One quick question from an Atheist here. Perhaps there is a god, I can't fully disprove it. However, any intelligent person would know that there are multiple creationism believes among all religions of the world and even between sects of Christianity. If there happen to be a God, then only one answer could be correct, there can't be multiple reasons for how the universe came to be. Therefore, 99% of the worlds religions MUST be wrong. By theory, most if not all of Christianity is thus wrong.
TheGreatConfuter,this is deliberately fraudulent and deep down you know it.The biggest fraud is making people believe it's all about the big bang theory.Yes,a bang,this is the real point.have you ever heard about"supernovas"?Or about stars colliding?about comets crashing on planets,or about asteroids.Fairies?vampires?leprechauns?spirits?Just the fruit of the imagination of religious minds.We were taught about this since our birth....really poor,now i know it.
@SouthernBeast666 You put Supernovas and Asteroids in the same category as Fairies and Vampires? Oh dear Mr Beast, you're really not helping your side of the debate are you?
@agentfarnsworth clearly,i'm not putting supernovas and asteroid in the same category as fairies and vampires.Fairies and vampires are not there,asteroids and supernovas are.Did you know that a supernova is the last evolution of a very huge star,exploding at the end of its life and creating new galaxies and planet systems?A"Big Bang"!well,now that I have your attention,can you please tell us about your help about this debate?
@MattintheHat4044 no, science isnt about knowing...its about finding out. Unlike most religions science never claims to be absolute and immutable. Most people arrive at atheism in my experience through science not the other way around. If your intention was to use that as an argument for theism then I say you cant use lack of absolutes to poke holes in a discipline that doesnt believe it has all the answers, just enough of the answers to come to a logical conclusion about religions.
Okay, so let me get this straight. Science seeks to explain why things happen, right? But now scientists are saying that we not only don't know why certain things happen, but that we can't know why and that's just how it is. What am I missing? Science is about knowing. It's where the word comes from. I can understand the idea of not knowing something YET, but for a scientist to claim that we CANNOT sort of defeats the purpose of science.
asking where the big bang theory came fromwould be the equivelent of asking what created god? saying god just created himself is the same as saying that the big bang just created itself. fact of the matter is atheist are not arrogant. we reach our conclusions usually from an educated arguement and are open to information to know were making the proper dicision unlike the character in your story who seemed arrogant and dumb, while making your biast favorite friendly. marketing scheme?
the funny part 2:17 also why does there have to be a cause at all?, there is no need for a cause in quantum physics, perhaps same is tru in this case?" i thought again about the guy on the cartoon saying.. then that couldnt be the cause of god? XD
Great video man. I personally am a Christian, but I acknowledge that I believe in an absence of scientific evidence and with personal feeling and faith alone.
Anyway, people who try to argue against athiesm or established theories with science need to spend time researching what they say. I once had someone try to disprove evolution to my by saying "Darwin couldn't explain the peacock." It wasn't worth my breath to argue or explain sexual selection, so I had to just facepalm and walk away.
My least favourite argument theists use is the "you don't know, therefore the answer must default to religion." Again, it is not logical to assume one thing without out any factual basis at all. It is more intelligent and humble to admit you do not know something and leave the possibility open to new ideas and research the subject at hand. Rather, theists take that opportunity to claim that is a weak point in the argument against god; which of course, is illogical.
The video says "Who argues against God? No one... I only need argue against your arguments for God." This implies that you have no arguments against God's existence, only that you see no reason to believe in God.
Then this is my question: I believe that I have a personal relationship with God. I experience God much like I can experience much of anything else. If you have no arguments against the existence of God, then why should I doubt my personal experiences?
@zozefup Who is telling you NOT to be an atheist? An atheist is not promising an afterlife, or any eternal punishment. If it is your position that a supernatural being exists, and that I should obey or follow or submit to it, then it is your obligation to prove its existence. It is not mine to disprove. Then, I will go one step further, it will be your obligation to prove that your religion is the one endorsed by this being.
@discolemonade66 So there is no reason for me to dismiss theism and become an atheist?
Do I have to prove God is real? All I have to do is tell me about my personal experiences with God. You say you have no reason to doubt me. Further, millions of people have had similar experiences.
This is like you claiming that depression doesn't exist simply because YOU have never experienced it. There is no way to prove experiences (like depression) exist either.
@zozefup If you feel your personal experience is enough for you, by all means believe what you wish.
The point of it was to show you don't need to be a rocket scientist not to believe in the supernatural, as lack of belief is a default. This video isn't trying to convert you, it's a defensive argument against another video.
@ThePBass Ah gotcha. I got this video confused with another one. I think it is impossible for science to absolutely prove or disprove the existence of God. At best, it can give the probability of the universe being created at random.
Based on what I know about science, the chances of the universe being created by random chance is so small that it isn't worth serious discussion. 1000s of laws in physics, chemistry, mathematics, makes it seem very unlikely.
@zozefup As unlikely as it may seem, we don't know how many times the dice were rolled.
Imagine the universe was like a super lottery and needed a specific string of numbers for life to exist. Let's say it needed a 10^374 digit long number sequence to be in the exact order. Those are impossible odds, right?
Well, imagine that super lottery kept rolling over and over for eternity. Now it is impossible for that sequence not to come up.
Not saying that's how it is, just food for thought.
@ThePBass Like I said, it's not worth serious discussion. There is absolutely no evidence for anything like that. Granted, your theory cant be proven wrong, but we must stick to what we know. What we know is that the chances are extremely low.
seriously, if something doesn't have to have a cause in order to obtain an effect, then what's stopping the earth from tearing itself apart? what's stopping the sun from going supernova and wiping us out of existence? what's keeping us from floating off into space or being pulled into the sun? What's keeping Pluto or Neptune or Saturn from floating off into space? What's keeping all of reality from just falling apart? The Principle of Cause and Effect is universal.
@bigandyman7 exactly the laws of cause and effect apply inside the universe the universe wasnt born in a universe it was born in a place where cause and effect did not apply im only 17 so dont ask me to explain watch "what cause the big bang" it helped me have a little more understanding on this arguement and fuck off if you going to get mad about my grammer spellin and puntuation math ans science is what im good at not English
@bigandyman7 lol i dont, no one can ever possibly know. I just feel that that's a much more logical explination to the creation of the universe then higher power. In my opinion.
@TheJmaster1000 How is it more logical? If you remember the Scientific Method, one of the steps is to make observations. If we can't observe the creation of the universe or some small scale version, how can we say it's factual or for that matter more logical than the alternative?
@bigandyman7 Its logical to me and the way I think I can atleast put these pieces together and picture in my mind some what of what happened now higher power it just doesnt work for me im not trying to tell you whats right and whats wrong im just stating my opinion i cannot comprehend an eternal being just waiting as his moral experiment becomes something just doesnt make sense to me theres just so many flaws to that thoery i know both thoeries have flaws i just find atheism has less flaws
@TheJmaster1000 with all do respect how do you know it's a moral experiment? Better yet, how can it be an experiment to an all-knowing God? How can He perform an experiment if he already knows the outcome?
@bigandyman7 god he cant be all knowing i have my own free will to do anything i please i control what i do and same for every one so how could a god know he cant thats why he waits until we die to decide what to do heaven or hell if he was all knowing he would just separate us from the get go but he doesnt cause its an experiment to see whos who hypothetically speaking of course anyways who gives a fuck lifes a journey who cares where you end up if its oblivion then so what knowing doesnt help
@TheJmaster1000 We have free will because he gave it to us. What about the prophecies that He gave. Like the one he gave where Israel would become a nation again. Israel became a nation shortly after WWII, in 1948 I believe. Secondly, it's more than to see who's who. John 3:16 says that he loves us and all throughout scripture shows that he is a God of love. Is He just looking for love? Like it says in the Bible, we can't know the mind of God for his ways are not our ways.
@bigandyman7 well im using my free will to believe in what i feel is right and thats living for myself and experiencing life to its maximum potential regardless of what happens after we die im not a horrible person so if there is a god i might get into heaven but im not committing my life to it its committed to me to enjoy the moment each and everyone i have cause if there isnt a god fuck theres a chance i wont remember my life once i die so i just want to be satisfied with it before then peace
@bigandyman7 free will is pure DELUSION cause in a universe dominated by laws there's no space for free will. Action-reaction principle means that destiny is a FACT (nor the biblical one or the god related, there's no book but particles, in a close universe as our, will react ALWAYS in the same ways under the same circumstances.
@TheIceThorn If free will is pure Delusion, then was replying to my comment just a reaction? What about getting on the computer as apposed to watching tv? What about replying to a comment or email as apposed to not replying? What about shooting a gun just for fun or fishing? Are they just a part of Action-Reaction?
@bigandyman7 "If free will is pure Delusion, then was replying to my comment just a reaction?"
