The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
The problem is,that you plunder upon mechanics alone,not reason.If you go with CreationX,you will find that there are endless types of creations.if you ask what created god-you will find another system of creationsX.If you ask the reason of god to create,you will find that either god is acting on the grade plan of CreationX,or it's just a very very bored elemental.So,you are stock with the X.your equation is of "what happened at X=creationX".And you can replace X with numbers forever-dead end.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
The key phrase here is "make up". You can "make up" anything like you like in your head, but that doesn't make it so. It also uses the bogus assumption that life was created on Earth first".
If you assert that the Universe was created, what would a "Non Created" Universe look like?
While i do not believe in a god because of lack of factual evidence, your approach on answering those attempts of disproving the existence of god is quite insightful. That is very much like science works and i can only agree to your conclusions. When we try to prove or disprove religion, we cannot measure the factors beyond our universe with physical laws that might very well be exclusive to our universe. Decent material to think about, i'll pick up your book for sure.
How do you know "LTS existed before our universe was formed" if you do not know how out universe was formed in the first place? Do you know what time is? Or space? And having them both "lack" is very confusing...they do not lack...time and space are terms we use for relativity...which shows the relationship between objects and separate universes...tell me how the words universe, time, space, were formed historically with retaining it's semantic nature and you will find yourself confused...
Psalm 14:1 in the scientific book proven to be true says "the fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'" which means if you deny God you are only damaging yourself. And without God there is no justice or peace or hope for everlasting life....
End of the day if god can poof pooof poooof himself into existance why couldn't everything else. I don't really feel like wasting my life obeying a book just because people are curious and try to come up with answers to things that they will never know.
@thescorpionking2020 Yes I am. Quote from my book: "I was born in the tropical island of Zanzibar in Tanzania (East Africa), but am of Indian Muslim heritage."
@thescorpionking2020 No I do not practice it, but I practice being a decent human being. I do not favor one religion over another or a non-believer over a believer. I prefer self-determination of what we believe regarding nature, life, God, the future, death, prayer, and the afterlife, since the popularity of a belief does not unquestionably convert that belief into truth.
Hey Nash, you're an educated, intelligent, mature man that engages in the worthwhile activity of intellectual exploration. Please continue producing your thought provoking videos & don't allow the many immature commenters get you down. I know precisely what they're like & I saw you have no shortage of them on this video alone
They intellectually doomed themselves when they committed themselves to the cognitively detrimental act of predetermination. When that is done, ones thinking skills cease
to continue developing & most of these guys predetermined the universal reality at a young age when their cognitive functions were still quite insufficiently developed. As such, they will continue to age but their intellect will remain brutishly barbarous
I have witnessed time & again that even well experienced men of innate exceptional intelligence often exhibit dunce thinking due to pitting themselves against the Creator. Hitchens said; "I know of no claim that says atheism is correct - cont.
I simply wish that Theists would get that right". However, Theists never get that incorrect...we also know of no claim that says atheism is correct. I've seen PhD scientists speak of 4 legged whales that were land-going Mammals & evolved into Crocodilians then evolved back into Mammals as ocean creatures? Then you have the one's with a genealogical heritage that includes ancestral bacterial forebears. Yet, ape-like missing links have all been soundly disproved
no matter how much will he try to blurr the semantics and regress he doesnt answer the question. if everything had to be created then GOD is included if god is exception then not everything had to be created. if not everything had to be created then take your sory unsuported fairytale cause you just proven its irrevelant as its the unguided untailored random natural universe that can be said to not have to be created. Science suports the claim that universe exists and that its the
first known factual thing that we know to have come about to exist. theres absolutley no proof of a god preexisting the universe. even a 3 year old can debunk creationists argument. creationists basicly claim there was a magical skydaddy before there was annything else and it happens to be the byblical skydaddy. haveing no proof of its existence they dance arround the issue like this poor fuck in the video for all it matters a 3 year old can claim it was a magical stuffed gyraphe to have
created the universe and that claim is jsut as unsuported as your byblical god. its sad that you have been branwashed to the point that you cant see that or are so afraid to admit it that you prefer to lie to yourself the whole life. religion sticks to stupidity and makes people miserable insecure selfdisgusted shamefull morons who all they care about is spreadign this shit ot others cause then maybe they wont get to be brutalised forever by theyre loving god.
@86Corvus : No need to have a verbal diarrhea or regurgitate stuff you already know. You didn't understand a thing I talk about in the video. Oh well. So what else is new?
@NashKhatri whats there to understand, the guy tries to make creationism more believable by floding it in aditional rregression of steps. so yea maybe that youre a moron is new i dont know.
@86Corvus While organised religions are indeed irrelevant and backward, I have to say "Agnosticism for the win!"! Just as Skydaddy cannot be proved, he cannot be disproved..
@andy7666 if you dont actualy believe it factualy exists, youre and agnostic atheist. i say that cause i have a bad impression that you think agnosticism is a position in between theism and atheism while infact theism and atheism are one or the other there is no inbetween. you either think god exists for sure or you dont and if you dont you are an atheist, you may be agnostic at thesame time. so hte avalible positionson question do you believe in god are are theist (yes) and atheist(no)
that means the position "i dont know" is still not a position "no", "i dont know" means you dont state you think god exists therefor you are agnostic type of an atheist. to go on further some people claim there is agnostic theist - still trying to cling that agnosticism is a position in between theism and atheism(which is not) - in theyre mind saying theyre agnostic theist means they beleive in god - but are not absolutley sure. its a falacy. u canot be stating ur sure and not sure about somethi
ng. the dychotomy is theist and atheist, atheists can be gnostic or agnostic theists can only be gnostic.
thats why agnostics who only label themselves by the word agnostic and see it as a position "inbetween" in reference to the question of the belief in god are called a closet atheists, cause they dont actualy believe in god and the lack of that factual belief that a god exists is a sign of being an atheist.
"Jetpack, what in your view is the difference between the smallest number and zero?" I'm assuming positive number, since negative numbers go on to infinity, thus you can't have a smallest. Zero is a number representing absence, 1 represents the opposite.
"Largest number and infinity?"
Infinity is not a number.
I'll tell you what all of those things have in common though. They are ideas, concepts, nothing more. Methods of quantification.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist. You think you know what you're talking about but you don't. Your last 3 replies to me provided NO rebuttals to my arguments, just assumptions that you are right and I am wrong.
