Re: God Debunked - The Cosmological Argument

[gregrutz]

Science does not comment on the supernatural, it does prove the bible wrong.

[turbopro10]

5:30

"... the universe is sort of, um, made of God itself; it's God pouring itself out, um, into what becomes a spatio-temporal continuum ..."

so, might we say then, that for the sake of simplicity, the universe is all there is, perhaps?

[sailornaruto39]

if he proved that it isn't doing what they what isn't that debunking?

[Noisegator]

So you say that MOTI didn't "debunk" the CA but he did "show that it doesn't necessarily prove what the theists may want it to". Are you aware that the latter half of your assertion contradicts the first part?

[sylence7]

@kmabfuh yet the bible has literally 100s of thousands of changes, including theological changes, added quotes during the early centuries, let alone the King James Version is written from new greek and the latin vulgate not 500 years ago. The bible has been changed, and changed and changed some more. Allot of those changes were theologically motivated as well, especially during 200-500 AD

[bigboy45454545]

But the bible is the perfect word of God, how can this piece of crap be reinterpreted any different , my son. Laughing my fucking ass off.

If you're going to justify becoming a Pantheist, you should just drop your false assumptions for God, and become an Atheist.

Why do you make assumption for your "Christian" God anyways?

Is there anymore evidence for this God, over any others?

Or is this simply the fairytale you learned as a child, and you're not intelligent enough to see the fairytale?

[3wrongnotes]

...make people feel as though they are no more than gods will and even make these people thank him for something they have worked hard to do

[sylence7]

: /

science and faith are naturally conflicting. read "God: The Failed Hypothesis, How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist".

[0ThouArtThat0]

Science and faith do not naturally conflict. This is only true if by science you mean materialism. Science itself is a method, no more materialist than idealist. It simply measures and describes the empirically evident facts. Science says nothing as to what remains beyond the veil of sensory perception. You are free to believe what you'd like, but science neither proves nor disproves God.

God is not a hypothesis.

[sylence7]

read the book before you make a judgment call.

[3wrongnotes]

science is a collection of physical observation, how would we be able to physically observe that which is supposedly immaterial. science is being developed to remove such superstitions and help with things like...well look around you, the plastic, the computer, the tools, the paint on your wall. i compare this to what religion has done but despite this conclude that science and faith do conflict naturally when we discover the true answers to questions, and this superstition eventually fades

[sylence7]

do you believe in "god" and that he answers prayers and changes things on earth for humans? As in, do you think he interacts with mankind and actually affects them, in the end a product of physical reality?

[3wrongnotes]

no, not the god described by christianity however i agree with the definition, that god is a conception and yes you are right by my knowledge (i agree with you) to think he influences our earth, not usually in a positive way though as many think that god is all there is and that they can ruin humanity for the rest of us yet repent and everything will be ok.

i dont believe that god can "answer" prayers but i believe the conception, the thought can make people feel as though they are nothing

[sylence7]

if he influences the Earth as many religious people like to think, then there should be physical evidence that would support this. there is NONE.

[haudace]

why is there one God? instead of 2, 3, 4 etc... to infinity?

[3wrongnotes]

look up the definition of god

if its "a god" you should come up with names for each of them. something cannot exist physically after infinity so there cannot BE infinite gods

however if you want to be like many religious nuts you will create a whole new realm for gods and anything you want can exist in this realm

main problem, there is no evidence for this realm however you can point to things and say that they are evidence...and there you go, the basis of your own religion(lol), be proud :)

[haudace]

atheist here... but i still don't understand why people say "i believe god exists" instead of "i believe at least one god exists"

[3wrongnotes]

they believe god is the name for this entity that is also called a god, basically the theists language consists of the word god and unprovable examples of faith magic, it reminds me of some sort of socially accepted tribe, with voodoo and sun gods.

i ask the question why would anybody in their right mind assume in an immaterial undefinable world, does the earth mean nothing to them?

now i really must stop posting, its addictive to play with the theists :)

[haudace]

in case of some people, your question is too easy to answer... some wants to escape the evil clutches of real life.

[SuperVice123]

@0ThouArtThat0 i agree with you!!!!

[SecularNumanist]

@0ThouArtThat0

God is a hypothesis, or at the very least he is part of one. The hypothesis that god created the universe.

[sailornaruto39]

@0ThouArtThat0 "Science and faith do not naturally conflict."

yes they do :/

[RaubeeTM]

@sylence7 the title of the book is very appropriate, but a more convincing title would b: science proves that God is non-existent, which is virtually unjustifiable and impossible conclusion that could be derived, given the nature and modality of science. until then, i think theist belief is God is reasonable and justifiable.

