If I was religious I would be morally obligated to get as many people to declare their love for God and then promptly shoot them in the head before they had a chance to sin or abandon Him. I just couldn’t live with myself in Heaven knowing that I could have prevented people from suffering infinitely much pain for eternity. Do you know how long eternity is? I’m sure God would have a special place for me by his side in the kingdom of light. It would be wonderful.
@FRdemo9 this is y hitler is for sure in heaven because he saw a perfect world and in order to achieve it he also had to die, thusly he was self righteous and is in heaven with god =3
@RedSun875 Hey how ya doing? Your tread here is just as irrational as all your others on YouTube as you justify your religious nonsense. Did you become friends with FlyingSpahghettiMan? He could be a genius just like you I'm thinking. He can't even spell spaghetti. Cheers.
@bigboy45454545 I knew a fling spaghetti man. He was a teenage pilot for Mussolini in world war 2. He met his Brittish wife in a Tornado shelter years later in America.
There are so many reasons to despise the believers after all. What their faith did was only to ruin our civilisation and cause such an enormous amount of damage to other people's cultures for the sake of their imaginary friend. 1000 years in the dark ages because the only teaching that was deemed acceptable was that of christianity in Europe... really... where people were burned or tortured for being "heretics". Bitch please, such religious faith has caused more harm than actual help.
@davidcharlesmx LITERAL Snake Oil. Double Blind Scientific studies have shown that Homeopathy has no discernible difference from placebo affect. There is no scientific basis for Homeopathy and no evidence that it works at all. As a much more famous man once said, "What reason do homeopaths give for believing that water can remember the infinitesimal amount of a certain substance within it, but forget all the gallons of poo it's swum in?"
The Catholic Church is one of the most corrupt Systems on Earth... and What religious people see as miricales we see as Coincedence (sorry my spelling is awful today)
@JusBenLawyered Now, if you study the 'genetic fallacy', it is for just such a case. Just because that's how the belief originated, it thereby proves it false. But I do not believe that is how belief in God came about. I believe Adam and Eve intimately knew God. God spoke to many people and that's how we know God.
@6630mcdo Then by that Argument i should believe any body who says they have spoken to god and believe their everyword? How about i say i have spoken to something that only I can here and it told me that god does not exist. Ill even write a book to help get my ideas out there. Now because i have said this happened you should believe it because by your Logic because i say i am right therefore i must be right. your bible states it is right therefore it must be right.
@JusBenLawyered If there is good evidence, you could. Something is proven or disproven based on evidence and nothing else. Example, a crazy person can believe and state the sun exists. Saying he is crazy doesn't disprove him. But all it means is that stating 'atheism is just from fear of God, or desire to sin or desire of no God' does not disprove atheism. I do not claim God based on the bible. Jesus is evidence from over 25,000 original documents from many peoples.
@JusBenLawyered I did not state that's why Jesus existed. I stated there is good evidence proving he existed. Very few people or historians doubt His existence. The 25,000 documents from many peoples was for supporting evidence. The casual proof is very good. Everything is contingent. And something CANNOT come from nothing. The fine-tuning argument is so strong, that atheists came up with the multiverse theory. But there's no evidence! It truly is blind faith.
@JusBenLawyered I will admit you seem more open-minded than most atheists I've talked with over time. Most people are not searching for the truth, but just a desire to prove their current beliefs true. A great film is 'A Case for a Creator'. Very interesting as it shows all scientific areas.
@6630mcdo a Movie you should see is Zeitgeist... its free online... pay attention to the religious parts it will explain our skepticism(for the most part)
@6630mcdo You misunderstood the meaning of Open-minded, Being open-minded means that you accept new ideas but it does not means that you BELIEVE in others ideas, Many if not all atheist accept the religions ideas but dont believe it because of the lack of evidence, Historians agreed that jesus existed but does not say that jesus was a divine being they said it existed, jesus maybe was a jewish phylosopher but again, I have no evidence to ensure that as religion has not evidence to support their.
@LuigiTable All Christianity is like that - would you want those who committed rape, masturbation, adultery, fornication to go to hell after the first time? Our stupidity saves us from that - angels are far more intelligence that these sophomoric, screwed-up humans. Son, I've debated 50-100 atheists. I know it goes in circles for weeks. If you really want to know what I believe, YouTube "Dr. William Craig.'' You don't understand Catholicism.
If y'all are gonna debate here.... I expect a changed mind or two after 10 posts. If it takes longer than that then you are just debating to claim authority and not to make a point. Thank you very much.
aura reading is a real thing in a since, the human body emits its own magnetic field that can be monitored with technology, and has been done, and is pretty accurate.
Thats the evidence for which you believe that she will do what she says "be back in a few". The 2nd dimension would be belief based on no fact; gullibility. such as some one telling you to run across the street because an alien is coming. there is no proof for that. youre gullible if you do.You trust something because of the evidence presented but there is still that element of uncertainty. Which is faith. believing without any evidence is gullibility.
Another thing that i feel is worth mentioning is the definition of faith. The terms faith, believe, and trust are all interchangeable with one another. in my opinion, there are two dimensions to faith. 1.you believe something because of the evidence presented. for example; you let your mom use your car because of the evidence that she is your mom and she knows how to drive so she wont jack up your car.
« The terms faith, believe, and trust are all interchangeable with one another »
In religious contexts they may well be used interchangeably. But in that case, they all mean approximately the same thing: unreasonable belief - belief unsubstantiated by logical reasoning applied to verifiable data. Claiming that religious faith is not blind has never done anything to substantiate religious beliefs.
In 4:33 you state that claims on Evolution, biology, astronomy, and physics have been validated scientifically but not the Bible. Obviously the Bible deals with many supernatural claims and supernatural causes that cant be validated scientifically because it claims to be supernatural. The Bible being an ancient text, can not be subject to say the scientific method. It would have to be examined in the context of its nature; history. Examining the historicity of the Bible to see if it occurred.
« Obviously the Bible deals with many supernatural claims and supernatural causes that cant be validated scientifically »
Point is that the bible claims certain things happened in the material world: people being raised from death, water turning to wine, etc. Those material occurrences can't be verified either: we've no data suggesting anything like that ever happened.
« The Bible being an ancient text, can not be subject to say the scientific method »
*Everything* claim as to the existence of something or the occurrence of some event is subject to the scientific method. That includes claims made in the bible.
I don't have a problem with science or religion, but I do have a problem with the people who use the very thing they are trying to disprove to disprove something else. For example, if someone is asked the question, "Do you believe in ghosts?" and they say, "No, science disproves the concept of supernatural, non-physical beings." Then when they are asked, "Do you think the theory of evolution is credible?" and they say, "No, because the bible disproves the theory of evolution."
"No, science disproves the concept of supernatural, non-physical beings."
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
"No, because the bible disproves the theory of evolution."
Argumentum ad verecundiam. (Perhaps Petitio principii?)
Brush up on the most common fallacies. IMO, argumentum ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi & reductio ad absurdum/Hitlerum seems quite common. Also, knowing how the philosophical burden of proof relates can go a long ways.
Listen up all you religious faithheads and spiritualists: The idea of a "god" is not an answer at all. It only complicates things more because then you have to explain what/who/where/when that "god" is. Just grow up and let it go!
Yet another brilliant video. Thank you so much for these fantastic, well reasoned and precise works. I think they're very important. Keep up the good work.
I think Christians are unable to keep their beliefs to themselves because a fundamental part of their beliefs is spreading those beliefs to others. So to respect other people's beliefs and not challenge them would be violating their own. Unless choose to disregard that part of their belief, of course. And if you say that no reasonable person would enjoy seeing another suffering in hell, it would be logical for them to try and prevent it from happening by converting them.
@deadstillcurious A lot of people press people within that social group to advance and help expand their religion because most of the time they believe they are not good enough to they're god to help bring people to him. Personal guilt cause these forces of disruptive human behavior and frustration. I personally do believe in an christian god but i disagree with the ways people try to expand or force religion on people.
..."science" is fun. "Religion" on the other hand is frightening, overwhelming(when psychological/physical force is used to instill/enforce dogma[like crooked, 'government' & their politico-pigs do]) & totally impersonal. "Faith" is personal. Of the, "spirit"... Spirit, which shall defy physical explanation... How can one explain colours to a blind person? Or try to explain an orgasm to a virgin? Ain't gonna happen 'till ya jump in th' sack an' get it on! Faith, comes from experience, 1 on 1!
just to add on what qualiasouo said to stumbleacross. Pushing religious beliefs onto people is basically saying "this happens because it just does" without any reason to explain the process of whats happening. Science is there to find some kind of actual explanation: "this happens, and we think its because of these reasons". if its wrong, then there are other people finding better answers and evidence out there. You cant force someone to trust you if you dont make sense(cuz u seem lunatic) :p
Whoever makes these videos...they're a boss! These explain my life sooo well! My sister is like "THIS IS TRUE. THIS ISN'T." And I'm like "Prove it, #$%$*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
@qualiasoup this presentation fits the philosophical concept of science, while exalting certain examples and demeaning others in alignment with the institutionalized or orthodox model of science. science is definitely dependent upon scientists being receptive to new data, but business based on scientific data is dependent upon that data being stagnant, not dynamic. as a result, it is money that runs mainstream science, and it is mainstream science that is glorified in this video.
@qualiasoup the more i've thought about it, the more problems i think i see with this analysis. it's sound in general, but a) there is a distinction that needs to be made between science as a philosophical concept and science as an institutionalized and commercialized concept, and b) there are plenty of examples claimed to have no supporting empirical evidence that most definitely do.
mmmyeah, but science IS about dogmatically defending theories that protect special interests UNTIL the paradigm shift occurs. it's not supposed to be, but science is indeed conducted by people, so although that's not what it's about in principle, that's the way it goes. we'll all learn that when the paradigm shift that's just around the corner occurs.
