It is too stupid to say "There is no god". It is also too stupid to say "There is a god". Because we don't know, do we?
Also, there is a difference between believing in God and Religion. God by definition as we know is flawless. Religion is by definition is flawed ( too many man made stuff). So, I the author of the video seems to be confused in my opinion.
By the way, "This includes the Mutliverse considering IT ISN"T BOUND BY OUR NATURE!!!!! Do you get it dumbass?"
is that your feeble attempt at proving something unprovable? Theists have been barking up that tree for quite some time, its one thing to SPECULATE the LOGICAL exsistence of multiverses is fine, but blindly believing in it is ridiculous... it isnt testable till we can subject it to the scientific method. but even multiverse theory inst supernatural because it involves natural laws.
So the mutliverse invovles natural laws? please explain? We cal nature our laws, the laws governing other Universes are not our nature, theirs is a completely different nature, and if you say tahts plauseable then God is plauseable considering he governs another set of natural laws. Also I explained why i believe in a divine and inteligent creator, the porbability of the laws of physics and their proportionality to allow life.
"even conceive a scientific multiverse one has to use mathimatical laws and principles that already exsist."
Yes, why would I even postulate God without having a reason to believe there is a sumprem creator, well other philosophies contribute to the belief. Men like Newton, Boyle, Copernicus, Eisntein, Planck, and Hawking himself believe in a supreme creator ( that is enough for me to believe in a supreme creator) I will agree I use faith for Jesus.
For the first one, that would come after your death when he sends you to hell. =D
for the second there is not direct evidene but theres evidence pointing to him like electrons and the mutliverse.
Your awnser to number 9 I must object, Christianity has never went against Science only creationist do.
Your last awnser is a respectable one, Your right when I try to go against Atheism I say my side of the story not say that your side is wrong because if you do that you only offend people
"For the first one, that would come after your death when he sends you to hell. =D
" you speak as if you have died before and know this to be true.
"Your awnser to number 9 I must object, Christianity has never went against Science only creationist do."
most creationists in the US ARE christian. if you dont "believe" in macro AND micro evolution then you are going "against" science... i'm not accusing you of anything im just pointing some things out.
"you speak as if you have died before and know this to be true."
I know many people that have seen this, many of my patients claim to see a light, so I can consider this 'enough' proof for it.
"most creationists in the US ARE christian"
that census is changing, the number of liberal churches is increasing in a 1000%, that's 10 times more than Atheism and 3 times more than biblical literists.
On the evolution thing, no it doesn't make you against it, shows what you know.
It isnt unusual to hallucinate during hypovolemic, psychological or even septic shock. If you work in the field you should know that. It is *not* proof of any deity.
Why get so hostile with me? I was just pointing some things out.
There is no empirical evidence of a deity, that is my stance. Dont get angry about it, this is an open discussion. Also thanks for the comment on my profile it really shows how mature you are, haha.
I no it isn't proof of any deity, but there have been many near death experiences that i'm skeptical about skeptics. =p
Thanks, I know there isn't any empriical evidence of a deity because it it's impossible in the field of Science, but there is proof that materialism is the most retarted belief there is, check out the constants and tell me about spontanouity.
"I no it isn't proof of any deity, but there have been many near death experiences that i'm skeptical about skeptics. =p"
If you know, then why mention it. Also if you are being skeptical about skeptics that makes you a believer, its a double negative. You are stating you arent skeptical and you believe that it is supernatural.
Remember extraordinary evidence is required to back extraordinary claims. Hallucinations rule out out of body experiences.
Hallucinations? So you believe they are hullicanations? Please give me the empirical evidence that these were hallcuinations, when some are very similar and some are very different.
Also the claim about supernaturality is not extraordinary, it doesn't take an idiot to know that there is osmething beyond our Universe that is not held by the laws of our Universe (nature), I think stupid and ignorant people have taking away meaning to the word supernatural, you being one of them.
give me empiracal evidence that they are not. you made the claim, not me.
calling me ignorant gets you no where. it DOES take an idiot to "know" supernatural things. I feel really sorry for you.
your god (like all the ones before him) shall be discarded in due time. when that happens someone will make a new god to worship. you know why? no proof...
do you believe in unicorns?
same reason you dont is why i dont believe in god. and it doesnt take faith to understand any aspect of science.
