Why would anyone take on a question that makes his head almost explode? There is no evidence for the type of god that christians and muslims promulgate, and that's that. If you need evidence belief is capable of forming within you, then you cannot believe. However, there is evidence for miracle. Existence just stands there crying out to be appreciated to the point of amazement. The miracle of our eyes are capable of beholding the miracle, but our ego stands in the way of full appreciation.
I didn't really understand this comment. it sounds like you are simply alleging that because their are things you cannot comprehend fully these are therefore miracles and evidence for a specific (and highly contrived) god.
@noelplum99 No! The third sentence in my comment somehow left out a number of words. Here is how it actually goes. If you need evidence before a belief is capable of forming within you, then you cannot believe (in a god, so why bother looking or arguing.) But there is miracle all around. That does not require more proof than we have. Being is a miracle. There is nothing within existence that I can comprehend fully, you see. But ego insists on claiming that there are some thing fully knowable.
"If you need evidence before a belief is capable of forming within you, then you cannot believe"
This is only the case if you accept there is no evidence. Can you demonstrate to me why it has to be the case that their can be no evidence for a deity?
@noelplum99 I don't understand why the assertion "If you need evidence before a belief is capable of forming in you, then you can't believe in a god"necessarily requires for there to be no evidence. As I see it, it does not.There may be evidence, but evidence forms knowledge and not faith. Your second statement: "Can you demonstrate why it has to be the case. . ." my answer is that no evidence for deityt is not a necessary case," However, that applies only to the daddy in the sky kind of deity.
Ok, so I think we are using 'belief' and 'believe' in different ways - you are holding that a 'belief' is akin to unevidenced faith whereas i use it simply as something that you hold to be true, including on the basis of solid evidence.
@noelplum99 In that case, it seems, you have no way of differentiating between the belief that applies to deity and belief that applies to science. I can see that, in a way, because both can be considered as bullshit. Human beings, with their limited, finite cognitive horizon, really cannot know anything with full certainty.
"Human beings, with their limited, finite cognitive horizon, really cannot know anything with full certainty."
I agree with that but that does not mean you cannot differentiate between a belief based on empirical evidence and one based on faith, i just think the word 'belief' itself is used in too wide an array of contexts for us to discern the specifics of what it is referring to whenever someone uses it.
@noelplum99 All right. That's why we should we should bifurcate our knowledge realm and call the stuff formed without evidence "belief," and the stuff formed with evidence "knowledge." On the latter, it just depends how finicky you are as to how much, and what kind, and how often verified, evidence you'll settle for. To some it is enough just to have someone else believe a given notion, or for it to be in any book in order for it to be considered useful evidence. Empriricism is merely a choice.
The problem with the time is simply a play of words. I agree that the guy gave horrible arguments for god but the time problem is a semantic one. Time did come into existence with the universe according the cosmologists. Maybe the correct word for the description of this being that created it (supposedly) would be "Eternal" as in exists outside of time. Our language limits us in explaining the relationship between this being and time sine we can only speak from a time perspective.
But is it our language that is limiting us or the nature of existence itself? As it stands i know full well that you cannot furnish me with a single example of existence or action that is not temporal and yet these theological arguments seem to take these things for granted.
"Time did come into existence with the universe according the cosmologists."
Cosmologists are very vague though and certainly don't play as fast and loose as christian apologists do today with these....
What cosmologists say is that OUR vector of time clearly has a boundary which is the Big Bang. As to what happened before this, or whether it is meaningful or correct to talk of a 'before' (such as whether other temporalities may exist outside of our own) are questions on which science offers only educated conjecture.
Sami is doing a debate with Christians at my university, now having watched this video, I'm less inclined in attending at all considering his poor argumentation. As a closet atheist if I attend it would be my first time going to any religious/atheist debate, but I wonder if watching two sides debating who's less of an ass of their imaginary friends is the best place to start.
I think it's far easier to prove the existence of god than to prove the existence of Sami Zaatari, the latter being a really meaningless concept, like god, but with no history.
So you may find out about god when you die, whilst you may never find about SZ.
FROM THINGS WE CAN SEE - THE VAST UNIVERSE, ALL ITS GALAXIES, STARS, CELESTIAL BODIES, TO THE SMALLEST ATOM, MOLECULE, NUCLEUS WE CAN'T SEE, AND YOU STILL DOUBT THAT THERE IS A GOD? I CHOOSE HEAVEN PARADISE
Whether you believe in GOD or not, that does not change the truth that there is a GOD, no matter what you say, see, hear, feel, think, do,or don't do, or whatever else it may be, it does not change anything, there still is a GOD, you can climb the highest mountain or enter the deepest bowels of the earth, & yell out that you don't believe in GOD, & even be angry and curse GOD, still will not change one of the many truths, & one being that there is an all seeing, all powerful & ever living GOD
@michaelmega1 That's true, if you also contend that Santa Claus also exists. Doesn't matter what you say, he exists. Oh, and I am god. You can't argue against it no more than you can argue for it. It just is. Now accept it without question and kiss my feet, there's a good lad.
Oh, all things have creators? ok, who created God? Him being some all powerful being that is not part of this universe, which need no creation is a BS answer.
How was time created? all things have creators, and the creator is god! It has to be a super-powerful being that is not part of this universe to create the universe! You are just a human that has been here for what only 50 years - you don't have the answers - GOD DOES! STUPID MAN!
I mean really follow this for me, if you will: Everything comes from something The universe is a thing The universe came from something That something is god. a.) where do you get off just inventing this something, giving it a name, and assigning it a set of behaviours? b.) where'd god come from? "Oh he already existed." So, god is a thing? "Si." Then he came from something, right? "No." FUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!
It's interesting that the "something from nothing," is only ever a problem when physicists try to explain the origins of the universe. It never seems to be a problem for religious people, though, when the something that's coming from nothing happens to be God himself. It's just so cheap that they get off with such a non sequitur.
Sound as a pound,Brother. I didn't know where to begin with his abysmal excuse for logic. You make your point succinctly, and with class. Nice work.Peace to you.
You seem pissed off though the entire thing... pure passion... I love it :) people need to just realize that were never going to fucking know what the fuck happened and how we got here, and pull the metal rods out of their asses that are shoved so far up its scratching the brain. Great vid lol.. i agree with everything.
my personal opinion is that man cannot really fathom the non existence of time i guess, therefore the fact time was created from a creator outside of time is REALLY mind boggling lol
You christians first of all shut your trap if u choose to believe heaven and hell exist then so be it, do not influence and LIE to the younglings about the existence of god, FOR GOD HAD NEVER SHOWN HIMSELF, even if god existed, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW ABOUT IT? WHAT? SOMEONE STOOD BEFORE THE DINOSAUR AGE AND WROTE THE WORDS OF JESUS? YEAH RIGHT FUCK THIS STUPID SHIT.
Atheist are people down on earth, unlike you people who believe you'll get to continue to live up there, what if heaven don't exist?!?!
After watching Sami's video before yours, and being completely dumbfounded by his syllogistic fallacy of an argument, I could not have enjoyed that sarcastic analogy to what he said anymore than I did. Totally brilliant and absolutely hysterical. I thank you for the much needed, hearty laugh after sitting through Sami's ridiculous video. Genius line; nothing more must be said.
I have to admit, Noelplum, this is the first video of yours I have ever watched, and you go about it in a impressively respectful manner. Passionate and blunt, but not vulgar or insulting.
By the way, I agree that this guy's argument is unfortunately very weak, and that's coming (as you know) from an ardent theist.
It was a while since I made this video but as I recall the comment referred to Sami's argument rather than belief in a deity generally. Their are many reasons to believe in something - ignorance being one of them (and most people, whether theist or atheist are ignorant of 90% of the arguments and evidence for either side).