[sylence7]

@RaubeeTM

I don't think belief in god is justifiable. Which is exactly why it's called FAITH. The more science knows, the less room there is for god. No more earth standing on pillars, no more sun revolving around the earth, no more sky being a second body of water (it's in the bible). Faith is empty. And based on the ignorance of the past. Time to move forward.

[haudace]

thouartthat, many might disagree with you. it's true everyone has a sense of wonder and awe towards the universe. some would deduce there must be an universal purpose in the grand scheme of things. others conclude people decide on their own the meaning of their lives and there's no such thing as an ultimate purpose. in my opinion, both sides are equally valid. so tell me why you reject the second idea.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I don't think these are necessarily mutually exclusive (a meaningful universe and an authentic personal life). Ultimate purpose doesn't mean that there is one way of wording what this universe is truly all about that everyone must agree with. It just means that there is a source, an origin, a reason that our own lives express the meaning of and that we are compelled to account for in various ways, whether we become philosophers, or worshipers, or experimenters, etc.

[haudace]

question: why must there be a reason for our existence?

correct me if i'm wrong, you stated earlier the universe could have been an unscheduled emanation of God through (possibly through a lesser entity named Sophia). If we are accidents, what is the reason then?

[0ThouArtThat0]

You'll have to read the relevant texts of the Nag Hammadi codices if you're interested in the story of Sophia's desire creating the cosmos.

I say existence needs a reason because I don't think the universe would make talking animals unless it had one. Or perhaps the universe was retroactively required to have a purpose once words began to blossom from our lips. If (hypothetically speaking) the universe had no actual meaning, we speaking beings would be unable to say a single worthwhile word.

[haudace]

the answer to your question concerning language is evolution. communication is key to survival for many social creatures in the wild; predator warning, developing bonds, teaching etc... our brain made it more than just cries for help or grunt noises. evolution made me realize it's not so miraculous that we have all these incredible tools. even the capacity to think abstract concepts is not so miraculous. i wouldn't say it's not fascinating, but there's no hidden agenda that transcends reality.

[haudace]

unless god appears before me and starts talking to me.

[haudace]

i realize many have already stated this, but observations of natural occurrences can't help you find god (or similar entities). "everything in nature has an explanation" was the point i was trying to get across in my previous post. you really aren't different from the ancient mind that was fascinated by thunder, sun, floods, volcanoes and created a deity for each. if you still feel there are many unknowns, i say with confidence they will not survive the test of time. or convince me otherwise :D

[haudace]

wow, lol, the subject diverged so many times over i lost my train of thought. there are some ideas i would like to debate with you, i have a hard time grasping them. for instance: the universe is in a continuous cycle of death and rebirth, the idea of a lesser god identified as sophie. i also find it surprising you can elaborate on the qualities of God with such confidence.

isn't contradictory to have a god and an universe stuck in a loop of creation/destruction.

[haudace]

btw, i love it when people eloquently construct complex sentences thinking they are actually stating important truths. i am impressed by your rich vocabulary though. you do have a few obstacles in your reasoning. your panentheism is actually another kind of theism: god of the gaps. you are taking a risk assuming that the origin of the universe cannot be fathomed. basically the contents of your entire video can be interpreted as arguments from ignorance. therefore god did it.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I'd argue that there are necessary limits to what reductionistic/materialistic investigation can tell us; I don't think it is a matter of waiting until such investigation finds an answer. I do not believe that answers regarding origin, telos, or the existence of consciousness can be arrived at via materialistic reductionism. Panentheism is not an argument from ignorance, but what I feel to be a necessary step in order to understand our universe.

[haudace]

ah "necessary limits to what reductionistic/materialistic investigation" can reveal. it appears science has discovered all there is to discover. notice the need to redefine what is material. think of quantum theory, dark matter and energy. how counter intuitive and UNREAL! i no longer believe there are things (which are true) beyond detection. and you are telling me you cannot conceive alternatives to your world view of a deity waving a finger. can't you see how defeatist your philosophy is?

[0ThouArtThat0]

Defeatist? No, I find it exulting that we should live in a universe of such beautiful creative power. Human science is part of this beauty, and I hardly think it has discovered all there is to discover (keep in mind that reductionistic materialism is in no way synonymous with science; science is a method, not a metaphysical system).

