Water will boil at the same temperature tomorrow as today because we have observed such things over the past few thousand years to be true without faltering. We know yellow is yellow because we named it yellow. Do we all see the same yellow? No. Some people have different issues with their eyes, including color blindness. Most can still point out yellow. Also, a god did not make the eye, evolution did. If he did make the eye, he's a moron. It's superior to others but has many flaws in design.
We dont asume, THEY ARE CONSTANTS! Their physical nature dont change, and this is explained that matter and energy dont disapear. Their properties are sole based on the construction of neutron and all other particles in an atom... Learn abit of physics and chemistry, then ask these questions you douche...
I just visited that site. Wow. Just wow. It's a great showcase of the silliness of apologetics, and a good indicator what's wrong with theistic reasoning. In any case, I'd never respond in the way they claim atheists respond.
Lol, bewildered old guy asking nonsensical questions pretending he has a theological argument. Sunglasses dude should have said : "How do you know that this reality that you think you understand isn't in fact a highly sophisticated computer program?"
Instrumentation? We have to calibrate our instruments? Kinda like calibrating a young mind to being able to believe in an unproven theory in order for a person to have faith? My mind wasn't calibrated to have blind faith, and therefore I have to have facts before giving my life to an unproven belief. This street talker isn't even clever, and I would not even be willing to waste my time teaching him reality, because first he has to throw away his entire view of the world before he can see.
We don't KNOW that water will boil, we trust that our past experiences and our data collected (in terms of the effects of water under heat and pressure) will prove accurate. He is right, everything changes, luckily, we have a few things, i.e. the laws of physics, that haven't changed for billions of years. Yet once again, they could, we just trust they won't, more so, we trust that we would notice if they did and would be able to quantify that change and catalyst.
As he was about to answer he cut off the video. Not to mention it's easy to pick retards off the street, try this with a slightly more experienced debater.
Well water doesn't always boil at 100 degrees celius. It depends on pressure.
Anyway, onto this crazy man. We know that the laws of the universe will continue the same as tomorrow because it has been the same for billions of years.
He also seems to misunderstand what the universe is by calling in an explosion. Poor crazy man, it's not his fault he's so deluded and ignorant.
How do we know anything ? that is a dumb question,things being logical or ilogical doesnt prove or disprove god,something as trivial as water boiling does not confirm either side.Atheists believe the way they do,because the Bible often does contradict itself,and (The problem of evil )plus we all know evolution exists,but yet(MOST) Christians cant accept the fact that it does,also there is other Religeons out there ,I believe there are pefectly logical reasons to being an Atheist .
If you don't believe in our scientific knowledge then take all your cars, phones, tv's, computers and medicine and throw them away because science has allowed these things to be created
The reason why atheists can know water will boil tomorrow in the same fashion it does today is because they assume it. Any realistic scientist would never assume water to boil at a specific temperature at all times (as this would be faith or blind assumption). But in general if the laws of the universe exist tomorrow in the same state it did today, and the many days and months and years before that then you can make that assumption. Maybe they wont always be right. But they have been so far.
The universe operates consistently according to natural laws. It does not follow that the laws were created by some supernatural intelligence, and even if that were accepted we'd still have no reason to suppose that supernatural intelligence to be the Christian god.
i don't see why just because your an athiest, you have to beleive everything about science. just because man has only come up with 2 different options, does not mean one of them is correct
I would love to straighten you out before you go making generalizations.
It isn't that people "believe in science", because they are atheists, but rather that logical, rational people tend to lean towards the accuracy of science.
Have you heard of Ralians? They believe that aliens created the Earth and its inhabitants. They think that Buddha and Jesus were messengers sent to straighten out the world.
because some people understand the basic bonds which hold water molecules together. or they understand the basic properties of water. your ignorance is not an excuse
because some people understand the basic bonds which hold water molecules together. or they understand the basic properties of water. your ignorance is not an excuse
amateur stand-up comedians have better poes than this preacher.