Honestly, I hate arguing with you. You are worse than most creationists in that at least they provide arguments, however bad they are. You however are incapable of even doing that. Re read my rebuttals, send me a message when you decide to respond to them.
@JetpackNinja: “Honestly, I hate arguing with you.” Arguing and asking for rebuttals is your style. I prefer discussing (which is what I thought we were doing). “Methods of quantification.” Now you are talking. Can thoughts (or what I call “life-matter” in my videos) be quantified? I don’t think so, because quantification (i.e., math/science) only applies to t-s matters. Reflect on that first before blurting out a cookie-cutter answer based on blind assumption that t-s is all that there is.
You thought wrong. I love a good intelligent discussion, unfortunately you have yet to show me that you are intelligent. I'm trying to get you to substantiate the ridiculous claims you've made in the most ridiculous ways you've done it so i can see if I'm wrong.
Thoughts CAN be quantified but that doesn't make them exist in the real world. You can quantify concepts (not real things) in the same way you can quantify real things.
You haven't gotten past that important distinction.
I suppose, by "real world", you mean the time-space world. So you agree that thoughts do not exist in time-space world? But you still think they can be quantified (using numbers)? Give me an example so I know if you are comparing apples to apples. The key is to determine what one is thinking, not whether one is thinking - do you think a machine will be able to decipher what (not if) one is thinking? Such invasion of privacy is not possible in my view.
No, something outside of time and space is also real. I'm saying that yes, thoughts exist to the extend that people think, use their brain and chemical reactions happen but those specific thoughts do not exist in reality. (For example, the glowing pink elephant i just thought about doesn't exist) A thought is just a word for a series of chemical reactions in your brain to produce a specific reaction. We went over this already.
"So you agree that thoughts do not exist in time-space world? But you still think they can be quantified (using numbers)?"
That's it, I'm no longer beating around the bush. Sir, I think you're stupid, or perhaps at best of average intelligence. Re read what i said, come to understand it. I'm not saying it again.
You can COUNT how many times you think of something, regardless if what you think of exists in reality. Its not hard to understand. I'm not repeating myself.
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur “For example, the glowing pink elephant i just thought about doesn't exist.” But I’m not talking about the pink elephant or a flying pig (jeez!) I’m talking about the thought ITSELF (which, stubbornly limiting yourself to scientific labels, you call it a chemical reaction). If you think a machine will someday spit out a real-time text printout disclosing that you just thought about a unicorn, be my guest. Let’s not waste each other’s time any more. Bye, and regards.
"do you think a machine will be able to decipher what (not if) one is thinking? Such invasion of privacy is not possible in my view."
Oh please, its plenty possible. Our brains read chemical reactions in a similar way computer code reads 1s and 0s. The difference is the "code" our brain "reads" is much more complex than any computer on the planet. If, however we can create a computer capable of reading the super complex language our brain uses it will be COMPLETELY possible.
You're under the opinion that thoughts or the mind is in some way connected spiritually to some other "realm" you claim exists (which I'm still waiting for you to substantiate coherently) correct?
Speaking of waiting for your substantiation....I'm still waiting for you to substantiate a lot of other claims.
You have a lot of work ahead of you. Read my old posts again and stop ignoring your burden of proof.
If by LTS you mean a void lacking time or space I agree with that, however claiming a god lives in it is absurd in the highest degree and is something that you must demonstrate not with an internally consistent argument but by presenting evidence.
Additionally you need to back up your claim that the material universe (time and space included) was created instead of say, forming naturally.
There are numerous other problems with your argument but it doesn't matter if you can't solve the above.
@JetpackNinja For me, this is déjà vu all over again (see over 200 comments with Artblack and Chyrd on this video). I am not sure what’s the source of the negative attitude in general. My intention is to get folks to go “hmm!”. But if you don’t (because you cant/wont entertain stepping beyond the t-s reality paradigm), that’s OK! Forget about God; focus on thoughts instead. In my view, thoughts “exist” in the LTS (and as such, can’t be proved by science due to inter-domain inconsistency).
Your videos don't make me go "HMMMM" because you have no idea what you're talking about and we know better. Thoughts are conceptual, if you disagree then demonstrate that fact. Its very clear to anyone who knows better that you have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you know how to create a coherent argument. Your argument fails for multiple reasons and you can't even defend it.
If your argument fails, then drop it and start fresh. Don't be stubborn.
@JetpackNinja: Dinosaur, what makes u think u know what u are talking about or know how to form a coherent argument? Tried giving you the benefit of doubt, but to no avail. In my view, you are too immature for this topic, and as such, cannot relate to it. Hopefully, in about 5 years, you will understand that we learn to speak when we are 2 and learn to shut up when we are 30. You are not thinking for yourself. You are merely regurgitating views of whatever group (atheists?) you may belong to.
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur: “thoughts are conceptual”. So? You call that knowing what you are talking about? We know that thoughts exist. But can you prove them? Monitors can tell us when one is thinking, but they cannot tell us what one is thinking about. For the umpteenth time, prove/evidence apply only to time-space matters. But of course, Ninja, you dont want to entertain that idea – unless I show you an evidence of LTS in a test tube. Talk about totally not getting it!
I'd like to make a quick point that certificates in business and engineering don't give you any academic qualifications regarding anything you're talking about in the video. I don't either but I'm not the one attempting to construct wildly incoherent philosophical hypotheses and pass them off as the truth.
1. Your argument is a semantic one because first you must show that your terms exist in the real world beyond the conceptual, don't just blow hot air.
2. You're clearly incapable of separating the conceptual from the real, not a good sign if you want to come off as sane.
3. You haven't addressed my criticism that you use made up terminology that no one else uses to mask the reality of the situation which is that you are completely full of it.
@JetpackNinja And what’s up with being resistant to new terms because they are not already common? In my God vs Nature video, I made up other new terms, Napture and Nalture and assigned meaning to them. Who said I cannot do that? In another video, I asserted that regarding notions like God, nature, afterlife, etc, we are ALL at the same knowledge level, irrespective of our religious or scientific background or accomplishments. I certainly dont claim to know it all, though I have some views!
"And what’s up with being resistant to new terms because they are not already common?"
No, because making up words and then using them in your argument without demonstrating the thing you're talking about exists is the dictionary definition of Complete...
Utter...
