Hypothetically, if I create a video game, and the creations in the video game come to the conclusion that I cannot exist, because how could I live outside of the rules I created in the video game. Wouldn't the first argument require some refutation of the supernatural world that God lives in, compared to our universe and the rules of our universe that God would be created outside of?
@1tabligh look piece of shit, take a needle, make a hole with it on a wooden or concrete wall, then at a distance of 100 ft. try to place the needle in that hole by throwing it, believe me in a hundred billion years you will do it, so fuck God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and last but not least suck my big fat beautiful cock.
When people say "assuming they come from god" when referring to the thoughts that pop up in someone's head when that person prays is something called Godhead, where God is simply our "better" or "greater" self :)
Well this is because just as there would be a hole in the ground, there is nothing there but the bottom of the hole and the surrounding edges of the surface of the ground. ("We know that they exist due to the effects of their gravity wells on surrounding matter" ~FightingAtheist) Which means that there is a Nothingness involved here. Why don't you look into it for answers ; ~)
I'm not hear to fight I would just like my question answered how was life created in darkness if you can't answer this then you have given in to a belief it seems atheist have a lot in common with Christians after all and I will play by your rules so no mind made up bull shit please
@lgv...We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Ok so I think we all can agree that darkness needs no energy to exist which would mean that darkness has always existed and always will exist darkness is eternal well darkness can not create life it can't create energy which all life is made of this energy could also be called light so my question is how was life created in darkness well that would be impossible there for there would also have to be an eternal energy source which all life comes from this we call god.
Ok so I think we all can agree that darkness needs no energy to exist which would mean that darkness has always existed and always will exist darkness is eternal well darkness can not create life it can't create energy which all life is made of this energy could also be called light so my question is how was life created in darkness well that would be impossible there for there would also have to be an eternal energy source which all life comes from this we call god.
Well I'll tell u what I'll become atheist if you can answer my question. Ok so I think we all can agree that darkness needs no energy to exist which would mean that darkness has always existed and always will exist darkness is eternal well darkness can not create life it can't create energy which all life is made of this energy could also be called light so my question is how was life created in darkness well that would be impossible there for there would also have to be an eternal energy sourc
I love how when I'm reading a Youtube argument the comments always get longer and longer and the argument eventually turns into a war over who has better spelling and grammar. As if showing off your grammatical prowess will prove your point.
BOTTOM LINE: Youtube arguments are so fucking dumb. nobody cares if you have good internet grammar because you were dumb enough to get into an argument on Youtube in the first place.
By the way if you took time out to read all of this then thank you.
Prove to an atheist that God exists , If an atheist is that dumb not to realise that his existence and the whole universe existence is a proof that a creator exists , then don't waste your time with such a dumbass ! I don't need to prove that my grand gran grad grand grand grand grand grand grand mother existed cos my being here shows that she did ! Whoever asks : prove that God exists , he is actually saying that the design was just made by itself , which shows how dumm the person is ! period
Excellent video. Why can't people see the truth and evidence like some of us. I feel fortunate to be able to recognize logic and I feel sorry for those that are taken over by fear, ego and mind made up bullshit. Yahweh should have gone to the wayside years ago like Zeus and Apollo. This would be a better world if people didn't spend so much valuable time worshiping and fighting for their mind made up crap.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
in fact, God did not create this universe, or this world, the body, or anything out here. So if you're looking for "proof" of God in a universe he didn't create, you won't find it. An interesting book that serves as an introduction to this topic is "The Disappearance of the Universe," by Gary Renard. It turns out, both atheists and believers are both correct and incorrect, but not in the ways they probably think! Whatever you believe, Love and Forgiveness is the answer. Peace.
the cosmological argument is for real because obviously someone had to create everything. it is not scientifically possible for us to appear out of nothing. there must be an uncaused cause to cause all things. this thing is God. there must be something that isnt made of matter to cause all things. this is God because he is infinite
I'm a sceptic but dearie me, the debunking'v the kalam kosmolojikal argumunt here is poor. their God, by definition is non-contingent. Wurk with that, insted'v straw-gods. He is the Uncauzd Cauz etc etc.
GOD SAYS HE HAS A SON.Jesus said he's God's Son-Matthew 3:17,Mark 9:7,Psalms 2:7,Luke 9:35,Prov.8:22.DEMONS,expelled said he's Son of God-Luke 4:41.Matt.8:29, Mark3:11.Others said he's Son-John1:14,49,3:17,5:18,36,6:46,10:36,Mark15:39,Matthew 26:63,27:40. Hebrews10:29,4:14.An angel said he's Son-Luke1:35.Jehovah God is Jesus' God-John15:1,16:3,30,20:17, Matt.26:26,36-44,64,Mark15:34,Ephesians1:17.Son=Mediator-1Timothy 2:5,Heb.1:3,4,8:6,9:15,12:24, Romans1:4,8,9,Acts7:55,56.
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then where did hydrogen and hot dense particles come from, the elements that "apparently" made an accidental mistake and created the universe?
if you dont believe in God then why are you wasting your time explaining it? what the heck do you care, if we Christians are wrong, then, OK, we die, so whhy do you care?
@MegaSam777 you guys waste precious time when us agnostics and atheists are USING our time wisely either for kids, homework or play, teenagers volunteering, hanging out, socializing, DEVELOPING social skills for the adult age, Adults can GO MAKE SOME MONEY to SURVIVE on. Have some QUALITY family time rather than in a church listening to some random guy. And half the time, church goers "learn" stuff and dont even apply it. Just cuz you go to church doesnt make you any better than non believers
@derockn00 Church doesn't make you better than everyone else, yes I know that, but being a Christian doesn't met that they're better than you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are better than other people or will have a better life. So, are you saying that Christians just spend time in church, laughing to themselves about how much better they are than you, if so, I'm sorry you're getting the wrong impression.