Alright I can't give you evidence, but until further investigation I could stick to my conclusion the same way you do.
"it DOES take an idiot to "know" supernatural things. I feel really sorry for you."
Wait, so you don't belieev in anything supernatural? Bigotry and close mindedness takes you to bad places, if it weren't for belief in supernatural we wouldn't postulate multiverses which have been proven to exist and our outside of nature (supernatural), i feel bad for you.
"Alright I can't give you evidence, but until further investigation I could stick to my conclusion the same way you do."
LOL thats funny knowing your conclusion BEFORE testing hypothesis is NOT scientific method. Fail.
Multiverses were not postulated on supernatural beliefs it was postulated by physicists and mathematicians, who used tested theory to make NEW hypotheses. Just because you dont understand it you call it supernatural. and anything that exsists is called what? NATURAL.
"Just because you dont understand it you call it supernatural. and anything that exsists is called what? NATURAL. "
Do you know how stupdi you sound at the moment? Alright please define supernatural, I know you'll get it wrong because you're such a dipshit so i'll awnser. It is anything unbound by OUR NATURE, anything not bound or testable by us is Supernatural! This includes the Mutliverse considering IT ISN"T BOUND BY OUR NATURE!!!!! Do you get it dumbass?
Not EXISTING in NATURE or subject to explanation according to NATURAL LAWS.
Bam.
Now guess what? ITS NOT TESTIBLE (as you mentioned, which is mind numbing, you dont even realize what you are talking about) therefore atheist doesnt believe it.
Get it? Your frustration with me proves you are ignorant. Cursing shows just how articulate you are.
You are a religious nutcase, who wants to show people on the internet that you get science too. Good for you, maybe someday you will wake up.
Thanks i apreciate the preaching from a dumbass. You gave me the same definition I gave you butin other words, the multiverse does not exist in our nature, do you know what nature is? Nature is the laws of Physics acting upon our Universe, according to michio kaku the multiverse is not bound by our universe. I'm guessing that crazy cult Atheistic regime has gotten to your brain, it's allright you'll heal.
"your god (like all the ones before him) shall be discarded in due time. when that happens someone will make a new god to worship. you know why? no proof..."
Ah are you talkign out of your ass? You do know your naturalistic view is irrational right? The more we figure the probability of the Universe's proportionality and constants the more we see divine influences, you're the one not up to date with scientific data.
No actually I'm not; I'm talking from a historic perspective. The only view that has survived long enough to give you an extra 50+ years to your lifespan had nothing to do with praying to Hercules or Horus. It wasnt until the age of ENLIGHTENMENT that we broke the world, as we knew, it from the dark clutches of religion to start fighting off disease and famine. We started looking at our world objectively rather than having all the answers in an old book. Its rational to the definition.
What the hell does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to do with your argument? We all can use Google and Wikipedia to aid us in conversation, bud. it doesnt impress anyone that you can flash that crap all over your profile. Say something in your own words to prove your intelligence. Hows that for straw men?
You in your own profile say you dont like to read books. Maybe you need some literature written by modern thinkers rather than terrified peasant cultists from ancient Rome.
What are you talkign about, if you had half a brain and understood what the second law of thermo.......... nevermind, I won't argue with idiots.
Alright in the Beggining of the Big Bang, there was low entropy, the probability of that is 1:10^10^123. That probability is so low, you can't write it down on regular scientific notation, this is according to Roger penrose (distinguished head of mathematics in Cambridge University) and is onfirmed by many even Stephen Hawking.
What does the laws of heat have to do with it? did I mention the insanely low probability? You believe nature did this? a one time chances that allowed 1:10^10^123 to happen! Wow, to me and to Hawking this looks like possible evidence of the creation of the laws of physics mad eby choice by God.
