@Byakamura Well, that's what a debate is; both sides believe they are right and that the other side is wrong. That's the whole point. It doesn't mean that both sides couldn't change their minds. It just means that each holds a view that they feel is right based on all of the information at hand. It's not self-righteous to hold a position on an issue.
And the Christians would say, "Well, God defies and transcends logic, as He is all-powerful and can do whatever he wants." It must be nice for them to have a set of beliefs that virtually CANNOT be challenged because there are infinite ways for them to explain any loophole. They CAN'T be wrong!! It's pretty sad that for such an intelligent species, so many of us let our astounding intellect go to waste.
@FM897 Empirical evidence is good for Science. But why should it be applied to one's own spirituality? Why is there such a fierce debate? Both sides are so pious both hardcore Athiests and Theists annoy me equally.
@Byakamura Well yeah, logic can't be applied to one's spirituality because spirituality defies logic. The debate is not over whether or not logic should be applied to spirituality; the debate is over if spirituality is justified at all. And if both sides annoy you, than don't listen to debates.
@Byakamura Thankyou. Science was hijacked by pure Materialism, and that faulty vision of reality sank us politically, beginning with Marxism. What is a donut without the hole ? We must have an antithetical void to anything we presume can conclude a full description of the world and it's reality . Since our senses are a limited range of knowledge, it is quite impossible to really know the full extent of the world. A "Sixth Sense" would require a whole new language to talk about it
You all keep looking at the table as shown in the video box, but only the artist will notice the empty space around the table and how that actually defines and designs the ultimate view of the object. It means that an objective view without the subjective realism of the voided area around the object, being bound together into a supernatural relationship,cannot have any meaning at all.If the Universe was simply all material, then against what
antithetical notion could it stand out to appear ?
In a dual approach, a stranger reality would be that the way you accept reality, because you have a sublime gift of Intelligence, is the
defining causality of what kind of world you end up existing in. In that, you choose if you want a higher intelligence as a guide and as a mentoring force, as a Father in Heaven, or you want to be alone in your thoughts about reality forever, if that is the potential of Life, to make such a quantum leap into a timeless void, beyond Materialistic limits.
the heart and soul of Atheism is the belief that knowledge has the better moral climate to advance humanity, than acting on Faith. Is that true, does the awareness of ultimate
truths make for a better human being ? If that is the scale upon which to weigh the evidence the entire debate goes in a new direction, than this one. For to do so, is to
release oneself from the burden of proof to know the answer before one takes the trip to whatever destination might lie ahead, void of all assumptions
Descarte was one of the greatest philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. And he was a great Atheist, until he finally reasoned that his own doubts about God existing was the key to proving God did exist. The reason is, if there was no God, the concept would not be so
troubling to the human mind in it's operation. But there it is, the trouble that makes one angry, and full of doubts ,all tied to one fact, God has not permitted the human mind to either know or escape
One major difference between Geology and Evolution is that we can make things look old and behave as old. Such as creating rocks and smelting metals, and reproducing environments. But we cannot Evolve Life and
we cannot create DNA. so one is a Science, Geology, and one is a Philosophy, Evolution. Evolution is a talking game, and nothing more. Mendelian Genetics without Evolution talking points can perform all the technology of Heredity and Medical Sciences ,and Technologies.
One can say "the answer is God" and not realize that there is at least two logical meanings out of this statement. God can be
existing after asking the question and finding
God . But the other way to see it, is that
whatever the answer is, that answer, whatever it is, it ends up having the value
applicable to "God." So the answer is God, can mean that the riddle being solved present the methodology, apart from finding the author of the methodology. The answer itself becomes God.
Many think that the concept of Zero has no meaning and so they conclude that it is the same thing as "nothing." No, it has another abstract meaning, of a set point in which direction can change. Such as going from positive numbers to negative numbers, yet one unit of measurable threshold must be negotiated, which is Zero. So in this case, Zero has no relative
direction, it is an axis between two realities, that can work with both and yet
have no substantial value materially speaking. Yes ?
You all come to an intellectual oversimplification that one cannot prove God, then the only answer is a materialistic
cause,even if that answer is not proven, but simply expected to be so,because the alternative of God has not been proven. So it is a type of double daring, either one has proof of God or you jump off the cliff, and reserve no judgment for any other purpose. Logic says it is also possible that no answer will ever be found,no matter how hard you look,you can't get there from here
Logic must say that when faced with the impossibility to know something, that one answer cannot suffice, no matter how it seems to be the best answer. And so logic
demands a duality of approach and avoidance for every likely explanation. If Materialists want to approach Science with just one Priori that denies the supernatural, then they are illogical. The fact that the plausibility of the unknown and unknowable factors do exist in abstract theory, must say that Naturalism cannot be alone.
Again, one man's logic is another man's riddle. A "Blind Trust" may be set up to benefit one or more persons over time, but those persons being benefited may never be able to know the identity of who had set up the Trust. If people can do such a thing, then logic says a Divine Creator by Intelligent Choice could do the very same thing. And if so, then logic says that a higher intelligence can thwart a lower level of intelligence from breaching a determined state of security.
One man's logic is another man's riddle. The most logical cause for life is an intelligent creator. The only problem is that
we cannot see such a thing. But the logic must ask, is there other realities that do concern the origins of the Universe that we also cannot see ? Yes ! The Voids in space contradict normal space by not permitting light to enter those vast places
dotting the Universe, where neither matter or energy exists. So this means that God
No one can prove what happened in the past. Evolution is a theory that by itself means it can never be witnessed, because it pertains to speak about what happened based on basic assumptions. If you have a materialistic belief that some magic exists yet inside of matter that we have not yet identified, then you have a priori to assume that mystery will be proven. But it may not be proven ,because we know too little to make such claims of Gnosticism.
the Universe is not entirely dependent on materialism being the essence. The Void of Space is not normal space, but a place where we found that normal space will not enter, but we don't know why, because without space entering the Voids, no light can propagate into the Void to permit us to see what the hell is there inside the Zones where matter and energy has never gone, while it had gone around these places. 11 million light years from us is a void of billion light years across, and empty !
