The Universe had a beginning and that is a scientifc fact, so you do the math. Infinite regression is all you come up with.
Can you control your breathing? Do you bring the sun up and cause it to go down? Can you stop the earth from spinning? Did you name yourself or pick the time/place you would be born? Humble yourself, man.
the universe as defined as stars and planets yes as defined by particles and energy unknown an infinite regression cannot occur because were talking about before there was time
as for the rest of your nonsense you seem to be accusing tool time of being narcissistic
You are devoted to the hypotheses of men, yet were they there at the "Big Bang" ? Their theories are just that theories and certainly, great discoveries have been made concerning the laws that rule this universe. Notice they are men discovering what has been. Perhaps, if you would look with eyes and mind open you would see that in no way, in any context does "nothing" produce "something".
You make fun of christians yet, atleast their lives are congruently aligned with what they believe (not all I am aware of whacky people professing Christ, but I am talking about the ones that don't make the headlines by doing something horrible). You claim to be an atheist. If so, you cannot believe in love, right and wrong, or purpose. Do you have hobbies? Do you love someone? Are you offended at evil (no basis for evil in your worldview)? If so, you are a walking contradiction.
wow nothing produced something....hm..............bang! have you ever heard of cause and effect? do you have parents? or did nothing give birth to you?
so therefore you may not believe in a God, yet you do believe in a beginning which takes faith, because unless you have a time machine you can never really be certain. You bag on religion yet the definition in all dictionaries means devotion to something outside yourself, meaning you to evolution, also it means the way one views the world.
religion= it means a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
@agapenow Wow, you made 6 responses to a video you clearly didn't even watch or understand the contents of. Each and every one of the arguments you bring up are straw-man arguments. Learn about the topics you want to discuss before you start.
@KindlySpastic Yeah, he seems like he'd be an amazing speaker or pitchman for something, but it's too bad all that talent is being wasted on bullshit....
that's one of the things i put up with from a lot of fired-up christians: they fail to see that atheism simply means "without a personal god"", and they jump to all sorts of conclusions about who you are and what you think. it's so stupid that i don't even have time for it anymore.
As the wind blows from the east to the west and nobody understands. I really tried to follow this guy and was lost in circles along the way. Although, there is something I like about this guy so I will forgive the koolaid. I am boggled by the negativity of these poor humans and their concerns. Have we became that greedy? That selfish? What does peace mean to you? Attack one's beliefs?
well to brock's credit, the laws of physics do (theoretically) unify at higher energies, but at the same time we do find that when we reach a certain scale we can no longer predict with any certainty anything.
the words of a particle physicist- "our equations divide by 0 and we reach non-sensical answers"
Actually, a singularity is just a point where a division by zero problem occurs.
The kinds of singularities that occur can be broadly classed as either isolated (one point w/ a divide by zero problem) or non-isolated (a whole region w/ divide by zero issues.
Isolated singularities can be grouped into basically "removable" singularities, polar singularities, and essential singularities.
Non-isolated singularites can be similarly classed. However, other than the complex logarithmic
you arrogant punk, science has not failed our world IT HAS SAVED OR CIVILIZATION!!!!! It has cured hundreds of diseases and if it was not for science, you wouldn't be able to make such a stupid statement.
Has it now? Well you'd better stop using your computer, because that was made by science. In fact you'd better sell your house and all your possessions, take off all your clothes and go out into the wilderness to live in a cave as a hunter-gatherer.
Clean water, thats science. Ample food, science again. Medicine, obviously science. Transport, science. Infrastructure, once again that's just applied science.
What was your point? You said science has failed our world... All of the things dococksmother has mentioned COME FROM science.
So, if you say "Science", and in saying it as a blanket term imply "all" science, has failed us, that would mean that you feel that no science is credible.
If NO science is credible, and all the things listed were derived from science, you should fore go those things for your own security. Because, who wants to rely on things they feel fail?
My point was more or less, politics, wars, nukes, genetically modified foods, fluoride in our water supply, weapons etc.... NOT all science just in general overall!
Politics is not science. Political science is, but politics is not.
Modified foods? Really? You do know that they modified a strain of wheat to grow in harsh conditions and they started growing it in Africa, saving millions of lives, mostly children.
Why is it you cherry picked the things that are obviously bad like weapons, and then call it "science in General", when science in general is CERTAINLY not the things you listed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@whosthechamp well you can take it how you want to take it, I can't sit here and spell it all out for you, that is just the way I feel just look at how the scientific community is divided and you may understand a bit more, research how many micro biologists get killed, harmful cell phone radiation/wifi radiation I can go on all day. Science has failed our world!
If "science has failed our world", then stop using the internet, stop using medicine, stop using all the wonderful things that science has brought us since you think science is so aweful.
Gravity! LOL Wait a minute. The clock maker adjusted the time by the factory whistle? Who made the factory clock? The clock maker? Why would he trust the factory whistle over the clock he made?
To me, the Big Bang is like pangea or god; For some reason people seem to need to reduce everything to one point of origin. I find it baffling.
The "Big bang" is supported by background radiation and what we perceive as the expansion o the universe.
"Pangea" is supported by plate tectonics, convection currents, and geological similarities in the plates that suggests atleast some connection at some time.
God is supported by a 2000-year-old book...actually strike that. That 2000-year-old book disproves God. Nevermind.
So 2 of the three "one point of origin" examples you presented have the evidence to support them...
1a. @onijester56 Yeah, it's interesting that interpretation is a factor in all three. You did say the evidence supports that the continent were connected at some time in the past, which I have no problem with. I have a problem with them having been together all at once at the same time. I think it makes more sense for them to have contacted each other at some time, but bounce around and into each other.
Expansion of the universe is another one that seems odd to me. I could see...
2a. ... different pressure zones in various points in space that may present a seeming expansion with in our range of "perception", due to our "space" existing presently in a relatively high pressure zone, but, I have a problem with the idea of the universe being finite. Appreciate the humour though, onijester56. It could be that I'm just in a finite mental state. ;)
1a. The general idea of "pangea" and "one land mass" is that water covered all other land, then the plates moved. Maybe before life was around, maybe they combined several times before the predicted scenerio. That is somethin for a geologist to explain more.
