First off nice unibrow. Second science is a way of thinking that looks at things FROM a LOGICAL stand point and not a POOF magic one. Religion will die later on in the future so arguing about this kind of stuff is trivial. With each discovery science builds on itself and increases humans knowledge and understanding. People did not come up with science to THINK the way they want to like "God" was. So stop trying to troll GIIVideo because in the end you're a voice that nobody will listen to.
My name is Mark Maloney; I would like to invite you to visit my website Epluribusunum56. com. There you will find entirely new physics and cosmology, called Proto-space and DSFF, which are the formational mechanics composing all aspects composing our universe. The best way to learn something new is to securitize it looking for errors. I welcome your opinions.
if all the stories from the bible are true i.e. noah's ark. the time it wood take to get two of every animal and there 1.5 million species found so far most wood have died of old age by the time you got all of them. so we will sey god made them live longer. but if this is true then every animal should be like the cheetah inbred but there not how can you explain this
PLEASE DONT READ THIS.U WILL BE KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF UR LIFE.TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF UR LIFE.HOWEVER IF U DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO ATLEAST 3 VIDOES U WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS.UV STARTED READIN THISDONT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY.xSEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS.THIS ACTUALLY WORKS
PLEASE DONT READ THIS.U WILL BE KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF UR LIFE.TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF UR LIFE.HOWEVER IF U DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO ATLEAST 3 VIDOES U WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS.UV STARTED READIN THISDONT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY.xSEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS.THIS ACTUALLY WORKS
Sorry, Eisntein's theory of Relativity,p(ub. 1915, not 1917) didn't address the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory was unknown to Einstein at the time. Aside from that, a "natural;" origin to the universe doesn't "presuppose the exitence of matter, time, etc before the Big Bang," only that these phenomena emerged from the Big Bang as the result of natural processes rather than magical, supernatural or Divine ones. As far as science goes, if it happens, it's part of nature.
I agree that there's no concrete evidence for God, but when one consider ALL the logic TOGETHER, which by themselves may only constitute weak evidence, they become moderately strong evidence of a God.
Even though the universe as we know it came into being around 14 billion years ago, we do not know the nature of what caused the universe. It obvious that something has always existed because if there was nothing there would still be nothing but to assume its a god, or your god is begging the question. Why assume its a who, its simply another thing that we know nothing about. If you make claims about the nature of such a thing then this requires evidence which theist have none.
"...we do not know the nature of what caused the universe."
Explicitly, you are right. But we can infer the cause: it must be immaterial, timeless, spaceless and powerful. Since all matter, space, and time came into being at the singularity of the big bang, the cause cannot be material or based from something material (energy).
It's not begging the question because again, it's an inference from above. I'm curious if you actually watched the video as I offered explanations to all your args.
Yes I did actually watch the video but I dont agree with everything you said, (it must be immaterial, timeless spaceless and powerful) I ask what does it mean to be immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. Our minds cant conceive such a thing because it is beyond our realm of experience. If something is powerful, this means it uses some form of energy, maybe not electromagnetic energy but something.
In your video you said that positing a natural process as the source of the universe presupposes the existence of matter, space and time and that all of this came into being at the big bang. I argue that whatever caused the big bang, exists naturally. Therefore the universe has a natural cause. It could very well be some higher dimension of space-time that produces universes, who knows. To say its super natural or call it god is pointless IMO
"I argue that whatever caused the big bang, exists naturally."
If by naturally you mean necessarily, then I would agree but I wouldn't grant you naturally if by it you mean "by energy" as energy is derivative of matter (First Law of Thermo), which couldn't exist prior to the big bang, thus it cannot be a cause.
If you argue that the universe came from some "higher dimension" or "space-time" then this is hard to see how this is not natural or derivative of material. Again, this came into being.