Bullshit.
"I made up other new terms, Napture and Nalture and assigned meaning to them. Who said I cannot do that?"
@JetpackNinja: “because making up words and then using them in your argument without demonstrating the thing you're talking about exists” So, we should not talk about thoughts unless we can prove that they exist? Provide a coherent response to that. And chew on this: Jetpack, what in your view is the difference between the smallest number and zero? Largest number and infinity? Remember, provide a coherent response. Lastly, what makes you think one’s views (i.e., opinions) have to be defended?
You've built your entire career and your entire argument out of a semantic game that only you are playing. Until you stop making up your own bullshit and start making sense then no one except the few pathetic "truth-seekers" you have buying your terrible books and videos are going to take you seriously.
Then maybe you'd make enough money to move out of the apartment or townhouse you very likely live in. You don't even have a Wikipedia article of you. Nothing you've said is useful to anyone.
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur Calm down and don’t make irrelevant guesses. Like I say to others with views like yours, it is your prerogative to stick to the status quo. Regards.
With views like mine? You mean the view that you have not even begun to create a coherent argument?
Listen, believe what you want but don't go acting like you have some fantastic argument for the existence of god when you can't even get past phase one of NOT making a fallacious argument.
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur “don't go acting like you have some fantastic argument for the existence of god” So that’s your beef. I did not say anything about the existence of God. “Existence” pertains to time-space (vice LTS) related matters, if you know what I mean. Not sure if you watched my "LTS" and “Concept of God” videos. Anyway, like I said, it's your prerogative to stick to the status quo.
@JetpackNinja: I also said “existence” is a time-space term (if you know what I mean – apparently you don’t) – and as such, the term “existence” can’t be used to address LTS-related matters like God and life/thoughts. Along those lines, we can’t say that thoughts “exist” – because we cannot show a concrete evidence of them by e.g., producing a real time text printout of them. Oh, but you previously held that thoughts are akin to the firing of spark plugs. Now that’s what I call bullshit.
Sorry to break this to you Nash because i know you think you're a very smart man but every term is a space-time term, because everything that we can ever know exists, exists in space time.
You can't just make up an idea (god) and claim its outside of space-time, then start making arguments because first you have to demonstrate that there even is an outside of space-time, let alone this god idea exists there.
"Until you back your bullshit up with facts its safe to assume that you don't know what you're talking about. So humor us, lets see you state some facts."
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur: I have added some “poof” annotations to the video – please view the video again and see if you can follow the concept I’m trying to present. Note that Creation1 (or poof) is equivalent to the Big Bang, if you know what I mean.
LTR stands for Lumpy Toilet Rumpfest when I make creation 3 by creating my first number two (poo) creation of the day. This makes as much sense as your book. You must welcome this valid criticism.
@trueleroix Now you have removed all doubt that you have no clue what you are talking about. For crying out loud, it's LTS (not LTR) and creation3 (not creation 3). Same thing, uh? Oh well.
@NashKhatri You act like it matters if it's LTR or LTS, or creation3 or creation 3. It's still made up bullshit. I know what I am talking about. If you think that the ideas in the video are valid, then that confirms that you don't know what you are talking about. Do not use sarcasm. One must be honest or it doesn't work.
@trueleroix I suppose, if you cannot relate to it, it’s bullshit. One’s viewpoints are just that – nothing to do with honesty/dishonesty. After all, a good (or bad) idea (or comment – ha!) is just that, regardless of who it came from. There is not a single thing in the video that I’ve “made up” (as in trying to cheat/fool others) - if you follow the logic, that is. Anyway, it’s your prerogative stick to your opinion/status quo. Regards.
What absolute utter drivel this man is spewing. People like this charlatan milk idiots for money. Just because he is Indian and has an accent doesn't make what he spews any more profound!
"Lack of Time and Space (LTS) existed BEFORE our universe was formed."
Ear quotes can not negate logic. The word "before" is time-dependent and can not be qualified when referring to 'lack of time'. Also space-time is a single thing and can not be separated. Lrn2Science.
@HumaninSeoul Good comment, genius! In the book, I note that time-space-associated terms like before, after, instant, environment, something, nothing, everything, whatever, and existence are, in principle, not germane in the LTS context. Nonetheless, due to lack of other appropriate terms, I have used them out of necessity to convey the intended meaning—and they should be interpreted accordingly. Not sure if you watched my LTS video.
quit wasting your time talking about something not one person on this earth knows about. and frankly will never know about. its a mystery for a reason and you sir do not have the answer. our intelligence as human-beings is so little when you look at the universe as a whole. you will never understand it and neither will i.
The universe is still expanding and it's expanding faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is the fastest you can go in the universe, so if the universe is going faster, than maybe it's expaning into some place where ther's no matter.Im just guessing. People can ponder the universe but sadly we humans are not smart enough to figure it out. It's good that you are trying but i don't think you have it yet. maybe someday we will figure it out.
AGAIN!!!! I'm not going to waste my time watching one of your bullshit imaginary universe, god, creation theories. You have no idea what you are really talking about in relation to anything but what's in your little head and I am not interested in buying your book or hearing whatever batshit crazy idea you have for why you think God is real or that God created everything or whatever you believe. Tell it to someone that cares about unreality.
@NashKhatri He should flip out, because you are a disgrace by making money on this crap. People with a conscience are prevented from collecting money from others for scams. Don't tell him not to flip out! now give any money you have made to charity immediately.
@MoDizzle92377 Man created God, God never was and never will be because he was created in the minds of men to explain the things man does not yet understand. The more man understands the greater the Atheist population will become.
I just made up a new term called "nogodexists1" where it is defined as a state at which no god exists ever in all states in all times, outside of time, or in any realm other than reality. See? I can play semantics too.
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur But I am not playing semantics. Thoughts, for instance, are not "created" in the same way as, for instance, a car or a house is. I don't see any semantics play when I say thoughts are createdxyz# (etc) instead of created.
Yes you are playing semantics. You're making up new words and defining them then forming your argument.
Regardless, thoughts cannot be created because thoughts are conceptual. Thoughts are nothing more than a the firing of neurons paired with chemical reactions in your brain.
Until you back your bullshit up with facts its safe to assume that you don't know what you're talking about. So humor us, lets see you state some facts.
