This is a clever trap. The theist will inevitably use some version of parsimony or Occam's razor - the very idea they must reject in order to maintain any veresion of the cosmological argument. Well done.
i believe in god because i am unable to cope with the fact that there is no god, and i understand this, and it sometimes hurts to think about, and you sir are epic in a good way.
with primitive religions it seemed like the creator of earth was more of a alternate dimension type character, with parents, brothers and sisters and a community of sorts. the greek gods (plural) lived on mt. olympus, Enki had parents and shit, etc etc. but god (yahweh, allah, whatever) is infinite, wtf? and where did he get his supplies for the earth, did god have parents? don't make no sense.
@nwankwourf For your first question if you prove to me that the Boogeyman or Loch Ness Monster or Big foot don't exist then i'll prove to you God doesn't exist and for your second question, If i met God i will acknowledge the fact that i was wrong....btw what type of God should i imagine a God who wants to be praised always, An almighty being who created the Universe and will get angry if i do blasphemy, A being who punishes people who lived their lives helping others but didn't believe.
@nwankwourf And sorry for using the word 'WE' actually i was referring to Human Beings i understand that you hate that word, You want to feel special as you are the favorite of your space daddy.
@darkreaper321 when i said we i meant that your probably not a scientist and probably know next to nothing about there claims you saying we is probably incorect
@darkreaper321 another question...im just curious... just IMAGINE OK... what if you met god right this secound and realized that he was real...what would you say too him?
@nwankwourf Well ok i'll go find out the definition of a theory and you also look up the thing called theory and fact, For ex:- Gravity is a FACT and we have Gravitational theory explains the phenomenon of Gravity. Now if you want to understand what i was saying you have to READ what you've typed and my reply to that and if you still don't get it try reading it again.
@nwankwourf "prove to me there isnt a god" The burden of proof always lies in trying to prove something exists, not to prove that it doesn't. Otherwise I can say I have an invisible purple flying elephant in my room, prove that I don't. Your inability to prove that I don't would mean that I do have one (using your logic).
@nwankwourf 1)Faith in big bang?, You don't know about the theory at all do you, We have made scientific observations about how the galaxies are accelerating away from one and other at high speeds which point us towards a lot more compact Universe in the beginning and the acceleration is caused by a rapid expansion phenomenon called the Big Bang. We never made any scientific observation about any God.
@darkreaper321 you need to go find out what the definition of a "THEORY" is. Dont say we, your not a scientist. i dont get what your trying to say to me. your telling me what the big bang THEORY is. this has nothing to do with what i said or the question in the video.
you say faith is not proof yet you have faith in the Big Bang THEORY being true. God is an entity and created the laws of the universe( time, gravity, space, mathematics). what your asking to give you a number? is like saying how old is god.time,space,mathematics,gravity started when god created it( when the big bang happened). so that means these laws do not apply to God. its like say the dude tht invented the computer and asking can tht person crash,how many videos can he play, does he bufer?
@nwankwourf being an atheist does not mean that you necessarily "believe" or accept the Big Bang Theory, it just means that you do not believe or accept the Big God Theory. Without knowing enough about the Big Bang to decide whether I think it is a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, I CAN say from having read the Bible that Yahweh does not exist, and I have seen no evidence that any god does.
@nwankwourf What makes you assume that I'm not? Provide some evidence for your claim, or have some respect for the fact that my lack of belief in gods is based in open-mindedness (I don't just take some ancient book's word for granted, I look at evidence and think logically about things) which requires a lot of patience. Provide me with one piece of evidence, just one, that proves there is a god.
@MadBasstid !. ok you say you think logically about things, which is good. So say i have this room with nothing in it. now lets say i return to the room 10 days later and find a chair. logically which would you believe that, that chair appear from nowhere or if i told you that i created that chair? anyone who has knowledge would say that someone had created that chair. Anyone who has knowledge/ wisdom knows that we only know next to nothing about the world/galaxy/etc.
@nwankwourf "So say i have this room with nothing in it. now lets say i return to the room 10 days later and find a chair. logically which would you believe that.." I would have assumed someone brought it in from another room. It doesn't matter, because even if you created it you had to get the materials from somewhere, you didn't create the molecules out of thin air. Even if you want to use that argument it only gets you as far as god used materials that already existed
@MadBasstid So with that knowledge and how little we know, its logically incorrect for someone to say through research/science we know God doesn't exist. What im saying is that untill you know every piece of knowledge/wisdom that our universe holds than you are not qualified to question whether God exist or doesn't.
@nwankwourf I am not trying to prove to you that there are no gods. You are trying to prove to me that there is one. I am saying that there is no proof that any gods exist, or at least certainly none that I am aware of that I can accept. The famed watchmaker argument does not prove that, & has been refuted skillfully many times over by people far more intelligent/eloquent than I, but basically it's a false analogy- if you see a tree in the wood, do you assume someone made it? Who created god?
I don't believe in gods, demons, or an afterlife of any kind. IF there was a god, then he's an asshole who enjoys fucking with us and doesn't like children. There is not one single good thing for mankind that has ever been done by a god. Man does good things for mankind, like developing vaccines and antibiotics that save countless lives. Anything and everything that ever happens is either by nature or by mankind, good or bad.
@8698gil before you say stuff like that, have you ever read the bible. Maybe if you read it and werent tht ignorant you would have the explanation to your question
@nwankwourf "have I read the bible?" I grew up reading the bible in a strict religious home. I went to church, sunday school, teen bible study groups (which my parents forced me to go to), prayers every day. Have I read the bible? Yes, I have. Have you? It's a book of myths.
@8698gil your ignorant... without any research done you claim that there myths. see, you never became christian... you werent doing those things because of grace or your love of god but because you were forced i understand. it happened to me too... i then became atheist needing proof of gods existence. But then i did research on jesus, god, and the bible and know im Christian. you have to be open minded about this and really want to know the answer.
@nwankwourf After 40 years since becoming an atheist, I don't think I'll going to change my mind. I've been much happier for 40 years as an atheist than I ever was for 10 years being a christian.
I like you, and I like the way you think, and I like the way you respectfully asked this question.
But I have to say that this was a monumentally stupid question to ask. It sort of disregards the intent of the belief and fuels an equally stupid debate, and so you all go around chasing your own tails, failing to acknowledge that they are, in fact, a part of your own body. :)
I challenge nonstampcollector that there is 1 GOD! all you have to do is go to this church, that's it. when you receive prophecy you will get the answers you want. but I bet your scared to go to this church and find out the truth.
church of god ministry of jesus christ international
@lizardstyle101 I love how the challenge includes "don't change the subject" and you immediatly changed the subject. Good job demonstrating your capacity to rise to a challenge! You sure did prove your point, what with not remotely addressing the topic and all!
if you want evidence or proof that GOD talks to humans just like the bible says, I invite you to receive prophecy in this church: he will answer all your questions and if you find it to be false I would probably become agnostic.
church of god ministry of jesus christ international
I also believe there can be no definitive proof that the universe was created by a higher power a.k.a. "God". Perhaps the best way to describe my belief that God was the maker of the universe and all that resulted after its creation, is the quote by St. Thomas Aquinas: "whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion...this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." What was that "first mover" that caused the big bang if not God?
@Strangerinasland I can't answer that... I don't know. But @ some point there must have been something in existence that started it all off? how else did our world and everything we have today come about? what set the big bang off? To me, the idea of "God" is an energy force, not some old bearded guy who sits among the clouds, smiting ppl. Its a spiritual force but I don't know what or where it came from. This force IS the science that started our world & will therefore cause the end one day too
@Missperfect8888 @ some point there must have been something in existence that started god. How else could it come about? What caused whatever set off the Big Bang?
@Strangerinasland Whatever caused or created or "started God off" is the force that I want to honour. That original force in my opinion IS God. whatever was the VERY FIRST spark of what we have today is what I'm greatful to. If you want to visualise it as the "thing" before "God" then go back as far as u can & visualise the "thing" even before that...Thats God. None of us know what it was that caused it. Even scientists call it the "God Particle" because they havent been able 2 figure it out yet
@Missperfect8888 There is no original force. If by "what we have today" you mean the present form of our known universe, maybe the change into its current form was triggered by something but that was not a 1st cause. That was caused by something & it did not create our known universe out of nothing. The ingredients which make up the universe simply changed. Which may have happened before as many times as there are atoms in our known universe & may have happened elsewhere as well. (cont)
@Missperfect8888 (cont) There is a limit to how far back we can go with knowledge or even constructive speculation. Beyond that we must say "I do not know". Scientists are fallible humans & unfortunately they sometimes use terms which are easily misinterpreted. When they say God Particle, they are not referring to what most people think of as gods. I do not know what you mean by a bit rich. I was, at least at that time, commenting on Thomas Aquinas. (cont)
@Missperfect8888 (cont) He made ignorant arrogant assumptions which it is sad that some have taken to heart. He ignorantly assumed causes cannot go on thru infinity & from that ignorantly assumed there must be a 1st cause. There is nothing necessarily wrong with being ignorant of something. It is wrong to be arrogant in assuming ignorant speculation to be true. I certainly would not assume no 1 in existence knows the answer. (cont)
@Missperfect8888 We already know quite well about the nature of the universe roughly 1.0 x 10^-43 seconds (the smallest measurement for time: planck time) after the beginning of existence, when the universe was a one dimensional point of infinite density and the four fundamental forces were one under extremely hot temperatures. The question of "before the universe" is irrelevant because time is a function of gravity and time is a property of the universe itself (spacetime).
@Strangerinasland Under general relativity (Not M-theory), our universe is composed of 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. This forms the space time continuum. According to Einstein, time is relative to speed and gravity; for example, the twin paradox. Since the universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that is known to PHYSICALLY exist, then technically the big bang is the beginning of existence. If not, then what is time and the nature of existence?