I agree and much of it is based on our experiences. Some one rightly said that the relationship of our common sense to our experiences is that of our cloths to our body. Just as our body shapes our cloths so does our experiences shapes our common sense. The collective human experience is far too great to deny the existence of God. That is atleast the way I feel. Every one is free to make his own choice. Peace
When you are in court of law the meaning and the requirement of the word proof and evidence is different from the way these word are understood in science laboratory. In philosophy the standards are again different. So I guess evidence and proof is a relative term. Sure you can not prove God in laboratory and if you confine the meaning of the term to that then yes we cannot prove God. but a good reasoning is good enough for many.
In the realm of theology the significance of experience to me is equivalent to that of experiment in laboratory. Our five senses give us a way to experience universe at large subjectively. If we don't trust our senses then science has not proven any thing after all one can argue that our senses are subjective. To me inner experiences(in the presence of divine guidance) are also a formal approach to knowledge just as experiment are for physical world.
The problem is Rehanjaveds, you can perform an experiment in your lab in Islamabad, over the border an Indian can perform an experiment in his lab in Delhi (assuming he isn't tied up avoiding picking Pakistani players for his IPL team) and i can perform an experiment here in Louth and we can ALL reach a concensus. In the 'realm of theology', as you put it, we all perform the same experiement and all get different results every single time. Can it be so that for me there really is no god?...
...contd...and no creator, that for you Allah exists and created the world and for our friend in Delhi, although he exists on the same planet somehow the planet was now not created by Allah but by Lord Brahma?
Can the universe and our planet simultaneously have three different histories? I cannot see how this can be so.
I said that the meaning of the word evidence is very relative. In science many research papers are being written all based on evidence. We might call these evidences as proof of something. We may as well form a temporary consensus in science. But then again newer evidences will be put forth to tell us that we were partially correct. About earth, there was not a strict consensus as to the shape of earth but our experience was not wrong.
If you increase the diameter of a sphere to that extent it does look like flat to human eye so it was a failure of human reasoning and not the experience to not to consider this as a possibility. Again even after getting images from moon of earth spherical nature one can always argue that we have reached a consensus because our five senses works in same way
For many animals colors of universe dont exist. Likewise we can say that our mind plays tricks on us to see the universe in time and space the way we all do. Therefore if you doubt your own senses then there is an unbridgeable gulf between your subjective perception of universe and the objective universe and science will not prove anything to me even in the presence of consensus to well established conclusions of science like earth being spherical
So what we consider as constituting a proof and evidence will have different requirements in court of law, in laboratory, in theology and in philosophy. What constitute a proof depends on how strict you want to be in forming a requirement of evidence. For some seeing is believing. Ad for some even the testimony of an eye is not good enough.
'trusting your senses' is nowhere near as black and white as you conveniently portray. This is not a dichotomy: trust your senses absolutely or trust them not at all. We know from experience that our senses interpret the world in a certain was and are often fallible. Science is, amongst other things, a methodological attempt to overcome the fallabilities of our senses by removing our variability from the equation.
As for the rest of what you say - you are clearly a clever guy but the language..
I really love the analogy and i think you are bang on with regard to the way our common sense is shaped by our experiences.
However, how you leap superman-like from that to common experience 'proving god' is ridiculous. What you are suggesting is that a few thousand years ago your God didn't exist as people worshipped forest and animal spirits (animists) which must have existed instead - the earth must also have been flat in those days.....
...only since then has the earth 'become spherical' as a result of our common sense (?!?!?!) and only since then have the forest spirits ceased to exist and yahweh popped into existence.
If you think that the Archeological evidence suggest that earlier people didn't believe in One God then I wont agree. Of course belief in spirit and One transcendental deity requires you not to make images of God. So i you find archeological evidence of people worshiping nature proves at best that there were people who worshiped nature. But you cannot conclude that all humans thought that way. Newer theories are now emerging that says that first belief of humans was belief in One God
Could you explain to me the typical beliefs of South American tribes and other little contacted peoples? Of the examples I have seen belief on one god does not seem to be the norm so why should that be the case elsewhere.
I should also like to see these 'newer theories you talk of, so if you could pm me sonme info or sources.
It is also interesting you mention the zoroastrians, who were, of course, generally credited in taking the hebrews out of their polytheistic and henotheistic roots towards
I further find your inference breathless that the defining character of God is simply his quantity. In other words: if you believe in one god then it must be my god!
I suppose it's a useful argument from your perspective but it seems utterly utterly baseless.
If you study Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam all conclude that God is One. In hindu vedic scriptures God is One and he has got no images. Same goes for Zoroastrian scriptures (although there followers might be acting contrary to the statements found in scriptures. Even idol worshipers say that God is ultimately One. All conclude God exists. Details are different of course because inner experiences are far less obvious than outer experiences and to me u need guidance
Why bother explaining Sammy that ? It sure doesn't worth it as i'm sure he'll stubbornly believe NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE YOU'LL OFFER to prove he's wrong ! That's the case with ANY theistic moron. No matter what the evidence are he/she will find a way to explain himself/herself why it's not like it's been PROVEN. It's the DEVIL's work, his temptation; or GOD wants to TEST my FAITH. So rather than trying to explain Sami anything, i'd happily commit suicide.
A human word that is inextricable linked to time!!!!
again time exist only with the universe if something was there before time (before the universe) it does not obey time. also if what was around before time/universe was the creator of time/universe it would not have to obey time especially if the creator is on a seperate plain than that of universe/time.
The problem with your answer is that effectively you are creating a plane of time and/or space outside of the universe. Now, I have no problem with that, for all we know it may well be true, but then all your theistic arguments about how atheists propose the universe 'came from nothing' go out the window.
You can't have it both ways, you either have a 'before the univers' or you don't.
Some would argue that time is a human construct. So yes, to understand creation, we humans need to plot it on a time continuum. Same with the idea that if God existed before the universe, then God must be subject to the constraint of time. That's only an aid for us to try to visualize Him. He doesn't need it nor is He bound by it for He created it.
So you deny my point then that talking about creating something in the absence of time is no less counterintuitive than the idea of 'something coming from nothing'?
I'm agreeing with you actually. I just see it as a human limitation. We can't wrap our minds around the concept of timelessness. Our perceptions won't allow us to. One of the many reasons we can't understand God. Nor can we prove his existence. However even if I didn't believe, I couldn't logically conclude that something could come from nothing. That would make no sense. There must be a maker.
So how can you logically conclude that there MUST be a maker (and ofc simulataneously conclude that there MUSTNT be a maker maker)
I really cant see how you admit you cant wrap your head around timelessness but then go and and draw such conclusions about it (such that existance is possible within it)
plus i must remention what i said in the vid. God cannot exist BEFORE the universe because before means 'in the time preceeding' BUT there is no time preceeding the universe!
That is unless you accept that their could be some external time (in which case the arguments used against TBB and a naturalistic origin are moot)
But I say He did exist before the universe. I believe that He transcends all physical constraints like time. Because you need to use the word before and plot him on a graph to visualize Him doesn't mean that He's constrained by those limitations that we have and need to think even. God is a multi-dimensional being.
Humans are multi-dimensional beings too. We have 3 physical dimensions, and if you consider time to be the fourth dimension, then we have 4 dimensions. The pink gay unicorn is a multi-dimensional being from the planet Nubinon and he hates cheese. You can't prove that he doesn't exist, therefore he does exist.
Exactly we are multidimensional and exist in time. I was thinking in a larger context such as those four dimensions multiplied by however many exist. Regarding the unicorn, true I can't prove that he doesn't exist but that doesn't mean that he exists. However if you believe that he exists, then you have faith in that unicorn. Good points.
You talk about him transcending things like time but 'before', by the very definition of the word, has time as a prerequisite.
This isn't a case of constraining God it's a case of something being a logical impossibility because 'before' refers solely to time not to other, perhaps hidden, dimensions.
Agreed but that's our language and our frame of reference. Why must that apply to Him? If he created time, why would He be bound to it. I see no way that that must be a requisite for Him. We are limited by physical laws. He's not.
How about this. You and I can agree that we occupy a 3D Cartesian coordinate system with time being the 4th dimension (possibly visualized as a line that the axes travel on [symbolizing the passage of time]). That would be the contents of our "dimension". Potentially, there could be an infinite amount of these (realistically, I believe there's a finite amount at any given point in time). I don't subscribe to infinity. I think its physically impossible.