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur I suppose you aren't making up words and defining them to form your (un-original) argument when you say, “Thoughts are nothing more than a the firing of neurons paired with chemical reactions in your brain.” Like spark plugs firing in an engine, uh? I take it you did not get a thing I said about inter-domain inconsistency. Oh well. If the only tool you have is a hammer (science), all else will look like a nail (computer/machine). Oops! I’m making things up there too …
I'm not, look up the definitions of the words i used.
I tried looking up what "inter-domain inconsistency" is on google, wikipedia, the dictionary, and a few other websites and for some strange reason the only time i can see anyone using that word on the entire internet is when you use it. Go look for yourself.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when i say you are making up your own words and definitions.
"Oh well. If the only tool you have is a hammer (science),..."
Give me one other mechanism for finding truth that works better than science does and i might consider that argument even remotely worthy of a rebuttal.
I dunno about your creation three, two, or one hypothesis... but my hypothesis is that we don't need to worry... because only hell exists anyway.. and god is really the devils helper...and hes waiting to judge us in the eternal abyss.... the prophet Virgil told me this in a vision.. and the prophet Virgil is a good prophet!
I know that you liked to bring up the topic of whether or not we could know that a person was thinking or not... and whether we would be able to record those thought processes. Well... link . cs . cmu . edu / article . php ? a = 19
I completely agree with baz****. the bigger problem is not that the God exists or not ... But the bigger problem is : is the god so limited, so human(in fact inhuman in some major religions) , so vengeance as described in the Torah , Bible, Quran , geeta, Vedas etc. Agnostics and atheists are more against than the God of religions as opposed to actual creator, if any. After reading these scriptures with open mind one will realize it easily that it cannot be the god, the creator of this vast uni
I'd like to throw in a term I made up. Creation4: All gods have human qualities (jealousy, anger, vengeance, etc), and that no god in any culture can be validated or tested in any objective way, and so it is probable that god(s) were created by man in his image.
This is a very plausible and logical concept and should be introduced, or otherwise it makes your argument biased.
I received your book, and as I feared... there are no references... I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and tell you I have not read the entire piece, but skimmed it. I will read it ASAP... Now... If I don't find any references, I will have to assume what I stated in the past... that these are your opinions and not backed up by anything other than your thoughts.
Nash, there appears to be a man playing a piano in the next room, can you ask him to tone it down a bit because its undermining (even more than that jumper) what you are trying to say, and demotes any genuine attempt at serious discussion to that of a slightly drunken 4am rant about the universe with the night porter in an almost empty hotel lounge bar. Cheers.
yea just slap a number at the end of a buzzword to sound smart, make sure your name and your accent are foreign so you can appear mystical, and you can start selling whatever you want to retards. fantastic. Here's a question for you, who created4 the thing that created3 God who created2 life and created1 the universe?
@maikeru01: Apparently, your favorite phrase is “Momma ain’t raise no fool” (ha!) But guess what - you did not get a thing I am talking about in the video. My response to your question is thus “you have no idea what you are asking”. Do me a favor and read the “I have had it” comment I posted a few days ago. Regards, and stick to the status quo if you wish – it is your prerogative!
Who created God?
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
1tabligh 2 weeks ago
The problem is,that you plunder upon mechanics alone,not reason.If you go with CreationX,you will find that there are endless types of creations.if you ask what created god-you will find another system of creationsX.If you ask the reason of god to create,you will find that either god is acting on the grade plan of CreationX,or it's just a very very bored elemental.So,you are stock with the X.your equation is of "what happened at X=creationX".And you can replace X with numbers forever-dead end.
Wharwulif 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
There is no god.. only the universe
arubian06 6 months ago
@arubian06 your argument is SO invalid you are just plane out wrong
anarchydroid 4 months ago
@anarchydroid in what sense is it wrong? and this is not an argument rather MY philosophical conclusion based on the facts that are known to us.
arubian06 4 months ago
Comment removed
jackscrack99 7 months ago
The key phrase here is "make up". You can "make up" anything like you like in your head, but that doesn't make it so. It also uses the bogus assumption that life was created on Earth first".
If you assert that the Universe was created, what would a "Non Created" Universe look like?
And how would you know the difference?
lewisner 8 months ago
While i do not believe in a god because of lack of factual evidence, your approach on answering those attempts of disproving the existence of god is quite insightful. That is very much like science works and i can only agree to your conclusions. When we try to prove or disprove religion, we cannot measure the factors beyond our universe with physical laws that might very well be exclusive to our universe. Decent material to think about, i'll pick up your book for sure.
edtExodus 10 months ago
universe is like a big, very old, cell that evolve in expanse of eternity side by side with other universes.
symmetry08 11 months ago
How do you know "LTS existed before our universe was formed" if you do not know how out universe was formed in the first place? Do you know what time is? Or space? And having them both "lack" is very confusing...they do not lack...time and space are terms we use for relativity...which shows the relationship between objects and separate universes...tell me how the words universe, time, space, were formed historically with retaining it's semantic nature and you will find yourself confused...
JediMindKor88 11 months ago
Psalm 14:1 in the scientific book proven to be true says "the fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'" which means if you deny God you are only damaging yourself. And without God there is no justice or peace or hope for everlasting life....
JediMindKor88 11 months ago
End of the day if god can poof pooof poooof himself into existance why couldn't everything else. I don't really feel like wasting my life obeying a book just because people are curious and try to come up with answers to things that they will never know.
dan226343 1 year ago
hey nash r u indian?
thescorpionking2020 1 year ago
@thescorpionking2020 Yes I am. Quote from my book: "I was born in the tropical island of Zanzibar in Tanzania (East Africa), but am of Indian Muslim heritage."