When i say naturally i do mean necessarily, because something has always existed necessarily. I'm just saying that what ever exist outside of our tangible universe is natural, and does not have to be a personal god. It could be anything, we have no way to know. Its clear that it has some properties, as all things that exist do. Where did it get its propeties, or why are they, what they are. Could they be something different. There are just so many unknowns so i remain agnostic atheist.
@ultradevon04 If something is outside of what we define as the natural world, what should it be called? If God exists, then he is natural in the sense that his existence is real. As Christians understand God, He exists in His own reality, and He is defined by His own characteristics. He is only mystical or magical in the sense that we cannot fully comprehend Him with our own limitations in our reality.
This rebuttal is excellent. It's amazing to me that atheists think that Christians believe the God 'popped into existence'. Anyone who'd spent even thirty seconds looking up what Christians have historically held about God would know that God is the neccessary (non-contingent) being. After all, that's what his name means: YHWH.
I think the universe is finite & conscious & the planets have always been here and are also conscious. I think Humans have been on earth no more than 7,000 years & we came from astronauts altering humanoid D.N.A. The Hebrew version of the bible most likely came about from a story in an ancient Sumerian text. I love EVERYONE we are all humans who cares what we believe about individually as long as we care about each other as a species. LOVE & RESECT, p.s. this topic has no definitive answers.
Albert Einstein originally assumed a homogeneous and isotropic stead state, until he realized that GR would not permit such a model of the universe, thus using induction, the universe was not static but had a beginning. Thus, he did say something about the Big Bang, or at least alluded to it.
The bible doesn't say how old creation is, that I'm aware of ? . 2 Peter 2;8 a God day is a thousand years. Could the days of creation be a 7,000 years, a God week? How many God weeks could there be ? Is it 7,000 to Adam 7,000 to Noah or flood 7,000 to today? Does it matter for this age of grace of Christ ? Gaps? The gaps of evolution. If this is a young earth, the creationist would be closer to its age Vs hundreds of trillions of years of evolution.
If you need more education on this, I suggest you study the writings of Plato, David Armstrong, and Michael Loux.
Until you can explicate the realm crossing relation, explicate the mediated attachment/exemplification tie between God and nature, and solve Bradley's regress, God does not exist, never created the Universe, or interacts with it.
If you can solve these problems that Theists take for granted, without further study, by all means GO AHEAD!
An example of the mediated attachment between a spatially located entity(You), and another spatially located entity(the external, natural world), is energy, and "thermodynamic flow", plus(+) sensory ties such as touch, taste, smell, etc.
One of the mediated attachments between a plant and the ground, is the plant "touches"(buried inside of) the ground. This mediation is facilitated by them both being spatially located(Non-Realm Crossed).
There are no examples of realm crossing relations, because it's impossible, as it implies an internal contradiction. This proves God does not exist, since theists claim God interacts with the spatial realm, while being aspatial, which asserts a logical contradiction. It also proves God did not create the Universe, or influences it in any way, unless the realm crossing relation, and the mediated attachment can be solved by Theists and accounted for.
Because in order for something to interact with the spatial realm, it would have to be spatially located itself, in relation to it. To claim otherwise, is to assert a logical contradiction, that something can interact with point B, without itself becoming Point A, in contradistinction to Point B.
Not to mention the fact that there is no articulated realm crossing relation, or exemplification tie that instantiates mediation across relations/realms.
Responding to my question with another question doesn't constitute an answer. For one thing, the question is one of interaction, not causation, and secondly, I haven't myself asserted that spatial/non-spatial interaction/causation violates a logical law.
They say the big bang came from a singularity so to me it seems the big bang did not create matter and time out of nothing but it merely converted something that already existed (a singularity) into something else. It is possible that the singularity already contained the impulse to explode and that it did so for an infinite amount of time. The singularity may have existed uncaused and inexplicably.
If we can simply make claims without justifying them things get easy for both of us but our debate is going to lead nowhere. If you think an actual infinite cannot exist please prove it. I can tell you as much as that I will not accept Hilbert's Hotel as "evidence" since that does not prove that an actual infinite can not exist at all. All it shows is that the rules of addition and substraction do not apply to an actual infinite like they do to fixed numbers.