Theist attribute -everything- to 'god'. If it is constancy of the natural world's phenomena it's becaose GAWD DIDIT! and if there is an rupture on the same constancy, then they call it a miracle and therefore GAWD DIDIT! again. It's a win-win system for the lazy bastards who don't whant to learn about real natural word and how it works.
... change your views because of your hardened hearts. If you think the world is cruel why not rise above it by being with the Creator of it.. Just a thought for you good people, pshh.. Argue me..
I'm confused.. People stop letting your blood boil and breathe. This is such a touchy subject but it seems we're all arguing for something our emotions lead us into. So stop fighting "what is" cause life is a war you cannot even hope to win on your own. Christianity is the answer period. Just start thinking on your own using what we have as a guide and you'll come to the conclusion that Christ really did overcome death for we know it by the Spirit. God reveals Himself, but me saying this won't
@Imperator332 I'm impress that you use logic and reasoning against me as if this support your position. Look you can never take off until you give solid account why these things logic/morals even make sense in your world. You have inconsistency in your foundation to even reason with me. Yeah have a right to judge. I don't say you don't. But how do you justify it in your naturalistic world? You reason like there's an objective standard for people to believe like a borrowed capital
@Imperator332 Yeah you have thoughts alright, and moral inclinations too.. subjective that is. If this is the world as it suppose to be then any other individual can claim his version of morality including religious nuts who can equally "fuck" up yours. Who is to judge between us then? None as far as your worldview is concern. So your so-called morals counts nothing but arbitrary noise
Dumb atheists. If you can't answer very well why spend time spreading your non sense against theists. Philosophically you are pathetic. I do pity you. You act like brats who don't know any better. I can be cruel because you are wasting your god given brain in standing up against him. Thus it's stupidity
@imperator332 hypocritical? mmmm i wonder where you borrow that term. better quit moralizing.. morals doesn't exist in your world. it's pure matter.. i wonder why i even reasoning with blind nature LOLS XD
@imperator332 You borrowed it from ancient Greeks? When? When you are in grade school? And where did ancient Greeks borrowed theirs? And so on. See it goes back to God who gave humans a built in morals like the bible said. And when I say your world i.e your naturalistic world. You can't get morals from atoms bro. Be consistent
@imperator332 thanks for minor grammar correction. Your argument finally has merit ^_^ lol but pay more attention before you lose your ground atheist. I say if naturalism is true morals won't make sense in your world. Appealing to Greeks wont cut it. They didn't create morals, silly. So where exactly did it came from? Be consistent now.
You asked whence I got the term "hypocrite". Not whence morals come.
The only one inconsistent is you.
Morals come from upbringing, society, and our own intuitions.
Try to keep up.
If morals didn't exist before Christianity, ancient civilizations would have never existed. Appealing to God as your all-purpose cop-out answer is just as useless as saying Zeus creates lightning.
I'm glad you found my accusation hilarious. I found your strawman hilarious.
Oh, by the way. It's not really a minor grammatical correction when you're confusing the tenses of the existential verb. It's a worrying degree of grammatical error, especially for a native speaker.
It's the type of thing, if said aloud, you would expect to come from an inbred, redneck, retard who never finished high school.
@imperator332 Aah save the grammar lecture prof. It doesn't win you points. The fact is you just don't get me, period. That's why you keep laying eggs with your answer. You invoke moral standard using that term and a little gibe is not necessarily asking. But to cut to the chase your basis for morality begs a question. Which society and intuition is right since no one is alike? Can you account for that atheist? Btw no Christian would claim morals didn't exist before Christianity so you fail
"The fact is you just don't get me, period." You sound like a whiny teenager.
"You invoke moral standard using that term" With hypocrite? Really? I thought it was pretty morally neutral, and only displayed the phenomena of someone not doing, or doing the opposite, of what they claim.
"Which society and intuition is right since no one is alike?"