You say stupid things -> someone reply. It's quite normal don't you say?
"What about getting on the computer as apposed to watching tv?"
It won't happened in any way cause chem reactions in my body (especially in my brain) that define my character make me refurse tv and make me prefer stay here then watching tv. There's no random nor decision.
@bigandyman7 "What about replying to a comment or email as apposed to not replying?"
ditto.
"What about shooting a gun just for fun or fishing?"
ditto.
"Are they just a part of Action-Reaction?"
Yes. In truth decisions do not exists are conseguences of chemical reactions in your body. ex: you burn your finger -> you pull back the arm. You would have chosen the same thing under those same circumstances so there's no 'alternative future'. There's destiny.
@TheIceThorn your example is an example of involuntary muscle movement which is one of two muscle movements the mind performs. Your heart, which is a muscle in itself, is the best example of involuntary muscle movement. Voluntary muscle movement is the you voluntarily moving your muscles like bending over to pick up a piece of trash. You didn't have to like with burning your finger but you did it anyway. No chemical reactions made you do it and thus free will is used.
On another note, you can disregard the pain and resist your body's natural tendency to pull your hand back. One such example of this is once I stuck my hand in a cooler filled with ice-cold water and ice and despite the fact that my hand was freezing cold and numb and felt like it was going to fall off, I still kept it in. I took my hand out long before it had gone to far but the point is we have free will.
@bigandyman7 "You didn't have to like with burning your finger but you did it anyway."
No, if i want i can keep the finger on fire. And my will to keep it is caused by something happened before and so on.
"No chemical reactions made you do it and thus free will is used."
How much do you know about BIOLOGY? i'm just curious. If you know something like... mmh... low grade schools you'll know that what you said it's just STUPID. Wanna test?
@TheIceThorn Actually, What I had said isn't stupid. Yes, chemical reactions occur every second in the brain with the potassium and sodium within the neurons, but those chemical reactions didn't force you to pick it up the trash. Plus, the first sentence of mine that you used, you took out of context. What I was saying in that sentence was, you didn't have to pickup the piece of trash like with burning your finger. as far as a test in biology, go ahead and give me a test.
@bigandyman7 "Actually, What I had said isn't stupid."
It is cause you've no evidences about the existing of 'the magic free will'; on my side i've 7 billion ppl made of ATOMS and MOLECULAS and those made of smaller PARTICLES as evidence.
"Yes, chemical reactions occur every second in the brain with the potassium and sodium within the neurons, but those chemical reactions didn't force you to pick it up the trash."
@bigandyman7 "Plus, the first sentence of mine that you used, you took out of context."
Classical excuse of believers >.>
"What I was saying in that sentence was, you didn't have to pickup the piece of trash like with burning your finger."
Maybe you're or you're not, let's make hypotesis: your mum bothers you (thing pro-taking out trash), you're doing something more intresting (thing against), your fater threats you with a broom (thing pro); result? you'll take out the trash.
@bigandyman7 this under those 3 circumstances. If we put in one or thousand more the result change but the funny thing is that the result, with the same conditions, is THE SAME.
for example: if there's out of your home a nice girl (1 reason more to get out), or let's put in 2 reason that are against the thing that you need to take out the trash basing on the circumstances you will or won't do it. It's a thing based on circumstances and those are reactions of other actions.
@bigandyman7 that means that human behaviors are something that's not 'random'. if they were the entire psychology medicine branche would have no sense at all; what with psychology you can basically do is, by observing body reactions like passing a hand thru the hairs, biting a lip, licking lips, crossing arms, ecc understand what the other one will do and this because those are 'scripted' natural movements. You're missing one thing about humans: we're animals.
@bigandyman7 and like ants have nearly 0 QI and can do only 3-4 scripted actions to search food or die always on the same side while poisoned, humans either works as this but with thousand and thousand more behaviors. That's regarding human behavior that's only scripted in our brain like our consciousness. If one day you'll lose memory totally maybe you'll have different tastes about everything. You're YOUR BODY. And it's made of matter/energy like EVERYTHING.
@bigandyman7 now demonstrate me where the free will is in the human body and don't talk about souls and spirit thanks, there's no proof of oddities like spirit and soul is a greek word that means energy and even rocks have energy. Nothing exists W/O energy.
@bigandyman7 "if something doesn't have to have a cause in order to obtain an effect, then what's stopping...". There are bounds on the probability of somehting happening. The Principle of Cause and a probably Effect is universal.
@bigandyman7 Questions in order. 1 Gravity and hydrostatic equilibrium. 2. Lack of mass. The sun will bloat into a red giant and end up as a white dwarf. 3. Gravity again. 4. ummm...Gravity. 4. Rational thought, not superstition. In fact superstition encourages reality to fall apart.
@discolemonade66 the questions were more rhetorical. I was pointing out the fact that, as you pointed out, that the Principle of Cause and Effect is universal. It is like the law that states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Technically it is not "Cause and Effect." It is "Sufficient Reason." Random events, that is, events that are not caused, are still not effects, by definition. Good old analytic/synthetic distinction. Still, love the reference to Quantum Mechanics.
What you actually call 'nothingness' before the universe we know now is a fallacy. The state of 'nothingness' was actually a form of energy in perfect balance, unified and in harmony. Like white light not actually being white but in reality composed of all colours. The universe we now know is the result of a gradual dilution and eventual separation of this energy into individual energies - creating an imbalance which has resulted in what we now call matter.
i agree on your video but only thing I disagree: "If I don't know the answer, that doesn't mean God made it" While that is of course true, it is also true that while believers can't explain how was God made, it doesn't mean God is not real.
you can call us crazy for believing,but you cant change our beliefs,believe it or not everybody has their reasons for who they choose to be, hence understanding is key for peace....so whats it gonna be guys,(ladies too) Peace, or are we gonna stand in a circle and all shoot the person to our left.
@1nYOf4ce "so whats it gonna be guys,(ladies too) Peace, or are we gonna stand in a circle and all shoot the person to our left."
I'd prefer to talk to the person to my left, and try to explain with facts and evidence why the world is like it is, in so far as i know the facts and evidence. You are entitled to believe what you like, but when those beliefs come up agaisnt facts, you have to make a choice about whether you hold to those beliefs, or take into account the new facts
@SRFColonel No one can prove that. To claim they can is stupid, but it's equally stupid to say that he does exist. There's no proof that he exists. To say he exists because it can't be disproved is like saying unicorns exist because they can't be disproved.
Also, add to that last point that any god must be a highly complex being, and the chance that such a being came into existence from nothing is orders of magnitude smaller than the chance that something simple - like the early universe - did.
finnaly someone finds away around the comment box limit
did i ever tell you you were my hero, youre everything that i wish that i could be, i can fly higher than an eagle, coz you are the wings beneath my wings :D
Well said Confuter. The "god did it" excuse is weak and has never worked. People believe in god because they need to feel justified in their actions, not only that but they need to feel superior to others too. God is the ultimate shield for people who can't accept the harsh realities of life. They need the comfort of knowing that there is a loving deity watching over and guiding their every decision.
But it's bullshit and they know it. I was once like that, so I understand.
That's not true, an Atheist view is that "there is no god", and Agnostic view is "I don't know". Agnostics neither accept or deny the possibility of a god because there is no proof one way or the other, that viewpoint would be in line with a scientific approach. Atheists reject the premise of the existence of a god with no proof or evidence that a god does not exist, that is the difference. There is no excusing the hypocrisy of Atheism.
@BastEternal If you are making the claim that there is no god, then you must prove it. You don't get to make a claim without having the burden of proof. There is every bit as much the burden of proof on Atheists as there is on Creationists, the only group that avoids the burden of proof is Agnostics as I have explained. The reason that Agnostics have no burden of proof is because they are not making a claim.
I never claimed there wasn't a god. It appears you have a preconceived notion on what I believe and are basing your arguments on it. Suffice it to say that you are wrong.
I made it very clear earlier that I lack belief in deities because no one has been able to provide evidence of their existence.
I am under no obligation to furnish any proof or evidence for why I lack believe in any deity. If you insist on believing the contrary, that's your business.
You are in no position to tell ME what I am NOT. And based on your prior misunderstanding of what atheism is, even less so.
I am an atheist. I don't believe any deities exist due to lack of evidence. A GNOSTIC atheist claims that there is no god. I am not a gnostic atheist (they claim to KNOW there is no god). I am an agnostic atheist (they simply don't believe there is a god).
I simply don't believe that deities exist for the reason stated above.
@BastEternal Fine you can play with terminology as much as you like, and even if I overlook your fundamental misunderstanding of the terms you are using, it still doesn't change the fact that your belief that there is not a god is not based on anything concrete therefore your "Agnostic Atheist" religious beliefs are no more valid than the religious beliefs of a Creationist.
