, that's sad. But even more sadly he convinces a lot of people by claiming to have "philosofical arguments", just another way to say arguments based on evidence whatsoever.
crmnlvn 6 months ago
Intelligent Design = Extraterrestrial Designers. they say they dont mean "god"
ScyL0n 6 months ago
@ScyL0n I dont think ID = Extraterrestrial Designers. As he points out if your going to argue that a "thing" made everything. The only way it could of done that is to be outside of the place its creating. ID is a pathetic attempt to say "science doesnt know everything, but if we invoke the designer argument we can neatly fill all the holes we dont understand" as opposed to saying this best suits the evidence we have and we just dont know!
nowhereusa 6 months ago
@2:48, your argument falls apart. Jesus was material. the FSM is God reincarnate just as Jesus was.
All hail the FSM -- Ramen
arp76 6 months ago 4
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones disagrees
VDiver1910 6 months ago
Wow... I'm pretty sure he wins 'How Many Logical Fallacies Can I Use In One Argument'. I don't even have the time (much less the inclination) to point them all out. Have yourself some fun identifying them though.
lordsweetleaf 6 months ago
i dont like how this man makes fun of my beliefs.... doesnt he have any respect for other beliefs???
Kiesel 7 months ago
Actually, WLC missed the point. The FSM was to show how absurd the "teach all sides of the debate" idea is - ID has no positive case at all and is just presented as "some people think this". Well, maybe some people think FSM is an alternative and we should therefore teach that alongside.
Slossius1983 7 months ago 2
And THIS is the best ID proponents got?
Although it's rather amusing to see this idiot having to disprove the FSM, since his own ridiculous beliefs are such that the FSM must seriously be considered.
rushncap 7 months ago
I have seen the sauce. Lordy, lordy, I have seen the sauce.
Jericho3cubed 7 months ago 97
It's stupid , irresponsible & dangerous to BELIEVE things of this weight before one has enough evidence to support a conclusion. We can't know if the universe was intentionally created. Though it seems incredibly highly unlikely to me, I can't say with 100% certainty that it wasn't. What bugs me.... if eventually we figure out that some force created the universe... do we not then need to regress further to find out what created that force? Then the force which created the force, and so on?
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
So Dr WLC believes in God, however there are many people who believe in God and are extremely educated and put science first. When something can explained through science it's completely natural to do so. The argument to say God comes before science makes no sense. Sadly Dr WLC puts a lot of other people down in an arrogant way like Dawkins who are very respected. WLC has no technical ability in Maths,Physics,Biology,Chemistry world,he's like a caveman lost in a debate trying to start a fire
theapeman10 7 months ago
@theapeman10 He said God comes before science? No. He said that God is the cause of space and time. How can he be "BEFORE" space and time. Before only has meaning w.r.t. time.
MPaulHolmes 7 months ago
@theapeman10 There's no question that Dawkins is well respected in regards to his scientific teachings and ideas. However, Where Dawkins is strong in scientific knowledge, WLC is strong in philosophical reasoning. That may be why Dawkins is avoiding (scared?) debating numerous Creationists like WLC.
REDRAGON12345 7 months ago
@REDRAGON12345 WLC isn't a creationist...
Zentz29 6 months ago
@theapeman10 you comment on technical ability as if it has any bearing on philosophical discussion. see, this is where dr. craig actually has his skillset. reason, logic, and thought are his talents. these are things that dawkins doesn't know anything about with regards to philosophical discussions. thats why dawkins crashes and burns every time he tries to deal with that subject matter. thats why dawkins writes ridiculous books that are very eloquent yet incredibly ignorant.
anonazero 6 months ago
Is he really trying to criticize the FSM? I don't think he gets the fact that it's a parody.
jmeiro 7 months ago
@jmeiro then why does he says "this was not a good parody"?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 7 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper sry what i meant was he takes it very seriously although its clearly a joke designed to do nothing more than humorously criticize intelligent design. Like, he debates the plausibility of it even though its just a joke.
jmeiro 7 months ago
@jmeiro To me it sounds like he's explaining why the parody is not equivalent to the christian God because he knows why.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 7 months ago 3
@jmeiro How is he debating the plausibility of it?
