I wonder if anyone has decided that the prospect of obtaining Tim's piano, his leg and his wife are substantial reward for spending the rest of their life trying to prove psychics can read minds, astrologers can predict the future, homeopathy works or that there is an afterlife to him...
@narutofan9999 Actually there is no way you could even say that "You can be relatively sure to get at least a handful of PCs that have OS'es at the end of the experiment". Filling a hard drive with 1's and 0's randomly(despite the number of computers doing it for whatever time) would statistically never make an operable operating system. Where did our hormones come from? How did our eyes evolve. perhaps it was evolution...or micro evolution to perfect it. But your metaphor failed.
You're making a very fundamental flaw here. Machines are not capable of reproduction and are not under any pressure to improve, unlike say, all life on the planet. Eyes are one of the easiest things to explain in terms of evolution, if you'd like i can go into it if you'd like- I'll run out of characters in this post tho.
If you are rational, and want to believe true things over false things, you will reject all claims until evidence is presented. So "X exists" and "X does not exist" should both be rejected if there is no evidence regarding X.
At which point, I will use rules such as occam's razor to select a belief that would require the fewest and least drastic assumptions. If both require sizable assumptions, I will simply not take a belief. But beliefs that I form in this method will be agnostic beliefs.
The reason I like this song is because it's funny. If you try to read to deeply into it then you're just taking it's comedic value away from it and turning yourself into a pedantic weird dude.
@SingingIrish, The whole point of the video is to make people think about their deeply held erroneous beliefs and Tim does this through humour. I posted it because of that very reason. I'm sorry you've missed the point.
@Stralya2000 i think with comedy there, it gives room to just have fun with it. these are tim's views and that's fine. some might agree, some might disagree. it doesn't really matter. it's funny. it seems a little patronizing to say that "i'm sorry you've missed the point" in regards to @singingirish's comment. why can't people simply enjoy it for the humor? i know you posted up this video for your own reasons, but can't people just enjoy a comedian rather than looking for a bigger meaning?
@lephong I don't know how anyone can watch the clip and not get the point. Tim wrote this for those with deeply held religious beliefs. He's the one being the philosopher here, not me. It's not patronising to suggest I'm sorry if someone misses the point. Tim is a comedian first and a philosopher second, some might say it's the other way around but the comedy and the philosophy are inexorably linked and that should be obvious.
@Stralya2000 it just seems really that ur comment was patronizing like saying, " i'm sorry u're such an idiot for not understanding" i think people get the point of the song. it's just they don't take it so seriously as you do. yes, audiences get that he's criticizing it, but he's having a bit of fun with the piano and his comedic timing lets people enjoy for comedy sake. not everyone is going to react the same way.some just want to laugh rather than analyze it. that's life and that's fine
@SingingIrish hey SingingIrish, you didn't get it, and you don't get stand-up, but it's fine, i'm sure lots of people don't but can still appreciate it. you're an idiot though.
one interesting thing regarding the cant prove a negative thing: before the popular phrase "when pigs fly" came into use, there was another phrase in its place that meant the same thing, which was "when swans turn black" or similar to that. Because as everyone "knew", all swans are white. Then they discovered Australia and a species of black swans that live there.... not that I think we'll discover a species of flying pigs though... or God...
"The only thing I hate about most people who don't believe in god (I'm not terribly religious) they can say "Well feel free to provide any logical proof of the existence of god", BUT try and prove he doesn't exist?"
so you hate that about most people who don't believe in god, what about the other people who don't believe in god?
@Stralya2000 well his disclaimer sounds a little long so something tells me he's more interested in making a statement than looking at the evidence. if he was interested in looking at the evidence he wouldn't have done `performing art's. he's a `amazing randi' clone, lol.
@Stralya2000 i had skeptics telling me that `anything written in a book' is not evidence so somehow i don't think they have any research skills, don't u?
@realscience1 Anything written in a book isn't proof in and of itself but it may be evidence and if enough evidence is gathered then tested and found to be sound scientifically then you have proof.
@Stralya2000 He only wants proof from nature journal. If it's not in nature journal is he gonna accept it? Cos there is heaps of proof in other journals. The top journals are very conservative. Also, his offer tends to suggest he is prejudiced against the existance of proof. Hardly the mark of an exploratory mind.
@realscience1 Where did he mention nature journals? What other journals contain the proof he's looking for? If he is prejudiced against the existence of proof, all anyone needs to do is prove him wrong and you'll have a free piano!
@Stralya2000 i mean the journal `nature'. usually when i gave skeptics proof they said the journal was unknown or too old or whatever. anyway i don't know what he wants proof for cos his disclaimer is longer than the contract on my used car.
@MsCoralline yeah it's so well defined no-one can decipher it! the fact he wants his leg taken off doesn't sound like he is very open to inquiries either!
@realscience1 So you insult people in a way that assumes that homosexuality is a bad thing? Good way to show that religious fanatics are being progressive, accepting, or anything else they claim to be other than faithful in the invisible. You pesky religious fanatic, you. :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The only thing I hate about most people who don't believe in god (I'm not terribly religious) they can say "Well feel free to provide any logical proof of the existence of god", BUT try and prove he doesn't exist?
@Stralya2000 Wrong. It was quite simple for people to prove that phlogiston didn't exist. What people called 'phlogiston' was simply absence of oxygen.
It is quite simple to prove that a hole in the centre of my forehead doesn't exist - I can't stick my fingers in it to poke my brain.
Proving something doesn't exist is the basis of a perfectly valid scientific process called "Proof through Disproof", where you prove something is true because the converse isn't
@Redlehk So what you're saying is that the fact that there is no evidence of a hole in the middle of your forehead is proof that there is no hole in the middle of your forehead? Now try a fun game and replace the words "a hole in the middle of your forehead" with "God." Hmmmmmm, you're right that does work.
@DarthStumpy Actually, what I'm saying is that the fact that there is evidence that there is not a hole in the middle of my forehead is proof that there isn't a hole in the middle of my forehead.
By proving the existence of something (a forehead without a hole) that is mutually exclusive to something else (a forehead with a hole) you can prove the non-existence of that something else, since only one of the two can exist (hence, mutually exclusive)
I can prove that a giant (visible) pink pig doesn't sit in MY toilet, but I can not prove that nowhere in the universe there is NOT some giant pink pig in anyone's toilet. There is a difference in conditions. You have not proven a negative when you say "there are no holes on my forehead", you have proven a positive and deducted the logical impossibility of a negative.
@narutofan9999 Which is, exactly as stated above, the mathematical concept known as "Proof by disproof". If A implies !B, then proving A also proves !B. Likewise, proving B proves !A.
You're just using a narrower definition of 'proof' than the actual scientific and mathematical term is. For example, to prove 2+2 != 5, all you have to do is add 2+2, to get 4. But, by your argument, that isn't proof enough?
For such a "disproof", you need a very clear and narrow definition of the subject. For example, it is by all means available to humans impossible to disprove "dragons exist" - that doesn't mean that dragons exist though. The whole thing would of course work if you narrowed it down to "15 feet tall dragons are in front of the white house", which you can proof by just checking, or "15 feet tall dragons live in my pocket" which is a logical impossibility.
@narutofan9999 First, the argument was "It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist", which I effortlessly disproved. Secondly, in order to prove or disprove anything, you have to lay down parameters to define it - or I could say "Aksufbi exist", without explaining what an "Aksufbus" is, making it impossible to define either way.
You seem to miss the point here. You didn't disprove anything, proving a negative can only be done through logical impossibility, for example with a positive that is mutually exclusive with the negative. For example, I >>could<< disprove the existence of the judeo-christian god if we would set a condition such as "If the judeo-christian god exists, the bible does not contain any contradictionary statements". Then I would just have to find a single contradictionary statement.
@narutofan9999 I disproved the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, by proving that they CANNOT exist. That is a perfectly valid use of logic.
The condition used has to follow logical premise, as well as the statements - any text that was originally passed down by word-of-mouth is liable to pick up contradictions and inaccuracies through the fallibility of memory. Ever played "Chinese Whispers"? Now, imagine the game going on for decades. So, your condition is invalid.
@narutofan9999 Narrow definitions can only disprove narrow statements. I have not claimed otherwise. However, I am arguing that you need a clear, undeniable, definition of something before you can prove or disprove it, and that it is possible to prove that something doesn't exist.
I fight here, neither for Religion or Atheism, but rather for the purity of unfettered logic. ^__^
No, what I am saying is that while theoretically it is possible to prove that something doesn't exist, in praxis there are only a few things for which this actually works.For example, in math it always works, and disproving things that are impossible (like a perpetuum mobile) always works,but disproving the existence of something that COULD exist is practically impossible unless it is extremely narrowly defined.Therefore,in the context it is right to say proving a negative doesn't work
@narutofan9999 I never said it was an appropriate way to go about the argument of God's existence. All I have tried to do in the comments in this video is show that it is, under various circumstances, possible to prove that something doesn't exist.
So, whilst you can't say "it won't/doesn't work", you can certainly say that "it isn't a feasible solution" in a given context. But, likewise, lack of proof of the existence or otherwise of something is not, in and of itself, proof of the converse.
Not proof, but evidence. If one is unable to find proof or even evidence for the existence of something, then it is not unreasonable to assume it doesn't exist. Of course saying "You don't really know it doesn't exist" is not wrong per se, but asserting the nonexistence of something for which there is no proof, no evidence and not even so much as a hint for is not wrong. If such evidence ever shows up you can still correct your stance, but it's not very useful to remain in the state
@narutofan9999 And if there is no evidence of either position, then asserting either claim is equally both as valid and invalid, so people should just stop arguing about it - the choice is entirely up to each person
After all, you have no actual proof that anyone on YouTube that does not appear in a video on their channel is not simply an advanced AI ChatBot, or all just a mysterious conglomerate sharing the task of all the postings between each other, to proport the existence of other people.
Such a position is not very useful. We are limited beings living in an imperfect world. If we would rely on the mathematical definition of truth all the time we couldn't call ANYTHING true. It's a well accepted practice that it requires evidence to accept a claim, not to reject it. You wouldn't expect me to justify my stance that unicorns don't exist with evidence either.
@narutofan9999 Why ever not? From a genetic standpoint, a variant of deer with a single, central, horn is entirely feasible. Asides from the magical abilities that some - but, notably, not all - texts ascribe to Unicorns, it would fit the description.
