Does God Exist? A Reponse to Kalam and Nearly Every Other Proof of 'god'

[blamtasticful]

@HonestDiscussioner

I am not a physicist and it seems that you have done more reading on physics than I have but how can matter and energy come together to form the big bang outside of time? I don't see how that works. A universe that suddenly comes into existence by a singularity seems to be a little bit more plausible to me. What do you think?

[GeeKayKayGee]

It seems that Kye is ready and perhaps even eager to block those commenters who irk him. It would seem, that for daring to suggest that Harold Camping might know the bible better than Kye, I have been blocked.

Good job there Kye. For maintaining the YouTube christian standard of blocking those who question your claims I declare you Block Head of the week.

[GeeKayKayGee]

@TheRealDarthKye

As my previous reply seems to have failed to post I will briefly reiterate. Harold Camping has studied the bible for decades, he is a biblical scholar where you are young and just starting your studies. Whom should I believe and whom is more likely to be a Real Christian and one who Really knows gods will? Camping has experience making predictions so he knows how to make a good one. If he says may 21 is it then you, being respectful of your elders should heed his words.

[Skindoggiedog]

7:22 "giving birth" *deep breath, pained look*

Right there I started feeling sorry for the kid.

Life hasn't been very fair to this guy, and he's trying his hardest to do the best that he can ... just leave him alone, man ... he's not hurting anyone.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Skindoggiedog The thing is, if you leave people who make such arguments alone, they generally will claim victory since no one can touch their arguments.

I have tried to help the guy. I sent him a website that is a free cloud-based teleprompter so his presentation won't be as awkward. I do not wish him ill, but I also don't think leaving him alone will actually help the guy.

[Skindoggiedog]

@HonestDiscussioner "The thing is, if you leave people who make such arguments alone, they generally will claim victory since no one can touch their arguments."

The thing is, even if you completely debunk everything people who make such arguments say, they will generally claim victory, still claiming no-one can touch their arguments ;)

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Skindoggiedog While that happens, their viewers will have a harder time reconciling it. It is far better than ignoring them, for then the more rational people may be persuaded since there are no rebutttals.

[Skindoggiedog]

@HonestDiscussioner Aye, that's a really good point. I'm not as pessimistic as all that anyway. It was just a jab at those whose minds are entirely closed to change.

[p13skate]

this is so great



[HonestDiscussioner]

@p13skate If you liked that, part II just went up a few hours ago.

[TheLivingDinosaur]

Theistic 'tard is 'tardtastic. It's hard to imagine that if there is a god he'd allow his followers to make such twats of themselves on the internetz.Or want them as followers, for that matter.

[Resurrected06]

Kyle destroys his own argument by not seeing the paradox he creates when stating that something/someone can exist "outside of existence".

[clownprince88]

A god could never exist it could only perpetually live . To exist connotes a beginning and an end with a physical vector that can be traced from inception to termination.

If we weren't here when this whole freak show started and we won't be here if it ever ends we can never be certain of our own fate but we can be somewhat certain of our existence.

[vbfl920]

Umm...the universe had an absolute beginning, which includes all matter, space, and time, HD.

There hasn't been a successful model that shows a past infinite universe.

Not trying to defend your clever "opponent", but just saying.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 "Umm...the universe had an absolute beginning, which includes all matter, space, and time, HD."

Where did you get that idea exactly?

[keggerous]

@vbfl920 u should read up on modern physics :) ud be surprised at what ud find

[hotkonto]

You really ripped those incredibly bad arguments of his apart. Venom's sidekick/The Mouth of Venom should take down his video and try again.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@hotkonto He's apparently prepared a response. We'll see how it goes.

[progrockcoffee]

THE BIG BANG THEORY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. It merely describes a rapid expansionary event that happened early on in the time that the universe has existed, AFTER the universe came into existence.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Buruc "Well I dont agree with that, it seems to me that one does not require time to be conscious"

Can you give me an example otherwise?