The ontological argument was a bit off, I think. The definition of god that was given was missing one main concept. The concept that god is one who cannot be thought to not exist (St. Anselm's ontological argument). I know it sounds kinda strange when you first read it, but if god is one who cannot be thought to not exists, then the argument is flawed. The unicorn can be thought to not exist. It's the same argument as Gaunilo's Story of the lost island.
@iEnjoyTrance i'm assuming he believed the christians watching this video would understand that atheists think (well know) that god doesn't exist....so that's kind of debunked in a self-explanatory way. also, no one has ever physically seen a unicorn and no one has ever physically seen god, so how are they much different?
Some peoples silly ideas about God are silly, it hardly settles the question of whether the god idea is plausible, let alone proveable. Many theist do not believe anyone needs to prove anything about god. Most peoples ideas about god are a reflection of culture, unexamined belief, upbringing, language, etc. They say little about the idea of god. If these sorts of "proofs" sway anyone from belief in a god, then that belief wasn't much worth perserving anyway.
@hdregmore no. The contingent world exists at the moement, but it will fail to, this does not specify the need for a necessary being to be the creator, just that the world will eventually not exist. Both science and Religion state that the end of the world will become apparent, ergo, the existance of a nesessary being is not necessay.
@hdregmore contingency refers to something that has never always existed, and will cease to exist in the future. No where in the definition or application is a necessary being required. You just assume that a necessary being is required due to the contingent nature of the universe. Also, if God is omnipotent, why create the world contingently?
@peteg391 Your philosophical extrapolation of contingency in regard to God is totally illogical and very wrong. Whereas the natural universe can be said to be contingent, the basic premise of a creator is an analytic proposition. That is to say it's concept is entirely contained in the concept of it's subject. By definition God cannot be contingent for by the very definition of his characteristics he is not.
@hdregmore Your statement is deviating from arguments. As it explains in the video, Just because you provide a definition to a concept does not mean that it is true, you argue that God must be necessary because that is his characteristic, however, a unicorn has to have a horn, Does this then entail unicorns to exist? No, by defining a concept it does not define an object into existence.
@peteg391 Okay. now I realize that you are simply interested in disrespect toward religion and not knowledge. I should have known better than to attempt to correct someone who misrepresents a philosophical idea in order to prove a predetermined and bigoted outcome My fault.
@hdregmore no. I am attacking your argument, which is knowledge. You, however, attack me personally in an attempt for it to appear as if my argument loses validity. However, your argument contains a fallacy by doing this, and it cannot be taken seriously as such. Also, in correspondence towards your original statement, how am i disrespecting religion? I have not done anything of the sort, but basically attempted to show you that contingency is not in direct relation to a necessary being
@peteg391 It's okay now, I now know your intent. It has nothing to do with arguments or validity. You obviously only deal in disingenuous deceit. The "unicorn " nonsense displayed your hand. It is a strawman only used by atheists who wish to belittle religious opponents. My fault, I thought you were genuinely posting and not just attempting to justify your hatred.
@hdregmore my intent is solely to criticize your fallible argument, not to attack religion in general. The unicorn argument is not a straw-man, but an illustration to the same effect that you use it to explain the existence of God, the point that i make remains perfectly valid without the use of the unicorn, however i felt that it would emphasize my point. It is in no way a straw-man argument. I have no need to justify my hatred as i do not hate God nor religion, ergo, your statement fails!
Why do atheists insist on using mans laws to prove everything. At that point for me this video has already failed. Man is an imperfect being, there is absolutely nothing else to say. Unless all of mans thoughts, actions, behaviors were perfect I wouldn't trust their theologies on God.
relative time, when we cant even observe the thing it focuses on-the universe. My point is, how can you put your trust in laws of science that sum up the governing rules and nature of something that you literally cannot examine completely 100%
science is never truly fact, it is fact based on what technology has allowed us to observe. Furthermore, we have not seen the entire universe. We have not seen the end of it, we don't know even if there IS an end to it, so we cant KNOW that the universe is all energy. That was something postulated by a scientist in our
here is an idea and please try to understand that Iam not out to prove the existence of god or not, it is impossible, and ill tell you whhy. These laws you use to "disprove God" were created by humans, in the time of humans. That being said, it is very likely that the laws are flawed. There was a period in science for hundreds of years that we swore the galaxy was a geocentric one. Then it was proven otherwise. So the room for error as far as science goes is large, because
The missing link argument is useless and does not debunk science. For every transitional species found showing evolution for example, creationists claim there is now two missing links instead of the one that the fossil proved existed. Its just a pathetic method of trying to find gaps in the science and exploit it for an irrational train of thought. Science is forever changing and being built on new findings, but the findings are real and can be tested, unlike religious mythology...
Okkay thats a good argument so tell why is it that every science has a missing link and another thing you say we spend our whole life believing some thing that isn't real and you spend your whole life at a computer desk searching for answers no one gives a fuck about and you say energy is has to come which is bull energy is always constant or we wouldent have a universe at all I could go on but you need to do better research Desk Jockey
1:52 Energy can't be created or destroyed, so... where did it come from?
This whole cyclical debate about the existence of something is asinine.
"God" is nothing more than a moral compass created by us which keeps you and I from going out doing whatever we want. We can't figure out what God is because we're too busy changing the definition every millisecond to fit our arguments.
Those who think he is right got less IQ than him,Einstein said.I see a pattern,but my imagination cant picture the maker of the pattern.I see a clock,but i cant vision the clock maker. Human mind is unable to conceive of the 4 dimensions.so how can it conceive of a God,before whom a 1000years and a 1000 dimensions are 1. Muhammad pbuh said.Presence of dung is proof a camel was here.Foot prints in sand is proof a person was here. Evidence of Universe is proof some1 has placed them there
This video uses a lot of bad assumptions. Just because our universe has energy, and energy can't be created nor destroyed, doesn't mean this law of physics exists OUTSIDE the universe.