And, I wasn't saying we should always USE the pure, mathematical, definitions, just always accept that they exist. As such, you can't claim "It's impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist" - only "It impractical in this instance to try to"
@Redlehk Unicorns, as in magical beings, not horned ponies. I thought that was clear, stop trying to avoid the subject. Again "Unicorns exist! No they don't. Why? Where is your proof that unicorns don't exist? Don't be so close-minded!" - who do you think has to provide evidence - the one making the claim, or the one rejecting the claim? PS: Impossible in praxis is what I said, not impractical. Just like storing infinite amounts of data is impossible in praxis, while it's possible in theory.
@narutofan9999 You didn't define a Unicorn as being a magical being. In fact, you made no definition other than "Unicorn". I simply selected, from the variety of definitions available, one that was possible - and stated that I had discounted 'magical' definitions. As I said, clear definition is necessary for proof or disproof - it is easier to disprove a God who exists as a giant, visible, scarab who pushes the sun across the sky than an invisible, intangible being existing outside space&time
@narutofan9999 Also - rejecting a claim is actually the same as claiming the opposite. As such, both sides have to provide evidence. "Where's your evidence" is not sufficient argument for the converse.
P.S. You said that it was occasionally, but usually not, possible in praxis, rather than completely impossible. That is a fairly good definition of something "impractical", no?
@narutofan9999 Besides the "invisible pink unicorn" and "phlogiston" examples I gave earlier? How about I prove the non-existence of hydrogen-based lifeforms for you.
Hydrogen is capable of forming only one bond. As such, it is unable to form the complex branching patterns necessary to form the basis of an organism fulfilling the definitions of 'alive', or in fact anything complex enough to even be classed as an 'organism'. As such, hydrogen-based lifeforms are impossible, thus do not exist!
You already forgot that I said "Unless it is logically impossible" just a few comments earlier? I thought discussions worked on an incremental basis, I didn't know I had to emphasize every single point every single time.
@narutofan9999 "@Redlehk Universal nonexistence. That's what I mean with impossible. You can't prove the universal nonexistence of ANYTHING."
That, WAS your previous post.
I'm sorry, it's just a bit hard to keep up with all your inconsistencies. Also, you said in the post you just referenced that proving the non-existence of something that is not Logically impossible is "practically impossible", not actually impossible. So, you were agreeing with me there that it's possible but impractical :p
Would you please listen, and this time a bit more carefully:
Proving the nonexistence of something that is logically impossible: Always works.
Proving universal nonexistence that is not logically impossible: Never works. That is what I was saying all along and I quite honestly don't understand how you can not comprehend what I am saying. By practically impossible I mean that it is impossible in praxis, which means it's impossible but not due to theoretical restrictions.
@narutofan9999 For starters, that's not what you've been saying all along - even if it was what you meant all along. As I said, definitions are important.
Now, as for proving that something doesn't exist anywhere, without actually using logical contradiction... Look up the Michaleson-Morley experiments. It proved the non-existence of "Ether" through the definition of Ether requiring that if it existed, then it would exist in Space and vacuums, then coming up with a way to observe it if it did
@narutofan9999 So, it goes something like this "If such a thing as W exists anywhere in the universe, I can observe it by doing X to get result Y. However, having done X I got result Z, not result Y. As such, W does not exist" Disproof through observation (or, rather, lack of)
Such conditions can not be formulated for most objects though. For example, what would be an observation from which we could prove the nonexistence of leprechauns? We have decided that leprechauns don't exist because we've never seen any and because their existence would be inconsistent with how we perceive the world, but we've proven nothing. Besides, that is just rephrasing the logical impossibility thing I said earlier.
@narutofan9999 I didn't say that it works for all situations. I simply gave an example that contradicted your statement - finding a single contradiction disproves something, as you said earlier.
And, if you call that "just rephrasing the logical impossibility thing", then you can use the same reasoning to say that ANY disproof, even non-universal, is a rephrased version of "the logical impossibility thing". Even proof that there is not a giant, visible, pink pig in your toilet.
@narutofan9999 And, to play by your own rules for a moment... Can you PROVE that there is no universal disproof that doesn't use logical impossibility?
Because, your own earlier arguments state that the claimant has to provide the proof (and the "can't disprove stuff" was the original claim, I simply attempted to refute it) and that people should not accept the claim until proof has been provided.
Uh, are you trying to make a point or do you just want to act like a smartass? FYI: The universe is a pretty damn big place. And it's expanding. And then we also have no method to tell if there is something outside this universe. If something can not be determined impossible the only way I can think off to see whether it exists would be checking every single place it could exist in, which is, by all means humans have- and likely ever will have- access to impossible.
@narutofan9999 The point I've been making is that this is a situation people can't use 'absolutes' for, and that all the people out here on the internet arguing are just spouting arguments that actual professional philosophers and theologians should realise are useless within about a year of studying their subject.
It's like watching a bunch of intellectual poseurs argue over whether or not "i" (or "j" for engineers) is greater or less than 1, while the pro's were solving Fermat's Last Theorem.
@narutofan9999 And, I suppose, I'm just trying to give logical reasons to move the 'goalposts' It started as "You can't expect us to provide proof God doesn't exist, because it's impossible to prove anything doesn't exist", and look how much progress we've made
Of course, there are also things that cannot (yet) be proven to exist, but are generally treated as if they do, such as the Higgs Boson, or Quantum Super-Strings. Super-Strings, in particular, are theoretically impossible to observe.
I would like to ask how YOU would go about disproving some magical invisible sentient being that is neither tied to space nor time.
Anyways: That it is generally impossible to disprove that something doesn't exist is certainly wrong. But I seriously can't imagine a method to disprove the christian god. And I don't see why I would want to do that anyways- no one's expecting me to disprove Amaterasu or Isis or Thor or Quetzacoatl- somehow, with those it's ok to just assume they're false.
@narutofan9999 Well, to simultaneously disprove the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God(s?), you would simply have to disprove the early pre-Abrahamic sections of the Bible that require his existence - for example, disproving Genesis by proving the mutually exclusive theory of aibogenesis (as opposed to Evolution which doesn't contradict Genesis)
On the other hand, the Bible has proven to be fairly accurate in some respects, such as the parting of the Red Sea, or locating certain buildings' ruins
@narutofan9999 Of course, that wouldn't disprove the existence of powerful beings existing in more dimensions than ourselves, merely that none of them actually created all life on the planet. However, if you proved aibogenesis, then it should be possible to prove if humans were a product of it, rather than the creation of a God.
By that point, you would have proven that even if the God(s) of one (or possibly more) of the standard religions exists, then they are liars, and disproved religion.
Just like the fact that bats aren't birds disproved anything? Or the fact that the earth isn't 6000 years old? Or the fact that all mammals evolved from a common ancestor rather than being created individually? Hardly. Once abiogenesis is complete, "god" will simply be pushed behind the big bang (which is, in fact, what most christians with a proper education already do), and it will come down to "well, life came naturally, but only because god WANTED it to happen".
@narutofan9999 1) Hebrew word used means "owners' of wings", but is usually (erroneously) translated as "birds". Blame the translators for the KJV
2) The word translated as "day" in Genesis, again, actually means something different - "period of time". Also, the 7 'days' of creation start an unspecified length of time after the Earth was said to be created - and is a list of a REcreation, after everything was made formless/chaotic and dark (same event that caused dinosaur extinction perhaps?)
@narutofan9999 3) Evolution of one species into another has never been proved or demonstrated, only specialisation of a species into multiple subspecies. Also, the Woese hypothesis (published in 1998, and validated in 2010) demonstrates the lack of any single common ancestor
@narutofan9999 (Although, in your defense, I think your confusion over the mammal ancestor is the evidence that all marine mammals are the same species, Cecatea, and thus share a single, land-based ancestor - but again, this is specialisation of subspecies, not development of new species)
Apparently youtube did eat part of your comment. I have no idea what you were trying to say, but the tree structure of the evolution of mammals strongly indicates that there was a single ancestor species for all mammals. Again, I didn't see the first part of your comment so I don't know what you actually said, but I don't think I am "confused" on the subject. Besides, there may be errors in what I said earlier, but I don't see how it is relevant to the point made.
@narutofan9999 The "although" part was a continuation on from "3)", which was about the Woese hypothesis - which, although being where the modern tree structure originates from, also discounts there actually being any single common ancestor, but rather a collection originally capable of interbreeding who passed genetic information horizontally, but eventually became specialised enough to no longer be able to interbreed
So, less of a "single common ancestor", more of a "common ancestral orgy" xD
Well, the thing is the "although" comment is all I can see. The other comment you have probably made is not visible to me. And again, I don't see how that contributes to the point- I don't remember the topic being about biology. I am afraid if you want to talk about evolutionary biology you will have to talk to an evolutionary biologist - I am not and I am not planning to become one.
@narutofan9999 Which is really strange, because I can see both of the other comments (First contains points 1 and 2, about the "bats not birds" and "YEC" parts, and the second containing point 3 about the "single common ancestor") They haven't ended up in the thread though, so try scrolling down further?
And, we can get off the biology talk if you like. I just brought up abiogenesis as part of demonstrating disproof, you had a couple of comments, but we both agree that it's unproven as of yet
Unproven maybe, but from our current state of knowledge we can be relatively sure it's possible, and I consider it a lot more likely than some magical being popping out of nowhere, talking the world into existence, forming people from dirt, telling them not to eat fruit that makes them less dumb... you see where I am coming from?
@narutofan9999 Yeah. Random chemicals floating in a broth suddenly decide to start duplicating themselves, and somehow manage to not only come up with the idea of storing a different chemicals in a bag around themselves, but construct both the bag AND the special liquid to go inside it which suits their duplication desires perfectly.
I guess that by the same theory, we just need to leave a suitably overclocked PC on for long enough, without any formatting, and it'll devise it's own OS and bios
Certainly not. Your wording already shows that you imply intelligence or direction into the system, which means you already look at it from the wrong angle. Aside from the fact that you compare a very rigid system (computer) with a dynamic and open system (the "real" world) - let's just have some fun with randomness (I would like you to remind you though that chemical systems are natural occurences following specific laws, not lotteries) - continuing....