TheAugustness 7 months ago
So if intelligent design does not imply that god is the designer why is it that you never see well repsected atheist scientists actively trying to debunk the theory of evolution? Why is it that only the pseudo-scientific theists do so?
Of course it couldn't be that it just so happens to contradict their 2000 year old self-help guide, could it? What a strange coincedence.
MrAudiovideodisco 7 months ago
The flying spaghetti monster is nicer than god.
chansetwo 8 months ago 92
I believe he's wrong about what the FSM was supposed to do. The FSM was originally conceived to be an alternate explanation to gravity, to parody the idea that seemingly magical beings could be an alternate explanation to evolution.
StealthDonkey007 8 months ago
the idea of god as this man postulates because i've seen many debates with him is as posible as the matrix idea.
also the flying spaghetti's picture is just to help us grasp it's existence, it has no actual physical interpretation ;p
i think you can more or less defend the flying spaghetti the same way you defend god.
but i believe in fairys. sorry mr craig :)
Basigek 8 months ago
It's hilarious how easily dr. Craig misses the point. Does he not see how so many of these objections are brought up against the God he argues for and then he uses a magic hand waive to make the problems go away?
johngeetar 8 months ago
Why I have a feeling people will kill for the flying spaghetti monster in the future? LOL
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 8 months ago 2
@mjhallfs At the very least, any church that wants tax exempt status should be required to preach the doctrine of FSM as an alternative to god.
punnet2 8 months ago
@mjhallfs So you think that if intelligent design was taught, then the Christian God would be taught? And the FSM would be taught. I don't think the state should force ID to be taught either, but my reasoning is not because of the FSM. In this video, Craig is commenting on how irrevelent the FSM is as an arguement against why ID should not be taught. And he is correct. FSM is an invalid argument against teaching ID.
zozefup 8 months ago
@zozefup That's not correct. What makes the myth of FSM creation more valid than Christian god creation? Craig is presuming to know all the characteristics of the FSM, but it's clearly impossible for him to know whether the FSM exists outside of time or not -- or even whether that is truly a requirement as he asserts it is.
Allowing ID means allowing creation myth which has no evidence to back it. FSM has just as much evidence supporting it as Christian god, therefore equal claim in being taught
BigMikeMcBastard 8 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard I don't care if FSM is just as valid as the Christian God. The point of this video is: The FSM is a bad argument against teaching intelligent design.
The Christian God wouldn't be taught in intelligent design. The budda God wouldn't be taught in intelligent design. So why the heck are you talking about the FSM as an argument against intelligent design?
You may have valid reasons against teaching intelligent design, but the FSM is not one of those valid arguments.
zozefup 8 months ago
@zozefup Intelligent design is quite obviously (Christian) creationism in disguise, and was proven as being such in court, so I am having a hard time understanding why you think the Christian creation myth would be absent in a classroom teaching creationism/"intelligent design". The only reason ID exists is because Christian fundamentalists are trying to circumvent the law forbidding the teaching of religion in schools. And, again, that has been proven in court.
BigMikeMcBastard 8 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard You are assuming that they are teaching the Christian God when they teach intelligent design. You argue that if the Christian God is taught, then every God must be taught. I agree that intelligent design should not be taught. But your arguement is flawed because the Christian God is not taught in intelligent design. The science of intelligent design looks for objects that cannot be explained by the natural forces we know about. It makes no claim about they type of God.
zozefup 8 months ago
@zozefup They ARE teaching the Christian god when they teach intelligent design. ID has been proven to be nothing more than a dressed-up version of creationism. While I imagine Muslim creationists might teach ID somewhat different that Christian ones, in the US it goes without saying that Christian teachers will of course be teaching the Christian version of it to their students in schools were they legally able to.