@thejustineaster Can you provide some examples of Scientists "dogmatically" defending theories that protect special interests? Maybe a link? Also, what does that have to do with science itself as a practice?
Also, please tell me more about this paradigm shift.
@Codfert970 it has everything to do with science as a practice. science as a concept is pure, like, for example, communism. when it's practice is actualized, it becomes flawed and doesn't function as well as it was theorized to. those who cling to science as an infallible wisdom tend to neglect acknowledgement of it's very human faultiness. the concept of maintaining a scientific status quo is not a new one (i.e. thomas kuhn on scientific revolutions). if you've been working for 20 years on
@Codfert970 string theory, and a new quantum theory arises that slaughters the calculations you've been slaving over for decades, you'd be inclined to defend your theory, too. this is only natural, but it exposes the errancy of science as a practice.
my allegations are towards science as an establishment, as a whole. it's not to say that science is useless or as dogmatic as religion, but it isn't as perfect as many would have us believe. this is best illustrated in by peer review, which is the
@Codfert970 process of determining an academic paper's suitability for publication. the ability to publish is thus susceptible to control. the peer review process suppresses studies against "mainstream" theories, as reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. established scientists are more likely to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. as a result, ideas that
@Codfert970 that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are revolutionary ones.
tried to post links, but every time i do i get an error and can't post. the best i can do is suggested reads:
cold fusion
global warming
subatomic particles exceed light speed
darwin himself severely doubted his famous theory after it's proposal, but his successors and students refused to let his skepticism destroy his theory. if you haven't seen
You need to remove the triple w & it's adjacent period. Then substitute the remaining periods in the URL for a different placeholder (eg: citeURLsforpeerevaluatedreviewsandpublishpapersorstfuaboutconspiries[dot]net/tinfoilhat[dot]html).
@Codfert970 scientists defending orthodox theories just like believers defending their 'one true faith,' you haven't spent much time with scientists.
i'm really sorry about the length of the response, 500 characters isn't enough for the bigger of questions.
as for the paradigm shift, there are much needed (and empending) revisions in the current worldview, including the environment, education, social fragmentation, sexism, economics, religion, personal identity, science, health, and more.
@thejustineaster You said: "Well I guess we have faith that the laws of physics won't turn upside-down tomorrow"
No, there is no faith required to believe that the laws of physics will change tomorrow. You don't have to have 'certainty' in order to not require faith, all you need is compelling reasons. Faith does not mean 'lack of certainty'.
@thejustineaster As for the rest of your response, that was a great anecdote but you still failed to give me any reason not to trust the practice of science or the process of peer-review. I don't have time to sit here looking for examples of corruption in peer-review, maybe you can provide something specific.
Darwin's doubt has precisely no merit in the truth of his theory, so I'm not really sure what you were trying to achieve by mentioning that.
@Codfert970 "Well I guess we have faith that the laws of physics won't turn upside-down tomorrow" was said by stallion4life. i didn't say that.
maybe you didn't see all of my response, but it was not anecdotal, and i provided many specific things: kuhn, cold fusion (MIT cover-up), climate change, >light speed particles, and peer-review, which is vastly flawed. my point, however, wasn't to make you distrust science, just to show it isn't as perfect as many (like you, apparently) tend to think.
@Codfert970 mentioning darwin was first to draw attention to darwinian evolution's many holes - the theory is, at best, incomplete; second, because one could argue that a scientist attempting to withdraw his own theory does in fact question it's merit, although i'm not going to waste my time debating something that inconclusive; and third, to spark discussion about darwinian vs. lamarckian evolution, which, contrary to popular belief, is much more evident. obviously that was a lost cause.
@Codfert970 if you want specific examples of peer review "corruption," a good place to start is at scalar physics: unilateral force on collective nucleons (the long sought "anti-gravity"), unilateral force drives, elemental transmutation, time manipulation, negative entropy, or vacuum energy extraction (thusly termed "free energy") - the slander of anonymous peer review deems these topics pseudo-science although they are accomplished by simple phase modulation.
This video starts with what appears to me to be a strawman. WHO has said "Science requires as much faith as a belief in God"? Are you sure they didn't just say, "ATHEISM requires as much faith as a belief in God?"
@stallion4life No, I've heard it, and I'm pretty sure Qualia knew what he heard. And we've all heard Bill O'Reilly do the Atheism needs faith rant 9.9
@stallion4life I just had a conversation with a theist that made almost that exact claim. Except she framed it this way: "Science is fundamentally based on faith".
@Codfert970 Well I guess we have faith that the laws of physics won't turn upside-down tomorrow, even though we have no reason to be certain they won't. In any case, trying to frame religion and science as opposites is ridiculous.
@StumbledAcross What does scientific reasoning mean beyond disciplined reasoning? Science is ultimately disciplined reason applied to the study of nature. Anyone who uses persuasion to get another to share their faith belief is already using (and therefore committed to) reason. If both parties are already committed to the value of reason, then neither can have any objection in principle to scientific reasoning, making the charge of 'pushing' a non-starter.
@StumbledAcross Don't you think people of faith use reason and logical thinking? Or are you talking more about the specific reasoning behind arguments put forward in support of faith?
@StumbledAcross I think logical flaws in specific claims about reality are best dealt with by highlighting the flaws. Of course, there'll always be a certain number who read personal insults and attacks into the legitimate criticism of ideas, and a certain number who'll be determined to misconstrue whatever you say. I think those people will only approach the conversation when they're ready.
@QualiaSoup Sir, every human uses faith daily. You probably did not know it. All use natural faith. Christians also believe in supernatural faith, which is faith with evidence. Example: you believe your mother is your biological mother. DNA tests could be wrong, bought off, faked, etc. So could pictures. Not to long ago, a study found 3% of babies were accidentally switch in the hospital! Any reason will give requires faith. Science is not even provable. It is merely a model - weak
@hotdoh No, it was not a scientific study. It was a hospital management study, i.e., business. I would agree that the science in the study is not 100% correct. No science is provable or always correct but merely a model. But, as always, Praise the Lord! Amen? Amen!!!
@6630mcdo are you listening to yourself? doesnt this video explain you the logic of reality?
Faith is just a latent psychological term that has an equal meaning in "thinking"(talking to yourself in your mind), which means "a strong belief in god, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Ah hem, WE don NOT believe in imaginary omnipotent beings, and BOOM the definition gives it away "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof(right here)."This is an official definition
@WiIdlifeWarrior Wait - you agree with this video? You do not see that every statement but 1 or 2 are false? It is nothing but straw-man arguments and misunderstanding through lies or ignorant. Oh, mankind's greatest thinkers were Christians and if they saw this video, they would either laugh or not even brother saying anything. No, faith is not what you just claimed it to be. Nowhere does God state to have blind faith. con't
@WiIdlifeWarrior I never listen to my own writing except one time my Mac read my e-mail once. The video is all false except for 1 or 2 statements. It was hard to listen to the video, but I did. Now, regarding faith: there are two types of faith namely natural and supernatural faith. They are the same in their essence. You have faith that your mother is truly your mother. Yet you have never had good evidence. Even if you tried to prove it, you could not. (con't)
@WiIdlifeWarrior DNA tests and pictures can be faked, frauds, bought, etc. You can never know 100%. You accept it on faith. Even if it were not done on purpose, a study years after DNA was discovered that showed that 2% of babies were taken to the wrong homes. Now, I know DNA is not 100% provable, but it gives an estimate and credit to the possibility of infants being accidentally switched. Aw, faith is so powerful! Praise the Lord!
@WiIdlifeWarrior Now, you make a claim. Claims require proof or evidence. What is your evidence that God does not exist? Don't buy the urban myth that atheists believe without thinking about the statement, namely, 'one cannot prove a negative and the burden of proof is on the theist.' Both are utterly false. I can prove both if you would like. You will see that atheists believe the conclusion and then accept the premises - the exact definition of a circular argument. (con't)
@WiIdlifeWarrior "Burden of proof" Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So true! If I state Iran has nuclear weapons, I make a claim. I need evidence. Now, if you state Iran has no nuclear weapons, you make a claim. You need evidence. Do you really think that just saying 'I'm not making the claim so I need no evidence.' The burden of proof is on you. Obama would fire you! What if I were stupid? What if I was bought off by Iran? What if Iran hid the nukes like Israel..
@WiIdlifeWarrior ...did when the US inspected Israel? Israel bricked up doors and fooled the inspectors. Also, 'if you believe 'lack of evidence is proof of anything's non-existence, then black holes did not exist 2000 years ago with Jesus. Black holes appeared once we had evidence for them? It leads to absurdity. YET, atheists (except knowledge debaters) accept this idea. It proves they accept without using logic. 'Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.'Praise the Lord
@WiIdlifeWarrior But I do believe this is great evidence for God. Just the first step. Kalam Argument: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause MUST be timeless, immaterial and spaceless. Time, matter and space cannot create time, matter and space. It's circular! The cause must also be personal since it freely chose to create the universe and existed prior without it. It eliminates all but 3 gods
@6630mcdo first of all...I already like you. Just because the way you think about your response. Also your age shows that you've lived and have gone through more experiences. the older the wiser.
Now....this video...is like, let say "boring" but intellectual, because it looks at stuff in detail. I'm an atheist, so this is all just a deep thinking about reasoning on logic in reality issues. Another thing, i did not listen to every word in this video. Yes, faith like the "mom"example...