The biggest mistake atheists make are assuming that God would be bound by the same laws of physics. He created the laws of physics which is why the universe is the way it is. You will NEVER be able to explain where these laws came from. Why? Because you/we/the universe are bound by these laws. God isn't.
@me8321 No, actually it doesn't. Our minds can only think in the realm of "our" physics. Our universe and laws of physics has the concept of creation (and cause/effect). It could very well be that OUTSIDE these laws there isn't such a thing. God is something we can't fathom. I'm just trying to point out that science will NEVER be able to prove OR disprove that God exists.
@dfortae if something cant be proven isn't it just a theory since god is non existent that would make him a theory and if "god" is out side the laws of physics that just means he does not exist because everything you see or hear has to be some how seen or heard unless its not real... I just want to also (not anything to do with this) point out that when Jesus "rose from the death" no one recognized him... that could be because he did not rise from the dead -.-
@me8321 No, everything does NOT have to be seen or heard to be "real". Are you saying gravity doesn't exist? It can't be seen or heard. You can only witness its influence. There are countless examples (numbers, ideas, concepts, radio waves, etc). It's funny to me that no scientist will argue gravity doesn't exist but will argue God doesn't when where do they think the law came from? Do they think it was always there? Science fails because it is bound by the laws. Once again, God isn't.
@dfortae thats why i put in brackets that it has nothing to do with this idiot -.- and two i dont this video actually speaks for everyone with a brain that can accept that everything has a reason for anything to happen
if humans have to belive in god why dont god just show himself? im sure if he is perfect in every way he could do anything like ummmm show himself? then the whole world would have proof and stop wars based on religions and make a peaceful world? maybe he just wants the wars to continue on maybe he dosent have the actual power to show himself?
why would god create a eternal punishment for non belivers? does he expect us just to belive he exists, maybe if he told us to belive we would belive and not be punished for something we didnt know .... maybe if he created human beings to naturaly belive in him we wouldnt have to be punished after death? soo we get punished for not knowing what to belive in all because he didnt create us that way or hes just simply evil and wants us to suffer?
@thatamazinggeek Yeah can you please make the connection between intelligence and ability to spell.
I fail to see the connection.
And what sort of Delusion do i suffer from? the fact that i know the Origin of this finite universe was infinite and all powerfull obviously if all power originated from that source.
I have doubt that you actually know Allah, because if you did, you would love him so much for giving you life and giving you an eazy chance to have eternal paradise, and at the same time fear his power.
If you love Allah and Fear him, then you are a true believer and are ready to Accept Islam
I CAN SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLY PROVE THE EXSISTANCE OF GOD!
anyone who deny's my clame message me and i will send it to you.
I HAVE SENT THIS TO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, non of wich have been able to debunk it or find a scientfic flaw in it. Its not that Thousands have failed, its that thousands have relized the truth some of them humble themselves about how simple and true it is, others keep silent and wait for someone else to try to debunk it.
@Nickspasic I can prove that Allah isn't God (or for that matter, neither is Jesus, Thor, Ra, Zeus, Apollo, et al).
You see, if you were NEVER TAUGHT about him, you would have no idea he even existed- END OF DISCUSSION! Now, in this state where you haven't been corrupted, because you can't explain the world around you, you might therefore MAKE UP your own God to explain what you can't, but in a MILLION years you'd never come up with the name Allah and the teachings that come with it....
With all due respect this is the worst video I've ever seen on this subject & the worst "arguments" I've ever seen for the "non existence" of God!
Energy cannot be created? You have no idea about physics then, since it is the atheist position that the initial energy of the Universe simply "popped into existence out of nowhere" (along with ALL the laws AND constants of the universe) - purely by chance & out of NOTHING!
How Do You Explain This??? The People That Have Been To Heck??? Do You Really Think They Were Lieng?!?!?! How Do You Explain Demons??? And What About People That Outta Know Where Start To fell Better When theyre Close To Dieng Point My Moms Friend Lived After She Jumped Off Of A Bridge It Was God!!! Explain Where We Go When Were Dead?
people just want to believe in god they actually dont plus if he doesnt have a creator why should time and space have one plus he cant be almighty because he has to do bad for that and why does he let bad things happen
@srkkroh11 Yeah, yeah, yeah, just like the rest of them--trying to scare us into religion. Real mature. It's just like when parents tell their kids that if they don't behave that they'll be on Santa's naughty list. Jesus is Santa Claus. What you call "GOD" is not a person. God is the energy that caused the big bang which made our universe inside the multi-verse. Hell is not real. Besides why are you watching this, shouldn't you be holding up hateful signs at some soldiers funeral or something.
Saying god is contingent is flawed as he is the one who created the universe meaning that he was outside and so not being subjected to the laws of time which he created. Energy cant be created nor destroyed but this has only happened once the universe was created before then even energy didnt exist.
@binaryblade2 Its pathetic that you don't understand what i wrote. Im afraid if you cant understand something like that you may find difficulty understanding this. The law i quoted was not an attempt to prove his existence. The laws of time and energy are true we know they exit but the did not exist before the big bang. What i am saying is that contingent things are onl in the universe and we know this to be the case as everything came from the big bang.
@elmohunter Perhaps it is like this....if God does exist as a perfect being who created everything and is capable of doing anything, then is it not possible that the true origins of his creation and existence are beyond the understanding of the human logic? If God exists and can do anything, and knows everything....than how can we,as beings who cannot ever be able to relate to such characteristics, ever get to the bottom of this debate?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@elmohunter Another thing, god doesnt need to obey the laws as he created them. If he is outside the universe in which he created the laws to govern they obviously wouldnt affect him. A common misconception is the people think theists believe that god was somehow in the universe and then created the laws or was inthe universe before the big bang. Both are wrong as the universe didn't exist before he created it ie the big bang.
@elmohunter Good point....like these laws that aithiests use to disprove God were created by humans, who, if God DOES exist, cannot possibly over rule the reality that god has created with pure speculation and observtory scientific "laws."
