If you want your belife to stay unshaken then this two things you mentioned will keep it safe. BUT if you are realy interested in finding truth / reality....then start with the bible. Read it -all ! Analize it,look for explenations-out side the bible....then read Koran and/or some other holly books....etc
Regarding the "progress" of evolution from "simple" to "ultimate".... how do you view the fact that the ancestors of whales started in the sea, evolved into land animals and then evolved some more and returned to the sea?
It doesn't seem like the straightforward progression you'd expect from a creator with a purpose in mind., does it?
I was wondering if you could watch my video and offer some comments if you have some time. It is on the "fittingness" of Christianity from Reason Alone
Well why not? Why can't we be the lucky few? Would not being here be called lucky regardless? If chances are too small where do the chances increase? The answer is no where. Sometimes things just work-out. Explaining how it worked out is Science.
if all christians belive in equallismness then why do they call "god" the lord
oh yeah if all christians belive in equallnessness then they are comunist because there has to be some kind of people that are lukier or more rich than other people either because they made the right decitions viceversa.
Fail: You demand to hear that there is life outside earth, which would be proof of atheism, UNLESS: The life is still alive? Then god still exists? Wrong.
You're already making loopholes for your god to jump through. Which is it!?
Life has been found in the form of bacteria on Jupiter's moons, and stuff like algae on meteors.
2: String theory, antropological argument. QED
Now convert. Won't, will you... If you don't believe for logical reasons, then why?
I assume Meteorite ALH84001 isn't conclusive evidence for life outside of Earth, in your book, but it does strongly suggest it. You should look it up on Google, a quick search will bring you to a NASA webpage. (2nd from the top, right now.)
Additionally, the many universe theories based on quantum level occurrences most likely would not satisfy your requirements, but I'd take a guess you would find it interesting at the least.
This is a great response to see. You, sir, get a 5.
it is nice to see a theist who is willing to have they're faith challenged as both ur propositions can be put to the test except for the part where u state that god might wipe out primitive life before it can evolve for unknown reasons as this is borderin on an unfalsifiable statement, however u do kind of retract that part
I believe in God.. at first for logical reasons.. then i found faith (for atheist a blind hope) long story...
but there a lot of reasons to believe there is an Intelligent Creator.. from biblical texts the first to tell us the stars are countless... to human body is 60 percent water, similar as the Earth..
Level 3 - the concept that most people think of when they think "parrallel universe". There are supposedly an infinite amount of L3 universe due to that fact that every thing probable occurs in every chain possible.
Level 4 - That's the universe your asking for. This universe is govorned by a different math and physics.
If by "laws of the universe" you mean how matter interacts with other matter and the like, I don't think that's very likely.
If you mean how we interact with our planet and the sun then you should remember that we evolved to best suit our environment (according to our theories). It's not that our environment best suits us, it's that we suit it.
As for life on other planets, I do believe they've discovered microbes on mars. It was on the Colbert Report. I don't know everything about it.
Hello 5 stars for you this is such a mature way of looking at faith you are the only theist ive ever seen put up an argument for the oposing side. I am an atheist but that is purely because my love of science and because of that everything that happens somehow must be proven. I would be converted to being a theist if my bipolar or my mothers M.E. suddenly was cured.
I greatly appreciate that you have falsifying conditions and that there are conditions that could make you doubt even if it didn't make you reject outright. It means that you're at least willing to consider things. Thank you.
And thank YOU for the encouragement. It's not easy to honestly and oblectively question the beliefs one has held in their heart for years, but it must be done if truth is to be found.
@wightboy12345 it's kind of funny looking at these old posts... I've now certainly rejected Christianity and am not convinced that Theism in general is good philosophy at all
I'm happy that glad that thinking is taking you to new places. Unfortunately, it means I know one less theist willing to consider that they might be wrong. Wishing you all the best.
It appears that you believe in the Bible correct? Please tell me that you realize how old the book is, how many years apart each book in the Bible was written, the process by which the Bible was compiled, who made the decision to compile it, and their reason for doing so.
I must say though, I do respect you for making such a mature argument, as most theists don't do. I give you a lot of credit for that.
Thanks so much. It is discouraging how most theists do seem to be closed minded.
On your point(s) about the Bible: yes, some of the text seems comletely contradictory and I have a lot of problems with the Old Testament. It was written down only after the stories had been passed along orally for hundreds of years, and frequently condones acts of grissly violence.
I have less problems with the New Testament though. So the divine inspiration of every Biblical book is, for me, in question.
You chose some interesting points to be converted on because at least the first one would actually confirm mormon religion but if you wanna see something about planets with no extinct life you may want to keep up with the research NASA has been doing on Mars lately. Not sure what the best source for that information is but I would suggest starting out by searching for clips of "Brink" about Mars b/c they did find water recently and some strange atmospheric conditions, both suggest life.