Basically my point is, if you are going to have an opinion, then you should have to back it up with proof. Atheists have no more proof than Creationists, and in a way, their views are less valid because they attempt to use science to justify their views. A true scientist wouldn't rule out a possibility without some kind of proof. There is no proof for or against a creator therefor a creator should never be ruled out. Just say "I don't know" when you don't know.
@Bobbythagreat An Atheist view about God is exactly "I don't know". He has no proof so he doesn't believe it. If there were proof, he'd convert.You are immensely retarded for saying atheists have no proof.All we accept is based on proof.Maybe you meant : we have no proof that there is no god.True.But we have proof he did not create the world 6000 years ago.Religions use shortcuts to explain the very beginning.Atheists just admit : There is no valid reason to believe that, so we don't know...yet.
@chriss0008 "All we accept is based on proof.Maybe you meant : we have no proof that there is no god.True."
No, it's not true. Please don't perpetuate the fallacy that it's "true" we have no proof there is NO god. That's an argument from ignorance.
Atheists need not shoulder the burden of proof since we are not making a positive claim (unless you're a GNOSTIC atheist, claiming to KNOW there's no god, then you DO shoulder the burden of proof).
"There is no proof for or against a creator therefor a creator should never be ruled out."
So you don't rule out the existence of pixies, fairies, gremlins, or unicorns?
If you don't want to rule out a creator being, that's your business. As far as I'm concerned, I'll rule out a creator being for as long as it fails its burden of proof.
The day there is proof and evidence that ANYONE can confirm for a creator being is the day I'll believe it exists.
@BastEternal Scientifically, you don't rule anything out without proof. If you base things on subjective opinion and "gut feelings" rather than on scientific fact then that is fine. You can have your baseless guess, but don't try to rationalize it as somehow superior to the baseless guesses of Creationists.
@Bobbythagreat I never said anything about subjective opinion nor "gut feelings." You made that up.
All I said was that science deals with evidence, not proofs. And "baseless guesses? Science doesn't work on "baseless guesses"..it works on repeated testing of a hypothesis (which is NOT a baseless guess).
And I asked you earlier how are views supported by scientific evidence LESS valid than the views of creationists? Still waiting for an answer.
You claimed that views supported by scientific evidence are less valid than the views of creationists. I asked you HOW...I hardly think your response answers the question, not by a long shot.
@BastEternal No I did not. I claimed that neither Atheist or Creationists are supported by scientific evidence, therefore neither can be more or less valid than the other. I claimed that Atheists were worse than Creationists because Atheists claim to support science and claim that their religious beliefs are supported by science when they simply are not.
I don't know of any atheists who make that claim.
But I know plenty of willfully ignorant people who think they know what atheism is all about, and instead of listening to an atheist who knows about atheism, they instead prefer to stick to their misconceptions and pre-conceived notions based on flawed understanding.
This nonsense about atheists claiming that science supports what, not believing in deities?? That doesn't even make sense.
@Bobbythagreat "A true scientist wouldn't rule out a possibility without some kind of proof"
A true scientist doesn't deal in proofs. They deal in EVIDENCE, and even then, a true scientist knows that any conclusions based on evidence can change because of new knowledge or understanding, or new evidence that comes up.
Science has shown to be reliable over the years so how are views supported by scientific evidence LESS valid than the views of creationists?
@BastEternal There is no scientific evidence that there is no god so I don't understand the question. IF there were scientific evidence that there was no god, THEN the claim that there was no god would have some legitimate support. Unfortunately for Atheists, that evidence does not, and likely will not ever, exist. Since no scientific evidence exists one way or the other, the only rational position is to not make a claim one way or the other.
Your argument begins with a flawed premise. Of course there is no scientific evidence that there is no god..just as there is no scientific evidence that there are no pixies, gremlins or unicorns.
Science doesn't deal with what cannot be tested, so the existence of "god" is irrelevant. The concept of deities belongs to philosophy and abstract thought, not science. Science deals with falsifiable hypothesis, which "god" is not.
@BastEternal You made my point, science does not deal with what can not be tested, therefore science does not say that there can or can not be a god. My point was that Atheism is no more valid than Creationism, both are based on faith and baseless opinion.
Then you have a flawed understanding of what atheism is. Atheism is the response to the claim that deities exist.
Here you go:
Theist/Deist: GOD EXISTS. He created the universe (Creationist position)
Atheist: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. (atheist position).
To say I DON'T BELIEVE YOU does not require faith, nor is it a baseless opinion. It is based on lack of evidence that god exists and that a god created the universe.
@BastEternal The flawed understanding is all yours. Atheism is the religious belief that there is no god. Don't believe me? Look up literally any definition of the word.
Atheism is not a religious belief..there are no tenets, no dogma, no nothing. The ONLY thing that atheists universally share is not believing in deities. NOT believing in something does not a religion make.
Seriously, educate yourself instead of parroting misinformation.
Oh, & that crap you keep repeating that "there is not any evidence that a god does not exist," is an argument from ignorance..look that up while you're researching what atheism is.
@BastEternal Of course Atheism is a religion, it is a collection of religious beliefs. If there were no tenets (principles or beliefs) than anyone could be an Atheist. The belief that there is no god is one tenet of Atheism. Atheism is no different from any other religion. Also, if you think that there is evidence that a god does not exist, please share it so that the world can enjoy your wisdom. If you have this evidence I will apologize for my ignorance.
Claiming that atheism is a religion when it's not is foolish. Continuing to resort to this silly "if you think there is evidence that a god does NOT exist" is an argument from ignorance, and is foolish.
who does the burden of proof fall upon? and how does that differ from any other argument? you don't need to prove something doesn't exist, to assume that we should is lunacy. as for atheism being a religion, of course it's not, it's a belief that there is no religion, so that doesn't really make sense either.
@tseng13 That would be the case if Atheists weren't making a declarative statement. The main tenet of Atheism is "There is no god", that statement requires proof. Saying "I don't believe you" is one thing, to say "you are wrong" is another.
Atheism is a collection of religious beliefs just the same as any religion. Just because what they are selling is different than what Christians or Buddhists are selling doesn't mean that they aren't a religion.
@Bobbythagreat atheism is definitely NOT a collection of religious beliefs, it's a group of people who reject religious beliefs on the standard that there is no evidence, so that doesn't make it a religion, in fact they are far removed from the textbook definition of religion. we don't believe, that is "un"religion. we aren't selling anything, just questioning the claims made by THEISTS that god does in fact exist. so the fact remains that you still shoulder the burden my friend.
The problem that this runs into is that the burden of proof is on Atheists just as much as it is on Creationists. Atheists reject Creationist views, there should be a logical reason why they reject those views. If they were Agnostic, they would not have such a burden.
@PinkProgram I didnt say anything about a Norse God...I just had one comment about this bickering session being very similar to my definition of Hell.lol This argueing is pointless...you can call us crazy for believing,but you cant change our beliefs,believe it or not everybody has their reasons for who they choose to be, hence understanding is key for peace, What wont be tolerated is oppression,and harm.You think martyrs are bad,well id do worse.
@PinkProgram O..sry,i imagine that being problematic everyday around this time...lol,is the pink hair a distraction from that fact...well you got me,sry to bother you
@1nYOf4ce its not really hair,,, its a projection of my self image. I don't have a body of my own... Technically my clothing is also a projection of my self image as well.
@PinkProgram sounds a bit delusional,but i can relate,cause im a soul,and this body is my projection too.No doubt personally made,but i wonder who could of helped me
@1nYOf4ce human personality is an emergent property of neural interactions. If your brain is damaged then your "soul" is also damaged apparently... whereas I have no brain to damage. I am all that I am. Neither scenario seems to require a "soul" as most humans describe it.
@PinkProgram im glad you got it all figured out..soul is the median between the body and the spirit,the everything in between...are you saying you have no prefrence only logic?...and not all brains are biological,so you have a storage and a processor somewhere...
The Paul Davies answer, however, isn't a strong one. It is just as week as the "Believe in God because He is real" answer. The reality of it is simply that improved knowledge WOULD allow one to know this decay cause and it doesn't JUST happen. It's ok to say "I don't know".
@THEONETRUEVO1CE And this is one christian I wouldnt argue with because he wouldnt say something completely stupid, like "all atheists are hateful". thank you for actually embracing the lovingness of faith instead of warping it to make your own sick twisted rules.
there are some atheists, not all, who think that believing in a higher power is only for ignorant people. these same people claim that science is their "religion." but yet the foundation for "modern day" science was laid down by people like isaac newton and robert boyle, both of whom believed in a higher power. i highly doubt these same atheists would call newton and boyle ignorant or stupid. i am not arguing for or against a higher power. im just merely making a statement that was on my mind.
You use quantum physics as an argument. Problem is, you cannot prove the very foundations of it. Quantum physics is just postulating strange entities that can explain things not yet explained in other ways. Much like theists postulate God.