Stop thinking in terms of black and white, right and wrong. You've screwed yourself into a corner by starting with this.
"Btw no Christian would claim morals didn't exist before Christianity so you fail"
Actually, you fail. If morals existed before Christianity, then they don't come from your religion. Which means non-Christians (atheists included), have morals.
God not needed. The Christian God, a deplorable character who issued an apocalypse against the people of Earth (all life, really), and commands one of the most sadistic warband ever known, wouldn't be a good source for morals anyways.
@imperator332 That's what i said that people do have morals before Christianity. Thats what we teach in Roman 2:14-15 where mankind got built in morality inside but suppress the God who instill it 1:18-20. You are so inept in your understanding you dont know what you are you talking about. Pls do your homework. You still fail
@imperator332 See you keep invoking moral claims here. Nothing neutral bout what you said since you telling me I'm wrong. Where you get the standard to judge anything including God's? Your personal intuition? Great. I might counter you with mine. The Society? Secular or religious? Obviously you got no objective morals to appeal man. You screwed yourself for having none. So inconsistent it cracks me up
You keep coming up with these horrible strawman arguments, and talking about how I don't have a "right" to judge because I don't believe the same thing as you.
This conversation is pointless. Unless you can put forward an argument that isn't couched in ad hominems, strawmans, logical fallacies, and shoddy reasoning, I see little reason to waste any more time on you.
@imperator332 Wow a mouthful of moral judgement coming from a dumb atheist. Sorry by biblical definition you are an indeed an IDIOT ^_^ and say what??? God said don't be cruel?! You are indeed a moron LOL. Why should I even pay attention to every word an idiot says?We just atoms and molecules right? My molecules said I'm better than you! harhar ^__^
We know that scientific fact is demonstrable. We know what we know because we've observed it. We have not observed God changing things at a whim. We have witnessed scientific laws occurring every time a particular situation occurs.
This guy goes on about how scientist blindly assume natural events... then argues that scientist always check the calibration of their instruments to ensure 'good data'? 'How do explosions become ordered systems?' argument speaks volumes that this guy has never read anything definitive on Modern Cosmology! Timothy Ferris's 'The First 3 minutes' is a must read as well as his 'The Red Limit'. I don't mind religious people, I just hate stupidity and uninvited interference!
yes, there isn't a law that says the laws of science will operate tomorrow as they do today, which drives scientists nuts! and extraordinary claims require such evidence. we have sophisticated modern technology, and confirmed evidence via testing and observation that make you and i 100% confident that they will.
if such changes in science were to occur (basically anything short of us transforming into simpsons characters) would all happen within the laws of physics.
the principle of uniformity in the laws of physics is as much of a break in logic as the assumption that something could act outside of these laws. Both are unfalsifiable
The atheist (actually, in reality he is just lost, not saved, not regenerated by the true and living God, so we have to have compassion on him - afterall, "atheism" is just a philosophical pressuposition which rules the minds of unsaved people) knew he couldn't answer, so he starts using curse words. Go figure.
"Is that your argument, is that your argument, is that your argument" - yes it was his argument, and atheism does not have the answer. The answer belongs to Biblical Christianity. Yawn.
The flaw with this type of apologetic is that the same question can be asked of the theist: why is god reliable by nature, omnipotent by nature, or have any of the qualities he does? To respond that god has these qualities simply because "he just does" or "that's what it means to be god" or "he must" is to be in the same position as the nonbeliever who states that the universe behaves the way it does simply because of its nature. Yet the theist goes the extra, unnecessary step of positing a god.
We don't absolutely know water will boil at the same temperature tomorrow, we can be almost certain based on past experience - we can repeat the experiment and get the same results. Same goes for the laws of motion, which we trust our lives to every day. This has nothing to do with the existence of god. BTW the big bang was not an explosion, it was a rapid expansion of space.
I love how the title is the "Atheist Assumption" when the theist in the video is assuming that atheists believe in a chaotic universe and that the only way for a universe to have stable conditions (governance by "laws") there must be a deity. When will the hypocrisy end?