[0ThouArtThat0]

if "no things beyond detection", you cannot even account for your own origin as a human being. We can't immediately experience the past, we can only remember it in the present-becoming-future, that is unless we have access to more than just the five senses when it comes to Reality. My view does not consist in the waving of any fingers, but in the reasoned account of what may be the reason for the facts of our universe as I experience and understand them.

[haudace]

granted though, panentheism might be an unavoidable step in our quest for understanding. i believe humanity as a whole has already reached that stage. most theists are pantheists or panentheists who still stick to their religious family traditions anyway... but as long as we agree we can still go further, i would hate to see panentheism becoming a cul-de-sac. in my case, i am struggling with the necessity of such a deity other than being a creative power (kinda demeaning don't you think?).

[0ThouArtThat0]

I don't think most theists are pantheists or panentheists, what makes you say that? Most theists believe God is all-powerful; panentheism rejects this idea. The universe is not under God's control, he is as surprised by its emergence as we are (though it emanated from God, if you know the Gnostic story of creation due to Sophia's desire, this makes more sense).

[haudace]

most, i repeat most, theists will give you the argument of the prime mover as their reason to believe in a deity. prime mover can be interpreted differently in pantheism, panentheism and (forgot to include) deism which are the only reasons we still have religions in my opinion (tradition, root, fear of offending by apostasy etc). nowadays, it's hard to find any one that takes the biblical accounts literally and not be treated as a fool.

[haudace]

lol offending people much.

[haudace]

to clarify some more, i would argue most educated/religious people don't essentially bow before religious dogmas. most theists will stick to an idea of a prime mover and combine/adapt it with a religious institution in their immediate environment. true, there are some exceptions (fundamentalists) but hey, who gives a damn.

[0ThouArtThat0]

To be truly religious in our day and age, in my understanding, you need to have internalized (at least to some extent) the wisdom traditions associated with the entire history of human culture on this earth. It is difficult to remain dogmatic when you have such a wide array of sacred texts, some of which are almost contradictory, unless you have a way with words.

I think the universe moves itself, creates/destroys itself continually; God's role is to love the universe, to light the way home.

[0ThouArtThat0]

The cosmos (space, time, matter, energy) is an emanation of God, a pouring out of light which is trapped as matter in time's ongoing involvement with/desire for space. God sings the spheres into their circles around his suns to kick start the universe in its return to the source. Life crops up, out of the ground grow hearts, which make souls out of neural cords, and soon the human race is on. The light that guides us won't ever out run darkness for us, but it allows us to remain unafraid.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I should say Sophia does all this, not God, but that requires reading some blasphemous gospels.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I agree that these more theologically, philosophically, and scientifically developed forms of theism are what have kept religion alive today. I also think that the death of religion would mean the death of civilization, though of course it may also be our downfall.

[haudace]

there's an emerging line of thought called secular humanism which you are probably already familiar with. it's pretty interesting and i think it will help keeping humanity in check. in other words, religion has lost its monopoly on human life.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Like I said about, I don't think there is such a thing as a human without religion. Secular means to live in this world, and I would be as for that as anyone. Sign me up. But what is this world, this cosmos? When I begin to wonder (which is the origin of philosophy) about this world, an invisible realm of form and purpose, of goodness and harmony comes to be within me. I can't articulate this as well as I'd like to, but I continue be called to say its real.

[haudace]

i think i understand the sentiment you are trying to convey here. you proclaim there's some kind of transcendental meaning to this universe. i am on the opposite side simply because my philosophy forbids me to make claims similar to yours (invisible realm, guessing game on purpose and meaning). first, i need evidence then i can offer you some sound statements with confidence. if you exist inside this universe, science can touch you and can either falsify you or not.

[haudace]

(con't+correction) falsify you or confirm you. if science cannot falsify then it's not science.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I agree, it is not science. I don't think empiricism is all that has a share in knowledge and truth, though.

[haudace]

question: how can you get to the truth without observation and analysis?

[otonanoC]

It is true that we have no idea what gravity is. And worse, our theories do not explain the shape of galaxies.

What I got from MenOfTheInfinite's video is necessarily a discussion of infinity. I really think that the philosophical problem of Time itself begs questions about infinity and topology. So in turn this "philosophy" keeps leading itself back into physics and math. Notice that quantum gravity theories inevitably end up including claims about time.

[BMS1974]

If religion reveals 'ultimate truth' why would, or should, it adapt? Would you say belief in God is arbitrary?

ps..I like your view on geometry, to a point anyway, really interesting videos ;-)

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

Religion is a lie, but spirituality is not.