Even Sagan redefined infinity as a number to high to count. Meaning there's a limit/bound/end. God is outside of these dimensions so he's not bound to their laws. Although, being the lawmaker/creator, he can occupy them if He wishes. He may be occupying your space and my space simultaneously if he wishes. No limit. I can't see infinity as a realistic concept in the physical world. Time keeps it in check but I can see the infinity concept as describing God somewhat.
spatially, infinity could just be a phenomenon of a distortion of spacetime, where if you go a constant speed directly away from all other matter (if such a direction exists) and as you get farther out, your relative distance gained on all other matter gets reduced exponentially. so you seem like you're going forever in one direction, but you're physically incapable of actually leaving this 3 dimensional shell.
of course this is speculative nonsense, no better or worse than what you've said.
ok if god is going to create time he has to go trough the different stages of creation before he has the finished product (time) so what was that period called when he was going trough the process? we dont know but what we do know is time is limited to the universe, universe was the creation of a god (quran talks about god creating of the universe) god is all knowing this means he know the future, past and present before it happens so therefore time does not apply to god.
i understand that. what i was getting at is why do we need to know the name of it? its irrelevant because it doesn't obey time because it was there before time. also think about this where does god live? heave, heaven is gods home. its does not obey time. so if you want a name for what was before the universe and time, i say god and heaven. also your "before" argument is invalid, before is simply a human word.
it is a human word ofc. A human word that is inextricable linked to time!!!! Consequently it is a nonsense when you say that something doesn't have to obey time because it was there before time - it means you are injecting a temporality where there is none!
So if god created time, how do you describe what he did (in an orderly fashion) before he created time? I mean, did god blink his eyes (I assume you believe he has eyes, as we are created in his image) before he decided to create time? If so, then time already existed, as defined in the word "before". This whole god concept is just utterly confusing in its complexity yet confounding in its simplicity.
1. I saw your first comment but felt no need to respond, then I found by way back to this comment.... If any god exist, then they would logically be subject to fime, because in order for the god to have a thought or idea, it would require time. Your own thoughts can also be measured by time, sometimes we call them reflexes (our reaction time which involves thought)...
2. YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT "HIM" EXISTS, without proof, and you are also asserting that the "Him" exist without be subject to time, but you seem not be able to provide any proof. The pink gay unicorn is not subject to time, space, matter or energy because the book of unicorns says so. Maybe you should read that book. The unicorn transcends time and space, and is omnipotent and omniscient. The pink gay unicorn loves everyone and wants everyone to love him or else he'll torment them after they die.
I get confused about the way people view time. I see it as a measure of the linear progression of events, which, in order to be observed there must be an observer, and a thing performing some activity that is observed. It seems to be how our minds work; comparatively. But just as the sound of a tree falling in the forest, with no observer, exists, I would expect time also to exist independently of an observed event. I'm wondering if there should also be a law of conservation of time?
The impossibility of sapience without time is one of the more interesting thoughts I've heard lately. The very nature of thought makes it a stepwise process and now I'm curious if anyone can think of how consciousness could exist in the absence of time.
Especially since consciousness is really just the experience of continuity..
There is a possible nasty outcome from debating with mentally ill folks on a regular basis. That outcome is the eventual result of the sane debater becoming mentally ill themselves. Hanging out or discussing things like logic with delusional folks is very frustrating and depressing.
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."-George Orwell
I will need to stop watching these creotards here on YT for a while. My head is hurting as well. Good vid, glad I subbed.
Here's my shot at answering your question. Consider that time a 4th dimension, like length, width, and depth. The only way possible, someone can be "older than time" is if they exist in a 5th dimension outside of the 4D constraints. I am not well versed in this area of physics, but I think that's the idea anyway. I could be way off.
Yes, that's all very well but the dimension of time is not of the same ilk as the three dimensions of space. When we refer to the idea of age we refer exclusively to the dimension of time. If we consider a two dimensional plane, we would not regard something extending off that plane as older or younger or passing through time (not least because the dimension of time has an arrow, a direction, which to us is immutable, unlike the other three dimensions.
Yes...I understand that the dimensions of space are different from the dimensions of time. What I am saying is that a "5th dimensional being" as I understand it can exist outside the dimension of time. As I said, I am not well versed in this area of physics but the idea of existing outside of the dimension of time is certainly plausible in physics if I understand correctly.
Augustine of Hippo wrote on eternity. He may articulate it better than I do. For the record, I'm an atheist.
When we talk about a fifth dimension, let's be clear, we are talking mathematically theoretical physics for a start. These are ideas and hypotheses that are postulated, science is unable to tell us definitively whether a fifth dimension exists or what it would be like.
But the point remains. design and creation are 'movements in time'. Without time they lose any meaning to us. maybe a being can live outside of time and space but it could no more move thru space outside of space and likewise time
Before I became an atheist I questioned if the Big Bang was in itself the death of God. The same way that the atoms from our bodies are recycled into the universe. That satisfies Sami's creation by way of god but removes god from existence.
Also, having an idea essentially presupposes a memory of something that renders structure or form to the idea.. In any case, brilliant video yet again.
If god was 'outside' of time, he wouldn't exists unless he was placed there. Without time you can't have a beginning thus and everything except energy has to have a beginning.
Thank you for making a longer and better case. I wasn't even a bit tempted by the argument. He acutally denies option 2, which is more than viable.
Creation created itself or the universe created itself emerged from itself. Done. And Sami should disprove that position first, before comming to a more elaborate story to get a grip on realitiy.
at the base of it their are only two possibilities either god/universe was always here, or god/universe all came from nothing, i don't understand how either of these are possible
also if it's a case of yes their actually is/was a God, i still don't see the point of following any particular religion as none of them actually have any solid proof for their God/religion being The One
The only way a creator for the universe could exist is as an 11 dimensional construct. Such a construct would leave an imprint in 4 dimensional space. If this imprint which I refer to as an alpha/omega singularity does not exist then a creator God cannot exist.
Prove that God left fingerprints at the scene of the crime or he is innocent of Creation ^_^ Innocent until proven guilty.
No wonder limited mankind could only see three dimensions and with a little bit of thinking see the fourth dimension.
I wonder how many more dimensions there are that mankind never even thought of.
Also where is the observable fact about evolution. Tell me the whole story on how planets "banged" into existance. I know the whole story has holes that aren't explainable. It's k. :)
There are loads of observable facts about evolution. If you want the easy way to learn, read Dawkins upcoming book "The Greatest Show on Earth" or why not watch potholer54's series of videos called "From Big Bang to US -- Made Easy".
And do you really expect someone to tell you "the whole story on how planets "banged" into existence"? Why don't you go read a book or even some pages on wikipedia?
When they answer this question with God they usually have so many more questions to answer about Gods existence. An answer that has so much more baggage than a natural explanation.
The reason people are losing faith is we haven't had a prophet or messenger of God for over 1400 years. We are losing faith. But soon when the reality hits and the mountains blow up and we face out creator, their will be no buts or ifs. Muhammad was the last prophet and messenger, he was the seal of the prophets. Thats why their are no more prophets to come. We wouldnt be debating about this if we were living in the time of Moses when he split the sea or when Muhammad split the moon.
And who's talking Thaer35... It's like saying "No no no, Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale, he was swallowed by a huge fish or sea monster...". So that's what makes it soooo more believable *sarcasm*.
Oh noel. Lean back and just think about how amazing you have been made. Think about your eye, how it works, just an eye, it's simply unbelievably amazing.
Now do you really have that much faith to believe that over a course of MILLEONS AND MILLEONS (yea k?) of years such an eye could have gotten better an better (and first boom into existence)?
It's just unbelievable how much faith an atheist needs to believe all that evolution THEORY.
It takes no faith to believe observable fact. Human eyes are pretty pathetic when compared to some animals. Why don't humans have the best possible eyes? You can't even see as many colors as a bird can.
To repeat something from a creationist site or from mosque isnt even smart. Its like rhyme with you people, repeating the same word for word, without even understanding what are you blabering about...