Is that REALLY your argument for the existance of god??... It could very well be the argument for the existance of a the matrix. Don't you see?, the computers calibrated the system so that we water would allways boil at the same temperature in the matrix. WE ARE IN THE MATRIX!!! Only if you have faith and repent your natural actions will you ever be able to get out of the matrix afer you die!
Laws of physics, explosions, logic and morality.. He seems to have problems to stay on topic..
To some extent, he's right: there's no absolute certainty that water will boil, in a philosophical way at least. Also, prooving logic seems to be impossible, lots of mathematicians tried.
But in a discussion where you agree on this premis, it needs to go both ways. Making an extraordinary, unfounded claim to get rid of a problem is useless. That way, you could use whatever you want as an explanation.
In motion an object will change neither speed nor direction without a cause. Similarly there is no reason to believe that the laws of physics would change without a cause.
Things need no reason to stay the same, they need a reason to change.
miricles for example would be where a deity exerted a change on the laws of physics to create an abnormal event.
I find it ironic that his god is attributed credit for both changing of these traits and their unchanging.
@BlueGlowingLight4 Perhapse it would shed some light on how we (those who roll our eyes at this question) view it if i ask this:
How do you know your bible will say the same thing tomorrow as it does today?
Does that make you role your eyes?
As i mentioned in my other comment the reason is again simple, there is no reason that a change would occur, no known mechanism by which the bible could be rewriten while sitting on your shelf.
@BlueGlowingLight4 "As i mentioned in my other comment the reason is again simple, there is no reason that a change would occur, no known mechanism by which the bible could be rewriten while sitting on your shelf."
Interesting really, b/c as soon as this is lauded as paramount to ensure "assuredness" we could say "Why has it through all eternity, never been any example of life being sprouted from inanimate material?" So why does the atheist bend to allow this to occur?
@hexusziggurat you seem to be implying that Abiogenesis would violate the known physical/chemical laws of our universe. While I don't pretend to keep up to date with the latest developments I do understand (at least in layman's terms) a proposed mechanism by which a simple self replicating cell can be formed in nature. Bear in mind that these cells would be so primitive that they'd likely be consumed by other organisms very quickly if indeed they are even formed in Earth's current environment.
@BlueGlowingLight4 even the most primitive oragnisms cannot spring to life from inanimate material. No body plan, no replication plan etc. How would something form a plan for itself prior to its existence?
@hexusziggurat you seem not to understand just how primitive these first cells would have been. You may have noticed i neglected to mention 'biological' in my last comment, this is because biology is in actual fact highly sophisticated chemistry. These 'cells' were self replicating chemicals. A single molecule that (through know chemical properties) would divide when it grew too big. It would have had no proteins, no enzymes, nothing but the minimum; the rest would come as a result of evolution.
@hexusziggurat not really, it's the same as the observable modern process of natural selection with slightly varied parameters as to how it changes with replications. That we do not fully understand how various layers of complexity emerged does not mean that they could not have. There is no reason a barrier should exist that prevents these evolutionary steps from occurring.
The only alternative is an unknown being caused it. I might add that the support you were offering for this... (Cont.)
(Cont) ...beings existence was that the only way this process could occur was by it's intervention thus making the argument circular. There is no need to invoke a god of the gaps just because there is a gap.
As for my having faith, in a certain use of the word i suppose i do. However i prefer to avoid using such ambiguous wording. I have expectations based on previous observations; that evolution does occur, etc. and I have trust that my sources are reliable. I have no dogmatic 'faith'... (Cont)
why do ppl have to curse so harshly in a debate no matter who's around? its just like the sneering of the Pharisees when they debated with Jesus. the exact same attitude blinded by disdain bc the self-righteous cant stand to admit he's not always right.