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri i thought u wer a punjabi hindu khatri,coz of d khatri surname nd anyway ur vids seem quite good so do u practise islam?
thescorpionking2020 1 year ago
@thescorpionking2020 No I do not practice it, but I practice being a decent human being. I do not favor one religion over another or a non-believer over a believer. I prefer self-determination of what we believe regarding nature, life, God, the future, death, prayer, and the afterlife, since the popularity of a belief does not unquestionably convert that belief into truth.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
Hey Nash, you're an educated, intelligent, mature man that engages in the worthwhile activity of intellectual exploration. Please continue producing your thought provoking videos & don't allow the many immature commenters get you down. I know precisely what they're like & I saw you have no shortage of them on this video alone
They intellectually doomed themselves when they committed themselves to the cognitively detrimental act of predetermination. When that is done, ones thinking skills cease
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
to continue developing & most of these guys predetermined the universal reality at a young age when their cognitive functions were still quite insufficiently developed. As such, they will continue to age but their intellect will remain brutishly barbarous
I have witnessed time & again that even well experienced men of innate exceptional intelligence often exhibit dunce thinking due to pitting themselves against the Creator. Hitchens said; "I know of no claim that says atheism is correct - cont.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
I simply wish that Theists would get that right". However, Theists never get that incorrect...we also know of no claim that says atheism is correct. I've seen PhD scientists speak of 4 legged whales that were land-going Mammals & evolved into Crocodilians then evolved back into Mammals as ocean creatures? Then you have the one's with a genealogical heritage that includes ancestral bacterial forebears. Yet, ape-like missing links have all been soundly disproved
They think they're the smart ones!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
no matter how much will he try to blurr the semantics and regress he doesnt answer the question. if everything had to be created then GOD is included if god is exception then not everything had to be created. if not everything had to be created then take your sory unsuported fairytale cause you just proven its irrevelant as its the unguided untailored random natural universe that can be said to not have to be created. Science suports the claim that universe exists and that its the
86Corvus 1 year ago
first known factual thing that we know to have come about to exist. theres absolutley no proof of a god preexisting the universe. even a 3 year old can debunk creationists argument. creationists basicly claim there was a magical skydaddy before there was annything else and it happens to be the byblical skydaddy. haveing no proof of its existence they dance arround the issue like this poor fuck in the video for all it matters a 3 year old can claim it was a magical stuffed gyraphe to have
86Corvus 1 year ago
created the universe and that claim is jsut as unsuported as your byblical god. its sad that you have been branwashed to the point that you cant see that or are so afraid to admit it that you prefer to lie to yourself the whole life. religion sticks to stupidity and makes people miserable insecure selfdisgusted shamefull morons who all they care about is spreadign this shit ot others cause then maybe they wont get to be brutalised forever by theyre loving god.
86Corvus 1 year ago
@86Corvus : No need to have a verbal diarrhea or regurgitate stuff you already know. You didn't understand a thing I talk about in the video. Oh well. So what else is new?
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri whats there to understand, the guy tries to make creationism more believable by floding it in aditional rregression of steps. so yea maybe that youre a moron is new i dont know.
86Corvus 1 year ago
its strikes me that you obviously ahve problems with me simply stating an opinion perhaps you need to work on your insecurity
86Corvus 1 year ago
@86Corvus While organised religions are indeed irrelevant and backward, I have to say "Agnosticism for the win!"! Just as Skydaddy cannot be proved, he cannot be disproved..
andy7666 1 year ago
@andy7666 if you dont actualy believe it factualy exists, youre and agnostic atheist. i say that cause i have a bad impression that you think agnosticism is a position in between theism and atheism while infact theism and atheism are one or the other there is no inbetween. you either think god exists for sure or you dont and if you dont you are an atheist, you may be agnostic at thesame time. so hte avalible positionson question do you believe in god are are theist (yes) and atheist(no)
86Corvus 1 year ago
that means the position "i dont know" is still not a position "no", "i dont know" means you dont state you think god exists therefor you are agnostic type of an atheist. to go on further some people claim there is agnostic theist - still trying to cling that agnosticism is a position in between theism and atheism(which is not) - in theyre mind saying theyre agnostic theist means they beleive in god - but are not absolutley sure. its a falacy. u canot be stating ur sure and not sure about somethi
86Corvus 1 year ago
ng. the dychotomy is theist and atheist, atheists can be gnostic or agnostic theists can only be gnostic.
thats why agnostics who only label themselves by the word agnostic and see it as a position "inbetween" in reference to the question of the belief in god are called a closet atheists, cause they dont actualy believe in god and the lack of that factual belief that a god exists is a sign of being an atheist.
86Corvus 1 year ago
I will respond to your last question from me.
"Jetpack, what in your view is the difference between the smallest number and zero?" I'm assuming positive number, since negative numbers go on to infinity, thus you can't have a smallest. Zero is a number representing absence, 1 represents the opposite.
"Largest number and infinity?"
Infinity is not a number.
I'll tell you what all of those things have in common though. They are ideas, concepts, nothing more. Methods of quantification.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist. You think you know what you're talking about but you don't. Your last 3 replies to me provided NO rebuttals to my arguments, just assumptions that you are right and I am wrong.
Honestly, I hate arguing with you. You are worse than most creationists in that at least they provide arguments, however bad they are. You however are incapable of even doing that. Re read my rebuttals, send me a message when you decide to respond to them.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinja: “Honestly, I hate arguing with you.” Arguing and asking for rebuttals is your style. I prefer discussing (which is what I thought we were doing). “Methods of quantification.” Now you are talking. Can thoughts (or what I call “life-matter” in my videos) be quantified? I don’t think so, because quantification (i.e., math/science) only applies to t-s matters. Reflect on that first before blurting out a cookie-cutter answer based on blind assumption that t-s is all that there is.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
You thought wrong. I love a good intelligent discussion, unfortunately you have yet to show me that you are intelligent. I'm trying to get you to substantiate the ridiculous claims you've made in the most ridiculous ways you've done it so i can see if I'm wrong.
Thoughts CAN be quantified but that doesn't make them exist in the real world. You can quantify concepts (not real things) in the same way you can quantify real things.
You haven't gotten past that important distinction.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
I suppose, by "real world", you mean the time-space world. So you agree that thoughts do not exist in time-space world? But you still think they can be quantified (using numbers)? Give me an example so I know if you are comparing apples to apples. The key is to determine what one is thinking, not whether one is thinking - do you think a machine will be able to decipher what (not if) one is thinking? Such invasion of privacy is not possible in my view.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
No, something outside of time and space is also real. I'm saying that yes, thoughts exist to the extend that people think, use their brain and chemical reactions happen but those specific thoughts do not exist in reality. (For example, the glowing pink elephant i just thought about doesn't exist) A thought is just a word for a series of chemical reactions in your brain to produce a specific reaction. We went over this already.
continued
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
"So you agree that thoughts do not exist in time-space world? But you still think they can be quantified (using numbers)?"
That's it, I'm no longer beating around the bush. Sir, I think you're stupid, or perhaps at best of average intelligence. Re read what i said, come to understand it. I'm not saying it again.
