Not going to be an astronomer (they don't earn that much money, although they should :( ) but i've always loved it almost as much as i love computer science.
@andromedaswake - Wait. If the Universe is 13.7B years old, how can it span 93B light years? (3:16) Shouldn't it only span some number less than 2x13.7B light years?
Maybe the reason why we cant detect 95% of the universe is because its not there? Why are cosmologists so arrogant that they have to invent the theory that dark matter and dark energy fill most of the universe to compensate for their flawed mathematics? Its a pretty massive assumption that chucks occam's razor out the window. I don't know why it's even in this video because you can't "know" something is there if you cannot detect it.
I cant touch taste see feel or smell or detect the fairy in your anus in any way whatsoever, but Im using it to explain why people fart. btw this fairy takes up 95% of the universe. Same applies to darkmatter; we cannot observe it, nobody haven't found any, yet BB cosmologists use it as an explanation as to why their mathematics don't work. It is a pathetic a priori assumption.
Darkmatter is a theoretical assumption with enormous proportions, so why is it in this video?!?!? It is not a known fact, infact it is the opposite. It hasn't been detected at all in the history of mankind!
Until it has empirical evidence which is unlikely in my opinion, it should not be taught as fact.
He cites the existance of a 5th dimension - spacevelocity - which accounts for the accelerated expansion of the universe and the reason why galaxies spin faster on the outside, etc. The current accepted theory is that a halo of dark matter causes the outer edge of a galaxy to orbit faster than would be expected. Hartnett's theory has no need for the rediculous assumption that dark matter and dark energy take up 95% of all matter in the universe.
typical... Reject something before you even study it simply because the creator of the theory is a theist. There is no point discussing this further if you won't acknowledge your own arrogance.
@u3190 I only have an issues with the mans agenda, If indeed his hypothesis was sound it would get much more credence in the scientific community and i'm assuming it hasn't.
But it would certainly seem that doctor Hartnett started with the presumption of a young universe, a young earth and the scientific accuracy of the bibles claims (whatever they are)
So he's not an individual I can respect or lend any sort of credibility to.
I guess i put him in the same catagory as Christopher Langan.
This is inaccurate in many places, e.g. from 3:16. Known universe implies what we have seen, not what it actually is. The universe is estimated to have a radius of 93bil light years and hence a span of double that, at 186 billion light years. However the observable universe is a sphere with a radius of just 46.6 bil light years, and the known universe is even less - just a fraction of out galaxy.
That Andromeda vs full moon fact is wrong. You would at least need an decent pair of binoculars to even make out that its a galaxy. To the naked eye it would appear as just another star and much smaller than the moon.
@Hitman1689 No, I don't think that's right... I've seen it without binoculars (in the middle of nowhere, not a city), and it doesn't look anything like a star. It's a smudge of light, rather than a point.
@darkfunkychimp ya I think ur right about it looking like a smudge its been a while since I've been able to see it. I've been living in Orlando for the last 3 years so visibility at night is pretty crappy. Best time I ever saw it was in south Florida a few years back after hurricanes Jean and Francis when the power was still out.
@Hitman1689 I've lived in London all my life, and you can see about 5 stars from here if you're very lucky. But I have relatives who live in the French countryside and I went to visit them a while ago; the night sky was amazing. Far too many stars to count, the Milky Way, planets, Andromeda, shooting stars, satellites, nebulae... I think people would think about themselves and nature differently if they could see the rest of the Universe every once in a while.
I have also made a bit of a theory. Of course, i do not understand overly complex equations yet, but i understand philosophy.
There may be multible universes, some with matter. some not. these may collide, creating another big bang. due to gravity and string theory, these attract each other constantly. creating universes.
OR if time is nonexistent outside of our universe, we may have existed forever. Human brains may have invented time.
@0ggabOgga By 13 you might want to know that string theory isn't scientific theory, it isn't even a real theory.
A scientific theory requires rigorous proof and repeatability, string speculation or conjecture is untestable, so it cannot be a theory. Its closer to metaphysics or sciencism. Its interesting and has produced some good math but so has rubics cube.
Theoretical and quantum physics. they cannot be proved: therefore it is considered theoretical physics rather than a real theory. Yes, they may not be correct, HOWEVER, the math works.
@ht666th well, When you don't know. That means you have to know. Sorry to say but following science is not the only answer. science is just a part of nature. To understand nature you need to go beyond those measures. and btw, you are the only one being a bookworm here.
Such entertainment! SO glad this is here! There r few things more fun than seeing ppl debating relative merits / damages of diff religions / non-religions... Among them: watch paint dry listen 2 grass grow count ea grain of sand on all beaches Can't we all just get along? (Yeh, I know; it's called "irony;" & a "rhetorical question." As it's clear that we just CAN'T, could we at lst fence off some part of the web so these wankers can fight away, w/o annoying those of us w/ work, fun & lives?)
@codyLIKESbaseball You can't travel to the end and outside of space because travelling implies a displacement over space. Extending that displacement past space itself makes no sense. If you want to know what lies beyond space then look into maths, look into your own thoughts, look into knowledge, look into abstract concepts, look into compassion, look into life's values and anything else that isn't defined with a 3-axis co-ordinate system.
Is it so unreasonable to suggest that all these mind boggling aspects and elements of our Universe, near and far came into existance not by it's own will, nor from nothingness, but from a source not constricted or restricted by the laws of the natural world, but a master over it. Only that source deserves our glorifications, and praise and worship.
@AbuAmanah Just because we don't know how our universe came into existence doesn't mean some mythical sky daddy created it. I'd much rather we continue our study of the universe so that maybe someday we can know how our universe was formed.
Yes the universe needs a beginning. How about this. Due to a shift in the infinity of time, red shift became blue shift and the universe collapsed. Due to the immense pressure, something gave way, creating the big bang and our universe. Better than god, imo.
Infinity of Time? Dear Friend, jst like space, matter n the 4 fundamentle forces, time too hd a begining. n Im reasoning, anything tht begins 2exist must hv a cause. b4 time begun no change could occur, bc time is the factor tht allows changes n progress. So if nothing ws changing, thn nothing has to change. Something had 2get things started. But not bc it had2. Not bc somthing previously happnd tht forced it. Not out of obligation, but choice, bc wht u dnt hav2do u choose 2do.
@AbuAmanah I can hardly understand your typing, try full words and spell checker.
Anyway, if the concept of the big bang is correct and there was a start some 12 billion years ago what came before that? Did the matter suddenly come into being? If god created it from nothing where did god come from?
If that is unanswerable then we can conclude the universe is unanswerable or god always exist. If god always existed then we can conclude the universe always existed as well. Its better to not know.
@micometer Time had a begining. So before time beugn, there was no change, and if nothing was happening than nothing could have continued to happen forever. Something had to get things started, but not because it had to. Not because something previous happend that forced it. Why? Because time wasn't progressing, and time is the factor that allowes changes to occur. Since the natural world did not exist, nothing natural can occur. So the cause that caused the big bang, must be super natural.
@AbuAmanah We don't know if time had a beginning as there is no way to know what happened before the big bang or whatever event formed our universe. It is impossible to know if time had a beginning with modern science. Heck, I'd much rather say the beginning is unknowable than characterize it to a creator.
Also, an invitation to Islam in peace is hypocritical. Yours is a religion that wishes to kill anyone who doesn't worship your brand of god. Look at the mindless chaos over one burnt book.
@micometer "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed FOREVER. Rather, the UNIVERSE and TIME itself, had a BEGINING in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago"
Prof Stephen Hawkings - The Beginning of Time
So dear Friend, if time had a begining, than did it begun by itself or did it create itself? Did it came from nothing? But from nothing only nothing comes. Or caused by a cause not subjected to the laws of nature but a Master over it.
Have you read the Quran? You see, when people are insulted and something dearest to them abused and offended, they naturally react. Just try swearing at somebodies Mother, wife or girlfriend. The man will react. Salman Rushdie wrote in Satanic Verses page 261: “WHITE WOMEN – NEVER MIND FAT, JEWISH, NON-DEFERENTIALLY WHITE WOMEN - WERE FOR FUCKING AND THROWING OVER.” Doesn't it hurt you? If someone says that to your wife, will not hurt you?
@AbuAmanah At hawking's comment, hat doesn't mean that a universe didn't exist before; its unanswerable.
I've not read the Quran nor do I need to and its not the translation I am concerned with. When a man that doesn't represent the collective opinion of one country burns a book and 14 people are killed, riots occur, and thousands take to the streets saying "Death to America" its over a dogma, translation. If someone said anything to my family thats all they are, words. Your dogma kills people.
@AbuAmanah Bullshit nothing of the sort justifies those actions. Nothing you can say will justify such violent barbarism. Disown the people that did these things.
@micometer Where did God come from? All I am saying is that anything that BEGINS to exist, must therefore have a cause. Why? Because it cannot bring itself into existance. If Universe is 12 Billion yrs old, than what was 50 Billion yrs ago? Nothing? But from nothing only nothing comes. Zero multiplied by zero always = 0. Since nothing can create itself, something had to get things started, something which is beyond the laws of nature, not bound by it's creation, inclduing space, time and matter.