I'll try less sarcasm next time. But, the point I was trying to make was that you can reword a lot of things to sound ridiculous. It may make for good rhetoric, but it makes for bad practice
Well, for me it was merely a substitution of words that mean the same thing really. "God the heavenly father" may sound fancier than "magical sky daddy", but it means the same thing really. He does magic. He is in heaven. He is a father. Therefor, he is a magical sky daddy. That is an intentionally disrespectful way to word it, but it doesn't alter the message. And talking snakes ARE ridiculous, no matter what words you use to describe them.
@narutofan9999 The problem with that, though, is that it usually results in any semblance of rational thought being thrown out in favour of a flame war... Hence why, whichever point of view I take in any argument, I don't resort to doing that (you may have been able to tell I don't have much practice at it :-P)
(continued) Take a hundred billion PCs. Over the course of 12 billion years, fill their hard drives with random values, attempt to run the data as an OS. If you got an OS, stop writing data to the PC. You can be relatively sure to get at least a handful of PCs that have OS'es at the end of the experiment. But again, randomness isn't so much of a factor in nature - formation of structures is a direct result of the properties of their parts, rather than random chance.
@spadamon if you just mean "in void" then yes, because that's what "void" means, that's the definition of it. there's nothing. because it's ...void. but with spiritual stuff, it's a bit more complex, because you'd have to explain everything that exists before you can safely say that none of it is caused by supernatural forces. there is Occam's razor.it's a logical fallacy to think that God exists. so, logically you can prove that God isn't the cause of anything that can be explained differently.
@Stralya2000 I would add to that, "proof" itself isn't really possible.
As a philosophy teacher once said: "Instead of proof, consider that we are limited by word of mouth and circumstantial evidence. Everything is open to fraud".
A Religious teacher also said "There is only one thing you can absolutely prove, and only to one person. You exist unto yourself".
@evilalexdude It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything, ranging from God to Santa to invisible pink unicorns. If you claim any of these do exist, despite them not being observed in reality, you have to prove that they do, or your claim is invalid. Doesn't mean they certainly don't exist, just that we can assume they don't.
@jursle I can prove the non-existance of invisible pink unicorns in two statements and a conclusion.
Pink is a colour observable by the detection of light coming from an object to a viewing receptacle/organ. An invisible object by definition does not give any light for a viewing receptacle/organ to detect. Thus, an invisible pink unicorn is impossible
@evilalexdude would an all mighty, all power ful, all knowing, and all caring entity alow all the strife, suffering and death thats happening on earth? and if so, he isnt the god any preaches about becouse thats not merciful.
@evilalexdude There is no need for proof of any kind, Knowing its true and believing its true are 2 different things. im not religious what so ever and i dont bother thinking bout stuff like proving he dont exist
@evilalexdude It's impossible to prove a negative. We also cannot prove that there are no invisible flying elephants, that doesn't mean we should assume they exist...
if at first you don't succeed try try try again except when it comes to ppl getting serious about god on youtube lol its just a song get over it and yourself
@BillF1985 I really don't see what difference it makes which forum the discussion takes place. Conversations that take place online are as civil, constructive, and logically coherent as the people taking place in them. Sure, youtube is a place for videos of people getting hit in the balls and kittens falling asleep, but it's also a place for enlightening resources and Intellectual discourse. In other words, it's as smart as you make it... and I don't get impression you're raising the mean IQ.
'arguing on youtube is like the special olympics- even if you win, your still retarded.' especially when it comes to god. thats a retarded thing to argue about even when you arent on youtube.
He better hope I don't make space for a Grand Piano & find out that his wife isn't well matched to his appearance because otherwise, they'll be mine. It's not wise to make predeterminations that are dictated by your desires of what you want the truth to be & then think that your predetermination will magically make what you desire into actual fact.... especially if your going to wager your Grand & your wife... keep the legs!
He didn't limit it to empirical. He said "or logical". You'd be amazingly surprised at how much logic exists... especially when its something foreign & unbeknown to you. As is usually the case with atheists whom illogically believe that Logicmeister status & superb scientific prowess are atheistically automatically inherent
{feel free to provide any logical proof of the existence of god}
"Feel free"? For years I haven't felt free in any way except in my thinking because of atheist cretins like you. From pure hate towards the opposing view, do atheists commit crimes that destroy. Thats clearly evidenced simply from the many examples of persons who earned degrees & worked hard to have professional careers, simply to be EXPELLED by people so deluded that they think their genealogical heritage includes
ancestral bacterial forebears, believe in 4 legged whales & Tyrannosaurus Chicken. Please, somebody call the dog catchers before anymore sane people get hurt. Why provide you with anymore "proof" of God's existence, after PhD scientists from The Discovery Institute have already provided tons of it. The only problem is that people like you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you on your brilliantly blistered, brazenly boot beaten, brutalized, Baboon butts. oops sorry, its just that I can't help but
to be appropriately outraged when confronting the completely outrageous. Before you reply unjustifiably incensed, go find any & all material, video or text, thats presented as science by the Intelligent Design scientists & bring back for me even one little shred of religion from their presentation. I've already provided some of Evolution's religious, Pagan tales above. When you look, if you're really honest with yourself, you'll even find that scientists like Guillermo Gonzales & his associate
Mr. Richards have done scientific work that when compared to most anything in modern times, is a throwback to the scientific heroes of the golden age. Such have been their many discoveries in Cosmology. If the Galileos, Keplers, Copernicus' & Newtons were around today, you Apes are so lost that you don't even know that they too would be EXPELLED, precisely as was Dr. Gonzales. The Evo lunacy is evidenced in the fact that NASA doesn't have time for silly monkey politics, thus they consulted him
He better hope I don't make space for a Grand Piano & find out that his wife isn't well matched to his appearance because otherwise, they'll be mine. It's not wise to make predeterminations that are dictated by your desires of what you want the truth to be & then think that your predetermination will magically make what you desire into actual fact.... especially if your going to wager your Grand & your wife... keep the legs!
@Chuichupachichi Feel free to satisfy any of his requests to win the grand prize! If after 40 years, you still can't provide, you may have wasted your life.
Plus, this song was not about predeterminations. It was merely a conditional. If you can provide X, I'll return in kind with Y.
I don't have to waste my life, there exist plenty of cretins like you to do that for me. Allow me to explain yours & the Piano guy's cretinism. You guys mix together Psychics, Astrologers & all kinds of others of your teammates with Christianity. However, a Christian agrees with you on your position regarding those others, for the same reasons that you also are out to lunch. What you people can't understand is that there exist 2 things; 1) people who are correct & that have
integrity & 2) people that are wrong & cling to it stubbornly. You people are no. 2's. The science that refutes Evolution, from Cosmological Evolution to Biological Evolution has been presented repeatedly but in your stubbornness you cling to your predeterminations. Unless Cosmological Evolution can occur, then Biological Evolution can't. Explain the plausibility of Cosmological Evolution, in light of Entropy. Your extreme stubbornness is the only thing that has prevented you from realizing that
the very definition of the word "Evolution" is diametrically opposed to the reality of Entropy. You don't realize the extent of the pervasiveness of Entropy. Also, it is the most repeatedly validated natural law known to science. Life is indeed a special thing. In all the universe, only life is known to have the ability to overcome Entropy, even if only temporarily... before succumbing to its effect. Non living matter has not that ability & its the reason why Abiogenesis is undeniably absolutely
implausible. The Atheist uprising of recent years in which an all out assault against God has been launched, has been completely based upon the delusion that true science is on your side. The only true reason why Atheists have been so anti-scientifically stubborn is because once their little Evolution fantasy is over, the only thing remaining is Creationism. Theory of Evolution has already incorporated everything other than Creationism. Therefor, this sound refutation of Evolution, by default
proves Creationism because its the only thing left. Besides, there's no use in even attempting to prove God to stubbornly wrongful people because of 2 things; 1) The pure science from the Intelligent Design people has already done that & the stubborn simply dismiss it. 2) Stubborn people do things like set up a pretext in which their opponent is limited to having to lose... automatically. Atheists ask for proof of God's existence. But by definition, God is supernatural & atheists demand proof
through a naturalistic system. They demand a material "smoking gun". However, never do Atheists realize this fallacy, due to cretinism. Even Dawkins admits to the fact that science has limitations to its applicability. Only an imbecile would deny that. But the materialist has concluded that the entirety of existence or reality is determined by the limitations of science. Thats a closed minded & unintelligent conclusion. Piano man can keep his wife, thats against my morals. Atheists predetermined
@Chuichupachichi *yawn* So you accept that, despite the Almighty being all powerful and "in fact" sending Jesus down to perform miracles, etc, that religion can't be proven because it's supernatural, which you interpret to mean that rather than being merely outside of nature's ability to produce its existence, it cannot be detected in any capacity wrought by nature. And so I reiterate Jesus as a counter-example to your counter-intuitive and flawed logic.
Right off the bat you produced a straw man. I didn't say religion cant be proved because its supernatural. I said atheists demand material evidence to prove God who is supernatural & immaterial. Your predetermination demands that you misinterpret my words because if you interpret them correctly, you lose. Therefor, your own mind deceives you as you hide your little trick from yourself. Another straw man - I never said that God cannot be detected in any capacity wrought by nature
To the contrary, I said that Intelligent Design scientists have presented the science that proves there must be an intelligence that designed nature. See how you play tricks on yourself? Your first 2 points were both straw men. You have to avoid the reality of my words because you can't defeat them. Thus, you manufacture your own arguments on my behalf. Quite difficult to lose that way, isn't it? But you're not even aware of doing it because subscribing to falsehoods produces unintelligent minds
@Chuichupachichi So who cares if he's supernatural? He can easily be material as well as immaterial. He is your all powerful. He did it before, necessarily. He directly intervened with man to say he exists and this is what he wants and tablets and commandments, yadda, yadda, yadda. And if this is not the case, then guess what? The entire existence of religion was passed down by *gasp* some douche bag who just made it up and fed it to the willing.
@Chuichupachichi Intelligent Design scientists haven't proven ID. This is your predetermination, based on anything but reality. And if you have nothing else of substance to contribute to the conversation (excluding your philosophical nonsense), save it for the impressionable kiddies you can later connect with.
Go find me 1 little shred of religion within any material, text or video, thats presented as science by Intelligent Design scientists. Do you know why atheists have claimed that its religion? Because they have indeed detected God when examining the material from ID scientists... in the results! ha ha ha ha, then the dummies go crying; "its religion, its religion".