The same routine with the whole free will and faith and who question CAN be used for ANYTHING IMAGINABLE, not only God. Thats why we dont buy it. Not because we are angry at God or seduced by devil. Its because it sound so stupid, OK??
God does tell us he created the universe in the Quran and Bible.
The Reason we dont all believe in God is because we all have free choice, we have a choice to believe and not to believe its all about faith.
Of Course Muslims mean God is outside space and time. God is not in his creation. Again God is outside time and when he created the universe time started for his creation, thats what sami probably meant.
God is the first and the last, he does not have an age. He is eternal.
Again cosmological argument and the necessary creator.
ehm. How to put it..??? You see, either God is part or whole of our universe and then he obey the laws of physics, logic and continuity in which case he can be observed, but isnt finaly posible, OR...
He stands outside our logic, laws and time and then its just futile to even talk about him. any holy book then isnt in contact with that God outside our reality and he cant command us to do or not to do anything :)
I still don't see why theists bother worrying about creation and whether god was involved. Surely the "god question" is an actual irrelevance to the creation of the universe? people who start from the point of the creation of the universe have a non argument and one which despite their protestations is not proof of anything at all. Its bizarre and faulty logic.
You could've made this video 9 minutes shorter introducing Sami's ludicrously poorly thought out propositions with the phrase "just listen to these strawman arguments!" Ergo, case closed.
Sami's previous video was some drivel about a 'scientist' who had suggested that religious belief was an instinct and that trying to explain evolution was therefore not natural for humans to understand. Sami's conclusion: a scientist said god really exists.
I believe that the only thing that can exist outside of time/space(zero dimension) is an infinitely small point. I say that the universe was created by Little Naked Fairy Girls and not an infinitely small point. But lets get to the heart of the matter. Why would you worship a violent old invisible man when you could be worshiping Naked Fairy Girls? It's in man's nature to worship naked girls is it not? Even Atheists like them and know the universe would be meaningless without them. Case proved!
I would have stopped at question one. Yes I created the universe, but then I am quite full of myself. Hmm that does sound quite familiar, oh yeah god of the bible is quite full of himself isn't he? So I just proved I am god.
I refuse the burden of proof because it is up to the person making the positive claim to prove his side is correct. In this case, he is making the positive claim that God created the universe, so he needs to prove it.
If the question was "is god imaginary?" It is up to the side saying "yes" to prove it.
Muslims always have to argue for the deistic god because they know how unconvincing the Koran really is. At least Christians occasionally argue the existence of their particular God.
Exactly my point. But there is a definition of god, that even atheists and theists (most...not everybody will) can agree upon. But the dogma that infects both sides will prevent many from recognizing this simple truth.
Raven, both sides know full well what God is defined as. God, in atheist/theist debates, is an omnipotent, intelligent entity which created the universe intentionally, and has interfered with it since.
I'm utterly baffled as to why you think both sides don't recognize this.
I read "The believing brain"... and yeah, it's straight forward. The belief comes before the bullshit to back it up.
GaruzoSama 3 months ago
Why would anyone take on a question that makes his head almost explode? There is no evidence for the type of god that christians and muslims promulgate, and that's that. If you need evidence belief is capable of forming within you, then you cannot believe. However, there is evidence for miracle. Existence just stands there crying out to be appreciated to the point of amazement. The miracle of our eyes are capable of beholding the miracle, but our ego stands in the way of full appreciation.
thre3eplus 5 months ago
@thre3eplus
I didn't really understand this comment. it sounds like you are simply alleging that because their are things you cannot comprehend fully these are therefore miracles and evidence for a specific (and highly contrived) god.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 No! The third sentence in my comment somehow left out a number of words. Here is how it actually goes. If you need evidence before a belief is capable of forming within you, then you cannot believe (in a god, so why bother looking or arguing.) But there is miracle all around. That does not require more proof than we have. Being is a miracle. There is nothing within existence that I can comprehend fully, you see. But ego insists on claiming that there are some thing fully knowable.
thre3eplus 5 months ago
@thre3eplus
"If you need evidence before a belief is capable of forming within you, then you cannot believe"
This is only the case if you accept there is no evidence. Can you demonstrate to me why it has to be the case that their can be no evidence for a deity?
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 I don't understand why the assertion "If you need evidence before a belief is capable of forming in you, then you can't believe in a god"necessarily requires for there to be no evidence. As I see it, it does not.There may be evidence, but evidence forms knowledge and not faith. Your second statement: "Can you demonstrate why it has to be the case. . ." my answer is that no evidence for deityt is not a necessary case," However, that applies only to the daddy in the sky kind of deity.
thre3eplus 5 months ago
@thre3eplus
Ok, so I think we are using 'belief' and 'believe' in different ways - you are holding that a 'belief' is akin to unevidenced faith whereas i use it simply as something that you hold to be true, including on the basis of solid evidence.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 In that case, it seems, you have no way of differentiating between the belief that applies to deity and belief that applies to science. I can see that, in a way, because both can be considered as bullshit. Human beings, with their limited, finite cognitive horizon, really cannot know anything with full certainty.
thre3eplus 5 months ago
@thre3eplus
"Human beings, with their limited, finite cognitive horizon, really cannot know anything with full certainty."
I agree with that but that does not mean you cannot differentiate between a belief based on empirical evidence and one based on faith, i just think the word 'belief' itself is used in too wide an array of contexts for us to discern the specifics of what it is referring to whenever someone uses it.
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99 All right. That's why we should we should bifurcate our knowledge realm and call the stuff formed without evidence "belief," and the stuff formed with evidence "knowledge." On the latter, it just depends how finicky you are as to how much, and what kind, and how often verified, evidence you'll settle for. To some it is enough just to have someone else believe a given notion, or for it to be in any book in order for it to be considered useful evidence. Empriricism is merely a choice.
thre3eplus 4 months ago
@noelplum99 lol i was disappointed with sami as well hahaha
plwpahi 5 months ago
At 4:05 you prove your stupidity. Sami's 1-st question may be addressed to anyone, including your neighbour! LOL
JackSparrowDepp 8 months ago
The problem with the time is simply a play of words. I agree that the guy gave horrible arguments for god but the time problem is a semantic one. Time did come into existence with the universe according the cosmologists. Maybe the correct word for the description of this being that created it (supposedly) would be "Eternal" as in exists outside of time. Our language limits us in explaining the relationship between this being and time sine we can only speak from a time perspective.
KDN888 8 months ago
@KDN888
But is it our language that is limiting us or the nature of existence itself? As it stands i know full well that you cannot furnish me with a single example of existence or action that is not temporal and yet these theological arguments seem to take these things for granted.
"Time did come into existence with the universe according the cosmologists."
Cosmologists are very vague though and certainly don't play as fast and loose as christian apologists do today with these....
noelplum99 8 months ago
@noelplum99
...ideas.
What cosmologists say is that OUR vector of time clearly has a boundary which is the Big Bang. As to what happened before this, or whether it is meaningful or correct to talk of a 'before' (such as whether other temporalities may exist outside of our own) are questions on which science offers only educated conjecture.
noelplum99 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An alien did come and tell me that he created the universe. Do you believe me?
KDN888 8 months ago
Sami is doing a debate with Christians at my university, now having watched this video, I'm less inclined in attending at all considering his poor argumentation. As a closet atheist if I attend it would be my first time going to any religious/atheist debate, but I wonder if watching two sides debating who's less of an ass of their imaginary friends is the best place to start.
TurboDally 1 year ago
I think it's far easier to prove the existence of god than to prove the existence of Sami Zaatari, the latter being a really meaningless concept, like god, but with no history.