@flight1100 Hello Friend, so what "changes and progress" occured before time begun? Nothing? But from nothing only nothing comes i.e. Zero multiplied by anything (including coincidence and chance) is always zero! Is it so unreasonable to suggest, that something had to get things started?
@flight1100 Hello Friend. I am reasoning that before time begun, there was no change. Even the natural world did not exist, there4 nothing natural can occur. Since nothing ws happening thn nothing could hav continued to happen 4evr! The cause tht caused the naturla World, must be beyond the restrictive capacity of nature; above the laws & limitations of the natural world. So smthing had 2get things started, but not b/c it had to (nothing happend previously) and wht u dont hav 2do, u choose 2do.
@AbuAmanah Nature may well be restrictive only from your'e limited perspective. The chances that any explanation thus far put forward has much chance of being the correct one if indeed an explanation is at all possible from where we stand and with the limited understanding of the universe we have or can ever have are infinetly small.
@flight1100 Friend are you saying that with our "limited perspective" and with our "limited understanding" of the natural world, it is impossible to know if the Universe came from the Creator who created all that begun exist? Than is it not also true that it is also impossible know that it didn't come from an intelligent source? So God may or may not exist?
I said, everyhting that begins to exist, must have a cause, because from nothing only nothing comes because zero X zero always = zero.
@flight1100 Mathematical value? I agree. But is it not also true that Zero times anything is always Zero? If something has a Zero value, volume, weight, density, existance, than we can safely assume that it is nothing. But if from nothing only nothing comes, than why do we have something (like this world), instead of nothing? I am reasoning, that there must be a creator who created all that begun to exist.
My Friend, peace be upon you, and I wish to invite you to the House of Islam.
But does that not beg the question: if nothing only begets nothing and only something begets something, what begot the begetter? There can not be an infinite line of begetters begetting another begetter so did nothing beget the begetter or was the begetter not begotten? If the former, your premise has been defeated, if the latter, why could not the universe not have been begotten and instead have always existed in some form or another?
@Quinti Friend, I am saying, anything tht BEGINS 2exist, MUST hv a cause, b/c 4m nothing ONLY nothing comes. The Universe, n everything in existence, including time, space, matter, DID begun to exist. Did they create themselves? No. If the natural world did not exist, than nothing natural can occur. Even if it did exist, but time didn’t than no change within that natural world can occur. Thus the Creator who created all that begun to exist is NOT subject to natural laws, but a Master over it.
@Quintin I didn’t say EVERYTHING must hv a cause. Now we do know tht Time had a beginning & time is the factor tht allows changes to occur. B4 time begun, no change could occur. Now, if nothing was changing, thn nothing could hav continued 2happen 4ever. Something hd2 get things started, but NOT b/c it had to, not b/c something previously happened tht forced it. There was no change, b/c time wasn’t progressing. So wht u don’t have 2do, u CHOOSE to do, n choice is consistent wth consciousness.
@Quintinohthree Hello again Friend, you said "what begot the begetter?" or what came before the creator and the originator of Time? But that's an impossibility. Creator is not a subject of time but a Master over it, and hence has no beginning. But does the this world, the Universe and everything in it, including Time, space, matter, and all the 4 fundamental forces begun to exist? Yes! Did life create itself? No! Universe create itself? No! Does from nothing only nothing comes? Yes my Friend.
I can take from this that you dismiss the former option and instead of going for the latter option, knowing that it would lead to your defeat, you have chosen to justify your special pleading fallacy. You say that because the creator is not a subject of the natural laws but a master, not considering the creator subject to your premise is valid. Now I ask you, if the universe came into existence at all, did the universe come into existence while constantly subject to the natural laws?>
@Quinti According to Hawking n others, not only it begun to exists, but Time itself had a beginning some 15 Bln yrs ago.
‘did Universe come into existence while constantly subject to the natural laws?’
But the Natural world and Time itself had a beginning. The cause that caused the Universe, is master over its creation, b/c it existed before time begun. So if u ask me what came before time begun, i would say nothing, rather it ws created by a creator who has no beginning, n does not change.
So somebody said it and that makes it true? I respect Hawkins and most other scientists but that is an argument from authority fallacy. More importantly Hawkins has written a book explaining how by current knowledge the universe could have come into existence without any sort of creator. You're not going to tell me he's wrong on that are you?
And you haven't answered my question. I did not ask what was before time, that's nonsense.
I asked whether the natural laws apply without the existence of the universe. It's nothing more than that. You can say that these laws were created without the universe, because we both agree that before is not the right word, but that's merely circular reasoning. You must first justify the claim that these laws were created without using this argument and then you can use this in your argument.
Did the universe come into existence while constantly subject to all laws of nature?
I know that the laws of nature are descriptive, at least they are in science. I think we can agree though that in general parlance "laws of nature" indicates the reason behind those observances. A "why" instead of a "what".
Thanks for the mention though. It's very important that people know their scientific terms when discussing scientific topics.
@Quin Hawkins & scientists such as Penzias & R Wilson may be jst “somebody” in ur opinion, but they provided evidence 4the theory tht the Universe including time, space & matter originated after the “Big-Bang”, as such othrs awarded thm most prestigious prize in all of science. I don’t have to agree with everything a man says, but during a dialogue, it is healthier to use independent source as witnesses. Aristotle theorised many great things, but he also said "women hav fewer teeth than man"?
@Quinti “You're not going to tell me he's wrong on that are you?”. Friend, we all listen to views n opinions of academic authorities n accept things tht r beyond shadows of any doubt. Jst like a lawyer to prove his case may listen to chemists, biologists and botanists, but does he swallow everything wht they say, hook, line and sinker? Of course not. We listen to Einstein whn he propounded his theory of relativity, but he also came up with the “Fudge Factor” the “GREATEST BLUNDER” of his career.
@Quintinohthree “I respect Hawkins and most other scientists but that is an argument from authority fallacy.” But that could be said about anyone and everyone who holds any views based upon the academic research of anyone, be they Einstein or Fred Hoyle. I am sure there are times when you contemplate on ideas, concepts and views put forward by great thinkers past n present and formulate your own arguments.
@Quintinohthree I am reasoning along with scientist tht u too respect n admire, that time had a beginning. When you say “who begot the begotter”, u r actually saying wht came BEFORE the begetter? But TIME didn’t exist my Friend, it wasn’t progressing to allow tht change. There was NO before n after or cause & effect. But we do know the Universe begun to exist. I am reasoning with u Friend, that anything that begins to exist MUST have a cause, as such rules over it, n not subjected by it.
Let me educate you on the Argument from Authority: the AfA is not just accepting something because somebody says it, it's claiming it's true because somebody said it. If you can not see the fallaciousness of this I quite frankly can't argue further. What matters is not who says it but why it is said. You would have to answer me specifically why Hawking says the universe had a start, an don't just say he found evidence because you can show me that.
However I'm going to make it easy for you for now. For the sake of argument I'm going to grant you that the universe had a beginning and that there is a natural law which makes it impossible for nothing to cause something.
Now all you have to do is prove to be beyond reasonable doubt that this law has always been in place and even in the timelessness.
If you can do this, and I doubt you can, we will get back to where we are now and you will then prove that the universe had a start.
@Quintinohthree My Friend, it is accepted in reputable scientific circles tht not only Universe but Time itself had a beginning, including scientists that you love and respect and Nobel prize winning academics. We know what happened when even Einstein assumed an eternal Universe with no beginning or an end (steady state theory), and added the fudge factor in his equation. This he later described as the “biggest blunder of his career”. So I don’t understand when you say “you will grant me”?
@Quintinohthree u said: “that there is a natural law which makes it impossible for nothing to cause something.”
Friend, Zero multiplied by anything is always Zero. Simply put, if there is NO energy, NO matter, NO force, NO Time, than you will have NO energy, NO matter and NO time. Some power had to get things started because from nothing only nothing comes, and anything that BEGINS to exist, must have a CAUSE. I believe that’s reasonable.
This “law” is part of the Natural world which did not exist at one time in history. So how can a naturally occurring change occur if the natural world did not exist. Even if it did exist, but Time didn’t, than no change within that Natural world could occur, because Time is the factor that allows change and progress. The “law” of cause and effect had a beginning and anything that BEGINS to exist, MUST have a cause.
"This “law” is part of the Natural world which did not exist at one time in history."
So if the law of cause and effect, id est the law stating that "every effect (including beginning to exist) must have a cause", did not exist, would any effect need a cause? If so you've defeated your own argument because you've said that this law only came into existence when the universe came into existence therefore making causes before/without the universe redundant.
@Quintinohthree I am reasoning that the Natural world, Universe & all that begun to exist (inc cause/effect), had a beginning. If it begins to exist, it must have a cause. Cause/effect is part of the Universe. Universe begun to exist. So now, did it create itself? Did it come into existence from nothing? Or it is a creation of a conscious being? I am reasoning with you my Friend, that it was created by the Creator who is not subjected to His own creation (i.e. natural laws) but Master over it.
..but only under those circumstances in which the law of cause and effect applies. If this law does not exist it can not apply. If it does not apply there need not be a cause.