@Chuichupachichi Lol, sure they've detected God. Haha. Or, they haven't. If they have, they can recreate it. That's the beauty of science. Or at least, they can document it. They haven't done that either. How old are you, 15? Science uses reproducible experiments with verifiable results, not conjecture and anecdotes. Go back to the playground and play in the dirt. Leave the big leagues to the grown ups.
"the big leagues", huh? Its funny how atheists always demonstrate their extraordinarily sound reasoning from making it obvious that they believe to possess a fantastic scientific prowess because its automatically inherent to Atheism. Pay attention, Cornelius Poindexter, recess is over. It can be reasonably determined that since you failed to retrieve even 1 shred of religion from ID science, that indeed, ID science does not contain any religion. Are you paying attention? Thats
step 1 in a sequential, ordered pattern of thinking. In other words, a methodical thought process. Step 2 - Thus, what they present must be pure science. 3 - Therefor, it must have outcome results. Atheists are unaware of their own discrepancy in accepting "inference" as legitimate science when the subject of inquiry is not relative to, or makes no implications to the God issue. But will reject inference when its implication is indeed God. Thats the story with ID science, its outcome results
implicitly infer the existence of God. Many atheists recognize this but because to them, God means religion, they then dismiss it as non scientific due to having detected God/religion. Then the next day, atheists brilliantly go back to saying; "if you can provide scientific evidence for the existence of God, then we'll believe". To which the knowledgeable man replies; "no you won't, stop lying to yourself". Your sarcasm is ironic, as if ancestral bacterial forebears have been detected, recreated
or documented. You say "thats the beauty of science". But if you only knew its beauty, you'd realize that listening to or reading the words of the evolutionist, dull fiction story tellers, is boring. The beauty of science is in the excitement of the discovery of new, truthfully factual knowledge. If its going to be fiction, then you've gotta make it zesty & spice it up. You can see my blog for examples.
@Chuichupachichi Haha. Congrats on the most self-absorbed, irrelevant dribble posted on youtube. But you're wrong on so many levels that I shall not indulge your further mindless rants. But to refute a few points here, "It can be reasonably determined that since you failed to retrieve even 1 shred of religion from ID science, that indeed, ID science does not contain any religion." ID explicitly refers to God as the intelligent designer. And your step 2 is pure bullshit. You'd have to know what
@Chuichupachichi science was to be qualified to make a statement like that. There is nothing scientific about inferring a non-existent being. And necessarily so. It doesn't exist. All you have are irrelevant, creationist talking points. There is no evidence for your god. Or the jewish god. Or muslim god. Or any other. Though feel free to worship any voice you may hear in your head. And let's hope that can bring some peace should you recognize everything you believed in was a lie. Best of luck.
@Chuichupachichi Unless you don't believe in him and the entirety of the Bible and Torah.
And even if you dismiss Jesus, an all powerful God surely has the capacity to intervene directly into our lives, if He wanted to. In such a way as to be painfully obvious to His favorite subjects and prized possessions. Cosmological evolution does occur. Unless it is your position that the stars and planets are fixed and static in their positions and lives, both of which have been proven false.
Why would anyone dismiss Jesus? You don't even possess the ability to debate correctly, thus far, failing to address any of my points directly. Much less would you stand a remote chance of refuting the man whom held the record as the lawyer with the most wins & no loses. He never lost a trial because he truly possessed a special gift for presenting the truth convincingly. He was an atheist & had grown tired of hearing all the talk about Jesus. Thus, being aware of his own
ability to defeat falsehoods, he decided to put an end to Christianity once & for all. He thoroughly researched to gather the information with which to build his case. ha ha, he became converted, saying that there is no figure in all of ancient history for whom there is more evidence than Jesus & his resurrection. Would you care to argue against him? Ha, you don't even know how to begin. Lawyers with real arguments couldn't cut it against him, much less a diatribe of straw men. Sure enough, your
next supposed argument is yet another straw man. You're pathetic, do you know that? My position is that Entropy causes the implausibility of Cosmological Evolution. Not celestial bodies that are fixed & static. Guess why you even had to mention that? Because its easy to win when you can manufacture your opponents arguments. In fact, a static universe has come into retro fashion again with many desperate atheists. That went out way back with Einstein & Hubble
@Chuichupachichi Great! You don't dismiss Jesus. Thus God directly intervened in our lives once before, and easily can again. Yet has never done so. Just wanted to make that point clear, since you're having a tough time of it.
And yes, absolutely I'd care to argue against your imaginary lawyer expert what's-his-face. Or rather, who cares? He hasn't proven anything either. But thanks for using some anonymous anecdote to prove God's real? My, my, you're quite the astute lawyer yourself!
@Chuichupachichi If that's your position, it's already been proven that the universe is expanding, that planets are being born, and die, and that stars do the same. So what's your unique definition of cosmological evolution? I thought I addressed this head on.
Cosmological Evolution doesn't occur simply because you assert that it does. Thats another extremely common form of a non argument amongst atheists... unsupported, unexplained "mere assertions". In fact, I find thats its an extremely rare day when an atheist Evolutionist actually presents a legitimate argument with a supportive explanation. But I still refute them. You have to actually explain in scientifically plausible terms how Cosmological Evolution can occur in light of Entropy.
@Chuichupachichi Gravity doesn't happen because I assert that it does, either. The converse is also true. It doesn't not happen because I haven't provided an explanation for it. In fact, all of the laws of nature occur with or without my explanations of them. I did clearly state that gravity can overcome a listless general sense of entropy. If you have a big mass of space dust/matter out in space, in time, it aggregates through the forces of gravity. Hey! Are you getting this? HELLO, MCFLY.
@Canaanabolaanan " If you have a big mass of space dust/matter out in space, in time, it aggregates through the forces of gravity. Hey! Are you getting this?"
Whilst the guy you were arguing with is clearly mentally ill in some way (the undefined ranting, without a logical track to it, shows this), what you said here isn't really accurate. Accretion is only due to gravity in it's latter stages. What causes aggregation of "space dust" is actually a mixture of things, including electromagnetism
@LordProfBear Well, but wouldn't electromagnetism have a stronger effect in close proximity? At larger distances, I think gravity is the dominant force, no?
@Canaanabolaanan But when we are talking about the sort of "dust" you refer to, I think you are talking about protoplanetary discs and the like. In such formations, there tends to be a density of material which enables electromagnetic attraction (as well as simple "sticking together" after collisions) over shorter distances. The trouble is that the relative uniformity of the initial distribution, and lack of significant mass at any single point, means gravity is negligible in the early stages.
@LordProfBear Once larger masses have formed out of the "dust", by non-gravitational means, then gravity beings to come into play due to the concentrated masses which are now extant.
@Chuichupachichi And biological evolution is independent of the life and death of planets or stars, anyways (assuming some deity already had the planets in place). A cell does not require supernovas to divide. So your premise is faulty. Otherwise, yes. Biological evolution did require the big bang to explode matter away from its core, or at least some dispersal of matter.
It is critical to note that entropy increases universally in open systems. Closed systems may experience a decrease in
@Chuichupachichi "Only life is known to have the ability to overcome entropy." = Patently wrong. A gas cooling to a liquid
overcomes entropy, so your categorical argument against abiogenisis is also stubbornly incorrect. Points for the
irony, though. It's also an arrogant assumption that the only theory possible outside of evolution is creation. And mere denial of one theory is not proof of another. A lack of imagination about what the universe is capable of does not prove the existence of
can i just say that ^ that up there is all completely wrong
pyroelectricitydeyn 1 week ago
@pyroelectricitydeyn
You are beautiful.
Meansofviewing 2 days ago
Want a free grand piano?
Yes.
Too bad.
ProphetOfTheTeapot 2 weeks ago
"if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out"
a quote also made famous by other people like richard dawkins and carl sagan, one of whom probably wrote the book that tim admits he read it in.
gavsmith1980 4 months ago
I cant prove any of that. but i would want to just for the piano. he can keep the leg and girl.
lonewolf975 5 months ago
I wonder if anyone has decided that the prospect of obtaining Tim's piano, his leg and his wife are substantial reward for spending the rest of their life trying to prove psychics can read minds, astrologers can predict the future, homeopathy works or that there is an afterlife to him...
One man's treasure I guess... :)
soulofthetube 6 months ago 4
Way to own, Tim. Way to own.
xDroflmao1337 8 months ago
@lordyon13 I would like you to explain your hypothesis on evolution and eyes. send it to godspianist4life AT YAHOO.com
nebulousJames12345 8 months ago
@narutofan9999 Actually there is no way you could even say that "You can be relatively sure to get at least a handful of PCs that have OS'es at the end of the experiment". Filling a hard drive with 1's and 0's randomly(despite the number of computers doing it for whatever time) would statistically never make an operable operating system. Where did our hormones come from? How did our eyes evolve. perhaps it was evolution...or micro evolution to perfect it. But your metaphor failed.
nebulousJames12345 8 months ago
@nebulousJames12345
You're making a very fundamental flaw here. Machines are not capable of reproduction and are not under any pressure to improve, unlike say, all life on the planet. Eyes are one of the easiest things to explain in terms of evolution, if you'd like i can go into it if you'd like- I'll run out of characters in this post tho.
LordYon13 8 months ago
If you are rational, and want to believe true things over false things, you will reject all claims until evidence is presented. So "X exists" and "X does not exist" should both be rejected if there is no evidence regarding X.
At which point, I will use rules such as occam's razor to select a belief that would require the fewest and least drastic assumptions. If both require sizable assumptions, I will simply not take a belief. But beliefs that I form in this method will be agnostic beliefs.
ug333 9 months ago
Stralya2000
The reason I like this song is because it's funny. If you try to read to deeply into it then you're just taking it's comedic value away from it and turning yourself into a pedantic weird dude.
SingingIrish 10 months ago
@SingingIrish, The whole point of the video is to make people think about their deeply held erroneous beliefs and Tim does this through humour. I posted it because of that very reason. I'm sorry you've missed the point.
Stralya2000 10 months ago 23
@Stralya2000 i think with comedy there, it gives room to just have fun with it. these are tim's views and that's fine. some might agree, some might disagree. it doesn't really matter. it's funny. it seems a little patronizing to say that "i'm sorry you've missed the point" in regards to @singingirish's comment. why can't people simply enjoy it for the humor? i know you posted up this video for your own reasons, but can't people just enjoy a comedian rather than looking for a bigger meaning?
lephong 9 months ago
@lephong I don't know how anyone can watch the clip and not get the point. Tim wrote this for those with deeply held religious beliefs. He's the one being the philosopher here, not me. It's not patronising to suggest I'm sorry if someone misses the point. Tim is a comedian first and a philosopher second, some might say it's the other way around but the comedy and the philosophy are inexorably linked and that should be obvious.