So you may find out about god when you die, whilst you may never find about SZ.
drydust999 1 year ago
Are you wearing pyjamas?
warmacre 1 year ago
FROM THINGS WE CAN SEE - THE VAST UNIVERSE, ALL ITS GALAXIES, STARS, CELESTIAL BODIES, TO THE SMALLEST ATOM, MOLECULE, NUCLEUS WE CAN'T SEE, AND YOU STILL DOUBT THAT THERE IS A GOD? I CHOOSE HEAVEN PARADISE
michaelmega1 1 year ago
Whether you believe in GOD or not, that does not change the truth that there is a GOD, no matter what you say, see, hear, feel, think, do,or don't do, or whatever else it may be, it does not change anything, there still is a GOD, you can climb the highest mountain or enter the deepest bowels of the earth, & yell out that you don't believe in GOD, & even be angry and curse GOD, still will not change one of the many truths, & one being that there is an all seeing, all powerful & ever living GOD
michaelmega1 1 year ago
@michaelmega1 That's true, if you also contend that Santa Claus also exists. Doesn't matter what you say, he exists. Oh, and I am god. You can't argue against it no more than you can argue for it. It just is. Now accept it without question and kiss my feet, there's a good lad.
warmacre 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear atheists:
1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (true by definition)
2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Roger Penrose's quantum mind model -Orch-OR)
Conclusion: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
Well what do you know about that! ;)
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Oh, all things have creators? ok, who created God? Him being some all powerful being that is not part of this universe, which need no creation is a BS answer.
TheCrazyNintendoFan 1 year ago
@TheCrazyNintendoFan What is the religious contention on this issue apart from "he doesn't need a creator" or "he created himself"?
warmacre 1 year ago
How was time created? all things have creators, and the creator is god! It has to be a super-powerful being that is not part of this universe to create the universe! You are just a human that has been here for what only 50 years - you don't have the answers - GOD DOES! STUPID MAN!
Lemon020202 1 year ago
ProkofievRules 1 year ago
It's interesting that the "something from nothing," is only ever a problem when physicists try to explain the origins of the universe. It never seems to be a problem for religious people, though, when the something that's coming from nothing happens to be God himself. It's just so cheap that they get off with such a non sequitur.
ProkofievRules 1 year ago
Brillant! In my opinion, you just proved that god doesn't exist.
ChileMac 1 year ago
<3 u =) sammi is an idiot
22880jamie 1 year ago
Sound as a pound,Brother. I didn't know where to begin with his abysmal excuse for logic. You make your point succinctly, and with class. Nice work.Peace to you.
johnnywalker1974 1 year ago
You seem pissed off though the entire thing... pure passion... I love it :) people need to just realize that were never going to fucking know what the fuck happened and how we got here, and pull the metal rods out of their asses that are shoved so far up its scratching the brain. Great vid lol.. i agree with everything.
FailtalityOrDie 1 year ago
my personal opinion is that man cannot really fathom the non existence of time i guess, therefore the fact time was created from a creator outside of time is REALLY mind boggling lol
InstantCombat 1 year ago
You christians first of all shut your trap if u choose to believe heaven and hell exist then so be it, do not influence and LIE to the younglings about the existence of god, FOR GOD HAD NEVER SHOWN HIMSELF, even if god existed, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW ABOUT IT? WHAT? SOMEONE STOOD BEFORE THE DINOSAUR AGE AND WROTE THE WORDS OF JESUS? YEAH RIGHT FUCK THIS STUPID SHIT.
Atheist are people down on earth, unlike you people who believe you'll get to continue to live up there, what if heaven don't exist?!?!
RedMind86 1 year ago
Ya know...ya know....wot ya call 1000 rabbits slowly walking backwards. A receding hairline....(looks right down camera)
myjizzureye 2 years ago
thats a great username
noelplum99 2 years ago 2
Ta mate (^.o)
myjizzureye 2 years ago
Do you believe in an infinite force?
YemeniSoldier 2 years ago
exactly my main argument!
If god created time - at what time he decided to do so?
Good vid!
manzed 2 years ago
"Or does its weight support its weight...?"
After watching Sami's video before yours, and being completely dumbfounded by his syllogistic fallacy of an argument, I could not have enjoyed that sarcastic analogy to what he said anymore than I did. Totally brilliant and absolutely hysterical. I thank you for the much needed, hearty laugh after sitting through Sami's ridiculous video. Genius line; nothing more must be said.
arf15beagle 2 years ago
I would love Sami to reply, this guy is really irks me the most, he takes himself so seriously, yet he is always so disappointing.
lynus111 2 years ago 2
I have to admit, Noelplum, this is the first video of yours I have ever watched, and you go about it in a impressively respectful manner. Passionate and blunt, but not vulgar or insulting.
By the way, I agree that this guy's argument is unfortunately very weak, and that's coming (as you know) from an ardent theist.
NomosCharis 2 years ago 2
@NomosCharis,
Cheers for the compliment!
Have you not been following the discussion started by Veritas, Telemantros and DawahFilms?
Check it out if you have not (Veritas should be your starting point imo)
noelplum99 2 years ago
i think what you had to say was fair and logical although i do believe in god i think the options sami gave were off point.
stryderman01 2 years ago
U said "non of the argument makes common sense". yet majority of the world Believes in the existence of God.
your common scene is very uncommon,
this comment was not to insult you. I just found your remark funny. Common sense should be common. yet the way you think is not very common.
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
@Rehanjaveds
It was a while since I made this video but as I recall the comment referred to Sami's argument rather than belief in a deity generally. Their are many reasons to believe in something - ignorance being one of them (and most people, whether theist or atheist are ignorant of 90% of the arguments and evidence for either side).
noelplum99 2 years ago
dude, zataari is a clown
skabudaw1 2 years ago
common sense isn't just used to belief systems, its used in everyday situations....thats why its called common
skabudaw1 2 years ago
Comment removed
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
I agree and much of it is based on our experiences. Some one rightly said that the relationship of our common sense to our experiences is that of our cloths to our body. Just as our body shapes our cloths so does our experiences shapes our common sense. The collective human experience is far too great to deny the existence of God. That is atleast the way I feel. Every one is free to make his own choice. Peace
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
i don't know, how can you prove or disprove the existence of God from the richness of human experience....
skabudaw1 2 years ago
When you are in court of law the meaning and the requirement of the word proof and evidence is different from the way these word are understood in science laboratory. In philosophy the standards are again different. So I guess evidence and proof is a relative term. Sure you can not prove God in laboratory and if you confine the meaning of the term to that then yes we cannot prove God. but a good reasoning is good enough for many.
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
In the realm of theology the significance of experience to me is equivalent to that of experiment in laboratory. Our five senses give us a way to experience universe at large subjectively. If we don't trust our senses then science has not proven any thing after all one can argue that our senses are subjective. To me inner experiences(in the presence of divine guidance) are also a formal approach to knowledge just as experiment are for physical world.
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
The problem is Rehanjaveds, you can perform an experiment in your lab in Islamabad, over the border an Indian can perform an experiment in his lab in Delhi (assuming he isn't tied up avoiding picking Pakistani players for his IPL team) and i can perform an experiment here in Louth and we can ALL reach a concensus. In the 'realm of theology', as you put it, we all perform the same experiement and all get different results every single time. Can it be so that for me there really is no god?...
noelplum99 2 years ago
...contd...and no creator, that for you Allah exists and created the world and for our friend in Delhi, although he exists on the same planet somehow the planet was now not created by Allah but by Lord Brahma?
Can the universe and our planet simultaneously have three different histories? I cannot see how this can be so.
noelplum99 2 years ago
I said that the meaning of the word evidence is very relative. In science many research papers are being written all based on evidence. We might call these evidences as proof of something. We may as well form a temporary consensus in science. But then again newer evidences will be put forth to tell us that we were partially correct. About earth, there was not a strict consensus as to the shape of earth but our experience was not wrong.
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
If you increase the diameter of a sphere to that extent it does look like flat to human eye so it was a failure of human reasoning and not the experience to not to consider this as a possibility. Again even after getting images from moon of earth spherical nature one can always argue that we have reached a consensus because our five senses works in same way
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
For many animals colors of universe dont exist. Likewise we can say that our mind plays tricks on us to see the universe in time and space the way we all do. Therefore if you doubt your own senses then there is an unbridgeable gulf between your subjective perception of universe and the objective universe and science will not prove anything to me even in the presence of consensus to well established conclusions of science like earth being spherical
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
So what we consider as constituting a proof and evidence will have different requirements in court of law, in laboratory, in theology and in philosophy. What constitute a proof depends on how strict you want to be in forming a requirement of evidence. For some seeing is believing. Ad for some even the testimony of an eye is not good enough.