Atheism is NOT abiogenesis. If all you are saying is that YOU would be "converted" through the discovery of life on other world then OK. I just want to put it out there that no scientific theory is directly related to the lack of theism.
That being said I respect you for making this video. It was very interesting. The other theistic response to the FightingAtheist that I saw said there was nothing that could convince him he was wrong.
OK, I'm a die-hard atheist, but I have to say, I like this video. As fightingatheist stated in his original video, few theists will ever admit that something would change their mind. It's nice to see less hard-headedness, and more opening to thoughtful reasoning.
could someone explain to me why its right to believe something with no evidence until someone is able to disprove it rather than believe in something after insurmountable evidence has been found to back it up. it would be silly to believe in a flying unicorn just because no-one is currently able to totally disprove it.
alright, i admit it could seem that way. but this is a response to a video that specifically asked any theist to offer evidence that they would accept as proving theism wrong. this is not a video saying that the absence of proof against theism is sufficient proof for it. what I consider to be evidence for theism may come in a later video
I'd say it isn't so much about it being the right thing to do as something that occurs from parents bringing their children into a religion. We tend not to question our parents on things, so early on.
You do realise that accepting that a ominicessent & omnipotenet god might have started life and seen fit to destroy it allows you to ignore any evidence. Including the fact that the all-knowing all-powerfull god of the bible made a flawed creation (us) with no rational excuse. The whole point becomes moot when you realise that god could have just made us anyway (free will and all) but perfect as he wanted thus negating the need for all of this crap we've been putting up with for 6000 years.
1.the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
Other dimensions are (or would be) part of the universe. If your stipulation is instead "workings of the universe that contradict the bible" that we have already, in large supply.
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of reality.
What if we are able to create life in a laboratory, and are able to show how it could be created by naturalistic processes? Would this be convincing, or would it need to occur naturally on another planet?
Converting it was a pretty big step. Creating something from nothing all depends on what is considered to be "nothing". Until recently (very recently) we thought the universe was mainly "nothing", then we discovered dark matter.
That still doesn't change what i said, humans cannot create life, since it's using a form of an already created material as a base, and in the biblical sense all things are alive to an extent.
"As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."
Either way, your still not answering the biggest question, how does matter even exist in a space that initially should not have had matter?
Forgetting the hand of god here for a second, even if it just "appeared", the likelihood of a god coming into existence from said would be extremely high simply from the outright size of the universe and the realm of possibility.
My point is that science still does not answer this, what is the origin of matter and antimatter?
there are several possible answers to that question: one is the oscillating universe, in which the universe never had a beginning but continues in a cycle of big bangs and big crunches, although this one is to my knowledge outdated and not widely accepted. another is hawkings quantum gravity model in which time in the universe is like a 3-dimensional globe, with no single point designated as a "beginning". another is that quantum fluctuations in "empty" space gave birth to our singularity
michael behe(biochemist), gerald schroeder (nuclear physicist), guillermo gonzalez (astronomy), william lane craig (philosopher of science, so not exactly a scientist), i cant think of any other reliable ones right now... hey, i said a few
I'm not familiar with these scientist, however I should have asked a better question.
What ligit scientist presents creation as a hypothesis, that is not blasted in peer review for lack of evidence?
I'll answer for you, their are none. A scientist may believe in pixies or elfs and that Elvis is alive. If they want to be respected they will not present these beliefs as even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Furthermore creation has never been presented as a hypothesis for peer review.
Furthermore it was thrown out of a U.S. court for the same reason, it is not science, it's not reliable, it has no evidence, makes no predictions and is laughable at best.
i have to disagree here (kind of) creationism, as in young earth, makes plenty of verifiable predictions. there shouldn't be any substance in the universe older than 6000 years. there shouldnt be any stars over 6000 light-years away. there should be no evidence of evolution. i think we can safely say it made it's predictions, and was put to death by them.
The point is creationism or the Intelligent Design has never been presented for peer review (one of the first steps to becoming recognized theory) because it is not science. It was and is dogma disguised as science presented to Joe everyday to try and win. Win the undeveloped minds of children in schools and more importantly the pocketbooks of gullible christians fighting for their god, like injured p.o.w.'s protecting the very guards that have tortured them for years.
yeah in my video i didn't really argue that theism is conclusively proven by science, i was just presenting ways that it might be ruled out (ruled out for me, anyway) by empirical evidence. and i realize that you believe very strongly that it already has been ruled out completely, but just bear with me. i may be totally missing the facts and you may have it 100% right, but i need to find the answers on my own and that may take a while, so in the meantime please bear with my ignorance
The point is creationism has not been submitted as a theory. Because it is not science, their is no empirical data, their are no legit scientist supporting it. Creation as layed out in the bible has been debunked. It is bronze age myth and you would do well to learn about the real world. History is fine, myths can tell us alot about ourselves. But as far as science creation as told by the bible is dead.