Stralya2000 9 months ago 12
@Stralya2000 it just seems really that ur comment was patronizing like saying, " i'm sorry u're such an idiot for not understanding" i think people get the point of the song. it's just they don't take it so seriously as you do. yes, audiences get that he's criticizing it, but he's having a bit of fun with the piano and his comedic timing lets people enjoy for comedy sake. not everyone is going to react the same way.some just want to laugh rather than analyze it. that's life and that's fine
lephong 9 months ago
@SingingIrish hey SingingIrish, you didn't get it, and you don't get stand-up, but it's fine, i'm sure lots of people don't but can still appreciate it. you're an idiot though.
dotchoo 10 months ago
@SingingIrish lol you obviously do not understand the work of tim minchin
xXguitardude9Xx 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, it's not, it's horribly writtin.
Mirata87 10 months ago
@Mirata87 writtin? Can you spell 'irony'?
Stralya2000 10 months ago 71
@Stralya2000 You, my friend are an incredibly witty person! :D
Dapheonixy123 2 months ago
@Mirata87 /retard
select899 6 months ago
@Mirata87 WHAAAATTTT THEEE FECKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!
rubbishrider861 2 months ago
Hahaha...Trolls.. I'm reading the bible. It's a good book, if you read it like a novel....
OriginalRatoly 11 months ago
@OriginalRatoly
I don't know, I stopped half way because of the unrealistic character developments and the many, many plot inconsistencies.
narutofan9999 10 months ago
Love this song, but loving the trolls more.
Seriously, philosophical and religious debate on YouTube? Now I know the invisible pink unicorn exists...
paragonpoint1 11 months ago
this looks like a good place to troll :D
Eletromanisme 11 months ago
one interesting thing regarding the cant prove a negative thing: before the popular phrase "when pigs fly" came into use, there was another phrase in its place that meant the same thing, which was "when swans turn black" or similar to that. Because as everyone "knew", all swans are white. Then they discovered Australia and a species of black swans that live there.... not that I think we'll discover a species of flying pigs though... or God...
GroovingPict 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The only thing I hate about most people who don't believe in god (I'm not terribly religious) they can say "Well feel free to provide any logical proof of the existence of god", BUT try and prove he doesn't exist?"
so you hate that about most people who don't believe in god, what about the other people who don't believe in god?
flamingemuemu 1 year ago
*insert overly philosophical response to a fairly amusing song here*
PandaEff 1 year ago 29
lol and my wife
hhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaha
ilikegaming 1 year ago
this is called take my wife
ADHMUFC 1 year ago
and my wife.....ting!
orr89 1 year ago 2
Finally a good reason to search for God.
JallenMeodia 1 year ago 2
LOL Nothing else to say...
daeamarth 1 year ago
this guy has many lovers among the skeptics who wish tehir penis was in his asshole. too bad he doesn't have any credible qualifications.
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1 What 'credible qualifications' does he need? He's offering a free grand piano to anyone who can provide what he's looking for. Can you?
Stralya2000 1 year ago
@Stralya2000 well his disclaimer sounds a little long so something tells me he's more interested in making a statement than looking at the evidence. if he was interested in looking at the evidence he wouldn't have done `performing art's. he's a `amazing randi' clone, lol.
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1 Who cares? Is he wrong? Can you fault him at all? I mean you may not want a free piano or his leg but his wife is pretty hot!!
Stralya2000 1 year ago
@Stralya2000 i had skeptics telling me that `anything written in a book' is not evidence so somehow i don't think they have any research skills, don't u?
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1 Anything written in a book isn't proof in and of itself but it may be evidence and if enough evidence is gathered then tested and found to be sound scientifically then you have proof.
Stralya2000 1 year ago
@Stralya2000 He only wants proof from nature journal. If it's not in nature journal is he gonna accept it? Cos there is heaps of proof in other journals. The top journals are very conservative. Also, his offer tends to suggest he is prejudiced against the existance of proof. Hardly the mark of an exploratory mind.
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1 Where did he mention nature journals? What other journals contain the proof he's looking for? If he is prejudiced against the existence of proof, all anyone needs to do is prove him wrong and you'll have a free piano!
Stralya2000 1 year ago
@Stralya2000 i mean the journal `nature'. usually when i gave skeptics proof they said the journal was unknown or too old or whatever. anyway i don't know what he wants proof for cos his disclaimer is longer than the contract on my used car.
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1
At least the "disclaimer" is precise and relatively well-defined. Compare that to the usual religious shifting goalposts!
MsCoralline 1 year ago
@MsCoralline yeah it's so well defined no-one can decipher it! the fact he wants his leg taken off doesn't sound like he is very open to inquiries either!
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1 So you insult people in a way that assumes that homosexuality is a bad thing? Good way to show that religious fanatics are being progressive, accepting, or anything else they claim to be other than faithful in the invisible. You pesky religious fanatic, you. :)
meshumekha 1 year ago
@meshumekha I'm not religious. I am satanist. I am Lucifer. It's fine to be homo. Hell they don't have to put up too much with women.
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1 Satanism isn't a religion?
meshumekha 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The only thing I hate about most people who don't believe in god (I'm not terribly religious) they can say "Well feel free to provide any logical proof of the existence of god", BUT try and prove he doesn't exist?
Good song Tim :D Muy Clevaarrr!!!
evilalexdude 1 year ago
@evilalexdude, it's not possible to prove anything dosen't exist. The burden of proof always falls on those making the claim.
Stralya2000 1 year ago 95
@Stralya2000 Wrong. It was quite simple for people to prove that phlogiston didn't exist. What people called 'phlogiston' was simply absence of oxygen.
It is quite simple to prove that a hole in the centre of my forehead doesn't exist - I can't stick my fingers in it to poke my brain.
Proving something doesn't exist is the basis of a perfectly valid scientific process called "Proof through Disproof", where you prove something is true because the converse isn't
Redlehk 1 year ago
@Redlehk So what you're saying is that the fact that there is no evidence of a hole in the middle of your forehead is proof that there is no hole in the middle of your forehead? Now try a fun game and replace the words "a hole in the middle of your forehead" with "God." Hmmmmmm, you're right that does work.
DarthStumpy 1 year ago
@DarthStumpy Actually, what I'm saying is that the fact that there is evidence that there is not a hole in the middle of my forehead is proof that there isn't a hole in the middle of my forehead.
By proving the existence of something (a forehead without a hole) that is mutually exclusive to something else (a forehead with a hole) you can prove the non-existence of that something else, since only one of the two can exist (hence, mutually exclusive)
It's called "Logic". You might want some.
Redlehk 1 year ago
@Redlehk
I can prove that a giant (visible) pink pig doesn't sit in MY toilet, but I can not prove that nowhere in the universe there is NOT some giant pink pig in anyone's toilet. There is a difference in conditions. You have not proven a negative when you say "there are no holes on my forehead", you have proven a positive and deducted the logical impossibility of a negative.
narutofan9999 10 months ago
@narutofan9999 Which is, exactly as stated above, the mathematical concept known as "Proof by disproof". If A implies !B, then proving A also proves !B. Likewise, proving B proves !A.
You're just using a narrower definition of 'proof' than the actual scientific and mathematical term is. For example, to prove 2+2 != 5, all you have to do is add 2+2, to get 4. But, by your argument, that isn't proof enough?
Redlehk 10 months ago
@Redlehk
For such a "disproof", you need a very clear and narrow definition of the subject. For example, it is by all means available to humans impossible to disprove "dragons exist" - that doesn't mean that dragons exist though. The whole thing would of course work if you narrowed it down to "15 feet tall dragons are in front of the white house", which you can proof by just checking, or "15 feet tall dragons live in my pocket" which is a logical impossibility.
narutofan9999 10 months ago
@narutofan9999 First, the argument was "It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist", which I effortlessly disproved. Secondly, in order to prove or disprove anything, you have to lay down parameters to define it - or I could say "Aksufbi exist", without explaining what an "Aksufbus" is, making it impossible to define either way.
Thirdly, the Komodo Dragon does exist :)
Redlehk 10 months ago
@Redlehk
You seem to miss the point here. You didn't disprove anything, proving a negative can only be done through logical impossibility, for example with a positive that is mutually exclusive with the negative. For example, I >>could<< disprove the existence of the judeo-christian god if we would set a condition such as "If the judeo-christian god exists, the bible does not contain any contradictionary statements". Then I would just have to find a single contradictionary statement.
narutofan9999 10 months ago
@narutofan9999 I disproved the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, by proving that they CANNOT exist. That is a perfectly valid use of logic.
The condition used has to follow logical premise, as well as the statements - any text that was originally passed down by word-of-mouth is liable to pick up contradictions and inaccuracies through the fallibility of memory. Ever played "Chinese Whispers"? Now, imagine the game going on for decades. So, your condition is invalid.
Redlehk 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 Narrow definitions can only disprove narrow statements. I have not claimed otherwise. However, I am arguing that you need a clear, undeniable, definition of something before you can prove or disprove it, and that it is possible to prove that something doesn't exist.
I fight here, neither for Religion or Atheism, but rather for the purity of unfettered logic. ^__^
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
No, what I am saying is that while theoretically it is possible to prove that something doesn't exist, in praxis there are only a few things for which this actually works.For example, in math it always works, and disproving things that are impossible (like a perpetuum mobile) always works,but disproving the existence of something that COULD exist is practically impossible unless it is extremely narrowly defined.Therefore,in the context it is right to say proving a negative doesn't work
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 I never said it was an appropriate way to go about the argument of God's existence. All I have tried to do in the comments in this video is show that it is, under various circumstances, possible to prove that something doesn't exist.
So, whilst you can't say "it won't/doesn't work", you can certainly say that "it isn't a feasible solution" in a given context. But, likewise, lack of proof of the existence or otherwise of something is not, in and of itself, proof of the converse.