According to most definitions of science, quantum physics is _not_ a science, as it can not be empirically falsified/verified.
So: I disagree with the existence quantum mechanics overall. Now the burden of proof is on you, if your arguments are to hold.
You use quantum physics as an argument. Problem is, you cannot prove the very foundations of it. Quantum physics is just postulating strange entities that can explain things not yet explained in other ways. Much like theists postulate God.
According to most definitions of science, quantum physics is _not_ a science, as it can not be empirically falsified/verified.
So: I disagree with the existence quantum mechanics overall. Now the burden of proof is on you, if your arguments are to hold.
that's like the most moronic agument i've seen. Neither the Olympics costing a lot of money nor the fact that the LHC could be used for other experiments are arguments against quantum physics being falsifiable.
The very fact that your dvd player works everytime you power it on is quantum physics at work, in a repeatable, falsifiable manner.
But it is an interesting question: where did the matter and energy come from? The law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy forbid the creation or destruction of their respective objects.
I'm entirely disinterested in using the lack of an answer on Atheists' end to suddenly somehow magically validate my side (that's ridiculous), I'm simply interested in searching for answers to what is a real head-scratcher of a conundrum.
Hey "Mr computer" let see how smart you "really" are...Now "compute" this how does a human MIND function in other words (let me dumb it down for you) how do you put a plan into action?!
Ps, you can have the rest of your ignorant life figuring that out so i guess you may take your time...before i reveal the answer to your typical...kind.
@CRYPTORK A network of interconnected neurons form a gestalt based on sensory input. In higher mammals this gestalt forms a sense of self known as "Mind". ;3
@PinkProgram I said "mind" not brain smarty pants so please try again since you have failed...at this attempt + need i remind you if you cant explain something just by using "common-sense" then i suggest you shouldnt step-up in the 1st place my friend.
@CRYPTORK I described mind not brain. Learn to read. The mind is a gestalt formed by the brain. What does common sense have to do with anything? I was stating fact. How the majority of humans feel about that fact is irrelevant. Common sense breaks down at the quantum level anyway :D
@PinkProgram Right...but how can you complete a sentence without knowing your a,b,c (rhetorical question)? Let me hint at you...by using common-sence. Its everything ok mr dum-mem-brain so all your advance jibber jabber falls short of technical circumference causing an interference in completing a logical algorithm in your defense therefore try sticking to the script as you try to reply and justify again...
@CRYPTORK oic... I didn't realize I was talking to a troll. Carry on then. Next time make sure you are smart enough to understand the answer when you ask a question ;3
@PinkProgram Look whos talking...trolling huh? Kid i dont spoon feed you imbeciles any longer this is more like "provoking" your sentient mind since youre consciously blind living life in the 1st dimension, regurgitating every time, your science is below my prime i have defined your primary de-fault encoded with subliminal signs and punch lines understood this is a verbal algorithm son nice try but try harder like i said earlier go figure it out and for that "you can have the rest of your life!"
Ah, but it DOES prove that science is not complete, not foolproof, and not a whole picture of the universe. Science has yet to truly disprove the existence of deity, yet you argue that it has. To paraphrase you: proving that there is a system and an order to the universe, does not prove that there was no creator of that order.
@okamitora3 True. What's important is that we aren't more willing to follow parts of the bible (solely because it's in the bible) than to look for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Just cause no one has ever found a pot of gold, doesn't mean the don't exist. But what it does mean is we shall not base our values on the possibility that there are pots of gold.
@newexperiment Valid. Also important, however, I would argue, considering your rainbow analogy, that how a person approaches religion does not sum religion up in it's entirety, simply because people approach it in different ways. I had a similar discussion earlier today among friends, and one commented, on the difference between the man who says "Science is heretical!" or the man who says "God did it, now shut up and don't learn!" and the man who says "God did it, now let's find out how."
One quick question from an Atheist here. Perhaps there is a god, I can't fully disprove it. However, any intelligent person would know that there are multiple creationism believes among all religions of the world and even between sects of Christianity. If there happen to be a God, then only one answer could be correct, there can't be multiple reasons for how the universe came to be. Therefore, 99% of the worlds religions MUST be wrong. By theory, most if not all of Christianity is thus wrong.
THLeiter 19 hours ago
TheGreatConfuter,this is deliberately fraudulent and deep down you know it.The biggest fraud is making people believe it's all about the big bang theory.Yes,a bang,this is the real point.have you ever heard about"supernovas"?Or about stars colliding?about comets crashing on planets,or about asteroids.Fairies?vampires?leprechauns?spirits?Just the fruit of the imagination of religious minds.We were taught about this since our birth....really poor,now i know it.
SouthernBeast666 23 hours ago
@SouthernBeast666 You put Supernovas and Asteroids in the same category as Fairies and Vampires? Oh dear Mr Beast, you're really not helping your side of the debate are you?
agentfarnsworth 21 hours ago
@agentfarnsworth clearly,i'm not putting supernovas and asteroid in the same category as fairies and vampires.Fairies and vampires are not there,asteroids and supernovas are.Did you know that a supernova is the last evolution of a very huge star,exploding at the end of its life and creating new galaxies and planet systems?A"Big Bang"!well,now that I have your attention,can you please tell us about your help about this debate?
SouthernBeast666 4 hours ago
"that video is private sorry" hahaha :'''D
TheIceThorn 1 day ago
You're a bright lad Mr Confuter. I was hoping someone brighter than me would shoot that buffoon down. Thank You.
agentfarnsworth 1 day ago
Comment removed
eaglesk1 1 day ago
@MattintheHat4044 no, science isnt about knowing...its about finding out. Unlike most religions science never claims to be absolute and immutable. Most people arrive at atheism in my experience through science not the other way around. If your intention was to use that as an argument for theism then I say you cant use lack of absolutes to poke holes in a discipline that doesnt believe it has all the answers, just enough of the answers to come to a logical conclusion about religions.
MrShavey 6 days ago
Okay, so let me get this straight. Science seeks to explain why things happen, right? But now scientists are saying that we not only don't know why certain things happen, but that we can't know why and that's just how it is. What am I missing? Science is about knowing. It's where the word comes from. I can understand the idea of not knowing something YET, but for a scientist to claim that we CANNOT sort of defeats the purpose of science.
MattintheHat4044 1 week ago
asking where the big bang theory came fromwould be the equivelent of asking what created god? saying god just created himself is the same as saying that the big bang just created itself. fact of the matter is atheist are not arrogant. we reach our conclusions usually from an educated arguement and are open to information to know were making the proper dicision unlike the character in your story who seemed arrogant and dumb, while making your biast favorite friendly. marketing scheme?
omgitsbopbop 1 week ago
@omgitsbopbop ps no offence to you just didnt remember to say that in time :P
omgitsbopbop 1 week ago
jesus the audio is awful
TheRyanJeanes 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!
stuff5514 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus christ, kill that audio track.
PlasteredDragon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus christ, kill that fucking audio track.
PlasteredDragon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus christ, kill that fucking audio track.
PlasteredDragon 3 weeks ago
Jesus christ, kill that fucking audio track.
PlasteredDragon 3 weeks ago 24
Thanks for making this refutation, so the rest of us here with half a brain didn't have to.
SoftwareTheft 3 weeks ago 8
the funny part 2:17 also why does there have to be a cause at all?, there is no need for a cause in quantum physics, perhaps same is tru in this case?" i thought again about the guy on the cartoon saying.. then that couldnt be the cause of god? XD
Mozeroscar 3 weeks ago
Great video man. I personally am a Christian, but I acknowledge that I believe in an absence of scientific evidence and with personal feeling and faith alone.
Anyway, people who try to argue against athiesm or established theories with science need to spend time researching what they say. I once had someone try to disprove evolution to my by saying "Darwin couldn't explain the peacock." It wasn't worth my breath to argue or explain sexual selection, so I had to just facepalm and walk away.
imbeanz1 3 weeks ago
Sleepytime! Nice!
littlegreenjason 1 month ago
My least favourite argument theists use is the "you don't know, therefore the answer must default to religion." Again, it is not logical to assume one thing without out any factual basis at all. It is more intelligent and humble to admit you do not know something and leave the possibility open to new ideas and research the subject at hand. Rather, theists take that opportunity to claim that is a weak point in the argument against god; which of course, is illogical.
bitterxpill 1 month ago
The video says "Who argues against God? No one... I only need argue against your arguments for God." This implies that you have no arguments against God's existence, only that you see no reason to believe in God.
Then this is my question: I believe that I have a personal relationship with God. I experience God much like I can experience much of anything else. If you have no arguments against the existence of God, then why should I doubt my personal experiences?