It's been to court. There was a big debate over it. It's done with.
BigMikeMcBastard 8 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard If you have solid evidence that intelligent design is teaching the Christian God, then that is enough to ban it from public schools. You don't need the FSM argument. So either way, the FSM is irreverent to this debate.
zozefup 8 months ago
@zozefup FSM isn't relevant to the issue of banning it, it's relevant to the issue of the kinds of doors you open if you were to accept ID in public schools.
BigMikeMcBastard 8 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard No. The FSM tells you the kinds of doors you would open if you allowed CHRISTIANITY to be taught in schools. If someone says "Christianity should be taught in schools!!" then say "The FSM should be taught in schools!!!" Virtually no one wants Christianity taught in schools though, so the FSM is really just beating a dead horse.
zozefup 8 months ago
@mjhallfs Right. But this is talking about the FSM as it relates to the teaching of intelligent design. Not God, nor aliens, nor the FSM would be taught in schools. The argument is that "If you teach intelligent design in schools, then you would have to teach the FSM too!" But that is false because intelligent design theory makes no claim about what the intelligent designer is, it only points that some things appear to be intelligently designed.
zozefup 8 months ago
@mjhallfs I honestly don't see how the flying spaghetti monster makes any less sense than the water-walking, virgin-born zombie.
punnet2 8 months ago
Consider the historical evidence of Christ even those whom hated him have documented who he he was n miracles he did which were signs. Jews don't except him yet Christ is clearly thru the OT in Psalms eg 103:12 n Isaiah53. Prophecies of things to come n the NT of the fullfillment of them. Same author over thousands of years. Check it. Creation is to complex to be random chances. Water bears iz a good one. Laminin protein molecule goes with Col1:15-23 n x-structure. No real evidence 4 evolution!
ELITAH7 8 months ago
Why would anyone dislike this video? Even if you are an atheist and hate Christians, surely you can see the fallacys in the flying spaghetti monster as it relates to intelligent design.
zozefup 8 months ago
@punnet2 Actually amino acids can only form in very specific environments and this was not the environment of the early earth. But still if it was right the probability of a non-living amino acid producing the special structure of living matter by chance is one in 10 to the 123rd power.
10 with 123 zeros behind it is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. As you can see the random emergence of life is a mathematical impossibility.
unitethechurch 9 months ago
@unitethechurch Correct, the conditions of the Miller experiment did not accurately reproduce the conditions of early Earth as originally thought, but that is beside the point. The experiment nonetheless confirms that the building blocks of life can emerge from basic elements; no magic required.
Please cite your source for that 10 ^ 123 figure. However, even if it that is accurate, it does not amount to a mathematical impossibility; a mathematical impossibility would be a probability of 0.
punnet2 9 months ago
@unitethechurch
3. Your further obstinacy in reference to nucleic acids and proteins is simply an argument from ignorance. You're essentially saying that since science currently have a fully articulated explanation for the development of proteins, the only alternate explanation is that there must be a god who magically produced them.
punnet2 1 month ago
At least there really IS pasta. RAmen!
ndrthrdr1 9 months ago
"the cause of the universe has to an immaterial, timeless, spaceless being"
that's a lot of assumptions. and best left to physicist, not philosophers, to decide.
nubbs 9 months ago
@nubbs the cause of the universe is beyond physics, physics is the study of the material universe. These things are in fact best left to philosophers since they are beyond the material universe.
unitethechurch 9 months ago
@unitethechurch So how do you distinguish between the immaterial and the nonexistent? They seem to have a lot in common.
punnet2 9 months ago
@TheRgordon16 *the bible states that every non-nose breathing creature (except the ones on the boat ) died during the flood. which means humans, dinosaurs, cows, ect.. fossils, would all be found at the same level in the ground - not the case -
*everything on the boat would have died without its necessary diets
*it rained 40 days & nights ( freshwater ) meaning all the salt water fish would have died. its more but 3 is enough, the story is not true
grand canyon was carved by water -
mrfwest 9 months ago
@mrfwest Oh really? Well now, tell me what you think is not true. I was only pointing out the fact that GnosticReality was right when he says belief in a Supernatural Being who created the universe is a naural thing. This is why there is so many different "gods" in the world because it is naturally apart of man's character. They just don't know who or what He is but they naturally believe He exists.