2a. The universe, supposedly, is expanding to infinity...depending on your mathematic knowledge, maybe the idea of X^2 may provide an example. My personal view, though, is a modified sine function (expand, stop, recede, stop, etc).
onijester56: Interesting. A sine function, eh. I regard the operations of existence as cyclical, so there may be merit in what you see. I'm not sure I understand the reference to x raised to the power of two, though. But I could see the universe as haveing infinite realms of which one is the point in which we reside at present. I think Hitchens said Einstein got it wrong, and that the "universe" is actually expanding at an excellerated rate. Still trying to imagine earth wobbling through space.
X^2 is an example for one possibility (the universe expands...specifically, it expands at an increasing rate infinitely).
And the position/status of the earth through space is simple to imagine. (if you can focus like that). Take a sheet of paper and draw a few circles on it randomly. In them, make smaller circles. And in the smaller circles, make smaller circles in the middle of them. And for one of the 2nd-smallest, put 8 dots in a line from the middle. The 3rd of the 8 dots is us.
@RichardRoy2 read a fucking earth science book you idiot. matching mountain ranges, matching glacial grooves, dispersion of fossils...the evidence is there. shut the fuck up, your stupidity is infuriating.
Listen moron. I can take advice from people in kind. I don't need some jerk coming along and spewing foolishness such as "your stupidity infuriates me". I didn't make any comment about any of the reference to science because I have a respect for science, those who know more than I, and, most importantly, respect for those who know less than me. You obviously do not. Don't expect it returned when none is given. Your "scientifically" stated "shut the fuck up" was brilliant. Jerk!
@procritic09 You could be right. I've seen some of the evidence, but not all of it. I know they've found matching formations on separate continents that put them together at a period in the past. I still need to look into it more. I need to find that all the correlations match the same time line, I think. I think I was also having trouble with the idea that there was only one continent. But I think a supercontintent doesn't necessarily mean that. It may be another error on my part.
A good explanation. I wonder how Brock would at all ask a question about "laws being suspended". That means he has problems with understanding things. Which also means, he may not be a hypocrite.
There are a variety of different measurements for the volume of space occupied by all of the matter of the universe (I've seen 93 billiion light years, and 150 something billion etc), but it is entirely possible the actual universe itself is larger than that, and potentially infinite in volume. Of course, I'm not saying that's true, but it's not something we know for sure.
not doubting your intelligence here...but did you ever think the big bang theory was brought up by some seriously smart cookies. i mean guys that have phd's etc and know just about everything there is to know in their subjects
@adirm18 If it were so easy to refute purely on the basis of logical examination, why haven't any of the world renowned physicists posited your hypothesis in it's place.
You make an assumption that the universe is infinite, we don't know this, we have yet to answer if we're in a closed or open system.
Look up The Hubble Law and Friedmann equations.
email your idea to CERN, maybe it will lead to a breakthrough, but i doubt they wouldn't have thought of it if it had any basis.
How do you know the universe is everything? It's entirely possible there is more to reality than just our universe, and therefore there would exist an "outside".
Even if what you said was true, that doesn't mean the universe has an infinite volume. The universe could be all there is and still be finite.
Why isn't it logical? Give me a sound and valid syllogism that concludes reality must be infinite in all measures.
One definition of universe is that it is the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space. That space is 3 dimensions (4 with time). String and M theories both suppose 10 and 11 dimensions respectively. In these would exist something outside of our own ability to percieve, outside our universe. Don't forget the hypothesis about multiple universes too.
So far the big bang is based on quite a bit of data, and has made successful predictions. In fact it predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation before it was observed. Not only did they predict its existence they predicted its density and wavelengths. You are misunderstanding what the big bang claims or what you propose would entail.
there is a slight miss-understanding of what is meant by the break down of the laws of physics here.
Not the actual real world laws breaks down, but the descriptiveness of the current theory itself (that is General Relativity). The theory has a singularity, where none of the rules of the theory are applicable.
No reasonable physicist would argue that the actual laws of nature break down, because the models of the universe have a singularity.
A singularity is defined by General Relativity. When you do the equations for a singularity, even one that's only a few solar masses, it's density comes out at infinity, and it's size is infinitesimal, so there's a problem with General Relativity, and that's why the laws "break down".
I find it amazing that people can't accept the fact that not everyone believes in God. I mean come on. How many different religions are out there? How many different forms of Christianity or there alone? Do you honestly think people wont be like hmmm this seems kind of weird? how come there is so many? Which is one is the right one? what if all of them or wrong since no one can agree on a single one? Anyone who can think can find fault in religion. Its just whether you are okay with the fault.
I like your philosophy lectures and arguments. However I'd leave cosmology to experts hands. If you wish to adress these claims please use external links.
As a former christian, listening to him babble incoherently about what the big bang is and then stating at the end of the video "talk with the experts instead" just kind of makes you look a little stupid. That is where he should of started with in the beginning of the vid or at least researched it before talking about it. Its not a complicated theory to understand the basics do. Considering no christians take any time to understand it. Its easy to shut them the fuck up when you have read.
yeah. i tuned in to his blog tv session for about a minute just to see if he was stil on, and he mentioned how he needed to reply to DasAmericanAtheist, but that first he felt like he needed to reply to Tooltime because he got torn to shreds.
We see these arguments all the time. Evolution is false therefore god. The big bang is false therefore baby Jesus. We can't explain the constants of the universe, therefore you will burn in hell. Anyone else see a trend here?
Yes, I do. Religion seems intellectually lazy to me. The fact is that humans have so much to learn. We are just a tiny planet in an enormous, possible "infinite" universe. Yet we assume to know the secrets towards this fabled heaven even while we are still an infant species?