If all there is to the Universe is various degrees of materialism , then it cannot expand ever. It takes a place that is first existing where matter was not before in that place, if matter is then going to expand into any place at all. You assume
that the room is available because there is nothing there. But something else is there in the empty place, causing the empty place to exist before the matter arrives to fill the empty place and become
regular space in outer space is a field of energy waves,that spread out into the known Void, that surrounded the Big Bang and took the same mass of the beginning of everything, and inflated it's design, so that the heavens were spread out from a small dot, to billions of light years across. And there are still known Voids empty of matter and energy, we measure them and on is billion light years across and only 11 light years away from us.There is proof then that Materialism did not make itself
Again, Material Reality is like empty balloons, mere particles without form and unable to ever take form. Particles cannot evolve into higher designs by themselves. what inflates particles by adding space inside their design, is Voids. A Void is empty of matter or energy, such that even light cannot propagate in that zone. This empty place, expands the particles to become atoms and increases the size greatly.This is how the Big Bang expanded,the Void entered the matter and raised it to space
He pictures the table on the canvas frame of the video window, The table cannot exist without the window presentation. That is hard to understand. The empty space around the table is needed or the table will not appear in reality. Paint in a jar is not Art, it takes a
Canvas to spread the paint onto, for designs to appear. God is then supernaturally existing voided space for all that is material to activate and expand and fill with voids to inflate like a balloon and become visible designs
It is simply that if Naturalism is going to be understood for what it really is, then the duality of matter to the empty void , where matter first expanded into is the second reality you take for granted and do not realize that without voided space, that normal space born of material, could not expand at all. You think reality has no boundaries and can take voids for granted and so you have not realized that the Zero
is not just nothing, but a supernatural concept that permits nature to exist
Again, an atom has a nucleus the size of a golg ball placed on second base at Yankee stadium, and the electrons would be as fireflies zooming around the upper decks. You materialists talk about the particles as if they design the atom, when it is the vast voided space inside the atom, that is the whole empty stadium needed for the atom to have space to become the design it is. Where did the empty space come from ? You take the supernatural void for granted,and you say you it does not matter.
Materialists cannot see the space around objects as the necessary reality to permit the design to be seen. Paint a red rose on a red
canvas and nothing can be seen of the design. So before you work with materials, you need an empty space. Where does the empty space for matter to expand out into , come from ? It is sold at
Walmart's ? If you cannot understand how the contrast of avoidance of matter is part of making matter stand out in design, then you cannot understand what I am saying.
there is no chemistry to life that explains anything at all. What materialists fail to see is that an object needs empty space around it to be the object. Thus the antithesis of the object must be available or the object is just full of itself and cannot contrast itself to existence as an entity. Such as water must be taken away from all the water and space given to see it. From underwater, water by itself cannot be seen at all. Thus the Universe must be buffered by the Supernatural Void.
there is alot of chemistry to anwsers many things like love and other things. most materialists like me understand that we can only tell you what something is at times by what it isn't. The rest i don't get what you're trying to say
Okay, go ahead and tell us by what property of chemistry that the DNA could come to life ? I will wait til hell freezes over for you to prove that . the material for a car sits in the earth and by the material itself, there would by no means ever be a car, Idiot !
all life is complxe chemistry when you take it down how the parts work. that's why plants only need the sun, soil, and co2 to live. some life need even less mostly things that are cell but life is nothing more than chemistry at it most basic level.if i miss understood the rest of what you were saying it from you sounding like you were high or something like to me
again you speak about materials and their quality, but the Earth has always held the quality materials to make a car or computer or a living being. But those materials cannot assemble by themselves. There is no magic in chemicals to ignite Intelligence toward a design. The best nature has is the atom.
And most of it is empty space. So the empty voided space rules over the material itself for Domination. That empty
void is the MInd of God to permit designs of matter to expand into it.
matter can come together to from thing all the time. the computer and car both need crystals to work. crystal grows on it own no help need only the right place and stuff to do it with, you don't understand the diff, of us using something in a way that uses what it already has and us making something completly new. you can't see nothing. that is why we look at what can be seen. the univers is everything we know there is nothing in the dimension it is growing in to. there are more than the 4
material reality cannot exist to form designs without empty space of the Void, to expand into. Matter without voided space inside itself
would collapse back into the infinite density
of the Big Bang, as it's primal state and as so can do nothing. This video opens with a table, but you forget the room around the table as the needed space for the table to exist. If the whole space was wood, then the table as wood inside wood would never be able to take a design. So supernatural voids exist.
Look Koko, if you only believe in Materialism, then you have nothing of the antithetical to materialism. But the Universe has the Antithetical to materialism called the
"Voids in Space." read about it. Without room, nothing material has a chance to open up into design. But you never think about the room you need for matter, you just take it for granted that space was available, and so matter expanded. But expanded into what ? Your theory is artistically invalid. Objects need space.
you really don't understand that the univers can grow as much as it likes do to it not have any thing to stop it in any way. In fact it has energy making it get bigger. you need to learn about what the univers we live in i really like so you can talk reason not you crazy talk of an old man who doesn't get it
that idea that there is nothing to stop it from expanding is false, proven false. The normal space cannot enter Voids, even light will not propagate into these regions. They are the opposite of black holes. The Universe has two existences,
one is seen as matter in the black holes and then the absolute Voids in which no matter or energy or light exists. But what is in the Void that contributed to the existence of the Universe. Enough to prove any Materialism as totally false on face value
what do you mean by "voids" if you mean it as something not part of our univers understandable something other i need you to tell me what you mean. the rest is crap to me if you would plz speak so a person can understand what you're saying
We have two extreme opposites in the world One is the infinite density of mass as in a black hole that appears like what was in the Big Bang. Then the other antithetical reality is the Void. When the Big Bang was about to expand. The Void was surrounding the infinite mass as the only thing available to mass to cause it to inflate with empty spaces, such as the empty space inside of atoms. The Voids in Space, you can google. They represent how a duality of natural to supernatural is real
i haven't seen in anything you've said that says god and never will if you keep using this you show no reason to think there is a god in any from or shap
a great philosopher of the age of Enlightenment said that God is what is ! The fact we talk about God and can't answer about the doubts we have on all sides is proof that God exists, but we cannot describe the essence of God. But the reality is there, if it is Blind or Sighted, or it is a Pink Panther, whatever it is , there it is, God. So we have God, but we cannot quantify God. It is like the number Zero, it has no substance, but there it is
you have not proven god in any way. by saying we can say what god mean i could be god and you wouldn't know it. that way of thinking doesn't get use any where. zero means something nothing so if god is like 0 then god = nothing doesn't that work with what you said we can't say what he is like you said. you are the irrational one if you can think like that
Every intelligent aspect of the Creation is an extension of God, whether we know God or just think about the concept. God and Life
is an exchangeable issue, if we are talking about the origins of LIfe and Creation. God and the Universe is exchangeable if we are talking about origins. So God is about Intelligent Origins that in the expression, has caused everything to exist and permit life to appear. The Theory of God is also then a theory, and it does not conclude to prove
here you go agen you said that you couldn't tell me what god is then you go and tell me what god is. you see the problem. if you can't test it then in any way at any time then you can't say its worth any thinking about. we can see it in many ways you are just stupid for not seeing them. most "materilistic" people or sane people don't you lieing fuck. you lie to yourself, me, and most likly others too. if you think just because you say more means you're right you're wrong
you have nothing of value but anger, and anger does not create intelligence. So you need an answer, no, you are demanding an answer and that is why you are angry. You
cannot accept that someone greater than yourself has pre-empted you own power to dictate the meaning of your life and has compelled you to be measured instead by the ability to act on faith, not knowledge. That is why you are angry, because you suspect God actually is, and you want to avoid dealing with Faith in your mind.