TheRgordon16 9 months ago
@TheRgordon16 well i think all the supernatural parts are untrue but the is no way to prove that. the simple things like Noah's ark, Adam and eve, but its not my job to disprove the bible it's your job to prove it.
mrfwest 9 months ago
@mrfwest When a person hears the message of the Gospel and believes what it has to say and acts upon it. That person will discover what the bible has to say is true. They will experience the supernatural themselvse. The words in the bible are activated through FAITH not human reasoning. If you don't believe then you won't see. But even if you don't believe it doesnt change the fact that the supernatural is real. Even those who are involved witchcraft or voodoo have experienced the supernatural.
TheRgordon16 9 months ago
@TheRgordon16 it is the parents and church job to teach religion. what a person chooses to believe in his or her own mind is their own business. scientist cant prove or disprove the supernatural nor do they want to. there may be a god, but S.D was trying to prove the bible using science and the science part didn't make sense. the story about Noah's ark and many others aren't true. ask yourself, why do you have to believe the bible for the bible to be true. true is true.
mrfwest 9 months ago
@mrfwest Did you know through DNA the science world have discovered that we are all related and that we all came from one woman? And did you know many ancient cultures speak of a world wide flood?
TheRgordon16 9 months ago
@TheRgordon16 DNA doesn't say anything like that. the fossils are layered which goes along with evolution and disagrees with the story of Noah's ark. also the diversity of the genes also disagree with Noah's ark.
mrfwest 9 months ago
@TheRgordon16 No, science has not discovered that. If you're talking about "mitochondrial Eve", that is in no way a confirmation of the genesis account. The DNA indicates we are related to all other living things (not just other humans).
The geological evidence in no way indicates a global flood, regardless how many "ancient cultures" wrote of one. Did you know how many ancient cultures speak of a flat earth?
punnet2 9 months ago
@punnet2 I disagree. The mitochondrial Eve hypothesis doesn't prove the Bible's account of the human race coming from one woman. BUT, it is CONSISTENT with the Bible's account. Also DNA doesnt prove all species on earth are related. It only shows us that the Creator used the same material to designing all life on Earth. The fossil records do not show each species gradually evolving into something else. There are huge gaps in the fossil records. It shows us as they WERE not what they BECAME.
TheRgordon16 9 months ago
@mrfwest Science does not say "There is no God" But scientist who have an agenda say "there is no God" The study of the Universe and all it contains shows or demonstrates knowledge, wisdom, creativity, art, complexities, systems, information, data, input, output, direction, order, beauty, design, purpose,etc. Everything that expresses "Intellegent thought process" is clearly conveyed thoughout all the Universe. This is why some honest scientists have rejected atheism. They are not in denial.
TheRgordon16 9 months ago
@mrfwest According to the Bible mankind does have a natural instinct in him that tells him there is someone out there that created all of this. It says that which is kown about this "someone" (God) is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. How? Through Creation thats how. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made" So it is natural to believe God exists.
TheRgordon16 9 months ago
@GnosticReality you cant teach a belief in nothing.