If the universe came into being under circumstances in which the law of cause and effect did not exist and therefore did not apply, the universe needs no cause.
I'm going to give you a tip: say that the law of cause and effect came into being before the universe.
@Quintinohthree Dear Friend , if we say what was the cause of A, someone says B, what was the cause of B, someone says C, cause of D, someone says E, and then up to Z, than double Z, and triple Z etc. We cannot go into an infinite regress, otherwise A would never had resulted at all. The very fact we have this world, is a proof that there must have been a FIRST cause somewhere, otherwise we wouldn’t have the world that we have today.
@Quintinohthree I am reasoning, there must be an Intelligent Creator/Source/Originator/Wisdom that gave these series of events existence. Why? Because it was nonexistent before it actually began. Moreover, since Time itself had a beginning it is therefore impossible for there to be any events before the existence of this series, then it must also be case that the Creator is not attributed with such events, i.e. with any attribute or action that has a beginning.
I told you twice now. It's the law of cause and effect that makes the statement "every effect needs a cause" true. If not for this law things could happen without cause. If you are going to insist that this law had a beginning we must also insist that there was a circumstance, timeless or not, in which things could happen for no cause.
@Quintinohthree You said: “we must also insist that there was a circumstance, timeless or not, in which things could happen for no cause.”
Than are you saying things could come into existence or caused by it itself? Things can create itself? Things can caused by nothingness? Languages and coded information can come from mindless atoms and molecules? Is this what you’re saying my Friend?
@Quintinohthree Cause&effect is part of the Universe n had a beginning. 4m nothing only nothing comes. There must be some power who gave that series a starting point. B4 tht, there was no natural series of events. Natural world did not exist, there4 nothing natural can occur. Jst like languages n coded information cannot come 4m anywhere othr thn a mind, so too Universe with all its complexities could not hav resulted 4m mindless, lifeless, unintelligent, powerless, helpless atoms n molecules.
@Quintinohthree You said: "every effect needs a cause". But that effect/cause must be finite. It must come to an end at some point. If we say this world is the effect of Billion’s of past events/causes, that’s reasonable. What is unreasonable is to suggest that for something to exist, it need’s INFINITE (ENDLESS) number of events must first conclude. Why? b/c we would be saying INFINITY/ENDLESSNESS came to an end. That’s impossibility dear Friend.
@Quintinohthree My Friend, I said ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that BEGINS to exist, MUST have a cause. This world begun to exist, and was caused by something that came before it. That’s true. Universe BEGUN to exist, meaning at one point it did NOT exist. Time did not exist. No natural events occurred. So if nothing was happening, than nothing could have continued to happen forever. Is it so UNREASONABLE to suggest that something had to get things started?
Please stop repeating yourself. I know what you've said. Just to be certain about everything I'm going to ask you some questions and then I'm going to either conclude that I misunderstood you or show indecisively that you have defeated your own argument.
Please simply answer yes or no. If no please correct me where wrong.
"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause" is a true statement because of the existence of the law of cause and effect which states that "every effect must have a cause". The law of cause and effect is part of the universe and came into existence together with it as did time and space.
Are the above statements in compliance with your position? Again, please answer only yes or no and if no please correct the statements.
@Quintinohthree Sorry Friend, I didn't receive your quiestions yet, and yes I will try with the best of my ability to continue this dialogue of ours, and reply to your thoughts and ideas. Peace be upon you.
I replied to myself. I often do when making longer posts. Can you find it now? I just want to be completely certain that I'm arguing against your position and not a straw man.
"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause" is a true statement because of the existence of the law of cause and effect which states that "every effect must have a cause". The law of cause and effect is part of the universe and came into existence together with it as did time and space.
Are the above statements in compliance with your position? Again, please answer only yes or no and if no please correct the statements.
@Quintinohthree No it is not my Friend. It would be an injustice if I reply without explanation. I am saying: The laws of cause and effect dictates that everything that begins to exist must therefore have a cause. Universe begun to exist n there4 must have a cause. Since nothing was happening before its existence, than nothing could have continued to happen 4ever. Moreover the nature of the cause that initiated time/space/matter/POINT of BEGINING is not subjected to the laws of its creation.
Did the law of cause and effect come into existence, yes or no? I do not need to know more than that. I know exactly what you've said but I must be certain of it. I know you said so before but I must ensure that you are fully consciously saying it. Otherwise I can't hold it against you.
@Quintinohthree If you lift up ur hands n accept, tht the movements of ur hands is something tht actually begun 2exist, n then to claim tht the cause (Thought's, which has no physical dimension or points) that resulted the muscular movements was of the very same nature belonging to the same realm, doesn’t really make sense. Likewise the cause that caused the nascent Universe (Time/Space/matter/state of beginning..) is not of the same nature. It has power over all things that begun to exist.
@Quintinohthree If I say everything must have a cause, than we can play around with this line of thought unnecessarily. Because just like the questioning of a child, we can keep asking, than what caused the cause?
The very fact we have this world, is a proof that there was a beginning, and the FINITE number of past natural causes of the UNIVERSE came to an END, meaning that SOME POWER had to get things started, which is above and beyond the laws and constrictions of the Natural World.
@Quintinohthree "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause" is an axiomatic truth. It’s self evident as; if there is Zero mass and Zero volume, than there will always be Zero density. If something came into existence form a NON-Existent state, it either created itself, it was somehow always there, or created by some power which is unlike its creation, and as such rules over it and not vice versa. Only the latter makes sense.
@Quintinohthree Ok, I will make it even more clearer for you my Friend. Yes the natural law of cause and effect came into existence; but came into existence ONLY after the first cause.
If it is the law of cause and effect that makes it so that every effect must have a cause, why would anything need a cause in the absence of this law? Not to say that nothing happened for a cause in this absence. Laws don't act before they exist.
@Quintinohthree The law of cause and effect is part of nature. There was a time when the natural world did not exist. So how can a naturally occurring change occur if the natural world didn’t exists, and time didn’t exist to allow that change? If nothing was changing before time begun, than nothing could have continued happen 4ever. Something had to get things started, but not because it had, not because something previously happened that forced it. What you don’t have to do, you choose to do.
Time is merely one of the four dimensions we constantly observe. If time did not exist things could happen, just not in time.
However, my point remains valid: that your argument disagrees with your position. You claim that everything needs a cause yet that which makes that statement true itself came into existence and even then you claim that that needs a cause too, without any evidence.
@Quintinohthree “You claim that everything needs a cause”. I keep repeating myself, I said, EVERYTHING that begins to exist MUST have a cause. If something begins to exists, did it cause itself to exist? I am saying the cause that caused the first event, is outside of the space-time continuum. We call Him Allah, and I invite you Friend, to the House of Islam. When we die my Friend, and there is no afterlife, I as a Muslim loose nothing, but if there is, than you lose everything.
@AbuAmanah thats what they all say my friend, except for the part about killing everyone that doesnt believe, lol. i cant believe you could say some dumb shit like that. you gotta think before you speak to the masses bro. nothing causes itself to be anything, many things cause many things to be many things. i beleive in a creator but not one who whishes death on those who are non believers. thats what seperates the few from the dumbasses.
@sane123 Hello Friend, Peace be upon you. “killing everyone that doesn’t believe”?? That’s NOT Islam. If you disagree, please provide ur evidence. Otherwise is it not also true that “even the Devil can use scriptures for his own gain”. Glorious Quran (2:256) teaches us that “Let there be NO COMPULSION in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error”. How can you swear and use foul language when you never had the decency to ask? If I may ask Friend, r u Christian?
@Quintin So where did tht “thing” we observe cm 4m? Nothing? If time didn’t exist, thn there would be no change n there would be no progress. Can u give me 1 eg of something tht exists in NO Time? That’s ur faith. “happen, jst not in time”. Wht exactly could hppn? Natural things? But natural world did not exist. Matter n space itself did not exist. So nothing natural can occur. The 1st cause was initiated by something, tht is Intelligent n All Wise, without beginning, b/c time is it’s handy-work
@Quintinohthree Dear Friend, if we agree tht this world exists, n was caused by something that came b4 it, n that was caused by something that caused before it, n before it, n so on n on. It makes sense if one claims that not one, but 14 BLN events completed, b4 2day came into being. But it would be an impossibility if one says that not Billions but in fact infinite number of events was completed. This is surely a contradiction of the highest order, b/c concept of infinity cannot come to an end.
TheoreticalBullshit made a video only yesterday in which he among others argues for the impossibility of creation ex nihilo being a causal process. You should check it out. He explains one of the objections I'd have made much better.
The video is called "On Causation and the Ethics of Discourse." and is about 20 minutes long.
I guess you've given up by now. It's quite understandable. Now you know of the holes in your reasoning you obviously can't go further. Nonetheless I expect you to re-use the Kalam cosmological argument any time soon.
So according 2ur reasoning, u may not be correct all along. Are u going to wait 4 death to decend, until u make ur mind up. I agree, our understanding has limits. But how much understanding do we really need to see/reason/believe that 4m nothing only nothing comes. Do we have to explore every every nook and cranny's in the expanding Universe to believe that the Universe did not create itself, but originate 4m a Creator whos not a subject but a Master over it all.