Ya probability on an infinate scale, means it will eventually happen. doesnt mean god did it.
by the way you are insanely wrong-Hawking is an agnostic.
unlike you I ACTUALLY read his books, he is a naturalist like myself. you fail. and dont even go quote farming to try to defend yourself, its widely known he rejects the idea of a personal god.
god isnt real just as gnomes and fairies arent real, the sooner you see that, the sooner you can apply it to your work, and be worth something.
"Ya probability on an infinate scale, means it will eventually happen."
it was a one time chance not 'eventually", second of all if you say it 'eventually' happens, you are following the gambler's fallacy, your happy following fallacies?
You say it doesn't mean God did it, if it quacks like a cosmic Duck it is a cosmic Duck. Hawking believes in a Deist God, not a personal one I agree. Hawking is an Agnostic/ Deist, and just because someone is a naturalist doesn't exclude God.......
Im growing really tired of arguing with you, believe what you want. I dont care, but dont act like you have scientific proof of god, because if you did you would have won the nobel prize.
If you find god, and you have proof shoot me a line and ill go and check him out, but till then leave me alone.
I suggest you read some stuff by Rand or Dawkins. (your a believer what do you have to lose?) I've already read the bible, dont mention it.
@ogirv101 - Nobel prizes for proof of God? Some data on that maybe?
- Have you actually read (as in, entire paragraphs of) Hawking? Here's one of many bits you might like: "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."
For those reading this nonsense, please quote me on ignoring scientific evidence.
I am ignoring your faith. your faith is baseless, and you were probably brought up to believe in jesus. you never questioned it because you are scared to death. I've been there.
but when you ACTUALLY read into stuff you will see your god was never there.
Hawking has no time to read bronze-age legends about miracles and god.
Those are my own questions which reflect certain aspects particular ones of the twelve questions. The "what stupid questions" comment refers to the original questions whose stupid aspects my own questions reflect.
If you were to ask me which of the twelve I thought were 'stupid' in the sense of easily answerable, I would have to say "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12".
The north pole / santa bit is just too good. Thanks for that.
KnowKnot 1 year ago
So, Atheists....what do you think of the Jews?
KevServo 2 years ago
@KevServo the jews ARE atheists.
ultraudv 2 years ago
Here is my opinion:
It is too stupid to say "There is no god". It is also too stupid to say "There is a god". Because we don't know, do we?
Also, there is a difference between believing in God and Religion. God by definition as we know is flawless. Religion is by definition is flawed ( too many man made stuff). So, I the author of the video seems to be confused in my opinion.
AlborzZagros 2 years ago
And with all of that already said, Good luck to you, it really does sound like you have potential. you got a little growing up to do, but thats ok.
I'll let you send the last inflaming comment, if you see fit. i know you are enraged right now and want the last word, so ill give it to you.
Ill never convince you to discard your beliefs, i never expected to. hopefully the seed is planted though.
Dont waste your life fearing a man made god, science is liberating enough.
have a great day.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
By the way, "This includes the Mutliverse considering IT ISN"T BOUND BY OUR NATURE!!!!! Do you get it dumbass?"
is that your feeble attempt at proving something unprovable? Theists have been barking up that tree for quite some time, its one thing to SPECULATE the LOGICAL exsistence of multiverses is fine, but blindly believing in it is ridiculous... it isnt testable till we can subject it to the scientific method. but even multiverse theory inst supernatural because it involves natural laws.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
So the mutliverse invovles natural laws? please explain? We cal nature our laws, the laws governing other Universes are not our nature, theirs is a completely different nature, and if you say tahts plauseable then God is plauseable considering he governs another set of natural laws. Also I explained why i believe in a divine and inteligent creator, the porbability of the laws of physics and their proportionality to allow life.
ogirv101 3 years ago
In order to even conceive a scientific multiverse one has to use mathimatical laws and principles that already exsist. your an imbicle.
want an example of supernatural stuff? read the bible.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
"even conceive a scientific multiverse one has to use mathimatical laws and principles that already exsist."