I'd like to also add that the big bang theory is not an explanation of the origin of the universe. It's only an explanation of the universe in its current state.
It makes no claim as to the origin of the singularity, and any proposed hypotheses are only conjecture at this point.
Indeed, the laws of physics, as they are understood at this time, seem to point to the unliklihood that the universe *could* even have a beginning.
P.S. Nothing in the universe makes sense except in the light of Big Bang cosmology. If the Big Bang did not happen (and is not still happening), a hell of a lot of facts about the universe would make no sense. For one example, we would have to reinvent Einstein's Cosmological Constant to keep the galaxies apart. For another example, our knowledge of the laws that govern the electromagnetic spectrum (specifically light) would have to be fundamentally wrong.
Indeed, Big Bang cosmology *IS* science: it is forensic science, no different than the same forensic sciences that puts murderers in prison even when no witnesses to the murders exist or are known to have witnessed the murders. (the O.J. Simpson murder trial being a fine failure of reason in the jury, not the scientists who provided the evidence of his guilt). The very same scientific methodology that has sent people to prison is also applied to cosmology: the Big bang is an observed fact.
Really awesome stuff - thanks! As for what Brock was trying for is a standard "Tables Turner" argument where he'll start blaring "Ye have FAITH in the gods of SCIENCE that have proclaimed through revelation the DOGMA of Big Bang!" That sort of crap. I'm glad you emphasized that Big Bang is NOT dogma, it is based on observation and conjecture and even if Big Bang is wrong - it really won't impact atheists at all. Thanks again! :)
I'd love to hear what the strawman antidote has to say regarding this series. How much you wanna bet he starts out by psycho analyzing Peter, then claims Peter is misrepresenting his arguments, and NEVER acknowledges the universally known fact that he is guilty of cut and paste pseudo intellectualism even though he claims all his detractors are guilty of it, and finally challenges tooltime to a debate but with unreasonable ground rules then makes an excuse to get out of it at the last second?
Welcome aboard! You are now a member of the fastest growing non-faith based religion ever created by human kind. New Atheism. Enjoy it! You are not alone.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Atheism must be considered a Religion in order to come under court authority for first amendment protection by the first amendment law. Therefore, presto, Atheism is religion. Even though it is non-faith based religion, it still gets to be religion. The court is the final arbiter. Cheers!
I think Brock asks about cosmology because he thinks his stupid Christian god lives either up, down, this side, or that side of the universe.
I don't know why Christians like to argue evolution, when cosmology shows if anything, heaven is fucking insanely far away, and obviously gives of know light detectable from earth/orbiting telescopes.
I guess that's why the word faith exists in the dictionary, opposed to the word fact.
Brock would be outstanding at writing a resume. His breezy descriptions envelope and dress up hot air.....kind of like balloons. lol. Although, that may be too generous an analogy considering the vacuous nature of most of his topics. Great video tooltime, thank you for all the effort that went into them.
Not at all. Remember he basically just memorises crap he reads and repeats it verbatim. The only thing he does appear to be quite good at is delivery.
People believe in The Big Bang much like they believe in mathematics. Even though there may be no philosophical reason to believe in mathematics, they will continue to do so because it works. The bridges built according to mathematical specifications don't collapse, the airplanes don't fall out of the sky, even the rockets manage to land of Mars.
The reason Brock and other pop-apologists like to ask stupid questions of atheists about the nature and origin of the universe is because Brock has it fixed in his head that atheism is a worldview that is unconditionally tethered to evolution and the big bang. Brock likes to tell you what your worldview is, even as you correct him.
Simply put, he's trying to justify HIS worldview by grouping everything that is antithetical to his beliefs a bashing them with a rolling pin.
THE laws of physics don't break down in a singularity. A "singularity" is the point at which maths shows us that OUR laws of physics are not a perfect description of how reality behaves. Reality, of course, just does what it does. Reality does not have "singularities"
What saddens me about this whole thing is that Brock's stupid face has been seen by many more people than it would have otherwise. I really wish everyone would just stop picking at the brock lesion and let it dry up on its own.
Stupidity is more of a cancer than a scab. If you leave it alone it will spread to the point that you can't combat it. Think of this video series as a little chemotherapy against stupid.
Creationists are funny, they will grill an atheist who questions their reasoning until they find something the atheist doesn't know much about, then act like the atheist has no right question them because the atheist can't answer everything.
Another thing is, they think that science must be consistent and answer everything, if it's not then throw the entire theory away. Just like the theory of gravity, it has changed several times and still can't answer everything about gravity: toss it.
I'm sick of creationists who think that science is ONLY what you can test, repeat, and observe. A forensic investigator can use science to examine the clues of a murder and draw the correct conclusion without having to repeat the murder. That is why we can study evolution and cosmology and draw the correct conclusions from the clues even without being able to repeat the events that took place.
Forensics is still testing, repeating and observing. Just not the original event. Part of forensics is testing various ways a blood spatter can and can't occur so that when you see a blood spatter, you can test how it could have gotten there and ways it couldn't have gotten there.
The problem they have is, they think that to observe only means to observe the actual event, not observe the evidence the event left behind.
Theists are always moving the goalposts as far as "science." Throwing their own definitions in and claiming that's what atheists think. Example: "You think nothing exploded and created everything."
To give you a more complete answer tooltime. General Relativity is our best theory for gravity. Quantum Mechanics is our best theory to describe the subatomic. These theories cannot be combined (for reasons I wont go into here) yet both of them are needed to describe a singularity mathematically.
i cant believe you had this massive debate with a guy that thinks the bible is answer to every question ever asked, but im glad you did, well done man, great series. take that to the bank!
The Universe had a beginning and that is a scientifc fact, so you do the math. Infinite regression is all you come up with.