Materialists believe they have touched the divine, as matter, and that nothing is then
a mystery behind it's presence. So they who believe this, do not need science to cure diseases, no, they just need to poison the water and reduce the surplus population. In fact ,only the intellectual elite would need to survive, and after they have justified everything as chemistry, they claim they need not fear God and the grave they could not avoid anyway. So what the Hell ?
evaluated scientifically. If you think love is chemistry, you are on drugs. Love is an agreement of two minds to operate as one mind. So you can ask someone if they love you, but they cannot ever prove it
by materialistic explanations, unless they are hookers. As for proof of an irreducible
complexity, you can talk to yourself all you want, but if you refuse to listen, it does not function as logical !
no spoken like someone who knows that have found the chem. in the brain the is basicly the love chem. i think the relastionship between people is more than love
You have never experienced a table. You have experienced it's counterparts and labelled the configuration as "table". From that you can generalize features that, if fulfilled, will be considered a "table". Int his way, you have invented the idea of a table in your mind that does not exist. God can be thought of in the same way. One can generalize perfections of things in nature and combine them in a concept of God, just as Spinoza did.
Long story short: Science is not a cure-all for what is true and false. Just look and the large body of literature in the Philosophy of Science and this is evident. I hate this aspect of contemporary uber-atheists like yourself.
If you say that the concept of God is not falsifiable, you have the impossible burden to prove that it is not falsifiable. So many fallacies...
Then you have to ask what counts as a test for a theory... There are so many issues in the foundations of science. Science is definitely not synonymous with truth.
2) Agnosticism is a viable position. Hard atheism assumes a metaphysics for the beginning of the universe just as theism does.
3) You believe in "forces" even though they are mere products of human imagination with no reality.
4) A lot of people believe inconsistent/invalid arguments.
From one atheist to another: your reasoning is ridiculous.
1) Science does often work by making claims and then testing them, not by induction. That hasn't been the case since Francis Bacon. Also, induction would inevitably lead to making a generalization (which is a fallacy in the first place) and then deducing from that generalization. Therefore, the hypothetico-deductive method of science is unavoidable. Read Popper. It's that you can test a theory that makes it science.
Good points, however you are a little boring. Try speaking with a little more passion. You don't need to be freaking out or yelling or anything. You just need to sound like you are interested in your topic if you want other people to be interested in it.
Otherwise, like I said, a well built argument with sound reasoning.
language: A/THEIST have dialectical ideas about a concept called 'god' and debate its non/existence according to whatever terms they define. ie 'god is a purple unicorn on the moon' (no he/she/it isn't) or 'god is all powerfull' (no he/it can't bE) . GNOSTIC: has a direct experience of something often labelled 'god' - cannot prove it anymore that i can prove my subjective experience to you. AGNOSTIC - no such direct experience but unlike A/THEISTS cannot settle matter by dialectical reasoning.
i'm not a christian as such but as i understand some of the ideas of christianity are: love your neighbour, practice forgiveness and keep the golden rule- treat others as if they were yourself. Now that's a tough order and most of us fail to measure up to a greater or lesser degree. But i don't see how those are bad ideas even if you want to try and label them 'illogical' (Dr spock). Which 'christianity' are you actually looking at? its very trendy to like buddhism and dislike western relgion.
thanks, this is what i needed - if we found a horse with a horn on its forehead, even for some reason scared of yong women, does it mean that unicorn were real? Its not about the facts at all, mind this classic - anything couldnt come from nothing. Therefore there is god. Its hard to argue about thinking, but its needed. Its only obout thinking. Its about need of answers, any answers and the only solution is the pureness of critic mind that is not afraid of admiting not knowing.
ANY religion in the world (just any) wants you to understand something that let's say goes into a different world where are different rules of reasoning because i think that for all people material stuff is not in any way same as nonmaterial but althought its connected whith itself and everyone believing in something mention it that its not that easy to understand it People always thought the easiest way of all is'nt it true?
yeah most religious people are too idiotic to actually study this stuff. their brains can't take it. religous people are solid proof that we evolved from stupid creatures and some stayed stupid.
He who holds the shotgun sings the song. It seems inductive reasoning would not pass muster for you? Yet you use the reductio ad absurdum case for convenience. Hmm. Be Hard but then Be Hard. Does quantum theory pose any issues for you? Heisenburgs U.P.? You can't do both and yet these particles exist. ? Light particles, their nature.. The Singularity before the BB. That one thing alone, is more contradictory, more incredible and seemingly get the 'science' carte blanche. Peas..
Have you ever seen the human mind? Then why do you believe it exists? Because you haven't seen it and just read about it are you just going to stop believing in the human mind too??
God has proven himself. We exist, there must be a determination for existence to prevail over non existence, this determination belongs to God. Creation is of finite nature, thus needs a first cause, continual cause for it to exist, and a cause to make it end. This dependance is on God, it cannot depend on nothing for it to survive! For nothing gives rise to nothing, and if it depended on nothing than the world would be eternal which its not!
why do people insist on a reason for things? the universe and the singularity are not things that "force" god to exist. just because you don't understand or know does not mean the boogey man did it. you cannot disprove that singularities happen all the time in various dimensions just like i cannot disprove your god, therefor these things happen all the time. well following your logic at least.