"God simply is a free agent that has all knowledge timelessly then(big bang) decides to make the universe."

Your use of "then" implies time, one thing then another. In order to make a choice you have to consider your options, then separately choose to act on your considerations. If it happens without time, it can only be a state-state reaction.

[StopFear]

Basically I mean to ask, would you enjoy it, if for example someone made some videos with chunks of your video mocking you and maybe owning you? Would you not feel threatened or plain bad, if you didnt previously meet or talk to that person? Did you even message this guy to ask him if its ok?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@StopFear "Did you even message this guy to ask him if its ok?"

Of course I did. You can check the video I responded to, the comment should still be there. I did the same thing with Dr. Polis, with Epydemic . . . using clips in videos to respond to isn't a thunderf00t thing, people have been doing that on youtube since I started watching videos. What TF does is take them out of context, and highlight specific words, adding emphasis where there was none.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@StopFear This wasn't mocking either. Believe me, I could have been far worse. That's one reason I didn't mention the gravity well mistake he made, it wasn't necessary to refute his claim.

How would you like me to make responses? Explain it in my own words? Then I could get accused of strawmanning the individual.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@StopFear Finally, if someone puts their stuff on the internet, including me, they are making themselves open to critique. People are welcome to try that with me, ANYONE has permission to use my clips for the purposes of critique or commentary. They can poke as much fun at me as they'd like. The only thing that would really piss me off is if they called me dishonest, and still then that would not cause me to revoke their privileges.

Either I was wrong and deserve it, or they'll get it back 5X.

[myjizzureye]

@StopFear Dude HD is the NICEST guy on youtube and possibly the planet. His name displays EXACTLY how he runs his channel.

Do you not think the points he brings up are fair?

Opinions are a fine thing to have, but if you have not spent the time verifying the facts support them don't be surprised if somebody points out the holes in them for you.

[StopFear]

HonestDiscussioner, I like your videos and discussions, and liked when you were in Jack's chat room arguing with some atheists. But I don't understand why, instead of presenting some proposition and making a video, you take the tactic of ThunderFoot, wehre you show parts of someone's video, like Tf did to venom, and you pretty much mock what they say. This is like you're literally baiting that guy to get angry at you.

[RationalRoundtable]

Question, you know me HD, I am not defending this guy, his video was fairly poorly put together, but you assert that we have directly observed Quantum Flux's... really? I had not heard this.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@RationalRoundtable Yep. I mean we don't observe it visually, be we observe it in the way we observe all the quantum interactions.

[RationalRoundtable]

@HonestDiscussioner

Well, QF is quite a bit different than entanglement and such, my understanding is that we have observed that vacuums contain energy, and that a POSSIBLE explanation is QF's not that we have actually observed QF's

[SummerSunshine1988]

God does exist.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@SummerSunshine1988 God doesn't exist.

Now that we've both made baseless assertions, can either of us back them up? I'll let you go first. What do you have?

[SummerSunshine1988]

@HonestDiscussioner : The Bible. Compare it to history. You might be surprised.

[mandangalo18]

@SummerSunshine1988

by the theologically and socially motivated forgeries?

[SummerSunshine1988]

@mandangalo18 : No forgeries. The Bible adds up.

[mandangalo18]

@SummerSunshine1988

Wierd, critical historians disagree.

[SummerSunshine1988]

@mandangalo18 : Many historians agree that there was at least a man named Jesus. The question is whether or not He was Divine.

[mandangalo18]

@SummerSunshine1988

I thought we were talking about forgeries?

When did we switch to the existence of Jesus?

[SummerSunshine1988]

@mandangalo18 : You brought up historians.

[mandangalo18]

@SummerSunshine1988

yup, I brought up critical textual historians, and what they had to say about the text of the Bible, which you cited as evidence of God's existence.

[SummerSunshine1988]

@mandangalo18 : I said "many" historians, not "all" historians. As to the subject of forgeries, I have no knowledge of such forgeries going on with the Bible.