[TheRingil]

Spirituality is the basis of religion...

[MaBu888]

Religion remains an inanely childish version of an esoteric tradtion, TheRingil.

Meditation and contemplation point to deeper truths than inanely conducted bhakti yoga as done in exoteric faithbased traditions.

[TheRingil]

"Meditation and contemplation point to deeper truths"

What deeper truths, exactly?

It's all bullshit. Whether it's western organized dogma or spiritualism. There is no Eastern solution.

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

Spirituality is not about solely metaphysical views. It is about experience. To mistake in this while trying to be spiritual, is probably the greatest mistake. Materialism is bullshit metaphysics as well. The purpose of real spirituality has always been the pointing out of the already enlightened nature of everything that is arising. Never was the neglection of the material world from awareness a central task. To be truely enlightened means to be honest. It is about perspectives.

[TheRingil]

You're talking to abstractly. How do you become enlightened? How do you realize the "true nature"? How can you claim to know the purpose of anything and everything?

Just listen to yourself. You sound like a religious nuthead.

[zenlama]

Not even taking into consideration God, or thw First Cause. Menoftheinfinite's Logc, pro & con, is only a game of semantics. Take reality; "The Big Bang" we know as a first cause. Do their logical eliminations make that untrue as well? Has our very being been disproven by some silly chalk talk?

[Panoculus]

"Take reality; "The Big Bang" we know as a first cause."

A cause is what is necessary for something to exist.

Thus, if The Big Bang is a thing, then it has cause/s.

This is not semantics. Words have meanings, and these meanings are the vital ingredients for making theories coherent.

[phvalue323]

You're silly, the big bang would have been a verb, not a noun.

[Barklord]

I think Pope JPII embraced evolution and modern cosmology. The vatican has held conferences with modern physicists since at least the early 80s.

[phvalue323]

God is nature. Pantheism, with the inclusion of Reality, is the ultimate religion. We are aspects of god. This becomes evident when we think about the awsomeness of our own existance, and the fact of our consciousness, combined with the awsome computer of our brain. Taking this life for granted is not only wrong, its foolishness beyond any other.

[TWITfromURANUS]

Indeedy...

All the clever intellectualisations under the sun are little more than egoic posturings without your kind of sense of awe & wonder.

Pity the fools...

...who find no joy in the realisation of their innocence.

Folk need to suffer more IMO...lol

Peas owT

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

The suffering needs to be wise or nonsuffering.

[Panoculus]

phvalue323,

"God is nature. Pantheism, with the inclusion of Reality, is the ultimate religion."

Why not equate God with Reality?

[phvalue323]

Well, because I happen to think that a creater God or deity is a notion created by the institutions to supress--and in actuality has no truth to it--as it is. The idea that god is reality is inately empowering, because we are aspects of reality, and therefore are god in a form, interacting with itself, experiencing itself, loving itself. Another aspect which I have learned recently, is that we are god, learning how to die, as even time has an eventual end. Thank you for causing my explaination.

[Panoculus]

Sorry, phvalue323. Crossed wires. I use the word "God" to refer to everything that is.

I'm certainly not referring to a finite deity such as something that is conscious and which creates everything.

"time has an eventual end"

That is illogical. An ending presupposes time, and therefore time includes all endings and beginnings.

[phvalue323]

Well, then, we are on the same page on god, and it would be unecessary to quibble about the finger, when they glory of the night sky is uppon us.

Time has a progression, as far as i know, infinity cannot be approached. Thats why consciousness is a constant, because it is endless; it is the endless nothing, the subjective perspective--and all nonlocable aspects of reality.

[LimpLoser]

i dont like your face. you dont smile enough

[JTravisRolko]

this reeks of argument from ignorance, even incredulity, and non sequitur

[ChristianAdvaita]

Christianity, at it's heart, is a mystical religion. As Christ taught it, it is not different from Advaita. The "truth is so simple, it is a shame to put so much intellectual argument into it. The "truth" is not available to the mind. So why intellectualize? See my Channel ChristianAdvaita. Simplify. The mind is a wonderful thing, but it is interested only in itself having dominance. Don't let the "mind" hijack the realization of reality.

[ruralbornvoteagainer]

Thanks for clearing this up.

I always feel like the integralists (Wilber etc) delude themselves by insisting they could explain the Tao.

Accepting that "I" can never know finally lets truth take over...