You're a smart guy and I like your video's. Highly rational.
I'm agnostic, but the thing that bothers me is that I get more criticism from atheists than theists. I wish those fuckers would stop trying to 'convert' me.
I think their biggest problem is that they actually give a fuck. Well I don't, so I'm agnostic, period.
If you didn't "give a fuck", you wouldn't be driven to drama. Clearly you "give a fuck" about something. But what?
Atheists, by and large, "give a fuck" when specious premises are used to justify human oppression. Specifically the oppression of atheists, but generally they oppose all forms of theisticly justified oppression, whomever it may effect. You however, only care that you are being criticized.
This is how a child behaves. The problem, I'm afraid, is yours. Not atheists.
It would make sense if you were skeptical of the existence of a Deist truth, considering Deism is contingent to the availability of scientific evidence. However, if you were skeptical to whether Theist "truth" existed or not, then you would be considered not to be much different than a theist.
"Everything that is material is causal and measurable". I don't agree with that statement. The essence of freewill is dependent on non-causal properties - emergent properties. If you look into modern quantum mechanics, true randomness exists on a physicall level.
It's up to you to explain why you don't agree. You think freewill is just an illusion? What about modern quantum mechanics? The consensus amoung leaders in Quantum Mechanics is that TRUE randomness exists - outside of simple cause and effect. Not just observed randomness - but true indeterminacy.
No, it's not "up to me" to explain anything. You are the one posting on my video. And I didn't say anything about randomness- you brought that up, not me. Randomness has nothing to do with free will.
Yes it is up to you to explain why you dismiss a proposition that I make within a philosophical argument. If you are trying to engage in philosophy by posting this video you owe me reasons for dismissing what I say. And if you think randomness has nothing to do with freewill you haven't read what any of the leaders in the field have to say.
Assuming your god is real, how much value do you think he puts in faith based upon "hedging one's bets"? Isn't that the same as faking it and hoping he doesn't notice?
At the very least, your statement implies that one can CHOOSE what to believe. I don't see how volition plays any part. Either the evidence is compelling or it is not. I couldn't choose to believe in God any more than you could choose to believe in Santa. How then could a rightous god punish people for non-belief?
I like the vid, but man did see God. Originally, man saw the sun, etc. and knew they were gods because they brought life and were hanging in the heavens. The contemporary notion of God is a modified version of this pagan idea. Once we began to understand the nature of our world, we had to hide God and created faith. So he's not entirely fictional, we saw him in the beginning. But no, I don't believe in the contemporary notion of God.
I don't deny that. But based from my understanding of things, there was a reason for the creation of God. It wasn't the instantaneous belief in an abstract being. Basically, I refute the perspective that the first religion was born with the same perspective of God as contemporary religion holds. For evidence, consider the sun worship so prominent in pagan religions.
The real God would never require the sacrafice of life. God does not require virgins in volcanoes, nor sacrafice of Innocents, nor burnning of animals. And, let's stop removing foreskins in the name of God.
I am agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster, I don't know if he exists, what's wrong with saying that I don't know, I can't prove he doesn't exist?
more athiestic bullshit,not that religeos folks r any better
wild0hawk 1 year ago
@wild0hawk I agree both sides annoy me with their self righteous "I'm right you're wrong" attitude.
Byakamura 1 year ago
@Byakamura Well, that's what a debate is; both sides believe they are right and that the other side is wrong. That's the whole point. It doesn't mean that both sides couldn't change their minds. It just means that each holds a view that they feel is right based on all of the information at hand. It's not self-righteous to hold a position on an issue.
FM897 1 year ago
And the Christians would say, "Well, God defies and transcends logic, as He is all-powerful and can do whatever he wants." It must be nice for them to have a set of beliefs that virtually CANNOT be challenged because there are infinite ways for them to explain any loophole. They CAN'T be wrong!! It's pretty sad that for such an intelligent species, so many of us let our astounding intellect go to waste.
FM897 1 year ago
@FM897 Empirical evidence is good for Science. But why should it be applied to one's own spirituality? Why is there such a fierce debate? Both sides are so pious both hardcore Athiests and Theists annoy me equally.
Byakamura 1 year ago
@Byakamura Well yeah, logic can't be applied to one's spirituality because spirituality defies logic. The debate is not over whether or not logic should be applied to spirituality; the debate is over if spirituality is justified at all. And if both sides annoy you, than don't listen to debates.
FM897 1 year ago
And to keep making a parable of the spaghetti monster (oh I like my Ronzoni) is not logical. People are not obsessed by
food items. Nor are we obsessed with inert
vapors. Nor are we obsessed with a certain color. Nor are we obsessed with
being awake or asleep. We are obsessed with God,because our Brains are functioning in a mystery that cannot be
explained as mechanical. If we were mechanical, we would not have this problem with our imaginations suspecting something over the boundaries
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione Great response.
Byakamura 1 year ago
@Byakamura Thankyou. Science was hijacked by pure Materialism, and that faulty vision of reality sank us politically, beginning with Marxism. What is a donut without the hole ? We must have an antithetical void to anything we presume can conclude a full description of the world and it's reality . Since our senses are a limited range of knowledge, it is quite impossible to really know the full extent of the world. A "Sixth Sense" would require a whole new language to talk about it
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
You all keep looking at the table as shown in the video box, but only the artist will notice the empty space around the table and how that actually defines and designs the ultimate view of the object. It means that an objective view without the subjective realism of the voided area around the object, being bound together into a supernatural relationship,cannot have any meaning at all.If the Universe was simply all material, then against what
antithetical notion could it stand out to appear ?