This idea that one either knows for a fact with 100 % certainty or simply makes a faith based assumption with 0 % certainty is ludicrous and the least true dichotomy I can think of, dismissing 1 to 99, and I’m tired of hearing it. It’s a dishonest tactic, when a person realises that he doesn’t know what he tries to assert, and so desperately attempts to make the case that we don’t know anything either, so he doesn’t have to feel shame.
There is a fundamental difference between trusting past experiences and that something demonstrated countless times in the past will not suddenly change, and having faith in something which has never been demonstrated.
I do not have "faith" the sun will rise tomorrow, I have a mountain of evidence that suggests this outcome.
No, God does not hate anyone. If someone is color blind, that is a defect that has to do with the perception in someone's senses, however there is something we all have that works perfectly: our conscience. IT tells us the truth whether we like it or not, even though we'd like to look away from it sometimes. As for the faith aspect, tell me please who/what gave the laws of the Universe & why haven't they evolved since the beginning? I guess you need a little faith for this one...
1."the truth remains he's only your imaginary friend". If you say "the truth", that doesn't automatically make it the truth. There are things science cannot prove nor see, but we believe they exist because of the results of their existence. Gravity is only one of them. It's the same with God.
2.since you do not know what causes the laws to stay the same, you cannot affirm they'll change or not so u'll have to BELIEVE they won't change in order 4 u to act & live normally.
1. So when you said " IT tells us the truth whether we like it or not", of course, that doesn't automatically make it the truth. Well done defeating your own argument.
2. Yes, I BELIEVE the sun will come up tomorrow. But I BELIEVE because of what EVIDENCE says about the possibility. It is not a faith-based position to use empirical knowledge to make accurate prediction.
Well, you didn't pay attention to the definition of faith, so it's only normal u'll see faith only in the respect that serves ur arguments. But that means u want to willingly stay in ignorance. The world and the Universe with all its complexity and especially the laws contained in it are enough proof God exists because it all looks intelligently designed, not chaotically.
"it all looks intelligently designed, not chaotically."
It might "look" intelligently designed....for someone who hasn't studied it.
100 billion galaxies, and only one we know of that has life.
And on that one miserable little planet, our time is running out. In a mere 4 billion years, our sun will become a red giant, which will extinguish all life.
And Andromeda will crash into the Milky Way, which will end life as well.
The scientists within the SETI program believe that if they pick up a signal from the universe that carries mathematical information in the form of prime numbers, then they believe that's enough proof that alliens exist. The human DNA contains so much information that is so much more complex than prime numbers, that it is ridiculous to say the source of all we can see is not an intelligent mind that chose to create it all. The SETI scientists's standard has been met and surpassed.
Humans are some of the most inefficient creatures I've studied. Poor eyesight, strength, speed, an immune system that's easily compromised, with our only saving grace being a well developed brain, and clearly, given there are still people who think the world is 4000 years old, even that isn't very well developed.
Either God is an evil being who created E. Coli "perfectly designed" to kill us, or he's a terrible designer who accidentally created Andromeda to crash into us.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or THING.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or MATERIAL EVIDENCE.
Faith is not about God or religion only, as you've just read. this THING regarding to the stability of the laws that govern the Universe, has to be believed in order to be acted upon, even though you may not have any MATERIAL EVIDENCE. What u do is u live out of faith, even though u don;t like the term.
1. By this definition, you've reduced faith to nothing. It's as much faith to believe in God as it is to believe the Lions are a terrible football team. That really does your religion a disservice.
2. Exactly the point. Does NOT rest on logical proof or material evidence. There is no material evidence for God, or anything he has done.
I don't live out on faith. I live making predictions from available evidence.
1. Absolute certainty is entirely useless. I am as certain as I need to be with regards to the sun rising.
2. Mine, mathematics and cosmology (the rotation of the earth in short), all of recored history's experience that the sun continues to rise in the same manner.
If there's any irony in saying I think the only thing that would prevent the sun rising tomorrow would be an act of God.