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Not proof, but evidence. If one is unable to find proof or even evidence for the existence of something, then it is not unreasonable to assume it doesn't exist. Of course saying "You don't really know it doesn't exist" is not wrong per se, but asserting the nonexistence of something for which there is no proof, no evidence and not even so much as a hint for is not wrong. If such evidence ever shows up you can still correct your stance, but it's not very useful to remain in the state
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 And if there is no evidence of either position, then asserting either claim is equally both as valid and invalid, so people should just stop arguing about it - the choice is entirely up to each person
After all, you have no actual proof that anyone on YouTube that does not appear in a video on their channel is not simply an advanced AI ChatBot, or all just a mysterious conglomerate sharing the task of all the postings between each other, to proport the existence of other people.
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Such a position is not very useful. We are limited beings living in an imperfect world. If we would rely on the mathematical definition of truth all the time we couldn't call ANYTHING true. It's a well accepted practice that it requires evidence to accept a claim, not to reject it. You wouldn't expect me to justify my stance that unicorns don't exist with evidence either.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 Why ever not? From a genetic standpoint, a variant of deer with a single, central, horn is entirely feasible. Asides from the magical abilities that some - but, notably, not all - texts ascribe to Unicorns, it would fit the description.
And, I wasn't saying we should always USE the pure, mathematical, definitions, just always accept that they exist. As such, you can't claim "It's impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist" - only "It impractical in this instance to try to"
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk Unicorns, as in magical beings, not horned ponies. I thought that was clear, stop trying to avoid the subject. Again "Unicorns exist! No they don't. Why? Where is your proof that unicorns don't exist? Don't be so close-minded!" - who do you think has to provide evidence - the one making the claim, or the one rejecting the claim? PS: Impossible in praxis is what I said, not impractical. Just like storing infinite amounts of data is impossible in praxis, while it's possible in theory.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 You didn't define a Unicorn as being a magical being. In fact, you made no definition other than "Unicorn". I simply selected, from the variety of definitions available, one that was possible - and stated that I had discounted 'magical' definitions. As I said, clear definition is necessary for proof or disproof - it is easier to disprove a God who exists as a giant, visible, scarab who pushes the sun across the sky than an invisible, intangible being existing outside space&time
Redlehk 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 Also - rejecting a claim is actually the same as claiming the opposite. As such, both sides have to provide evidence. "Where's your evidence" is not sufficient argument for the converse.
P.S. You said that it was occasionally, but usually not, possible in praxis, rather than completely impossible. That is a fairly good definition of something "impractical", no?
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Universal nonexistence. That's what I mean with impossible. You can't prove the universal nonexistence of ANYTHING.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 Besides the "invisible pink unicorn" and "phlogiston" examples I gave earlier? How about I prove the non-existence of hydrogen-based lifeforms for you.
Hydrogen is capable of forming only one bond. As such, it is unable to form the complex branching patterns necessary to form the basis of an organism fulfilling the definitions of 'alive', or in fact anything complex enough to even be classed as an 'organism'. As such, hydrogen-based lifeforms are impossible, thus do not exist!
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
You already forgot that I said "Unless it is logically impossible" just a few comments earlier? I thought discussions worked on an incremental basis, I didn't know I had to emphasize every single point every single time.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 "@Redlehk Universal nonexistence. That's what I mean with impossible. You can't prove the universal nonexistence of ANYTHING."
That, WAS your previous post.
I'm sorry, it's just a bit hard to keep up with all your inconsistencies. Also, you said in the post you just referenced that proving the non-existence of something that is not Logically impossible is "practically impossible", not actually impossible. So, you were agreeing with me there that it's possible but impractical :p
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Would you please listen, and this time a bit more carefully:
Proving the nonexistence of something that is logically impossible: Always works.
Proving universal nonexistence that is not logically impossible: Never works. That is what I was saying all along and I quite honestly don't understand how you can not comprehend what I am saying. By practically impossible I mean that it is impossible in praxis, which means it's impossible but not due to theoretical restrictions.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 For starters, that's not what you've been saying all along - even if it was what you meant all along. As I said, definitions are important.
Now, as for proving that something doesn't exist anywhere, without actually using logical contradiction... Look up the Michaleson-Morley experiments. It proved the non-existence of "Ether" through the definition of Ether requiring that if it existed, then it would exist in Space and vacuums, then coming up with a way to observe it if it did
Redlehk 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 So, it goes something like this "If such a thing as W exists anywhere in the universe, I can observe it by doing X to get result Y. However, having done X I got result Z, not result Y. As such, W does not exist" Disproof through observation (or, rather, lack of)
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Such conditions can not be formulated for most objects though. For example, what would be an observation from which we could prove the nonexistence of leprechauns? We have decided that leprechauns don't exist because we've never seen any and because their existence would be inconsistent with how we perceive the world, but we've proven nothing. Besides, that is just rephrasing the logical impossibility thing I said earlier.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 I didn't say that it works for all situations. I simply gave an example that contradicted your statement - finding a single contradiction disproves something, as you said earlier.
And, if you call that "just rephrasing the logical impossibility thing", then you can use the same reasoning to say that ANY disproof, even non-universal, is a rephrased version of "the logical impossibility thing". Even proof that there is not a giant, visible, pink pig in your toilet.
Redlehk 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 And, to play by your own rules for a moment... Can you PROVE that there is no universal disproof that doesn't use logical impossibility?
Because, your own earlier arguments state that the claimant has to provide the proof (and the "can't disprove stuff" was the original claim, I simply attempted to refute it) and that people should not accept the claim until proof has been provided.
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Uh, are you trying to make a point or do you just want to act like a smartass? FYI: The universe is a pretty damn big place. And it's expanding. And then we also have no method to tell if there is something outside this universe. If something can not be determined impossible the only way I can think off to see whether it exists would be checking every single place it could exist in, which is, by all means humans have- and likely ever will have- access to impossible.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 The point I've been making is that this is a situation people can't use 'absolutes' for, and that all the people out here on the internet arguing are just spouting arguments that actual professional philosophers and theologians should realise are useless within about a year of studying their subject.
It's like watching a bunch of intellectual poseurs argue over whether or not "i" (or "j" for engineers) is greater or less than 1, while the pro's were solving Fermat's Last Theorem.
Redlehk 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 And, I suppose, I'm just trying to give logical reasons to move the 'goalposts' It started as "You can't expect us to provide proof God doesn't exist, because it's impossible to prove anything doesn't exist", and look how much progress we've made
Of course, there are also things that cannot (yet) be proven to exist, but are generally treated as if they do, such as the Higgs Boson, or Quantum Super-Strings. Super-Strings, in particular, are theoretically impossible to observe.
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
I would like to ask how YOU would go about disproving some magical invisible sentient being that is neither tied to space nor time.
Anyways: That it is generally impossible to disprove that something doesn't exist is certainly wrong. But I seriously can't imagine a method to disprove the christian god. And I don't see why I would want to do that anyways- no one's expecting me to disprove Amaterasu or Isis or Thor or Quetzacoatl- somehow, with those it's ok to just assume they're false.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 Well, to simultaneously disprove the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God(s?), you would simply have to disprove the early pre-Abrahamic sections of the Bible that require his existence - for example, disproving Genesis by proving the mutually exclusive theory of aibogenesis (as opposed to Evolution which doesn't contradict Genesis)
On the other hand, the Bible has proven to be fairly accurate in some respects, such as the parting of the Red Sea, or locating certain buildings' ruins
Redlehk 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 Of course, that wouldn't disprove the existence of powerful beings existing in more dimensions than ourselves, merely that none of them actually created all life on the planet. However, if you proved aibogenesis, then it should be possible to prove if humans were a product of it, rather than the creation of a God.
By that point, you would have proven that even if the God(s) of one (or possibly more) of the standard religions exists, then they are liars, and disproved religion.
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Just like the fact that bats aren't birds disproved anything? Or the fact that the earth isn't 6000 years old? Or the fact that all mammals evolved from a common ancestor rather than being created individually? Hardly. Once abiogenesis is complete, "god" will simply be pushed behind the big bang (which is, in fact, what most christians with a proper education already do), and it will come down to "well, life came naturally, but only because god WANTED it to happen".
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 1) Hebrew word used means "owners' of wings", but is usually (erroneously) translated as "birds". Blame the translators for the KJV
2) The word translated as "day" in Genesis, again, actually means something different - "period of time". Also, the 7 'days' of creation start an unspecified length of time after the Earth was said to be created - and is a list of a REcreation, after everything was made formless/chaotic and dark (same event that caused dinosaur extinction perhaps?)
Redlehk 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 3) Evolution of one species into another has never been proved or demonstrated, only specialisation of a species into multiple subspecies. Also, the Woese hypothesis (published in 1998, and validated in 2010) demonstrates the lack of any single common ancestor
Redlehk 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 (Although, in your defense, I think your confusion over the mammal ancestor is the evidence that all marine mammals are the same species, Cecatea, and thus share a single, land-based ancestor - but again, this is specialisation of subspecies, not development of new species)
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Apparently youtube did eat part of your comment. I have no idea what you were trying to say, but the tree structure of the evolution of mammals strongly indicates that there was a single ancestor species for all mammals. Again, I didn't see the first part of your comment so I don't know what you actually said, but I don't think I am "confused" on the subject. Besides, there may be errors in what I said earlier, but I don't see how it is relevant to the point made.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 The "although" part was a continuation on from "3)", which was about the Woese hypothesis - which, although being where the modern tree structure originates from, also discounts there actually being any single common ancestor, but rather a collection originally capable of interbreeding who passed genetic information horizontally, but eventually became specialised enough to no longer be able to interbreed
So, less of a "single common ancestor", more of a "common ancestral orgy" xD
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Well, the thing is the "although" comment is all I can see. The other comment you have probably made is not visible to me. And again, I don't see how that contributes to the point- I don't remember the topic being about biology. I am afraid if you want to talk about evolutionary biology you will have to talk to an evolutionary biologist - I am not and I am not planning to become one.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 Which is really strange, because I can see both of the other comments (First contains points 1 and 2, about the "bats not birds" and "YEC" parts, and the second containing point 3 about the "single common ancestor") They haven't ended up in the thread though, so try scrolling down further?
And, we can get off the biology talk if you like. I just brought up abiogenesis as part of demonstrating disproof, you had a couple of comments, but we both agree that it's unproven as of yet
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Unproven maybe, but from our current state of knowledge we can be relatively sure it's possible, and I consider it a lot more likely than some magical being popping out of nowhere, talking the world into existence, forming people from dirt, telling them not to eat fruit that makes them less dumb... you see where I am coming from?