[mandangalo18]

@SummerSunshine1988

google "bible forgeries"

[Nilsy1975]

@SummerSunshine1988 The Bible adds up?

A book that contradicts itself on numerous points adds up? Lets start shall we!

1) The OT says that the laws of God are perfect, Paul says they were not

2) Jesus says that salvation is dependent upon good works. Paul says by faith.

3) The gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus are historically wrong.

I could add further examples if you like!

PS as for forgeries, the NT is full of added forgeries!

[HonestDiscussioner]

@SummerSunshine1988 Adds up to what?

[SummerSunshine1988]

@HonestDiscussioner : Truth.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@SummerSunshine1988 Again, all you are doing is making baseless assertions. What you are saying amounts to, "the bible is true, and my reasoning for believing that is that the bible is true". I could say that about anything with equal authority. So what do you have? What reasons do you have for thinking it is true, that is adds up to truth?

[SummerSunshine1988]

@HonestDiscussioner : The Bible is chalk full of historical and scientific accuracies. Plus an extensive list of fulfilled prophecies.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@SummerSunshine1988 "The Bible is chalk full of historical and scientific accuracies. Plus an extensive list of fulfilled prophecies."

No, it's not. You've been lied to. Not only is it not full of scientific accuracies, it is in fact filled with scientific INaccuracies. Like when it says the winds move around from north to south, when it's really between east and west (funny how Christians claim that one as an accuracy).

Some historical facts I'll give you, but that proves nothing.

[SummerSunshine1988]

@HonestDiscussioner : There's no way that 2000 years ago that they could have known independently that day eight is the ideal day to perform a circumcision. That's a scientific accuracy.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@SummerSunshine1988 Really? They couldn't have noticed that the babies were more likely to die or that there was way more blood on days other than the 8th? That's impossible?

[SummerSunshine1988]

@HonestDiscussioner : It's possible, perhaps, but it would have taken them at least a few hundred years to figure it out, if not longer.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@SummerSunshine1988 " It's possible, perhaps, but it would have taken them at least a few hundred years to figure it out, if not longer"

They had thousands of years.

[SummerSunshine1988]

@HonestDiscussioner : Despite what people did or did not know, the point is that the assumption that there are no scientific accuracies in the Bible is clearly false. That was the entire point.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@SummerSunshine1988 "Despite what people did or did not know, the point is that the assumption that there are no scientific accuracies in the Bible is clearly false."

Generally that argument entails it something unknowable but through god. If you want to point out that the Bible knows objects dropped fall to the ground, I don't think that should be considered impressive. Do you anything that shows it is divinely inspired?

[SummerSunshine1988]

@HonestDiscussioner : Vitamin K was not discovered until the 1900s.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@SummerSunshine1988 "Vitamin K was not discovered until the 1900s"

Your point?

[SummerSunshine1988]

@HonestDiscussioner : The Bible doesn't mention vitamin K, but I simply find it strange that people of 2000 years ago would randomly pick the day when a baby's vitamin K count is at its peak.

[AisuSeijin]

@SummerSunshine1988

You first. YOU might be surprised. There are also other religious texts and views that correspond more accurately to history than Christianity. So, if this is your evidence for solely the Christian bible being true, then you've already lost.

Well, you didn't lose or win either way, you're just wrong in your baseless accusations and statements.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@HonestDiscussioner You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that.

[startreking2007]

@HonestDiscussioner I think I can answer this. Start a game of Doom type IDDQD and then you are god. and there you go case closed. Problem solved. Everyone can go home.

[StopFear]

@SummerSunshine1988

Yes, he absolutely does and I love him.