thanks for answering for me. saves me a lot of trouble ;) but i guess it depends on what type of "creation" you're talkin about. most of these scientists simply stipulate that GOD is the first cause for the existence of the universe, and that the tuning of the laws of physics are a result of His design. that's more of a philosophical arguement tho. Craig is prolly the most respected out of those, worth lookin him up. but you're right Gonzalez was ousted from his position at his university
after he published a book on how earth and the universe seem to conspire to give us humans a very good vantage point for collecting information and that it could have been designed to be that way. but yeah that didnt get much respect from his scientific peers. and i think arguing against the facts of evolution seem to be a lost cause, and that's why im not too big on Behe, but he does raise interesting questions about the evolutionary pathways certain biochemical mechanisms may have taken.
a naturalistic origin of life is not so much the issue for me as life's existence in places far away from earth. if there is a God, then he obviously uses natural processes more often than supernatural ones, and i dont beleive the origin of life to be "supernatural". but life's existence elsewhere would, to me, fit better with the theory of unguided natural processes than the theory of divinely guided natural processes (as in life arising only on earth), as in genesis
You said that an extinct, primitive, alien species would cast doubt because the life didn't evolve enough to have a relationship with God.
What's your take on the billions of primitive species that went extinct in the past, or the hundreds that go extinct every day? Right here on Earth there is such an abundance of life dying out before this crecendo... shouldn't that cast just as much doubt?
yeah thats exactly my point. if there were convincing, widely accepted evidence of many universes. if there were a billion billion universes and the odds of one existing that could support life were one in a billion billion then nothing but chance would need to be evoked to explain the existence of a universe "finely tuned for life"
but i havent really heard of any widely accepted and well-evidenced theories of the multiverse model, so if this is the only one there is, then fine tuning is...
a glaring problem still in need of an explanation. as for primitive and extinct life on earth, i believe that is evidence of our evolution from primitive forms (which i believe to be divinely guided by the will of God) which ultimately lead to a race of beings capable of knowing Him. although evolution is a blind process with no ultimate goals, i believe the process was used by a creator to accomplish His goals.
No no, I'm not talking about the evolutionary trail from amoeba to man, I'm talking about all the offshoots that WEREN'T just the next step on the way to "man". Like birds, for example - birds are not de-evolved humans... why would God need to create them?
Anyway, you're talking about the universe now instead of just the planets? .. that makes is a bit harder to "convert" you :P
with all respect the problem i have with theists is that they always go straight to the " well if it did or did not happen, mabey God wanted it to happen that way " answer. wich is not an answer to any question. it is merely a way of saying " i have no clue, my religion has no clue but saying this makes feel better about not knowing" i honestly mean no disrespect, but come on, "because GOD said/ did so" is not a viable argument when debating God's existence
ok i agree that it's not a good argument to prove a point to say "God did it for reasons we dont know" because no matter the evidence to the contrary, a theist could always say that. and we really would have no way to prove that God did it for unknown reasons
what i meant was that the universe appearing to be finely tuned is such a convicing argument for theism to me that life on another planet would not be totally conclusive, though it would still be strong evidence against christian theism
ive even heard some theists say that "God made it look like evolution happened just to test all of us" which totally stands against reason to me, but it's like we cant really disprove that statement, so no matter how rediculous it sounds to me, you get to go on believing that cuz we cant prove or disprove it empirically.its a null argument
oh no, i totally understood what you were getting at. and agree to a point. i was commenting on the point you made about how someone could say well maybey god did it, as a response to what you were saying lol i just didnt have room to word it correctly lol anyways take it easy.
"the universe appearing to be finely tuned is such a convicing argument for theism "
Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle? Say there's around a billion billion planets in the universe, and the chance of life arising on a planet is one in a billion. Despite such incredibly low odds, there would still be a billion planets with life.
Let's imagine the same thing with universes. No matter how low the odds are for forming this universe, we know it CAN happen because we exist in it.
I find this video fascinating. I really like your thoughts, and I wish more christians could be open-minded like you are. I was once at the same position as you are now.
Currently, I like to consider myself an atheist. I definitely like the teachings in the Holy Bible, and I do think there certainly could be an intelligent creator. But as more and more inconsistencies revealed themselves in the texts, I found I could no longer be a Christian.
I invite you to call yourself a scientist, since...
...that is what you are. A scientist doesn't take a stance in anything, but accepts that any possibility can be true. Scientists can be Christians, or Atheists, or any other denomination, provided that they are willing to accept that their beliefs may be challenged.
What you have said is very scientific. This world needs more people like you.
I hope to hear more from you in the future, I'm interested in your insights on the LHC when they finally get it working.