A. born atheist, taught religion, then concluded that there is no "god "
B. born atheist, never taught religion or atheism --> but technically they will still be atheist
mrfwest 9 months ago
@GnosticReality people are born atheist, people teach religion
mrfwest 9 months ago
@gnosticreality I never claimed to be trying to dismiss god. I was refuting your claim that scientific inquiry has only demonstrated the limits of science. Quite the contrary. Science is constantly updated and modified as we discover more about our universe. Of course there are questions whose answers are unknown to us. That does not, however, mean that they are unknowable. It just means we haven't figured it out yet. The fact that we haven't figured something out yet does not mean there is a s
sixstrings126 9 months ago
@sixstrings126
A scientist will be the first to tell you that science has hard limits, that is not a fault but a basic understanding of what science is. Science is not a religion and does not claim to even be capable of addressing everything. Science has nothing direct to say as far as the very existence of God is concerned. Scientific understanding changes, what science IS does not.
kamayarii 9 months ago
@sixstrings126 Does science address man's behavior twards one another? Does it give instructions on how a man should treat his wife? Does it teach children how they should respect their parents? Can science solve the problems in the inner cities where the African American family has been destroyed? Does science address racism? Does it address all the sins that have and are being commited by mankind? Does it even acknowledge sin or evil? If the answer is no, then science is infact limited
TheRgordon16 9 months ago
we were all braught up by religion and we will all die because of it
chippy506 9 months ago
@GnosticReality
Oh p.s. -
The Kalam cosmological argument:
Everything has a beginning and a cause.
Therefore there is something that does not have a beginning or a cause.
Think about it.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@GnosticReality
The difference between amoral and immoral is not a lexical nuance. To be immoral requires intention. Was the Japanese tsunami immoral or amoral? And if someone had caused that tsunami willfully would they be immoral or amoral?
You have proved my point about the croissant. "The life/dead analogy depict polar opposites, thus crossant here has no relation." Hence it is 'without' distinction between life and death, and so the prefix 'A' can apply.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@GnosticReality
Atheist is not to claim the negative is true, but to reject the positive.
Say I flip a coin, and someone says "I know that it is going to land on its edge." I don't have to make the claim "I know it won't." in order to disbelieve the other person's assumption.
An agnostic atheist is therefore someone who does not know, or claim to know that God isn't real, but will act as if God isn't until sufficient evidence can change their mind.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@FruKaos
Sorry to clog your inbox, but I felt that just one or two of these would not be enough to justify my position.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@FruKaos
of Rome at the time wasn't even the one the bible claims.
Many of the more mythical biblical tales are also mirrored. Most cultures have a flood story, and in the last decade alone we have seen two events that could easily explain their inspirations and origins.
The internal contradiction of the God hypothesis demonstrates it's failed attempt at understanding the world. Craig often uses the Kalam or 'first cause' argument despite it's easily accessible refutation.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
Sigh. Try to find an actual primary source (Zeitgeist doesn't count) to support your claims about Jesus' story being similar to that of horus/mithras/whoever. Good luck; if you find anything convincing you'll be the first. Also, if we are indeed spiritual beings by nature (i.e. we are souls) then of course we find spirituality in every culture. there is no reason to think spirituality is an inevitable consequence of intelligence or natural selection. chicken / egg?
kamayarii 9 months ago
@kamayarii
There is a reason to think spirituality is a consequence of evolution. There are such things as "useful falsehoods" claims that are not true but that benefit us when we believe them. It is basically a self-induced placebo effect that could have increased our ancestors' chances of survival.
There is an inordinate amount of data on hundreds of gods. Do you expect me to list book titles authors and page numbers for you, or original research papers?
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@kamayarii
I'm not entirely reluctant to do all that, it's just that it's gonna take up way more than 500 characters.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
Please do, I'd really like to see what you come up with. Maybe post it to a livejournal or something and link us?
kamayarii 9 months ago
@FruKaos - Horus and Mithras for example: both born of a virgin, both with a well documented life of religious teachings and performed miracles, both with a following of disciples who referred to them as the light of the world, both died and were resurrected. Mithras' religion was even based in Italy and had a leader called a 'Papas'. Sound familiar? The list of similar deities goes on.
There is the falsehood of the bible stories - there was no census at the time of Jesus birth, the emperor
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@FruKaos
My apologies, it seems I have more than one comment on this video that sparks occasional conversation.