@DarkArktic Everything we know to exist may be 1 trillionth of 1% of what exists. We DO NOT KNOW. It is ridiculous to assume what we know to exist is all that exists. The Big Bang did not come from nothing. Every thing that exists has always existed & always will but in different forms. There is a theory the Big Bang happened before. Either way, the ingredients of OUR KNOWN universe existed before the latest Big Bang. How long did they exist in that form & how much space did it occupy? (cont)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland What you are referring to is the observable universe. I'm talking about the context of the entire universe itself. Are you aware of the actual definition of the universe? And you didn't answer my questions. If you believe time to be static and uniform, then this would compromise general relativity. What is time? Furthermore, what is the nature of existence? If your thoughts can be reduced to physical process, have they also always existed?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland Next time, please don't answer with a bunch of general blanket statements about the big bang/omniverse and stop spewing random science facts.
@DarkArktic Do not try to tell me how to answer your ridiculous statements. I am not spewing anything. If you cannot handle science & logic, just drop it. You made assumptions which I rationally showed were invalid. I referred to our known universe & the entire universe. We do not know enough about the entire universe for there to be any context for you to talk about. You were the 1 who 1st mentioned time so you try to define it. What the heck do you mean by the nature of existence??? (cont)
@DarkArktic (cont) Are you actually questioning whether something which did not exist in any form now exists? You did not answer any of my questions concerning space & time. There is so much we do not know yet. Pre Big Bang seems to be unknowable. Maybe someday that will change. Maybe not. Same for beyond our known universe.
@Strangerinasland In order to make an argument, you have to make assumptions. All assumptions are technically invalid. You also keep switching the description of the context of the universe, referring to both the theoretical constructs beyond our universe and the observable universe. Please be more clear in the future. Lastly, my entire comment was constructed around the current scientific understanding of the universe at the time of the Planck Epoch, which is fairly concrete.
@Strangerinasland Your questions are irrelevant to the debate because you are referring to a completely different frame of reference which must be approached with a different mindset, as it is much more theoretical and open to interpretation. As for the nature of existence, you implied that consciousness has always existed because you said "there is no beginning of existence". How is that possible?
@DarkArktic I do not switch descriptions. I am making the valid points that there is an astronomical difference between OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE & THE UNIVERSE & that very little can be said of THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE because we simply do not know. The questions ARE relevant to your ridiculous claim that there was no time or space before the Big Bang. You must answer them or or drop your claim. I did not imply that consciousness always existed.
@DarkArktic "referring to a completely different frame of reference which must be approached with a different mindset, as it is much more theoretical and open to interpretation"
No. The only interpretation of something we do not know is "I do not know".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland I do not dispute that there is a difference between the KNOWN universe, and the universe ITSELF. You keep switching reference points without giving any indication of doing so between the OBSERVABLE Universe, and MULTIPLE universes (multiple big bangs). Your points are disorganized and all over the place, and have nothing to do with my original argument. Time or space as we know it do not act in the same way in this universe as they do in other universes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland You also contradict yourself when you say "I did not imply that consciousness has always existed", because you specifically said "there is no beginning of existence". Consciousness indisputably exists. How could your mental processes have always existed? That makes no sense. And again, you keep speaking of "Before" the big bang. This is irrelevant.
@DarkArktic My thoughts have not always existed but the matter & energy which cause them have always existed in some form. Before the Big Bang is not irrelevant. You claim there is a beginning. There may be a beginning to OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE but there was NO BEGINNING to its INGREDIENTS. AGAIN, whatever exists has always existed in some form. If we assume there was nothing before the Big Bang, we cannot learn what happened before the Big Bang & we may as well say god done it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland "NO BEGINNING to INGREDIENTS", well that is quite another grand assumption, isn't it? Do you have any irrefutable evidence of this? again, it is irrelevant to talk about "before the big bang", because there is no such thing. Besides, a universe with an infinite time scale would not be able to support life due to the second law of thermodynamics. U dig?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland The interpretation of the unknown is what science is all about. Science is about debunking and explaining various phenomena through theories, which are developed depending on a scientist's interpretation of said phenomenon. Theories are then either verified or discredited by the rational process.ie If we didn't know what caused disease, and simply approached the issue by saying "I do not know what causes disease", then we would not have an understanding of it.
@DarkArktic If we do not 1st say "I do not know:, we cannot discover anything. There is much we yet do not know & it does no good to pretend we do know. "There is no beginning of existence" does not say anything about consciousness. I did not say my mental processes always existed. The action of an automobile running along a highway has not always existed but the matter & energy which cause it have always existed in some form.
@DarkArktic . Either we know something or we do not. Science begins with what we KNOW & DO NOT KNOW. People believed diseases were caused by evil spirits or curses from the gods. It took someone saying "I do not know" to beging the process of scientific discovery & understanding.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Strangerinasland "Whatever exists has always existed": this is an example of an interpretation of the unknown. There is no proof of this, nor is there any solid evidence for it AS OF NOW. And as I see it, "before" the universe has absolutely nothing to do with the universe as it is, and the coming into existence of the current universe. You introduce another personal interpretation when you say that thought is caused by matter, as this is not necessarily the nature of thought.
@Strangerinasland But what does "to exist" mean? Don´t we say sth. exists when we either percept it or when we imagine it according to reliable data. So, can sth. be called existing, if our conciousnessis not confrontedwith it? Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote our field of view is without boundaries because there is no world outside of it. I think he was right: Everything we see is everything that exists visually in the same world as us (which we call THE world).
@DarkArktic (cont) There could have been as many Big Bangs as there are atoms in our known universe & in as many different places. Was our pre Big Bang form bigger than those others or smaller or about the same size? How much space did they occupy? How much time passed between Big Bangs? Do some happen simultaneously? Each time technology improves the distance at which we can detect something, we detect something farther away. I expect that to continue.
@nwankwourf I am aware of this. We were having a debate over the nature of science and our understanding of the universe, not religion. Come back when you have something relevant to say.
@Missperfect8888 "whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion...this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover."
This cannot go on to infinity is simply an arrogant ignorant assumption. There is no need for a 1st mover.
@Strangerinasland Ok well I think its a bit rich of u to call my belief in a 1st mover "Ignorant" when no one in existence knows the answer. secondly, I've told you my thoughts on the creation of the universe and apparently they're wrong. So what do u believe started it all off if not something we can label "God"? ...Why is there no need for a first mover?
@Missperfect8888 (cont) There could be more advanced beings somewhere who know anywhere from 10 times to a trillion times as much as we do. If we do not know the answer, we are ignorant. YOU AND I are IGNORANT. Being ignorant of something, we should say "I do not know" rather than claim we do know that god done it. It is great to have thoughts on such things & I did not imply they are all wrong. (cont)
@Missperfect8888 (cont) Some of it may be plain wrong but some is wrong, as far as we know at this time, in that we simply do not know & should not assume without proof. Until we know, much speculation is not only not wrong but it is good as long as we do not assume the speculation is accurate. I do not know what started off the current state of our known universe & I can accept that I do not know & probably will never know. (cont)
@Missperfect8888 (cont) The question is not why is there no need for a 1st mover but why IS there a need for a 1st mover, which no 1 has answered. Replacing “I do not know” with gods does not solve anything.
@ishgood100 There's absolutely no reason to believe that. How many people designed the Prius? One? The team of engineers and designers managed to come up with something that exists and works.
@NonStampCollector I cannot think of any thing there is only 1 of. I have long wondered why people think there would be only 1 god. The Holy Babble says there's more than 1.
@ishgood100 Care to present evidence that he/she/they dose not need experience i mean if we are just saying basicly hear say then any claim of any type is valid, if you want to discuss this further and have a civil debate then feel free to PM me
@Dracofangstudios the evidence is in the name ''God'' which is a perfect being , if there is a need of experience then automatically you cannot label him God.
@ishgood100 Oh, if hes so perfect then would that not create a paradox cus a perfect being dose not need worship,if he needs praise and worship that would make him well egotistical therefor not perfect and i could go deeper but i have better things to do with my time then argue about imaginary friends. To me arguing about religous dogma is like arguing about football teams or other trivial things
@Dracofangstudios i agree, a perfect being does not need anyone or anything, we need him it is out of our own interest and benefit we worship God. whoever does not worship God is not harming anyone but himself
@ishgood100 It seems he needs us more then we need him i mean i dont need a book to tell me right from wrong nor do i need a person with a holyer then thou mentality to lecture me on what im doing to be honest, id rather look at things with an objective eye when i meet people i honestly dont care which imaginary friend they subscribe to i have several friends who are christian but are not all in your face about it i judge people on there merits not on there religious beliefs or lack there of
@ishgood100 That being said, any organization that represents a divine being that is supposedly perfect that has fucked up like the christian/catholic church is not gonna get me fallowing them, so far no religion has proven to me that there word comes from anymore there hear say from very old primitive documents that have caused nothing but trouble for the last couple centuries weather it be the dark ages or psudo-science being pushed into the public schools
@Dracofangstudios why wouldn't God send a message to his creation since we are inexperient and he knows more than us, if a DVD player broke who would you first go to....its maker. is it safe to say the only reason you dont follow a religion is because you dont like following rules or orders, maybe that could be common in most atheist.
@ishgood100 For your information im great at fallowing orders as i was in ROTC and the only reason why im not in the military at the moment is cus i have a defect in my foot which makes it freeze up from time to time and to me your god seems more like a dictator dishing out frivolous commands and punishing anyone who gose against him. basicly saying do what i say or i hurt you and until god dose some sort of big thing to give us proof he will not get my loyalty
@ishgood100 Further more your comparing humans which are complex to machinery that is way less complex and if my DVD player broke i wouldent go to the manufacturer/maker id to to the store and get a new one and the only ones who need consent orders being given to them are ones who are either to stupid and or to lazy to figure out the right thing for themselves
@Strangerinasland lets say God just showed himself to you, would you believe in him or not, you would right but then were is the test on whos a good person or whos an bad person because everyone would be believers. ''It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving''.