Yes, why would I even postulate God without having a reason to believe there is a sumprem creator, well other philosophies contribute to the belief. Men like Newton, Boyle, Copernicus, Eisntein, Planck, and Hawking himself believe in a supreme creator ( that is enough for me to believe in a supreme creator) I will agree I use faith for Jesus.
ogirv101 3 years ago
For the first one, that would come after your death when he sends you to hell. =D
for the second there is not direct evidene but theres evidence pointing to him like electrons and the mutliverse.
Your awnser to number 9 I must object, Christianity has never went against Science only creationist do.
Your last awnser is a respectable one, Your right when I try to go against Atheism I say my side of the story not say that your side is wrong because if you do that you only offend people
ogirv101 3 years ago
Heh... atheist here. To be honest, I find atheists who can't stop proselytizing even more annoying than theists who can't stop proselytizing.
NewColdness 3 years ago
"For the first one, that would come after your death when he sends you to hell. =D
" you speak as if you have died before and know this to be true.
"Your awnser to number 9 I must object, Christianity has never went against Science only creationist do."
most creationists in the US ARE christian. if you dont "believe" in macro AND micro evolution then you are going "against" science... i'm not accusing you of anything im just pointing some things out.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
"you speak as if you have died before and know this to be true."
I know many people that have seen this, many of my patients claim to see a light, so I can consider this 'enough' proof for it.
"most creationists in the US ARE christian"
that census is changing, the number of liberal churches is increasing in a 1000%, that's 10 times more than Atheism and 3 times more than biblical literists.
On the evolution thing, no it doesn't make you against it, shows what you know.
ogirv101 3 years ago
It isnt unusual to hallucinate during hypovolemic, psychological or even septic shock. If you work in the field you should know that. It is *not* proof of any deity.
Why get so hostile with me? I was just pointing some things out.
There is no empirical evidence of a deity, that is my stance. Dont get angry about it, this is an open discussion. Also thanks for the comment on my profile it really shows how mature you are, haha.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
I no it isn't proof of any deity, but there have been many near death experiences that i'm skeptical about skeptics. =p
Thanks, I know there isn't any empriical evidence of a deity because it it's impossible in the field of Science, but there is proof that materialism is the most retarted belief there is, check out the constants and tell me about spontanouity.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"I no it isn't proof of any deity, but there have been many near death experiences that i'm skeptical about skeptics. =p"
If you know, then why mention it. Also if you are being skeptical about skeptics that makes you a believer, its a double negative. You are stating you arent skeptical and you believe that it is supernatural.
Remember extraordinary evidence is required to back extraordinary claims. Hallucinations rule out out of body experiences.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
Hallucinations? So you believe they are hullicanations? Please give me the empirical evidence that these were hallcuinations, when some are very similar and some are very different.
Also the claim about supernaturality is not extraordinary, it doesn't take an idiot to know that there is osmething beyond our Universe that is not held by the laws of our Universe (nature), I think stupid and ignorant people have taking away meaning to the word supernatural, you being one of them.
ogirv101 3 years ago
give me empiracal evidence that they are not. you made the claim, not me.
calling me ignorant gets you no where. it DOES take an idiot to "know" supernatural things. I feel really sorry for you.
your god (like all the ones before him) shall be discarded in due time. when that happens someone will make a new god to worship. you know why? no proof...
do you believe in unicorns?
same reason you dont is why i dont believe in god. and it doesnt take faith to understand any aspect of science.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
Alright I can't give you evidence, but until further investigation I could stick to my conclusion the same way you do.
"it DOES take an idiot to "know" supernatural things. I feel really sorry for you."
Wait, so you don't belieev in anything supernatural? Bigotry and close mindedness takes you to bad places, if it weren't for belief in supernatural we wouldn't postulate multiverses which have been proven to exist and our outside of nature (supernatural), i feel bad for you.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"Alright I can't give you evidence, but until further investigation I could stick to my conclusion the same way you do."