The evidence that God is made up is quite staggering. For starters we have the natural tendency throughout history for humans to posit supernatural explanations for the unknown. The endless list of creation myths for each and every culture attests to this. Then we have the similarities between the story of Jesus and many other religious icons, many of which precede Jesus -
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
If the creator of the earth and us is not god and not beyond the scope of this universe then we can assume that our creator must have had a creator and that creator a creator and that, logically, there can be no source of origin as an initial creator could not have existed. As an atheist and someone pursuing a background in the sciences, why is it so hard to say "we don't know" and stand by that. Because no matter what you believe that is the most honest stance on what we know about creation.
jayjay00agnt 9 months ago
His first argument that the FSM is an aspect of Intelligent design is true, but he doesn't notice the disconnect he does when he says the universe had to be separate from the creator, yet somehow he believes his creator goes into that existence and obviously has to obey the laws governing it to appear as jesus, just as the FSM would do. The argument for FSM is against religion, and the absurdity of any supreme being, not poking holes in His philosophical tap dancing around god's probability.
zajhein 9 months ago
But Dr Craig, the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOES exist beyond space and time.
It IS the creator of all matter in the universe. It's invisible, undetectable - an all powerful Being with a Mind.
(People just prefer to visualise it as a mass of real spaghetti and meatballs - instead of that old white guy with a beard.)
We know these things because - like you - we just MADE THEM UP.
DukeIrritable 9 months ago
All we need to do is list all the properies of God (that WLC things that God must have) and the simply claim that the flying spagetti monster has all those properies.
badpanda84 10 months ago
This is too good, he is actually trying to prove why IDFSM is false.If it is so obviously a parody, why do you need to point out why it is fake? The point of a parody is that it is fake.
rykoodasr 10 months ago
@rykoodasr Because some guys think that the FSM is proving something about God and the belief in Christ. Obviously it doesn't but still there are some teenies who think it does.
FruKaos 10 months ago
That Dr. Craig could think that people who equate belief in God as the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant he is of the works of Hitchens , Adams and Harris whose libraries are filled with the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present...
PT109Boat 10 months ago
@talover403 You use evidence far less obvious on a daily basis. Nothing ever comes out of nothing and everything that exist has got a cause. The universe exist and therefore must a) come out of something and b) have a cause.
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos The reason your argument fails is that there was never "nothing" in the literal sense. Prior to the Big Bang, everything (not nothing) was centered at one point, including space and time. Singularity rapidly expanded (or, everything exploded). Time and space are constants, and neither could exist without the other. If you feel otherwise, provide evidence for it. If you have some groundbreaking research that disproves this fact, publish it.
talover403 10 months ago
Philosophers trying to argue science (especially physics and biology) always makes me laugh. If you want the best examples of uncogent arguments and strawman arguments, look to the philosophers trying to argue that they are relevant in fields they have absolutely no qualifications in.
runryrorun 10 months ago
@runryrorun I think you misunderstand. The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't science.
What is embarrassing is when scientists (like Dawson) try to be philosophical. Even atheistic philosophers feels bad about that...
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos I think it is you that misunderstand, I did not say that the FSM was science, in fact that was my point. Just because you can create a philosophic proposition doe not mean that it is true. Aristotle proposed a geocentric solar system based off of his philosophy, but just because it fit philosophically doesn't make it less wrong. What we need to do is keep amending our idea of the universe as we learn more, not just hold onto a dogmatic "truth".
runryrorun 10 months ago
@runryrorun You can test philosophical arguments against logic. That is how it works. We can only use science to learn about what is in our world. Science can never tell us WHY the universe became just how. As a christian I am very interested in what science can teach us about how but also in what God tell us about WHY. And for dogmatic truth I think you could say that to scientists as well.