@WiIdlifeWarrior Yes, the difference is natural faith vs supernatural faith. Now, some people try to prove evil and God are illogical. Atheists that do that understand that is what is needed. For an atheists, all the gods must be confusing. There is a simple starting point, the Kalam Argument. Any god that was not timeless, immaterial, spaceless and personal would fail to meet the basic requirement. This limits the true God to three religions: Islam, Judaism or Christianity.
@WiIdlifeWarrior The first statement the theist used was poorly worded. But 'scientists do require faith for the system to work.' We are teaching new engineers and scientists today. There is no way and engineer can check every formula and experiment for himself. It always relies (faith) on some test someone did and (faith) other recorded it correctly. It is only natural faith, but gives an analogy. For me, hell is the hardest thing to grasp. I believe but the severity is scary.
Apologies on interrupting again, but I think you may like this. Have you ever heard the theory one goes to Hell only long enough to burn away one's sin? Thus, one is made clean & can enter Heaven.
No, this analogy is flawed. While past formulas & experiments may be personally untested by one, the knowledge learned fr the documentation of the scientific process allows _anyone_ so inclined to review the methodology/technique to replicate the experiment.
Sorry, I don't understand to what comment you're referring. I directed two towards you. One regarding Malachi 3:2 & the other re: scientific process. Please provide more feedback.
@6630mcdo ...is true from this definition "complete trust or confidence in someone or something", but um...religion wise it's not really used that way.
Also, so i know there is no evidence that there is no god. But its like saying, I have no evidence that the sun god doesnt exist, i have no evidence Allah doesnt exist, and that buddah never existed either. Got my point? If you dont believe in a that god, why do you want to disprove something that technically does not exist(to me).
@6630mcdo also, i didnt say 'i believe lack of evidence is proof of anything's non-existence" it may seem that way on others. The answer to that is I believe lack of evidence is something to reach for, it's the motivation for us to answer that unknown. Its saying "i dont know".
@WiIdlifeWarrior Sure, humans always desire to search for truth. If the truth is God or no God, people must accept the truth. I believe that humans will not be able to answer many things about the universe. I personally believe that we will not understand how the universe came from nothing. Theists believe by God, of course, but the methods used? I know His will. Yes, atheists and theists are both in error for using their beliefs to agree with an argument.
@WiIdlifeWarrior And, it meets the definition of a circular argument: ones only reason for believing the premises is that they have already accepted the conclusion. Now, of course, just claiming 'God did it' without logic or evidence is false. There must be valid premises. Now, the answer 'God created the universe' from first using the Kalam is not doing that 'gap'. It gives an argument, not a mere assertion. (Got my two sons climbing and screaming - hope it's making any sense)
@WiIdlifeWarrior Now, something very important to know: 'for one to know the explanation is the best explanation, one does not need an explanation OF the explanation.' If you go to the back-side of the moon and find alien tools, you would immediately recognize design. You would not need to know where the aliens came from to know the tools were designed. In fact, all of science would break down if that were true. I know Richard Dawkins uses that in his book the 'God Delusion.'
@6630mcdo As simple as that, we cant just say "someone(god) did it" 90% of theists usually do that, instead of explaining their answer. Its okay to say "i dont know." We humans cannot know EVERYTHING there is to know in life! But y'all theists dont like thinking, using actual knowledge, or taking the time to analyze the answer. So i'm saying MOST of the people DO this,example...facebook people with their "god" posts. I know i kind got a little off our main topic,but you kind of did too
@recalibration State more clearly! Where? When? What? Which? I've never seen an atheists in 20 years use a correct fallacy - but one - haha, but prove me wrong, son. I can already tell you're wrong.
@6630mcdo Apologies, this thread is getting hard to track. Please be advised is a multi-part response. I was not aware Google was block fr your ISP, so: predicate 2. Logic. a. to affirm or assert (something) of the subject of a proposition. 5. to make an affirmation or assertion presuppose 1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance. 2. (of a thing, condition, or state of affairs) to require or imply as an antecedent condition: An effect presupposes a cause. (cont...)
@recalibration Sorry, I do not know what this is in reference to - Kalam? P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I was looking one of your comments fr 2 days ago, but this Kalam concept works just as well. P1 is a presupposition. I do not see how it can stand on it's on merits as it's function seems to be only to operate as foundation for the rest of this "proof".
In other words, it seems P1 is projecting/to be an anthropomorphism. One wishing to believe _everything_ requires an application does not seem logical.
Please, don't invoke a hasty generalization fallacy for this case; we have the scientific method, demand for falsifiability & peer review to counter against such a cascade.
My beliefs have no factor, but I know I could be misinterpreting my understand of the provided proof. I'd like to see the logical construction of your position so I in turn may grow my own.
@recalibration Logic is required to make sense of reality. If you dismiss logic, nothing will make sense. I know logic very well. And, atheists make false statements all the time with 'fallacious'. Few know or understand. Study the Kalam. Atheists - I don't talk with anymore. Even if proven wrong, they will not admit. They wish no God; they are proud; and wish to live without God. They will see the truth in hell if they do not change. 'That is change we can believe in.' Obama
@6630mcdo I want god to exist but my desire will not change my opinion of reality, yes it would be good if god exist but until they give evidence to that statement I will not clarify it as true, I am still laughing about the idea of punishment if we dont belief in something that has no evidence, If there is a god and he ask us to believe in him but he is not giving any evidence of his existance I think he is cruel since he gave as the ability to reason, Now we have no reason to believe in him.
@TheWesmaister One day you will not be laughing. Any doctor can tell you that people have an amazing ability to deceive ourselves. You have told yourself that those illogical statements are true. Enough times, you will believe it. We will all see it one day. Oh, happy day! Justice for all.
@6630mcdo Please tell me what illogical statements? Also is true the humans have an amazing ability to deceive themselves that is the reason that people think they have seen god or god is real and all scientific claims are wrong, One of the main reasons I dont like christianism is because of their intolerance to non believers and to other religions, How do you know that your religion is the true one? You dont, And any claim of ¨I know it because my god spoke to me¨ are already by other religion.
@6630mcdo Please tell me how you know? You feel like any other religion believer, If you were born in Afganistan you will believe in ala if you were born in india you will believe in lord shiva and lord vishnu if you were born in viking norway you would believe in odin and thor if you were born in olympic greece you would believe in zeus and apolo.
I think you know what I am trying to say, Faith is an emotional issue since it has nothing in it except personal evidence. ( Which is no evidence )
@TheWesmaister Everything atheists came is 100% false. Example, the being born. Those who search God will find Him. All have a chance. Faith is not blind. Blind faith is belief in a multiverse. Cause of the universe must be timeless, immaterial and spaceless. Logic proves this down to only three possible Gods. Just watch Dr. William Criag.
@6630mcdo Are you stating that all that came from atheist is false? Most of our scientific knowlege is wrong? But the believe without evidence of something that is omnpotent,omnipresent,timeless,inmaterial and spaceless is 100% true and logic? If you can demonstrate that god created everything is ok,He did it, But if you cant we dont have reason to believe it or fear the punishments,Also if the universe HAD to be created, why god doesnt?If god can be timeless and spaceless why dont the universe?
@TheWesmaister Son, I've debated 50-100 atheists. I know it goes in circles for weeks. If you really want to know what I believe, YouTube "Dr. William Craig.'' It's silly to ask why the universe cannot be timeless and spaceless - we know it is time and space.
@6630mcdo I have debated the same number of christians and none give a good argument
I asked you why the universe cant be timeless and spaceless because you are saying that a being is omnpotent,omnipresent,timeless,inmaterial and spaceless, Science dont know all the anwsers but atleast we dont pretent to, A simple ¨I dont know¨ is better than a lie or a undemostrable thing, If you want to know why I dont believe Youtube Dr. Richard Dawins, Read his books, The God Delusion is one of his best.
@TheWesmaister YouTube "Who Designed The Designer? a response to Dawkins' The God " The book was elementary at best. Watch a real thinker review its logic it. You will be SHOCKED at the illogical thinking in Dawkin's arguments. Dawkins is scared to death of Dr. Craig. Peace
@6630mcdo No, You again invent stuff, Richard dawkins explained why he will not debate with Dr. Craig his reason was very understandable, He debated with bishops and archbishop but he dont have time to debate with one that is called a *profesional debater*, Some books of Richard Dawkins are for kids because he wanted them like that, Please read The God Delusion or The Greatest Show on Earth, or at least The origin of the species by means of natural selection.
@TheWesmaister LOL WEAK! There is no such thing as a 'professional debater'! Do you think Islam hires him for them? LOL God Delusion is a JOKE! SO ILLOGICAL. Good bye
@6630mcdo You are not accepting the truth is like funny, It would be more funny if werent for your comments on other videos about destroying all atheist and atheist having no souls and atheism being a cancer, The God Delusion is a magnific book and you say that because you didnt read it and your years of indoctrination says you to not evven touch books like that, You are being illogical.
@6630mcdo I have seen the 5:08 minute video and it makes no sence since he is comparing something that you can touch and feel with something that you cannot touch or feel, Now answer my question please.
@TheWesmaister It does not matter if you insert X or a alien with pink oceans as a tummy with higgs bosom as an ear. It is a 'concept'. We cannot touch a black hole. We cannot see time. Does that make them illogical? Should science take out time from all science?? This is way I don't talk with atheists anymore. They will deny every the most simple of reality. An analogy is one or more points, not to infinity. One cannot explain the rational to an irrational person. Okay, evolution
@6630mcdo We indeed can see a black hole, And time act on us, Time passes and we know it, We are talking about something that can think, Time is no a living thing, We can feel the time passing.