[Panoculus]

"So why intellectualize?"

Because that's how misunderstanding of the nature of reality is corrected.

[OpenMind00]

Read - MY Big Toe - Thomas Campbell

[LordImmolation]

Hmm...I think I am a questist about the athiest/pantheist dispute...it seems to me like the debate is only semantic. Of course, like all quetiests the burden of proof rests on me in this case to demonstrate why this is so...I may get back to you on this, but perhaps not for a while - Kyle

[0ThouArtThat0]

Look forward to hearing from you. Don't forget there is also the panentheist angle.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I'm not finished with it! There'll be a part 2 in which I'll put the sword to its basic premise.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I also don't see any real relationship between science and spirituality.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I wait to see part 2 then...

[MenoftheInfinite]

I think you'll appreciate it more in that it will be a tad more esoteric.

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

Depends on what gradation of spiritualiy.

[MenoftheInfinite]

I suppose, and I guess it rests on how we're defining "spirituality" as well. My point is that someone like the Buddha knew nothing of modern, inductive science, but that had no relevance to his spirituality and the profundity of his ideas.

[MaBu888]

Yes. One important distinction would be that the ideas themselves are based on experiments, such as meditation and life, and are therefore very controversial LOL.

[ksol000]

I don't think the Buddha's ideas arose out of "experiments". I would say there were a result of reasoning. He was doing philosophy.

[MaBu888]

Greatly and perhaps directly inspired by his experience of samsara, nirvana and samsara-nirvana integration.

[mrkurt13]

I'm pretty sure he was just doing nothing for a really long time till 'he' dropped away.

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

One example of how Buddha's philosophy, which itself did not come to its maturity before Nagarjuna, is based on a form of experience is that there are descriptions of meditative states and the concept of emptiness and form associated. Without meditation or realization(s) buddhist philosophy would not be what it is. Notice the difference between the philosophies of Christian and other western mystics and someone not a mystic - one includes a nonduality, the other a dualism or a monism.

[safeteyvalve]

Campbell said; "religious writings need to be read not as the New York Times but as poetry."

[psychonautx26s]

I don't understand the need to reject God when pursuing scientific process. God seems, to me at least, to be a right-brain interpretation of experience, where science represents a left-brain interpretation. Neither inherently interferes with the other. It would be insane to cut off either half of our brain. Denying either half leads to psychological imbalance. Describing red as a color that invokes passion or a vibration of energy at the low end of the spectrum visible to humans is equally valid

[haudace]

why?

[haudace]

richard dawkins will greatly disagree with you.

[BoStevoD]

You're a brilliant guy. Confused, perhaps, from my perspective, but brilliant nonetheless.

[lee1983us]

Confused? Can you elaborate on that?

[BoStevoD]

I can, but not in any way I think you'll find satisfactory. I simply see no reason to evoke a transcendant reality or especially a panentheist perspective of nature. We are limited by our language of what we can say that is sensible and what is nonsense. There is no explaining the world, only describing it.

[0ThouArtThat0]

What if our best descriptions of how the universe has developed and exists currently cannot reasonably be explained or interpreted based on a purely immanent framework?

[windham666]

did you say panentheist there around 3:50?

[0ThouArtThat0]

yup.

[notonewhit]

It's been along time since I've read de Chardin. I have left only an echo of his teleological flavorings with a touch of scientific justification for faith, both of which I reject. Have I forgotten him too much?

[0ThouArtThat0]

I'd say he explicitly separates his scientific justifications for a cosmology from his faith in Christ. He seems as astonished as anyone could be that they just so happened to coincide in the same Omega.

He says at the start of "The Human Phenomenon" that he merely wishes to make seen something plainly evident to anyone willing to look through his telescope. it is not a work of theology, but a science of humanity.

[windham666]

...>>he explicitly separates...his science ... from ... his cosmology...

i see this a lot. donexodus2 for example.

i think it's the only honest way to go there, if you gotta go there- but it sure seems weird.

it is like partitioning volumes on your hard drive.

NASA on one side, Abraham on the other.

[Mjhavok]

What is humanity?

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

Humanity is a vague idea - ranging from a cultic notion of species superiority that is only partially founded, to a mere figure of speech. Of course both ends can be better.

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

7 minuses? LOL.

[BabybooR33]

ET disclosure ! ! !

[0ThouArtThat0]

Anyone who looks up at the sky at night and sees the stars knows we are not alone. I guess too many people live near bright cities, and have forgotten...

[BabybooR33]

indeed..!