Respond to this video... Like, we understand everything in the cosmos as being "energy". NOONE has ever seen the entire universe, so how can that be known without room for error. The evidence for atheism is based purley on human understanding of the universe, which has existed long before humans, and expands farther than anyonehas ever come close, so both arguments are invalid. Stop trying to prove the existence/unexistence of God, and live your life.
@deth2uall9277 Err...one slight cause for concern for this type of argument. This can be applied to anything else that we can come up with.
For example, animals that can rapidly increase and decrease their size, from several hundred feet high to the size of an thimble. From what we understand about biology, the transferance of heat, physics, etc., this would be impossible. Yet, we do not have the capability of checking every inch of the universe to confirm if they do or do not exist.
Based on this reasoning, even things that would be understood to be impossible or improbable, like the animals I mentioned before, could still possibly exist.
Not to be a Doubting Thomas, but this just open the door to just about ANYTHING that we can come up with, regardless of any limitations or how ridiculous the idea, and still be right in saying that they "could" exist.
Hypothetically, if I create a video game, and the creations in the video game come to the conclusion that I cannot exist, because how could I live outside of the rules I created in the video game. Wouldn't the first argument require some refutation of the supernatural world that God lives in, compared to our universe and the rules of our universe that God would be created outside of?
kstultz0 4 hours ago
If God doesn't exist, then why is He real?
sorrow128 4 days ago
Heheheheh
alqammd 5 days ago
Religion in general is only for controlling the dumb masses...
HyperGolem 1 week ago
@1tabligh look piece of shit, take a needle, make a hole with it on a wooden or concrete wall, then at a distance of 100 ft. try to place the needle in that hole by throwing it, believe me in a hundred billion years you will do it, so fuck God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and last but not least suck my big fat beautiful cock.
lgvmd 1 week ago
god exists because of man.
dkthg 2 weeks ago
When people say "assuming they come from god" when referring to the thoughts that pop up in someone's head when that person prays is something called Godhead, where God is simply our "better" or "greater" self :)
9288Savior 2 weeks ago
Well this is because just as there would be a hole in the ground, there is nothing there but the bottom of the hole and the surrounding edges of the surface of the ground. ("We know that they exist due to the effects of their gravity wells on surrounding matter" ~FightingAtheist) Which means that there is a Nothingness involved here. Why don't you look into it for answers ; ~)
9288Savior 2 weeks ago
If God does not exist then we would sees to exist.
Check this
youtube.com/watch?v=Dm179PgQOwo
shanwan321 3 weeks ago
I'm not hear to fight I would just like my question answered how was life created in darkness if you can't answer this then you have given in to a belief it seems atheist have a lot in common with Christians after all and I will play by your rules so no mind made up bull shit please
nufanify 3 weeks ago
My dick is hard
lgvmd 4 weeks ago
The universe took billions of years to exist, is just a struck of luck.
lgvmd 4 weeks ago
Only an asshole believes in God
lgvmd 4 weeks ago
@lgvmd how the fuck is that
mcdudly00 4 weeks ago
@lgv...We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lgvmd The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok so I think we all can agree that darkness needs no energy to exist which would mean that darkness has always existed and always will exist darkness is eternal well darkness can not create life it can't create energy which all life is made of this energy could also be called light so my question is how was life created in darkness well that would be impossible there for there would also have to be an eternal energy source which all life comes from this we call god.
nufanify 1 month ago
Ok so I think we all can agree that darkness needs no energy to exist which would mean that darkness has always existed and always will exist darkness is eternal well darkness can not create life it can't create energy which all life is made of this energy could also be called light so my question is how was life created in darkness well that would be impossible there for there would also have to be an eternal energy source which all life comes from this we call god.
nufanify 1 month ago
Well I'll tell u what I'll become atheist if you can answer my question. Ok so I think we all can agree that darkness needs no energy to exist which would mean that darkness has always existed and always will exist darkness is eternal well darkness can not create life it can't create energy which all life is made of this energy could also be called light so my question is how was life created in darkness well that would be impossible there for there would also have to be an eternal energy sourc
nufanify 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how when I'm reading a Youtube argument the comments always get longer and longer and the argument eventually turns into a war over who has better spelling and grammar. As if showing off your grammatical prowess will prove your point.
BOTTOM LINE: Youtube arguments are so fucking dumb. nobody cares if you have good internet grammar because you were dumb enough to get into an argument on Youtube in the first place.
By the way if you took time out to read all of this then thank you.
iPhapxlol 1 month ago
Prove to an atheist that God exists , If an atheist is that dumb not to realise that his existence and the whole universe existence is a proof that a creator exists , then don't waste your time with such a dumbass ! I don't need to prove that my grand gran grad grand grand grand grand grand grand mother existed cos my being here shows that she did ! Whoever asks : prove that God exists , he is actually saying that the design was just made by itself , which shows how dumm the person is ! period
MrCobra811 1 month ago
Best thing I've seen in a while *favorited*
amers963 1 month ago
Excellent video. Why can't people see the truth and evidence like some of us. I feel fortunate to be able to recognize logic and I feel sorry for those that are taken over by fear, ego and mind made up bullshit. Yahweh should have gone to the wayside years ago like Zeus and Apollo. This would be a better world if people didn't spend so much valuable time worshiping and fighting for their mind made up crap.
baxtar2012 2 months ago
lol, nicely done and subbed.
kalsolarUK 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 3 months ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 months ago
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 3 months ago
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 3 months ago
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
in fact, God did not create this universe, or this world, the body, or anything out here. So if you're looking for "proof" of God in a universe he didn't create, you won't find it. An interesting book that serves as an introduction to this topic is "The Disappearance of the Universe," by Gary Renard. It turns out, both atheists and believers are both correct and incorrect, but not in the ways they probably think! Whatever you believe, Love and Forgiveness is the answer. Peace.
beanbow32 3 months ago
Here's another way to debunk the ontological argument using their logic against them:
1. God is perfect.
2. God created everything.
3. Doing an act while simultaneously not existing is more perfect than doing so while existing.
4. Therefore, God had to create the universe without existing (Aka God doesn't exist).
YetAnotherInfidel 3 months ago
Jesus warned me about people like you.
slinknc007 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want evidence that God exists, or are interested in 9/11 search Jonathan Cahn 1 - Harbinger the Warning, on youtube here.