@6630mcdo We can see a black hole light cannot escape from him but we indeed can see videos about them see photos about them, You are also a nice person, You get a little too far when you say the thing about atheist needed to be removed... But everyone seeks the truth, Some seek in the wrong places... You still didnt answer my question about evolution, What do you think about it?
@TheWesmaister As a theist, I could accept evolution. I do not by it as a scientist. Scientific method demands in step 3 it be repeatable and observable. It seems clearly false from fossil record. All science 100% can be modeled in a computer because there are laws and principles that make sense. Evolution cannot do this. Isn't that weird? All of the 10,000's of science fields, yet only one cannot be modeled? I'm actually shocked that anyone could believe such non-sense
@6630mcdo We knows black holes exist because of the behaviour of light around it; the hole refers to the size of the event horizon surrounding the singularity at the centre.
Secondly, time can be measured, you do not need to touch it to know it exists.
@6630mcdo You don't have to see something to be able to measure it. We can't see atoms but we know they exist by measuring their behaviour.
Secondly, saying that you can't see time limits your perspective to only 3 dimensions; length, width and depth. Time is the shift of all those dimensions along the fourth dimensional line, we know this because gravity affects space-time, i.e. the faster you travel the slower time affects you.
Look up the experiment on the atomic clocks on relative theory.
@MrXenitha We can see atoms with a powerful electron microscope. We cannot know time with any of the senses. Yet we believe it. Even if one travels faster, time cannot be known by any of the senses - same experience. It feels the same.
@6630mcdo No, we can't see atoms at all. There is no image of an atom ever recorded, the size difference (through mathematical principles) are orders different between each other particle. We do not have microscopes that even see simple covalent molecules yet. The body of an atom is still a theory.
And yes, we've recorded time to change on two identical clocks, as I said, read the article on the atomic clock of relativity.
@6630mcdo The reason we know "time" also a man made factor really. is because it has a physical effect on our bodies... if our concept of time is not real then how do we age? where as your god has no physical effect on MY body, if i were to do something immoral such as murder your god would not stop me. Then some might give "credit" to your god really diminishing the good deed sed human just did. (its early sorry im not to terribly articulate this morning)
@JusBenLawyered I believe in time. I am just stating we cannot see, taste, touch, feel or smell it. Yet we believe it! How do you know God has no effect? 'Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.' An atheist makes a claim. All claims require evidence. If I state Iran has nuclear weapons, I need evidence. If you claim Iran has no nuclear weapons, you need evidence. Even if my evidence were weak, you could not determine Iran has no nukes! Millions could die with such logic.
@6630mcdo We would ivestigate and test to prove if they do or do not have nuclear weapons. your arguement towards me actually has more effect against you because as you put "If you claim Iran has no nuclear weapons, you need evidence. Even if my evidence were weak, you could not determine Iran has no nukes! Millions could die with such logic." now switch it " If you claim god exists, you need evidence. Even if my evidence against was weak, you could not determine god exist without evidence"
@JusBenLawyered Of course, we need evidence for God. I never claimed theists do not need evidence. I am stating that atheists also (like saying Iran has no nukes) need evidence. What evidence does any atheist have against God? In 20 years, I have never seen one argument except the 'evil and God cannot exist'. The problem of evil would disprove God if there were the only life. But evil is allowed because of free will - we chose evil, not God.
@6630mcdo Also Athiesm is a NON belief. If there was evidence of god (tangible evidence) and i said there is no god then yes i would have the burden of proof. but since i am saying i do not believe in something with no tangible evidence to back its claim then the burden falls on the ones claiming its existence. "you must prove something exists before it can be dismissed" Throwin a little Johnny Cochran Speak your way(if you slang the words so they rhyme.)
@JusBenLawyered Well, again, saying Iran has no nukes is also a non-belief. Yet any claim for or against something requires evidence. The only person that needs no evidence is the one that states 'I do not know.' All professors of logic and philosophy knows that 'any claim requires evidence'. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. It is just a common online/layman of logic statement that no true thinker believes it is valid. Why do you not believe in God? nukes in Iran?
@6630mcdo I don't believe there are nukes in Iran because there is no proof they have nukes. if they prove they have nukes then i will believe they have nukes.. see how that works? and by Christians Defense the President (or whatever his title is) of Iran said he does not plan to make nukes. Therefore you were told by the "Leader" of that country that what he says is true because he said it. (just like your bible)
@JusBenLawyered I don't know if Iran has nukes. If I were them, I'd build them now! Well, see the US inspected Israel in 1980's to see if they were building nukes. Israel hid the nukes behind doors that they had bricked-up and fooled the inspectors. So, again, 'lack of evidence is not evidence of absence'. I give arguments for God's existence outside of the bible. DNA is a code. Codes require intelligence. 'DNA is a code FAR more advanced than anything we have built.' Bill Gates
@6630mcdo Most Athiests are of the mindset that we do not fully know, But there is no Evidence to lead us to believe so the default position is non Belief
@JusBenLawyered If anyone stated 'Iran has no nukes because we have no evidence' would get fired. No one with that logic could hold a job where millions could die because of a logical fallacy. No, I claim God exists because I have evidence. I make a claim, so I need evidence. You make a claim and also need evidence. Most atheists are actually agnostics and just do not know that an atheist would need evidence. I think you're agnostic.
@6630mcdo First off your foreign Policy is wack... what makes you assume that If Iran had nukes we would all die? they have never invaded anybody and many other countries have 1000's of nukes yet we still live. i would use a different mediphore because your knowledge and view of foreign policy is very unchristian.. you can not judge a country on your lack of knowledge about them
@JusBenLawyered Oh, I'm just playing in an analogy. Iran has ever right to build nukes if they really are - a nation if free from any outside influence. Rwanda murdered 2-3 MILLION of its own people. US did nothing. Israel is far more violent than Iran. Iran hasn't invade a country in over 300 years. The US is the greatest terrorist in the world killing over 1.5 million since 2001 per UN Report. I believe that there will be war with Iran before fall of 2012. It might start WW3
@JusBenLawyered Well, if you do not have evidence disproving God, all you can claim is 'I do not know.' There are five main arguments for God - the Kalam and Fine-tuning are the best. Moral argument is also good. You know this first hand. You know rape and murder are wrong. All humans do...if there was no God, morals would be just what one person feels are would totally be random. Rape might be good for one person. Morals are based on the Law Giver, God. Total proof to be is Kala
If I was religious I would be morally obligated to get as many people to declare their love for God and then promptly shoot them in the head before they had a chance to sin or abandon Him. I just couldn’t live with myself in Heaven knowing that I could have prevented people from suffering infinitely much pain for eternity. Do you know how long eternity is? I’m sure God would have a special place for me by his side in the kingdom of light. It would be wonderful.
FRdemo9 6 days ago
@FRdemo9 ROFL!
MrOceanPenguin 6 days ago
@FRdemo9 this is y hitler is for sure in heaven because he saw a perfect world and in order to achieve it he also had to die, thusly he was self righteous and is in heaven with god =3
adlisies 1 day ago
@RedSun875 Hey how ya doing? Your tread here is just as irrational as all your others on YouTube as you justify your religious nonsense. Did you become friends with FlyingSpahghettiMan? He could be a genius just like you I'm thinking. He can't even spell spaghetti. Cheers.
bigboy45454545 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigboy45454545 I knew a fling spaghetti man. He was a teenage pilot for Mussolini in world war 2. He met his Brittish wife in a Tornado shelter years later in America.
RedSun875 1 week ago
@RedSun875 Is he still alive? 90 or so if he is. Or is he is Heaven? Bwahaha!
bigboy45454545 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigboy45454545 The jury is still out. :P
RedSun875 1 week ago
There are so many reasons to despise the believers after all. What their faith did was only to ruin our civilisation and cause such an enormous amount of damage to other people's cultures for the sake of their imaginary friend. 1000 years in the dark ages because the only teaching that was deemed acceptable was that of christianity in Europe... really... where people were burned or tortured for being "heretics". Bitch please, such religious faith has caused more harm than actual help.
Blasthood 2 weeks ago
It doesn't. Science has evidence. Belief in god has none.
AmericanNohbuddy 2 weeks ago
Keep talking ...
nanabexhoeft 1 month ago
Homoeopathy is not a religion. Speaking as a atheist.
Gypsyjiver 1 month ago
@Gypsyjiver when does he say it is?
Muzlalilulelogreyfox 1 month ago
@Gypsyjiver
But like religion there is no credible evidence that homeopathy works.
chrisose 1 month ago
@chrisose homoeopathy works in certain diseases, like allergies and phobias, but shouldn't be used ahead of conventional medicine
davidcharlesmx 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@davidcharlesmx
"homoeopathy works in certain diseases, like allergies and phobias"
proof?
pyr666 4 weeks ago
@davidcharlesmx LITERAL Snake Oil. Double Blind Scientific studies have shown that Homeopathy has no discernible difference from placebo affect. There is no scientific basis for Homeopathy and no evidence that it works at all. As a much more famous man once said, "What reason do homeopaths give for believing that water can remember the infinitesimal amount of a certain substance within it, but forget all the gallons of poo it's swum in?"
captbloode 3 weeks ago
Great. Simple. Thanks.
akhilsankar19 1 month ago
beautiful video
even christians can learn from this
gogolplex74 1 month ago
LOL @ "first hand"
jesokingcryst 1 month ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
The Catholic Church is one of the most corrupt Systems on Earth... and What religious people see as miricales we see as Coincedence (sorry my spelling is awful today)
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered Now, if you study the 'genetic fallacy', it is for just such a case. Just because that's how the belief originated, it thereby proves it false. But I do not believe that is how belief in God came about. I believe Adam and Eve intimately knew God. God spoke to many people and that's how we know God.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo Then by that Argument i should believe any body who says they have spoken to god and believe their everyword? How about i say i have spoken to something that only I can here and it told me that god does not exist. Ill even write a book to help get my ideas out there. Now because i have said this happened you should believe it because by your Logic because i say i am right therefore i must be right. your bible states it is right therefore it must be right.