2+2=5 is mathematically impossible. A series x that achieves ACTUAL infinity is also mathematically impossible. Maybe an 'actually' infinite series does exist in some possible world just as 2+2=5 might....but somehow this just seems to really break down into nothing more than 'crazy' talk if you know what I mean. Actual infinity in at least the natural order is impossible. You're just going to have to accept that. The burden of an alternative is on you. I have to prove nothing.
No...the thing is Christians claim that God has to exist because he is the only imaginable explanation. If other explanations are imaginable then that kills this theory. I don't need evidence that those alternatives are true in order to show that alternative explanations exist and therefore God is not the logically necessary explanation.
Philosophically God has always been this: the uncaused cause, the timeless being, the eternal one, etc. We know that what ever/who ever is responsible for ultimate origins of the 'natural' order MUST share the above qualities and therefore, philosophically must be God.
I'm happy to see you making first concessions. Now you are already taking a "what ever" into consideration which means you are considering the possibility that Christianity is false as far as the consciousness of the first cause is concerned.
If your concept of God is sufficiently described by the properties uncaused, timeless and eternal then your God may as well be a natural process.
Great video! You do a fantastic job in pointing out some of the logical flaws and philosophical problems with an atheistic/scientific view of the origin of the universe. God bless you.
There is no rational reason to assume that creating the spatially located universe necessitates God becoming spatial Himself. For example, can think of imaginary people and places without the need to become imaginary myself. God is the originator of both time and space which did not exist before the universe was brought forth. The universe is finite. God is not. No contradiction for a non material being to originate matter either.
Well, for starters, a being that is in a different realm(aspatial), from the Universe(spatial), cannot interact, or reach across realms, to instantiate (X), since such a realm crossing relation lacks a mediated attachment. Further, God's spatial unlocatedness, gives rise to Bradley's regress, which no Theist to my Knowledge, has yet solved.
You cannot solve Bradley's regress in this context, until you can explicate the exemplification tie between a spatial entity, and a non-spatial one.
From what box of Crackerjacks do you pull your deluded and convoluted illogical "philosophy?" God is omnipresent, got it? The universe is finite and He brought it into existence. Got it? Who in the devil is Bradley and what is his regress? Do I appear to care? Stick with logic when discussing metaphysic please. You have proved absolutely nothing. BTW how many Theists do you know? I already gave you an "exemplification." You and your day dreams or imaginatjory realm. Can't help if you refuse it!
Besides committing a bunch of bare assertion fallacies, you failed to explain
the mediated attachment by which the realm crossing relation can be instantiated between God and Nature.
You also failed to solve Bradley's regress. If you are unaware of this problem, you should educate yourself by reading the writings of Plato, David Armstrong, and Michael Loux.
Until you solve these, your God does not exist, and did not create the Universe.
So if he solves Bradley's regress, God will exist and be the creator of the universe? And why are you asserting that he has to explain the "mediated attachment" (whatever that means) to give credit to his response to another person's argument?
That's basically saying because God is outside of something - "in a different realm" - he cannot affect it. That's nonsense; that a thing is external to X does not mean it cannot connect with X.
A realm crossing relation(contextually) is by definition, the exemplification tie(Metaphysical relation) between an entity in space(Natural realm) and an entity not in space(God).
A mediated attachment(contexually) is the intermediary connection between a spatially located entity and God.
First off nice unibrow. Second science is a way of thinking that looks at things FROM a LOGICAL stand point and not a POOF magic one. Religion will die later on in the future so arguing about this kind of stuff is trivial. With each discovery science builds on itself and increases humans knowledge and understanding. People did not come up with science to THINK the way they want to like "God" was. So stop trying to troll GIIVideo because in the end you're a voice that nobody will listen to.