You can COUNT how many times you think of something, regardless if what you think of exists in reality. Its not hard to understand. I'm not repeating myself.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur “For example, the glowing pink elephant i just thought about doesn't exist.” But I’m not talking about the pink elephant or a flying pig (jeez!) I’m talking about the thought ITSELF (which, stubbornly limiting yourself to scientific labels, you call it a chemical reaction). If you think a machine will someday spit out a real-time text printout disclosing that you just thought about a unicorn, be my guest. Let’s not waste each other’s time any more. Bye, and regards.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
Wow, classy. Ending your argument with a strawman. I never said it would print anything out.
I think you should probably get a proper education instead of the certificates you got. Oh and while you're at it, take a philosophy course or two.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
"do you think a machine will be able to decipher what (not if) one is thinking? Such invasion of privacy is not possible in my view."
Oh please, its plenty possible. Our brains read chemical reactions in a similar way computer code reads 1s and 0s. The difference is the "code" our brain "reads" is much more complex than any computer on the planet. If, however we can create a computer capable of reading the super complex language our brain uses it will be COMPLETELY possible.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
I think i understand your position.
You're under the opinion that thoughts or the mind is in some way connected spiritually to some other "realm" you claim exists (which I'm still waiting for you to substantiate coherently) correct?
Speaking of waiting for your substantiation....I'm still waiting for you to substantiate a lot of other claims.
You have a lot of work ahead of you. Read my old posts again and stop ignoring your burden of proof.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
man created god
lerox22 1 year ago
This is all speculation, making stuff as you go along...
sera7ares 1 year ago
If by LTS you mean a void lacking time or space I agree with that, however claiming a god lives in it is absurd in the highest degree and is something that you must demonstrate not with an internally consistent argument but by presenting evidence.
Additionally you need to back up your claim that the material universe (time and space included) was created instead of say, forming naturally.
There are numerous other problems with your argument but it doesn't matter if you can't solve the above.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinja For me, this is déjà vu all over again (see over 200 comments with Artblack and Chyrd on this video). I am not sure what’s the source of the negative attitude in general. My intention is to get folks to go “hmm!”. But if you don’t (because you cant/wont entertain stepping beyond the t-s reality paradigm), that’s OK! Forget about God; focus on thoughts instead. In my view, thoughts “exist” in the LTS (and as such, can’t be proved by science due to inter-domain inconsistency).
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
Your videos don't make me go "HMMMM" because you have no idea what you're talking about and we know better. Thoughts are conceptual, if you disagree then demonstrate that fact. Its very clear to anyone who knows better that you have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you know how to create a coherent argument. Your argument fails for multiple reasons and you can't even defend it.
If your argument fails, then drop it and start fresh. Don't be stubborn.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinja: Dinosaur, what makes u think u know what u are talking about or know how to form a coherent argument? Tried giving you the benefit of doubt, but to no avail. In my view, you are too immature for this topic, and as such, cannot relate to it. Hopefully, in about 5 years, you will understand that we learn to speak when we are 2 and learn to shut up when we are 30. You are not thinking for yourself. You are merely regurgitating views of whatever group (atheists?) you may belong to.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur: “thoughts are conceptual”. So? You call that knowing what you are talking about? We know that thoughts exist. But can you prove them? Monitors can tell us when one is thinking, but they cannot tell us what one is thinking about. For the umpteenth time, prove/evidence apply only to time-space matters. But of course, Ninja, you dont want to entertain that idea – unless I show you an evidence of LTS in a test tube. Talk about totally not getting it!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
Comment removed
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
I'd like to make a quick point that certificates in business and engineering don't give you any academic qualifications regarding anything you're talking about in the video. I don't either but I'm not the one attempting to construct wildly incoherent philosophical hypotheses and pass them off as the truth.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
I'm consolidating my argument.
1. Your argument is a semantic one because first you must show that your terms exist in the real world beyond the conceptual, don't just blow hot air.
2. You're clearly incapable of separating the conceptual from the real, not a good sign if you want to come off as sane.
3. You haven't addressed my criticism that you use made up terminology that no one else uses to mask the reality of the situation which is that you are completely full of it.
Your rebuttal?
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinja And what’s up with being resistant to new terms because they are not already common? In my God vs Nature video, I made up other new terms, Napture and Nalture and assigned meaning to them. Who said I cannot do that? In another video, I asserted that regarding notions like God, nature, afterlife, etc, we are ALL at the same knowledge level, irrespective of our religious or scientific background or accomplishments. I certainly dont claim to know it all, though I have some views!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
"And what’s up with being resistant to new terms because they are not already common?"
No, because making up words and then using them in your argument without demonstrating the thing you're talking about exists is the dictionary definition of Complete...
Utter...
Bullshit.
"I made up other new terms, Napture and Nalture and assigned meaning to them. Who said I cannot do that?"
You can, but it makes your argument fallacious.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinja: “because making up words and then using them in your argument without demonstrating the thing you're talking about exists” So, we should not talk about thoughts unless we can prove that they exist? Provide a coherent response to that. And chew on this: Jetpack, what in your view is the difference between the smallest number and zero? Largest number and infinity? Remember, provide a coherent response. Lastly, what makes you think one’s views (i.e., opinions) have to be defended?
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
"I certainly dont claim to know it all, though I have some views!"
Well, you're views suck. You can't even defend them properly.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
so basically wind doesnt exist cuz its invisible?
shamiotzi253 1 year ago
You've built your entire career and your entire argument out of a semantic game that only you are playing. Until you stop making up your own bullshit and start making sense then no one except the few pathetic "truth-seekers" you have buying your terrible books and videos are going to take you seriously.
Then maybe you'd make enough money to move out of the apartment or townhouse you very likely live in. You don't even have a Wikipedia article of you. Nothing you've said is useful to anyone.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur Calm down and don’t make irrelevant guesses. Like I say to others with views like yours, it is your prerogative to stick to the status quo. Regards.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
With views like mine? You mean the view that you have not even begun to create a coherent argument?
Listen, believe what you want but don't go acting like you have some fantastic argument for the existence of god when you can't even get past phase one of NOT making a fallacious argument.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur “don't go acting like you have some fantastic argument for the existence of god” So that’s your beef. I did not say anything about the existence of God. “Existence” pertains to time-space (vice LTS) related matters, if you know what I mean. Not sure if you watched my "LTS" and “Concept of God” videos. Anyway, like I said, it's your prerogative to stick to the status quo.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NashKhatri
"I did not say anything about the existence of God."