@AbuAmanah before time began? time in a perception of man. saying before time began is like saying before man was born, just cause you dont know what happened to create the universe doesn't mean nothing happened to create it. our perception of time does not even count in this subject. there is an infinite amount of possibilities for how the universe was created. read universe creation theories, try to get an understunding of what you're failing to talk about.
@AbuAmanah Yes any dogma will create wars but I don't see atheists lining up to fly planes into a tower because they don't agree with evolution. While I agree that everyone has a right to their religion but trying to force it on someone else is selfish and ignorant. Your house of peace is built upon the bones and blood of thousands over who's version of a god is the right one. In an age of reason this kind of blind faith has no place.
Friend, criminal & murderous traits exist in every community & every nation, not the monopoly of any one.
Chairman Mao(Athiest) who was responsible for the murder of 45 MILLION innocent souls! According to Harvard Historian, James R Pusey "Darwin had legitimised violent change and revolution. Surely that was one of the most momenteous things Darwin did to china..and the thinking of Mao Tse Tung fit perfectly"
"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin & the theory of evolution" Mao Tse Tung
Which religion inspired the World War 1 & 2 where 120 Million innocent died? Which religion inspired the imperialism and colonialism of the lands of the Native Americans? Which religion inspired the colonisation of India, Africa, and the land of the Aborigenies in Austrailia and Zulus in S-Africa? How about Diego Garcia? Which religion Supported Pol Pot, Suherto and General Pinochet? Which religion terrorised Nicaragua, Vietnam and the Democratically elected government of Guatamala?
@micometer Allah also says in the Quran "There is NO compulsion in religion". However you mentioned that the House of Islam is "built upon bones & blood.." What is your evidence?
"History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated"
De Lacy O'Leary in 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London, 1923.
"Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life"
"I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind..I became more than ever convinced that it was NOT the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission"
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."
If Muslims used force, today India and Spain would be Muslim nations too.
I find it fascinating that less than 5% of mass is detectable. It makes you ponder the option that our theories are 95% off =) I seriously doubt dark matter, dark energy etc. It's like my old math exams... Whenever I didn't know how to solve an equation, I invented my own constant, multiplied the equation and got the right answer... Sorta... ;)
@jib1000 - How about when idiots, like yourself, don't know when to capitalize letters or how to use punctuation? If you're going to act like the 'English teacher' of Youtube, don't just pick and choose.
Typical Christian-troll foolishness. Your ignorance in the term "lernt" shows how you're just reaching for anything tto argue because this video hurt your feelings.
I'm an atheist. Nothing about this video hurts my feelings, its just not some huge revelation. When did i not use capital letters or punctuation? "Lernt" is what ignorant, red-neck, Christians say, not scientists who are attempting to blow our minds with knowledge.
@jib1000 - Ok, you're an ignorant, foolish, atheist. Sorry, I accused you of being a Christian. But my point still stands. Just in your last comment (reply to me) you didn't capitalize "i", as in the pronoun for you, or use an apostrophe in "it's". Pathetic.
What's more ignorant in your point is that the poster of this video never claimed to be a scientist.
If you don't understand the different in American English and British English, you should study up before using it as an argument.
Never did use American vs British English as an argument. Also a comment on a youtube video is just that. Its not a video that took hours to put together, its an off the top comment. You can keep grasping at straws all you want. The fact remains, this video is stupid, and saying lernt makes you sound like an inbred dumbass.
But if you still don't understand it, you're just as stupid as a hill-billy, white-trash Christian. As a matter of fact, you must be. Have fun fucking your pig while sucking off your dad.
Two sentence fragments, and a sentence with grammar so messed up its nearly unintelligible.
Maybe this is what you were trying to type?
It's so funny hearing someone who is so ignorant of English try to correct others on their spelling and dialect.
It's one thing not to capitalize the word "i" or to leave out an apostrophe in a contraction (that's only a matter of a single key stroke), its something else to leave out whole words, and flat out use incorrect grammar.
@jib1000 I would not be to fast to throw you collage education around mate. Most collage courses in the US are at a lower level than “A level” in the UK and even lower than most A level equivalents in Europe. My old “O level chemistry” had a module that equivalent to US first year degree standard now. :P
@jib1000 Ha Ha. One I am Dyslexic so sorry to not have come up to your atrociously low standards with my tipe o :-). Two I have had a look at your comments that are kicking around and my suspicions that you are a bit of a prick are supported by your woefully low ability to avoided moving over to personal insults and diversionary arguments when you run into someone that doesn’t fall for you bullshit or corrects your persistent trolling. You are helping make all Americans look like tossers mate.
@jib1000 My point made mate. You head striate for the personal insults AGAIN as you know you are being called out for what you are. You’re a sad sad guy. Bye bye. Ho and I have a bet on with my mate that you will come back with some wise crack, off point or and personal crap. Don’t let me down I stand to win a tenner when you do. :-)
This has been flagged as spam show
TRAIN BY DAY JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY NIGHT ALL DAY!!!
tighisabored 2 months ago
galaxies is like sand compared to universe, but when we compare humen to milkyway, we're like germ
xxxn7zxxx 3 months ago
Did you know? Astronomy is amazing.
Yeah, i knew that :)
Not going to be an astronomer (they don't earn that much money, although they should :( ) but i've always loved it almost as much as i love computer science.
MonicaKn17 4 months ago
@andromedaswake - Wait. If the Universe is 13.7B years old, how can it span 93B light years? (3:16) Shouldn't it only span some number less than 2x13.7B light years?
bjjolley 6 months ago
@sane123 fuck u, u fucking bastard, i wouldnt fuck ur disbelieving ass even if its for free
nirkhairy 6 months ago
i spoke to a scientist the other day who said light takes 1million years to reach the suns surface and escape
jabbott376 6 months ago
this video should have 1 million views and above
Arghira 6 months ago
am i the only one who noticed that OSX Lion has the last picture as their wallpaper?
daftsapien 6 months ago
Maybe the reason why we cant detect 95% of the universe is because its not there? Why are cosmologists so arrogant that they have to invent the theory that dark matter and dark energy fill most of the universe to compensate for their flawed mathematics? Its a pretty massive assumption that chucks occam's razor out the window. I don't know why it's even in this video because you can't "know" something is there if you cannot detect it.
u3190 6 months ago
@u3190
It might be there, it might not.
Shut up and enjoy the video.
Herbie803TV 5 months ago
@Herbie803TV
A pink fairy might be hiding in your anus, or it might not. I cant detect it, but its still science. Don't I sound smart?
u3190 5 months ago
@u3190
Sigh. How is that even remotely related to science?
Grow up.
Herbie803TV 5 months ago
@Herbie803TV
It's not related to science, it was an example.
I cant touch taste see feel or smell or detect the fairy in your anus in any way whatsoever, but Im using it to explain why people fart. btw this fairy takes up 95% of the universe. Same applies to darkmatter; we cannot observe it, nobody haven't found any, yet BB cosmologists use it as an explanation as to why their mathematics don't work. It is a pathetic a priori assumption.
u3190 5 months ago
@u3190
Many of the facts of science today were started with a theory.
Herbie803TV 5 months ago
@Herbie803TV
And even more crashed and burned.
AND THATS MY POINT!!!
Darkmatter is a theoretical assumption with enormous proportions, so why is it in this video?!?!? It is not a known fact, infact it is the opposite. It hasn't been detected at all in the history of mankind!
Until it has empirical evidence which is unlikely in my opinion, it should not be taught as fact.
Doth thy understand now young apprentice???
u3190 5 months ago
@u3190 Umm call me ignorant but where exactly in this video is 'dark matter' mentioned?
bodybag22 4 months ago in playlist bodybag22's favorites
@bodybag22
0:33
"Less than 5% of all matter and energy is directly detectable"
If you don't know much about cosmology you wouldn't have immediately understood what that meant.
Scientists assume only 4.6% of all matter is atoms, 23% is dark matter and 72% is dark energy.
u3190 4 months ago
@u3190 Right I get you now, I suspected it had something to do with that sentence.
So what's your alternate hypothesis then and what's your scientific background?
bodybag22 4 months ago in playlist bodybag22's favorites
@bodybag22
John Hartnett's Carmelian universe.
He cites the existance of a 5th dimension - spacevelocity - which accounts for the accelerated expansion of the universe and the reason why galaxies spin faster on the outside, etc. The current accepted theory is that a halo of dark matter causes the outer edge of a galaxy to orbit faster than would be expected. Hartnett's theory has no need for the rediculous assumption that dark matter and dark energy take up 95% of all matter in the universe.
u3190 4 months ago
@u3190 So ignore the assumption of dark matter, and insert the assumption of a 5th dimension.
He also seems to base his findings on Christian scripture, so I already outright reject his methodology.
bodybag22 4 months ago
@bodybag22
typical... Reject something before you even study it simply because the creator of the theory is a theist. There is no point discussing this further if you won't acknowledge your own arrogance.
u3190 4 months ago
@u3190 I completely agree, there's no point in discussing something when somebody has an obvious agenda and bias.