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 Yeah. Random chemicals floating in a broth suddenly decide to start duplicating themselves, and somehow manage to not only come up with the idea of storing a different chemicals in a bag around themselves, but construct both the bag AND the special liquid to go inside it which suits their duplication desires perfectly.
I guess that by the same theory, we just need to leave a suitably overclocked PC on for long enough, without any formatting, and it'll devise it's own OS and bios
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Certainly not. Your wording already shows that you imply intelligence or direction into the system, which means you already look at it from the wrong angle. Aside from the fact that you compare a very rigid system (computer) with a dynamic and open system (the "real" world) - let's just have some fun with randomness (I would like you to remind you though that chemical systems are natural occurences following specific laws, not lotteries) - continuing....
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 *facepalms*
I'll try less sarcasm next time. But, the point I was trying to make was that you can reword a lot of things to sound ridiculous. It may make for good rhetoric, but it makes for bad practice
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
Well, for me it was merely a substitution of words that mean the same thing really. "God the heavenly father" may sound fancier than "magical sky daddy", but it means the same thing really. He does magic. He is in heaven. He is a father. Therefor, he is a magical sky daddy. That is an intentionally disrespectful way to word it, but it doesn't alter the message. And talking snakes ARE ridiculous, no matter what words you use to describe them.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@narutofan9999 The problem with that, though, is that it usually results in any semblance of rational thought being thrown out in favour of a flame war... Hence why, whichever point of view I take in any argument, I don't resort to doing that (you may have been able to tell I don't have much practice at it :-P)
Redlehk 9 months ago
@Redlehk
(continued) Take a hundred billion PCs. Over the course of 12 billion years, fill their hard drives with random values, attempt to run the data as an OS. If you got an OS, stop writing data to the PC. You can be relatively sure to get at least a handful of PCs that have OS'es at the end of the experiment. But again, randomness isn't so much of a factor in nature - formation of structures is a direct result of the properties of their parts, rather than random chance.
narutofan9999 9 months ago
@Stralya2000 i can prove oxygen doesn't exist in space ?
spadamon 1 year ago
@spadamon if you just mean "in void" then yes, because that's what "void" means, that's the definition of it. there's nothing. because it's ...void. but with spiritual stuff, it's a bit more complex, because you'd have to explain everything that exists before you can safely say that none of it is caused by supernatural forces. there is Occam's razor.it's a logical fallacy to think that God exists. so, logically you can prove that God isn't the cause of anything that can be explained differently.
dotchoo 10 months ago
@Stralya2000 I would add to that, "proof" itself isn't really possible.
As a philosophy teacher once said: "Instead of proof, consider that we are limited by word of mouth and circumstantial evidence. Everything is open to fraud".
A Religious teacher also said "There is only one thing you can absolutely prove, and only to one person. You exist unto yourself".
I think, therefore I need a kebab.
soulofthetube 6 months ago 2
@Stralya2000 the burden of proof lies on the science BEHIND the ones making the claim
xXguitardude9Xx 6 months ago
@xXguitardude9Xx or lack there of in some cases
JAB63096 5 months ago
@Stralya2000 You can using evidence of absence though.
OhManTFE 4 months ago
@evilalexdude It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything, ranging from God to Santa to invisible pink unicorns. If you claim any of these do exist, despite them not being observed in reality, you have to prove that they do, or your claim is invalid. Doesn't mean they certainly don't exist, just that we can assume they don't.
jursle 1 year ago 2
@jursle I can prove the non-existance of invisible pink unicorns in two statements and a conclusion.
Pink is a colour observable by the detection of light coming from an object to a viewing receptacle/organ. An invisible object by definition does not give any light for a viewing receptacle/organ to detect. Thus, an invisible pink unicorn is impossible
Redlehk 1 year ago 4
@evilalexdude would an all mighty, all power ful, all knowing, and all caring entity alow all the strife, suffering and death thats happening on earth? and if so, he isnt the god any preaches about becouse thats not merciful.
jontnay 1 year ago
@evilalexdude There is no need for proof of any kind, Knowing its true and believing its true are 2 different things. im not religious what so ever and i dont bother thinking bout stuff like proving he dont exist
AddictedtoTazers 1 year ago
@evilalexdude by that logic, you would have to believe in anything that has ever been claimed to be true.
sidsings000 1 year ago
@evilalexdude It's impossible to prove a negative. We also cannot prove that there are no invisible flying elephants, that doesn't mean we should assume they exist...
zxccvbnnnmasfdkjhjky 1 year ago
To the people who say arguing on Youtube is pointless; I disagree.
adraim69 1 year ago
if at first you don't succeed try try try again except when it comes to ppl getting serious about god on youtube lol its just a song get over it and yourself
BillF1985 1 year ago
@BillF1985 I really don't see what difference it makes which forum the discussion takes place. Conversations that take place online are as civil, constructive, and logically coherent as the people taking place in them. Sure, youtube is a place for videos of people getting hit in the balls and kittens falling asleep, but it's also a place for enlightening resources and Intellectual discourse. In other words, it's as smart as you make it... and I don't get impression you're raising the mean IQ.
adraim69 1 year ago
Guy's chill, it's only a song expressing somebody's veiws in an entertaining way. It's not the fucking debate of the century or anything
randomcheesecake555 1 year ago
'arguing on youtube is like the special olympics- even if you win, your still retarded.' especially when it comes to god. thats a retarded thing to argue about even when you arent on youtube.
invallidusername 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He better hope I don't make space for a Grand Piano & find out that his wife isn't well matched to his appearance because otherwise, they'll be mine. It's not wise to make predeterminations that are dictated by your desires of what you want the truth to be & then think that your predetermination will magically make what you desire into actual fact.... especially if your going to wager your Grand & your wife... keep the legs!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
He didn't limit it to empirical. He said "or logical". You'd be amazingly surprised at how much logic exists... especially when its something foreign & unbeknown to you. As is usually the case with atheists whom illogically believe that Logicmeister status & superb scientific prowess are atheistically automatically inherent
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Well feel free to provide any logical proof of the existence of god
Stralya2000 1 year ago 46
@Stralya2000
{feel free to provide any logical proof of the existence of god}
"Feel free"? For years I haven't felt free in any way except in my thinking because of atheist cretins like you. From pure hate towards the opposing view, do atheists commit crimes that destroy. Thats clearly evidenced simply from the many examples of persons who earned degrees & worked hard to have professional careers, simply to be EXPELLED by people so deluded that they think their genealogical heritage includes
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
ancestral bacterial forebears, believe in 4 legged whales & Tyrannosaurus Chicken. Please, somebody call the dog catchers before anymore sane people get hurt. Why provide you with anymore "proof" of God's existence, after PhD scientists from The Discovery Institute have already provided tons of it. The only problem is that people like you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you on your brilliantly blistered, brazenly boot beaten, brutalized, Baboon butts. oops sorry, its just that I can't help but
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
to be appropriately outraged when confronting the completely outrageous. Before you reply unjustifiably incensed, go find any & all material, video or text, thats presented as science by the Intelligent Design scientists & bring back for me even one little shred of religion from their presentation. I've already provided some of Evolution's religious, Pagan tales above. When you look, if you're really honest with yourself, you'll even find that scientists like Guillermo Gonzales & his associate
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Mr. Richards have done scientific work that when compared to most anything in modern times, is a throwback to the scientific heroes of the golden age. Such have been their many discoveries in Cosmology. If the Galileos, Keplers, Copernicus' & Newtons were around today, you Apes are so lost that you don't even know that they too would be EXPELLED, precisely as was Dr. Gonzales. The Evo lunacy is evidenced in the fact that NASA doesn't have time for silly monkey politics, thus they consulted him
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
He better hope I don't make space for a Grand Piano & find out that his wife isn't well matched to his appearance because otherwise, they'll be mine. It's not wise to make predeterminations that are dictated by your desires of what you want the truth to be & then think that your predetermination will magically make what you desire into actual fact.... especially if your going to wager your Grand & your wife... keep the legs!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Feel free to satisfy any of his requests to win the grand prize! If after 40 years, you still can't provide, you may have wasted your life.
Plus, this song was not about predeterminations. It was merely a conditional. If you can provide X, I'll return in kind with Y.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Canaanabolaanan
I don't have to waste my life, there exist plenty of cretins like you to do that for me. Allow me to explain yours & the Piano guy's cretinism. You guys mix together Psychics, Astrologers & all kinds of others of your teammates with Christianity. However, a Christian agrees with you on your position regarding those others, for the same reasons that you also are out to lunch. What you people can't understand is that there exist 2 things; 1) people who are correct & that have
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
integrity & 2) people that are wrong & cling to it stubbornly. You people are no. 2's. The science that refutes Evolution, from Cosmological Evolution to Biological Evolution has been presented repeatedly but in your stubbornness you cling to your predeterminations. Unless Cosmological Evolution can occur, then Biological Evolution can't. Explain the plausibility of Cosmological Evolution, in light of Entropy. Your extreme stubbornness is the only thing that has prevented you from realizing that
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
the very definition of the word "Evolution" is diametrically opposed to the reality of Entropy. You don't realize the extent of the pervasiveness of Entropy. Also, it is the most repeatedly validated natural law known to science. Life is indeed a special thing. In all the universe, only life is known to have the ability to overcome Entropy, even if only temporarily... before succumbing to its effect. Non living matter has not that ability & its the reason why Abiogenesis is undeniably absolutely
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
implausible. The Atheist uprising of recent years in which an all out assault against God has been launched, has been completely based upon the delusion that true science is on your side. The only true reason why Atheists have been so anti-scientifically stubborn is because once their little Evolution fantasy is over, the only thing remaining is Creationism. Theory of Evolution has already incorporated everything other than Creationism. Therefor, this sound refutation of Evolution, by default
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
proves Creationism because its the only thing left. Besides, there's no use in even attempting to prove God to stubbornly wrongful people because of 2 things; 1) The pure science from the Intelligent Design people has already done that & the stubborn simply dismiss it. 2) Stubborn people do things like set up a pretext in which their opponent is limited to having to lose... automatically. Atheists ask for proof of God's existence. But by definition, God is supernatural & atheists demand proof
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
through a naturalistic system. They demand a material "smoking gun". However, never do Atheists realize this fallacy, due to cretinism. Even Dawkins admits to the fact that science has limitations to its applicability. Only an imbecile would deny that. But the materialist has concluded that the entirety of existence or reality is determined by the limitations of science. Thats a closed minded & unintelligent conclusion. Piano man can keep his wife, thats against my morals. Atheists predetermined
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi *yawn* So you accept that, despite the Almighty being all powerful and "in fact" sending Jesus down to perform miracles, etc, that religion can't be proven because it's supernatural, which you interpret to mean that rather than being merely outside of nature's ability to produce its existence, it cannot be detected in any capacity wrought by nature. And so I reiterate Jesus as a counter-example to your counter-intuitive and flawed logic.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Canaanabolaanan
Right off the bat you produced a straw man. I didn't say religion cant be proved because its supernatural. I said atheists demand material evidence to prove God who is supernatural & immaterial. Your predetermination demands that you misinterpret my words because if you interpret them correctly, you lose. Therefor, your own mind deceives you as you hide your little trick from yourself. Another straw man - I never said that God cannot be detected in any capacity wrought by nature
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
To the contrary, I said that Intelligent Design scientists have presented the science that proves there must be an intelligence that designed nature. See how you play tricks on yourself? Your first 2 points were both straw men. You have to avoid the reality of my words because you can't defeat them. Thus, you manufacture your own arguments on my behalf. Quite difficult to lose that way, isn't it? But you're not even aware of doing it because subscribing to falsehoods produces unintelligent minds
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi So who cares if he's supernatural? He can easily be material as well as immaterial. He is your all powerful. He did it before, necessarily. He directly intervened with man to say he exists and this is what he wants and tablets and commandments, yadda, yadda, yadda. And if this is not the case, then guess what? The entire existence of religion was passed down by *gasp* some douche bag who just made it up and fed it to the willing.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Canaanabolaanan
{He directly intervened with man to say he exists}
Precisely! So what's the problem then?