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered If there is good evidence, you could. Something is proven or disproven based on evidence and nothing else. Example, a crazy person can believe and state the sun exists. Saying he is crazy doesn't disprove him. But all it means is that stating 'atheism is just from fear of God, or desire to sin or desire of no God' does not disprove atheism. I do not claim God based on the bible. Jesus is evidence from over 25,000 original documents from many peoples.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo Which is the Logical Fallicy known as Ad argumentum Populus or "because many people believe it to be true therefore it must"
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered I did not state that's why Jesus existed. I stated there is good evidence proving he existed. Very few people or historians doubt His existence. The 25,000 documents from many peoples was for supporting evidence. The casual proof is very good. Everything is contingent. And something CANNOT come from nothing. The fine-tuning argument is so strong, that atheists came up with the multiverse theory. But there's no evidence! It truly is blind faith.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered I will admit you seem more open-minded than most atheists I've talked with over time. Most people are not searching for the truth, but just a desire to prove their current beliefs true. A great film is 'A Case for a Creator'. Very interesting as it shows all scientific areas.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo a Movie you should see is Zeitgeist... its free online... pay attention to the religious parts it will explain our skepticism(for the most part)
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered I've seen it. It was good except the 'technology makes jobs' and 'religion is bad' part.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo You misunderstood the meaning of Open-minded, Being open-minded means that you accept new ideas but it does not means that you BELIEVE in others ideas, Many if not all atheist accept the religions ideas but dont believe it because of the lack of evidence, Historians agreed that jesus existed but does not say that jesus was a divine being they said it existed, jesus maybe was a jewish phylosopher but again, I have no evidence to ensure that as religion has not evidence to support their.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@LuigiTable All Christianity is like that - would you want those who committed rape, masturbation, adultery, fornication to go to hell after the first time? Our stupidity saves us from that - angels are far more intelligence that these sophomoric, screwed-up humans. Son, I've debated 50-100 atheists. I know it goes in circles for weeks. If you really want to know what I believe, YouTube "Dr. William Craig.'' You don't understand Catholicism.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
If y'all are gonna debate here.... I expect a changed mind or two after 10 posts. If it takes longer than that then you are just debating to claim authority and not to make a point. Thank you very much.
WaluigisTacoStand 1 month ago
Comment removed
WaluigisTacoStand 1 month ago
aura reading is a real thing in a since, the human body emits its own magnetic field that can be monitored with technology, and has been done, and is pretty accurate.
ninetailsfox99 1 month ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
Comment removed
ninetailsfox99 1 month ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
(cont)
Thats the evidence for which you believe that she will do what she says "be back in a few". The 2nd dimension would be belief based on no fact; gullibility. such as some one telling you to run across the street because an alien is coming. there is no proof for that. youre gullible if you do.You trust something because of the evidence presented but there is still that element of uncertainty. Which is faith. believing without any evidence is gullibility.
wordhead77 1 month ago
Another thing that i feel is worth mentioning is the definition of faith. The terms faith, believe, and trust are all interchangeable with one another. in my opinion, there are two dimensions to faith. 1.you believe something because of the evidence presented. for example; you let your mom use your car because of the evidence that she is your mom and she knows how to drive so she wont jack up your car.
wordhead77 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« The terms faith, believe, and trust are all interchangeable with one another »
In religious contexts they may well be used interchangeably. But in that case, they all mean approximately the same thing: unreasonable belief - belief unsubstantiated by logical reasoning applied to verifiable data. Claiming that religious faith is not blind has never done anything to substantiate religious beliefs.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
In 4:33 you state that claims on Evolution, biology, astronomy, and physics have been validated scientifically but not the Bible. Obviously the Bible deals with many supernatural claims and supernatural causes that cant be validated scientifically because it claims to be supernatural. The Bible being an ancient text, can not be subject to say the scientific method. It would have to be examined in the context of its nature; history. Examining the historicity of the Bible to see if it occurred.
wordhead77 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Obviously the Bible deals with many supernatural claims and supernatural causes that cant be validated scientifically »
Point is that the bible claims certain things happened in the material world: people being raised from death, water turning to wine, etc. Those material occurrences can't be verified either: we've no data suggesting anything like that ever happened.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« The Bible being an ancient text, can not be subject to say the scientific method »
*Everything* claim as to the existence of something or the occurrence of some event is subject to the scientific method. That includes claims made in the bible.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
the last part, I think, is the main point of the whole video
AkasakaS2000 1 month ago
I don't have a problem with science or religion, but I do have a problem with the people who use the very thing they are trying to disprove to disprove something else. For example, if someone is asked the question, "Do you believe in ghosts?" and they say, "No, science disproves the concept of supernatural, non-physical beings." Then when they are asked, "Do you think the theory of evolution is credible?" and they say, "No, because the bible disproves the theory of evolution."
chriswereheer 1 month ago
Comment removed
recalibration 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chriswereheer
"No, science disproves the concept of supernatural, non-physical beings."
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
"No, because the bible disproves the theory of evolution."
Argumentum ad verecundiam. (Perhaps Petitio principii?)
Brush up on the most common fallacies. IMO, argumentum ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi & reductio ad absurdum/Hitlerum seems quite common. Also, knowing how the philosophical burden of proof relates can go a long ways.
recalibration 1 month ago
Great response to all that evangelical rubbish. Well done!
beautyinbreakdowns2 1 month ago
this entire video summed up for creationists and other fucktards: "gaaaaaaawd dooooone iiiiiit"
goreziad 1 month ago
This cake is not a lie!
yashaouchan 2 months ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
My favorite "Cake" yet!
yashaouchan 2 months ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
yes they'r always looking,and never able to come to the truth.this is what they put faith in,hahahahimagine that.
Jvaughan777spider 2 months ago
good shit
Dontchokeonfear 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen up all you religious faithheads and spiritualists: The idea of a "god" is not an answer at all. It only complicates things more because then you have to explain what/who/where/when that "god" is. Just grow up and let it go!
SCIENCE IS THE ONLY GAME THAT MATTERS!
ptij0404 2 months ago
Yet another brilliant video. Thank you so much for these fantastic, well reasoned and precise works. I think they're very important. Keep up the good work.
GoDrex 2 months ago
I think Christians are unable to keep their beliefs to themselves because a fundamental part of their beliefs is spreading those beliefs to others. So to respect other people's beliefs and not challenge them would be violating their own. Unless choose to disregard that part of their belief, of course. And if you say that no reasonable person would enjoy seeing another suffering in hell, it would be logical for them to try and prevent it from happening by converting them.
deadstillcurious 2 months ago
@deadstillcurious A lot of people press people within that social group to advance and help expand their religion because most of the time they believe they are not good enough to they're god to help bring people to him. Personal guilt cause these forces of disruptive human behavior and frustration. I personally do believe in an christian god but i disagree with the ways people try to expand or force religion on people.
Lolatyou332 2 months ago in playlist More videos from QualiaSoup
@Lolatyou332
You might like Matt 5:16.
recalibration 1 month ago
@deadstillcurious
I once held that as as well. It seems pretty widespread. But, looking @ Luke 10:5 to 7, it might not be such. Please note I'm _not_ referring to NIV.
Matthew 5:16 is my preference. Basically, lead by example so others may be attracted.
thercg(.)org/questions/p070(.)a(.)html [yes, thats "dot-a-dot"] explores the concepts further.
Also, have you ever heard the theory one goes to Hell only long enough to burn away one's sin? Thus, one is made clean & can enter Heaven.
recalibration 1 month ago
..."science" is fun. "Religion" on the other hand is frightening, overwhelming(when psychological/physical force is used to instill/enforce dogma[like crooked, 'government' & their politico-pigs do]) & totally impersonal. "Faith" is personal. Of the, "spirit"... Spirit, which shall defy physical explanation... How can one explain colours to a blind person? Or try to explain an orgasm to a virgin? Ain't gonna happen 'till ya jump in th' sack an' get it on! Faith, comes from experience, 1 on 1!
SittingMooseShaman 2 months ago
just to add on what qualiasouo said to stumbleacross. Pushing religious beliefs onto people is basically saying "this happens because it just does" without any reason to explain the process of whats happening. Science is there to find some kind of actual explanation: "this happens, and we think its because of these reasons". if its wrong, then there are other people finding better answers and evidence out there. You cant force someone to trust you if you dont make sense(cuz u seem lunatic) :p
TheHubernator 2 months ago
Whoever makes these videos...they're a boss! These explain my life sooo well! My sister is like "THIS IS TRUE. THIS ISN'T." And I'm like "Prove it, #$%$*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
youureebeautiifulllx 3 months ago
My parents church group is in the next room... wonder what they would have to say lol
MrDiablo5222 3 months ago
@qualiasoup this presentation fits the philosophical concept of science, while exalting certain examples and demeaning others in alignment with the institutionalized or orthodox model of science. science is definitely dependent upon scientists being receptive to new data, but business based on scientific data is dependent upon that data being stagnant, not dynamic. as a result, it is money that runs mainstream science, and it is mainstream science that is glorified in this video.
thejustineaster 3 months ago
@qualiasoup the more i've thought about it, the more problems i think i see with this analysis. it's sound in general, but a) there is a distinction that needs to be made between science as a philosophical concept and science as an institutionalized and commercialized concept, and b) there are plenty of examples claimed to have no supporting empirical evidence that most definitely do.
thejustineaster 3 months ago
It was ONE TIME. Just ONE TIME and I'm "DOUBTING Thomas", not "Been-the-butt-of-too-many-jokes Thomas". Fucking pricks.