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
In a dual approach, a stranger reality would be that the way you accept reality, because you have a sublime gift of Intelligence, is the
defining causality of what kind of world you end up existing in. In that, you choose if you want a higher intelligence as a guide and as a mentoring force, as a Father in Heaven, or you want to be alone in your thoughts about reality forever, if that is the potential of Life, to make such a quantum leap into a timeless void, beyond Materialistic limits.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
the heart and soul of Atheism is the belief that knowledge has the better moral climate to advance humanity, than acting on Faith. Is that true, does the awareness of ultimate
truths make for a better human being ? If that is the scale upon which to weigh the evidence the entire debate goes in a new direction, than this one. For to do so, is to
release oneself from the burden of proof to know the answer before one takes the trip to whatever destination might lie ahead, void of all assumptions
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
Descarte was one of the greatest philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. And he was a great Atheist, until he finally reasoned that his own doubts about God existing was the key to proving God did exist. The reason is, if there was no God, the concept would not be so
troubling to the human mind in it's operation. But there it is, the trouble that makes one angry, and full of doubts ,all tied to one fact, God has not permitted the human mind to either know or escape
the challenge of life
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
One major difference between Geology and Evolution is that we can make things look old and behave as old. Such as creating rocks and smelting metals, and reproducing environments. But we cannot Evolve Life and
we cannot create DNA. so one is a Science, Geology, and one is a Philosophy, Evolution. Evolution is a talking game, and nothing more. Mendelian Genetics without Evolution talking points can perform all the technology of Heredity and Medical Sciences ,and Technologies.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
One can say "the answer is God" and not realize that there is at least two logical meanings out of this statement. God can be
existing after asking the question and finding
God . But the other way to see it, is that
whatever the answer is, that answer, whatever it is, it ends up having the value
applicable to "God." So the answer is God, can mean that the riddle being solved present the methodology, apart from finding the author of the methodology. The answer itself becomes God.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
Many think that the concept of Zero has no meaning and so they conclude that it is the same thing as "nothing." No, it has another abstract meaning, of a set point in which direction can change. Such as going from positive numbers to negative numbers, yet one unit of measurable threshold must be negotiated, which is Zero. So in this case, Zero has no relative
direction, it is an axis between two realities, that can work with both and yet
have no substantial value materially speaking. Yes ?
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
You all come to an intellectual oversimplification that one cannot prove God, then the only answer is a materialistic
cause,even if that answer is not proven, but simply expected to be so,because the alternative of God has not been proven. So it is a type of double daring, either one has proof of God or you jump off the cliff, and reserve no judgment for any other purpose. Logic says it is also possible that no answer will ever be found,no matter how hard you look,you can't get there from here
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
Logic must say that when faced with the impossibility to know something, that one answer cannot suffice, no matter how it seems to be the best answer. And so logic
demands a duality of approach and avoidance for every likely explanation. If Materialists want to approach Science with just one Priori that denies the supernatural, then they are illogical. The fact that the plausibility of the unknown and unknowable factors do exist in abstract theory, must say that Naturalism cannot be alone.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
Again, one man's logic is another man's riddle. A "Blind Trust" may be set up to benefit one or more persons over time, but those persons being benefited may never be able to know the identity of who had set up the Trust. If people can do such a thing, then logic says a Divine Creator by Intelligent Choice could do the very same thing. And if so, then logic says that a higher intelligence can thwart a lower level of intelligence from breaching a determined state of security.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
One man's logic is another man's riddle. The most logical cause for life is an intelligent creator. The only problem is that
we cannot see such a thing. But the logic must ask, is there other realities that do concern the origins of the Universe that we also cannot see ? Yes ! The Voids in space contradict normal space by not permitting light to enter those vast places
dotting the Universe, where neither matter or energy exists. So this means that God
and Voids are two things invisible.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
No one can prove what happened in the past. Evolution is a theory that by itself means it can never be witnessed, because it pertains to speak about what happened based on basic assumptions. If you have a materialistic belief that some magic exists yet inside of matter that we have not yet identified, then you have a priori to assume that mystery will be proven. But it may not be proven ,because we know too little to make such claims of Gnosticism.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
the Universe is not entirely dependent on materialism being the essence. The Void of Space is not normal space, but a place where we found that normal space will not enter, but we don't know why, because without space entering the Voids, no light can propagate into the Void to permit us to see what the hell is there inside the Zones where matter and energy has never gone, while it had gone around these places. 11 million light years from us is a void of billion light years across, and empty !
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
If all there is to the Universe is various degrees of materialism , then it cannot expand ever. It takes a place that is first existing where matter was not before in that place, if matter is then going to expand into any place at all. You assume
that the room is available because there is nothing there. But something else is there in the empty place, causing the empty place to exist before the matter arrives to fill the empty place and become
space. You cannot see the tree from the forest?
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
regular space in outer space is a field of energy waves,that spread out into the known Void, that surrounded the Big Bang and took the same mass of the beginning of everything, and inflated it's design, so that the heavens were spread out from a small dot, to billions of light years across. And there are still known Voids empty of matter and energy, we measure them and on is billion light years across and only 11 light years away from us.There is proof then that Materialism did not make itself
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
Again, Material Reality is like empty balloons, mere particles without form and unable to ever take form. Particles cannot evolve into higher designs by themselves. what inflates particles by adding space inside their design, is Voids. A Void is empty of matter or energy, such that even light cannot propagate in that zone. This empty place, expands the particles to become atoms and increases the size greatly.This is how the Big Bang expanded,the Void entered the matter and raised it to space
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
He pictures the table on the canvas frame of the video window, The table cannot exist without the window presentation. That is hard to understand. The empty space around the table is needed or the table will not appear in reality. Paint in a jar is not Art, it takes a
Canvas to spread the paint onto, for designs to appear. God is then supernaturally existing voided space for all that is material to activate and expand and fill with voids to inflate like a balloon and become visible designs
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
It is simply that if Naturalism is going to be understood for what it really is, then the duality of matter to the empty void , where matter first expanded into is the second reality you take for granted and do not realize that without voided space, that normal space born of material, could not expand at all. You think reality has no boundaries and can take voids for granted and so you have not realized that the Zero
is not just nothing, but a supernatural concept that permits nature to exist
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
Again, an atom has a nucleus the size of a golg ball placed on second base at Yankee stadium, and the electrons would be as fireflies zooming around the upper decks. You materialists talk about the particles as if they design the atom, when it is the vast voided space inside the atom, that is the whole empty stadium needed for the atom to have space to become the design it is. Where did the empty space come from ? You take the supernatural void for granted,and you say you it does not matter.
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
Materialists cannot see the space around objects as the necessary reality to permit the design to be seen. Paint a red rose on a red
canvas and nothing can be seen of the design. So before you work with materials, you need an empty space. Where does the empty space for matter to expand out into , come from ? It is sold at
Walmart's ? If you cannot understand how the contrast of avoidance of matter is part of making matter stand out in design, then you cannot understand what I am saying.