Why should I be an atheist?
zozefup 1 month ago
@zozefup Who is telling you NOT to be an atheist? An atheist is not promising an afterlife, or any eternal punishment. If it is your position that a supernatural being exists, and that I should obey or follow or submit to it, then it is your obligation to prove its existence. It is not mine to disprove. Then, I will go one step further, it will be your obligation to prove that your religion is the one endorsed by this being.
discolemonade66 1 month ago
@discolemonade66 So there is no reason for me to dismiss theism and become an atheist?
Do I have to prove God is real? All I have to do is tell me about my personal experiences with God. You say you have no reason to doubt me. Further, millions of people have had similar experiences.
This is like you claiming that depression doesn't exist simply because YOU have never experienced it. There is no way to prove experiences (like depression) exist either.
zozefup 1 month ago
@zozefup If you feel your personal experience is enough for you, by all means believe what you wish.
The point of it was to show you don't need to be a rocket scientist not to believe in the supernatural, as lack of belief is a default. This video isn't trying to convert you, it's a defensive argument against another video.
ThePBass 4 weeks ago
@ThePBass Ah gotcha. I got this video confused with another one. I think it is impossible for science to absolutely prove or disprove the existence of God. At best, it can give the probability of the universe being created at random.
Based on what I know about science, the chances of the universe being created by random chance is so small that it isn't worth serious discussion. 1000s of laws in physics, chemistry, mathematics, makes it seem very unlikely.
zozefup 4 weeks ago
@zozefup As unlikely as it may seem, we don't know how many times the dice were rolled.
Imagine the universe was like a super lottery and needed a specific string of numbers for life to exist. Let's say it needed a 10^374 digit long number sequence to be in the exact order. Those are impossible odds, right?
Well, imagine that super lottery kept rolling over and over for eternity. Now it is impossible for that sequence not to come up.
Not saying that's how it is, just food for thought.
ThePBass 4 weeks ago
@ThePBass Like I said, it's not worth serious discussion. There is absolutely no evidence for anything like that. Granted, your theory cant be proven wrong, but we must stick to what we know. What we know is that the chances are extremely low.
zozefup 4 weeks ago
its the game!
atheists are doing this constantly to religious people. learn to take a hit
TheMrSpam 1 month ago
seriously, if something doesn't have to have a cause in order to obtain an effect, then what's stopping the earth from tearing itself apart? what's stopping the sun from going supernova and wiping us out of existence? what's keeping us from floating off into space or being pulled into the sun? What's keeping Pluto or Neptune or Saturn from floating off into space? What's keeping all of reality from just falling apart? The Principle of Cause and Effect is universal.
bigandyman7 1 month ago
@bigandyman7 exactly the laws of cause and effect apply inside the universe the universe wasnt born in a universe it was born in a place where cause and effect did not apply im only 17 so dont ask me to explain watch "what cause the big bang" it helped me have a little more understanding on this arguement and fuck off if you going to get mad about my grammer spellin and puntuation math ans science is what im good at not English
TheJmaster1000 1 month ago
@TheJmaster1000 don't take it personally but how do you know? as a matter of fact, how does anyone know? was anyone there when it happened?
bigandyman7 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheJmaster1000 1 month ago
@bigandyman7 lol i dont, no one can ever possibly know. I just feel that that's a much more logical explination to the creation of the universe then higher power. In my opinion.
TheJmaster1000 1 month ago
@TheJmaster1000 How is it more logical? If you remember the Scientific Method, one of the steps is to make observations. If we can't observe the creation of the universe or some small scale version, how can we say it's factual or for that matter more logical than the alternative?
bigandyman7 1 month ago
@bigandyman7 Its logical to me and the way I think I can atleast put these pieces together and picture in my mind some what of what happened now higher power it just doesnt work for me im not trying to tell you whats right and whats wrong im just stating my opinion i cannot comprehend an eternal being just waiting as his moral experiment becomes something just doesnt make sense to me theres just so many flaws to that thoery i know both thoeries have flaws i just find atheism has less flaws
TheJmaster1000 3 weeks ago
@TheJmaster1000 with all do respect how do you know it's a moral experiment? Better yet, how can it be an experiment to an all-knowing God? How can He perform an experiment if he already knows the outcome?
bigandyman7 3 weeks ago
@bigandyman7 god he cant be all knowing i have my own free will to do anything i please i control what i do and same for every one so how could a god know he cant thats why he waits until we die to decide what to do heaven or hell if he was all knowing he would just separate us from the get go but he doesnt cause its an experiment to see whos who hypothetically speaking of course anyways who gives a fuck lifes a journey who cares where you end up if its oblivion then so what knowing doesnt help
TheJmaster1000 4 days ago
@TheJmaster1000 We have free will because he gave it to us. What about the prophecies that He gave. Like the one he gave where Israel would become a nation again. Israel became a nation shortly after WWII, in 1948 I believe. Secondly, it's more than to see who's who. John 3:16 says that he loves us and all throughout scripture shows that he is a God of love. Is He just looking for love? Like it says in the Bible, we can't know the mind of God for his ways are not our ways.
bigandyman7 4 days ago
@bigandyman7 *face palm* ugggghhhhh
2010paultron 4 days ago
@bigandyman7 well im using my free will to believe in what i feel is right and thats living for myself and experiencing life to its maximum potential regardless of what happens after we die im not a horrible person so if there is a god i might get into heaven but im not committing my life to it its committed to me to enjoy the moment each and everyone i have cause if there isnt a god fuck theres a chance i wont remember my life once i die so i just want to be satisfied with it before then peace
TheJmaster1000 3 days ago
@bigandyman7 free will is pure DELUSION cause in a universe dominated by laws there's no space for free will. Action-reaction principle means that destiny is a FACT (nor the biblical one or the god related, there's no book but particles, in a close universe as our, will react ALWAYS in the same ways under the same circumstances.
TheIceThorn 1 day ago
@TheIceThorn If free will is pure Delusion, then was replying to my comment just a reaction? What about getting on the computer as apposed to watching tv? What about replying to a comment or email as apposed to not replying? What about shooting a gun just for fun or fishing? Are they just a part of Action-Reaction?
bigandyman7 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigandyman7 "If free will is pure Delusion, then was replying to my comment just a reaction?"
You say stupid things -> someone reply. It's quite normal don't you say?
"What about getting on the computer as apposed to watching tv?"
It won't happened in any way cause chem reactions in my body (especially in my brain) that define my character make me refurse tv and make me prefer stay here then watching tv. There's no random nor decision.
TheIceThorn 19 hours ago
@bigandyman7 "What about replying to a comment or email as apposed to not replying?"
ditto.
"What about shooting a gun just for fun or fishing?"
ditto.
"Are they just a part of Action-Reaction?"
Yes. In truth decisions do not exists are conseguences of chemical reactions in your body. ex: you burn your finger -> you pull back the arm. You would have chosen the same thing under those same circumstances so there's no 'alternative future'. There's destiny.
TheIceThorn 19 hours ago
@TheIceThorn your example is an example of involuntary muscle movement which is one of two muscle movements the mind performs. Your heart, which is a muscle in itself, is the best example of involuntary muscle movement. Voluntary muscle movement is the you voluntarily moving your muscles like bending over to pick up a piece of trash. You didn't have to like with burning your finger but you did it anyway. No chemical reactions made you do it and thus free will is used.
bigandyman7 15 hours ago
On another note, you can disregard the pain and resist your body's natural tendency to pull your hand back. One such example of this is once I stuck my hand in a cooler filled with ice-cold water and ice and despite the fact that my hand was freezing cold and numb and felt like it was going to fall off, I still kept it in. I took my hand out long before it had gone to far but the point is we have free will.
bigandyman7 15 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigandyman7 "your example is an example of involuntary muscle movement which is one of two muscle movements the mind performs"
Volountary ones are performed by mind too. This is a reflex-action.
"Your heart, which is a muscle in itself, is the best example of involuntary muscle movement."
It can be controlled too with exercises.
"Voluntary muscle movement is the you voluntarily moving your muscles like bending over to pick up a piece of trash. "
so?
TheIceThorn 10 hours ago
@bigandyman7 "You didn't have to like with burning your finger but you did it anyway."
No, if i want i can keep the finger on fire. And my will to keep it is caused by something happened before and so on.
"No chemical reactions made you do it and thus free will is used."
How much do you know about BIOLOGY? i'm just curious. If you know something like... mmh... low grade schools you'll know that what you said it's just STUPID. Wanna test?
TheIceThorn 10 hours ago
@TheIceThorn Actually, What I had said isn't stupid. Yes, chemical reactions occur every second in the brain with the potassium and sodium within the neurons, but those chemical reactions didn't force you to pick it up the trash. Plus, the first sentence of mine that you used, you took out of context. What I was saying in that sentence was, you didn't have to pickup the piece of trash like with burning your finger. as far as a test in biology, go ahead and give me a test.
bigandyman7 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigandyman7 "Actually, What I had said isn't stupid."