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
'trusting your senses' is nowhere near as black and white as you conveniently portray. This is not a dichotomy: trust your senses absolutely or trust them not at all. We know from experience that our senses interpret the world in a certain was and are often fallible. Science is, amongst other things, a methodological attempt to overcome the fallabilities of our senses by removing our variability from the equation.
As for the rest of what you say - you are clearly a clever guy but the language..
noelplum99 2 years ago
...gap is defeating me here - i don't want to misinterpret what you sayand there is a definite risk I could do so if i say any more.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Somebody marked this as spam for some reason.
I really love the analogy and i think you are bang on with regard to the way our common sense is shaped by our experiences.
However, how you leap superman-like from that to common experience 'proving god' is ridiculous. What you are suggesting is that a few thousand years ago your God didn't exist as people worshipped forest and animal spirits (animists) which must have existed instead - the earth must also have been flat in those days.....
noelplum99 2 years ago
...only since then has the earth 'become spherical' as a result of our common sense (?!?!?!) and only since then have the forest spirits ceased to exist and yahweh popped into existence.
A very strange way of thinking imo.
noelplum99 2 years ago
If you think that the Archeological evidence suggest that earlier people didn't believe in One God then I wont agree. Of course belief in spirit and One transcendental deity requires you not to make images of God. So i you find archeological evidence of people worshiping nature proves at best that there were people who worshiped nature. But you cannot conclude that all humans thought that way. Newer theories are now emerging that says that first belief of humans was belief in One God
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
Could you explain to me the typical beliefs of South American tribes and other little contacted peoples? Of the examples I have seen belief on one god does not seem to be the norm so why should that be the case elsewhere.
I should also like to see these 'newer theories you talk of, so if you could pm me sonme info or sources.
It is also interesting you mention the zoroastrians, who were, of course, generally credited in taking the hebrews out of their polytheistic and henotheistic roots towards
noelplum99 2 years ago
...monotheism.
I further find your inference breathless that the defining character of God is simply his quantity. In other words: if you believe in one god then it must be my god!
I suppose it's a useful argument from your perspective but it seems utterly utterly baseless.
noelplum99 2 years ago
however, this internal experience is completely subjective and cannot be verified by cross reference with others....
skabudaw1 2 years ago
If you study Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam all conclude that God is One. In hindu vedic scriptures God is One and he has got no images. Same goes for Zoroastrian scriptures (although there followers might be acting contrary to the statements found in scriptures. Even idol worshipers say that God is ultimately One. All conclude God exists. Details are different of course because inner experiences are far less obvious than outer experiences and to me u need guidance
Rehanjaveds 2 years ago
The point on time was delightfully made, especially since time is not a fixed and linear thing (see general and special relativity). :D
A beginning is only necessary if you assume time is linear, and only moves in one direction - something that the jury is still out on.
stealthbadger 2 years ago
Why bother explaining Sammy that ? It sure doesn't worth it as i'm sure he'll stubbornly believe NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE YOU'LL OFFER to prove he's wrong ! That's the case with ANY theistic moron. No matter what the evidence are he/she will find a way to explain himself/herself why it's not like it's been PROVEN. It's the DEVIL's work, his temptation; or GOD wants to TEST my FAITH. So rather than trying to explain Sami anything, i'd happily commit suicide.
wwwggxcom 2 years ago
A human word that is inextricable linked to time!!!!
again time exist only with the universe if something was there before time (before the universe) it does not obey time. also if what was around before time/universe was the creator of time/universe it would not have to obey time especially if the creator is on a seperate plain than that of universe/time.
HOMELANDorDEATH 2 years ago
The problem with your answer is that effectively you are creating a plane of time and/or space outside of the universe. Now, I have no problem with that, for all we know it may well be true, but then all your theistic arguments about how atheists propose the universe 'came from nothing' go out the window.
You can't have it both ways, you either have a 'before the univers' or you don't.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Some would argue that time is a human construct. So yes, to understand creation, we humans need to plot it on a time continuum. Same with the idea that if God existed before the universe, then God must be subject to the constraint of time. That's only an aid for us to try to visualize Him. He doesn't need it nor is He bound by it for He created it.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
So you deny my point then that talking about creating something in the absence of time is no less counterintuitive than the idea of 'something coming from nothing'?
noelplum99 2 years ago
I'm agreeing with you actually. I just see it as a human limitation. We can't wrap our minds around the concept of timelessness. Our perceptions won't allow us to. One of the many reasons we can't understand God. Nor can we prove his existence. However even if I didn't believe, I couldn't logically conclude that something could come from nothing. That would make no sense. There must be a maker.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
"There must be a maker. "
So how can you logically conclude that there MUST be a maker (and ofc simulataneously conclude that there MUSTNT be a maker maker)
I really cant see how you admit you cant wrap your head around timelessness but then go and and draw such conclusions about it (such that existance is possible within it)
bed for me anyway its 4am almost
noelplum99 2 years ago
Well I'm just a mortal and these statements are more philosophical than anything else.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
plus i must remention what i said in the vid. God cannot exist BEFORE the universe because before means 'in the time preceeding' BUT there is no time preceeding the universe!
That is unless you accept that their could be some external time (in which case the arguments used against TBB and a naturalistic origin are moot)
noelplum99 2 years ago
But I say He did exist before the universe. I believe that He transcends all physical constraints like time. Because you need to use the word before and plot him on a graph to visualize Him doesn't mean that He's constrained by those limitations that we have and need to think even. God is a multi-dimensional being.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
Humans are multi-dimensional beings too. We have 3 physical dimensions, and if you consider time to be the fourth dimension, then we have 4 dimensions. The pink gay unicorn is a multi-dimensional being from the planet Nubinon and he hates cheese. You can't prove that he doesn't exist, therefore he does exist.
raby760 2 years ago
Exactly we are multidimensional and exist in time. I was thinking in a larger context such as those four dimensions multiplied by however many exist. Regarding the unicorn, true I can't prove that he doesn't exist but that doesn't mean that he exists. However if you believe that he exists, then you have faith in that unicorn. Good points.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
You talk about him transcending things like time but 'before', by the very definition of the word, has time as a prerequisite.
This isn't a case of constraining God it's a case of something being a logical impossibility because 'before' refers solely to time not to other, perhaps hidden, dimensions.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Agreed but that's our language and our frame of reference. Why must that apply to Him? If he created time, why would He be bound to it. I see no way that that must be a requisite for Him. We are limited by physical laws. He's not.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
I'm not saying he is bound to time I'm saying the term 'before' is!
You can either have time before the start of the universe or you don't (in which case there is no before).
noelplum99 2 years ago
How about this. You and I can agree that we occupy a 3D Cartesian coordinate system with time being the 4th dimension (possibly visualized as a line that the axes travel on [symbolizing the passage of time]). That would be the contents of our "dimension". Potentially, there could be an infinite amount of these (realistically, I believe there's a finite amount at any given point in time). I don't subscribe to infinity. I think its physically impossible.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
Even Sagan redefined infinity as a number to high to count. Meaning there's a limit/bound/end. God is outside of these dimensions so he's not bound to their laws. Although, being the lawmaker/creator, he can occupy them if He wishes. He may be occupying your space and my space simultaneously if he wishes. No limit. I can't see infinity as a realistic concept in the physical world. Time keeps it in check but I can see the infinity concept as describing God somewhat.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
spatially, infinity could just be a phenomenon of a distortion of spacetime, where if you go a constant speed directly away from all other matter (if such a direction exists) and as you get farther out, your relative distance gained on all other matter gets reduced exponentially. so you seem like you're going forever in one direction, but you're physically incapable of actually leaving this 3 dimensional shell.
of course this is speculative nonsense, no better or worse than what you've said.