Can you control your breathing? Do you bring the sun up and cause it to go down? Can you stop the earth from spinning? Did you name yourself or pick the time/place you would be born? Humble yourself, man.
agapenow 1 year ago
@agapenow
the universe as defined as stars and planets yes as defined by particles and energy unknown an infinite regression cannot occur because were talking about before there was time
as for the rest of your nonsense you seem to be accusing tool time of being narcissistic
InquisitorDracomual 9 months ago
You are devoted to the hypotheses of men, yet were they there at the "Big Bang" ? Their theories are just that theories and certainly, great discoveries have been made concerning the laws that rule this universe. Notice they are men discovering what has been. Perhaps, if you would look with eyes and mind open you would see that in no way, in any context does "nothing" produce "something".
agapenow 1 year ago
@agapenow
"nothing" produce "something
no ones saying it did fool
InquisitorDracomual 9 months ago
You make fun of christians yet, atleast their lives are congruently aligned with what they believe (not all I am aware of whacky people professing Christ, but I am talking about the ones that don't make the headlines by doing something horrible). You claim to be an atheist. If so, you cannot believe in love, right and wrong, or purpose. Do you have hobbies? Do you love someone? Are you offended at evil (no basis for evil in your worldview)? If so, you are a walking contradiction.
agapenow 1 year ago
@agapenow WOW, you're such a tool.
I'm an atheist & my morals come from empathy, not some tribal war god called Yahweh.
Do I love someone yes, my girlfriend, my family, my friends, & my fellow humans (also, to a lesser extent, some lower animals.) Why?
Because I evolved to be a social animal with co-operative skills.
As for evil, you might want to think about your god and his rather nasty sadistic habits!
Nilsy1975 9 months ago
wow nothing produced something....hm..............bang! have you ever heard of cause and effect? do you have parents? or did nothing give birth to you?
agapenow 1 year ago
so therefore you may not believe in a God, yet you do believe in a beginning which takes faith, because unless you have a time machine you can never really be certain. You bag on religion yet the definition in all dictionaries means devotion to something outside yourself, meaning you to evolution, also it means the way one views the world.
agapenow 1 year ago
religion= it means a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
agapenow 1 year ago
@agapenow Wow, you made 6 responses to a video you clearly didn't even watch or understand the contents of. Each and every one of the arguments you bring up are straw-man arguments. Learn about the topics you want to discuss before you start.
Griexxt 11 months ago
the antidote for atheism is called stupididy. if athiests become stupid they wont have a reason to not believe what they are told.
lordnuck33 1 year ago 2
Brock is like a merchant with a great sales pitch but nothing to sell.
KindlySpastic 1 year ago 5
@KindlySpastic Yeah, he seems like he'd be an amazing speaker or pitchman for something, but it's too bad all that talent is being wasted on bullshit....
DonutDazzler 1 year ago
that's one of the things i put up with from a lot of fired-up christians: they fail to see that atheism simply means "without a personal god"", and they jump to all sorts of conclusions about who you are and what you think. it's so stupid that i don't even have time for it anymore.
fifh89 1 year ago
just shows what a retard he is
he has never even taken a simple astronomy class in college
fuck you Antidote
atheistkyo 1 year ago
As the wind blows from the east to the west and nobody understands. I really tried to follow this guy and was lost in circles along the way. Although, there is something I like about this guy so I will forgive the koolaid. I am boggled by the negativity of these poor humans and their concerns. Have we became that greedy? That selfish? What does peace mean to you? Attack one's beliefs?
turquoiseraven72 1 year ago
well to brock's credit, the laws of physics do (theoretically) unify at higher energies, but at the same time we do find that when we reach a certain scale we can no longer predict with any certainty anything.
the words of a particle physicist- "our equations divide by 0 and we reach non-sensical answers"
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous
In Brock's defense, he's a douchebag.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
desertphile looks tanked
Trevs13 1 year ago
"Take it to the bank!" Fucking priceless! LOL!!!!
Naked4Jesus 1 year ago
Actually, a singularity is just a point where a division by zero problem occurs.
The kinds of singularities that occur can be broadly classed as either isolated (one point w/ a divide by zero problem) or non-isolated (a whole region w/ divide by zero issues.
Isolated singularities can be grouped into basically "removable" singularities, polar singularities, and essential singularities.
Non-isolated singularites can be similarly classed. However, other than the complex logarithmic
unhealthytruthseeker 2 years ago
function, there are very few examples of non-isolated singularities that are even worth considering.
unhealthytruthseeker 2 years ago
you arrogant punk, science has not failed our world IT HAS SAVED OR CIVILIZATION!!!!! It has cured hundreds of diseases and if it was not for science, you wouldn't be able to make such a stupid statement.
MrEnrique223 2 years ago
SCIENCE HAS FAILED OUR WORLD
NWOpartycrasher 2 years ago
@NWOpartycrasher
Has it now? Well you'd better stop using your computer, because that was made by science. In fact you'd better sell your house and all your possessions, take off all your clothes and go out into the wilderness to live in a cave as a hunter-gatherer.
Clean water, thats science. Ample food, science again. Medicine, obviously science. Transport, science. Infrastructure, once again that's just applied science.
dococksmother 2 years ago
That is not the point I was making here
NWOpartycrasher 2 years ago
What was your point? You said science has failed our world... All of the things dococksmother has mentioned COME FROM science.
So, if you say "Science", and in saying it as a blanket term imply "all" science, has failed us, that would mean that you feel that no science is credible.
If NO science is credible, and all the things listed were derived from science, you should fore go those things for your own security. Because, who wants to rely on things they feel fail?
So, what is your point?
whosthechamp 2 years ago
My point was more or less, politics, wars, nukes, genetically modified foods, fluoride in our water supply, weapons etc.... NOT all science just in general overall!
NWOpartycrasher 2 years ago
Politics is not science. Political science is, but politics is not.
Modified foods? Really? You do know that they modified a strain of wheat to grow in harsh conditions and they started growing it in Africa, saving millions of lives, mostly children.
Why is it you cherry picked the things that are obviously bad like weapons, and then call it "science in General", when science in general is CERTAINLY not the things you listed.
whosthechamp 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@whosthechamp well you can take it how you want to take it, I can't sit here and spell it all out for you, that is just the way I feel just look at how the scientific community is divided and you may understand a bit more, research how many micro biologists get killed, harmful cell phone radiation/wifi radiation I can go on all day. Science has failed our world!