[TruthSurge]

best part of this was your spoiler alert. hahahhaa it was so obvious but we like to pop balloons and hear them go POW! oops. all his suspense washed away. :(

[HonestDiscussioner]

@TruthSurge I was really hoping people would like my greenscreen trick . . . but alas, no one mentioned it. ;-(

[TruthSurge]

@HonestDiscussioner It was cool. You didn't have to wear a green shirt tho if you just tell your chroma key plugin or effect to make your shirt color the transparent color. You could have worn blue and just add two instances of chroma key one for green and one for your shirt. hehe

[Relativisticism]

I got a nice laugh out of his vacuum concept requiring matter to work. You don't need any matter for a vacuum to exist. I mean if you just do a dictionary search for the word "vacuum" you will immediately see that it is a void of matter, thus does not need matter.

[FrostdPoptart]

@Relativisticism I enjoyed that too, especially the idea that black holes suck, or that vacuums suck. Both of these descriptions are gross over-simplifications of what actually happens when matter moves into one or the other.

[mordesmortes]

This guy makes my head hurt as he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about and is reading from somebody else's blog who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Venaloid]

8:24 - 8:31 - Is it just me, or did the guy say that God doesn't exist?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Venaloid He has an annotation up correcting his language.

[julzabro]

Interesting.

[fruitikay]

Great job! :)

[HonestDiscussioner]

@fruitikay Thanks!

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Buruc What makes you say we don't have to have progression of thought in order to be conscious? It seems that consciousness is something that happens over time, if it is a "choice" then there has to be a state of affairs where the choice is considered, and a state of affairs where the choice is made.

[blackwolf1200]

The thing that really annoys me isn't theists like Kye making weak arguments from ignorance. It is that theists like Craig dupe others into thinking that word games and unempirical philosophy are evidence, or even sound arguments, for supernatural presuppositions. Or, for that matter, that subjective, physical experience is a valid framework to claim the objective existence of supernatural entities.

[wolfwing1]

heh I was wondering if the universe isn't infinate in size, and our big band wasn't just a localized event. Not talking about multiverse idea, but a single universe. More like droplets of water falling into a lake causing ripples outwards, each new drop adding more to the univers as a whole.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@wolfwing1 From what I've heard, there is some sort of force drawing the universe in one direction. No one is quite sure what it is.

[wolfwing1]

@HonestDiscussioner yeah, I have a few really weird ideas on the universe and such :> Probably complete nonsense but fun to contemplate :> We can't see pat the hydrogen cloud, but if we had a way to do so, I wonder if we would see something way beyond it. I love hypothesizing and wondering about the nature of the universe :> Might make some videos on it but make sure to note this is just completly my random idea :> And not to be taken seriously unless someone can find evidence.

[kalsolarUK]

whats all this giving birth bullshit? Its not even an accurate analogy.

[bdwilson1000]

Honest, can you add a link to Iron Chariots in your description bar? It includes a thorough refutation to Kalam and all other "professional" god arguments.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@bdwilson1000 Can you PM me the link?



[GluteusIlluminatus]

Another creatard "expert" on cosmology... *sigh* I knew they would try to abuse the concept of zero point energy as proof of god.

[themanofearth]

CURSE YOUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!

How DARE you spoil the surprise of what his argument was going to be. :-P

[sincerity77]

What is this "creation" that he speaks of? The only "creation" that I've ever seen involves working pre-existing matter either with one's body or with tools to into a desired form. How does the "creation" that theists talk about resemble this? To talk about "speaking" or "willing" something into existence does not correlate with the concept of creation as we observe it to happen. So surely this is a redefinition of the word "creation" to mean something nobody has ever seen!

[sincerity77]

If you read "science books" or should I say "popular science books" the authors usually try to get around the technical details (usually mathematical models) by the use of metaphor. Then f***wads like Darth Kye come along seemingly thinking that science is a bunch of metaphors conjured from thin air. This guy clearly has no idea what science is.

[sincerity77]

Vacuums do not suck! Except perhaps metaphorically - except not even then: vacuums are actually pretty cool! So vacuums do not suck literally or metaphorically.

[Daiblix]

This doesn't seem to understand what a vacuum is...