IwillhonorGod 4 months ago
the cosmological argument is for real because obviously someone had to create everything. it is not scientifically possible for us to appear out of nothing. there must be an uncaused cause to cause all things. this thing is God. there must be something that isnt made of matter to cause all things. this is God because he is infinite
iranintoadoor123 4 months ago
If nature is so intelligent, I am sure my bicycle will become Ferrari one day.
blueskyblackthunder 4 months ago
I'm a sceptic but dearie me, the debunking'v the kalam kosmolojikal argumunt here is poor. their God, by definition is non-contingent. Wurk with that, insted'v straw-gods. He is the Uncauzd Cauz etc etc.
adamseeb1 5 months ago
Proof god dont exist!
If god really exist he would kill you guys before doing this booring video, but here we are watching this stupid crap.
WhoIsMaik 6 months ago 4
RELIGION DEBUNKED
GingerPretzel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD SAYS HE HAS A SON.Jesus said he's God's Son-Matthew 3:17,Mark 9:7,Psalms 2:7,Luke 9:35,Prov.8:22.DEMONS,expelled said he's Son of God-Luke 4:41.Matt.8:29, Mark3:11.Others said he's Son-John1:14,49,3:17,5:18,36,6:46,10:36,Mark15:39,Matthew 26:63,27:40. Hebrews10:29,4:14.An angel said he's Son-Luke1:35.Jehovah God is Jesus' God-John15:1,16:3,30,20:17, Matt.26:26,36-44,64,Mark15:34,Ephesians1:17.Son=Mediator-1Timothy 2:5,Heb.1:3,4,8:6,9:15,12:24, Romans1:4,8,9,Acts7:55,56.
eternityandforever 6 months ago
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then where did hydrogen and hot dense particles come from, the elements that "apparently" made an accidental mistake and created the universe?
MegaSam777 6 months ago
so... isn't this simply agumentum ad logicam?
leemate123 7 months ago
if you dont believe in God then why are you wasting your time explaining it? what the heck do you care, if we Christians are wrong, then, OK, we die, so whhy do you care?
MegaSam777 7 months ago
@MegaSam777 you guys waste precious time when us agnostics and atheists are USING our time wisely either for kids, homework or play, teenagers volunteering, hanging out, socializing, DEVELOPING social skills for the adult age, Adults can GO MAKE SOME MONEY to SURVIVE on. Have some QUALITY family time rather than in a church listening to some random guy. And half the time, church goers "learn" stuff and dont even apply it. Just cuz you go to church doesnt make you any better than non believers
derockn00 6 months ago
@derockn00 Church doesn't make you better than everyone else, yes I know that, but being a Christian doesn't met that they're better than you. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are better than other people or will have a better life. So, are you saying that Christians just spend time in church, laughing to themselves about how much better they are than you, if so, I'm sorry you're getting the wrong impression.
MegaSam777 6 months ago
@MegaSam777 ive visited my cousins church and thats pretty much what they do
derockn00 6 months ago
@derockn00 you have the wrong impression and you've only seen one or two sides of it, thats not what they're about
MegaSam777 6 months ago
God is a lie.
HailinJune 7 months ago 19
@HailinJune BUT THE CAKE IS REAL RIGHT????
heroesandcons09 1 month ago
@LaffyMcJones Thank you, finally someone who gets it.
TooManyQuestions15 7 months ago
The ontological argument was a bit off, I think. The definition of god that was given was missing one main concept. The concept that god is one who cannot be thought to not exist (St. Anselm's ontological argument). I know it sounds kinda strange when you first read it, but if god is one who cannot be thought to not exists, then the argument is flawed. The unicorn can be thought to not exist. It's the same argument as Gaunilo's Story of the lost island.
I still don't buy it, just adding facts.
iEnjoyTrance 7 months ago
@iEnjoyTrance i'm assuming he believed the christians watching this video would understand that atheists think (well know) that god doesn't exist....so that's kind of debunked in a self-explanatory way. also, no one has ever physically seen a unicorn and no one has ever physically seen god, so how are they much different?
thestarfish6393 5 months ago
before anything else, got a question for ya..., What's your point in proving that God does not exist? What's in it for you?
johnizack07 7 months ago
Some peoples silly ideas about God are silly, it hardly settles the question of whether the god idea is plausible, let alone proveable. Many theist do not believe anyone needs to prove anything about god. Most peoples ideas about god are a reflection of culture, unexamined belief, upbringing, language, etc. They say little about the idea of god. If these sorts of "proofs" sway anyone from belief in a god, then that belief wasn't much worth perserving anyway.
archiecat707 7 months ago
4:44
I saw it a long time ago. What's that series called?
DarkZerkerX 8 months ago
you know whati say "NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE" for the moment i am atheist but like i said nothing is impossible somewhere its possible that he is real
AdvocateofOdin 8 months ago
You have twisted the idea of contingency. It is used to prove that God exists outside these laws.
The physical universe is made up of contingent parts
Since these contingent parts will eventually fail to exist, given enough time the universe as a whole should fail to exist.
The physical universe exists.
Thus, something non contingent exists which created the physical (and contingent) universe. We will call this non contingent being God.