NWOpartycrasher 2 years ago
wifi and cell phones dont emit radiation you stupid fuck, they emit microwaves and hf waves. learn science before you debunk it
DavidPlim 2 years ago
Yeah buddy, that was what I meant to say! Thanks for the clarification ass clown
NWOpartycrasher 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Saving lives lol GMO foods cause long term negative health affects.
NWOpartycrasher 2 years ago
So.. I take it you didn't research the genetically modified strain of wheat I mentioned, right?
Do you eat bananas?
whosthechamp 2 years ago
@whosthechamp Oh I have done my research on GMO's and no I hate bananas
NWOpartycrasher 2 years ago
@whosthechamp double u double u double u dot raw-wisdomDOTcom/50harmful.
NWOpartycrasher 2 years ago
If "science has failed our world", then stop using the internet, stop using medicine, stop using all the wonderful things that science has brought us since you think science is so aweful.
AngelFighter666 2 years ago 7
If you can't read my last comment and understand my point than just shut up... whosthechamp already said that and I clarified it in the comment below
NWOpartycrasher 2 years ago
If you watched this video, you should search....The Decline And Fall Of The Human Race.
flashrewind 2 years ago
Gravity! LOL Wait a minute. The clock maker adjusted the time by the factory whistle? Who made the factory clock? The clock maker? Why would he trust the factory whistle over the clock he made?
To me, the Big Bang is like pangea or god; For some reason people seem to need to reduce everything to one point of origin. I find it baffling.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
The "Big bang" is supported by background radiation and what we perceive as the expansion o the universe.
"Pangea" is supported by plate tectonics, convection currents, and geological similarities in the plates that suggests atleast some connection at some time.
God is supported by a 2000-year-old book...actually strike that. That 2000-year-old book disproves God. Nevermind.
So 2 of the three "one point of origin" examples you presented have the evidence to support them...
onijester56 2 years ago
1a. @onijester56 Yeah, it's interesting that interpretation is a factor in all three. You did say the evidence supports that the continent were connected at some time in the past, which I have no problem with. I have a problem with them having been together all at once at the same time. I think it makes more sense for them to have contacted each other at some time, but bounce around and into each other.
Expansion of the universe is another one that seems odd to me. I could see...
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
2a. ... different pressure zones in various points in space that may present a seeming expansion with in our range of "perception", due to our "space" existing presently in a relatively high pressure zone, but, I have a problem with the idea of the universe being finite. Appreciate the humour though, onijester56. It could be that I'm just in a finite mental state. ;)
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
1a. The general idea of "pangea" and "one land mass" is that water covered all other land, then the plates moved. Maybe before life was around, maybe they combined several times before the predicted scenerio. That is somethin for a geologist to explain more.
2a. The universe, supposedly, is expanding to infinity...depending on your mathematic knowledge, maybe the idea of X^2 may provide an example. My personal view, though, is a modified sine function (expand, stop, recede, stop, etc).
onijester56 2 years ago
onijester56: Interesting. A sine function, eh. I regard the operations of existence as cyclical, so there may be merit in what you see. I'm not sure I understand the reference to x raised to the power of two, though. But I could see the universe as haveing infinite realms of which one is the point in which we reside at present. I think Hitchens said Einstein got it wrong, and that the "universe" is actually expanding at an excellerated rate. Still trying to imagine earth wobbling through space.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
X^2 is an example for one possibility (the universe expands...specifically, it expands at an increasing rate infinitely).
And the position/status of the earth through space is simple to imagine. (if you can focus like that). Take a sheet of paper and draw a few circles on it randomly. In them, make smaller circles. And in the smaller circles, make smaller circles in the middle of them. And for one of the 2nd-smallest, put 8 dots in a line from the middle. The 3rd of the 8 dots is us.
onijester56 2 years ago
@RichardRoy2 read a fucking earth science book you idiot. matching mountain ranges, matching glacial grooves, dispersion of fossils...the evidence is there. shut the fuck up, your stupidity is infuriating.
JIMMYguitar07 2 years ago
And your infuriation is stupid.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
gee, that was almost clever; too bad you dodged every single point in my scientifcally supported comment. science=1, you=0.
JIMMYguitar07 2 years ago
Listen moron. I can take advice from people in kind. I don't need some jerk coming along and spewing foolishness such as "your stupidity infuriates me". I didn't make any comment about any of the reference to science because I have a respect for science, those who know more than I, and, most importantly, respect for those who know less than me. You obviously do not. Don't expect it returned when none is given. Your "scientifically" stated "shut the fuck up" was brilliant. Jerk!
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
@RichardRoy2 Well Pangea existed, there is indisputable evidence for that.
procritic09 1 year ago
@procritic09 You could be right. I've seen some of the evidence, but not all of it. I know they've found matching formations on separate continents that put them together at a period in the past. I still need to look into it more. I need to find that all the correlations match the same time line, I think. I think I was also having trouble with the idea that there was only one continent. But I think a supercontintent doesn't necessarily mean that. It may be another error on my part.
RichardRoy2 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I love Brock, Brock rocks!
repentorburnbaby 2 years ago
A good explanation. I wonder how Brock would at all ask a question about "laws being suspended". That means he has problems with understanding things. Which also means, he may not be a hypocrite.
alexeirayu 2 years ago
haha I knew desertphile was going to make an appearance as soon as you paused before the last of the forces.
ubergossen 2 years ago 4
Arkalius, look up size of the universe or something. I think I have read somewhere that the scientists know its size now.
winterstellar 2 years ago
There are a variety of different measurements for the volume of space occupied by all of the matter of the universe (I've seen 93 billiion light years, and 150 something billion etc), but it is entirely possible the actual universe itself is larger than that, and potentially infinite in volume. Of course, I'm not saying that's true, but it's not something we know for sure.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
Arkalius OK.. Im no astronomer I just read it somewhere in a popular science magazine of some sort..
winterstellar 2 years ago
Peter, why did you waste your time with this fucknut?