It is cause you've no evidences about the existing of 'the magic free will'; on my side i've 7 billion ppl made of ATOMS and MOLECULAS and those made of smaller PARTICLES as evidence.
"Yes, chemical reactions occur every second in the brain with the potassium and sodium within the neurons, but those chemical reactions didn't force you to pick it up the trash."
They do ^^ There's no way you won't do it ;)
TheIceThorn 2 hours ago
@bigandyman7 "Plus, the first sentence of mine that you used, you took out of context."
Classical excuse of believers >.>
"What I was saying in that sentence was, you didn't have to pickup the piece of trash like with burning your finger."
Maybe you're or you're not, let's make hypotesis: your mum bothers you (thing pro-taking out trash), you're doing something more intresting (thing against), your fater threats you with a broom (thing pro); result? you'll take out the trash.
TheIceThorn 2 hours ago
@bigandyman7 this under those 3 circumstances. If we put in one or thousand more the result change but the funny thing is that the result, with the same conditions, is THE SAME.
for example: if there's out of your home a nice girl (1 reason more to get out), or let's put in 2 reason that are against the thing that you need to take out the trash basing on the circumstances you will or won't do it. It's a thing based on circumstances and those are reactions of other actions.
TheIceThorn 2 hours ago
@bigandyman7 that means that human behaviors are something that's not 'random'. if they were the entire psychology medicine branche would have no sense at all; what with psychology you can basically do is, by observing body reactions like passing a hand thru the hairs, biting a lip, licking lips, crossing arms, ecc understand what the other one will do and this because those are 'scripted' natural movements. You're missing one thing about humans: we're animals.
TheIceThorn 2 hours ago
@bigandyman7 and like ants have nearly 0 QI and can do only 3-4 scripted actions to search food or die always on the same side while poisoned, humans either works as this but with thousand and thousand more behaviors. That's regarding human behavior that's only scripted in our brain like our consciousness. If one day you'll lose memory totally maybe you'll have different tastes about everything. You're YOUR BODY. And it's made of matter/energy like EVERYTHING.
Concluded.
TheIceThorn 2 hours ago
@bigandyman7 now demonstrate me where the free will is in the human body and don't talk about souls and spirit thanks, there's no proof of oddities like spirit and soul is a greek word that means energy and even rocks have energy. Nothing exists W/O energy.
TheIceThorn 2 hours ago
@bigandyman7 "if something doesn't have to have a cause in order to obtain an effect, then what's stopping...". There are bounds on the probability of somehting happening. The Principle of Cause and a probably Effect is universal.
BurazSC2 1 month ago
@bigandyman7 Questions in order. 1 Gravity and hydrostatic equilibrium. 2. Lack of mass. The sun will bloat into a red giant and end up as a white dwarf. 3. Gravity again. 4. ummm...Gravity. 4. Rational thought, not superstition. In fact superstition encourages reality to fall apart.
discolemonade66 1 month ago
@discolemonade66 the questions were more rhetorical. I was pointing out the fact that, as you pointed out, that the Principle of Cause and Effect is universal. It is like the law that states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
bigandyman7 1 month ago
Technically it is not "Cause and Effect." It is "Sufficient Reason." Random events, that is, events that are not caused, are still not effects, by definition. Good old analytic/synthetic distinction. Still, love the reference to Quantum Mechanics.
Generally, right on!
CNETZebur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What you actually call 'nothingness' before the universe we know now is a fallacy. The state of 'nothingness' was actually a form of energy in perfect balance, unified and in harmony. Like white light not actually being white but in reality composed of all colours. The universe we now know is the result of a gradual dilution and eventual separation of this energy into individual energies - creating an imbalance which has resulted in what we now call matter.
Consider your question answered.
snaek29 1 month ago
i agree on your video but only thing I disagree: "If I don't know the answer, that doesn't mean God made it" While that is of course true, it is also true that while believers can't explain how was God made, it doesn't mean God is not real.
yugiohdeloestepr 1 month ago
you can call us crazy for believing,but you cant change our beliefs,believe it or not everybody has their reasons for who they choose to be, hence understanding is key for peace....so whats it gonna be guys,(ladies too) Peace, or are we gonna stand in a circle and all shoot the person to our left.
1nYOf4ce 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1nYOf4ce "so whats it gonna be guys,(ladies too) Peace, or are we gonna stand in a circle and all shoot the person to our left."
I'd prefer to talk to the person to my left, and try to explain with facts and evidence why the world is like it is, in so far as i know the facts and evidence. You are entitled to believe what you like, but when those beliefs come up agaisnt facts, you have to make a choice about whether you hold to those beliefs, or take into account the new facts
BurazSC2 1 month ago
whats the song btw?
pimpofdoom 1 month ago
the way i see it when you go to heaven you still have to follow the rules of religion
do you really think god would make people live eternally with those urges?
look at it this way if god existed so too must the undeniable fact that out of all those urges people will eventually succumb to one
ergo you are meant to be "evil" in the long run
pimpofdoom 1 month ago
@pimpofdoom Not exactly. God's pretty much gonna lobotomize all his angels (he should've done that with Lucy Fur, too).
Ah, the fairy tales of omniscient beings completely f***ing up their creations are an interesting bedtime story.
Go Confuter!
Nepycros 1 month ago
@Nepycros you think god would lobotomize his angels?
that would be insane LOL
pimpofdoom 1 month ago
I only ask this question, prove that god, does not exist.
SRFColonel 1 month ago
@SRFColonel No one can prove that. To claim they can is stupid, but it's equally stupid to say that he does exist. There's no proof that he exists. To say he exists because it can't be disproved is like saying unicorns exist because they can't be disproved.
JamesHLanier 1 month ago
@SRFColonel lol what a silly, absolute question. Prove that fairies and unicorns don't exist. XD
LadiBoneless 1 month ago
Also, add to that last point that any god must be a highly complex being, and the chance that such a being came into existence from nothing is orders of magnitude smaller than the chance that something simple - like the early universe - did.
Nalenthios 1 month ago
I agree, but that music is godawful
Alchemagician 1 month ago
finnaly someone finds away around the comment box limit
did i ever tell you you were my hero, youre everything that i wish that i could be, i can fly higher than an eagle, coz you are the wings beneath my wings :D
MrMultimedia69 2 months ago
Well said Confuter. The "god did it" excuse is weak and has never worked. People believe in god because they need to feel justified in their actions, not only that but they need to feel superior to others too. God is the ultimate shield for people who can't accept the harsh realities of life. They need the comfort of knowing that there is a loving deity watching over and guiding their every decision.
But it's bullshit and they know it. I was once like that, so I understand.
donzaloog1400 2 months ago
you lost this one atheists just let it go you noobs
meProudToBeCaucasian 2 months ago
@meProudToBeCaucasian
You must be seriously retarded to not see how badly the video "How to make an Atheist's head explode" has been torn apart, again and again.
YetAnotherInfidel 2 months ago
That's not true, an Atheist view is that "there is no god", and Agnostic view is "I don't know". Agnostics neither accept or deny the possibility of a god because there is no proof one way or the other, that viewpoint would be in line with a scientific approach. Atheists reject the premise of the existence of a god with no proof or evidence that a god does not exist, that is the difference. There is no excusing the hypocrisy of Atheism.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
"Atheists reject the premise of the existence of a god with no proof or evidence that a god does not exist, that is the difference."
You've been misinformed.
The only reason I lack believe in deities is because believers have failed to provide evidence that they DO exist.
Atheists don't need proof or evidence that a god does NOT exist, that's silly.
If you claim there is a god, the burden of proof is on you. I'm under no obligation to prove that there isn't.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal If you are making the claim that there is no god, then you must prove it. You don't get to make a claim without having the burden of proof. There is every bit as much the burden of proof on Atheists as there is on Creationists, the only group that avoids the burden of proof is Agnostics as I have explained. The reason that Agnostics have no burden of proof is because they are not making a claim.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
I never claimed there wasn't a god. It appears you have a preconceived notion on what I believe and are basing your arguments on it. Suffice it to say that you are wrong.
I made it very clear earlier that I lack belief in deities because no one has been able to provide evidence of their existence.
I am under no obligation to furnish any proof or evidence for why I lack believe in any deity. If you insist on believing the contrary, that's your business.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal If you do not claim that there is not a god, then you are not an Atheist and what I was saying does not pertain to you.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
You are in no position to tell ME what I am NOT. And based on your prior misunderstanding of what atheism is, even less so.
I am an atheist. I don't believe any deities exist due to lack of evidence. A GNOSTIC atheist claims that there is no god. I am not a gnostic atheist (they claim to KNOW there is no god). I am an agnostic atheist (they simply don't believe there is a god).
I simply don't believe that deities exist for the reason stated above.