If there is only one creator, then I believe that the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam is the same one. The difference may be due to human manipulations or other reasons. My response to your video is I cannot "prove" to you there is one God, but at the same time, scientists cannot prove all the details in the theory of evolution (as it is constantly being revised and improved), but only say that the evolution is the current best model to explaining the nature surrounding us
My inclination toward a personal God is influenced by my religious experience from upbringing. The fact is, just like you said, I don't know. However, I don't think the word "proof" should be used here, just as scientists don't like the word "proof", but they say something like, "this experiment 'support' the alternative hypothesis of..." Ultimately, for me, it is my inner longing to believe in a personal God who cares about me.
What type of evidence? I never know what atheists mean when they say they want evidence. Do you want a picture, movie or what?
For 2000 years we've been hashing this out! We say the bible, you say no. We say the person of Jesus Christ, you say no. We say we have no idea how we believe in this, but we were drawn to it, and through reading the bible and learning about God we are drawn to him, you say no.
@JoshD667 Eg: I believe there's a gold treasure in my garden and state this 2 u as fact - do you believe me? You want evidence? Let's go into the garden and have a look. Can't see any at a glance. Let's dig deeper to see if I'm correct - let's dig up the whole garden to test my claim. If we find gold- I've fulfilled the burden of proof. If, short of digging to the centre of the earth we find no gold, irrespective of what i believe - I have to be honest and admit there is no evidence! simples ;-)
@JoshD667 The general goal is to have some support for the claim that is being made. Since, there are many claims that can be made - the question is what supports the claim and does the claimed support make sense. This is the evidence that is being requested...
The challenge is pointless because the answer given will be the same for why it is their god. That is, the proof given is their holy book and thus you are ignoring the faulty assumptions. You cannot prove a hypothesis by citing as evidence the data which gives rise to the hypothesis. This is bad logic and it is the centre of the fallacy which you are challenging. This is why they never get past the first stage of the debate. Do you see?
@jacksawild maybe that's the whole idea. trying to argue one particular theism over another cannot be done in an acceptable manner to most objective, critical thinkers. maybe getting people to see this is the entire point of asking the question. or was that what you were saying and i was just slow?
@EpicPhalure I'm saying that it is the same question, leading to an identical and flawed debate. Take creationism in the US, it was outlawed in science classes so they came up with ID and called it science but in reality it is the same postulation. This challenge, to prove only one god did is in fact the same question as whether god did it as it relies on the same hypothesis (that of an intelligent designer creating the universe). This is an obfuscation and, I feel, mirrors the faulty ID debate.
First of all, forgive me for being nearly a year late giving a comment on this.
While the question you ask is an important one asking for evidence what you are looking for is Naturalistic evidence that God exists. The assertion by Theists, such as myself, is that God transcends nature thus asking for Naturalistic evidence of a God is much like asking for evidence that I love my long dead grandmother. Your question is, by design, unable to give an answer that is satisfactory. Cheers :)
@MapleAnglican you missed the point of the challenge entirely. the challenge is for anyone to explain how it's reasonable for anyone to jump from deism to any particular theism. the "fine tune argument," for example, is an argument for *deism.* the cosmological argument is an argument for *deism.* AFTER the question "is there a god?" you then have to ask "which god is the real god, and why?" that's the challenge.
@EpicPhalure I don't think I missed it at all. NonStampCollector is very smart, and he has designed a question that he knows that any theist cannot possibly give an acceptable answer to him.
@MapleAnglican ok, then. why did you choose your particular theism over every other theism? i'm interested in your answer, genuinely. or i'll ask another way- what convinced you that every single other theism is wrong?
@EpicPhalure Well, since I'm limited to 500 characters, the Doctrine of the Incarnation, the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, John Jewell, Lancelot Andrewes, and C.S. Lewis coupled with the numerous non-Christian sources supporting the historicity of Jesus and the Apostles, a dash of personal revelation, the Catechism of the Church from the Book of Common Prayer, and one very convincing First Nations Anglican Priest who use to be a hairdresser.
It seems that most people say that if the existence of god cannot be proven, then there is no reason to believe. I understand that reasoning. But since the challenge of this video is to "prove" something abstract, then the argument is null. Like I've been saying and implying, the best you can have with our science in the vast mysteries of the cosmos is evidence. Beyond that, reasoning is all we can use.
They will never meet the challenge because the only things (falsely) propping up the argument for christianity are the bible and personal experience. The bible proves nothing more than any other book proves... that a book was written. Personal experience proves nothing more than that you have experienced something (which may or may not have been hallucinated, lied about, embellished or misidentified.) Faith follows from "personal experience" + indoctrination and can not be trusted in any way.
@observersearcher uh nope... this is often referred to as "Russell's teapot". Russell's teapot theory claims that a Teapot is orbiting the sun - obviously it doesn't, and it isn't up to me to prove that there is no teapot around the sun, but him to prove that there IS. When you make a claim that something exists, it is up to you to prove that it does, not up to me to prove that it doesn't. If I claimed that Transformers lived on the moon, would it be irrational for you to say "uh, then prove it"
@TokyoZeplin Again, this word "proof." "Evidence" is what I would ask for. I'm saying that at the farthest reaches of our understanding, there is no proof of a god, nor is there proof there isn't a god. If you DON'T want someone to believe in something that they do, burden of evidence should be on you. I just happen to catch your message just seven minutes after you posted. Check out: soulpancakeDOTcom/question/63484/are-you-a-possibilian-i-am (replace DOT with . )
@observersearcher again, no. If you make the claim something exists, then it is up to you to prove that it does. End of. If you disagree, I would like you to acknowledge the flying teapot, as well as the Giant Spaghetti Monster from Pastafarism.
@TokyoZeplin Did I claim that god exists. I merely say I believe he does and I reasoned (not proved) my faith. If you say something does not exist, that is a claim of nothing, which is still something to show evidence of. If one does not know what is beyond our understanding, yet claims there is nothing there, that is irrational.
@observersearcher still no... if you cannot show proof of the existence of something, the default answer would be that then it doesn't exist. No matter how you twist and turn it, the burden of proof is on the believers in God, not the atheists.
@TokyoZeplin Alright, by your logic, the laws of physics don't exist. The theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics say the other don't exist. But, there is plenty of evidence to say both are right. Going further, there are laws of physics. Where did they come from? Neither atheists nor theists can prove where the laws come from. It is irrational to say they the laws come from nowhere.
@observersearcher I don't follow you... the laws of physics (which aren't "laws" in the way you seem to be describing them, you could also have called them "the facts of physics", or whatever) exist because we can prove they exist. They are demonstrable.
@observersearcher what the-? you were almost, kinda reasonable until you started talking about laws of physics as if they were judicial principles written down in a book somewhere. as @TokyoZeplin said the laws exist because we see that they exist. they would exist whether we could formulate them or not.
@TokyoZeplin If someone claims anything, even if it is saying that there isn't anything, they should have evidence to show for it. If someone said the Earth does not exist (though we are standing on it), they should have some evidence of their claim, no?
@observersearcher again, no. If you make something up, it's up to you to prove that it exists. Until it can be proven it exists, the natural answer is that it doesn't. Again, if you follow your own logic, you must accept my belief in the Big Spaghetti Monster, and the Flying Teapot.
@TokyoZeplin The natural answer is that one hasn't perceived it yet with their own senses. The planetoid Pluto existed before it was discovered. Are you suggesting that Pluto doesn't exist until perceived with our senses?
@observersearcher You are changing the subject, and that really has nothing to do with it. Of course not, you are talking about discovery. However, again, if you claim something exists, it will be assumed not to until you can actually prove that it does. Again, I say for the 3rd time, if you follow your own logic, you will have to accept my belief in the Big Spaghetti Monster, and the Flying Teapot.
@TokyoZeplin If you really believed in the Big Spaghetti Monster and the Flying Teapot, you could reason with me that they exist. Since the experience of the Monster and Teapot would seem subjective, then you would (and only could reason) that they exist. The Earth going around Sun was only Galileo's (Galileo, right?) experience, everyone else at the time experienced the Sun going around the Earth. Is it reasonable to say that the laws of physics had to come from something else?
@observersearcher Galileo gave reason to believe that not everything in the universe orbits the Earth. It was because of religion that this claim wasn't accepted, but it was to be accepted back then, despite the immense truth of the claim known today. If Galileo claimed this without reason to, then nobody should have believed him. If 20,000 years ago one of our ancestors had remarked that the Sun is made of gas, too right people shouldn't have accepted this claim. Why? Because it LACKED reason.
@redbreast3 The religious majority in Galileo's time had no reason to believe Galileo. They had reason to believe that his devices and measurements were sorcery or black magic. People have intuition, something that I think that is evolutionarily useful. But, people don't understand how they come up with their intuitive ideas or perspectives, and often lack the ability to "prove" them. I don't think it is wise to discount millions(?) of people's intuition. Freethinking theists might be on to
@observersearcher "The religious majority had no reason to believe Galileo" - this is false. You know nothing of astronomy and reason. They had NO reason to believe that his ideas were witchcraft because they had no reason to believe in witchcraft, and there were many people who didn't believe in witchcraft because they were reasonable people, surrounded by superstitious morons. Logical fallcy: 'appealing to majority'. The majority is not right. Faith is not intuitive. Lack of faith is default.
@redbreast3 I think theists can REASON right up to a point. But, since god is abstract, god cannot be quantified. Thus, the existence of god can never be proven. It is irrational, even if one is lacking just one piece of evidence. Irrational, but not silly. Does the term atheism mean "does not believe in the existence of god"? To me, that is a claim. A claim without evidence, though atheists may have intelligent reasoning for it. Just as irrational as theism.