I do like that you cite specific examples that may soon be proven, but really I think logically we're already there. Especially with the first one;
You say that the existence of unfulfilled life on another planet would be evidence against god... how bout the existence of unfulfilled planets? If god created the universe, heck even just our solar system, to support conscious life then why did he only have it arise on one planet? That is a huge waste of space and matter.
Actually I think the currently worked upon, String Theory, suggests that one of the other dimensions is actually all the other possibilities of sets of laws in the universe. With String Theory, there are 11 dimensions, not just the four with normally think of (fourth being time). So it is a possibility that these parallel universes exist, and String Theory actually makes alot of sense, and have many of the greatest minds behind it. And it may be right.
dang i didnt know that about string theory. im not really in the "loop" on string theory (no pun intended... ok pun intended) but i hope well see some evidence one way or the other pretty soon when they finally fire up that large hadron collider. i guess i need to read some more brian greene... but this is a perfect example of testable theory that would seem to undermine a central tenet of the theist argument
o i gotcha. yeah i enjoy christain/atheist debates but im not sure i would call myself a "christian." i do strongly agree with the teachings of Jesus in the new testament, but i do agree with you that there seems to be some serious problems in the bible that most "bible beleivers" are afraid to address.
im tryin to do some research on those subjects cuz i wanna make an informed decision for myself. but as far as a personal God existing, im pretty convinced on that one
so... the bible itself with all its primitive science, historical contradictions, murder of innocent people ordered by god, hypocrisy, sexism, racism, slavery, prejudice against gay people and MORE is not enough to even get you to consider converting?
well, those are very good topics if you're strictly trying to disprove biblical christianity or judaism, but not to disprove theism in general.
i did reference the bible, but only one general claim of the bible, namely that God created the universe which begat man.
it was this claim only that i would say i was "defending." even if it is as you say and the bible is riddled with these problems, that does not mean that every claim it makes is untrue.thx i am kinda tuff for a theist cookie
i was just basing my comment on the bible specifically because i saw in your profile that you enjoy "atheist/christian debates".
i definitely agree with you that the bible doesn't disprove theism in general, however, i do think that it does a good job of disproving christianity.
you should really learn how to make yourself less boring. I fell asleep while watching this
dathribab 9 months ago
If you want your belife to stay unshaken then this two things you mentioned will keep it safe. BUT if you are realy interested in finding truth / reality....then start with the bible. Read it -all ! Analize it,look for explenations-out side the bible....then read Koran and/or some other holly books....etc
Aleksamson 1 year ago
Regarding the "progress" of evolution from "simple" to "ultimate".... how do you view the fact that the ancestors of whales started in the sea, evolved into land animals and then evolved some more and returned to the sea?
It doesn't seem like the straightforward progression you'd expect from a creator with a purpose in mind., does it?
slamdrump 1 year ago
Hey man, interesting video,
I was wondering if you could watch my video and offer some comments if you have some time. It is on the "fittingness" of Christianity from Reason Alone
ChrisPietraszko2 1 year ago
Well why not? Why can't we be the lucky few? Would not being here be called lucky regardless? If chances are too small where do the chances increase? The answer is no where. Sometimes things just work-out. Explaining how it worked out is Science.
Blueicm 1 year ago
i think someone is making fart noices in the background... possibly a little brother??
ConfusedAndCurious 1 year ago
@ConfusedAndCurious No, my little brother doesn't live with me, but I think it's my freakin laptop doing something wierd. Do computers fart?
imthenag 1 year ago
if all christians belive in equallismness then why do they call "god" the lord
oh yeah if all christians belive in equallnessness then they are comunist because there has to be some kind of people that are lukier or more rich than other people either because they made the right decitions viceversa.
bobthrdoom 1 year ago
Fail: You demand to hear that there is life outside earth, which would be proof of atheism, UNLESS: The life is still alive? Then god still exists? Wrong.
You're already making loopholes for your god to jump through. Which is it!?
Life has been found in the form of bacteria on Jupiter's moons, and stuff like algae on meteors.
2: String theory, antropological argument. QED
Now convert. Won't, will you... If you don't believe for logical reasons, then why?
harryfmk 1 year ago
people went to heaven and back
sharpshootermatthew 2 years ago
I assume Meteorite ALH84001 isn't conclusive evidence for life outside of Earth, in your book, but it does strongly suggest it. You should look it up on Google, a quick search will bring you to a NASA webpage. (2nd from the top, right now.)
Additionally, the many universe theories based on quantum level occurrences most likely would not satisfy your requirements, but I'd take a guess you would find it interesting at the least.