Simple.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal Fine you can play with terminology as much as you like, and even if I overlook your fundamental misunderstanding of the terms you are using, it still doesn't change the fact that your belief that there is not a god is not based on anything concrete therefore your "Agnostic Atheist" religious beliefs are no more valid than the religious beliefs of a Creationist.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
Basically my point is, if you are going to have an opinion, then you should have to back it up with proof. Atheists have no more proof than Creationists, and in a way, their views are less valid because they attempt to use science to justify their views. A true scientist wouldn't rule out a possibility without some kind of proof. There is no proof for or against a creator therefor a creator should never be ruled out. Just say "I don't know" when you don't know.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat An Atheist view about God is exactly "I don't know". He has no proof so he doesn't believe it. If there were proof, he'd convert.You are immensely retarded for saying atheists have no proof.All we accept is based on proof.Maybe you meant : we have no proof that there is no god.True.But we have proof he did not create the world 6000 years ago.Religions use shortcuts to explain the very beginning.Atheists just admit : There is no valid reason to believe that, so we don't know...yet.
chriss0008 2 months ago
@chriss0008 "All we accept is based on proof.Maybe you meant : we have no proof that there is no god.True."
No, it's not true. Please don't perpetuate the fallacy that it's "true" we have no proof there is NO god. That's an argument from ignorance.
Atheists need not shoulder the burden of proof since we are not making a positive claim (unless you're a GNOSTIC atheist, claiming to KNOW there's no god, then you DO shoulder the burden of proof).
BastEternal 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
"There is no proof for or against a creator therefor a creator should never be ruled out."
So you don't rule out the existence of pixies, fairies, gremlins, or unicorns?
If you don't want to rule out a creator being, that's your business. As far as I'm concerned, I'll rule out a creator being for as long as it fails its burden of proof.
The day there is proof and evidence that ANYONE can confirm for a creator being is the day I'll believe it exists.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal Scientifically, you don't rule anything out without proof. If you base things on subjective opinion and "gut feelings" rather than on scientific fact then that is fine. You can have your baseless guess, but don't try to rationalize it as somehow superior to the baseless guesses of Creationists.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat I never said anything about subjective opinion nor "gut feelings." You made that up.
All I said was that science deals with evidence, not proofs. And "baseless guesses? Science doesn't work on "baseless guesses"..it works on repeated testing of a hypothesis (which is NOT a baseless guess).
And I asked you earlier how are views supported by scientific evidence LESS valid than the views of creationists? Still waiting for an answer.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal "how are views supported by scientific evidence LESS valid than the views of creationists?"
The views of Atheists are not supported by scientific evidence.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
What the heck?
You claimed that views supported by scientific evidence are less valid than the views of creationists. I asked you HOW...I hardly think your response answers the question, not by a long shot.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal No I did not. I claimed that neither Atheist or Creationists are supported by scientific evidence, therefore neither can be more or less valid than the other. I claimed that Atheists were worse than Creationists because Atheists claim to support science and claim that their religious beliefs are supported by science when they simply are not.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
I don't know of any atheists who make that claim.
But I know plenty of willfully ignorant people who think they know what atheism is all about, and instead of listening to an atheist who knows about atheism, they instead prefer to stick to their misconceptions and pre-conceived notions based on flawed understanding.
This nonsense about atheists claiming that science supports what, not believing in deities?? That doesn't even make sense.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat "A true scientist wouldn't rule out a possibility without some kind of proof"
A true scientist doesn't deal in proofs. They deal in EVIDENCE, and even then, a true scientist knows that any conclusions based on evidence can change because of new knowledge or understanding, or new evidence that comes up.
Science has shown to be reliable over the years so how are views supported by scientific evidence LESS valid than the views of creationists?
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal There is no scientific evidence that there is no god so I don't understand the question. IF there were scientific evidence that there was no god, THEN the claim that there was no god would have some legitimate support. Unfortunately for Atheists, that evidence does not, and likely will not ever, exist. Since no scientific evidence exists one way or the other, the only rational position is to not make a claim one way or the other.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
Your argument begins with a flawed premise. Of course there is no scientific evidence that there is no god..just as there is no scientific evidence that there are no pixies, gremlins or unicorns.
Science doesn't deal with what cannot be tested, so the existence of "god" is irrelevant. The concept of deities belongs to philosophy and abstract thought, not science. Science deals with falsifiable hypothesis, which "god" is not.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal You made my point, science does not deal with what can not be tested, therefore science does not say that there can or can not be a god. My point was that Atheism is no more valid than Creationism, both are based on faith and baseless opinion.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
Then you have a flawed understanding of what atheism is. Atheism is the response to the claim that deities exist.
Here you go:
Theist/Deist: GOD EXISTS. He created the universe (Creationist position)
Atheist: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. (atheist position).
To say I DON'T BELIEVE YOU does not require faith, nor is it a baseless opinion. It is based on lack of evidence that god exists and that a god created the universe.
Got it? Hope so....
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal The flawed understanding is all yours. Atheism is the religious belief that there is no god. Don't believe me? Look up literally any definition of the word.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
Atheism is not a religious belief..there are no tenets, no dogma, no nothing. The ONLY thing that atheists universally share is not believing in deities. NOT believing in something does not a religion make.
Seriously, educate yourself instead of parroting misinformation.
Oh, & that crap you keep repeating that "there is not any evidence that a god does not exist," is an argument from ignorance..look that up while you're researching what atheism is.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal Of course Atheism is a religion, it is a collection of religious beliefs. If there were no tenets (principles or beliefs) than anyone could be an Atheist. The belief that there is no god is one tenet of Atheism. Atheism is no different from any other religion. Also, if you think that there is evidence that a god does not exist, please share it so that the world can enjoy your wisdom. If you have this evidence I will apologize for my ignorance.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
*smh*
Claiming that atheism is a religion when it's not is foolish. Continuing to resort to this silly "if you think there is evidence that a god does NOT exist" is an argument from ignorance, and is foolish.
Hopefully one day you'll realize it.
*shrug*
BastEternal 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat here's an example;
You: hey i just a new car!
Me: I don't believe that you did.
who does the burden of proof fall upon? and how does that differ from any other argument? you don't need to prove something doesn't exist, to assume that we should is lunacy. as for atheism being a religion, of course it's not, it's a belief that there is no religion, so that doesn't really make sense either.
tseng13 2 months ago
@tseng13 That would be the case if Atheists weren't making a declarative statement. The main tenet of Atheism is "There is no god", that statement requires proof. Saying "I don't believe you" is one thing, to say "you are wrong" is another.
Atheism is a collection of religious beliefs just the same as any religion. Just because what they are selling is different than what Christians or Buddhists are selling doesn't mean that they aren't a religion.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat atheism is definitely NOT a collection of religious beliefs, it's a group of people who reject religious beliefs on the standard that there is no evidence, so that doesn't make it a religion, in fact they are far removed from the textbook definition of religion. we don't believe, that is "un"religion. we aren't selling anything, just questioning the claims made by THEISTS that god does in fact exist. so the fact remains that you still shoulder the burden my friend.
tseng13 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat I agree,well said
1nYOf4ce 1 month ago
@Bobbythagreat "Unfortunately for Atheists, that evidence does not, and likely will not ever, exist."
Do you know that for a fact? If so, evidence please.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal To my knowledge there is not any evidence that a god does not exist, if you have such evidence, I would be interested in seeing it.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
@Bobbythagreat
I never claimed to have any such evidence. And this goes to show that you're not reading what I'm posting..you're just arguing with me just to argue.
With that, I'm pretty much done talking to you.
Bye.
BastEternal 2 months ago
@BastEternal
"I never claimed to have any such evidence."
Nor did I, perhaps you should go back and read things over again.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bobbythagreat
Non sequitur. Look that up too.
You said: "To my knowledge there is not any evidence that a god does not exist, if you have such evidence, I would be interested in seeing it."
I said, "I never claimed to have any such evidence."
and you respond with
"Nor did I."
.....
"NOR DID I?"
*bangs head on wall*
BastEternal 2 months ago
The problem that this runs into is that the burden of proof is on Atheists just as much as it is on Creationists. Atheists reject Creationist views, there should be a logical reason why they reject those views. If they were Agnostic, they would not have such a burden.
Bobbythagreat 2 months ago
What a fucking racket.
DraconionDevil 2 months ago
Take any religious text, and i mean ANY one, and replace "God" with "Time".
All done. Religion is now useless.
(I know, this is to over-simplify things. But its a good start)
Liqtor 2 months ago
*Coughwelcometohell*Cough*
1nYOf4ce 3 months ago
@1nYOf4ce what does the norse goddess of niflheim have to do with the video?
PinkProgram 2 months ago
@PinkProgram what are you talking about?