@observersearcher You're not understanding that a lack of belief in ANYTHING is the DEFAULT position. Lack of belief is the intuition of humans. Whether it's a lack of the belief in santa claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If the existence of God can never be proven, you correctly say, then the default position is to say, "Well, he can't be proven so I'm not going to believe that he exists, I'm going to believe that he doesn't because it saves me repeating this fucking argument every time."
@redbreast3 The only way you are going to win this argument is if you can argue that a lack of belief is NOT the default position of every baby that has ever been born. Best of luck.
@redbreast3 Intuition is subjective. Intuition can lean towards faith or not. Faith is based on subjective experience, be it intuition or an experience that is consciously sensed by one's 5 senses. I agree that faith goes further and believes in something that cannot be proven, but it can be reasoned with evidence. I understand that you are saying that a person cannot believe in something if they don't experience the evidence for it.
@observersearcher Whether intuition is subjective or objective is irrelevant. The point being is that you can not give me an example of faith being intuitive. If you can then you've won this whole debate, hands down. You're not going to though, because, as I've announced multiple times, atheism is the default standpoint. Atheism isn't even a belief. You thought that atheists are just as wrong as theists, but this isn't true. If you can understand 'burden of proof', then the debate is over.
@redbreast3 I think we may two different understandings of intuition. My understanding of intuition is a conscious conclusion of subconscious processing of stimuli. By that, a person could experience stimuli and come to the conclusion that there is something there that cannot be demonstrated for others enlightenment. So, they have faith in something they cannot produce evidence for. How do you understand intuition? Just a default mindset or supportive of default mindset?
@observersearcher Intuition is the immediate truth of something. You can bend this to say that faith is the immediate truth of some, but do you honestly believe this to be true? That somebody need not rationalise but just 'know' that there's something? Such subjectivity shouldn't be treated as truth. I agree with you that intuition can be subjective because I interpret the world differently to others, but I can explain my interpretations.
@redbreast3 Whether one's intuition can be explained or not, it is still that person's truth. What makes this unstable is unstable people or leaders oppressing others with their truth (bashing, holy wars, etc.). Having discourse for further understanding, of not just each other but trying to reach for the ultimate Truth (in a rational way) is what people should be doing. That said, some people's intuition will say that there is something more than we know. It advances us to follow hunches.
@observersearcher It is not "that person's truth". It is either true or it isn't, irrespective of one's intuitions. This is borderline irrelevant anyway. The bottom line is that appealing to a stance of non-belief is not irrational, it is an irrefutable definition and practice of rationality itself. The 'belief in non-belief' as it's often referred to, is nonsensical and unworthy of further debate. Theist or not, it must be accepted that theism is a subscription to ignorance and denial of facts.
@redbreast3 Subscription to ignorance and denial of facts?! That is an ignorant statement. A person rationalize according to facts that there is a design, therefore a designing force. One can rationalize that the designing force is god or rationalize that that force comes from somewhere. Scientific theories are believed because people rationalize or reason with the evidence of theories. Do you believe in evolution? It cannot be demostrated, but there is plenty of evicence to rationalize.
@observersearcher There is no reason to believe that we are designed. You're making a leap of faith here. Things which are rational can be surpassed by things which are more rational. You say, "The universe has been designed but I can't show you why." and so I say, "Then the universe hasn't been designed until you show me why." From here I can only go into explaining the default position of non-belief, but I would rather not go in circles.
@redbreast3 There are laws of physics that dictate design. Scientists are now trying to find a theory of everything to reconcile the contradiction between the theories of relativity and quantum physics. This, with my reasoning, is the law that designed the dynamics of relativity and subatomic particles. Yet, it is irrational to believe there is such a theory or law of everything because it isn't discovered yet, right? And is it such a leap to consider the law of everything the designer?
@observersearcher If you re-read your first sentence you can see clearly your leap of faith. "There are laws of physics that dictate design." - well there's no evidence for design so you're playing with words. The theories provided by physics deduce a theory of everything, like there is evidence for the big bang but we weren't there. This is so irrelevant and I'm not concerned about the subjectivity of intuition. Atheism is definitively a rational standpoint. Email me if you want to talk more.
@redbreast3 Does it fit default non-belief to not accept reasoning? Or turn a blind eye to evidence? It wouldn't be wise, but it seems to fit the idea of not believing in something because of lack of reason that the non-believer wants to hear. Galileo had reason, but there were willful non-believers.
@observersearcher The non-believers in Galileo's time were in disbelief when faced with facts, though they had no counter-evidence. If you don't accept reason as the architect of your beliefs then your beliefs just aren't reasonable. Rationality as a truth-obtaining method is a definitive truth, itself. It's that it's proven itself to be the best contender of truth, like Science has, but it actually is truth. Find me something that's 'true' without using reason: One simply can NOT believe it.
@redbreast3 Non-believers in Galileo's time had counter-evidence, the sun went up and around the Earth everyday. Galileo was one man using "smoke and mirrors" for all they knew.
Intuition (by my understanding of the word) could be the only reason that someone believes something. A gut feeling is reason enough for someone to believe there is something dangerous about the unknown. They might not be able to explain it to someone else with evidence or rationality. True, there has to be reason.
@observersearcher I really can't understand what your aim is, here. The sun went up and around the earth but if you are sitting on the sun then it looks like the earth is going around the Sun. They KNEW this, I wouldn't attempt to falsely irrationalise the works of Galileo in that context. It was religion which just decided that it was irrational, not proved that it was irrational. Intuition isn't truth - I wish you luck surviving on it. Your intuition can lead you to danger as well. Subjective.
By the way, I never said that anyone was wrong, just irrational. Maybe I've made the mistake of thinking that atheists claim there is no god, when you seem to be suggesting that they don't even make a claim at all. Because, it seems that they are making a claim that there is no god when they want to argue that point. Is it that atheists are just questioning faith, regarding it as unreasonable?
@observersearcher An atheist does claim that a God doesn't exist, but only because it has not so far been proved that one exists. I don't give a title to my non-belief in the easter bunny. Atheism being a word expressed for non-belief shouldn't even have a title. I shouldn't need a title to say "I don't believe in a God because there's no evidence", and that IS because immediate non-belief in what is not empirical is the default position. Atheism doesn't need to be 'proved'.
@redbreast3 I agree that you don't need proof or evidence for non-belief. But, when a non-believer wants to make others non-believers, he should have good reasoning and be willing to have his reasoning countered. For the challenge of this video, I say that "proof" is the wrong demand. Strong evidence is the best that people can claim (I think proofs can only be had in math). I don't even claim to have strong evidence, just evidence that changed my understanding of god and bolstered my faith
@TokyoZeplin Excuse me, the last statement was a bit disjointed from the rest. It is a question that is meant to show my reasoning that there is something beyond our known experience that points
This is a clever trap. The theist will inevitably use some version of parsimony or Occam's razor - the very idea they must reject in order to maintain any veresion of the cosmological argument. Well done.
mhatlie 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well you cant put Christians in this group cause they are polytheistic. they have 3 gods. Yahweh, Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit.
collyera01 1 week ago
i believe in god because i am unable to cope with the fact that there is no god, and i understand this, and it sometimes hurts to think about, and you sir are epic in a good way.
ninetailsfox99 2 weeks ago
@ninetailsfox99 u should read fabric of the cosmos by brian greene. it will help you understand some weird things
zebraman60 2 weeks ago
@zebraman60 i'll look into that thanks for offering help
ninetailsfox99 2 weeks ago
even better, show me that the universe was created by (any number except 0) gods.
doombybbr 4 weeks ago
Ron Paul 2012!
apstatisticsnba 1 month ago
with primitive religions it seemed like the creator of earth was more of a alternate dimension type character, with parents, brothers and sisters and a community of sorts. the greek gods (plural) lived on mt. olympus, Enki had parents and shit, etc etc. but god (yahweh, allah, whatever) is infinite, wtf? and where did he get his supplies for the earth, did god have parents? don't make no sense.
emailtheoldies 1 month ago
the bibul
Awumpa 1 month ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector
@nwankwourf For your first question if you prove to me that the Boogeyman or Loch Ness Monster or Big foot don't exist then i'll prove to you God doesn't exist and for your second question, If i met God i will acknowledge the fact that i was wrong....btw what type of God should i imagine a God who wants to be praised always, An almighty being who created the Universe and will get angry if i do blasphemy, A being who punishes people who lived their lives helping others but didn't believe.
darkreaper321 1 month ago
@nwankwourf And sorry for using the word 'WE' actually i was referring to Human Beings i understand that you hate that word, You want to feel special as you are the favorite of your space daddy.
darkreaper321 1 month ago
@darkreaper321 when i said we i meant that your probably not a scientist and probably know next to nothing about there claims you saying we is probably incorect
nwankwourf 1 month ago
@darkreaper321 another question...im just curious... just IMAGINE OK... what if you met god right this secound and realized that he was real...what would you say too him?
nwankwourf 1 month ago
@nwankwourf Well ok i'll go find out the definition of a theory and you also look up the thing called theory and fact, For ex:- Gravity is a FACT and we have Gravitational theory explains the phenomenon of Gravity. Now if you want to understand what i was saying you have to READ what you've typed and my reply to that and if you still don't get it try reading it again.
darkreaper321 1 month ago
@darkreaper321 answer me this one question... prove to me there isnt a god
nwankwourf 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nwankwourf "prove to me there isnt a god" The burden of proof always lies in trying to prove something exists, not to prove that it doesn't. Otherwise I can say I have an invisible purple flying elephant in my room, prove that I don't. Your inability to prove that I don't would mean that I do have one (using your logic).
zzyzx0788 1 month ago
Well.. because gravity is a divine work.. no... because tide goes in tide goes out! no... THE BIBLE!