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
there is no chemistry to life that explains anything at all. What materialists fail to see is that an object needs empty space around it to be the object. Thus the antithesis of the object must be available or the object is just full of itself and cannot contrast itself to existence as an entity. Such as water must be taken away from all the water and space given to see it. From underwater, water by itself cannot be seen at all. Thus the Universe must be buffered by the Supernatural Void.
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
there is alot of chemistry to anwsers many things like love and other things. most materialists like me understand that we can only tell you what something is at times by what it isn't. The rest i don't get what you're trying to say
kokofan50 2 years ago
Okay, go ahead and tell us by what property of chemistry that the DNA could come to life ? I will wait til hell freezes over for you to prove that . the material for a car sits in the earth and by the material itself, there would by no means ever be a car, Idiot !
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
all life is complxe chemistry when you take it down how the parts work. that's why plants only need the sun, soil, and co2 to live. some life need even less mostly things that are cell but life is nothing more than chemistry at it most basic level.if i miss understood the rest of what you were saying it from you sounding like you were high or something like to me
kokofan50 2 years ago
again you speak about materials and their quality, but the Earth has always held the quality materials to make a car or computer or a living being. But those materials cannot assemble by themselves. There is no magic in chemicals to ignite Intelligence toward a design. The best nature has is the atom.
And most of it is empty space. So the empty voided space rules over the material itself for Domination. That empty
void is the MInd of God to permit designs of matter to expand into it.
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
matter can come together to from thing all the time. the computer and car both need crystals to work. crystal grows on it own no help need only the right place and stuff to do it with, you don't understand the diff, of us using something in a way that uses what it already has and us making something completly new. you can't see nothing. that is why we look at what can be seen. the univers is everything we know there is nothing in the dimension it is growing in to. there are more than the 4
kokofan50 2 years ago
material reality cannot exist to form designs without empty space of the Void, to expand into. Matter without voided space inside itself
would collapse back into the infinite density
of the Big Bang, as it's primal state and as so can do nothing. This video opens with a table, but you forget the room around the table as the needed space for the table to exist. If the whole space was wood, then the table as wood inside wood would never be able to take a design. So supernatural voids exist.
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
do you like talking or dose it make you feel smart because what you is right but the logic you use to get there is off
kokofan50 2 years ago
Look Koko, if you only believe in Materialism, then you have nothing of the antithetical to materialism. But the Universe has the Antithetical to materialism called the
"Voids in Space." read about it. Without room, nothing material has a chance to open up into design. But you never think about the room you need for matter, you just take it for granted that space was available, and so matter expanded. But expanded into what ? Your theory is artistically invalid. Objects need space.
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
you really don't understand that the univers can grow as much as it likes do to it not have any thing to stop it in any way. In fact it has energy making it get bigger. you need to learn about what the univers we live in i really like so you can talk reason not you crazy talk of an old man who doesn't get it
kokofan50 2 years ago
that idea that there is nothing to stop it from expanding is false, proven false. The normal space cannot enter Voids, even light will not propagate into these regions. They are the opposite of black holes. The Universe has two existences,
one is seen as matter in the black holes and then the absolute Voids in which no matter or energy or light exists. But what is in the Void that contributed to the existence of the Universe. Enough to prove any Materialism as totally false on face value
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
what do you mean by "voids" if you mean it as something not part of our univers understandable something other i need you to tell me what you mean. the rest is crap to me if you would plz speak so a person can understand what you're saying
kokofan50 2 years ago
We have two extreme opposites in the world One is the infinite density of mass as in a black hole that appears like what was in the Big Bang. Then the other antithetical reality is the Void. When the Big Bang was about to expand. The Void was surrounding the infinite mass as the only thing available to mass to cause it to inflate with empty spaces, such as the empty space inside of atoms. The Voids in Space, you can google. They represent how a duality of natural to supernatural is real
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
i haven't seen in anything you've said that says god and never will if you keep using this you show no reason to think there is a god in any from or shap
kokofan50 2 years ago
Your entire statement is irrational. Descarte
a great philosopher of the age of Enlightenment said that God is what is ! The fact we talk about God and can't answer about the doubts we have on all sides is proof that God exists, but we cannot describe the essence of God. But the reality is there, if it is Blind or Sighted, or it is a Pink Panther, whatever it is , there it is, God. So we have God, but we cannot quantify God. It is like the number Zero, it has no substance, but there it is
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
you have not proven god in any way. by saying we can say what god mean i could be god and you wouldn't know it. that way of thinking doesn't get use any where. zero means something nothing so if god is like 0 then god = nothing doesn't that work with what you said we can't say what he is like you said. you are the irrational one if you can think like that
kokofan50 1 year ago
Every intelligent aspect of the Creation is an extension of God, whether we know God or just think about the concept. God and Life
is an exchangeable issue, if we are talking about the origins of LIfe and Creation. God and the Universe is exchangeable if we are talking about origins. So God is about Intelligent Origins that in the expression, has caused everything to exist and permit life to appear. The Theory of God is also then a theory, and it does not conclude to prove
itself.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
here you go agen you said that you couldn't tell me what god is then you go and tell me what god is. you see the problem. if you can't test it then in any way at any time then you can't say its worth any thinking about. we can see it in many ways you are just stupid for not seeing them. most "materilistic" people or sane people don't you lieing fuck. you lie to yourself, me, and most likly others too. if you think just because you say more means you're right you're wrong
kokofan50 1 year ago
you have nothing of value but anger, and anger does not create intelligence. So you need an answer, no, you are demanding an answer and that is why you are angry. You
cannot accept that someone greater than yourself has pre-empted you own power to dictate the meaning of your life and has compelled you to be measured instead by the ability to act on faith, not knowledge. That is why you are angry, because you suspect God actually is, and you want to avoid dealing with Faith in your mind.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
Materialists believe they have touched the divine, as matter, and that nothing is then
a mystery behind it's presence. So they who believe this, do not need science to cure diseases, no, they just need to poison the water and reduce the surplus population. In fact ,only the intellectual elite would need to survive, and after they have justified everything as chemistry, they claim they need not fear God and the grave they could not avoid anyway. So what the Hell ?