Redfingers 2 years ago
Comment removed
Redfingers 2 years ago
look i know evolution is a fact and natural selection is a theory based on an endless amount of evidence and zero counters (so far)
but, the big bang is more a hypothesis since it can't be tested and it has a small amount of evidence BUT its failing logically:
since the universe is infinite and no matter how much you compress it, it stays infinite. there for FAIL!!!
it is more logical that the universe that we can see all came from 1 big planet that went boom ...
adirm18 2 years ago
this way all the evidence will still be for it and it will not make any problem with physics
so as far as we can see we only see the planet that exploded but there are more huge planets like that which are too far for us to see
much more logical!!!
adirm18 2 years ago
not doubting your intelligence here...but did you ever think the big bang theory was brought up by some seriously smart cookies. i mean guys that have phd's etc and know just about everything there is to know in their subjects
raptoresque 2 years ago
Study. Or prove your point and win yourself a Nobel-prize. Either way.
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
@adirm18 If it were so easy to refute purely on the basis of logical examination, why haven't any of the world renowned physicists posited your hypothesis in it's place.
You make an assumption that the universe is infinite, we don't know this, we have yet to answer if we're in a closed or open system.
Look up The Hubble Law and Friedmann equations.
email your idea to CERN, maybe it will lead to a breakthrough, but i doubt they wouldn't have thought of it if it had any basis.
Floridanon407 2 years ago
Where did you get the idea that the universe is infinite? We currently do not know if the universe is finite or not.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
@Arkalius the universe is everything and there for there can't be an outside of the universe
adirm18 2 years ago
How do you know the universe is everything? It's entirely possible there is more to reality than just our universe, and therefore there would exist an "outside".
Even if what you said was true, that doesn't mean the universe has an infinite volume. The universe could be all there is and still be finite.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
no, it can't be everything and still be finite
thats not logical
the universe is everything that is the meaning of the word
adirm18 2 years ago
Why isn't it logical? Give me a sound and valid syllogism that concludes reality must be infinite in all measures.
One definition of universe is that it is the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space. That space is 3 dimensions (4 with time). String and M theories both suppose 10 and 11 dimensions respectively. In these would exist something outside of our own ability to percieve, outside our universe. Don't forget the hypothesis about multiple universes too.
Arkalius80 2 years ago
So far the big bang is based on quite a bit of data, and has made successful predictions. In fact it predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation before it was observed. Not only did they predict its existence they predicted its density and wavelengths. You are misunderstanding what the big bang claims or what you propose would entail.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago 2
@cryingsoftly can you compare that to evolution?
evolution has made endless predictions and have been tested observed & repeated
there is only one fact for the big bang and it is this:
fact: "the part of the universe that we can see is expanding"
hypothesis: it all came from one spot
now can you test that hypothesis? NO!
you can only show more evidence for the fact not for the hypothesis
adirm18 2 years ago
GRAVITY, YOU FUCKING RETARD!!!!
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago 19
"The laws of physics become *unkown* at the singularity." is actually what is said. That doesn't say "Unkowable". It means "we don't yet know."
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Take it to da bank indeed. Rawr.
logicaust 2 years ago
Is it just me or does theatheistantidote sound REALLY smug?
anglaismoyen 2 years ago 3
He also looks really smug.
lordcheetah 2 years ago
And I'm sure, if you got near enough to him, he'd smell pretty smug as well.
whosthechamp 2 years ago
My head just exploded at 6:21.
So much win.
Chulacker 2 years ago
Interesting. Blockhead Brock defeated again, for now.
Chuloloc 2 years ago
epic!
testthepie 2 years ago
"Gimme dat christian side hug, dat christian side hug"
agnosticman77 2 years ago 2
At my work, it's a corporate side hug.
Barklord 2 years ago
SUPERFORCE - GO! :)
symelian 2 years ago
Hm,
there is a slight miss-understanding of what is meant by the break down of the laws of physics here.
Not the actual real world laws breaks down, but the descriptiveness of the current theory itself (that is General Relativity). The theory has a singularity, where none of the rules of the theory are applicable.
No reasonable physicist would argue that the actual laws of nature break down, because the models of the universe have a singularity.
AppliedMathematician 2 years ago
Where was he going with this? - God of the gaps, obviously.
TheFifthApes 2 years ago
A singularity is defined by General Relativity. When you do the equations for a singularity, even one that's only a few solar masses, it's density comes out at infinity, and it's size is infinitesimal, so there's a problem with General Relativity, and that's why the laws "break down".
TheFifthApes 2 years ago
You may not be a cosmology scientist, but I really like the way you use and show logic and reason. I learned a lot from this series.
Thanks for DP's "Gravity!!!" - it always cheers me up :-)
Rettequetette 2 years ago
we love you tooltime )))
PepperGeorge 2 years ago
wow!!!!! you are really trying to hard!
vince19811981 2 years ago
Desertphile and his gravity thing are hilarious lol :)
mathmexican4234 2 years ago 2
Fantastic series.
DeconstrainedUnbound 2 years ago
I find it amazing that people can't accept the fact that not everyone believes in God. I mean come on. How many different religions are out there? How many different forms of Christianity or there alone? Do you honestly think people wont be like hmmm this seems kind of weird? how come there is so many? Which is one is the right one? what if all of them or wrong since no one can agree on a single one? Anyone who can think can find fault in religion. Its just whether you are okay with the fault.
mysadending 2 years ago
GRAAAVITY!!!!!!! :D 5 starred :)
sotolf 2 years ago 15
Dear Tooltime,
I like your philosophy lectures and arguments. However I'd leave cosmology to experts hands. If you wish to adress these claims please use external links.
pinegulf 2 years ago
haha the clock talk was great
Davenergy 2 years ago
Awesome and strong finish to this series! You can take that to the bank! And won't bounce...