LOL thats funny knowing your conclusion BEFORE testing hypothesis is NOT scientific method. Fail.
Multiverses were not postulated on supernatural beliefs it was postulated by physicists and mathematicians, who used tested theory to make NEW hypotheses. Just because you dont understand it you call it supernatural. and anything that exsists is called what? NATURAL.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
"Just because you dont understand it you call it supernatural. and anything that exsists is called what? NATURAL. "
Do you know how stupdi you sound at the moment? Alright please define supernatural, I know you'll get it wrong because you're such a dipshit so i'll awnser. It is anything unbound by OUR NATURE, anything not bound or testable by us is Supernatural! This includes the Mutliverse considering IT ISN"T BOUND BY OUR NATURE!!!!! Do you get it dumbass?
ogirv101 3 years ago
Not EXISTING in NATURE or subject to explanation according to NATURAL LAWS.
Bam.
Now guess what? ITS NOT TESTIBLE (as you mentioned, which is mind numbing, you dont even realize what you are talking about) therefore atheist doesnt believe it.
Get it? Your frustration with me proves you are ignorant. Cursing shows just how articulate you are.
You are a religious nutcase, who wants to show people on the internet that you get science too. Good for you, maybe someday you will wake up.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
Thanks i apreciate the preaching from a dumbass. You gave me the same definition I gave you butin other words, the multiverse does not exist in our nature, do you know what nature is? Nature is the laws of Physics acting upon our Universe, according to michio kaku the multiverse is not bound by our universe. I'm guessing that crazy cult Atheistic regime has gotten to your brain, it's allright you'll heal.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"your god (like all the ones before him) shall be discarded in due time. when that happens someone will make a new god to worship. you know why? no proof..."
Ah are you talkign out of your ass? You do know your naturalistic view is irrational right? The more we figure the probability of the Universe's proportionality and constants the more we see divine influences, you're the one not up to date with scientific data.
ogirv101 3 years ago
No actually I'm not; I'm talking from a historic perspective. The only view that has survived long enough to give you an extra 50+ years to your lifespan had nothing to do with praying to Hercules or Horus. It wasnt until the age of ENLIGHTENMENT that we broke the world, as we knew, it from the dark clutches of religion to start fighting off disease and famine. We started looking at our world objectively rather than having all the answers in an old book. Its rational to the definition.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
"do you believe in unicorns?"
strawmen, and you aren't even original. Can you go without copying the words of the notorious Dawkins?
"same reason you dont is why i dont believe in god."
Strawmen.
"and it doesnt take faith to understand any aspect of science. "
i never said that belief in God needs faith, belief in materialism does need a giant leap of faith:
Probability of low entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) is 1:10^10^123, this number can't even be written! Roger Penrose
ogirv101 3 years ago
What the hell does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to do with your argument? We all can use Google and Wikipedia to aid us in conversation, bud. it doesnt impress anyone that you can flash that crap all over your profile. Say something in your own words to prove your intelligence. Hows that for straw men?
You in your own profile say you dont like to read books. Maybe you need some literature written by modern thinkers rather than terrified peasant cultists from ancient Rome.
good day.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
What are you talkign about, if you had half a brain and understood what the second law of thermo.......... nevermind, I won't argue with idiots.
Alright in the Beggining of the Big Bang, there was low entropy, the probability of that is 1:10^10^123. That probability is so low, you can't write it down on regular scientific notation, this is according to Roger penrose (distinguished head of mathematics in Cambridge University) and is onfirmed by many even Stephen Hawking.
ogirv101 3 years ago
K, I understand the law of heat. my question was what the HELL does that have to do with supernatural stuff exsisting?