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
yeah, so Love has never been seen, but
Love creates intimacies that cannot be
evaluated scientifically. If you think love is chemistry, you are on drugs. Love is an agreement of two minds to operate as one mind. So you can ask someone if they love you, but they cannot ever prove it
by materialistic explanations, unless they are hookers. As for proof of an irreducible
complexity, you can talk to yourself all you want, but if you refuse to listen, it does not function as logical !
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
you're on drugs if you think chemicals in your brain have no part in love. love is a feeling not an agreement. that is friend ship or being a lover.
kokofan50 2 years ago
spoken like a true sex addict, you should have been there to defend Bill Clinton.
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
no spoken like someone who knows that have found the chem. in the brain the is basicly the love chem. i think the relastionship between people is more than love
kokofan50 2 years ago
koko, keep get off that wacky weed, you are
turning into a chemical waste dump.
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
no, I've only had some stuff for adhd you just need to understand
kokofan50 2 years ago
Sorry, that was just one of those "arrows of misfortune" I believe that all materialists views need to be buffered by the reality of the
abstractions that our level of intelligence can
understand. Such as the power of Zero to One is the only way to Calculate out of
known abstractions. Thus the antithetical
proofs to materialism are self evident and
ruling over the designs in reality. Such as the Voids that supply empty space to matter that inflated matter to atomic designs.
CarmineFragione 2 years ago
You have never experienced a table. You have experienced it's counterparts and labelled the configuration as "table". From that you can generalize features that, if fulfilled, will be considered a "table". Int his way, you have invented the idea of a table in your mind that does not exist. God can be thought of in the same way. One can generalize perfections of things in nature and combine them in a concept of God, just as Spinoza did.
TlogicoP 2 years ago
Long story short: Science is not a cure-all for what is true and false. Just look and the large body of literature in the Philosophy of Science and this is evident. I hate this aspect of contemporary uber-atheists like yourself.
If you say that the concept of God is not falsifiable, you have the impossible burden to prove that it is not falsifiable. So many fallacies...
TlogicoP 2 years ago
Just look at*
TlogicoP 2 years ago
Then you have to ask what counts as a test for a theory... There are so many issues in the foundations of science. Science is definitely not synonymous with truth.
2) Agnosticism is a viable position. Hard atheism assumes a metaphysics for the beginning of the universe just as theism does.
3) You believe in "forces" even though they are mere products of human imagination with no reality.
4) A lot of people believe inconsistent/invalid arguments.
TlogicoP 2 years ago
From one atheist to another: your reasoning is ridiculous.
1) Science does often work by making claims and then testing them, not by induction. That hasn't been the case since Francis Bacon. Also, induction would inevitably lead to making a generalization (which is a fallacy in the first place) and then deducing from that generalization. Therefore, the hypothetico-deductive method of science is unavoidable. Read Popper. It's that you can test a theory that makes it science.
TlogicoP 2 years ago
Good points, however you are a little boring. Try speaking with a little more passion. You don't need to be freaking out or yelling or anything. You just need to sound like you are interested in your topic if you want other people to be interested in it.
Otherwise, like I said, a well built argument with sound reasoning.
Viperzka 2 years ago
language: A/THEIST have dialectical ideas about a concept called 'god' and debate its non/existence according to whatever terms they define. ie 'god is a purple unicorn on the moon' (no he/she/it isn't) or 'god is all powerfull' (no he/it can't bE) . GNOSTIC: has a direct experience of something often labelled 'god' - cannot prove it anymore that i can prove my subjective experience to you. AGNOSTIC - no such direct experience but unlike A/THEISTS cannot settle matter by dialectical reasoning.
simonmandala 2 years ago
i'm not a christian as such but as i understand some of the ideas of christianity are: love your neighbour, practice forgiveness and keep the golden rule- treat others as if they were yourself. Now that's a tough order and most of us fail to measure up to a greater or lesser degree. But i don't see how those are bad ideas even if you want to try and label them 'illogical' (Dr spock). Which 'christianity' are you actually looking at? its very trendy to like buddhism and dislike western relgion.
simonmandala 2 years ago
i cant prove whether god exist or not.. thats why im agnostic.
and i dont compare unicorns to god. its different.
ejayarts 3 years ago
you win by default if you think only literally
you need to think spiritually
msteelman 3 years ago
u can't think spiritually...u can only FEEL spiritually.
julzabro 3 years ago
Nicely done!
julzabro 3 years ago
Wait... Did this motherfucker just say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is "made up"?
Oh, FUCK NO! >=o THIS IS BLASPHEMY!
lol
FyreDeity 3 years ago
thanks, this is what i needed - if we found a horse with a horn on its forehead, even for some reason scared of yong women, does it mean that unicorn were real? Its not about the facts at all, mind this classic - anything couldnt come from nothing. Therefore there is god. Its hard to argue about thinking, but its needed. Its only obout thinking. Its about need of answers, any answers and the only solution is the pureness of critic mind that is not afraid of admiting not knowing.
0ldow 3 years ago
God is Santa Claus for adults.
ColoradoMikeyS 3 years ago
evolution is for retards.
thejesusfreak919 2 years ago
ok simple stuff
ANY religion in the world (just any) wants you to understand something that let's say goes into a different world where are different rules of reasoning because i think that for all people material stuff is not in any way same as nonmaterial but althought its connected whith itself and everyone believing in something mention it that its not that easy to understand it People always thought the easiest way of all is'nt it true?
hudyni 3 years ago
yeah most religious people are too idiotic to actually study this stuff. their brains can't take it. religous people are solid proof that we evolved from stupid creatures and some stayed stupid.
greycloud24 3 years ago
He who holds the shotgun sings the song. It seems inductive reasoning would not pass muster for you? Yet you use the reductio ad absurdum case for convenience. Hmm. Be Hard but then Be Hard. Does quantum theory pose any issues for you? Heisenburgs U.P.? You can't do both and yet these particles exist. ? Light particles, their nature.. The Singularity before the BB. That one thing alone, is more contradictory, more incredible and seemingly get the 'science' carte blanche. Peas..
dynamoehummm 3 years ago
Have you ever seen the human mind? Then why do you believe it exists? Because you haven't seen it and just read about it are you just going to stop believing in the human mind too??
saladin105 3 years ago
no the human mind is proven to do things, god on the other hand...
greycloud24 3 years ago
Hi,
God has proven himself. We exist, there must be a determination for existence to prevail over non existence, this determination belongs to God. Creation is of finite nature, thus needs a first cause, continual cause for it to exist, and a cause to make it end. This dependance is on God, it cannot depend on nothing for it to survive! For nothing gives rise to nothing, and if it depended on nothing than the world would be eternal which its not!