FALCO64125 1 month ago
@nwankwourf 2)We never made any assertions about God, We are simply disapproving theists claims of God.
darkreaper321 1 month ago
@nwankwourf 1)Faith in big bang?, You don't know about the theory at all do you, We have made scientific observations about how the galaxies are accelerating away from one and other at high speeds which point us towards a lot more compact Universe in the beginning and the acceleration is caused by a rapid expansion phenomenon called the Big Bang. We never made any scientific observation about any God.
darkreaper321 1 month ago
@darkreaper321 you need to go find out what the definition of a "THEORY" is. Dont say we, your not a scientist. i dont get what your trying to say to me. your telling me what the big bang THEORY is. this has nothing to do with what i said or the question in the video.
nwankwourf 1 month ago
you say faith is not proof yet you have faith in the Big Bang THEORY being true. God is an entity and created the laws of the universe( time, gravity, space, mathematics). what your asking to give you a number? is like saying how old is god.time,space,mathematics,gravity started when god created it( when the big bang happened). so that means these laws do not apply to God. its like say the dude tht invented the computer and asking can tht person crash,how many videos can he play, does he bufer?
nwankwourf 1 month ago
@nwankwourf being an atheist does not mean that you necessarily "believe" or accept the Big Bang Theory, it just means that you do not believe or accept the Big God Theory. Without knowing enough about the Big Bang to decide whether I think it is a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe, I CAN say from having read the Bible that Yahweh does not exist, and I have seen no evidence that any god does.
MadBasstid 1 month ago
@MadBasstid theres evidence all around us, you just have to be open minded and pateint
nwankwourf 1 month ago
@nwankwourf What makes you assume that I'm not? Provide some evidence for your claim, or have some respect for the fact that my lack of belief in gods is based in open-mindedness (I don't just take some ancient book's word for granted, I look at evidence and think logically about things) which requires a lot of patience. Provide me with one piece of evidence, just one, that proves there is a god.
MadBasstid 1 month ago
@MadBasstid !. ok you say you think logically about things, which is good. So say i have this room with nothing in it. now lets say i return to the room 10 days later and find a chair. logically which would you believe that, that chair appear from nowhere or if i told you that i created that chair? anyone who has knowledge would say that someone had created that chair. Anyone who has knowledge/ wisdom knows that we only know next to nothing about the world/galaxy/etc.
nwankwourf 1 month ago
@nwankwourf "So say i have this room with nothing in it. now lets say i return to the room 10 days later and find a chair. logically which would you believe that.." I would have assumed someone brought it in from another room. It doesn't matter, because even if you created it you had to get the materials from somewhere, you didn't create the molecules out of thin air. Even if you want to use that argument it only gets you as far as god used materials that already existed
zzyzx0788 1 month ago
@MadBasstid So with that knowledge and how little we know, its logically incorrect for someone to say through research/science we know God doesn't exist. What im saying is that untill you know every piece of knowledge/wisdom that our universe holds than you are not qualified to question whether God exist or doesn't.
nwankwourf 1 month ago
@nwankwourf I am not trying to prove to you that there are no gods. You are trying to prove to me that there is one. I am saying that there is no proof that any gods exist, or at least certainly none that I am aware of that I can accept. The famed watchmaker argument does not prove that, & has been refuted skillfully many times over by people far more intelligent/eloquent than I, but basically it's a false analogy- if you see a tree in the wood, do you assume someone made it? Who created god?
MadBasstid 1 month ago
I don't believe in gods, demons, or an afterlife of any kind. IF there was a god, then he's an asshole who enjoys fucking with us and doesn't like children. There is not one single good thing for mankind that has ever been done by a god. Man does good things for mankind, like developing vaccines and antibiotics that save countless lives. Anything and everything that ever happens is either by nature or by mankind, good or bad.
8698gil 2 months ago
@8698gil before you say stuff like that, have you ever read the bible. Maybe if you read it and werent tht ignorant you would have the explanation to your question
nwankwourf 1 month ago
@nwankwourf "have I read the bible?" I grew up reading the bible in a strict religious home. I went to church, sunday school, teen bible study groups (which my parents forced me to go to), prayers every day. Have I read the bible? Yes, I have. Have you? It's a book of myths.
8698gil 1 month ago
@8698gil your ignorant... without any research done you claim that there myths. see, you never became christian... you werent doing those things because of grace or your love of god but because you were forced i understand. it happened to me too... i then became atheist needing proof of gods existence. But then i did research on jesus, god, and the bible and know im Christian. you have to be open minded about this and really want to know the answer.
nwankwourf 1 month ago
@nwankwourf After 40 years since becoming an atheist, I don't think I'll going to change my mind. I've been much happier for 40 years as an atheist than I ever was for 10 years being a christian.
8698gil 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like you, and I like the way you think, and I like the way you respectfully asked this question.
But I have to say that this was a monumentally stupid question to ask. It sort of disregards the intent of the belief and fuels an equally stupid debate, and so you all go around chasing your own tails, failing to acknowledge that they are, in fact, a part of your own body. :)
Sorry. Fixed typos. :)
HaganeSteel 3 months ago
Comment removed
HaganeSteel 3 months ago
I challenge nonstampcollector that there is 1 GOD! all you have to do is go to this church, that's it. when you receive prophecy you will get the answers you want. but I bet your scared to go to this church and find out the truth.
church of god ministry of jesus christ international
lizardstyle101 3 months ago
@lizardstyle101 I love how the challenge includes "don't change the subject" and you immediatly changed the subject. Good job demonstrating your capacity to rise to a challenge! You sure did prove your point, what with not remotely addressing the topic and all!
Zouflain 3 months ago
if you want evidence or proof that GOD talks to humans just like the bible says, I invite you to receive prophecy in this church: he will answer all your questions and if you find it to be false I would probably become agnostic.
church of god ministry of jesus christ international
lizardstyle101 4 months ago
@lizardstyle101 AHAHAHAHA
you're funny XD
lordtidus12 3 months ago 2
I also believe there can be no definitive proof that the universe was created by a higher power a.k.a. "God". Perhaps the best way to describe my belief that God was the maker of the universe and all that resulted after its creation, is the quote by St. Thomas Aquinas: "whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion...this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." What was that "first mover" that caused the big bang if not God?
Missperfect8888 4 months ago
@Missperfect8888 What was it that caused god?
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Strangerinasland I can't answer that... I don't know. But @ some point there must have been something in existence that started it all off? how else did our world and everything we have today come about? what set the big bang off? To me, the idea of "God" is an energy force, not some old bearded guy who sits among the clouds, smiting ppl. Its a spiritual force but I don't know what or where it came from. This force IS the science that started our world & will therefore cause the end one day too
Missperfect8888 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Missperfect8888 @ some point there must have been something in existence that started god. How else could it come about? What caused whatever set off the Big Bang?
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Strangerinasland Whatever caused or created or "started God off" is the force that I want to honour. That original force in my opinion IS God. whatever was the VERY FIRST spark of what we have today is what I'm greatful to. If you want to visualise it as the "thing" before "God" then go back as far as u can & visualise the "thing" even before that...Thats God. None of us know what it was that caused it. Even scientists call it the "God Particle" because they havent been able 2 figure it out yet
Missperfect8888 3 months ago
@Missperfect8888 There is no original force. If by "what we have today" you mean the present form of our known universe, maybe the change into its current form was triggered by something but that was not a 1st cause. That was caused by something & it did not create our known universe out of nothing. The ingredients which make up the universe simply changed. Which may have happened before as many times as there are atoms in our known universe & may have happened elsewhere as well. (cont)
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Missperfect8888 (cont) There is a limit to how far back we can go with knowledge or even constructive speculation. Beyond that we must say "I do not know". Scientists are fallible humans & unfortunately they sometimes use terms which are easily misinterpreted. When they say God Particle, they are not referring to what most people think of as gods. I do not know what you mean by a bit rich. I was, at least at that time, commenting on Thomas Aquinas. (cont)
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Missperfect8888 (cont) He made ignorant arrogant assumptions which it is sad that some have taken to heart. He ignorantly assumed causes cannot go on thru infinity & from that ignorantly assumed there must be a 1st cause. There is nothing necessarily wrong with being ignorant of something. It is wrong to be arrogant in assuming ignorant speculation to be true. I certainly would not assume no 1 in existence knows the answer. (cont)
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Missperfect8888 We already know quite well about the nature of the universe roughly 1.0 x 10^-43 seconds (the smallest measurement for time: planck time) after the beginning of existence, when the universe was a one dimensional point of infinite density and the four fundamental forces were one under extremely hot temperatures. The question of "before the universe" is irrelevant because time is a function of gravity and time is a property of the universe itself (spacetime).
DarkArktic 2 months ago
@DarkArktic Time is not solely a property of the current version of our known universe. There is no beginning of existence.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 6
@Strangerinasland Under general relativity (Not M-theory), our universe is composed of 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. This forms the space time continuum. According to Einstein, time is relative to speed and gravity; for example, the twin paradox. Since the universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that is known to PHYSICALLY exist, then technically the big bang is the beginning of existence. If not, then what is time and the nature of existence?
DarkArktic 2 months ago
@DarkArktic Everything we know to exist may be 1 trillionth of 1% of what exists. We DO NOT KNOW. It is ridiculous to assume what we know to exist is all that exists. The Big Bang did not come from nothing. Every thing that exists has always existed & always will but in different forms. There is a theory the Big Bang happened before. Either way, the ingredients of OUR KNOWN universe existed before the latest Big Bang. How long did they exist in that form & how much space did it occupy? (cont)
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 26
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland What you are referring to is the observable universe. I'm talking about the context of the entire universe itself. Are you aware of the actual definition of the universe? And you didn't answer my questions. If you believe time to be static and uniform, then this would compromise general relativity. What is time? Furthermore, what is the nature of existence? If your thoughts can be reduced to physical process, have they also always existed?