RationalThomas 3 months ago
@RationalThomas
Best comment on this page. XD
recalibration 1 month ago
mmmyeah, but science IS about dogmatically defending theories that protect special interests UNTIL the paradigm shift occurs. it's not supposed to be, but science is indeed conducted by people, so although that's not what it's about in principle, that's the way it goes. we'll all learn that when the paradigm shift that's just around the corner occurs.
thejustineaster 3 months ago
@thejustineaster Can you provide some examples of Scientists "dogmatically" defending theories that protect special interests? Maybe a link? Also, what does that have to do with science itself as a practice?
Also, please tell me more about this paradigm shift.
Codfert970 2 months ago
@Codfert970 it has everything to do with science as a practice. science as a concept is pure, like, for example, communism. when it's practice is actualized, it becomes flawed and doesn't function as well as it was theorized to. those who cling to science as an infallible wisdom tend to neglect acknowledgement of it's very human faultiness. the concept of maintaining a scientific status quo is not a new one (i.e. thomas kuhn on scientific revolutions). if you've been working for 20 years on
thejustineaster 2 months ago
@Codfert970 string theory, and a new quantum theory arises that slaughters the calculations you've been slaving over for decades, you'd be inclined to defend your theory, too. this is only natural, but it exposes the errancy of science as a practice.
my allegations are towards science as an establishment, as a whole. it's not to say that science is useless or as dogmatic as religion, but it isn't as perfect as many would have us believe. this is best illustrated in by peer review, which is the
thejustineaster 2 months ago
@Codfert970 process of determining an academic paper's suitability for publication. the ability to publish is thus susceptible to control. the peer review process suppresses studies against "mainstream" theories, as reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. established scientists are more likely to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. as a result, ideas that
thejustineaster 2 months ago
@Codfert970 that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are revolutionary ones.
tried to post links, but every time i do i get an error and can't post. the best i can do is suggested reads:
cold fusion
global warming
subatomic particles exceed light speed
darwin himself severely doubted his famous theory after it's proposal, but his successors and students refused to let his skepticism destroy his theory. if you haven't seen
thejustineaster 2 months ago
@thejustineaster
You need to remove the triple w & it's adjacent period. Then substitute the remaining periods in the URL for a different placeholder (eg: citeURLsforpeerevaluatedreviewsandpublishpapersorstfuaboutconspiries[dot]net/tinfoilhat[dot]html).
recalibration 1 month ago
@Codfert970 scientists defending orthodox theories just like believers defending their 'one true faith,' you haven't spent much time with scientists.
i'm really sorry about the length of the response, 500 characters isn't enough for the bigger of questions.
as for the paradigm shift, there are much needed (and empending) revisions in the current worldview, including the environment, education, social fragmentation, sexism, economics, religion, personal identity, science, health, and more.
thejustineaster 2 months ago
@thejustineaster You said: "Well I guess we have faith that the laws of physics won't turn upside-down tomorrow"
No, there is no faith required to believe that the laws of physics will change tomorrow. You don't have to have 'certainty' in order to not require faith, all you need is compelling reasons. Faith does not mean 'lack of certainty'.
Codfert970 2 months ago
@thejustineaster As for the rest of your response, that was a great anecdote but you still failed to give me any reason not to trust the practice of science or the process of peer-review. I don't have time to sit here looking for examples of corruption in peer-review, maybe you can provide something specific.
Darwin's doubt has precisely no merit in the truth of his theory, so I'm not really sure what you were trying to achieve by mentioning that.
Codfert970 2 months ago
@Codfert970 "Well I guess we have faith that the laws of physics won't turn upside-down tomorrow" was said by stallion4life. i didn't say that.
maybe you didn't see all of my response, but it was not anecdotal, and i provided many specific things: kuhn, cold fusion (MIT cover-up), climate change, >light speed particles, and peer-review, which is vastly flawed. my point, however, wasn't to make you distrust science, just to show it isn't as perfect as many (like you, apparently) tend to think.
thejustineaster 2 months ago
@Codfert970 mentioning darwin was first to draw attention to darwinian evolution's many holes - the theory is, at best, incomplete; second, because one could argue that a scientist attempting to withdraw his own theory does in fact question it's merit, although i'm not going to waste my time debating something that inconclusive; and third, to spark discussion about darwinian vs. lamarckian evolution, which, contrary to popular belief, is much more evident. obviously that was a lost cause.
thejustineaster 2 months ago
@Codfert970 if you want specific examples of peer review "corruption," a good place to start is at scalar physics: unilateral force on collective nucleons (the long sought "anti-gravity"), unilateral force drives, elemental transmutation, time manipulation, negative entropy, or vacuum energy extraction (thusly termed "free energy") - the slander of anonymous peer review deems these topics pseudo-science although they are accomplished by simple phase modulation.
thejustineaster 2 months ago
This video starts with what appears to me to be a strawman. WHO has said "Science requires as much faith as a belief in God"? Are you sure they didn't just say, "ATHEISM requires as much faith as a belief in God?"
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life No, I've heard it, and I'm pretty sure Qualia knew what he heard. And we've all heard Bill O'Reilly do the Atheism needs faith rant 9.9
pokepuncher 3 months ago
@stallion4life I just had a conversation with a theist that made almost that exact claim. Except she framed it this way: "Science is fundamentally based on faith".
Codfert970 2 months ago
@Codfert970 Well I guess we have faith that the laws of physics won't turn upside-down tomorrow, even though we have no reason to be certain they won't. In any case, trying to frame religion and science as opposites is ridiculous.
stallion4life 2 months ago
@QualiaSoup just curious, if it's wrong of people to push their faith beliefs on to others is it wrong to push our scientific reasoning?
StumbledAcross 3 months ago
@StumbledAcross What does scientific reasoning mean beyond disciplined reasoning? Science is ultimately disciplined reason applied to the study of nature. Anyone who uses persuasion to get another to share their faith belief is already using (and therefore committed to) reason. If both parties are already committed to the value of reason, then neither can have any objection in principle to scientific reasoning, making the charge of 'pushing' a non-starter.
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
@QualiaSoup ah ok I understand what your saying. What I'm really asking, what's the best way to show the people of faith reason and logical thinking?
StumbledAcross 3 months ago
@StumbledAcross Don't you think people of faith use reason and logical thinking? Or are you talking more about the specific reasoning behind arguments put forward in support of faith?
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
@QualiaSoup no of course everyone uses some kind of logic in everyday life, I'm referring to logic in claims about reality.
StumbledAcross 3 months ago
@StumbledAcross I think logical flaws in specific claims about reality are best dealt with by highlighting the flaws. Of course, there'll always be a certain number who read personal insults and attacks into the legitimate criticism of ideas, and a certain number who'll be determined to misconstrue whatever you say. I think those people will only approach the conversation when they're ready.
QualiaSoup 3 months ago
@QualiaSoup fair enough, cheers!
StumbledAcross 3 months ago
@QualiaSoup Sir, every human uses faith daily. You probably did not know it. All use natural faith. Christians also believe in supernatural faith, which is faith with evidence. Example: you believe your mother is your biological mother. DNA tests could be wrong, bought off, faked, etc. So could pictures. Not to long ago, a study found 3% of babies were accidentally switch in the hospital! Any reason will give requires faith. Science is not even provable. It is merely a model - weak
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo
"...a study found 3% of babies were accidentally switch in the hospital!"
"Science is not even provable. It is merely a model - weak"
That wouldn't happen to be a scientific study, would it?
hotdoh 1 month ago
@hotdoh No, it was not a scientific study. It was a hospital management study, i.e., business. I would agree that the science in the study is not 100% correct. No science is provable or always correct but merely a model. But, as always, Praise the Lord! Amen? Amen!!!
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo are you listening to yourself? doesnt this video explain you the logic of reality?
Faith is just a latent psychological term that has an equal meaning in "thinking"(talking to yourself in your mind), which means "a strong belief in god, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Ah hem, WE don NOT believe in imaginary omnipotent beings, and BOOM the definition gives it away "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof(right here)."This is an official definition
WiIdlifeWarrior 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior Wait - you agree with this video? You do not see that every statement but 1 or 2 are false? It is nothing but straw-man arguments and misunderstanding through lies or ignorant. Oh, mankind's greatest thinkers were Christians and if they saw this video, they would either laugh or not even brother saying anything. No, faith is not what you just claimed it to be. Nowhere does God state to have blind faith. con't
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior I never listen to my own writing except one time my Mac read my e-mail once. The video is all false except for 1 or 2 statements. It was hard to listen to the video, but I did. Now, regarding faith: there are two types of faith namely natural and supernatural faith. They are the same in their essence. You have faith that your mother is truly your mother. Yet you have never had good evidence. Even if you tried to prove it, you could not. (con't)
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior DNA tests and pictures can be faked, frauds, bought, etc. You can never know 100%. You accept it on faith. Even if it were not done on purpose, a study years after DNA was discovered that showed that 2% of babies were taken to the wrong homes. Now, I know DNA is not 100% provable, but it gives an estimate and credit to the possibility of infants being accidentally switched. Aw, faith is so powerful! Praise the Lord!