[SeltsamerAttraktor]

Some random dude on the internet gets his cosmology totally wrong, concludes that it's bogus and therefore god exists,.... yeah. Sure.

[hanzo138]

I thought Stewie created the universe

[inquiry10]

It tends to frustrate me that creationist use arguments that are hundreds of years before there gods existence on earth to prove there gods created the universe..IE Plato's argument.

It also annoys me that he sums up his point in a sentence to one of the most far reaching questions of our existence.

Even if god did start the universe you can not then jump to a god that protects and takes care of it. IE Theist as apposed to deist.

This is why i leave these people to there own devices.

[inquiry10]

SIGHHHHHHHH

Thats generally my response to creationists.

[thekwizatshaderach]

Is this guy saying god fucked the universe into existence?

[RichardRoy2]

I dunno; he kinda looks like Will Ferrell to me. But then, maybe VFX's henchman does, too.

[SiriusMined]

*facepalm*

A vaccum doesn't "suck in matter.  This "genius" kye seems to think the universe is a big Hoover....

[fake2]

But he says god can give his own existence.

[thalamay]

I'm finished now. Great vid. I find it ironic that these people don't see the internal contradiction with their eternal and unchanging god outside of space and time who then goes on to create everything...I've made a video about that some time ago which I'll post as a reply.

[thalamay]

Just a little comment while I watch this: The "material" that makes up the universe IS energy (e=mc²). When we add up all the energy in the universe, including matter, then the sum total is zero. So technically, there's no energy in the universe, merely an imbalance, just like the sea is generally at sea level with waves providing an imbalance. Enough for now, continuing watching ;)

[DaynaGoldstein]

A first rate pwn!

[ikanipo]

why can't people understand this? Even if the universe was "created," that in no way proves that your particular "God" did it! I'm tired of this argument used by christians. I'm willing to grant the universe was created...fine. Now show me that it was Jesus and his cronies that did it.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@ikanipo That's tomorrows video. I only reviewed the first half of his video, for time purposes.

[RuinSonic]

@HonestDiscussioner Great video. Have you actually been given a well thought out answer to your question of what evidence is there that a disembodied mind can or does exist? It's one thing to say naturalism is so bad that probably a God exists and it's another thing to say God logically has to exist even though there's tons of things about God that are totally other than what we know about reality. It seems very disingenuous to me even from the more rational theists.

[RuinSonic]

@RuinSonic And yes Kalam proponents are trying to prove God exists and the fine tuning argument is for all practical purposes trying to do the same. Saying something has a 1:1000000000000000000000000000­000000000000000000000000000000 chance of being true is like saying it is impossible.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@RuinSonic"It seems very disingenuous to me even from the more rational theists."

I think they are just looking for a possibility, or hiding something in a gap to allow for their explanation to fit. Like this:

"See, we don't know what causes X. If we're right and god exists, god could be the cause of x, and that's why you can't figure it out."

Then basing everything off of that.

[moestietabarnak]

@HonestDiscussioner yup, it come down as "we don't know, thus magic !"

nothing can be created from nothing (from experience) thus god created the universe. who created god ? it does not need to , he is , as Carl Sagan said, why not cut the middleman and skip god go directly to universe.

Anyway, god isn't an explanation, because its explain nothing. it's just another way to say "I don't know" (and i don't like it, so i pretend a super-entity that would comfort me,)

[RuinSonic]

@HonestDiscussioner We'll they are making it easier for their explanation to win the day, but they are confident God exists like we our confident the earth is round. And they seem to treat arguments for God as if any honest rational person would get it. They don't always say we are dishonest but for how certain they think the obvious answer is and how many intellectuals reject their God they have to be thinking that.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

lol, theists

[Spinobreaker]

i like how they say god it outside of a testable plane. We test reality , therefor god exists outside reality... and that makes him not real lol

logic bomb lol

[zarkoff45]

Another scientific illiterate trying to argue for God. Alas, as you note, you don't really get it either.