So you simply misunderstand the premise.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore no. The contingent world exists at the moement, but it will fail to, this does not specify the need for a necessary being to be the creator, just that the world will eventually not exist. Both science and Religion state that the end of the world will become apparent, ergo, the existance of a nesessary being is not necessay.
peteg391 8 months ago
@peteg391 What rubbish.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore explain how.
peteg391 8 months ago
@peteg391 I have.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore No not really, by explaining your flawed argument to start with is by no means explaining why my rebuttal is "rubbish."
peteg391 8 months ago
@peteg391 What about your "flawed" idea of contingency? That in itself is argument enough to warrant your video as being nothing more than rubbish.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore contingency refers to something that has never always existed, and will cease to exist in the future. No where in the definition or application is a necessary being required. You just assume that a necessary being is required due to the contingent nature of the universe. Also, if God is omnipotent, why create the world contingently?
peteg391 8 months ago
@peteg391 Your philosophical extrapolation of contingency in regard to God is totally illogical and very wrong. Whereas the natural universe can be said to be contingent, the basic premise of a creator is an analytic proposition. That is to say it's concept is entirely contained in the concept of it's subject. By definition God cannot be contingent for by the very definition of his characteristics he is not.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore Your statement is deviating from arguments. As it explains in the video, Just because you provide a definition to a concept does not mean that it is true, you argue that God must be necessary because that is his characteristic, however, a unicorn has to have a horn, Does this then entail unicorns to exist? No, by defining a concept it does not define an object into existence.
peteg391 8 months ago
@peteg391 Okay. now I realize that you are simply interested in disrespect toward religion and not knowledge. I should have known better than to attempt to correct someone who misrepresents a philosophical idea in order to prove a predetermined and bigoted outcome My fault.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore no. I am attacking your argument, which is knowledge. You, however, attack me personally in an attempt for it to appear as if my argument loses validity. However, your argument contains a fallacy by doing this, and it cannot be taken seriously as such. Also, in correspondence towards your original statement, how am i disrespecting religion? I have not done anything of the sort, but basically attempted to show you that contingency is not in direct relation to a necessary being
peteg391 8 months ago
@peteg391 It's okay now, I now know your intent. It has nothing to do with arguments or validity. You obviously only deal in disingenuous deceit. The "unicorn " nonsense displayed your hand. It is a strawman only used by atheists who wish to belittle religious opponents. My fault, I thought you were genuinely posting and not just attempting to justify your hatred.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore my intent is solely to criticize your fallible argument, not to attack religion in general. The unicorn argument is not a straw-man, but an illustration to the same effect that you use it to explain the existence of God, the point that i make remains perfectly valid without the use of the unicorn, however i felt that it would emphasize my point. It is in no way a straw-man argument. I have no need to justify my hatred as i do not hate God nor religion, ergo, your statement fails!
peteg391 8 months ago
@peteg391 Whatever. As soon as disrespect is thrown, logic and comprehension is destroyed. I'm done here.
hdregmore 8 months ago
@hdregmore please, point where i have disrespected anything or anyone...
peteg391 8 months ago
so we just die and thats the end it can't be there has to be something else
Krincify 8 months ago
lol existing is more perfect than not existing? lmao
'perfect' is subjective and relative
GodsArePeopleToo 8 months ago
Why do atheists insist on using mans laws to prove everything. At that point for me this video has already failed. Man is an imperfect being, there is absolutely nothing else to say. Unless all of mans thoughts, actions, behaviors were perfect I wouldn't trust their theologies on God.
chica0616 8 months ago
@chica0616 but is God perfect?
peteg391 8 months ago
relative time, when we cant even observe the thing it focuses on-the universe. My point is, how can you put your trust in laws of science that sum up the governing rules and nature of something that you literally cannot examine completely 100%
deth2uall9277 8 months ago
science is never truly fact, it is fact based on what technology has allowed us to observe. Furthermore, we have not seen the entire universe. We have not seen the end of it, we don't know even if there IS an end to it, so we cant KNOW that the universe is all energy. That was something postulated by a scientist in our
deth2uall9277 8 months ago
here is an idea and please try to understand that Iam not out to prove the existence of god or not, it is impossible, and ill tell you whhy. These laws you use to "disprove God" were created by humans, in the time of humans. That being said, it is very likely that the laws are flawed. There was a period in science for hundreds of years that we swore the galaxy was a geocentric one. Then it was proven otherwise. So the room for error as far as science goes is large, because
deth2uall9277 8 months ago
God is amazing, I have never felt so much peace before I met Him.
pink8e 8 months ago
Do you want to find out if there's really a god? Kill yourself and the answer is yours.
abortion4life666 8 months ago 2
@abortion4life666 You are horrible.
HailinJune 7 months ago
Haha this is a funny video. If only the opening argument from the atheist guy actually held any water.
3SpaceCadet 8 months ago
"the man created the god to explain his own creation"
that should be on the first page of the bible
super0spore0fan 9 months ago
Damn, youre good...
NOSYPOWER 9 months ago
Great Video XD
holydoom101 9 months ago
Win!
chick3n81 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
answer:
en.fgulen.com/questions-and-answers/1114-does-god-exist
in 23 world languages
realinformation71 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this will help you,
en.fgulen.com/questions-and-answers/1114-does-god-exist
in 23 world languages
you will really see great articles,
realinformation71 9 months ago
@eggstakks
The missing link argument is useless and does not debunk science. For every transitional species found showing evolution for example, creationists claim there is now two missing links instead of the one that the fossil proved existed. Its just a pathetic method of trying to find gaps in the science and exploit it for an irrational train of thought. Science is forever changing and being built on new findings, but the findings are real and can be tested, unlike religious mythology...
Theotherguy630 9 months ago
Okkay thats a good argument so tell why is it that every science has a missing link and another thing you say we spend our whole life believing some thing that isn't real and you spend your whole life at a computer desk searching for answers no one gives a fuck about and you say energy is has to come which is bull energy is always constant or we wouldent have a universe at all I could go on but you need to do better research Desk Jockey
EGSTKS™
EgGStaKks 9 months ago
1:52 Energy can't be created or destroyed, so... where did it come from?