Zetimenvec 2 years ago
ok if god is going to create time he has to go trough the different stages of creation before he has the finished product (time) so what was that period called when he was going trough the process? we dont know but what we do know is time is limited to the universe, universe was the creation of a god (quran talks about god creating of the universe) god is all knowing this means he know the future, past and present before it happens so therefore time does not apply to god.
HOMELANDorDEATH 2 years ago
There wasn't a period (in time) before time because there was no time before time!
"but what we do know is time is limited to the universe, universe was the creation of a god "
we dont know that, that is what we are debating FFS!!!
noelplum99 2 years ago
i understand that. what i was getting at is why do we need to know the name of it? its irrelevant because it doesn't obey time because it was there before time. also think about this where does god live? heave, heaven is gods home. its does not obey time. so if you want a name for what was before the universe and time, i say god and heaven. also your "before" argument is invalid, before is simply a human word.
HOMELANDorDEATH 2 years ago
it is a human word ofc. A human word that is inextricable linked to time!!!! Consequently it is a nonsense when you say that something doesn't have to obey time because it was there before time - it means you are injecting a temporality where there is none!
noelplum99 2 years ago
So if god created time, how do you describe what he did (in an orderly fashion) before he created time? I mean, did god blink his eyes (I assume you believe he has eyes, as we are created in his image) before he decided to create time? If so, then time already existed, as defined in the word "before". This whole god concept is just utterly confusing in its complexity yet confounding in its simplicity.
juggaloryan3 2 years ago
1. I saw your first comment but felt no need to respond, then I found by way back to this comment.... If any god exist, then they would logically be subject to fime, because in order for the god to have a thought or idea, it would require time. Your own thoughts can also be measured by time, sometimes we call them reflexes (our reaction time which involves thought)...
raby760 2 years ago
2. YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT "HIM" EXISTS, without proof, and you are also asserting that the "Him" exist without be subject to time, but you seem not be able to provide any proof. The pink gay unicorn is not subject to time, space, matter or energy because the book of unicorns says so. Maybe you should read that book. The unicorn transcends time and space, and is omnipotent and omniscient. The pink gay unicorn loves everyone and wants everyone to love him or else he'll torment them after they die.
raby760 2 years ago
The naturalistic origin won't hold because how can something come from nothing? That makes no sense mathematically.
SonistheFatherofMan 2 years ago
Sami's vids are just another form of what young men do when they're bored and on their own. Ignore him.
robzrob 2 years ago
sweet ;)
blackwolf1272 2 years ago
I get confused about the way people view time. I see it as a measure of the linear progression of events, which, in order to be observed there must be an observer, and a thing performing some activity that is observed. It seems to be how our minds work; comparatively. But just as the sound of a tree falling in the forest, with no observer, exists, I would expect time also to exist independently of an observed event. I'm wondering if there should also be a law of conservation of time?
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
Hmmm. I guess it's implied by the law of conservation of mass and energy.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
Ooo. Nice argument.
The impossibility of sapience without time is one of the more interesting thoughts I've heard lately. The very nature of thought makes it a stepwise process and now I'm curious if anyone can think of how consciousness could exist in the absence of time.
Especially since consciousness is really just the experience of continuity..
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
arh... i hate these vague Theist arguments -.-
KaptajnKaffe 2 years ago
epic
alexkillsdie 2 years ago
If they actually had anything they wouldn't need this fallacious BS, they'd just provide direct evidence.
All this crap does, is try to generate information where there isn't any, But if there were any this would be the direct evidence they don't have.
GWR3440 2 years ago
BOMB... my head just exploded... LOL
TheBadYuYu 2 years ago
There is a possible nasty outcome from debating with mentally ill folks on a regular basis. That outcome is the eventual result of the sane debater becoming mentally ill themselves. Hanging out or discussing things like logic with delusional folks is very frustrating and depressing.
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."-George Orwell
I will need to stop watching these creotards here on YT for a while. My head is hurting as well. Good vid, glad I subbed.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
Here's my shot at answering your question. Consider that time a 4th dimension, like length, width, and depth. The only way possible, someone can be "older than time" is if they exist in a 5th dimension outside of the 4D constraints. I am not well versed in this area of physics, but I think that's the idea anyway. I could be way off.
EmpiricalTruth 2 years ago
Yes, that's all very well but the dimension of time is not of the same ilk as the three dimensions of space. When we refer to the idea of age we refer exclusively to the dimension of time. If we consider a two dimensional plane, we would not regard something extending off that plane as older or younger or passing through time (not least because the dimension of time has an arrow, a direction, which to us is immutable, unlike the other three dimensions.
noelplum99 2 years ago
Yes...I understand that the dimensions of space are different from the dimensions of time. What I am saying is that a "5th dimensional being" as I understand it can exist outside the dimension of time. As I said, I am not well versed in this area of physics but the idea of existing outside of the dimension of time is certainly plausible in physics if I understand correctly.
Augustine of Hippo wrote on eternity. He may articulate it better than I do. For the record, I'm an atheist.
EmpiricalTruth 2 years ago
When we talk about a fifth dimension, let's be clear, we are talking mathematically theoretical physics for a start. These are ideas and hypotheses that are postulated, science is unable to tell us definitively whether a fifth dimension exists or what it would be like.
But the point remains. design and creation are 'movements in time'. Without time they lose any meaning to us. maybe a being can live outside of time and space but it could no more move thru space outside of space and likewise time
noelplum99 2 years ago
Before I became an atheist I questioned if the Big Bang was in itself the death of God. The same way that the atoms from our bodies are recycled into the universe. That satisfies Sami's creation by way of god but removes god from existence.
justintempler 2 years ago 2
Nice one, :-P
PragnorVorn 2 years ago
Jim, I'm glad you are on our side. I really enjoy how you deconstruct this moron's argument with great humor. Great video as always.
pteromalid 2 years ago
Yes! A vid about a debate I am part of!!!!! lol, this is my call to fame.... :-P
PragnorVorn 2 years ago
SamiZaatari, at 2:50, reveals the truth. He's a babbling, nonsensical dolt.
pilgrimomega 2 years ago 5
As I dyslexic I know what it is like to say the wrong words.
Don't worry - the message is clear.
Good video - as ever.
dprjones 2 years ago 8
Also, having an idea essentially presupposes a memory of something that renders structure or form to the idea.. In any case, brilliant video yet again.
leicaholt 2 years ago
If god was 'outside' of time, he wouldn't exists unless he was placed there. Without time you can't have a beginning thus and everything except energy has to have a beginning.
XChillX42 2 years ago
well at least that clears up point one then Sami!
noelplum99 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i like the elephant example you gave.
LittleTruckingBozo 2 years ago
Comment removed
LittleTruckingBozo 2 years ago
Thank you!
Thank you for making a longer and better case. I wasn't even a bit tempted by the argument. He acutally denies option 2, which is more than viable.
Creation created itself or the universe created itself emerged from itself. Done. And Sami should disprove that position first, before comming to a more elaborate story to get a grip on realitiy.
ContinuumXT 2 years ago
religions are merely man made creations abused by unscrupulous individuals as manipulative tools for acquiring wealth and power
firebark 2 years ago
at the base of it their are only two possibilities either god/universe was always here, or god/universe all came from nothing, i don't understand how either of these are possible
also if it's a case of yes their actually is/was a God, i still don't see the point of following any particular religion as none of them actually have any solid proof for their God/religion being The One
firebark 2 years ago
The only way a creator for the universe could exist is as an 11 dimensional construct. Such a construct would leave an imprint in 4 dimensional space. If this imprint which I refer to as an alpha/omega singularity does not exist then a creator God cannot exist.
Prove that God left fingerprints at the scene of the crime or he is innocent of Creation ^_^ Innocent until proven guilty.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
No wonder limited mankind could only see three dimensions and with a little bit of thinking see the fourth dimension.
I wonder how many more dimensions there are that mankind never even thought of.