SliceSupeRStaR 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tool time did a horrible job answering this.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
Your statement did a horrible job explaining your position. And T.T. did an excellent job,...
Take it to the BANK! :P
HashyBee 2 years ago
As a former christian, listening to him babble incoherently about what the big bang is and then stating at the end of the video "talk with the experts instead" just kind of makes you look a little stupid. That is where he should of started with in the beginning of the vid or at least researched it before talking about it. Its not a complicated theory to understand the basics do. Considering no christians take any time to understand it. Its easy to shut them the fuck up when you have read.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago
magnificent video. awesome use of desertphile's video. forty thousand stars to you, my friend.
fulekkei 2 years ago
at least brock acknowledged in his BlogTV that you "tore him to shreds".
anonymolol 2 years ago
did he really? is there video of this? would LOVE to see it!
lennyhipp 2 years ago
yeah. i tuned in to his blog tv session for about a minute just to see if he was stil on, and he mentioned how he needed to reply to DasAmericanAtheist, but that first he felt like he needed to reply to Tooltime because he got torn to shreds.
anonymolol 2 years ago
I went to the bank and they told me to fuck off.
tonsofunburns 2 years ago 3
We see these arguments all the time. Evolution is false therefore god. The big bang is false therefore baby Jesus. We can't explain the constants of the universe, therefore you will burn in hell. Anyone else see a trend here?
askegg 2 years ago 5
Yes. It has to do with the hidden, numerologically-discovered 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not make sense.
tehinfidel 2 years ago 3
Yes, I do. Religion seems intellectually lazy to me. The fact is that humans have so much to learn. We are just a tiny planet in an enormous, possible "infinite" universe. Yet we assume to know the secrets towards this fabled heaven even while we are still an infant species?
AmazinglyCleverName 2 years ago 5
Yup, it's the old god-of-the-gaps argument.
dvwinkler 2 years ago 3
I'd like to also add that the big bang theory is not an explanation of the origin of the universe. It's only an explanation of the universe in its current state.
It makes no claim as to the origin of the singularity, and any proposed hypotheses are only conjecture at this point.
Indeed, the laws of physics, as they are understood at this time, seem to point to the unliklihood that the universe *could* even have a beginning.
Brock's question is beyond irrelevant.
threewiseman1 2 years ago 3
"WHAT KIND OF USELESS CLOCKMAKER" lol
steinarrexfaroensis 2 years ago
lol this vid is awesome!
ashtool 2 years ago
I lol'd at "crazy talk"
praeposterus 2 years ago
Dear Brock, please take this question up with Leonard Suskind, Stephen Hawking, or any theoretical physicist.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
word
llamasausage 2 years ago
I like that little thing you did at the end Peter, "take it to the bank"
lol :P
coolbeens21 2 years ago
P.S. Nothing in the universe makes sense except in the light of Big Bang cosmology. If the Big Bang did not happen (and is not still happening), a hell of a lot of facts about the universe would make no sense. For one example, we would have to reinvent Einstein's Cosmological Constant to keep the galaxies apart. For another example, our knowledge of the laws that govern the electromagnetic spectrum (specifically light) would have to be fundamentally wrong.
Desertphile 2 years ago 7
Indeed, Big Bang cosmology *IS* science: it is forensic science, no different than the same forensic sciences that puts murderers in prison even when no witnesses to the murders exist or are known to have witnessed the murders. (the O.J. Simpson murder trial being a fine failure of reason in the jury, not the scientists who provided the evidence of his guilt). The very same scientific methodology that has sent people to prison is also applied to cosmology: the Big bang is an observed fact.
Desertphile 2 years ago 7
5 stars for Desterphile clip. Well placed.
acdobens 2 years ago 4
Gravity's just some stupid theory. God holds everything down with holy glue.
zowxon 2 years ago 3
My grandpa said the ocean is held to the earth by gods magic hand......no shit
myjizzureye 2 years ago 2
Crazy (holy) glue xD
coolbeens21 2 years ago 2
That's it! Holy glue is the missing link in the theory of Intelligent Falling! You should win a Nobel Prize for that, Zowxon.
GuineaPigDan 2 years ago
infinity density in zero volume: it's a mathematical question mark,
64kix 2 years ago
GRAVITY!!!!!!!
SCRulerShinoda 2 years ago
bravo!!!
fristaidfirst 2 years ago
Really awesome stuff - thanks! As for what Brock was trying for is a standard "Tables Turner" argument where he'll start blaring "Ye have FAITH in the gods of SCIENCE that have proclaimed through revelation the DOGMA of Big Bang!" That sort of crap. I'm glad you emphasized that Big Bang is NOT dogma, it is based on observation and conjecture and even if Big Bang is wrong - it really won't impact atheists at all. Thanks again! :)
templarart 2 years ago 2
I'd love to hear what the strawman antidote has to say regarding this series. How much you wanna bet he starts out by psycho analyzing Peter, then claims Peter is misrepresenting his arguments, and NEVER acknowledges the universally known fact that he is guilty of cut and paste pseudo intellectualism even though he claims all his detractors are guilty of it, and finally challenges tooltime to a debate but with unreasonable ground rules then makes an excuse to get out of it at the last second?
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago
Excellent series.. Really enjoyed it...
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
He says one thing, you say another. What is the point of listening to this? Sounds like an Amos and Andy episode.
Stitchman3875 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Welcome aboard! You are now a member of the fastest growing non-faith based religion ever created by human kind. New Atheism. Enjoy it! You are not alone.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Atheism must be considered a Religion in order to come under court authority for first amendment protection by the first amendment law. Therefore, presto, Atheism is religion. Even though it is non-faith based religion, it still gets to be religion. The court is the final arbiter. Cheers!
kberka 2 years ago
ahh...Who cares?
Stitchman3875 2 years ago
Now there's a question. Look at the views, look at the ratings. That's who cares. This is all at Brock's expense. It is HILARIOUS.