Peace.
saladin105 3 years ago
why do people insist on a reason for things? the universe and the singularity are not things that "force" god to exist. just because you don't understand or know does not mean the boogey man did it. you cannot disprove that singularities happen all the time in various dimensions just like i cannot disprove your god, therefor these things happen all the time. well following your logic at least.
greycloud24 3 years ago 6
I just figured something out, the Christian's believe their god is real because they've been to imagination-land!!
JTS11d6 3 years ago
You're a smart guy and I like your video's. Highly rational.
I'm agnostic, but the thing that bothers me is that I get more criticism from atheists than theists. I wish those fuckers would stop trying to 'convert' me.
I think their biggest problem is that they actually give a fuck. Well I don't, so I'm agnostic, period.
Sepero1 4 years ago
If you didn't "give a fuck", you wouldn't be driven to drama. Clearly you "give a fuck" about something. But what?
Atheists, by and large, "give a fuck" when specious premises are used to justify human oppression. Specifically the oppression of atheists, but generally they oppose all forms of theisticly justified oppression, whomever it may effect. You however, only care that you are being criticized.
This is how a child behaves. The problem, I'm afraid, is yours. Not atheists.
JimGunning 3 years ago
It would make sense if you were skeptical of the existence of a Deist truth, considering Deism is contingent to the availability of scientific evidence. However, if you were skeptical to whether Theist "truth" existed or not, then you would be considered not to be much different than a theist.
intelligenceseeker 3 years ago
"Everything that is material is causal and measurable". I don't agree with that statement. The essence of freewill is dependent on non-causal properties - emergent properties. If you look into modern quantum mechanics, true randomness exists on a physicall level.
JoeMarklin 4 years ago
"The essence of freewill is dependent on non-causal properties"
I don't agree with that statement at all.
Franc28 4 years ago
It's up to you to explain why you don't agree. You think freewill is just an illusion? What about modern quantum mechanics? The consensus amoung leaders in Quantum Mechanics is that TRUE randomness exists - outside of simple cause and effect. Not just observed randomness - but true indeterminacy.
JoeMarklin 4 years ago
No, it's not "up to me" to explain anything. You are the one posting on my video. And I didn't say anything about randomness- you brought that up, not me. Randomness has nothing to do with free will.
Franc28 4 years ago
Yes it is up to you to explain why you dismiss a proposition that I make within a philosophical argument. If you are trying to engage in philosophy by posting this video you owe me reasons for dismissing what I say. And if you think randomness has nothing to do with freewill you haven't read what any of the leaders in the field have to say.
JoeMarklin 4 years ago
I don't owe you anything. I don't even know you. Th End.
Franc28 4 years ago
That was awesome!
D4Shawn 4 years ago
In the end we will all have to face the ultimate truth.. Hedge your bets and hope you`re are right....
sunra79 4 years ago
Assuming your god is real, how much value do you think he puts in faith based upon "hedging one's bets"? Isn't that the same as faking it and hoping he doesn't notice?
At the very least, your statement implies that one can CHOOSE what to believe. I don't see how volition plays any part. Either the evidence is compelling or it is not. I couldn't choose to believe in God any more than you could choose to believe in Santa. How then could a rightous god punish people for non-belief?
Datan0de 4 years ago 2
I like the vid, but man did see God. Originally, man saw the sun, etc. and knew they were gods because they brought life and were hanging in the heavens. The contemporary notion of God is a modified version of this pagan idea. Once we began to understand the nature of our world, we had to hide God and created faith. So he's not entirely fictional, we saw him in the beginning. But no, I don't believe in the contemporary notion of God.
ufbad 4 years ago
you are making assumptions
yingzang 4 years ago
I don't deny that. But based from my understanding of things, there was a reason for the creation of God. It wasn't the instantaneous belief in an abstract being. Basically, I refute the perspective that the first religion was born with the same perspective of God as contemporary religion holds. For evidence, consider the sun worship so prominent in pagan religions.
ufbad 4 years ago
The real God would never require the sacrafice of life. God does not require virgins in volcanoes, nor sacrafice of Innocents, nor burnning of animals. And, let's stop removing foreskins in the name of God.
fastelth 4 years ago
if i cease to think will this universe cease to exist?
zonkniche 4 years ago
Only one way to find out...
ufbad 4 years ago
I am agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster, I don't know if he exists, what's wrong with saying that I don't know, I can't prove he doesn't exist?
karendavies1234 4 years ago
You are evading reality. you know that the flying spaghetti monster is just "made up".
"We can evade reality, but we can't evade the consequences of evading reality" Ayn Rand
normanbim 4 years ago
So is god.
macman13 4 years ago
so what are the consequences for people who evade reality with irrational beliefs
yingzang 4 years ago
it is better for you to find out the answer by yourself. but mostly the consequence is "delusion". ok?
normanbim 4 years ago
nice video.
normanbim 4 years ago
How do you know that no one has observed 'God'? Are you suddenly aware of everyone's thoughts? lol...try, try, again.
qFinality 4 years ago
Please, do tell us how one would observe an immaterial (i.e. UNOBSERVABLE) entity.
Franc28 4 years ago
please do tell us you didn't miss the fact that that was the entire point and so you left a pointlessly sarcastic comment
yingzang 4 years ago
difficult to argue with. I'd love to see someone try. There's nothing TO argue with!
bigim 4 years ago
Great video. Very well put. =)
Kaxtuuk 4 years ago
I think that most of the Atheist's issues are centered on opposition to major western religions such as judaism, christianity, and islam.
Amsu411 5 years ago
Good video. Keep it up.
mjr256 5 years ago
bravo Franc! Nice work!
apieceofstring 5 years ago
nice
monkeyjoe01 5 years ago
Hey Franc. :-D Awesome first vid, but you had better make more!
HC4D 5 years ago
Im definitely in it for the chicks
blue46gt 5 years ago
Good response AND entertaining! Bonus!
GeneralRamos 5 years ago
If belief in a god is contingent on logic, you're in trouble, brother. That is, if you're a reader.
Can't wait to make more videos~
HellboundAlleee 5 years ago