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi 1) There's again, no proof. 2) If he did it once before, he could do it again. And doesn't. Big surprise.
Conclusion? No problem. No god.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Intelligent Design scientists haven't proven ID. This is your predetermination, based on anything but reality. And if you have nothing else of substance to contribute to the conversation (excluding your philosophical nonsense), save it for the impressionable kiddies you can later connect with.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Canaanabolaanan
Go find me 1 little shred of religion within any material, text or video, thats presented as science by Intelligent Design scientists. Do you know why atheists have claimed that its religion? Because they have indeed detected God when examining the material from ID scientists... in the results! ha ha ha ha, then the dummies go crying; "its religion, its religion".
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Lol, sure they've detected God. Haha. Or, they haven't. If they have, they can recreate it. That's the beauty of science. Or at least, they can document it. They haven't done that either. How old are you, 15? Science uses reproducible experiments with verifiable results, not conjecture and anecdotes. Go back to the playground and play in the dirt. Leave the big leagues to the grown ups.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Canaanabolaanan
"the big leagues", huh? Its funny how atheists always demonstrate their extraordinarily sound reasoning from making it obvious that they believe to possess a fantastic scientific prowess because its automatically inherent to Atheism. Pay attention, Cornelius Poindexter, recess is over. It can be reasonably determined that since you failed to retrieve even 1 shred of religion from ID science, that indeed, ID science does not contain any religion. Are you paying attention? Thats
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
step 1 in a sequential, ordered pattern of thinking. In other words, a methodical thought process. Step 2 - Thus, what they present must be pure science. 3 - Therefor, it must have outcome results. Atheists are unaware of their own discrepancy in accepting "inference" as legitimate science when the subject of inquiry is not relative to, or makes no implications to the God issue. But will reject inference when its implication is indeed God. Thats the story with ID science, its outcome results
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
implicitly infer the existence of God. Many atheists recognize this but because to them, God means religion, they then dismiss it as non scientific due to having detected God/religion. Then the next day, atheists brilliantly go back to saying; "if you can provide scientific evidence for the existence of God, then we'll believe". To which the knowledgeable man replies; "no you won't, stop lying to yourself". Your sarcasm is ironic, as if ancestral bacterial forebears have been detected, recreated
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
or documented. You say "thats the beauty of science". But if you only knew its beauty, you'd realize that listening to or reading the words of the evolutionist, dull fiction story tellers, is boring. The beauty of science is in the excitement of the discovery of new, truthfully factual knowledge. If its going to be fiction, then you've gotta make it zesty & spice it up. You can see my blog for examples.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Haha. Congrats on the most self-absorbed, irrelevant dribble posted on youtube. But you're wrong on so many levels that I shall not indulge your further mindless rants. But to refute a few points here, "It can be reasonably determined that since you failed to retrieve even 1 shred of religion from ID science, that indeed, ID science does not contain any religion." ID explicitly refers to God as the intelligent designer. And your step 2 is pure bullshit. You'd have to know what
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi science was to be qualified to make a statement like that. There is nothing scientific about inferring a non-existent being. And necessarily so. It doesn't exist. All you have are irrelevant, creationist talking points. There is no evidence for your god. Or the jewish god. Or muslim god. Or any other. Though feel free to worship any voice you may hear in your head. And let's hope that can bring some peace should you recognize everything you believed in was a lie. Best of luck.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Unless you don't believe in him and the entirety of the Bible and Torah.
And even if you dismiss Jesus, an all powerful God surely has the capacity to intervene directly into our lives, if He wanted to. In such a way as to be painfully obvious to His favorite subjects and prized possessions. Cosmological evolution does occur. Unless it is your position that the stars and planets are fixed and static in their positions and lives, both of which have been proven false.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Canaanabolaanan
Why would anyone dismiss Jesus? You don't even possess the ability to debate correctly, thus far, failing to address any of my points directly. Much less would you stand a remote chance of refuting the man whom held the record as the lawyer with the most wins & no loses. He never lost a trial because he truly possessed a special gift for presenting the truth convincingly. He was an atheist & had grown tired of hearing all the talk about Jesus. Thus, being aware of his own
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
ability to defeat falsehoods, he decided to put an end to Christianity once & for all. He thoroughly researched to gather the information with which to build his case. ha ha, he became converted, saying that there is no figure in all of ancient history for whom there is more evidence than Jesus & his resurrection. Would you care to argue against him? Ha, you don't even know how to begin. Lawyers with real arguments couldn't cut it against him, much less a diatribe of straw men. Sure enough, your
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
next supposed argument is yet another straw man. You're pathetic, do you know that? My position is that Entropy causes the implausibility of Cosmological Evolution. Not celestial bodies that are fixed & static. Guess why you even had to mention that? Because its easy to win when you can manufacture your opponents arguments. In fact, a static universe has come into retro fashion again with many desperate atheists. That went out way back with Einstein & Hubble
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Great! You don't dismiss Jesus. Thus God directly intervened in our lives once before, and easily can again. Yet has never done so. Just wanted to make that point clear, since you're having a tough time of it.
And yes, absolutely I'd care to argue against your imaginary lawyer expert what's-his-face. Or rather, who cares? He hasn't proven anything either. But thanks for using some anonymous anecdote to prove God's real? My, my, you're quite the astute lawyer yourself!
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi If that's your position, it's already been proven that the universe is expanding, that planets are being born, and die, and that stars do the same. So what's your unique definition of cosmological evolution? I thought I addressed this head on.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
Cosmological Evolution doesn't occur simply because you assert that it does. Thats another extremely common form of a non argument amongst atheists... unsupported, unexplained "mere assertions". In fact, I find thats its an extremely rare day when an atheist Evolutionist actually presents a legitimate argument with a supportive explanation. But I still refute them. You have to actually explain in scientifically plausible terms how Cosmological Evolution can occur in light of Entropy.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Gravity doesn't happen because I assert that it does, either. The converse is also true. It doesn't not happen because I haven't provided an explanation for it. In fact, all of the laws of nature occur with or without my explanations of them. I did clearly state that gravity can overcome a listless general sense of entropy. If you have a big mass of space dust/matter out in space, in time, it aggregates through the forces of gravity. Hey! Are you getting this? HELLO, MCFLY.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Canaanabolaanan " If you have a big mass of space dust/matter out in space, in time, it aggregates through the forces of gravity. Hey! Are you getting this?"
Whilst the guy you were arguing with is clearly mentally ill in some way (the undefined ranting, without a logical track to it, shows this), what you said here isn't really accurate. Accretion is only due to gravity in it's latter stages. What causes aggregation of "space dust" is actually a mixture of things, including electromagnetism
LordProfBear 1 year ago
@LordProfBear I'm not meaning that to be some kind of put-down or anything, it's just that I thought you'd be interested.
LordProfBear 1 year ago
@LordProfBear Well, but wouldn't electromagnetism have a stronger effect in close proximity? At larger distances, I think gravity is the dominant force, no?
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Canaanabolaanan But when we are talking about the sort of "dust" you refer to, I think you are talking about protoplanetary discs and the like. In such formations, there tends to be a density of material which enables electromagnetic attraction (as well as simple "sticking together" after collisions) over shorter distances. The trouble is that the relative uniformity of the initial distribution, and lack of significant mass at any single point, means gravity is negligible in the early stages.
LordProfBear 1 year ago
@LordProfBear Once larger masses have formed out of the "dust", by non-gravitational means, then gravity beings to come into play due to the concentrated masses which are now extant.
LordProfBear 1 year ago
@LordProfBear sorry "begins to come into play".
LordProfBear 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi And biological evolution is independent of the life and death of planets or stars, anyways (assuming some deity already had the planets in place). A cell does not require supernovas to divide. So your premise is faulty. Otherwise, yes. Biological evolution did require the big bang to explode matter away from its core, or at least some dispersal of matter.
It is critical to note that entropy increases universally in open systems. Closed systems may experience a decrease in
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi entropy. Consider how sediment floating in the ocean can settle and consolidate on the ocean floor.
Likewise, matter in space can aggregate over large periods of time, thanks to gravity, accumulating into asteroid
and planet structures. Entropy does not mean all particles simply repel each other at maximum force. Forces of
attraction may overcome a haphazard natural tendency towards disorder. So evolution and entropy are not mutually
exclusive, despite your best efforts.
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi "Only life is known to have the ability to overcome entropy." = Patently wrong. A gas cooling to a liquid
overcomes entropy, so your categorical argument against abiogenisis is also stubbornly incorrect. Points for the
irony, though. It's also an arrogant assumption that the only theory possible outside of evolution is creation. And mere denial of one theory is not proof of another. A lack of imagination about what the universe is capable of does not prove the existence of
Canaanabolaanan 1 year ago