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos I took philosophy in college and know enough about it. Its only good to ponder over and wonder. Nothing wrong with that but when you make a public claim about something of that caliber, you HAVE to back it up by evidence. Its that simple. If you want proofs of things, go read a science book. There are all kinds of proofs for all kinds of subjects. Too many of them to list here. Email me and I will give you a list.
talover403 10 months ago
@rudybdes FSM>God
Drgamedood 10 months ago
What Craig doesnt realize that the FSM can take on ANY FORM it wants to.....just like god. Neither has any scientific backing, and both have a doctrine that can be read, followed, and even worshipped.
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403 Logically the FSM cannot be the creator while God can. There are several reasonings that all end with the conclusion that God has to exist. I am not sure what you mean with scientific backings but leading philosophers of today admits that the only plausible reason for our universe to exist is God. None of them thinks the FSM is a good explanation. So I'd say Craig is making a very strong case for a God and against the FSM.
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos You are making that assertion. FSM, the pink unicorn,aliens, or doodleblaps are ALL candidates for a creator. Doesnt matter what you say your creator is, the fact is that god is undefined and so you can put ANY type of deity you want to define what your god is. That was the whole basis for the FSM in the first place that Craig has missed. Any creator claim (God, FSM, or whatever) with NO evidence can be made into what you perceive it to be.
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403 I disagree. God is NOT undefined. There are quite a few characteristics you can derive from just looking at the creation. (Timeless, Spaceless, personal etc..) All these defines what God is. Of course you could say that the FSM is all that as well but then all you have done is given God a name. You could call him Greg if you want but that isn't really making an alternative to God mererly giving Him a name.
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos You actually have to believe in creation before you can "define it." Since creation is not scientific, and not fact based, you can define god any way you want to to suit your needs......but that does not make it true because you are basing it on faith and faith will never be a pathway to truth......only through factual evidence can something be true.
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403 The problem with science is that it can't prove anything outside the physical laws and even then it is hard to prove what you call facts. Science will change what it states as true (and proven) over time. That is where philosophy and logic comes in handy. Statements like "out of nothing comes nothing" and "everything has a cause" can be tested logically. It is actually quite hard to prove that anything exist without philosophy...
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403 I think the theories you put forward are very interesting but you can't prove those with science. Logically you should dismiss them those theories. And as I said. There are a lot of things we all "know" is true that science can't prove. Science can't prove objective good and evil. Science can't prove esthetics and, perhaps most interesting, science can't even prove science is true.
Oh, and by the way, radioactive decay has a cause. Your call ;)
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403 Again I disagree, big surprise ;) The universe is bound to time and space and therefore needs a cause (like everything else in this world). God on the other hand is OUTSIDE time and space and does NOT need a cause. You could claim the universe to be eternal but I woulddn't recommend it :)
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos Why are you asserting that god is outside time and space? Is this mentioned in the bible? If so, where?
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403
John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 8:23
But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
Hebrews 7:3
"Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever."
Just read the bible and you will see...
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos Dude that does NOT specify that god is outside of TIME and Space.....that simply says he is not from this world. There are a lot of things that exist that are not from this world. You are ASSERTING that god is outside of time and space......no evidence.
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403
1. The creator of everything needs to be outside time and space.
2. God is claiming himself being the creator of everything.
3. Therefore God is outside time and space.
I am not sure if you believe that the bible is true. If not it is pointless for me to give you verses and passages since you will just dismiss them. If you on the other hand believe that the bible is the Holy word from God I would be more then happy to show you were it says God is outside Time AND Space.
FruKaos 10 months ago
"The cause of the universe *has* to be an immaterial, timeless, spaceless being..."
Why does the cause of the universe need to be a being?
This I think is what the FSM represents...
tovadaq 11 months ago
@tovadaq If not a being, then something beyond the universe itself....a designer of some sort. The universe is finite...it had a beginning. Time and space came into being with the universe. Time itself is a finite construct of the universe. If time is finite, and space is finite (Cuz they had a beginning), and the universe cannot itself give a reason for its existence, then the "reason" for the universe's existence lies beyond the universe. Hence, I.D.
WSGAC 10 months ago
@WSGAC
I am not convinced time or space are finite. It all hinges on several milliseconds, if not less.