Google "Vacuum genesis" for the theory of the universe could be a quantum vacuum fluctuation.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@zarkoff45 What part did I not get?

[zarkoff45]

@HonestDiscussioner

You said that "that theory" quantum vacuum fluctuations I assumed, only spoke of small particles. True up to a point, it accounts for things like the Casimir Effect. But, there's something in the theory that leads to a theory of the Big Bang - "Vacuum Genesis." So, you slipped. He is more nuts than you've been able to take apart - his idea about vacuum's needing matter is about as idiotic as saying there can be no dark without light. There can only be dark without light.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@zarkoff45 Well I meant right now, as to his "pink elephants" thing. I was trying to say that the theory doesn't say we should expect complex strings of things, and that "infinite" didn't mean always happening everywhere in every imaginable quantity at every imaginable time.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@zarkoff45 And by the way, I would agree with the assessment "Saying I have a layman's understanding of the theory is probably an overstatement".

[hedleypanama]

@honestdiscussioner I am eager to meet one of those scientists who support such theories... :)

[jaymthegenius]

"Whomever caused the universe..." Him caused the universe lol! :D

[QuarkyGideon]

I think the best way to refute the Kalam (I expect disagreements) is to go straight up David Hume and slap them with problems of inference (just because something is caused doesn't mean you can know everything of your cause by observing the effect.)

One other mistake theists make is that even if we grant God is logically possible it doesn't follow that he exists. Just like if a triangle has 3 sides doesn't mean that there have to be triangles.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@QuarkyGideon I think that's an important point to make, but not the most important. First off, he goes into Jesus afterwards in classic Craig style, showing that if it is possible for a Deity to exist, Jesus proves that it is, since it's the best explanation. Best to refute every notion outright.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Buruc "simply a personal agent"

See it can't be personal, because consciousness requires time. You need at least two moments, the moment you have not chosen, and the moment you have chosen.

"True but if there was something it could not change, because change = time."

Unless the state of the existence that existed without time was a state that caused time to come into being. Craig sort of addresses this in "Reaonable Faith" not knowing he's really giving an argument for the opposing side.

[wimsweden]

@HonestDiscussioner

"You need at least two moments, the moment you have not chosen, and the moment you have chosen."

My prediction is that people from the Abrahamic faith traditions will gradually develop more and more pantheistic or panentheistic conceptions of their god to get around this temporality problem. You can already see it in statements like the "ground of being", which is a move away from the classical creator/creation imagery.

[WanderingTaoist101]

Chocolate is a widely accepted theory. Better tasting too than this guys bullshit.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@WanderingTaoist101 Mmm, chocolate.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Buruc "nothing being that which has absolutely no properties"

Then there may never have been nothing. The only thing that we know can't be eternal is time, it is possible that it is IMpossible for there to be nothing the way you put it.

[cyclo212]

this guy? of all the people on the internets..u picked this guy to explain main line theist arguments??

if u werent really looking to take these arguments head on, i guess u made a pretty good choice. if u "honestly" want to address these, please, just use one of craig vids. u wont have nearly as much fun, im sure, but ud have a much better resemblance to the image ur name gives.

unless..u actually want ur name to be an ironic joke (its hard for me to tell atm)

[HonestDiscussioner]

@cyclo212 As I said in the video, it doesn't feel right. Simply put, Craig can't respond directly to me, or likely won't even watch the video. This guy will, however.

And I also picked him because he does ALL of the major arguments, this was only half the video. I'm doing the Jesus claims tomorrow.

[Gnomefro]

@cyclo212 "just use one of craig vids. u wont have nearly as much fun, im sure"

Actually, he probably would. Frankly, Craig's entire way of approaching Kalam is so misguided it's just comical. He seems to think that if he lists enough failed attempts at explaining things naturally, scientists will abandon methodological naturalism and declare that now every supernatural theory about universe creation is equally valid.