This is a great response to see. You, sir, get a 5.
thewightknight1337 2 years ago
it is nice to see a theist who is willing to have they're faith challenged as both ur propositions can be put to the test except for the part where u state that god might wipe out primitive life before it can evolve for unknown reasons as this is borderin on an unfalsifiable statement, however u do kind of retract that part
Mike12784 2 years ago
Totally incoherent nonsense
thelogicbox 2 years ago
I believe in God.. at first for logical reasons.. then i found faith (for atheist a blind hope) long story...
but there a lot of reasons to believe there is an Intelligent Creator.. from biblical texts the first to tell us the stars are countless... to human body is 60 percent water, similar as the Earth..
cirexlab 2 years ago
I can't seem to post a comment, so i'll send you it
MrJastin 2 years ago
Level 3 - the concept that most people think of when they think "parrallel universe". There are supposedly an infinite amount of L3 universe due to that fact that every thing probable occurs in every chain possible.
Level 4 - That's the universe your asking for. This universe is govorned by a different math and physics.
ArceusMElemental 2 years ago
It depends on what kind of universe your talking about.
Level 1 - A universe that is in a different space, but is identicle to our univerese. They are supposedly clumped to gether in a
Level 2 - basically a universe that contains multiple level 1 universes
To be continued ...
ArceusMElemental 2 years ago
If by "laws of the universe" you mean how matter interacts with other matter and the like, I don't think that's very likely.
If you mean how we interact with our planet and the sun then you should remember that we evolved to best suit our environment (according to our theories). It's not that our environment best suits us, it's that we suit it.
As for life on other planets, I do believe they've discovered microbes on mars. It was on the Colbert Report. I don't know everything about it.
killbeast301 2 years ago
★★★★★
Hello 5 stars for you this is such a mature way of looking at faith you are the only theist ive ever seen put up an argument for the oposing side. I am an atheist but that is purely because my love of science and because of that everything that happens somehow must be proven. I would be converted to being a theist if my bipolar or my mothers M.E. suddenly was cured.
emoatnight 2 years ago
★★★★★ for you. this is an excellent response. well though out.
newusername01 2 years ago
I greatly appreciate that you have falsifying conditions and that there are conditions that could make you doubt even if it didn't make you reject outright. It means that you're at least willing to consider things. Thank you.
wightboy12345 2 years ago
And thank YOU for the encouragement. It's not easy to honestly and oblectively question the beliefs one has held in their heart for years, but it must be done if truth is to be found.
imthenag 2 years ago
@wightboy12345 it's kind of funny looking at these old posts... I've now certainly rejected Christianity and am not convinced that Theism in general is good philosophy at all
imthenag 1 year ago
@imthenag
I'm happy that glad that thinking is taking you to new places. Unfortunately, it means I know one less theist willing to consider that they might be wrong. Wishing you all the best.
wightboy12345 1 year ago
@wightboy12345
*happy and glad
wightboy12345 1 year ago
It appears that you believe in the Bible correct? Please tell me that you realize how old the book is, how many years apart each book in the Bible was written, the process by which the Bible was compiled, who made the decision to compile it, and their reason for doing so.
I must say though, I do respect you for making such a mature argument, as most theists don't do. I give you a lot of credit for that.
isismoon1405 2 years ago
Thanks so much. It is discouraging how most theists do seem to be closed minded.
On your point(s) about the Bible: yes, some of the text seems comletely contradictory and I have a lot of problems with the Old Testament. It was written down only after the stories had been passed along orally for hundreds of years, and frequently condones acts of grissly violence.
I have less problems with the New Testament though. So the divine inspiration of every Biblical book is, for me, in question.
imthenag 2 years ago
How to convert a theist:
Replace their brain.
GodWantsBlood 2 years ago
★★★★★
I was a Christian until undergraduate school; now I am an atheist.
I think you are an intelligent, thoughtful, inspired young man.
I also think you are NOT a "tough cookie," but an "atheist in training."
IntellAGent2o71828 2 years ago 4
Haha thank you. I take that as a sincere compliment coming from an atheist. And thanks for the stars!
imthenag 2 years ago
@IntellAGent2o71828 Just thought you may enjoy this update... I now describe myself as an agnostic, so I guess I've begun my journey
imthenag 1 year ago 3
You chose some interesting points to be converted on because at least the first one would actually confirm mormon religion but if you wanna see something about planets with no extinct life you may want to keep up with the research NASA has been doing on Mars lately. Not sure what the best source for that information is but I would suggest starting out by searching for clips of "Brink" about Mars b/c they did find water recently and some strange atmospheric conditions, both suggest life.
iamnotloggedon 2 years ago 3
Atheism is NOT abiogenesis. If all you are saying is that YOU would be "converted" through the discovery of life on other world then OK. I just want to put it out there that no scientific theory is directly related to the lack of theism.
That being said I respect you for making this video. It was very interesting. The other theistic response to the FightingAtheist that I saw said there was nothing that could convince him he was wrong.