LegendaryZody 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear Wonderers,
My name is Mark Maloney; I would like to invite you to visit my website Epluribusunum56. com. There you will find entirely new physics and cosmology, called Proto-space and DSFF, which are the formational mechanics composing all aspects composing our universe. The best way to learn something new is to securitize it looking for errors. I welcome your opinions.
Sincerely, Mark Maloney
MarkMaloney56 1 year ago
Surrender to the fractal mother.
fiscornioman 1 year ago
if all the stories from the bible are true i.e. noah's ark. the time it wood take to get two of every animal and there 1.5 million species found so far most wood have died of old age by the time you got all of them. so we will sey god made them live longer. but if this is true then every animal should be like the cheetah inbred but there not how can you explain this
ikeones 1 year ago
/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
a sort of related work by Rob Bryanton
a very clear animation and he talks "aboot" alot of interesting subjects
Madhijz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONT READ THIS.U WILL BE KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF UR LIFE.TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF UR LIFE.HOWEVER IF U DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO ATLEAST 3 VIDOES U WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS.UV STARTED READIN THISDONT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY.xSEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS.THIS ACTUALLY WORKS
shanabeaar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONT READ THIS.U WILL BE KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF UR LIFE.TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF UR LIFE.HOWEVER IF U DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO ATLEAST 3 VIDOES U WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS.UV STARTED READIN THISDONT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY.xSEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS.THIS ACTUALLY WORKS
shanabeaar 1 year ago
Sorry, Eisntein's theory of Relativity,p(ub. 1915, not 1917) didn't address the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory was unknown to Einstein at the time. Aside from that, a "natural;" origin to the universe doesn't "presuppose the exitence of matter, time, etc before the Big Bang," only that these phenomena emerged from the Big Bang as the result of natural processes rather than magical, supernatural or Divine ones. As far as science goes, if it happens, it's part of nature.
luvdomus 1 year ago
I agree that there's no concrete evidence for God, but when one consider ALL the logic TOGETHER, which by themselves may only constitute weak evidence, they become moderately strong evidence of a God.
GoforBroke4 2 years ago
You're by far the best Christian content on youtube. Finally an intelligent Christian who can defend his beliefs in a coherent and thoughtful manner.
Thank you for the videos.
GoforBroke4 2 years ago
Even though the universe as we know it came into being around 14 billion years ago, we do not know the nature of what caused the universe. It obvious that something has always existed because if there was nothing there would still be nothing but to assume its a god, or your god is begging the question. Why assume its a who, its simply another thing that we know nothing about. If you make claims about the nature of such a thing then this requires evidence which theist have none.
ultradevon04 2 years ago
"...we do not know the nature of what caused the universe."
Explicitly, you are right. But we can infer the cause: it must be immaterial, timeless, spaceless and powerful. Since all matter, space, and time came into being at the singularity of the big bang, the cause cannot be material or based from something material (energy).
It's not begging the question because again, it's an inference from above. I'm curious if you actually watched the video as I offered explanations to all your args.
telemantros 2 years ago
Yes I did actually watch the video but I dont agree with everything you said, (it must be immaterial, timeless spaceless and powerful) I ask what does it mean to be immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. Our minds cant conceive such a thing because it is beyond our realm of experience. If something is powerful, this means it uses some form of energy, maybe not electromagnetic energy but something.
ultradevon04 2 years ago
In your video you said that positing a natural process as the source of the universe presupposes the existence of matter, space and time and that all of this came into being at the big bang. I argue that whatever caused the big bang, exists naturally. Therefore the universe has a natural cause. It could very well be some higher dimension of space-time that produces universes, who knows. To say its super natural or call it god is pointless IMO
ultradevon04 2 years ago
"I argue that whatever caused the big bang, exists naturally."
If by naturally you mean necessarily, then I would agree but I wouldn't grant you naturally if by it you mean "by energy" as energy is derivative of matter (First Law of Thermo), which couldn't exist prior to the big bang, thus it cannot be a cause.