BenadrylAnnug 2 years ago 2
I don't know, I guess listening to these two guys is good for my own amusement.
Stitchman3875 2 years ago
lol take it to the bank!
Frances3654 2 years ago
Epic win, I DEMAND MORE VIDS LIKE THIS!
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 2 years ago
I find the two of you equally naive and equally predictable, with no insight whatsoever.
DecentralizedByGuilt 2 years ago
Taking the middle ground... I love that in a man. =)
EnthalpyH 2 years ago
awesome episode :) , well done TT
NorProductions 2 years ago
TT. GG.
Alaron251 2 years ago
Take it to the bank!
Glo0myWizard 2 years ago
Nice one! Brock is sruprisingly easy to refute with his tired old arguments.
dannypantsgm 2 years ago 3
LMAO who the hell is the gravity guy?
metabog 2 years ago
@metabog
Desertphile
silassays 2 years ago
I think Brock asks about cosmology because he thinks his stupid Christian god lives either up, down, this side, or that side of the universe.
I don't know why Christians like to argue evolution, when cosmology shows if anything, heaven is fucking insanely far away, and obviously gives of know light detectable from earth/orbiting telescopes.
I guess that's why the word faith exists in the dictionary, opposed to the word fact.
FallenAngel0fDoom 2 years ago
great series TTime ;D
kojimapie 2 years ago
Oh this was really good. very good stuff. I wanted to do something about him but there is just too much material to narrow it down.
rednecktrucker1969 2 years ago
Nice one P.
CognosSquare 2 years ago
Great series, thanks ToolTime9901!
hal970fx 2 years ago
Besides that, no ones actually saying the universe started at the singularity, it could of existed for billions of years before that.
DragonRomer 2 years ago
Brock would be outstanding at writing a resume. His breezy descriptions envelope and dress up hot air.....kind of like balloons. lol. Although, that may be too generous an analogy considering the vacuous nature of most of his topics. Great video tooltime, thank you for all the effort that went into them.
Antichryst666 2 years ago
Not at all. Remember he basically just memorises crap he reads and repeats it verbatim. The only thing he does appear to be quite good at is delivery.
rozeboosje 2 years ago 2
Good point.
Antichryst666 2 years ago
People believe in The Big Bang much like they believe in mathematics. Even though there may be no philosophical reason to believe in mathematics, they will continue to do so because it works. The bridges built according to mathematical specifications don't collapse, the airplanes don't fall out of the sky, even the rockets manage to land of Mars.
FreePrometheus 2 years ago
The reason Brock and other pop-apologists like to ask stupid questions of atheists about the nature and origin of the universe is because Brock has it fixed in his head that atheism is a worldview that is unconditionally tethered to evolution and the big bang. Brock likes to tell you what your worldview is, even as you correct him.
Simply put, he's trying to justify HIS worldview by grouping everything that is antithetical to his beliefs a bashing them with a rolling pin.
He's an idiot.
Neilsama 2 years ago
THE laws of physics don't break down in a singularity. A "singularity" is the point at which maths shows us that OUR laws of physics are not a perfect description of how reality behaves. Reality, of course, just does what it does. Reality does not have "singularities"
rozeboosje 2 years ago 4
Reality 'does' We have science to make sense of it.
happysplodie 2 years ago
exactly
rozeboosje 2 years ago
What saddens me about this whole thing is that Brock's stupid face has been seen by many more people than it would have otherwise. I really wish everyone would just stop picking at the brock lesion and let it dry up on its own.
Keippernicus 2 years ago
Stupidity is more of a cancer than a scab. If you leave it alone it will spread to the point that you can't combat it. Think of this video series as a little chemotherapy against stupid.
SlackerKun 2 years ago
Creationists are funny, they will grill an atheist who questions their reasoning until they find something the atheist doesn't know much about, then act like the atheist has no right question them because the atheist can't answer everything.
Another thing is, they think that science must be consistent and answer everything, if it's not then throw the entire theory away. Just like the theory of gravity, it has changed several times and still can't answer everything about gravity: toss it.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
I'm sick of creationists who think that science is ONLY what you can test, repeat, and observe. A forensic investigator can use science to examine the clues of a murder and draw the correct conclusion without having to repeat the murder. That is why we can study evolution and cosmology and draw the correct conclusions from the clues even without being able to repeat the events that took place.
DarkMatter2525 2 years ago 2
Forensics is still testing, repeating and observing. Just not the original event. Part of forensics is testing various ways a blood spatter can and can't occur so that when you see a blood spatter, you can test how it could have gotten there and ways it couldn't have gotten there.
The problem they have is, they think that to observe only means to observe the actual event, not observe the evidence the event left behind.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
ANY video that uses Desertphile's marvelous response gets 5 BIG STARS!
RHYMEMAIDEN1 2 years ago
A fucking +
philateliceun 2 years ago
Theists are always moving the goalposts as far as "science." Throwing their own definitions in and claiming that's what atheists think. Example: "You think nothing exploded and created everything."
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
GRAVITY YOU FUCKING RETARD!
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
It IS scientific, it just isn't intuitive. Creationists get these two things conflated all the time.
hugesinker 2 years ago 2
To give you a more complete answer tooltime. General Relativity is our best theory for gravity. Quantum Mechanics is our best theory to describe the subatomic. These theories cannot be combined (for reasons I wont go into here) yet both of them are needed to describe a singularity mathematically.
gsusreloded 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol, nice ending
Ninety9Soulz 2 years ago
so im supposed to run to the spermbank every 30 minutes?
anom4lie 2 years ago
i cant believe you had this massive debate with a guy that thinks the bible is answer to every question ever asked, but im glad you did, well done man, great series. take that to the bank!
1GOD1JESUS 2 years ago 3
Impressed by and grateful for your efforts. It's like you cleaned the toilet so no one else has to touch the turd.
philhellenes 2 years ago 3
There are tons of tiny "big bangs" observed in the universe.
xkeltoix 2 years ago
(stands up and applauds)
gnrcr 2 years ago 4