5/5
SpazzyMcGee1336 2 years ago 2
OK, I'm a die-hard atheist, but I have to say, I like this video. As fightingatheist stated in his original video, few theists will ever admit that something would change their mind. It's nice to see less hard-headedness, and more opening to thoughtful reasoning.
mooremoremore 2 years ago 4
could someone explain to me why its right to believe something with no evidence until someone is able to disprove it rather than believe in something after insurmountable evidence has been found to back it up. it would be silly to believe in a flying unicorn just because no-one is currently able to totally disprove it.
crono985 2 years ago 3
to believe is to follow something without conclusive evidence. thats the whole point of believing.
wyetf 2 years ago
alright, i admit it could seem that way. but this is a response to a video that specifically asked any theist to offer evidence that they would accept as proving theism wrong. this is not a video saying that the absence of proof against theism is sufficient proof for it. what I consider to be evidence for theism may come in a later video
imthenag 2 years ago
I'd say it isn't so much about it being the right thing to do as something that occurs from parents bringing their children into a religion. We tend not to question our parents on things, so early on.
thewightknight1337 2 years ago
cpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcpcplolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
imtheantinag 2 years ago
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
imthenag 2 years ago
You do realise that accepting that a ominicessent & omnipotenet god might have started life and seen fit to destroy it allows you to ignore any evidence. Including the fact that the all-knowing all-powerfull god of the bible made a flawed creation (us) with no rational excuse. The whole point becomes moot when you realise that god could have just made us anyway (free will and all) but perfect as he wanted thus negating the need for all of this crap we've been putting up with for 6000 years.
phookadude 2 years ago
yeah, i realize that. that's one of the perks of being a Christian; we we get to ignore evidence of any kind :)
imthenag 2 years ago
oh i gotcha true dat
imthenag 2 years ago
u⋅ni⋅verse [yoo-nuh-vurs] noun
1.the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
Other dimensions are (or would be) part of the universe. If your stipulation is instead "workings of the universe that contradict the bible" that we have already, in large supply.
woodyallday 2 years ago
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of reality.
(taken from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
imthenag 2 years ago
It is hypothetical, if that hypothesis is found to be correct, then the "multiverse" is in fact a yet discovered truth of this universe.
woodyallday 2 years ago
What if we are able to create life in a laboratory, and are able to show how it could be created by naturalistic processes? Would this be convincing, or would it need to occur naturally on another planet?
gt6303c 3 years ago
Well it might help if you could creat something from nothing, even now it's just "converting" some matter to another matter or combining it.
tatsuya2112 3 years ago
Converting it was a pretty big step. Creating something from nothing all depends on what is considered to be "nothing". Until recently (very recently) we thought the universe was mainly "nothing", then we discovered dark matter.
andrewslinuxbox 2 years ago
That still doesn't change what i said, humans cannot create life, since it's using a form of an already created material as a base, and in the biblical sense all things are alive to an extent.
tatsuya2112 2 years ago
biblical and sense are a contradiction.
woodyallday 2 years ago
Where does it say life came from nothing in any scientific theory?
DisembowelMe 2 years ago
Then where did it come from?
By scientific theory nothing cannot become something.
tatsuya2112 2 years ago
Fuck do I know. Maybe it always was. Science hasn't got that far yet.
Still no excuse to fill the gap with god just because we don't understand yet.
Also, you didn't answer my question.. what theory states everything came from nothing?
DisembowelMe 2 years ago
the big bang theory, and to an extent evolution, also please watch your language, children can come here you know.
tatsuya2112 2 years ago
"As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."
So no, it didn't come from "nothing".
DisembowelMe 2 years ago
Either way, your still not answering the biggest question, how does matter even exist in a space that initially should not have had matter?
Forgetting the hand of god here for a second, even if it just "appeared", the likelihood of a god coming into existence from said would be extremely high simply from the outright size of the universe and the realm of possibility.
My point is that science still does not answer this, what is the origin of matter and antimatter?
Explain that and we'll talk.
tatsuya2112 2 years ago
there are several possible answers to that question: one is the oscillating universe, in which the universe never had a beginning but continues in a cycle of big bangs and big crunches, although this one is to my knowledge outdated and not widely accepted. another is hawkings quantum gravity model in which time in the universe is like a 3-dimensional globe, with no single point designated as a "beginning". another is that quantum fluctuations in "empty" space gave birth to our singularity
imthenag 2 years ago
and a few scientists/philosophers believe that divine creation from nothing is the best theory, as i'm guessing you do too
imthenag 2 years ago
what scientist?
woodyallday 2 years ago
michael behe(biochemist), gerald schroeder (nuclear physicist), guillermo gonzalez (astronomy), william lane craig (philosopher of science, so not exactly a scientist), i cant think of any other reliable ones right now... hey, i said a few
imthenag 2 years ago
I'm not familiar with these scientist, however I should have asked a better question.