Flawed methodology, flawed outcome.
bodybag22 4 months ago
@bodybag22
Why do you immediately assume Hartnett uses deductive reasoning simply because he is a Christian?
u3190 4 months ago
@u3190 His article on *ahem* creationwiki explains his position, so I outright reject it.
bodybag22 4 months ago
@bodybag22
Fair enough.
So you reject it due to a priori, rather than the actual theory itself?
u3190 4 months ago
@u3190 I only have an issues with the mans agenda, If indeed his hypothesis was sound it would get much more credence in the scientific community and i'm assuming it hasn't.
But it would certainly seem that doctor Hartnett started with the presumption of a young universe, a young earth and the scientific accuracy of the bibles claims (whatever they are)
So he's not an individual I can respect or lend any sort of credibility to.
I guess i put him in the same catagory as Christopher Langan.
bodybag22 4 months ago
@bodybag22
I don't have any scientific degrees, I just enjoy researching cosmology :)
u3190 4 months ago
song name?
JoArtsDev 7 months ago
@JoArtsDev Röyksopp Forever by Röyksopp.
AndromedasWake 7 months ago 2
@AndromedasWake thanks bro
JoArtsDev 7 months ago
This is inaccurate in many places, e.g. from 3:16. Known universe implies what we have seen, not what it actually is. The universe is estimated to have a radius of 93bil light years and hence a span of double that, at 186 billion light years. However the observable universe is a sphere with a radius of just 46.6 bil light years, and the known universe is even less - just a fraction of out galaxy.
Overall, I'm not that impressed at sloppy work :/
Qw3rtypop 7 months ago
That Andromeda vs full moon fact is wrong. You would at least need an decent pair of binoculars to even make out that its a galaxy. To the naked eye it would appear as just another star and much smaller than the moon.
Hitman1689 7 months ago
@Hitman1689 No, I don't think that's right... I've seen it without binoculars (in the middle of nowhere, not a city), and it doesn't look anything like a star. It's a smudge of light, rather than a point.
darkfunkychimp 7 months ago
@darkfunkychimp ya I think ur right about it looking like a smudge its been a while since I've been able to see it. I've been living in Orlando for the last 3 years so visibility at night is pretty crappy. Best time I ever saw it was in south Florida a few years back after hurricanes Jean and Francis when the power was still out.
Hitman1689 7 months ago
@Hitman1689 I've lived in London all my life, and you can see about 5 stars from here if you're very lucky. But I have relatives who live in the French countryside and I went to visit them a while ago; the night sky was amazing. Far too many stars to count, the Milky Way, planets, Andromeda, shooting stars, satellites, nebulae... I think people would think about themselves and nature differently if they could see the rest of the Universe every once in a while.
darkfunkychimp 7 months ago
Forgot to tell -there are more stars in the Universe than all the grains of sand of the earth-
Dominic4n 7 months ago
@Dominic4n and more stars in the universe than words spoken by man throughout history
pistolpete667 5 months ago
I just watch this videos because of the song.
israel12345678900 8 months ago
i am atheist, 13, and know 95 % of these facts.
I have also made a bit of a theory. Of course, i do not understand overly complex equations yet, but i understand philosophy.
There may be multible universes, some with matter. some not. these may collide, creating another big bang. due to gravity and string theory, these attract each other constantly. creating universes.
OR if time is nonexistent outside of our universe, we may have existed forever. Human brains may have invented time.
0ggabOgga 8 months ago
@0ggabOgga By 13 you might want to know that string theory isn't scientific theory, it isn't even a real theory.
A scientific theory requires rigorous proof and repeatability, string speculation or conjecture is untestable, so it cannot be a theory. Its closer to metaphysics or sciencism. Its interesting and has produced some good math but so has rubics cube.
jonesgerard 7 months ago
@jonesgerard
Theoretical and quantum physics. they cannot be proved: therefore it is considered theoretical physics rather than a real theory. Yes, they may not be correct, HOWEVER, the math works.
0ggabOgga 7 months ago
you know all of these scientific facts, but you spelled the word learned learnt?
lol just for that, i'm going to give you a thumbs up.
afroninja0000 8 months ago 6
@afroninja0000 Though I agree with you, 'learnt' is actually an acceptable spelling :P
At least in this case. Example;
"He is a learned man"
"What we have learnt may surprise you"
In the second example, you can use learned and learnt interchangeable as long as you're using British English.
tiaxanderson 8 months ago
@tiaxanderson
Semi-correct.
You cannot say "He was a learnt man". It sounds ridiculous
Learnt can be substituted for learned but learned can't always be substituted for learnt, because only learned is also an adjective.
Qw3rtypop 7 months ago
@Qw3rtypop That's what I said... "In the second example, you can use learned and learnt interchangeable as long as you're using British English."
tiaxanderson 7 months ago
@afroninja0000 Learned or learnt, both are correct to anyone who isn't American and speaks English.
Rarae192 8 months ago 20
@afroninja0000 probably doesn't know them, probably lookt them up
suttermasta3000 7 months ago
God made everything... just sayin.
master360chiefchick 8 months ago
Im sure we would know much more if the Vatican didn't control the worlds best telescopes...
MMACarlos91 9 months ago
Damn Christianity! Damn it to hell!!!
OdoubleTO 9 months ago
check /watch?v=WTdXhh3AeI0
naanoruthamizhan 9 months ago
@ht666th well, When you don't know. That means you have to know. Sorry to say but following science is not the only answer. science is just a part of nature. To understand nature you need to go beyond those measures. and btw, you are the only one being a bookworm here.
RuineDSorroW 9 months ago
smartalek1 10 months ago
THEBEST!!!
MEL197127 10 months ago
Everything ends. I want to know what is at the end of space. But no one will ever know.
codyLIKESbaseball 10 months ago
@codyLIKESbaseball You can't travel to the end and outside of space because travelling implies a displacement over space. Extending that displacement past space itself makes no sense. If you want to know what lies beyond space then look into maths, look into your own thoughts, look into knowledge, look into abstract concepts, look into compassion, look into life's values and anything else that isn't defined with a 3-axis co-ordinate system.
Paradoxolog 8 months ago
Good video..
bludeviI 10 months ago
Is it so unreasonable to suggest that all these mind boggling aspects and elements of our Universe, near and far came into existance not by it's own will, nor from nothingness, but from a source not constricted or restricted by the laws of the natural world, but a master over it. Only that source deserves our glorifications, and praise and worship.
I invite all to the House of Islam in Peace.
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
@AbuAmanah Just because we don't know how our universe came into existence doesn't mean some mythical sky daddy created it. I'd much rather we continue our study of the universe so that maybe someday we can know how our universe was formed.
Yes the universe needs a beginning. How about this. Due to a shift in the infinity of time, red shift became blue shift and the universe collapsed. Due to the immense pressure, something gave way, creating the big bang and our universe. Better than god, imo.
micometer 11 months ago
@micometer
Infinity of Time? Dear Friend, jst like space, matter n the 4 fundamentle forces, time too hd a begining. n Im reasoning, anything tht begins 2exist must hv a cause. b4 time begun no change could occur, bc time is the factor tht allows changes n progress. So if nothing ws changing, thn nothing has to change. Something had 2get things started. But not bc it had2. Not bc somthing previously happnd tht forced it. Not out of obligation, but choice, bc wht u dnt hav2do u choose 2do.
Peace
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
@AbuAmanah I can hardly understand your typing, try full words and spell checker.
Anyway, if the concept of the big bang is correct and there was a start some 12 billion years ago what came before that? Did the matter suddenly come into being? If god created it from nothing where did god come from?
If that is unanswerable then we can conclude the universe is unanswerable or god always exist. If god always existed then we can conclude the universe always existed as well. Its better to not know.
micometer 11 months ago
@micometer Time had a begining. So before time beugn, there was no change, and if nothing was happening than nothing could have continued to happen forever. Something had to get things started, but not because it had to. Not because something previous happend that forced it. Why? Because time wasn't progressing, and time is the factor that allowes changes to occur. Since the natural world did not exist, nothing natural can occur. So the cause that caused the big bang, must be super natural.
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
@AbuAmanah We don't know if time had a beginning as there is no way to know what happened before the big bang or whatever event formed our universe. It is impossible to know if time had a beginning with modern science. Heck, I'd much rather say the beginning is unknowable than characterize it to a creator.
Also, an invitation to Islam in peace is hypocritical. Yours is a religion that wishes to kill anyone who doesn't worship your brand of god. Look at the mindless chaos over one burnt book.
micometer 11 months ago
@micometer "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed FOREVER. Rather, the UNIVERSE and TIME itself, had a BEGINING in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago"
Prof Stephen Hawkings - The Beginning of Time
So dear Friend, if time had a begining, than did it begun by itself or did it create itself? Did it came from nothing? But from nothing only nothing comes. Or caused by a cause not subjected to the laws of nature but a Master over it.
Peace be upon you.
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
@micometer mindless chaos over one burnt book???