This whole cyclical debate about the existence of something is asinine.
"God" is nothing more than a moral compass created by us which keeps you and I from going out doing whatever we want. We can't figure out what God is because we're too busy changing the definition every millisecond to fit our arguments.
LaffyMcJones 10 months ago 12
@LaffyMcJones you have a very GOOD point there, even though im an atheist. good comment
pepperparis123 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Those who think he is right got less IQ than him,Einstein said.I see a pattern,but my imagination cant picture the maker of the pattern.I see a clock,but i cant vision the clock maker. Human mind is unable to conceive of the 4 dimensions.so how can it conceive of a God,before whom a 1000years and a 1000 dimensions are 1. Muhammad pbuh said.Presence of dung is proof a camel was here.Foot prints in sand is proof a person was here. Evidence of Universe is proof some1 has placed them there
kd1ize 3 months ago
its sad that christans would belive a book made by sad desert people how can someone just go and say a baby was born and hes magical
robloxrocksful 10 months ago
No god.....
soraya692 10 months ago
@soraya692 OH RLLY? xddd
me8321 10 months ago
This video uses a lot of bad assumptions. Just because our universe has energy, and energy can't be created nor destroyed, doesn't mean this law of physics exists OUTSIDE the universe.
The biggest mistake atheists make are assuming that God would be bound by the same laws of physics. He created the laws of physics which is why the universe is the way it is. You will NEVER be able to explain where these laws came from. Why? Because you/we/the universe are bound by these laws. God isn't.
dfortae 10 months ago
@dfortae If god created the laws of physics that would mean something would of had to create him in the first place
me8321 10 months ago
@me8321 No, actually it doesn't. Our minds can only think in the realm of "our" physics. Our universe and laws of physics has the concept of creation (and cause/effect). It could very well be that OUTSIDE these laws there isn't such a thing. God is something we can't fathom. I'm just trying to point out that science will NEVER be able to prove OR disprove that God exists.
dfortae 10 months ago
@dfortae if something cant be proven isn't it just a theory since god is non existent that would make him a theory and if "god" is out side the laws of physics that just means he does not exist because everything you see or hear has to be some how seen or heard unless its not real... I just want to also (not anything to do with this) point out that when Jesus "rose from the death" no one recognized him... that could be because he did not rise from the dead -.-
me8321 10 months ago
@me8321 No, everything does NOT have to be seen or heard to be "real". Are you saying gravity doesn't exist? It can't be seen or heard. You can only witness its influence. There are countless examples (numbers, ideas, concepts, radio waves, etc). It's funny to me that no scientist will argue gravity doesn't exist but will argue God doesn't when where do they think the law came from? Do they think it was always there? Science fails because it is bound by the laws. Once again, God isn't.
dfortae 10 months ago
@me8321 Also, bringing in Jesus just distracts from our conversation. We're talking about God here no need for tangents. Religion does not equal God.
dfortae 10 months ago
@dfortae thats why i put in brackets that it has nothing to do with this idiot -.- and two i dont this video actually speaks for everyone with a brain that can accept that everything has a reason for anything to happen
me8321 10 months ago
if humans have to belive in god why dont god just show himself? im sure if he is perfect in every way he could do anything like ummmm show himself? then the whole world would have proof and stop wars based on religions and make a peaceful world? maybe he just wants the wars to continue on maybe he dosent have the actual power to show himself?
DrippyFanny 10 months ago
why would god create a eternal punishment for non belivers? does he expect us just to belive he exists, maybe if he told us to belive we would belive and not be punished for something we didnt know .... maybe if he created human beings to naturaly belive in him we wouldnt have to be punished after death? soo we get punished for not knowing what to belive in all because he didnt create us that way or hes just simply evil and wants us to suffer?
DrippyFanny 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek No but thats just how i write sometimes especially when its a significant word to make sure understanding sinks in.
Nickspasic 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek How so?
Its not my fault that i have a clear understanding of God, thanks to God's Guidence on me.
peace.
Nickspasic 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek I would pass with 90% like every other test ive done since accepting Islam
Nickspasic 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek Yeah can you please make the connection between intelligence and ability to spell.
I fail to see the connection.
And what sort of Delusion do i suffer from? the fact that i know the Origin of this finite universe was infinite and all powerfull obviously if all power originated from that source.
Can you please extrapolate.
Nickspasic 10 months ago
@alvinromanu Yes brother.
I have doubt that you actually know Allah, because if you did, you would love him so much for giving you life and giving you an eazy chance to have eternal paradise, and at the same time fear his power.
If you love Allah and Fear him, then you are a true believer and are ready to Accept Islam
peace brother.
Nickspasic 10 months ago
@alvinromanu Ok i will send it too you as well.
I hope you enjoy reading it!
peace.
Nickspasic 10 months ago
@Nickspasic send me the proof
kbawesome101 10 months ago
I CAN SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLY PROVE THE EXSISTANCE OF GOD!
anyone who deny's my clame message me and i will send it to you.
I HAVE SENT THIS TO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, non of wich have been able to debunk it or find a scientfic flaw in it. Its not that Thousands have failed, its that thousands have relized the truth some of them humble themselves about how simple and true it is, others keep silent and wait for someone else to try to debunk it.
This is my challenge for a true Athiest.
Nickspasic 10 months ago
@Nickspasic lol
Aslapacrosstheface 10 months ago
@Aslapacrosstheface ok i sent it to you since you find my clame funny.
Nickspasic 10 months ago
@Nickspasic Please send me your proof, i want to read it.
xsart28 10 months ago
@xsart28 Yes brother Allah has inspired you to ask for the proof for a reason, so inshallah you will read it with understanding.
Nickspasic 10 months ago
@Nickspasic I can prove that Allah isn't God (or for that matter, neither is Jesus, Thor, Ra, Zeus, Apollo, et al).