What ligit scientist presents creation as a hypothesis, that is not blasted in peer review for lack of evidence?
I'll answer for you, their are none. A scientist may believe in pixies or elfs and that Elvis is alive. If they want to be respected they will not present these beliefs as even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Furthermore creation has never been presented as a hypothesis for peer review.
woodyallday 2 years ago
Furthermore it was thrown out of a U.S. court for the same reason, it is not science, it's not reliable, it has no evidence, makes no predictions and is laughable at best.
woodyallday 2 years ago 2
i have to disagree here (kind of) creationism, as in young earth, makes plenty of verifiable predictions. there shouldn't be any substance in the universe older than 6000 years. there shouldnt be any stars over 6000 light-years away. there should be no evidence of evolution. i think we can safely say it made it's predictions, and was put to death by them.
imthenag 2 years ago
The point is creationism or the Intelligent Design has never been presented for peer review (one of the first steps to becoming recognized theory) because it is not science. It was and is dogma disguised as science presented to Joe everyday to try and win. Win the undeveloped minds of children in schools and more importantly the pocketbooks of gullible christians fighting for their god, like injured p.o.w.'s protecting the very guards that have tortured them for years.
woodyallday 2 years ago
yeah in my video i didn't really argue that theism is conclusively proven by science, i was just presenting ways that it might be ruled out (ruled out for me, anyway) by empirical evidence. and i realize that you believe very strongly that it already has been ruled out completely, but just bear with me. i may be totally missing the facts and you may have it 100% right, but i need to find the answers on my own and that may take a while, so in the meantime please bear with my ignorance
imthenag 2 years ago
The point is creationism has not been submitted as a theory. Because it is not science, their is no empirical data, their are no legit scientist supporting it. Creation as layed out in the bible has been debunked. It is bronze age myth and you would do well to learn about the real world. History is fine, myths can tell us alot about ourselves. But as far as science creation as told by the bible is dead.
woodyallday 2 years ago
thanks for answering for me. saves me a lot of trouble ;) but i guess it depends on what type of "creation" you're talkin about. most of these scientists simply stipulate that GOD is the first cause for the existence of the universe, and that the tuning of the laws of physics are a result of His design. that's more of a philosophical arguement tho. Craig is prolly the most respected out of those, worth lookin him up. but you're right Gonzalez was ousted from his position at his university
imthenag 2 years ago
after he published a book on how earth and the universe seem to conspire to give us humans a very good vantage point for collecting information and that it could have been designed to be that way. but yeah that didnt get much respect from his scientific peers. and i think arguing against the facts of evolution seem to be a lost cause, and that's why im not too big on Behe, but he does raise interesting questions about the evolutionary pathways certain biochemical mechanisms may have taken.
imthenag 2 years ago
a naturalistic origin of life is not so much the issue for me as life's existence in places far away from earth. if there is a God, then he obviously uses natural processes more often than supernatural ones, and i dont beleive the origin of life to be "supernatural". but life's existence elsewhere would, to me, fit better with the theory of unguided natural processes than the theory of divinely guided natural processes (as in life arising only on earth), as in genesis
imthenag 2 years ago
You said that an extinct, primitive, alien species would cast doubt because the life didn't evolve enough to have a relationship with God.
What's your take on the billions of primitive species that went extinct in the past, or the hundreds that go extinct every day? Right here on Earth there is such an abundance of life dying out before this crecendo... shouldn't that cast just as much doubt?
NoeLPZC 3 years ago 2
yeah thats exactly my point. if there were convincing, widely accepted evidence of many universes. if there were a billion billion universes and the odds of one existing that could support life were one in a billion billion then nothing but chance would need to be evoked to explain the existence of a universe "finely tuned for life"
but i havent really heard of any widely accepted and well-evidenced theories of the multiverse model, so if this is the only one there is, then fine tuning is...
imthenag 3 years ago
a glaring problem still in need of an explanation. as for primitive and extinct life on earth, i believe that is evidence of our evolution from primitive forms (which i believe to be divinely guided by the will of God) which ultimately lead to a race of beings capable of knowing Him. although evolution is a blind process with no ultimate goals, i believe the process was used by a creator to accomplish His goals.
imthenag 3 years ago
No no, I'm not talking about the evolutionary trail from amoeba to man, I'm talking about all the offshoots that WEREN'T just the next step on the way to "man". Like birds, for example - birds are not de-evolved humans... why would God need to create them?