DarkArktic 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland Next time, please don't answer with a bunch of general blanket statements about the big bang/omniverse and stop spewing random science facts.
DarkArktic 2 months ago
@DarkArktic Do not try to tell me how to answer your ridiculous statements. I am not spewing anything. If you cannot handle science & logic, just drop it. You made assumptions which I rationally showed were invalid. I referred to our known universe & the entire universe. We do not know enough about the entire universe for there to be any context for you to talk about. You were the 1 who 1st mentioned time so you try to define it. What the heck do you mean by the nature of existence??? (cont)
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 5
@DarkArktic (cont) Are you actually questioning whether something which did not exist in any form now exists? You did not answer any of my questions concerning space & time. There is so much we do not know yet. Pre Big Bang seems to be unknowable. Maybe someday that will change. Maybe not. Same for beyond our known universe.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 5
@Strangerinasland In order to make an argument, you have to make assumptions. All assumptions are technically invalid. You also keep switching the description of the context of the universe, referring to both the theoretical constructs beyond our universe and the observable universe. Please be more clear in the future. Lastly, my entire comment was constructed around the current scientific understanding of the universe at the time of the Planck Epoch, which is fairly concrete.
DarkArktic 2 months ago
@Strangerinasland Your questions are irrelevant to the debate because you are referring to a completely different frame of reference which must be approached with a different mindset, as it is much more theoretical and open to interpretation. As for the nature of existence, you implied that consciousness has always existed because you said "there is no beginning of existence". How is that possible?
DarkArktic 2 months ago
@DarkArktic I do not switch descriptions. I am making the valid points that there is an astronomical difference between OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE & THE UNIVERSE & that very little can be said of THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE because we simply do not know. The questions ARE relevant to your ridiculous claim that there was no time or space before the Big Bang. You must answer them or or drop your claim. I did not imply that consciousness always existed.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 13
@DarkArktic "referring to a completely different frame of reference which must be approached with a different mindset, as it is much more theoretical and open to interpretation"
No. The only interpretation of something we do not know is "I do not know".
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland I do not dispute that there is a difference between the KNOWN universe, and the universe ITSELF. You keep switching reference points without giving any indication of doing so between the OBSERVABLE Universe, and MULTIPLE universes (multiple big bangs). Your points are disorganized and all over the place, and have nothing to do with my original argument. Time or space as we know it do not act in the same way in this universe as they do in other universes.
DarkArktic 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland You also contradict yourself when you say "I did not imply that consciousness has always existed", because you specifically said "there is no beginning of existence". Consciousness indisputably exists. How could your mental processes have always existed? That makes no sense. And again, you keep speaking of "Before" the big bang. This is irrelevant.
DarkArktic 2 months ago
@DarkArktic My thoughts have not always existed but the matter & energy which cause them have always existed in some form. Before the Big Bang is not irrelevant. You claim there is a beginning. There may be a beginning to OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE but there was NO BEGINNING to its INGREDIENTS. AGAIN, whatever exists has always existed in some form. If we assume there was nothing before the Big Bang, we cannot learn what happened before the Big Bang & we may as well say god done it.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland "NO BEGINNING to INGREDIENTS", well that is quite another grand assumption, isn't it? Do you have any irrefutable evidence of this? again, it is irrelevant to talk about "before the big bang", because there is no such thing. Besides, a universe with an infinite time scale would not be able to support life due to the second law of thermodynamics. U dig?
DarkArktic 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland The interpretation of the unknown is what science is all about. Science is about debunking and explaining various phenomena through theories, which are developed depending on a scientist's interpretation of said phenomenon. Theories are then either verified or discredited by the rational process.ie If we didn't know what caused disease, and simply approached the issue by saying "I do not know what causes disease", then we would not have an understanding of it.
DarkArktic 2 months ago
@DarkArktic If we do not 1st say "I do not know:, we cannot discover anything. There is much we yet do not know & it does no good to pretend we do know. "There is no beginning of existence" does not say anything about consciousness. I did not say my mental processes always existed. The action of an automobile running along a highway has not always existed but the matter & energy which cause it have always existed in some form.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 16
@DarkArktic . Either we know something or we do not. Science begins with what we KNOW & DO NOT KNOW. People believed diseases were caused by evil spirits or curses from the gods. It took someone saying "I do not know" to beging the process of scientific discovery & understanding.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Strangerinasland "Whatever exists has always existed": this is an example of an interpretation of the unknown. There is no proof of this, nor is there any solid evidence for it AS OF NOW. And as I see it, "before" the universe has absolutely nothing to do with the universe as it is, and the coming into existence of the current universe. You introduce another personal interpretation when you say that thought is caused by matter, as this is not necessarily the nature of thought.
DarkArktic 2 months ago
@Strangerinasland But what does "to exist" mean? Don´t we say sth. exists when we either percept it or when we imagine it according to reliable data. So, can sth. be called existing, if our conciousnessis not confrontedwith it? Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote our field of view is without boundaries because there is no world outside of it. I think he was right: Everything we see is everything that exists visually in the same world as us (which we call THE world).
VitoPossilipo 1 week ago
@DarkArktic (cont) There could have been as many Big Bangs as there are atoms in our known universe & in as many different places. Was our pre Big Bang form bigger than those others or smaller or about the same size? How much space did they occupy? How much time passed between Big Bangs? Do some happen simultaneously? Each time technology improves the distance at which we can detect something, we detect something farther away. I expect that to continue.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago 23
@DarkArktic according to Einstein God existed
nwankwourf 1 month ago
@nwankwourf I am aware of this. We were having a debate over the nature of science and our understanding of the universe, not religion. Come back when you have something relevant to say.
DarkArktic 1 month ago
@Missperfect8888 "whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion...this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover."
This cannot go on to infinity is simply an arrogant ignorant assumption. There is no need for a 1st mover.
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Strangerinasland Ok well I think its a bit rich of u to call my belief in a 1st mover "Ignorant" when no one in existence knows the answer. secondly, I've told you my thoughts on the creation of the universe and apparently they're wrong. So what do u believe started it all off if not something we can label "God"? ...Why is there no need for a first mover?
Missperfect8888 3 months ago
@Missperfect8888 (cont) There could be more advanced beings somewhere who know anywhere from 10 times to a trillion times as much as we do. If we do not know the answer, we are ignorant. YOU AND I are IGNORANT. Being ignorant of something, we should say "I do not know" rather than claim we do know that god done it. It is great to have thoughts on such things & I did not imply they are all wrong. (cont)
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Missperfect8888 (cont) Some of it may be plain wrong but some is wrong, as far as we know at this time, in that we simply do not know & should not assume without proof. Until we know, much speculation is not only not wrong but it is good as long as we do not assume the speculation is accurate. I do not know what started off the current state of our known universe & I can accept that I do not know & probably will never know. (cont)
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Missperfect8888 (cont) The question is not why is there no need for a 1st mover but why IS there a need for a 1st mover, which no 1 has answered. Replacing “I do not know” with gods does not solve anything.
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
because then there would be no universe since they would disagree with each other.
if there is more than 1 creator, who would have the last word or say in anything.
ishgood100 5 months ago
@ishgood100 There's absolutely no reason to believe that. How many people designed the Prius? One? The team of engineers and designers managed to come up with something that exists and works.
NonStampCollector 5 months ago 11
@NonStampCollector I cannot think of any thing there is only 1 of. I have long wondered why people think there would be only 1 god. The Holy Babble says there's more than 1.
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@ishgood100 It could be a type of democracy who knows just sayin
Dracofangstudios 4 months ago
@Dracofangstudios this is God wer talkin about not human beings who need experience .
ishgood100 4 months ago
@ishgood100 Care to present evidence that he/she/they dose not need experience i mean if we are just saying basicly hear say then any claim of any type is valid, if you want to discuss this further and have a civil debate then feel free to PM me
Dracofangstudios 4 months ago
@Dracofangstudios the evidence is in the name ''God'' which is a perfect being , if there is a need of experience then automatically you cannot label him God.
ishgood100 4 months ago
@ishgood100 Oh, if hes so perfect then would that not create a paradox cus a perfect being dose not need worship,if he needs praise and worship that would make him well egotistical therefor not perfect and i could go deeper but i have better things to do with my time then argue about imaginary friends. To me arguing about religous dogma is like arguing about football teams or other trivial things
Dracofangstudios 4 months ago
@Dracofangstudios i agree, a perfect being does not need anyone or anything, we need him it is out of our own interest and benefit we worship God. whoever does not worship God is not harming anyone but himself
ishgood100 4 months ago
@ishgood100 It seems he needs us more then we need him i mean i dont need a book to tell me right from wrong nor do i need a person with a holyer then thou mentality to lecture me on what im doing to be honest, id rather look at things with an objective eye when i meet people i honestly dont care which imaginary friend they subscribe to i have several friends who are christian but are not all in your face about it i judge people on there merits not on there religious beliefs or lack there of
Dracofangstudios 4 months ago
@ishgood100 That being said, any organization that represents a divine being that is supposedly perfect that has fucked up like the christian/catholic church is not gonna get me fallowing them, so far no religion has proven to me that there word comes from anymore there hear say from very old primitive documents that have caused nothing but trouble for the last couple centuries weather it be the dark ages or psudo-science being pushed into the public schools
Dracofangstudios 4 months ago
@Dracofangstudios why wouldn't God send a message to his creation since we are inexperient and he knows more than us, if a DVD player broke who would you first go to....its maker. is it safe to say the only reason you dont follow a religion is because you dont like following rules or orders, maybe that could be common in most atheist.
ishgood100 4 months ago
@ishgood100 For your information im great at fallowing orders as i was in ROTC and the only reason why im not in the military at the moment is cus i have a defect in my foot which makes it freeze up from time to time and to me your god seems more like a dictator dishing out frivolous commands and punishing anyone who gose against him. basicly saying do what i say or i hurt you and until god dose some sort of big thing to give us proof he will not get my loyalty
Dracofangstudios 4 months ago
@ishgood100 Further more your comparing humans which are complex to machinery that is way less complex and if my DVD player broke i wouldent go to the manufacturer/maker id to to the store and get a new one and the only ones who need consent orders being given to them are ones who are either to stupid and or to lazy to figure out the right thing for themselves
Dracofangstudios 4 months ago
@ishgood100 "why wouldn't God send a message"
Why wouldn't a god show itself? What is it afraid of?