You do in your video which is just what i'm addressing. Are you going to defend your claims in the video or not?
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinja: I also said “existence” is a time-space term (if you know what I mean – apparently you don’t) – and as such, the term “existence” can’t be used to address LTS-related matters like God and life/thoughts. Along those lines, we can’t say that thoughts “exist” – because we cannot show a concrete evidence of them by e.g., producing a real time text printout of them. Oh, but you previously held that thoughts are akin to the firing of spark plugs. Now that’s what I call bullshit.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
Sorry to break this to you Nash because i know you think you're a very smart man but every term is a space-time term, because everything that we can ever know exists, exists in space time.
You can't just make up an idea (god) and claim its outside of space-time, then start making arguments because first you have to demonstrate that there even is an outside of space-time, let alone this god idea exists there.
Continued >>
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
<<cont.
"Along those lines, we can’t say that thoughts “exist” – because we cannot show a concrete evidence of them"
Thoughts don't exist, they are concepts, if you disagree then defend that assertion.
"Oh, but you previously held that thoughts are akin to the firing of spark plugs. Now that’s what I call bullshit."
No, that's how you heard it. I said that thoughts are concepts then elaborated with an analogy. Pay attention will you?
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NashKhatri
Remember when i said this a little while ago?
"Until you back your bullshit up with facts its safe to assume that you don't know what you're talking about. So humor us, lets see you state some facts."
I was serious. State your facts. I'm waiting.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur: I have added some “poof” annotations to the video – please view the video again and see if you can follow the concept I’m trying to present. Note that Creation1 (or poof) is equivalent to the Big Bang, if you know what I mean.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
I think that the negative comments came from the offspring of the people that killed Socrates.
eulerpwnzgauss 1 year ago
LTR stands for Lumpy Toilet Rumpfest when I make creation 3 by creating my first number two (poo) creation of the day. This makes as much sense as your book. You must welcome this valid criticism.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix "LTR" and "creation 3"? You have no clue what you are talking about.... So, what else is new?
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri It's the pseudo speak in the video. It's on your own channel for crying out loud.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix Now you have removed all doubt that you have no clue what you are talking about. For crying out loud, it's LTS (not LTR) and creation3 (not creation 3). Same thing, uh? Oh well.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri You act like it matters if it's LTR or LTS, or creation3 or creation 3. It's still made up bullshit. I know what I am talking about. If you think that the ideas in the video are valid, then that confirms that you don't know what you are talking about. Do not use sarcasm. One must be honest or it doesn't work.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix I suppose, if you cannot relate to it, it’s bullshit. One’s viewpoints are just that – nothing to do with honesty/dishonesty. After all, a good (or bad) idea (or comment – ha!) is just that, regardless of who it came from. There is not a single thing in the video that I’ve “made up” (as in trying to cheat/fool others) - if you follow the logic, that is. Anyway, it’s your prerogative stick to your opinion/status quo. Regards.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
What absolute utter drivel this man is spewing. People like this charlatan milk idiots for money. Just because he is Indian and has an accent doesn't make what he spews any more profound!
nontheistdavid 1 year ago
"Lack of Time and Space (LTS) existed BEFORE our universe was formed."
Ear quotes can not negate logic. The word "before" is time-dependent and can not be qualified when referring to 'lack of time'. Also space-time is a single thing and can not be separated. Lrn2Science.
HumaninSeoul 1 year ago
@HumaninSeoul Good comment, genius! In the book, I note that time-space-associated terms like before, after, instant, environment, something, nothing, everything, whatever, and existence are, in principle, not germane in the LTS context. Nonetheless, due to lack of other appropriate terms, I have used them out of necessity to convey the intended meaning—and they should be interpreted accordingly. Not sure if you watched my LTS video.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
quit wasting your time talking about something not one person on this earth knows about. and frankly will never know about. its a mystery for a reason and you sir do not have the answer. our intelligence as human-beings is so little when you look at the universe as a whole. you will never understand it and neither will i.
LarryTenderloin 1 year ago
lol
Anticrotte 1 year ago
The universe is still expanding and it's expanding faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is the fastest you can go in the universe, so if the universe is going faster, than maybe it's expaning into some place where ther's no matter.Im just guessing. People can ponder the universe but sadly we humans are not smart enough to figure it out. It's good that you are trying but i don't think you have it yet. maybe someday we will figure it out.
flubno 1 year ago
@flubno
when the universe expands, it brings matter
Zuurkool1 1 year ago
AGAIN!!!! I'm not going to waste my time watching one of your bullshit imaginary universe, god, creation theories. You have no idea what you are really talking about in relation to anything but what's in your little head and I am not interested in buying your book or hearing whatever batshit crazy idea you have for why you think God is real or that God created everything or whatever you believe. Tell it to someone that cares about unreality.
artblack01 1 year ago
@artblack01: No need to flip out. Regards, and bye.
NashKhatri 1 year ago 2
@NashKhatri He should flip out, because you are a disgrace by making money on this crap. People with a conscience are prevented from collecting money from others for scams. Don't tell him not to flip out! now give any money you have made to charity immediately.
trueleroix 1 year ago
God is a concept. (LTS) Limited Thinkng Spectrum
Alxscode 1 year ago
God is alway will be. no one created God. God say "I AM" and that means to me He always is and will be, AMEN!
MoDizzle92377 1 year ago
@MoDizzle92377 Man created God, God never was and never will be because he was created in the minds of men to explain the things man does not yet understand. The more man understands the greater the Atheist population will become.
artblack01 1 year ago 2
Nash, I'm not your friend, please decist from your shameless self promotion.
HitMeQuick 1 year ago
how do you know this?
nutty01 1 year ago
I just made up a new term called "nogodexists1" where it is defined as a state at which no god exists ever in all states in all times, outside of time, or in any realm other than reality. See? I can play semantics too.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur But I am not playing semantics. Thoughts, for instance, are not "created" in the same way as, for instance, a car or a house is. I don't see any semantics play when I say thoughts are createdxyz# (etc) instead of created.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
Yes you are playing semantics. You're making up new words and defining them then forming your argument.