If you argue that the universe came from some "higher dimension" or "space-time" then this is hard to see how this is not natural or derivative of material. Again, this came into being.
telemantros 2 years ago
When i say naturally i do mean necessarily, because something has always existed necessarily. I'm just saying that what ever exist outside of our tangible universe is natural, and does not have to be a personal god. It could be anything, we have no way to know. Its clear that it has some properties, as all things that exist do. Where did it get its propeties, or why are they, what they are. Could they be something different. There are just so many unknowns so i remain agnostic atheist.
ultradevon04 2 years ago
@ultradevon04 If something is outside of what we define as the natural world, what should it be called? If God exists, then he is natural in the sense that his existence is real. As Christians understand God, He exists in His own reality, and He is defined by His own characteristics. He is only mystical or magical in the sense that we cannot fully comprehend Him with our own limitations in our reality.
littlemas2 8 months ago
This rebuttal is excellent. It's amazing to me that atheists think that Christians believe the God 'popped into existence'. Anyone who'd spent even thirty seconds looking up what Christians have historically held about God would know that God is the neccessary (non-contingent) being. After all, that's what his name means: YHWH.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
*that God
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
This is a really good video response, great job & 5 stars! :-)
RodneyVoelker 2 years ago
I think the universe is finite & conscious & the planets have always been here and are also conscious. I think Humans have been on earth no more than 7,000 years & we came from astronauts altering humanoid D.N.A. The Hebrew version of the bible most likely came about from a story in an ancient Sumerian text. I love EVERYONE we are all humans who cares what we believe about individually as long as we care about each other as a species. LOVE & RESECT, p.s. this topic has no definitive answers.
BITHPO 2 years ago
/salute
LoneStar1776 2 years ago
Amazing, very well done. I love your videos.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
Great video!
xtrashed 2 years ago
Made from nothing? a singularity is an infinite force.
There is nothing to stop the universe from expanding to infinity.
mergeform 2 years ago
Einstein had nothing to say about the big bang, you are actually reffering to Edwin Hubble...
biomanwin 2 years ago
Albert Einstein originally assumed a homogeneous and isotropic stead state, until he realized that GR would not permit such a model of the universe, thus using induction, the universe was not static but had a beginning. Thus, he did say something about the Big Bang, or at least alluded to it.
telemantros 2 years ago
The bible doesn't say how old creation is, that I'm aware of ? . 2 Peter 2;8 a God day is a thousand years. Could the days of creation be a 7,000 years, a God week? How many God weeks could there be ? Is it 7,000 to Adam 7,000 to Noah or flood 7,000 to today? Does it matter for this age of grace of Christ ? Gaps? The gaps of evolution. If this is a young earth, the creationist would be closer to its age Vs hundreds of trillions of years of evolution.
adznruses 2 years ago
You seem VERY intelligent, what with the "big" words and all. Why are you a Christian???
UnrecognizedGamer 2 years ago
ur sister-in-law says "hi! i love you!!!" ♥
L0veNeverFailing 2 years ago
: )
telemantros 2 years ago
i'm impressed with your arguments, the guys arguments you're refuting are typical atheist arguments. very illoigcal.
very good.
diuryl 2 years ago
@legodesi
If you need more education on this, I suggest you study the writings of Plato, David Armstrong, and Michael Loux.
Until you can explicate the realm crossing relation, explicate the mediated attachment/exemplification tie between God and nature, and solve Bradley's regress, God does not exist, never created the Universe, or interacts with it.
If you can solve these problems that Theists take for granted, without further study, by all means GO AHEAD!
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You're gonna have to be a bit more specific; Plato wrote on dozens of subjects. Can you point me to an article?
legodesi 2 years ago
Continued @legodesi
An example of the mediated attachment between a spatially located entity(You), and another spatially located entity(the external, natural world), is energy, and "thermodynamic flow", plus(+) sensory ties such as touch, taste, smell, etc.