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@Strangerinasland lets say God just showed himself to you, would you believe in him or not, you would right but then were is the test on whos a good person or whos an bad person because everyone would be believers. ''It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving''.
ishgood100 3 months ago
@ishgood100 Is that supposed to be a response my comment???
Strangerinasland 3 months ago
@ishgood100 AND finally im not a hard man to convert just give me proof hell id settle for a limb growing back through prayer
Dracofangstudios 4 months ago
Anyway if you really want to continue this then PM me cus frankly this type of discussion is best left on a one on one playing field
Dracofangstudios 4 months ago
No proof at all... stupid religious people.
DeusUniversa10 5 months ago in playlist More videos from NonStampCollector
What is theist?
relanonimous 6 months ago
If there is only one creator, then I believe that the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam is the same one. The difference may be due to human manipulations or other reasons. My response to your video is I cannot "prove" to you there is one God, but at the same time, scientists cannot prove all the details in the theory of evolution (as it is constantly being revised and improved), but only say that the evolution is the current best model to explaining the nature surrounding us
kwanhui1990 6 months ago
My inclination toward a personal God is influenced by my religious experience from upbringing. The fact is, just like you said, I don't know. However, I don't think the word "proof" should be used here, just as scientists don't like the word "proof", but they say something like, "this experiment 'support' the alternative hypothesis of..." Ultimately, for me, it is my inner longing to believe in a personal God who cares about me.
kwanhui1990 6 months ago
What type of evidence? I never know what atheists mean when they say they want evidence. Do you want a picture, movie or what?
For 2000 years we've been hashing this out! We say the bible, you say no. We say the person of Jesus Christ, you say no. We say we have no idea how we believe in this, but we were drawn to it, and through reading the bible and learning about God we are drawn to him, you say no.
So be fair to us! What evidence?
Otherwise we're going to go in circles here.
JoshD667 6 months ago
@JoshD667 Eg: I believe there's a gold treasure in my garden and state this 2 u as fact - do you believe me? You want evidence? Let's go into the garden and have a look. Can't see any at a glance. Let's dig deeper to see if I'm correct - let's dig up the whole garden to test my claim. If we find gold- I've fulfilled the burden of proof. If, short of digging to the centre of the earth we find no gold, irrespective of what i believe - I have to be honest and admit there is no evidence! simples ;-)
marcmeup1 6 months ago
@JoshD667 The general goal is to have some support for the claim that is being made. Since, there are many claims that can be made - the question is what supports the claim and does the claimed support make sense. This is the evidence that is being requested...
MyContext 5 months ago
The challenge is pointless because the answer given will be the same for why it is their god. That is, the proof given is their holy book and thus you are ignoring the faulty assumptions. You cannot prove a hypothesis by citing as evidence the data which gives rise to the hypothesis. This is bad logic and it is the centre of the fallacy which you are challenging. This is why they never get past the first stage of the debate. Do you see?
jacksawild 6 months ago
@jacksawild maybe that's the whole idea. trying to argue one particular theism over another cannot be done in an acceptable manner to most objective, critical thinkers. maybe getting people to see this is the entire point of asking the question. or was that what you were saying and i was just slow?
EpicPhalure 6 months ago
@EpicPhalure I'm saying that it is the same question, leading to an identical and flawed debate. Take creationism in the US, it was outlawed in science classes so they came up with ID and called it science but in reality it is the same postulation. This challenge, to prove only one god did is in fact the same question as whether god did it as it relies on the same hypothesis (that of an intelligent designer creating the universe). This is an obfuscation and, I feel, mirrors the faulty ID debate.
jacksawild 6 months ago
Ok My evidence is evolution, pulsars, bbt, aliens, size of the universe. All evidence of God. Oh and thousands of other religions
gigaboy47 7 months ago
Ok My evidence is evolution, pulsars, bbt, aliens, size of the universe. All evidence of God.
gigaboy47 7 months ago
First of all, forgive me for being nearly a year late giving a comment on this.
While the question you ask is an important one asking for evidence what you are looking for is Naturalistic evidence that God exists. The assertion by Theists, such as myself, is that God transcends nature thus asking for Naturalistic evidence of a God is much like asking for evidence that I love my long dead grandmother. Your question is, by design, unable to give an answer that is satisfactory. Cheers :)
MapleAnglican 7 months ago
@MapleAnglican you missed the point of the challenge entirely. the challenge is for anyone to explain how it's reasonable for anyone to jump from deism to any particular theism. the "fine tune argument," for example, is an argument for *deism.* the cosmological argument is an argument for *deism.* AFTER the question "is there a god?" you then have to ask "which god is the real god, and why?" that's the challenge.
EpicPhalure 6 months ago
@EpicPhalure I don't think I missed it at all. NonStampCollector is very smart, and he has designed a question that he knows that any theist cannot possibly give an acceptable answer to him.
MapleAnglican 6 months ago
@MapleAnglican ok, then. why did you choose your particular theism over every other theism? i'm interested in your answer, genuinely. or i'll ask another way- what convinced you that every single other theism is wrong?
EpicPhalure 6 months ago
@EpicPhalure Well, since I'm limited to 500 characters, the Doctrine of the Incarnation, the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, John Jewell, Lancelot Andrewes, and C.S. Lewis coupled with the numerous non-Christian sources supporting the historicity of Jesus and the Apostles, a dash of personal revelation, the Catechism of the Church from the Book of Common Prayer, and one very convincing First Nations Anglican Priest who use to be a hairdresser.
MapleAnglican 6 months ago
It seems that most people say that if the existence of god cannot be proven, then there is no reason to believe. I understand that reasoning. But since the challenge of this video is to "prove" something abstract, then the argument is null. Like I've been saying and implying, the best you can have with our science in the vast mysteries of the cosmos is evidence. Beyond that, reasoning is all we can use.
observersearcher 7 months ago
The way you say your R's is weird.
xbreekate 7 months ago
I instead choose to prove the converse.
The fragility of the knee joint, the persistence of the appendix, and the widespread appeal of American Idol all point to a highly imperfect universe.
Therefore, evidence suggest the universe was created by committee.
williamjacobs 7 months ago
love your accent
madeofcaramel77 7 months ago
They will never meet the challenge because the only things (falsely) propping up the argument for christianity are the bible and personal experience. The bible proves nothing more than any other book proves... that a book was written. Personal experience proves nothing more than that you have experienced something (which may or may not have been hallucinated, lied about, embellished or misidentified.) Faith follows from "personal experience" + indoctrination and can not be trusted in any way.
Damienf77 7 months ago
@Damienf77 Proving there isn't a god is impossible. Atheism is irrational. All atheism has is faith, based on personal experience.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher uh nope... this is often referred to as "Russell's teapot". Russell's teapot theory claims that a Teapot is orbiting the sun - obviously it doesn't, and it isn't up to me to prove that there is no teapot around the sun, but him to prove that there IS. When you make a claim that something exists, it is up to you to prove that it does, not up to me to prove that it doesn't. If I claimed that Transformers lived on the moon, would it be irrational for you to say "uh, then prove it"
TokyoZeplin 7 months ago
@TokyoZeplin Again, this word "proof." "Evidence" is what I would ask for. I'm saying that at the farthest reaches of our understanding, there is no proof of a god, nor is there proof there isn't a god. If you DON'T want someone to believe in something that they do, burden of evidence should be on you. I just happen to catch your message just seven minutes after you posted. Check out: soulpancakeDOTcom/question/63484/are-you-a-possibilian-i-am (replace DOT with . )
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher again, no. If you make the claim something exists, then it is up to you to prove that it does. End of. If you disagree, I would like you to acknowledge the flying teapot, as well as the Giant Spaghetti Monster from Pastafarism.
TokyoZeplin 7 months ago
@TokyoZeplin Did I claim that god exists. I merely say I believe he does and I reasoned (not proved) my faith. If you say something does not exist, that is a claim of nothing, which is still something to show evidence of. If one does not know what is beyond our understanding, yet claims there is nothing there, that is irrational.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher still no... if you cannot show proof of the existence of something, the default answer would be that then it doesn't exist. No matter how you twist and turn it, the burden of proof is on the believers in God, not the atheists.
TokyoZeplin 7 months ago
@TokyoZeplin Alright, by your logic, the laws of physics don't exist. The theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics say the other don't exist. But, there is plenty of evidence to say both are right. Going further, there are laws of physics. Where did they come from? Neither atheists nor theists can prove where the laws come from. It is irrational to say they the laws come from nowhere.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher I don't follow you... the laws of physics (which aren't "laws" in the way you seem to be describing them, you could also have called them "the facts of physics", or whatever) exist because we can prove they exist. They are demonstrable.
TokyoZeplin 7 months ago
@observersearcher what the-? you were almost, kinda reasonable until you started talking about laws of physics as if they were judicial principles written down in a book somewhere. as @TokyoZeplin said the laws exist because we see that they exist. they would exist whether we could formulate them or not.
HagarenXneko 1 month ago
Comment removed
observersearcher 7 months ago
@TokyoZeplin If someone claims anything, even if it is saying that there isn't anything, they should have evidence to show for it. If someone said the Earth does not exist (though we are standing on it), they should have some evidence of their claim, no?
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher again, no. If you make something up, it's up to you to prove that it exists. Until it can be proven it exists, the natural answer is that it doesn't. Again, if you follow your own logic, you must accept my belief in the Big Spaghetti Monster, and the Flying Teapot.