[Gnomefro]

@cyclo212 The real beef with the cosmological argument isn't the argument itself anyway. It can be accepted in its entirety by naturalists and we could just declare the cause to be eternal and natural. What is the main issue is what follows when theists try to establish that it's their pet deity that's the cause. And at that point it's silly to regard Craig or any other theist as an expert, because they're all just making stuff up, and in such blatantly obvious ways as well.

[krunchee22]

Hmmmm pink elephants huh. That's strange my elephants are always blue.

[wisdominnature7]

As anyone honestly ever come to believe in God because of the Kalam? Honestly?

Or do people choose to believe in God, and then try to justify this intellectually controversial choice with stretches of cosmological reasoning. If the latter, wouldn’t it be better called the ‘Kalam Rationalisation’.

[MrSamuelSpade]

If god exists then god must have a cause according to Kye. If god has a cause then what is the cause for that cause, and so on and so on and so on.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@MrSamuelSpade No, it's whether god "BEGAN" to exist that would make him require a cause. Most Christians argue god always existed, therefore doesn't require a cause.

[MrSamuelSpade]

@HonestDiscussioner I think we are essentially saying the same thing. If god didn't begin then not all things must have a beginning and that destroys all of this crap being claimed by simple minded people. We just don't know certain things and concluding a god is irrational unless there is actual evidence to support said conclusion.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@MrSamuelSpade "think we are essentially saying the same thing. If god didn't begin then not all things must have a beginning and that destroys all of this crap "

Oh, well then yes that is exactly what I'm saying too. He tries to escape that by saying minds could somehow will things to be, which I addressed in the video as well.

[tattooskin72]

Was there a point to him actually making his video? Was it just to show he knows how to use a lot of big words. Words he doesn't even understand!! He would have been better off just saying god did it. The video would have been about 3 seconds at that and a lot of time wouldn't have been wasted...

[dreadpiratedan]

@tattooskin72 i know, it was painful watching his brain strain to remember the phrase "infinite spontaneous vacuum fluctuation"

[HonestDiscussioner]

@tattooskin72 He's practicing his Craig. Tomorrow I'll respond to the second half of the video were he practices his Craig\Strobel.

[samdavjunjun]

It seems pretty unlikely that this guy is not VFX's shade wearing friend. Lives in Canada, is studying religion at university, and someone also from Canada left this seemingly personal comment on his page, "You and Shawn are true voices for Christ!" Maybe I'm assuming too much here, but I'd say this guy is VFX's shades-bro. That aside, I enjoyed your video. Also, I'm impressed by your green screen's quality.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@samdavjunjun "That aside, I enjoyed your video."

Thank you!

"Also, I'm impressed by your green screen's quality."

We can both thank RationalRoundtable for that one.

[IntelligentProbe]

There are just way to many people; atheist, agnostic, theist or otherwise who are not qualified to truly discuss such matters as these. The gentleman there in the video needs to wake up and realize that he hasn't got the knowledge necessary to make such claims.

When I was a Christian I tried my best to get others to realize that it is lying when you know you don't know, but still say you do. Riding the skirts of others, is nothing but a way of promoting their errors e.g. Kent Hovind

[ReddmanDGZ]

Well, he obviously doesn't understand the difference between a vacuum and the gravity well surrounding a black hole.

This is someone who saw a few things on the discovery channel and suddenly things he thought of something that no other scientist wanted to see. What he doesn't understand is that when someone makes a hypothesis, there are a legion of us scientists just looking for a way to tear that hypothesis apart.

The Scientific Method: It works.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@ReddmanDGZ Yeah, I could have addressed the difference between a vacuum and a black hole, but I didn't feel it was necessary to defeat the point. I noticed that too though.

[SkepticalBliss]

Great arguments and rebuttals...  well thought out and well put!

[IslandAtheist]

Your channel is a far better channel than the DishonestDiscussioner's channel.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@IslandAtheist I know, that guy's a douchebag.

[MisterDoctorE]

Short answer: No

Long answer: Nooooooo