Maybe the universe can give a reason, but we have not yet found a way to understand that reason. The question therefore is still open. Open questions are not a bad thing. Not every question has to have an answer.
The reason for the universe's existence lies beyond current Human Comprehension, I'll give you that.
This does *not* imply either ID ór a maker. It merely implies we don't know.
tovadaq 10 months ago
@tovadaq It's a being because it is personal...
FruKaos 10 months ago
WLC's argument about the FSM being too specific and not identical to intelligent design is just ridiculous. The point was that intelligent design has no scientific backing, and neither does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Craig's basically saying that the FSM isn't identical in properties to intelligent design, therefore it doesn't have equal claim - which is obviously ridiculous. He missed the point by a mile. FSM's evidence is just as FLIMSY as intelligent design, therefore it's as valid.
Stairc 11 months ago
@Stairc I think that there are proves that there has to be some sort of intelligence that created the universe. A thing (i.e. FSM) is bound to time and space and cannot be the creator. If you suggest that the FSM is outside space and time you have simply put another name for God. And believe me Craig is fully aware of what the FSM theory is all about. He might be wrong but he knows what he is talking about.
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos 1) WLC is using this as evidence for the christian god - which assigns the intelligence properties. A flying spaghetti monster works just as well as Christianity under these claims.
2) If there is evidence that an intelligence has to have created the universe, PLEASE share it. I've never heard a single logical argument towards this - and I'm beginning to doubt that I ever will. Even if the universe DID require a cause (which is itself causeless) there's no reason it must be intelligent
Stairc 10 months ago
@Stairc The evidence is there but I guess you don't want to see them. Even like Stephen Hawkins and Einstein acknowledge that there has to be an intelligent power that started the evolution I'd say that there is really no controversial claim.
Even if you want to think that science is right you have no evidence. (Science can't prove itself true.) I believe that something outside time and space created the universe. To think that out of nothing everything became without a reason is admirable.
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos and YOU think you have all the answers just because YOU believe in something you cannot prove? YOu dont know any more than the rest of us.....face it. You are full of assertions, heresay, logical fallocies and just plain babble. At least science can back up their claims via evidence. Science is NOT based on absolutes.......NOTHING IS!! If you want absolutes, you will not find them on this planet. Science only proves what is reasonably true through the evidence they have.
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403 I do not think I have all the answers, far from it. It's a constant journey. I would say that most atheist think they have all the answers. The problem is that when you try to find out WHY everything was created you cannot use science. Science can at it's best tell us HOW. Whatever you want to believe when it comes to the big questions you have to pick some sort of faith. As I said, science can't even prove itself, still you believe in it. It's your religion.
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos We are not claiming to have all the answers either.........which is why we dont assert strange and delusional things the way that you do. We side with the scientists who also does not have all the answers. Some things are harder to explain and prove than others. no big deal. We will continue to explore different ways of answering tough questions via evidence and will never give up.....unlike you guys that assert and claim that an invisible entity created everything. What bullshit!
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403 I notice that your argumentation is moving towards mocking which is sad because that won't lead to any good. I have tried to answer your question but you haven't tried to answer me. You accuse me of theories without evidence and then put forward stuff like "alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe". And you still haven't tried to prove me wrong about science inability to prove itself correct.
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos You dont have any theories to offer me......why do you call them theories? Do you know what a theory is? Science has the theories.....all you have is at best just an opinion and nothing else. You have nothing to back up your claims......faith is not a back up....its a cop out.
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403 It's a pointless debate since you don't even try to answer my questions and you attack me with poor arguments that you then refuse to back up. I hope you sometime dare to open your mind for greater things. I wish you all good!
FruKaos 10 months ago
@FruKaos Of course its pointless..........All these debates are! Since its pointless its also a big waste of time. Neither will give an inch.....we are both stubborn......but one is right and one is wrong.
talover403 10 months ago
@talover403 I pray that you will be right one day too...
FruKaos 10 months ago