Also where is the observable fact about evolution. Tell me the whole story on how planets "banged" into existance. I know the whole story has holes that aren't explainable. It's k. :)
RealTrueTarget 2 years ago
The functional limit for the current model of space/time is 11 dimensions. Any more or less and the math falls apart.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
There are loads of observable facts about evolution. If you want the easy way to learn, read Dawkins upcoming book "The Greatest Show on Earth" or why not watch potholer54's series of videos called "From Big Bang to US -- Made Easy".
And do you really expect someone to tell you "the whole story on how planets "banged" into existence"? Why don't you go read a book or even some pages on wikipedia?
Sandolainen 2 years ago
Where did the universe come from?
When they answer this question with God they usually have so many more questions to answer about Gods existence. An answer that has so much more baggage than a natural explanation.
FreePrometheus 2 years ago
The reason people are losing faith is we haven't had a prophet or messenger of God for over 1400 years. We are losing faith. But soon when the reality hits and the mountains blow up and we face out creator, their will be no buts or ifs. Muhammad was the last prophet and messenger, he was the seal of the prophets. Thats why their are no more prophets to come. We wouldnt be debating about this if we were living in the time of Moses when he split the sea or when Muhammad split the moon.
Thaer35 2 years ago
If we lived in the time of moses we'd be slaughtering or enslaving entire cities for worshipping the "wrong" gods.
Nihilist127 2 years ago
Nice, you admitted Moses exists, your one step closer to become a believer.
Thaer35 2 years ago
You said time of moses. There is no evidence outside the bible for moses.
Nihilist127 2 years ago
Thats debatable, I haven't researched on it so im not going to comment, but you seem very confident...
Thaer35 2 years ago
That's because i've looked but i would be more than happy to be corrected :)
Nihilist127 2 years ago
Thaer35 " I haven't researched on it so im not going to comment,"
It's ironic when unbelievers know more about the evidence (or lack of it) for god than the believers do.
justintempler 2 years ago
Split the moon... last I checked the moon was intact.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
It amazes me on how dumb you are no offense. Things can be put back together you know..
Thaer35 2 years ago
I'm one of the smartest things on this planet little ape ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
And who's talking Thaer35... It's like saying "No no no, Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale, he was swallowed by a huge fish or sea monster...". So that's what makes it soooo more believable *sarcasm*.
AmerginMacEccit 2 years ago
Oh noel. Lean back and just think about how amazing you have been made. Think about your eye, how it works, just an eye, it's simply unbelievably amazing.
Now do you really have that much faith to believe that over a course of MILLEONS AND MILLEONS (yea k?) of years such an eye could have gotten better an better (and first boom into existence)?
It's just unbelievable how much faith an atheist needs to believe all that evolution THEORY.
Anyways, take care.
RealTrueTarget 2 years ago
Ugh, old debunked nonsense. Come back when you catch up with reality.
cappastrano 2 years ago
It takes no faith to believe observable fact. Human eyes are pretty pathetic when compared to some animals. Why don't humans have the best possible eyes? You can't even see as many colors as a bird can.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Thank you for listening to his bullshit so we don't have to!
bamboo4tameshigiri 2 years ago 2
To repeat something from a creationist site or from mosque isnt even smart. Its like rhyme with you people, repeating the same word for word, without even understanding what are you blabering about...
The same routine with the whole free will and faith and who question CAN be used for ANYTHING IMAGINABLE, not only God. Thats why we dont buy it. Not because we are angry at God or seduced by devil. Its because it sound so stupid, OK??
KronosDeret 2 years ago
5:33
God does tell us he created the universe in the Quran and Bible.
The Reason we dont all believe in God is because we all have free choice, we have a choice to believe and not to believe its all about faith.
Of Course Muslims mean God is outside space and time. God is not in his creation. Again God is outside time and when he created the universe time started for his creation, thats what sami probably meant.
God is the first and the last, he does not have an age. He is eternal.
Thaer35 2 years ago
You're begging the question, by presuming what you're supposed to be proving.
Here's a clue: you're supposed to prove it before presuming it to an audience that doesn' t alreadty believe.
Do you seriously imagine we'd ask for proof if you had the sense to keep it inside your religion?
Or that this kind of question-begging stupidity is a satisfactory answer?
And nobody chooses to believe in it any more than you can choose to believe in the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
GWR3440 2 years ago
Same old same old, sorry.
Again cosmological argument and the necessary creator.
ehm. How to put it..??? You see, either God is part or whole of our universe and then he obey the laws of physics, logic and continuity in which case he can be observed, but isnt finaly posible, OR...
He stands outside our logic, laws and time and then its just futile to even talk about him. any holy book then isnt in contact with that God outside our reality and he cant command us to do or not to do anything :)
KronosDeret 2 years ago
now you say that, the ross thing is quite noticeable.
mrgeorgeallison 2 years ago
That's not Sami Zaatari, it's Groucho Marx.
73elephants 2 years ago
Funny how no matter how how the theists try to mince words it all comes down to the same old arguments.
deicidalistic 2 years ago
Excellent video, sir. Sami's just spouting off old crap arguments.
ObsidianTeen 2 years ago
great stuff yet again Mr Plum! thankyou.
dangerousprimate 2 years ago
ahh sami mr. jihad death threat himself
Mahoivlich 2 years ago
I still don't see why theists bother worrying about creation and whether god was involved. Surely the "god question" is an actual irrelevance to the creation of the universe? people who start from the point of the creation of the universe have a non argument and one which despite their protestations is not proof of anything at all. Its bizarre and faulty logic.
BespokeGroupUK 2 years ago
You could've made this video 9 minutes shorter introducing Sami's ludicrously poorly thought out propositions with the phrase "just listen to these strawman arguments!" Ergo, case closed.
Sami's previous video was some drivel about a 'scientist' who had suggested that religious belief was an instinct and that trying to explain evolution was therefore not natural for humans to understand. Sami's conclusion: a scientist said god really exists.
Genius.
You couldn't make it up. Oh, he did.
geffel 2 years ago
I believe that the only thing that can exist outside of time/space(zero dimension) is an infinitely small point. I say that the universe was created by Little Naked Fairy Girls and not an infinitely small point. But lets get to the heart of the matter. Why would you worship a violent old invisible man when you could be worshiping Naked Fairy Girls? It's in man's nature to worship naked girls is it not? Even Atheists like them and know the universe would be meaningless without them. Case proved!
crossoldman 2 years ago
I would have stopped at question one. Yes I created the universe, but then I am quite full of myself. Hmm that does sound quite familiar, oh yeah god of the bible is quite full of himself isn't he? So I just proved I am god.
zendragon333 2 years ago 2
I refuse the burden of proof because it is up to the person making the positive claim to prove his side is correct. In this case, he is making the positive claim that God created the universe, so he needs to prove it.
If the question was "is god imaginary?" It is up to the side saying "yes" to prove it.
malestrithe 2 years ago
I Watched Sami Zaatari's Video And His Proof Makes Less Sense Than The Movie "Naked Lunch".....;)
spaceman300 2 years ago
Muslims always have to argue for the deistic god because they know how unconvincing the Koran really is. At least Christians occasionally argue the existence of their particular God.
baraqiyal 2 years ago
Your officially my favorite person to watch on here! Impassioned, intellectual, and open to debate.
theredblueblurr 2 years ago
But Plum! Didn't you know!? God exists out of space and time!!
Wait... Don't we define things that exist inside space and time as existing, and things that are outside of space and time as not existing?
pokekid716 2 years ago
I made this point so many time to so many other theists as well!
One must first establish a coherent and positive ontology of the concept of god.
Debating against or for one at this level is useless and would be mental masturbation at best.
wynd2007 2 years ago
@wynd2007
Exactly my point. But there is a definition of god, that even atheists and theists (most...not everybody will) can agree upon. But the dogma that infects both sides will prevent many from recognizing this simple truth.
ravenslaves 2 years ago
Raven, both sides know full well what God is defined as. God, in atheist/theist debates, is an omnipotent, intelligent entity which created the universe intentionally, and has interfered with it since.
I'm utterly baffled as to why you think both sides don't recognize this.
Hooya2 2 years ago
@ wynd...you got it...
@Hooya2
Look at what you've done here. You've defined what god is, and assumed that there is no other definition. That's a very