TokyoZeplin 7 months ago
@TokyoZeplin The natural answer is that one hasn't perceived it yet with their own senses. The planetoid Pluto existed before it was discovered. Are you suggesting that Pluto doesn't exist until perceived with our senses?
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher You are changing the subject, and that really has nothing to do with it. Of course not, you are talking about discovery. However, again, if you claim something exists, it will be assumed not to until you can actually prove that it does. Again, I say for the 3rd time, if you follow your own logic, you will have to accept my belief in the Big Spaghetti Monster, and the Flying Teapot.
TokyoZeplin 7 months ago
@TokyoZeplin If you really believed in the Big Spaghetti Monster and the Flying Teapot, you could reason with me that they exist. Since the experience of the Monster and Teapot would seem subjective, then you would (and only could reason) that they exist. The Earth going around Sun was only Galileo's (Galileo, right?) experience, everyone else at the time experienced the Sun going around the Earth. Is it reasonable to say that the laws of physics had to come from something else?
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher Galileo gave reason to believe that not everything in the universe orbits the Earth. It was because of religion that this claim wasn't accepted, but it was to be accepted back then, despite the immense truth of the claim known today. If Galileo claimed this without reason to, then nobody should have believed him. If 20,000 years ago one of our ancestors had remarked that the Sun is made of gas, too right people shouldn't have accepted this claim. Why? Because it LACKED reason.
redbreast3 7 months ago
@redbreast3 The religious majority in Galileo's time had no reason to believe Galileo. They had reason to believe that his devices and measurements were sorcery or black magic. People have intuition, something that I think that is evolutionarily useful. But, people don't understand how they come up with their intuitive ideas or perspectives, and often lack the ability to "prove" them. I don't think it is wise to discount millions(?) of people's intuition. Freethinking theists might be on to
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher "The religious majority had no reason to believe Galileo" - this is false. You know nothing of astronomy and reason. They had NO reason to believe that his ideas were witchcraft because they had no reason to believe in witchcraft, and there were many people who didn't believe in witchcraft because they were reasonable people, surrounded by superstitious morons. Logical fallcy: 'appealing to majority'. The majority is not right. Faith is not intuitive. Lack of faith is default.
redbreast3 7 months ago
@redbreast3 I think theists can REASON right up to a point. But, since god is abstract, god cannot be quantified. Thus, the existence of god can never be proven. It is irrational, even if one is lacking just one piece of evidence. Irrational, but not silly. Does the term atheism mean "does not believe in the existence of god"? To me, that is a claim. A claim without evidence, though atheists may have intelligent reasoning for it. Just as irrational as theism.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher You're not understanding that a lack of belief in ANYTHING is the DEFAULT position. Lack of belief is the intuition of humans. Whether it's a lack of the belief in santa claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If the existence of God can never be proven, you correctly say, then the default position is to say, "Well, he can't be proven so I'm not going to believe that he exists, I'm going to believe that he doesn't because it saves me repeating this fucking argument every time."
redbreast3 7 months ago
@redbreast3 The only way you are going to win this argument is if you can argue that a lack of belief is NOT the default position of every baby that has ever been born. Best of luck.
redbreast3 7 months ago
@redbreast3 Um...do you mean babies literally? It's a bad example, from a developmental psychology standpoint, if that is what you mean.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@redbreast3 Intuition is subjective. Intuition can lean towards faith or not. Faith is based on subjective experience, be it intuition or an experience that is consciously sensed by one's 5 senses. I agree that faith goes further and believes in something that cannot be proven, but it can be reasoned with evidence. I understand that you are saying that a person cannot believe in something if they don't experience the evidence for it.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher Whether intuition is subjective or objective is irrelevant. The point being is that you can not give me an example of faith being intuitive. If you can then you've won this whole debate, hands down. You're not going to though, because, as I've announced multiple times, atheism is the default standpoint. Atheism isn't even a belief. You thought that atheists are just as wrong as theists, but this isn't true. If you can understand 'burden of proof', then the debate is over.
redbreast3 7 months ago
@redbreast3 I think we may two different understandings of intuition. My understanding of intuition is a conscious conclusion of subconscious processing of stimuli. By that, a person could experience stimuli and come to the conclusion that there is something there that cannot be demonstrated for others enlightenment. So, they have faith in something they cannot produce evidence for. How do you understand intuition? Just a default mindset or supportive of default mindset?
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher Intuition is the immediate truth of something. You can bend this to say that faith is the immediate truth of some, but do you honestly believe this to be true? That somebody need not rationalise but just 'know' that there's something? Such subjectivity shouldn't be treated as truth. I agree with you that intuition can be subjective because I interpret the world differently to others, but I can explain my interpretations.
redbreast3 7 months ago
@redbreast3 Whether one's intuition can be explained or not, it is still that person's truth. What makes this unstable is unstable people or leaders oppressing others with their truth (bashing, holy wars, etc.). Having discourse for further understanding, of not just each other but trying to reach for the ultimate Truth (in a rational way) is what people should be doing. That said, some people's intuition will say that there is something more than we know. It advances us to follow hunches.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher It is not "that person's truth". It is either true or it isn't, irrespective of one's intuitions. This is borderline irrelevant anyway. The bottom line is that appealing to a stance of non-belief is not irrational, it is an irrefutable definition and practice of rationality itself. The 'belief in non-belief' as it's often referred to, is nonsensical and unworthy of further debate. Theist or not, it must be accepted that theism is a subscription to ignorance and denial of facts.
redbreast3 7 months ago
@redbreast3 Subscription to ignorance and denial of facts?! That is an ignorant statement. A person rationalize according to facts that there is a design, therefore a designing force. One can rationalize that the designing force is god or rationalize that that force comes from somewhere. Scientific theories are believed because people rationalize or reason with the evidence of theories. Do you believe in evolution? It cannot be demostrated, but there is plenty of evicence to rationalize.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher There is no reason to believe that we are designed. You're making a leap of faith here. Things which are rational can be surpassed by things which are more rational. You say, "The universe has been designed but I can't show you why." and so I say, "Then the universe hasn't been designed until you show me why." From here I can only go into explaining the default position of non-belief, but I would rather not go in circles.
redbreast3 7 months ago
Comment removed
observersearcher 7 months ago
Comment removed
observersearcher 7 months ago
@redbreast3 There are laws of physics that dictate design. Scientists are now trying to find a theory of everything to reconcile the contradiction between the theories of relativity and quantum physics. This, with my reasoning, is the law that designed the dynamics of relativity and subatomic particles. Yet, it is irrational to believe there is such a theory or law of everything because it isn't discovered yet, right? And is it such a leap to consider the law of everything the designer?
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher If you re-read your first sentence you can see clearly your leap of faith. "There are laws of physics that dictate design." - well there's no evidence for design so you're playing with words. The theories provided by physics deduce a theory of everything, like there is evidence for the big bang but we weren't there. This is so irrelevant and I'm not concerned about the subjectivity of intuition. Atheism is definitively a rational standpoint. Email me if you want to talk more.
redbreast3 7 months ago 2
@redbreast3 Does it fit default non-belief to not accept reasoning? Or turn a blind eye to evidence? It wouldn't be wise, but it seems to fit the idea of not believing in something because of lack of reason that the non-believer wants to hear. Galileo had reason, but there were willful non-believers.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher The non-believers in Galileo's time were in disbelief when faced with facts, though they had no counter-evidence. If you don't accept reason as the architect of your beliefs then your beliefs just aren't reasonable. Rationality as a truth-obtaining method is a definitive truth, itself. It's that it's proven itself to be the best contender of truth, like Science has, but it actually is truth. Find me something that's 'true' without using reason: One simply can NOT believe it.
redbreast3 7 months ago
@redbreast3 Non-believers in Galileo's time had counter-evidence, the sun went up and around the Earth everyday. Galileo was one man using "smoke and mirrors" for all they knew.
Intuition (by my understanding of the word) could be the only reason that someone believes something. A gut feeling is reason enough for someone to believe there is something dangerous about the unknown. They might not be able to explain it to someone else with evidence or rationality. True, there has to be reason.
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher I really can't understand what your aim is, here. The sun went up and around the earth but if you are sitting on the sun then it looks like the earth is going around the Sun. They KNEW this, I wouldn't attempt to falsely irrationalise the works of Galileo in that context. It was religion which just decided that it was irrational, not proved that it was irrational. Intuition isn't truth - I wish you luck surviving on it. Your intuition can lead you to danger as well. Subjective.
redbreast3 7 months ago
By the way, I never said that anyone was wrong, just irrational. Maybe I've made the mistake of thinking that atheists claim there is no god, when you seem to be suggesting that they don't even make a claim at all. Because, it seems that they are making a claim that there is no god when they want to argue that point. Is it that atheists are just questioning faith, regarding it as unreasonable?
observersearcher 7 months ago
@observersearcher An atheist does claim that a God doesn't exist, but only because it has not so far been proved that one exists. I don't give a title to my non-belief in the easter bunny. Atheism being a word expressed for non-belief shouldn't even have a title. I shouldn't need a title to say "I don't believe in a God because there's no evidence", and that IS because immediate non-belief in what is not empirical is the default position. Atheism doesn't need to be 'proved'.
redbreast3 7 months ago
@redbreast3 I agree that you don't need proof or evidence for non-belief. But, when a non-believer wants to make others non-believers, he should have good reasoning and be willing to have his reasoning countered. For the challenge of this video, I say that "proof" is the wrong demand. Strong evidence is the best that people can claim (I think proofs can only be had in math). I don't even claim to have strong evidence, just evidence that changed my understanding of god and bolstered my faith
observersearcher 7 months ago
@TokyoZeplin Excuse me, the last statement was a bit disjointed from the rest. It is a question that is meant to show my reasoning that there is something beyond our known experience that points