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior Now, you make a claim. Claims require proof or evidence. What is your evidence that God does not exist? Don't buy the urban myth that atheists believe without thinking about the statement, namely, 'one cannot prove a negative and the burden of proof is on the theist.' Both are utterly false. I can prove both if you would like. You will see that atheists believe the conclusion and then accept the premises - the exact definition of a circular argument. (con't)
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior "Burden of proof" Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So true! If I state Iran has nuclear weapons, I make a claim. I need evidence. Now, if you state Iran has no nuclear weapons, you make a claim. You need evidence. Do you really think that just saying 'I'm not making the claim so I need no evidence.' The burden of proof is on you. Obama would fire you! What if I were stupid? What if I was bought off by Iran? What if Iran hid the nukes like Israel..
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior ...did when the US inspected Israel? Israel bricked up doors and fooled the inspectors. Also, 'if you believe 'lack of evidence is proof of anything's non-existence, then black holes did not exist 2000 years ago with Jesus. Black holes appeared once we had evidence for them? It leads to absurdity. YET, atheists (except knowledge debaters) accept this idea. It proves they accept without using logic. 'Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.'Praise the Lord
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior But I do believe this is great evidence for God. Just the first step. Kalam Argument: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause MUST be timeless, immaterial and spaceless. Time, matter and space cannot create time, matter and space. It's circular! The cause must also be personal since it freely chose to create the universe and existed prior without it. It eliminates all but 3 gods
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo first of all...I already like you. Just because the way you think about your response. Also your age shows that you've lived and have gone through more experiences. the older the wiser.
Now....this video...is like, let say "boring" but intellectual, because it looks at stuff in detail. I'm an atheist, so this is all just a deep thinking about reasoning on logic in reality issues. Another thing, i did not listen to every word in this video. Yes, faith like the "mom"example...
WiIdlifeWarrior 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior Yes, the difference is natural faith vs supernatural faith. Now, some people try to prove evil and God are illogical. Atheists that do that understand that is what is needed. For an atheists, all the gods must be confusing. There is a simple starting point, the Kalam Argument. Any god that was not timeless, immaterial, spaceless and personal would fail to meet the basic requirement. This limits the true God to three religions: Islam, Judaism or Christianity.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior The first statement the theist used was poorly worded. But 'scientists do require faith for the system to work.' We are teaching new engineers and scientists today. There is no way and engineer can check every formula and experiment for himself. It always relies (faith) on some test someone did and (faith) other recorded it correctly. It is only natural faith, but gives an analogy. For me, hell is the hardest thing to grasp. I believe but the severity is scary.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@6630mcdo
Apologies on interrupting again, but I think you may like this. Have you ever heard the theory one goes to Hell only long enough to burn away one's sin? Thus, one is made clean & can enter Heaven.
See Malachi 3:2
recalibration 1 month ago
@6630mcdo
No, this analogy is flawed. While past formulas & experiments may be personally untested by one, the knowledge learned fr the documentation of the scientific process allows _anyone_ so inclined to review the methodology/technique to replicate the experiment.
In other words, the foundation is empirical.
recalibration 1 month ago
@recalibration No, you're wrong.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo
Sorry, I don't understand to what comment you're referring. I directed two towards you. One regarding Malachi 3:2 & the other re: scientific process. Please provide more feedback.
recalibration 1 month ago
@6630mcdo ...is true from this definition "complete trust or confidence in someone or something", but um...religion wise it's not really used that way.
Also, so i know there is no evidence that there is no god. But its like saying, I have no evidence that the sun god doesnt exist, i have no evidence Allah doesnt exist, and that buddah never existed either. Got my point? If you dont believe in a that god, why do you want to disprove something that technically does not exist(to me).
WiIdlifeWarrior 1 month ago
@6630mcdo also, i didnt say 'i believe lack of evidence is proof of anything's non-existence" it may seem that way on others. The answer to that is I believe lack of evidence is something to reach for, it's the motivation for us to answer that unknown. Its saying "i dont know".
WiIdlifeWarrior 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior Sure, humans always desire to search for truth. If the truth is God or no God, people must accept the truth. I believe that humans will not be able to answer many things about the universe. I personally believe that we will not understand how the universe came from nothing. Theists believe by God, of course, but the methods used? I know His will. Yes, atheists and theists are both in error for using their beliefs to agree with an argument.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior And, it meets the definition of a circular argument: ones only reason for believing the premises is that they have already accepted the conclusion. Now, of course, just claiming 'God did it' without logic or evidence is false. There must be valid premises. Now, the answer 'God created the universe' from first using the Kalam is not doing that 'gap'. It gives an argument, not a mere assertion. (Got my two sons climbing and screaming - hope it's making any sense)
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@WiIdlifeWarrior Now, something very important to know: 'for one to know the explanation is the best explanation, one does not need an explanation OF the explanation.' If you go to the back-side of the moon and find alien tools, you would immediately recognize design. You would not need to know where the aliens came from to know the tools were designed. In fact, all of science would break down if that were true. I know Richard Dawkins uses that in his book the 'God Delusion.'
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo As simple as that, we cant just say "someone(god) did it" 90% of theists usually do that, instead of explaining their answer. Its okay to say "i dont know." We humans cannot know EVERYTHING there is to know in life! But y'all theists dont like thinking, using actual knowledge, or taking the time to analyze the answer. So i'm saying MOST of the people DO this,example...facebook people with their "god" posts. I know i kind got a little off our main topic,but you kind of did too
WiIdlifeWarrior 1 month ago
@6630mcdo
You're using the fallacy of tautology. Your the predicates are presuppositions.
recalibration 1 month ago
@recalibration State more clearly! Where? When? What? Which? I've never seen an atheists in 20 years use a correct fallacy - but one - haha, but prove me wrong, son. I can already tell you're wrong.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
recalibration 1 month ago
@recalibration
@recalibration
(cont ...)
tautology
3. Logic .
a. a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.”
(source: dictionary[dot]com)
"Theists believe by God, of course, but the methods used? _I know His will._"
(Bloody formatting; apologies.)
Don't call me son, we're the same (corporeal) age.
recalibration 1 month ago
@recalibration Sorry, I do not know what this is in reference to - Kalam? P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo
I was looking one of your comments fr 2 days ago, but this Kalam concept works just as well. P1 is a presupposition. I do not see how it can stand on it's on merits as it's function seems to be only to operate as foundation for the rest of this "proof".
In other words, it seems P1 is projecting/to be an anthropomorphism. One wishing to believe _everything_ requires an application does not seem logical.
Please clarify accordingly.
recalibration 1 month ago
@recalibration If you believe the first premise is wrong, all of science fails. All logic, all life, all humans, all minds, all fails. Peace
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo
Please, don't invoke a hasty generalization fallacy for this case; we have the scientific method, demand for falsifiability & peer review to counter against such a cascade.
My beliefs have no factor, but I know I could be misinterpreting my understand of the provided proof. I'd like to see the logical construction of your position so I in turn may grow my own.
recalibration 1 month ago
@recalibration Logic is required to make sense of reality. If you dismiss logic, nothing will make sense. I know logic very well. And, atheists make false statements all the time with 'fallacious'. Few know or understand. Study the Kalam. Atheists - I don't talk with anymore. Even if proven wrong, they will not admit. They wish no God; they are proud; and wish to live without God. They will see the truth in hell if they do not change. 'That is change we can believe in.' Obama
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo I want god to exist but my desire will not change my opinion of reality, yes it would be good if god exist but until they give evidence to that statement I will not clarify it as true, I am still laughing about the idea of punishment if we dont belief in something that has no evidence, If there is a god and he ask us to believe in him but he is not giving any evidence of his existance I think he is cruel since he gave as the ability to reason, Now we have no reason to believe in him.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister One day you will not be laughing. Any doctor can tell you that people have an amazing ability to deceive ourselves. You have told yourself that those illogical statements are true. Enough times, you will believe it. We will all see it one day. Oh, happy day! Justice for all.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo Please tell me what illogical statements? Also is true the humans have an amazing ability to deceive themselves that is the reason that people think they have seen god or god is real and all scientific claims are wrong, One of the main reasons I dont like christianism is because of their intolerance to non believers and to other religions, How do you know that your religion is the true one? You dont, And any claim of ¨I know it because my god spoke to me¨ are already by other religion.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister I know Catholicism is 100% the true religion of God from Jesus. Going to bed - tomorrow. Atheism is emotional issue, nothing else.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo Please tell me how you know? You feel like any other religion believer, If you were born in Afganistan you will believe in ala if you were born in india you will believe in lord shiva and lord vishnu if you were born in viking norway you would believe in odin and thor if you were born in olympic greece you would believe in zeus and apolo.
I think you know what I am trying to say, Faith is an emotional issue since it has nothing in it except personal evidence. ( Which is no evidence )
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister Everything atheists came is 100% false. Example, the being born. Those who search God will find Him. All have a chance. Faith is not blind. Blind faith is belief in a multiverse. Cause of the universe must be timeless, immaterial and spaceless. Logic proves this down to only three possible Gods. Just watch Dr. William Criag.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo Are you stating that all that came from atheist is false? Most of our scientific knowlege is wrong? But the believe without evidence of something that is omnpotent,omnipresent,timeless,inmaterial and spaceless is 100% true and logic? If you can demonstrate that god created everything is ok,He did it, But if you cant we dont have reason to believe it or fear the punishments,Also if the universe HAD to be created, why god doesnt?If god can be timeless and spaceless why dont the universe?
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@6630mcdo @TheWesmaister This is no longer about you two trying to make a point. You are just competing for authority.