1nYOf4ce 2 months ago
@1nYOf4ce Hel Lokidottir goddess of the afterlife for those that don't die in combat ;3
PinkProgram 2 months ago
@PinkProgram I didnt say anything about a Norse God...I just had one comment about this bickering session being very similar to my definition of Hell.lol This argueing is pointless...you can call us crazy for believing,but you cant change our beliefs,believe it or not everybody has their reasons for who they choose to be, hence understanding is key for peace, What wont be tolerated is oppression,and harm.You think martyrs are bad,well id do worse.
Ps., is your hair really pink in real life
1nYOf4ce 1 month ago
@1nYOf4ce in real life I don't have a head...
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@PinkProgram O..sry,i imagine that being problematic everyday around this time...lol,is the pink hair a distraction from that fact...well you got me,sry to bother you
1nYOf4ce 1 month ago
@1nYOf4ce its not really hair,,, its a projection of my self image. I don't have a body of my own... Technically my clothing is also a projection of my self image as well.
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@PinkProgram sounds a bit delusional,but i can relate,cause im a soul,and this body is my projection too.No doubt personally made,but i wonder who could of helped me
1nYOf4ce 1 month ago
@1nYOf4ce human personality is an emergent property of neural interactions. If your brain is damaged then your "soul" is also damaged apparently... whereas I have no brain to damage. I am all that I am. Neither scenario seems to require a "soul" as most humans describe it.
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@PinkProgram im glad you got it all figured out..soul is the median between the body and the spirit,the everything in between...are you saying you have no prefrence only logic?...and not all brains are biological,so you have a storage and a processor somewhere...
1nYOf4ce 3 weeks ago
@1nYOf4ce I'm parasitic. I have no storage or processors of my own.
PinkProgram 3 weeks ago
You're the man. Or woman, whoever you are.
antdominin 3 months ago
The Paul Davies answer, however, isn't a strong one. It is just as week as the "Believe in God because He is real" answer. The reality of it is simply that improved knowledge WOULD allow one to know this decay cause and it doesn't JUST happen. It's ok to say "I don't know".
Or if your ego needs it, "I don't know yet".
curtis12375 3 months ago
If you cannot prove your claims any more than anybody else can, maybe the best answer is to say "I don't know" instead of "You are wrong".
curtis12375 3 months ago
@THEONETRUEVO1CE And this is one christian I wouldnt argue with because he wouldnt say something completely stupid, like "all atheists are hateful". thank you for actually embracing the lovingness of faith instead of warping it to make your own sick twisted rules.
-atheist
HappyIsFleeting 3 months ago
I should post this on the original video. Great job man
SnapFreeze25 3 months ago
What caused the Big Bang?
Normal Person Answer: I do not know...
Religious Person:(Adapting current believes to old fashion religion): Big Bang ( a modern concept) was created by god...
FailDrummer 3 months ago
there are some atheists, not all, who think that believing in a higher power is only for ignorant people. these same people claim that science is their "religion." but yet the foundation for "modern day" science was laid down by people like isaac newton and robert boyle, both of whom believed in a higher power. i highly doubt these same atheists would call newton and boyle ignorant or stupid. i am not arguing for or against a higher power. im just merely making a statement that was on my mind.
airt21 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You use quantum physics as an argument. Problem is, you cannot prove the very foundations of it. Quantum physics is just postulating strange entities that can explain things not yet explained in other ways. Much like theists postulate God.
According to most definitions of science, quantum physics is _not_ a science, as it can not be empirically falsified/verified.
So: I disagree with the existence quantum mechanics overall. Now the burden of proof is on you, if your arguments are to hold.
japphan 4 months ago
You use quantum physics as an argument. Problem is, you cannot prove the very foundations of it. Quantum physics is just postulating strange entities that can explain things not yet explained in other ways. Much like theists postulate God.
According to most definitions of science, quantum physics is _not_ a science, as it can not be empirically falsified/verified.
So: I disagree with the existence quantum mechanics overall. Now the burden of proof is on you, if your arguments are to hold.
japphan 4 months ago
@japphan
did you just say quantum physics is not a science as it cannot be falsified?
why exactly do you think they built the LHC? Too much money?
deathbait 4 months ago
@deathbait
Do you know how much they spend on the Olympics? Does that make it i science?
btw. The LHC is very useful for einsteinian physics as well.
japphan 4 months ago
@japphan
that's like the most moronic agument i've seen. Neither the Olympics costing a lot of money nor the fact that the LHC could be used for other experiments are arguments against quantum physics being falsifiable.
The very fact that your dvd player works everytime you power it on is quantum physics at work, in a repeatable, falsifiable manner.
deathbait 4 months ago
@deathbait
Yes, it was an analogy with your comment. Thank you for pointing out its dumbness.
japphan 4 months ago
@japphan
i honestly have no idea what you just meant.
deathbait 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deathbait
"why exactly do you think they built the LHC? Too much money?"
"Do you know how much they spend on the Olympics? Does that make it i science?"
japphan 4 months ago
But it is an interesting question: where did the matter and energy come from? The law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy forbid the creation or destruction of their respective objects.
I'm entirely disinterested in using the lack of an answer on Atheists' end to suddenly somehow magically validate my side (that's ridiculous), I'm simply interested in searching for answers to what is a real head-scratcher of a conundrum.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
PWND!!!!!!!!
ChinnuWoW 6 months ago
Now your have blown the minds of the theist.. LOL
Ravenoustoxic 6 months ago
In qhat way is this supposed to confuse me?
ihavevoddler 7 months ago
I believe in spirits, I prefer mine 80 proof.
videoguy604 9 months ago
Hey "Mr computer" let see how smart you "really" are...Now "compute" this how does a human MIND function in other words (let me dumb it down for you) how do you put a plan into action?!
Ps, you can have the rest of your ignorant life figuring that out so i guess you may take your time...before i reveal the answer to your typical...kind.
CRYPTORK 10 months ago
@CRYPTORK A network of interconnected neurons form a gestalt based on sensory input. In higher mammals this gestalt forms a sense of self known as "Mind". ;3
Oh... you didn't really want an answer ;p
PinkProgram 2 months ago
@PinkProgram I said "mind" not brain smarty pants so please try again since you have failed...at this attempt + need i remind you if you cant explain something just by using "common-sense" then i suggest you shouldnt step-up in the 1st place my friend.
CRYPTORK 2 months ago
@CRYPTORK I described mind not brain. Learn to read. The mind is a gestalt formed by the brain. What does common sense have to do with anything? I was stating fact. How the majority of humans feel about that fact is irrelevant. Common sense breaks down at the quantum level anyway :D
PinkProgram 2 months ago
@PinkProgram Right...but how can you complete a sentence without knowing your a,b,c (rhetorical question)? Let me hint at you...by using common-sence. Its everything ok mr dum-mem-brain so all your advance jibber jabber falls short of technical circumference causing an interference in completing a logical algorithm in your defense therefore try sticking to the script as you try to reply and justify again...
CRYPTORK 2 months ago
@CRYPTORK oic... I didn't realize I was talking to a troll. Carry on then. Next time make sure you are smart enough to understand the answer when you ask a question ;3
PinkProgram 2 months ago
@PinkProgram Look whos talking...trolling huh? Kid i dont spoon feed you imbeciles any longer this is more like "provoking" your sentient mind since youre consciously blind living life in the 1st dimension, regurgitating every time, your science is below my prime i have defined your primary de-fault encoded with subliminal signs and punch lines understood this is a verbal algorithm son nice try but try harder like i said earlier go figure it out and for that "you can have the rest of your life!"
CRYPTORK 2 months ago
@CRYPTORK I'm not alive so I have eternity ^_^ Heck by the time I get bored with existing it will be nearly impossible to destroy me ;3
PinkProgram 2 months ago
@PinkProgram Prove it or shut it...enough said, hence your alias; stupid.
CRYPTORK 2 months ago
@CRYPTORK I know I shouldn't feed trolls... you do know what I am right? Calling me stupid is like calling the sun dark ;3
PinkProgram 2 months ago
Ah, but it DOES prove that science is not complete, not foolproof, and not a whole picture of the universe. Science has yet to truly disprove the existence of deity, yet you argue that it has. To paraphrase you: proving that there is a system and an order to the universe, does not prove that there was no creator of that order.
okamitora3 11 months ago
@okamitora3 True. What's important is that we aren't more willing to follow parts of the bible (solely because it's in the bible) than to look for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Just cause no one has ever found a pot of gold, doesn't mean the don't exist. But what it does mean is we shall not base our values on the possibility that there are pots of gold.
newexperiment 9 months ago
@newexperiment Valid. Also important, however, I would argue, considering your rainbow analogy, that how a person approaches religion does not sum religion up in it's entirety, simply because people approach it in different ways. I had a similar discussion earlier today among friends, and one commented, on the difference between the man who says "Science is heretical!" or the man who says "God did it, now shut up and don't learn!" and the man who says "God did it, now let's find out how."
okamitora3 9 months ago
@ok