Regardless, thoughts cannot be created because thoughts are conceptual. Thoughts are nothing more than a the firing of neurons paired with chemical reactions in your brain.
Until you back your bullshit up with facts its safe to assume that you don't know what you're talking about. So humor us, lets see you state some facts.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@JetpackNinjaDinosaur I suppose you aren't making up words and defining them to form your (un-original) argument when you say, “Thoughts are nothing more than a the firing of neurons paired with chemical reactions in your brain.” Like spark plugs firing in an engine, uh? I take it you did not get a thing I said about inter-domain inconsistency. Oh well. If the only tool you have is a hammer (science), all else will look like a nail (computer/machine). Oops! I’m making things up there too …
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
I'm not, look up the definitions of the words i used.
I tried looking up what "inter-domain inconsistency" is on google, wikipedia, the dictionary, and a few other websites and for some strange reason the only time i can see anyone using that word on the entire internet is when you use it. Go look for yourself.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when i say you are making up your own words and definitions.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
@NashKhatri
"Oh well. If the only tool you have is a hammer (science),..."
Give me one other mechanism for finding truth that works better than science does and i might consider that argument even remotely worthy of a rebuttal.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
I dunno about your creation three, two, or one hypothesis... but my hypothesis is that we don't need to worry... because only hell exists anyway.. and god is really the devils helper...and hes waiting to judge us in the eternal abyss.... the prophet Virgil told me this in a vision.. and the prophet Virgil is a good prophet!
DarkPhant0m13 1 year ago
@11914386 check out "God and Santa Claus" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@ikonix33 check out "Limitations of Science" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@jadato76 check out "Life-matter" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@brigzuz11 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@poeticdisciple check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@LilMikeRomans116 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@tresayhey check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. I posted a bunch of my other videos too. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@Ms68roadrunner check out "God and Santa Claus" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@apetrowsky1 check out "Life-matter" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@1scottey check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@kyuteh check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@lilnasty59 check out "Limitations of Science" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@xPinayGurl03 check out "Limitations of Science" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@WAZIZUP2350 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@Tagetto check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@likewtf514 check out "Thinking Is Authorized!" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@jimmieskaggs check out "Limitations of Science" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@jcreed7 check out ""Purpose of Life" is a moot concept" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@Alxscode check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@doctorw2 check out ""Forever" is a time-space concept" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@warpspeedpetey check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@crankycactus check out "Limitations of Science" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@Jasumi check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@Jumoklord check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@zambani check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@lcn615 check out "How are God and Nature different?" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@MayukeUchiha check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@mbcurry1981 check out ""Forever" is a time-space concept" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@manmythlegend12 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@cnf2415 check out "Extinction is not Forever" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@enteei666 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@nutty01 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@emcce69 check out "Limitations of Science" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@RicorianGuardian check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@MSKittytanfrescas check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@Anticrotte check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@theseeker2k5 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@bths87 check out "Limitations of Science" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@jackrabbitxxx2005 check out "Thinking Is Authorized!" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@MoDizzle92377 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@dezzitt13 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@crisliz64 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@Ifailatsports check out "Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@chris2002Rocklin check out "Limitations of Science" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@ramesis2 check out "God and Santa Claus" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@radicalevolutions check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@Norb68 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@Kingkalty check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@porche12312 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@KevZen2000 check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@TheWildAssCopyCat check out ""If" is a moot concept" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@AcidRain64 check out "Life-matter" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@crypticwriteings check out "Partnership with God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@JoshBlumeSound Hi! Check out my additional (16) videos I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
lets make a new term bullshit 1
tecsplicing 1 year ago
@tecsplicing check out the "How are God and Nature different?" video I just posted.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
I know that you liked to bring up the topic of whether or not we could know that a person was thinking or not... and whether we would be able to record those thought processes. Well... link . cs . cmu . edu / article . php ? a = 19
Remove the spaces... there's your link.
chyrd 1 year ago
I completely agree with baz****. the bigger problem is not that the God exists or not ... But the bigger problem is : is the god so limited, so human(in fact inhuman in some major religions) , so vengeance as described in the Torah , Bible, Quran , geeta, Vedas etc. Agnostics and atheists are more against than the God of religions as opposed to actual creator, if any. After reading these scriptures with open mind one will realize it easily that it cannot be the god, the creator of this vast uni
naseemikhan 1 year ago
@naseemikhan check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
I'd like to throw in a term I made up. Creation4: All gods have human qualities (jealousy, anger, vengeance, etc), and that no god in any culture can be validated or tested in any objective way, and so it is probable that god(s) were created by man in his image.
This is a very plausible and logical concept and should be introduced, or otherwise it makes your argument biased.
Baz0kable 1 year ago 2
@Baz0kable check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
I received your book, and as I feared... there are no references... I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and tell you I have not read the entire piece, but skimmed it. I will read it ASAP... Now... If I don't find any references, I will have to assume what I stated in the past... that these are your opinions and not backed up by anything other than your thoughts.
chyrd 1 year ago
haha nice try but I thjink ur so far off if u time traveled to where u r in reality when u came back it would be 5000
faze3todd 1 year ago
@faze3todd : I take that as a compliment ... ha!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
@faze3todd check out the "Thinking Is Authorized!" video I just posted.
NashKhatri 1 year ago
Nash, there appears to be a man playing a piano in the next room, can you ask him to tone it down a bit because its undermining (even more than that jumper) what you are trying to say, and demotes any genuine attempt at serious discussion to that of a slightly drunken 4am rant about the universe with the night porter in an almost empty hotel lounge bar. Cheers.
HitMeQuick 1 year ago
@HitMeQuick check out "The Concept of God" video I just posted. Enjoy!
NashKhatri 1 year ago
yea just slap a number at the end of a buzzword to sound smart, make sure your name and your accent are foreign so you can appear mystical, and you can start selling whatever you want to retards. fantastic. Here's a question for you, who created4 the thing that created3 God who created2 life and created1 the universe?
maikeru01 1 year ago 6
@maikeru01: Apparently, your favorite phrase is “Momma ain’t raise no fool” (ha!) But guess what - you did not get a thing I am talking about in the video. My response to your question is thus “you have no idea what you are asking”. Do me a favor and read the “I have had it” comment I posted a few days ago. Regards, and stick to the status quo if you wish – it is your prerogative!
NashKhatri 1 year ago