One of the mediated attachments between a plant and the ground, is the plant "touches"(buried inside of) the ground. This mediation is facilitated by them both being spatially located(Non-Realm Crossed).
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Continued @legodesi
There are no examples of realm crossing relations, because it's impossible, as it implies an internal contradiction. This proves God does not exist, since theists claim God interacts with the spatial realm, while being aspatial, which asserts a logical contradiction. It also proves God did not create the Universe, or influences it in any way, unless the realm crossing relation, and the mediated attachment can be solved by Theists and accounted for.
Continued..
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
What is logically impossible about a thing that is non-spatial that interacts with a thing that is spatial?
legodesi 2 years ago
@legodesi
Because in order for something to interact with the spatial realm, it would have to be spatially located itself, in relation to it. To claim otherwise, is to assert a logical contradiction, that something can interact with point B, without itself becoming Point A, in contradistinction to Point B.
Not to mention the fact that there is no articulated realm crossing relation, or exemplification tie that instantiates mediation across relations/realms.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
"Because in order for something to interact with the spatial realm, it would have to be spatially located itself, in relation to it"
This only restates your original contention, my question is, why should that be true?
"that something can interact with point B, without itself becoming Point A, in contradistinction to Point B."
What? Okay, focus your response on the above-produced statement. What is point A, and why should God become point A in order to interact with point B?
legodesi 2 years ago
If that is not logically impossible then why can't a non spatial natural process have caused something that is spatial ?
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Bastard,
Responding to my question with another question doesn't constitute an answer. For one thing, the question is one of interaction, not causation, and secondly, I haven't myself asserted that spatial/non-spatial interaction/causation violates a logical law.
legodesi 2 years ago
@Telemantros:
They say the big bang came from a singularity so to me it seems the big bang did not create matter and time out of nothing but it merely converted something that already existed (a singularity) into something else. It is possible that the singularity already contained the impulse to explode and that it did so for an infinite amount of time. The singularity may have existed uncaused and inexplicably.
How do you respond to this ?
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
An actual infinite cannot exist. There's your answer.
friendlydiplomat 2 years ago
Yes it can. There's my reply.
LOL
If we can simply make claims without justifying them things get easy for both of us but our debate is going to lead nowhere. If you think an actual infinite cannot exist please prove it. I can tell you as much as that I will not accept Hilbert's Hotel as "evidence" since that does not prove that an actual infinite can not exist at all. All it shows is that the rules of addition and substraction do not apply to an actual infinite like they do to fixed numbers.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
2+2=5 is mathematically impossible. A series x that achieves ACTUAL infinity is also mathematically impossible. Maybe an 'actually' infinite series does exist in some possible world just as 2+2=5 might....but somehow this just seems to really break down into nothing more than 'crazy' talk if you know what I mean. Actual infinity in at least the natural order is impossible. You're just going to have to accept that. The burden of an alternative is on you. I have to prove nothing.
friendlydiplomat 2 years ago
No...the thing is Christians claim that God has to exist because he is the only imaginable explanation. If other explanations are imaginable then that kills this theory. I don't need evidence that those alternatives are true in order to show that alternative explanations exist and therefore God is not the logically necessary explanation.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Philosophically God has always been this: the uncaused cause, the timeless being, the eternal one, etc. We know that what ever/who ever is responsible for ultimate origins of the 'natural' order MUST share the above qualities and therefore, philosophically must be God.
friendlydiplomat 2 years ago
I'm happy to see you making first concessions. Now you are already taking a "what ever" into consideration which means you are considering the possibility that Christianity is false as far as the consciousness of the first cause is concerned.
If your concept of God is sufficiently described by the properties uncaused, timeless and eternal then your God may as well be a natural process.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
i didn't know that he also had a youtube. Man, that guy really needs to get a life.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
@longhornman99001
What do you mean by, "because he also has a Youtube channel, he needs to get a life"?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
He runs two websites, a myspace profile, a youtube, and who knows what else.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
@longhornman99001
So how does having all that, and doing all that, means he needs to get a life?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Because existence exists. Don't you see it?
longhornman99001 2 years ago
@longhornman99001
Well, since you choose to be childish, this dialogue must be discontinued.