You see, if you were NEVER TAUGHT about him, you would have no idea he even existed- END OF DISCUSSION! Now, in this state where you haven't been corrupted, because you can't explain the world around you, you might therefore MAKE UP your own God to explain what you can't, but in a MILLION years you'd never come up with the name Allah and the teachings that come with it....
augustmoon0004 10 months ago
@augustmoon0004 Allah means God, it's not a specific God.
Indigo656 8 months ago
Ugh, St Anselm and the Ontological argument came screaming back to me whilst watching this... worst couple weeks of Philosophy class last year!
Bh4viSB27 11 months ago
BTW, with regards to your argument about "life"
It depends what you refer to as "life".
You should have asked yourself first, if you believe you exist. YOU that is, not your physical body.
Peace!
KTK401 11 months ago
With all due respect this is the worst video I've ever seen on this subject & the worst "arguments" I've ever seen for the "non existence" of God!
Energy cannot be created? You have no idea about physics then, since it is the atheist position that the initial energy of the Universe simply "popped into existence out of nowhere" (along with ALL the laws AND constants of the universe) - purely by chance & out of NOTHING!
Yeah, stupid...
You so called argument actually supports theism!
Peace!
KTK401 11 months ago
How Do You Explain This??? The People That Have Been To Heck??? Do You Really Think They Were Lieng?!?!?! How Do You Explain Demons??? And What About People That Outta Know Where Start To fell Better When theyre Close To Dieng Point My Moms Friend Lived After She Jumped Off Of A Bridge It Was God!!! Explain Where We Go When Were Dead?
Par6isL0v3Bi3b3r 11 months ago
The link for the evolution of the eye is broken.
misterstarwars 11 months ago
god decides who's turn to die god's the main character atheism maybe not such an such but it's not about them"
esara6 11 months ago
Are you God?
esara6 11 months ago
God still loves you!
epikCSA 11 months ago
Bad things happen as aresult of ree will that he has given us. No othe rliving being has this.
elmohunter 11 months ago
people just want to believe in god they actually dont plus if he doesnt have a creator why should time and space have one plus he cant be almighty because he has to do bad for that and why does he let bad things happen
TheKillingducks 11 months ago
Never heard anyone use the ontological argument. If I did I would probably beat the shit out of them
Iconoclast792 11 months ago
so you deny god.remember the hell can wait you on eternal
srkkroh11 11 months ago
@srkkroh11 Yeah, yeah, yeah, just like the rest of them--trying to scare us into religion. Real mature. It's just like when parents tell their kids that if they don't behave that they'll be on Santa's naughty list. Jesus is Santa Claus. What you call "GOD" is not a person. God is the energy that caused the big bang which made our universe inside the multi-verse. Hell is not real. Besides why are you watching this, shouldn't you be holding up hateful signs at some soldiers funeral or something.
CharmedCosmicGem78 11 months ago
Saying god is contingent is flawed as he is the one who created the universe meaning that he was outside and so not being subjected to the laws of time which he created. Energy cant be created nor destroyed but this has only happened once the universe was created before then even energy didnt exist.
elmohunter 11 months ago
@elmohunter So god doesn't obey the laws, and then you quote a law in an attempt to prove him. Thats pretty pathetic.
binaryblade2 11 months ago
@binaryblade2 Its pathetic that you don't understand what i wrote. Im afraid if you cant understand something like that you may find difficulty understanding this. The law i quoted was not an attempt to prove his existence. The laws of time and energy are true we know they exit but the did not exist before the big bang. What i am saying is that contingent things are onl in the universe and we know this to be the case as everything came from the big bang.
elmohunter 11 months ago
@elmohunter Perhaps it is like this....if God does exist as a perfect being who created everything and is capable of doing anything, then is it not possible that the true origins of his creation and existence are beyond the understanding of the human logic? If God exists and can do anything, and knows everything....than how can we,as beings who cannot ever be able to relate to such characteristics, ever get to the bottom of this debate?
deth2uall9277 8 months ago
@deth2uall9277 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 8 months ago
@elmohunter Another thing, god doesnt need to obey the laws as he created them. If he is outside the universe in which he created the laws to govern they obviously wouldnt affect him. A common misconception is the people think theists believe that god was somehow in the universe and then created the laws or was inthe universe before the big bang. Both are wrong as the universe didn't exist before he created it ie the big bang.
elmohunter 11 months ago
@elmohunter Good point....like these laws that aithiests use to disprove God were created by humans, who, if God DOES exist, cannot possibly over rule the reality that god has created with pure speculation and observtory scientific "laws."
deth2uall9277 8 months ago
Respond to this video... Like, we understand everything in the cosmos as being "energy". NOONE has ever seen the entire universe, so how can that be known without room for error. The evidence for atheism is based purley on human understanding of the universe, which has existed long before humans, and expands farther than anyonehas ever come close, so both arguments are invalid. Stop trying to prove the existence/unexistence of God, and live your life.
deth2uall9277 8 months ago
@deth2uall9277 Err...one slight cause for concern for this type of argument. This can be applied to anything else that we can come up with.
For example, animals that can rapidly increase and decrease their size, from several hundred feet high to the size of an thimble. From what we understand about biology, the transferance of heat, physics, etc., this would be impossible. Yet, we do not have the capability of checking every inch of the universe to confirm if they do or do not exist.
cont
RadicalDreamer2121 8 months ago
@deth2uall9277 cont...
Based on this reasoning, even things that would be understood to be impossible or improbable, like the animals I mentioned before, could still possibly exist.
Not to be a Doubting Thomas, but this just open the door to just about ANYTHING that we can come up with, regardless of any limitations or how ridiculous the idea, and still be right in saying that they "could" exist.
RadicalDreamer2121 8 months ago
@alvinromanu we will have to find out :-)
scanme214 11 months ago
I would suggest arguing against the thing you have issue with which is obviously religion I share your distaste for such delusion.
If we are honest we readily admit one cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.
TheArcaneSanctum 11 months ago