Have you read the Quran? You see, when people are insulted and something dearest to them abused and offended, they naturally react. Just try swearing at somebodies Mother, wife or girlfriend. The man will react. Salman Rushdie wrote in Satanic Verses page 261: “WHITE WOMEN – NEVER MIND FAT, JEWISH, NON-DEFERENTIALLY WHITE WOMEN - WERE FOR FUCKING AND THROWING OVER.” Doesn't it hurt you? If someone says that to your wife, will not hurt you?
Peace.
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
@AbuAmanah At hawking's comment, hat doesn't mean that a universe didn't exist before; its unanswerable.
I've not read the Quran nor do I need to and its not the translation I am concerned with. When a man that doesn't represent the collective opinion of one country burns a book and 14 people are killed, riots occur, and thousands take to the streets saying "Death to America" its over a dogma, translation. If someone said anything to my family thats all they are, words. Your dogma kills people.
micometer 11 months ago
@AbuAmanah Bullshit nothing of the sort justifies those actions. Nothing you can say will justify such violent barbarism. Disown the people that did these things.
flight1100 10 months ago
@micometer Where did God come from? All I am saying is that anything that BEGINS to exist, must therefore have a cause. Why? Because it cannot bring itself into existance. If Universe is 12 Billion yrs old, than what was 50 Billion yrs ago? Nothing? But from nothing only nothing comes. Zero multiplied by zero always = 0. Since nothing can create itself, something had to get things started, something which is beyond the laws of nature, not bound by it's creation, inclduing space, time and matter.
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
@AbuAmanah Backwards.. It is change and progress witch is the "factor" that allows time.
flight1100 10 months ago
@flight1100 Hello Friend, so what "changes and progress" occured before time begun? Nothing? But from nothing only nothing comes i.e. Zero multiplied by anything (including coincidence and chance) is always zero! Is it so unreasonable to suggest, that something had to get things started?
Peace be upon you.
AbuAmanah 10 months ago
@AbuAmanah Your'e second statement contradicts your'e first. What is unreasonable to suggest is that you are in any position to know.
flight1100 10 months ago
@flight1100 Hello Friend. I am reasoning that before time begun, there was no change. Even the natural world did not exist, there4 nothing natural can occur. Since nothing ws happening thn nothing could hav continued to happen 4evr! The cause tht caused the naturla World, must be beyond the restrictive capacity of nature; above the laws & limitations of the natural world. So smthing had 2get things started, but not b/c it had to (nothing happend previously) and wht u dont hav 2do, u choose 2do.
AbuAmanah 10 months ago
@AbuAmanah Nature may well be restrictive only from your'e limited perspective. The chances that any explanation thus far put forward has much chance of being the correct one if indeed an explanation is at all possible from where we stand and with the limited understanding of the universe we have or can ever have are infinetly small.
flight1100 10 months ago
@flight1100 Friend are you saying that with our "limited perspective" and with our "limited understanding" of the natural world, it is impossible to know if the Universe came from the Creator who created all that begun exist? Than is it not also true that it is also impossible know that it didn't come from an intelligent source? So God may or may not exist?
I said, everyhting that begins to exist, must have a cause, because from nothing only nothing comes because zero X zero always = zero.
AbuAmanah 10 months ago
@AbuAmanah zero is a mathematical value. there is no such physical or even conceivable state.
flight1100 10 months ago
@flight1100 Mathematical value? I agree. But is it not also true that Zero times anything is always Zero? If something has a Zero value, volume, weight, density, existance, than we can safely assume that it is nothing. But if from nothing only nothing comes, than why do we have something (like this world), instead of nothing? I am reasoning, that there must be a creator who created all that begun to exist.
My Friend, peace be upon you, and I wish to invite you to the House of Islam.
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@AbuAmanah
But does that not beg the question: if nothing only begets nothing and only something begets something, what begot the begetter? There can not be an infinite line of begetters begetting another begetter so did nothing beget the begetter or was the begetter not begotten? If the former, your premise has been defeated, if the latter, why could not the universe not have been begotten and instead have always existed in some form or another?
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quinti Friend, I am saying, anything tht BEGINS 2exist, MUST hv a cause, b/c 4m nothing ONLY nothing comes. The Universe, n everything in existence, including time, space, matter, DID begun to exist. Did they create themselves? No. If the natural world did not exist, than nothing natural can occur. Even if it did exist, but time didn’t than no change within that natural world can occur. Thus the Creator who created all that begun to exist is NOT subject to natural laws, but a Master over it.
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@Quintin I didn’t say EVERYTHING must hv a cause. Now we do know tht Time had a beginning & time is the factor tht allows changes to occur. B4 time begun, no change could occur. Now, if nothing was changing, thn nothing could hav continued 2happen 4ever. Something hd2 get things started, but NOT b/c it had to, not b/c something previously happened tht forced it. There was no change, b/c time wasn’t progressing. So wht u don’t have 2do, u CHOOSE to do, n choice is consistent wth consciousness.
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree Hello again Friend, you said "what begot the begetter?" or what came before the creator and the originator of Time? But that's an impossibility. Creator is not a subject of time but a Master over it, and hence has no beginning. But does the this world, the Universe and everything in it, including Time, space, matter, and all the 4 fundamental forces begun to exist? Yes! Did life create itself? No! Universe create itself? No! Does from nothing only nothing comes? Yes my Friend.
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@AbuAmanah
I can take from this that you dismiss the former option and instead of going for the latter option, knowing that it would lead to your defeat, you have chosen to justify your special pleading fallacy. You say that because the creator is not a subject of the natural laws but a master, not considering the creator subject to your premise is valid. Now I ask you, if the universe came into existence at all, did the universe come into existence while constantly subject to the natural laws?>
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree
I also demand your claim that the universe came into existence be justified. Unless you do so I have no reason to accept your argument at all.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quinti According to Hawking n others, not only it begun to exists, but Time itself had a beginning some 15 Bln yrs ago.
‘did Universe come into existence while constantly subject to the natural laws?’
But the Natural world and Time itself had a beginning. The cause that caused the Universe, is master over its creation, b/c it existed before time begun. So if u ask me what came before time begun, i would say nothing, rather it ws created by a creator who has no beginning, n does not change.
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@AbuAmanah
So somebody said it and that makes it true? I respect Hawkins and most other scientists but that is an argument from authority fallacy. More importantly Hawkins has written a book explaining how by current knowledge the universe could have come into existence without any sort of creator. You're not going to tell me he's wrong on that are you?
And you haven't answered my question. I did not ask what was before time, that's nonsense.
con...
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree
I asked whether the natural laws apply without the existence of the universe. It's nothing more than that. You can say that these laws were created without the universe, because we both agree that before is not the right word, but that's merely circular reasoning. You must first justify the claim that these laws were created without using this argument and then you can use this in your argument.
Did the universe come into existence while constantly subject to all laws of nature?
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree The laws of nature aren't really laws. They're simply human observations of naturally reaccurring patterns and events.
'Laws' were only made after they first happened. The Universe used to be lawless.
Gyohdon 9 months ago
@Gyohdon
I know that the laws of nature are descriptive, at least they are in science. I think we can agree though that in general parlance "laws of nature" indicates the reason behind those observances. A "why" instead of a "what".
Thanks for the mention though. It's very important that people know their scientific terms when discussing scientific topics.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quin Hawkins & scientists such as Penzias & R Wilson may be jst “somebody” in ur opinion, but they provided evidence 4the theory tht the Universe including time, space & matter originated after the “Big-Bang”, as such othrs awarded thm most prestigious prize in all of science. I don’t have to agree with everything a man says, but during a dialogue, it is healthier to use independent source as witnesses. Aristotle theorised many great things, but he also said "women hav fewer teeth than man"?
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@Quinti “You're not going to tell me he's wrong on that are you?”. Friend, we all listen to views n opinions of academic authorities n accept things tht r beyond shadows of any doubt. Jst like a lawyer to prove his case may listen to chemists, biologists and botanists, but does he swallow everything wht they say, hook, line and sinker? Of course not. We listen to Einstein whn he propounded his theory of relativity, but he also came up with the “Fudge Factor” the “GREATEST BLUNDER” of his career.
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree “I respect Hawkins and most other scientists but that is an argument from authority fallacy.” But that could be said about anyone and everyone who holds any views based upon the academic research of anyone, be they Einstein or Fred Hoyle. I am sure there are times when you contemplate on ideas, concepts and views put forward by great thinkers past n present and formulate your own arguments.
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree I am reasoning along with scientist tht u too respect n admire, that time had a beginning. When you say “who begot the begotter”, u r actually saying wht came BEFORE the begetter? But TIME didn’t exist my Friend, it wasn’t progressing to allow tht change. There was NO before n after or cause & effect. But we do know the Universe begun to exist. I am reasoning with u Friend, that anything that begins to exist MUST have a cause, as such rules over it, n not subjected by it.
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@AbuAmanah
Let me educate you on the Argument from Authority: the AfA is not just accepting something because somebody says it, it's claiming it's true because somebody said it. If you can not see the fallaciousness of this I quite frankly can't argue further. What matters is not who says it but why it is said. You would have to answer me specifically why Hawking says the universe had a start, an don't just say he found evidence because you can show me that.
con...