I will now have sufficient cause to conclude your insult of him needing to get a life, was without warrant or logic.
Good day to you sir.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I was obviously making a joke.
Anyway, I was insulting him. I was just stating my opinion that maybe he should take some time away from the interwebz.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Great video! You do a fantastic job in pointing out some of the logical flaws and philosophical problems with an atheistic/scientific view of the origin of the universe. God bless you.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
@Blogrich55
How does a spatially unlocated entity like God, create a spatially located entity like the Universe, without God "himself", becoming spatial?
Which would thus present an internal contradiction to God's definitional state?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
There is no rational reason to assume that creating the spatially located universe necessitates God becoming spatial Himself. For example, can think of imaginary people and places without the need to become imaginary myself. God is the originator of both time and space which did not exist before the universe was brought forth. The universe is finite. God is not. No contradiction for a non material being to originate matter either.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Well, for starters, a being that is in a different realm(aspatial), from the Universe(spatial), cannot interact, or reach across realms, to instantiate (X), since such a realm crossing relation lacks a mediated attachment. Further, God's spatial unlocatedness, gives rise to Bradley's regress, which no Theist to my Knowledge, has yet solved.
You cannot solve Bradley's regress in this context, until you can explicate the exemplification tie between a spatial entity, and a non-spatial one.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
From what box of Crackerjacks do you pull your deluded and convoluted illogical "philosophy?" God is omnipresent, got it? The universe is finite and He brought it into existence. Got it? Who in the devil is Bradley and what is his regress? Do I appear to care? Stick with logic when discussing metaphysic please. You have proved absolutely nothing. BTW how many Theists do you know? I already gave you an "exemplification." You and your day dreams or imaginatjory realm. Can't help if you refuse it!
Blogrich55 2 years ago
@Blogrich55
Besides committing a bunch of bare assertion fallacies, you failed to explain
the mediated attachment by which the realm crossing relation can be instantiated between God and Nature.
You also failed to solve Bradley's regress. If you are unaware of this problem, you should educate yourself by reading the writings of Plato, David Armstrong, and Michael Loux.
Until you solve these, your God does not exist, and did not create the Universe.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
So if he solves Bradley's regress, God will exist and be the creator of the universe? And why are you asserting that he has to explain the "mediated attachment" (whatever that means) to give credit to his response to another person's argument?
cruelfate45 2 years ago
@cruelfate45
Because if he cannot provide the mediated attachment, then God cannot have a causal relation with Nature/The Natural Realm.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
That's basically saying because God is outside of something - "in a different realm" - he cannot affect it. That's nonsense; that a thing is external to X does not mean it cannot connect with X.
legodesi 2 years ago
@legodesi
What is the realm crossing relation between God and nature?
What is the mediated attachment?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
"realm crossing relation"
"mediated attachment"
Define and provide three examples.
legodesi 2 years ago
@legodesi
A realm crossing relation(contextually) is by definition, the exemplification tie(Metaphysical relation) between an entity in space(Natural realm) and an entity not in space(God).
A mediated attachment(contexually) is the intermediary connection between a spatially located entity and God.
Continued...
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Absolutely wonderful.
OblivionMon 2 years ago
LOL
isin17123 2 years ago
EXCELLENT video!
You get a little snappy in this and I like it:)
vbfl920 2 years ago
I don't know if anyone takes those GII videos seriously, but great video dood!!
TheIrrationalAtheist 2 years ago 6
They sure are fun to reply to though : ) ... so deliciously bad ya know? Peace.
telemantros 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
book free download 50 pgs , How God Created the Universe , see video for info .,. added bonus gravitational singularity .,.,. peace.,.,.,
matmicmj 2 years ago