I never said i didnt understand it. you just assume it.
your "love" of science seems to be trivial. flashing quotes and what not does nothing for you.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
What does the laws of heat have to do with it? did I mention the insanely low probability? You believe nature did this? a one time chances that allowed 1:10^10^123 to happen! Wow, to me and to Hawking this looks like possible evidence of the creation of the laws of physics mad eby choice by God.
ogirv101 3 years ago
Ya probability on an infinate scale, means it will eventually happen. doesnt mean god did it.
by the way you are insanely wrong-Hawking is an agnostic.
unlike you I ACTUALLY read his books, he is a naturalist like myself. you fail. and dont even go quote farming to try to defend yourself, its widely known he rejects the idea of a personal god.
god isnt real just as gnomes and fairies arent real, the sooner you see that, the sooner you can apply it to your work, and be worth something.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
"Ya probability on an infinate scale, means it will eventually happen."
it was a one time chance not 'eventually", second of all if you say it 'eventually' happens, you are following the gambler's fallacy, your happy following fallacies?
You say it doesn't mean God did it, if it quacks like a cosmic Duck it is a cosmic Duck. Hawking believes in a Deist God, not a personal one I agree. Hawking is an Agnostic/ Deist, and just because someone is a naturalist doesn't exclude God.......
ogirv101 3 years ago
God is the biggest fallacy EVER. hows that?
Im growing really tired of arguing with you, believe what you want. I dont care, but dont act like you have scientific proof of god, because if you did you would have won the nobel prize.
If you find god, and you have proof shoot me a line and ill go and check him out, but till then leave me alone.
I suggest you read some stuff by Rand or Dawkins. (your a believer what do you have to lose?) I've already read the bible, dont mention it.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
"God is the biggest fallacy EVER. hows that?"
Arguement from fallacy.
"but dont act like you have scientific proof of god, because if you did you would have won the nobel prize."
i do have proof of God, but I didn't come up with it, but the peopel that did come up with it do have nobel prizes. =p
I suggest you read some work by Stephen Hawking, Hawking is open minded, Dawkins is a close minded bigot.
ogirv101 3 years ago
@ogirv101 - Nobel prizes for proof of God? Some data on that maybe?
- Have you actually read (as in, entire paragraphs of) Hawking? Here's one of many bits you might like: "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."
So is he a bigot now?
KnowKnot 1 year ago
"god isnt real just as gnomes and fairies arent real, the sooner you see that, the sooner you can apply it to your work, and be worth something. "
Good job sounding ignorant, ignoring scientific evidence, and ignoring scientific philosophy, you're very affective.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"ignoring scientific evidence"
For those reading this nonsense, please quote me on ignoring scientific evidence.
I am ignoring your faith. your faith is baseless, and you were probably brought up to believe in jesus. you never questioned it because you are scared to death. I've been there.
but when you ACTUALLY read into stuff you will see your god was never there.
Hawking has no time to read bronze-age legends about miracles and god.
Deists reject the supernatural.
xXGodlessXx 3 years ago
If there is a god and there is judgment day as theists put it, god will have far more questions to answer than i ever will.
Abdulmelik2007 3 years ago 9
who wouldn't be prepared to see santa?!
DADShadowFox 3 years ago 2
loved the santa response
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago 5
Good video, informative, but the music isn't that good.
Dan14159 3 years ago
For #11, I think I'd like to hear Jesus's opinion on Genesis.
RobAlone 3 years ago
Are Christians prepared to go to hell for believing in the wrong God?
Christians' morals change over time too, do they think they have the same ideas about right and wrong as 2000 years ago?
What stupid questions.
georg1984 3 years ago 2
Just put the question number instead of the whole question(s).
Dan14159 3 years ago
Those are my own questions which reflect certain aspects particular ones of the twelve questions. The "what stupid questions" comment refers to the original questions whose stupid aspects my own questions reflect.
If you were to ask me which of the twelve I thought were 'stupid' in the sense of easily answerable, I would have to say "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12".
Nethius has done a good job.
georg1984 3 years ago
Why are you telling me all this?
Dan14159 3 years ago
To explain the irrelevance of your comment to mine.
georg1984 3 years ago
I didn't mean to post that comment as a reply to yours. It was an accident
Dan14159 3 years ago