Anyway, you're talking about the universe now instead of just the planets? .. that makes is a bit harder to "convert" you :P
NoeLPZC 3 years ago
with all respect the problem i have with theists is that they always go straight to the " well if it did or did not happen, mabey God wanted it to happen that way " answer. wich is not an answer to any question. it is merely a way of saying " i have no clue, my religion has no clue but saying this makes feel better about not knowing" i honestly mean no disrespect, but come on, "because GOD said/ did so" is not a viable argument when debating God's existence
MaNiAcaLunchBox 3 years ago 2
ok i agree that it's not a good argument to prove a point to say "God did it for reasons we dont know" because no matter the evidence to the contrary, a theist could always say that. and we really would have no way to prove that God did it for unknown reasons
what i meant was that the universe appearing to be finely tuned is such a convicing argument for theism to me that life on another planet would not be totally conclusive, though it would still be strong evidence against christian theism
imthenag 3 years ago
ive even heard some theists say that "God made it look like evolution happened just to test all of us" which totally stands against reason to me, but it's like we cant really disprove that statement, so no matter how rediculous it sounds to me, you get to go on believing that cuz we cant prove or disprove it empirically.its a null argument
imthenag 3 years ago
oh no, i totally understood what you were getting at. and agree to a point. i was commenting on the point you made about how someone could say well maybey god did it, as a response to what you were saying lol i just didnt have room to word it correctly lol anyways take it easy.
MaNiAcaLunchBox 3 years ago
lol word. thx bro
imthenag 3 years ago
"the universe appearing to be finely tuned is such a convicing argument for theism "
Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle? Say there's around a billion billion planets in the universe, and the chance of life arising on a planet is one in a billion. Despite such incredibly low odds, there would still be a billion planets with life.
Let's imagine the same thing with universes. No matter how low the odds are for forming this universe, we know it CAN happen because we exist in it.
NoeLPZC 3 years ago
I find this video fascinating. I really like your thoughts, and I wish more christians could be open-minded like you are. I was once at the same position as you are now.
Currently, I like to consider myself an atheist. I definitely like the teachings in the Holy Bible, and I do think there certainly could be an intelligent creator. But as more and more inconsistencies revealed themselves in the texts, I found I could no longer be a Christian.
I invite you to call yourself a scientist, since...
TheReaverOfDarkness 3 years ago
...that is what you are. A scientist doesn't take a stance in anything, but accepts that any possibility can be true. Scientists can be Christians, or Atheists, or any other denomination, provided that they are willing to accept that their beliefs may be challenged.
What you have said is very scientific. This world needs more people like you.
I hope to hear more from you in the future, I'm interested in your insights on the LHC when they finally get it working.
TheReaverOfDarkness 3 years ago
wow thank you very much for your comments and compliments.
imthenag 3 years ago
I do like that you cite specific examples that may soon be proven, but really I think logically we're already there. Especially with the first one;
You say that the existence of unfulfilled life on another planet would be evidence against god... how bout the existence of unfulfilled planets? If god created the universe, heck even just our solar system, to support conscious life then why did he only have it arise on one planet? That is a huge waste of space and matter.
aleceth 3 years ago
Actually I think the currently worked upon, String Theory, suggests that one of the other dimensions is actually all the other possibilities of sets of laws in the universe. With String Theory, there are 11 dimensions, not just the four with normally think of (fourth being time). So it is a possibility that these parallel universes exist, and String Theory actually makes alot of sense, and have many of the greatest minds behind it. And it may be right.
lethaldonut2 3 years ago
dang i didnt know that about string theory. im not really in the "loop" on string theory (no pun intended... ok pun intended) but i hope well see some evidence one way or the other pretty soon when they finally fire up that large hadron collider. i guess i need to read some more brian greene... but this is a perfect example of testable theory that would seem to undermine a central tenet of the theist argument
imthenag 3 years ago
o i gotcha. yeah i enjoy christain/atheist debates but im not sure i would call myself a "christian." i do strongly agree with the teachings of Jesus in the new testament, but i do agree with you that there seems to be some serious problems in the bible that most "bible beleivers" are afraid to address.
im tryin to do some research on those subjects cuz i wanna make an informed decision for myself. but as far as a personal God existing, im pretty convinced on that one
imthenag 3 years ago
so... the bible itself with all its primitive science, historical contradictions, murder of innocent people ordered by god, hypocrisy, sexism, racism, slavery, prejudice against gay people and MORE is not enough to even get you to consider converting?
you're one tuff cookie
oPod 3 years ago
well, those are very good topics if you're strictly trying to disprove biblical christianity or judaism, but not to disprove theism in general.
i did reference the bible, but only one general claim of the bible, namely that God created the universe which begat man.
it was this claim only that i would say i was "defending." even if it is as you say and the bible is riddled with these problems, that does not mean that every claim it makes is untrue.thx i am kinda tuff for a theist cookie
imthenag 3 years ago
i see.
i was just basing my comment on the bible specifically because i saw in your profile that you enjoy "atheist/christian debates".
i definitely agree with you that the bible doesn't disprove theism in general, however, i do think that it does a good job of disproving christianity.
oPod 3 years ago
Good vid!
darktango78 3 years ago