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@AbuAmanah
However I'm going to make it easy for you for now. For the sake of argument I'm going to grant you that the universe had a beginning and that there is a natural law which makes it impossible for nothing to cause something.
Now all you have to do is prove to be beyond reasonable doubt that this law has always been in place and even in the timelessness.
If you can do this, and I doubt you can, we will get back to where we are now and you will then prove that the universe had a start.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree My Friend, it is accepted in reputable scientific circles tht not only Universe but Time itself had a beginning, including scientists that you love and respect and Nobel prize winning academics. We know what happened when even Einstein assumed an eternal Universe with no beginning or an end (steady state theory), and added the fudge factor in his equation. This he later described as the “biggest blunder of his career”. So I don’t understand when you say “you will grant me”?
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree u said: “that there is a natural law which makes it impossible for nothing to cause something.”
Friend, Zero multiplied by anything is always Zero. Simply put, if there is NO energy, NO matter, NO force, NO Time, than you will have NO energy, NO matter and NO time. Some power had to get things started because from nothing only nothing comes, and anything that BEGINS to exist, must have a CAUSE. I believe that’s reasonable.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree “ prove ..that this law has always“
This “law” is part of the Natural world which did not exist at one time in history. So how can a naturally occurring change occur if the natural world did not exist. Even if it did exist, but Time didn’t, than no change within that Natural world could occur, because Time is the factor that allows change and progress. The “law” of cause and effect had a beginning and anything that BEGINS to exist, MUST have a cause.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced
that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe--a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in
the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."
Albert Einstein
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
"This “law” is part of the Natural world which did not exist at one time in history."
So if the law of cause and effect, id est the law stating that "every effect (including beginning to exist) must have a cause", did not exist, would any effect need a cause? If so you've defeated your own argument because you've said that this law only came into existence when the universe came into existence therefore making causes before/without the universe redundant.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree I am reasoning that the Natural world, Universe & all that begun to exist (inc cause/effect), had a beginning. If it begins to exist, it must have a cause. Cause/effect is part of the Universe. Universe begun to exist. So now, did it create itself? Did it come into existence from nothing? Or it is a creation of a conscious being? I am reasoning with you my Friend, that it was created by the Creator who is not subjected to His own creation (i.e. natural laws) but Master over it.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
"If it begins to exist, it must have a cause."
..but only under those circumstances in which the law of cause and effect applies. If this law does not exist it can not apply. If it does not apply there need not be a cause.
If the universe came into being under circumstances in which the law of cause and effect did not exist and therefore did not apply, the universe needs no cause.
I'm going to give you a tip: say that the law of cause and effect came into being before the universe.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree Dear Friend , if we say what was the cause of A, someone says B, what was the cause of B, someone says C, cause of D, someone says E, and then up to Z, than double Z, and triple Z etc. We cannot go into an infinite regress, otherwise A would never had resulted at all. The very fact we have this world, is a proof that there must have been a FIRST cause somewhere, otherwise we wouldn’t have the world that we have today.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree I am reasoning, there must be an Intelligent Creator/Source/Originator/Wisdom that gave these series of events existence. Why? Because it was nonexistent before it actually began. Moreover, since Time itself had a beginning it is therefore impossible for there to be any events before the existence of this series, then it must also be case that the Creator is not attributed with such events, i.e. with any attribute or action that has a beginning.
Peace be upon you.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
I told you twice now. It's the law of cause and effect that makes the statement "every effect needs a cause" true. If not for this law things could happen without cause. If you are going to insist that this law had a beginning we must also insist that there was a circumstance, timeless or not, in which things could happen for no cause.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree You said: “we must also insist that there was a circumstance, timeless or not, in which things could happen for no cause.”
Than are you saying things could come into existence or caused by it itself? Things can create itself? Things can caused by nothingness? Languages and coded information can come from mindless atoms and molecules? Is this what you’re saying my Friend?
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree Cause&effect is part of the Universe n had a beginning. 4m nothing only nothing comes. There must be some power who gave that series a starting point. B4 tht, there was no natural series of events. Natural world did not exist, there4 nothing natural can occur. Jst like languages n coded information cannot come 4m anywhere othr thn a mind, so too Universe with all its complexities could not hav resulted 4m mindless, lifeless, unintelligent, powerless, helpless atoms n molecules.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree You said: "every effect needs a cause". But that effect/cause must be finite. It must come to an end at some point. If we say this world is the effect of Billion’s of past events/causes, that’s reasonable. What is unreasonable is to suggest that for something to exist, it need’s INFINITE (ENDLESS) number of events must first conclude. Why? b/c we would be saying INFINITY/ENDLESSNESS came to an end. That’s impossibility dear Friend.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree My Friend, I said ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that BEGINS to exist, MUST have a cause. This world begun to exist, and was caused by something that came before it. That’s true. Universe BEGUN to exist, meaning at one point it did NOT exist. Time did not exist. No natural events occurred. So if nothing was happening, than nothing could have continued to happen forever. Is it so UNREASONABLE to suggest that something had to get things started?
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
Please stop repeating yourself. I know what you've said. Just to be certain about everything I'm going to ask you some questions and then I'm going to either conclude that I misunderstood you or show indecisively that you have defeated your own argument.
Please simply answer yes or no. If no please correct me where wrong.
con...
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree
"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause" is a true statement because of the existence of the law of cause and effect which states that "every effect must have a cause". The law of cause and effect is part of the universe and came into existence together with it as did time and space.
Are the above statements in compliance with your position? Again, please answer only yes or no and if no please correct the statements.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree Sorry Friend, I didn't receive your quiestions yet, and yes I will try with the best of my ability to continue this dialogue of ours, and reply to your thoughts and ideas. Peace be upon you.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
I replied to myself. I often do when making longer posts. Can you find it now? I just want to be completely certain that I'm arguing against your position and not a straw man.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree No my Friend, I can't seem to find your quiestions. Please post it again if you can. Thank you.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause" is a true statement because of the existence of the law of cause and effect which states that "every effect must have a cause". The law of cause and effect is part of the universe and came into existence together with it as did time and space.
Are the above statements in compliance with your position? Again, please answer only yes or no and if no please correct the statements.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree No it is not my Friend. It would be an injustice if I reply without explanation. I am saying: The laws of cause and effect dictates that everything that begins to exist must therefore have a cause. Universe begun to exist n there4 must have a cause. Since nothing was happening before its existence, than nothing could have continued to happen 4ever. Moreover the nature of the cause that initiated time/space/matter/POINT of BEGINING is not subjected to the laws of its creation.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
Did the law of cause and effect come into existence, yes or no? I do not need to know more than that. I know exactly what you've said but I must be certain of it. I know you said so before but I must ensure that you are fully consciously saying it. Otherwise I can't hold it against you.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree If you lift up ur hands n accept, tht the movements of ur hands is something tht actually begun 2exist, n then to claim tht the cause (Thought's, which has no physical dimension or points) that resulted the muscular movements was of the very same nature belonging to the same realm, doesn’t really make sense. Likewise the cause that caused the nascent Universe (Time/Space/matter/state of beginning..) is not of the same nature. It has power over all things that begun to exist.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree If I say everything must have a cause, than we can play around with this line of thought unnecessarily. Because just like the questioning of a child, we can keep asking, than what caused the cause?
The very fact we have this world, is a proof that there was a beginning, and the FINITE number of past natural causes of the UNIVERSE came to an END, meaning that SOME POWER had to get things started, which is above and beyond the laws and constrictions of the Natural World.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause" is an axiomatic truth. It’s self evident as; if there is Zero mass and Zero volume, than there will always be Zero density. If something came into existence form a NON-Existent state, it either created itself, it was somehow always there, or created by some power which is unlike its creation, and as such rules over it and not vice versa. Only the latter makes sense.
Peace be upon you.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
You have yet to answer my question. I asked simply for a yes or no and a clarification if no. You could be done in just three characters!
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree Ok, I will make it even more clearer for you my Friend. Yes the natural law of cause and effect came into existence; but came into existence ONLY after the first cause.
Peace be upon you.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
If it is the law of cause and effect that makes it so that every effect must have a cause, why would anything need a cause in the absence of this law? Not to say that nothing happened for a cause in this absence. Laws don't act before they exist.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree The law of cause and effect is part of nature. There was a time when the natural world did not exist. So how can a naturally occurring change occur if the natural world didn’t exists, and time didn’t exist to allow that change? If nothing was changing before time begun, than nothing could have continued happen 4ever. Something had to get things started, but not because it had, not because something previously happened that forced it. What you don’t have to do, you choose to do.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
Time is merely one of the four dimensions we constantly observe. If time did not exist things could happen, just not in time.
However, my point remains valid: that your argument disagrees with your position. You claim that everything needs a cause yet that which makes that statement true itself came into existence and even then you claim that that needs a cause too, without any evidence.