WaluigisTacoStand 1 month ago
@WaluigisTacoStand Actually no, I want to make a point and if someone says something illogical correct him or her, I dont care about authority.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister Son, I've debated 50-100 atheists. I know it goes in circles for weeks. If you really want to know what I believe, YouTube "Dr. William Craig.'' It's silly to ask why the universe cannot be timeless and spaceless - we know it is time and space.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo I have debated the same number of christians and none give a good argument
I asked you why the universe cant be timeless and spaceless because you are saying that a being is omnpotent,omnipresent,timeless,inmaterial and spaceless, Science dont know all the anwsers but atleast we dont pretent to, A simple ¨I dont know¨ is better than a lie or a undemostrable thing, If you want to know why I dont believe Youtube Dr. Richard Dawins, Read his books, The God Delusion is one of his best.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister YouTube "Who Designed The Designer? a response to Dawkins' The God " The book was elementary at best. Watch a real thinker review its logic it. You will be SHOCKED at the illogical thinking in Dawkin's arguments. Dawkins is scared to death of Dr. Craig. Peace
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo No, You again invent stuff, Richard dawkins explained why he will not debate with Dr. Craig his reason was very understandable, He debated with bishops and archbishop but he dont have time to debate with one that is called a *profesional debater*, Some books of Richard Dawkins are for kids because he wanted them like that, Please read The God Delusion or The Greatest Show on Earth, or at least The origin of the species by means of natural selection.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister LOL WEAK! There is no such thing as a 'professional debater'! Do you think Islam hires him for them? LOL God Delusion is a JOKE! SO ILLOGICAL. Good bye
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo You are not accepting the truth is like funny, It would be more funny if werent for your comments on other videos about destroying all atheist and atheist having no souls and atheism being a cancer, The God Delusion is a magnific book and you say that because you didnt read it and your years of indoctrination says you to not evven touch books like that, You are being illogical.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister Watch this video and let me know what you think: YouTube: "Who Designed The Designer? a response to Dawkins' The God "
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo I will, But read the books I suggest you, Please answer this simple question, What do you think about the evolution.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister One thing at a thing please. Watch the video and let me know. Then I answer you on evolution. fair?
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo I have seen the 5:08 minute video and it makes no sence since he is comparing something that you can touch and feel with something that you cannot touch or feel, Now answer my question please.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister It does not matter if you insert X or a alien with pink oceans as a tummy with higgs bosom as an ear. It is a 'concept'. We cannot touch a black hole. We cannot see time. Does that make them illogical? Should science take out time from all science?? This is way I don't talk with atheists anymore. They will deny every the most simple of reality. An analogy is one or more points, not to infinity. One cannot explain the rational to an irrational person. Okay, evolution
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo We indeed can see a black hole, And time act on us, Time passes and we know it, We are talking about something that can think, Time is no a living thing, We can feel the time passing.
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
@TheWesmaister Do we? I cannot see, touch time? We cannot see a black hole - LIGHT cannot escape it. I cannot feel time. This is silly - sorry
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo We can see a black hole light cannot escape from him but we indeed can see videos about them see photos about them, You are also a nice person, You get a little too far when you say the thing about atheist needed to be removed... But everyone seeks the truth, Some seek in the wrong places... You still didnt answer my question about evolution, What do you think about it?
TheWesmaister 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheWesmaister As a theist, I could accept evolution. I do not by it as a scientist. Scientific method demands in step 3 it be repeatable and observable. It seems clearly false from fossil record. All science 100% can be modeled in a computer because there are laws and principles that make sense. Evolution cannot do this. Isn't that weird? All of the 10,000's of science fields, yet only one cannot be modeled? I'm actually shocked that anyone could believe such non-sense
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo We knows black holes exist because of the behaviour of light around it; the hole refers to the size of the event horizon surrounding the singularity at the centre.
Secondly, time can be measured, you do not need to touch it to know it exists.
MrXenitha 1 month ago
@MrXenitha We can only think of the effect. But many things we can't see - time. Ever seen time?
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo You don't have to see something to be able to measure it. We can't see atoms but we know they exist by measuring their behaviour.
Secondly, saying that you can't see time limits your perspective to only 3 dimensions; length, width and depth. Time is the shift of all those dimensions along the fourth dimensional line, we know this because gravity affects space-time, i.e. the faster you travel the slower time affects you.
Look up the experiment on the atomic clocks on relative theory.
MrXenitha 1 month ago
@MrXenitha We can see atoms with a powerful electron microscope. We cannot know time with any of the senses. Yet we believe it. Even if one travels faster, time cannot be known by any of the senses - same experience. It feels the same.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo No, we can't see atoms at all. There is no image of an atom ever recorded, the size difference (through mathematical principles) are orders different between each other particle. We do not have microscopes that even see simple covalent molecules yet. The body of an atom is still a theory.
And yes, we've recorded time to change on two identical clocks, as I said, read the article on the atomic clock of relativity.
MrXenitha 1 month ago
@6630mcdo The reason we know "time" also a man made factor really. is because it has a physical effect on our bodies... if our concept of time is not real then how do we age? where as your god has no physical effect on MY body, if i were to do something immoral such as murder your god would not stop me. Then some might give "credit" to your god really diminishing the good deed sed human just did. (its early sorry im not to terribly articulate this morning)
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered youtube screwed upp my comment ha ha the missing line is *A human may stop me*
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered I believe in time. I am just stating we cannot see, taste, touch, feel or smell it. Yet we believe it! How do you know God has no effect? 'Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.' An atheist makes a claim. All claims require evidence. If I state Iran has nuclear weapons, I need evidence. If you claim Iran has no nuclear weapons, you need evidence. Even if my evidence were weak, you could not determine Iran has no nukes! Millions could die with such logic.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo We would ivestigate and test to prove if they do or do not have nuclear weapons. your arguement towards me actually has more effect against you because as you put "If you claim Iran has no nuclear weapons, you need evidence. Even if my evidence were weak, you could not determine Iran has no nukes! Millions could die with such logic." now switch it " If you claim god exists, you need evidence. Even if my evidence against was weak, you could not determine god exist without evidence"
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered Of course, we need evidence for God. I never claimed theists do not need evidence. I am stating that atheists also (like saying Iran has no nukes) need evidence. What evidence does any atheist have against God? In 20 years, I have never seen one argument except the 'evil and God cannot exist'. The problem of evil would disprove God if there were the only life. But evil is allowed because of free will - we chose evil, not God.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo We say your god does not exist because there is no evidence he does. you say he does exist because there is no evidence he doesn't?
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@6630mcdo you also say it yourself that Theist need evidence... What is your evidence?
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@6630mcdo Also Athiesm is a NON belief. If there was evidence of god (tangible evidence) and i said there is no god then yes i would have the burden of proof. but since i am saying i do not believe in something with no tangible evidence to back its claim then the burden falls on the ones claiming its existence. "you must prove something exists before it can be dismissed" Throwin a little Johnny Cochran Speak your way(if you slang the words so they rhyme.)
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered Well, again, saying Iran has no nukes is also a non-belief. Yet any claim for or against something requires evidence. The only person that needs no evidence is the one that states 'I do not know.' All professors of logic and philosophy knows that 'any claim requires evidence'. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. It is just a common online/layman of logic statement that no true thinker believes it is valid. Why do you not believe in God? nukes in Iran?
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo I don't believe there are nukes in Iran because there is no proof they have nukes. if they prove they have nukes then i will believe they have nukes.. see how that works? and by Christians Defense the President (or whatever his title is) of Iran said he does not plan to make nukes. Therefore you were told by the "Leader" of that country that what he says is true because he said it. (just like your bible)
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered I don't know if Iran has nukes. If I were them, I'd build them now! Well, see the US inspected Israel in 1980's to see if they were building nukes. Israel hid the nukes behind doors that they had bricked-up and fooled the inspectors. So, again, 'lack of evidence is not evidence of absence'. I give arguments for God's existence outside of the bible. DNA is a code. Codes require intelligence. 'DNA is a code FAR more advanced than anything we have built.' Bill Gates
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo Most Athiests are of the mindset that we do not fully know, But there is no Evidence to lead us to believe so the default position is non Belief
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered If anyone stated 'Iran has no nukes because we have no evidence' would get fired. No one with that logic could hold a job where millions could die because of a logical fallacy. No, I claim God exists because I have evidence. I make a claim, so I need evidence. You make a claim and also need evidence. Most atheists are actually agnostics and just do not know that an atheist would need evidence. I think you're agnostic.
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo First off your foreign Policy is wack... what makes you assume that If Iran had nukes we would all die? they have never invaded anybody and many other countries have 1000's of nukes yet we still live. i would use a different mediphore because your knowledge and view of foreign policy is very unchristian.. you can not judge a country on your lack of knowledge about them
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered Oh, I'm just playing in an analogy. Iran has ever right to build nukes if they really are - a nation if free from any outside influence. Rwanda murdered 2-3 MILLION of its own people. US did nothing. Israel is far more violent than Iran. Iran hasn't invade a country in over 300 years. The US is the greatest terrorist in the world killing over 1.5 million since 2001 per UN Report. I believe that there will be war with Iran before fall of 2012. It might start WW3
6630mcdo 1 month ago
@6630mcdo well At least we can agree on one thing.... Religious or Not... People Suck ha ha
JusBenLawyered 1 month ago
@JusBenLawyered Well, if you do not have evidence disproving God, all you can claim is 'I do not know.' There are five main arguments for God - the Kalam and Fine-tuning are the best. Moral argument is also good. You know this first hand. You know rape and murder are wrong. All humans do...if there was no God, morals would be just what one person feels are would totally be random. Rape might be good for one person. Morals are based on the Law Giver, God. Total proof to be is Kala
6630mcdo 1 month ago