Quite frankly, I'm done.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree “You claim that everything needs a cause”. I keep repeating myself, I said, EVERYTHING that begins to exist MUST have a cause. If something begins to exists, did it cause itself to exist? I am saying the cause that caused the first event, is outside of the space-time continuum. We call Him Allah, and I invite you Friend, to the House of Islam. When we die my Friend, and there is no afterlife, I as a Muslim loose nothing, but if there is, than you lose everything.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah thats what they all say my friend, except for the part about killing everyone that doesnt believe, lol. i cant believe you could say some dumb shit like that. you gotta think before you speak to the masses bro. nothing causes itself to be anything, many things cause many things to be many things. i beleive in a creator but not one who whishes death on those who are non believers. thats what seperates the few from the dumbasses.
sane123 6 months ago
@sane123 Hello Friend, Peace be upon you. “killing everyone that doesn’t believe”?? That’s NOT Islam. If you disagree, please provide ur evidence. Otherwise is it not also true that “even the Devil can use scriptures for his own gain”. Glorious Quran (2:256) teaches us that “Let there be NO COMPULSION in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error”. How can you swear and use foul language when you never had the decency to ask? If I may ask Friend, r u Christian?
Rudeness is a weakmans strength!
AbuAmanah 6 months ago
@Quintin So where did tht “thing” we observe cm 4m? Nothing? If time didn’t exist, thn there would be no change n there would be no progress. Can u give me 1 eg of something tht exists in NO Time? That’s ur faith. “happen, jst not in time”. Wht exactly could hppn? Natural things? But natural world did not exist. Matter n space itself did not exist. So nothing natural can occur. The 1st cause was initiated by something, tht is Intelligent n All Wise, without beginning, b/c time is it’s handy-work
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@Quintinohthree Dear Friend, if we agree tht this world exists, n was caused by something that came b4 it, n that was caused by something that caused before it, n before it, n so on n on. It makes sense if one claims that not one, but 14 BLN events completed, b4 2day came into being. But it would be an impossibility if one says that not Billions but in fact infinite number of events was completed. This is surely a contradiction of the highest order, b/c concept of infinity cannot come to an end.
AbuAmanah 8 months ago
@AbuAmanah
TheoreticalBullshit made a video only yesterday in which he among others argues for the impossibility of creation ex nihilo being a causal process. You should check it out. He explains one of the objections I'd have made much better.
The video is called "On Causation and the Ethics of Discourse." and is about 20 minutes long.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@AbuAmanah
I guess you've given up by now. It's quite understandable. Now you know of the holes in your reasoning you obviously can't go further. Nonetheless I expect you to re-use the Kalam cosmological argument any time soon.
Quintinohthree 8 months ago
@flight1100 Hello Friend. Peace!
So according 2ur reasoning, u may not be correct all along. Are u going to wait 4 death to decend, until u make ur mind up. I agree, our understanding has limits. But how much understanding do we really need to see/reason/believe that 4m nothing only nothing comes. Do we have to explore every every nook and cranny's in the expanding Universe to believe that the Universe did not create itself, but originate 4m a Creator whos not a subject but a Master over it all.
AbuAmanah 9 months ago
@AbuAmanah before time began? time in a perception of man. saying before time began is like saying before man was born, just cause you dont know what happened to create the universe doesn't mean nothing happened to create it. our perception of time does not even count in this subject. there is an infinite amount of possibilities for how the universe was created. read universe creation theories, try to get an understunding of what you're failing to talk about.
ItsNotEvenSunny 10 months ago
@AbuAmanah Yes any dogma will create wars but I don't see atheists lining up to fly planes into a tower because they don't agree with evolution. While I agree that everyone has a right to their religion but trying to force it on someone else is selfish and ignorant. Your house of peace is built upon the bones and blood of thousands over who's version of a god is the right one. In an age of reason this kind of blind faith has no place.
micometer 11 months ago
Friend, criminal & murderous traits exist in every community & every nation, not the monopoly of any one.
Chairman Mao(Athiest) who was responsible for the murder of 45 MILLION innocent souls! According to Harvard Historian, James R Pusey "Darwin had legitimised violent change and revolution. Surely that was one of the most momenteous things Darwin did to china..and the thinking of Mao Tse Tung fit perfectly"
"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin & the theory of evolution" Mao Tse Tung
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
@micometer
Which religion inspired the World War 1 & 2 where 120 Million innocent died? Which religion inspired the imperialism and colonialism of the lands of the Native Americans? Which religion inspired the colonisation of India, Africa, and the land of the Aborigenies in Austrailia and Zulus in S-Africa? How about Diego Garcia? Which religion Supported Pol Pot, Suherto and General Pinochet? Which religion terrorised Nicaragua, Vietnam and the Democratically elected government of Guatamala?
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
@micometer Allah also says in the Quran "There is NO compulsion in religion". However you mentioned that the House of Islam is "built upon bones & blood.." What is your evidence?
"History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated"
De Lacy O'Leary in 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London, 1923.
Peace be upon you.
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
REVERAND Bosworth Smith
"Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life"
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
Mahatma Gandhi
"I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind..I became more than ever convinced that it was NOT the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission"
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
@micometer SIR GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."
If Muslims used force, today India and Spain would be Muslim nations too.
AbuAmanah 11 months ago
a 12inch dobsonian or additions to my drumset?.... grrrr
senseirofl 1 year ago
I find it fascinating that less than 5% of mass is detectable. It makes you ponder the option that our theories are 95% off =) I seriously doubt dark matter, dark energy etc. It's like my old math exams... Whenever I didn't know how to solve an equation, I invented my own constant, multiplied the equation and got the right answer... Sorta... ;)
antilect 1 year ago
WOw So much Space - Cant wait to play in it When i Die - Thank you God for creating me
joshebizonline 1 year ago
I looked up and saw a ceiling, am I doing it wrong?
misterstarwars 1 year ago
very cool vid :-)
tina6581 1 year ago
Yes, i usually call people who know how to spell idiots too.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 - How about when idiots, like yourself, don't know when to capitalize letters or how to use punctuation? If you're going to act like the 'English teacher' of Youtube, don't just pick and choose.
Typical Christian-troll foolishness. Your ignorance in the term "lernt" shows how you're just reaching for anything tto argue because this video hurt your feelings.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind HAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm an atheist. Nothing about this video hurts my feelings, its just not some huge revelation. When did i not use capital letters or punctuation? "Lernt" is what ignorant, red-neck, Christians say, not scientists who are attempting to blow our minds with knowledge.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 - Ok, you're an ignorant, foolish, atheist. Sorry, I accused you of being a Christian. But my point still stands. Just in your last comment (reply to me) you didn't capitalize "i", as in the pronoun for you, or use an apostrophe in "it's". Pathetic.
What's more ignorant in your point is that the poster of this video never claimed to be a scientist.
If you don't understand the different in American English and British English, you should study up before using it as an argument.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind LOL
Never did use American vs British English as an argument. Also a comment on a youtube video is just that. Its not a video that took hours to put together, its an off the top comment. You can keep grasping at straws all you want. The fact remains, this video is stupid, and saying lernt makes you sound like an inbred dumbass.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 - Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
It's so funny hearing someone so ignorant in English try to correct others on spelled and dialect.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind Talk about pathetic, that sentence doesn't even make sense.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 - *spelling
But if you still don't understand it, you're just as stupid as a hill-billy, white-trash Christian. As a matter of fact, you must be. Have fun fucking your pig while sucking off your dad.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind LOL
Two sentence fragments, and a sentence with grammar so messed up its nearly unintelligible.
Maybe this is what you were trying to type?
It's so funny hearing someone who is so ignorant of English try to correct others on their spelling and dialect.
It's one thing not to capitalize the word "i" or to leave out an apostrophe in a contraction (that's only a matter of a single key stroke), its something else to leave out whole words, and flat out use incorrect grammar.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 - Thanks for the correction.
You're still an in-bred hillbilly Christian.
besidemymind 1 year ago
@besidemymind Actually no, I'm a college educated atheist, but thanks for playing.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 I would not be to fast to throw you collage education around mate. Most collage courses in the US are at a lower level than “A level” in the UK and even lower than most A level equivalents in Europe. My old “O level chemistry” had a module that equivalent to US first year degree standard now. :P
tina6581 1 year ago
@tina6581 Well one thing I learned in college, that you apparently missed, was how to spell "college".
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 Ha Ha. One I am Dyslexic so sorry to not have come up to your atrociously low standards with my tipe o :-). Two I have had a look at your comments that are kicking around and my suspicions that you are a bit of a prick are supported by your woefully low ability to avoided moving over to personal insults and diversionary arguments when you run into someone that doesn’t fall for you bullshit or corrects your persistent trolling. You are helping make all Americans look like tossers mate.
tina6581 1 year ago
@tina6581 LOL
Nice, i guess avoiding the issue is something you're good at.
jib1000 1 year ago
@jib1000 My point made mate. You head striate for the personal insults AGAIN as you know you are being called out for what you are. You’re a sad sad guy. Bye bye. Ho and I have a bet on with my mate that you will come back with some wise crack, off point or and personal crap. Don’t let me down I stand to win a tenner when you do. :-)
tina6581 1 year ago
@tina6581*straight*
jib1000 1 year ago