That said, if it doesn't come up tomorrow, I'll admit I was wrong. ;)
@imperator332 actually if you base everything on scientism (the religion that science explains everything...which it cannot) then science itself allows for constant change when new evidence is brought forth...which could really happen at any time if you tempt the idea that life can sprang up from inanimate material (origin)..we (from atheism) could just say that really anything from the norm could happen...so we therfor take thngs on faith that they remain constant. Evidence is temporal.
That isn't the question. We all agree matter will behave tomorrow as it did today - the uniformity of nature. The question for an atheist who believes that random chance and time are responsible for the universe is, why is it true that matter will behave tomorrow as it did today? Why is it uniform?
You are arguing that nature will be uniform in the future because it has been uniform in the past, so you are assuming uniformity to claim uniformity, which is a circular argument.
Matter will behave more or less the same because there isn't anything currently perceptible that will alter it.
The sun will rise tomorrow, barring unseen circumstances which might prevent it from rising tomorrow.
In the past, ie, during the Big Bang, it wasn't the same. Matter behaved differently.
I'm not arguing nature will be uniform because it's always been uniform. I'm arguing unless you have another force in play, an object in motion will stay in motion.
1st: You stated: "I do not have "faith" the sun will rise tomorrow, I have a mountain of evidence that suggests this outcome." This is an argument for uniformity, and that post is a circular argument and not valid. Agree?
2nd: Inertia is a law of science (physics). How does an evolutionist account for laws of science that are universal, unchanging, and immaterial? If all that exists came about be chance (random processes), how can you account for this?
1. No. It's not circular. The sum of evidence suggests an outcome. Uniformity? If the evidence suggested otherwise, I would say otherwise.
2. The physics at the Big Bang are different. Since this defeats the notion the laws are "unchanging", the question is invalid.
3. I don't need "faith" to evaluate evidence. Assumptions aren't made things were different, the evidence SHOWS things were different, because the patterns we see don't work the same.
My friend, if you can't see that your post I responded to is a logical fallacy (begging the question aka circular reasoning), then it will be impossible to debate this further. And this is merely an exercise in logic - not science vs. religion.
You say the physics were different, but you are intellectually dishonest in that you won't admit to the assumptions necessary for this to occur. You don't "know" anything: you believe - your faith is in a theory.
If you can't see that you didn't understand what I said, yes, debate will be impossible. You missed the very thing I was demonstrating was the difference.
Evidence posits an explanation. That explanation is not "faith in a theory".
The only assumption is presuming we're interpreting our facts correctly. And that's ALWAYS open to question.
If you think this is the same thing as believing Jesus came to Earth 2000 years ago to die for our sins, you are crazy.
3rd: you must have "faith" in the Big Bang theory, since many assumptions must be made to say that matter behaved differently in the past (i.e. temperature, mass of the proposed "singularity", rates of expansion, etc.) Since these are only assumptions, you cannot "know" that matter behaved differently; you must assume, believe, or in other words, "have faith." The object of your faith appears to be in scientific theory, which is constantly changing.
@imperator332 lol that is awesome man. I hate this channel, but I can't stop watching because it just makes me sooooo pissed off that these people are SO positive that this is true.
yeah our eyes see yellow and everyone agrees it yellow. But thats just humans being sopolistic. thats what we see, unless your color blind. But different animals have different seeing ability. Dogs see in black and white, but they have built in night vision. Some bugs just see inferred. Eagles have sight way better than ours.
Hi Chad, thank you for uploading this video. I appreciate your time in sharing and voicing your opinions on these matters as I have always found these debates interesting. But a few videos, I have noticed, come off as rather biased. This debate in particular, includes only the beginning. I think it would only have been fair if the entire event was shown on youtube. It may even make your argument more effective.
This is so very, very sad. It actually has upset me.
People that believe in God a dangerous. Some in only a small sense, in that they slow progression, and some in a greater sense in that the shoot doctors or fly planes into buildings.
Your question was idiotic beyond belief. It is the same as an Atheist saying that god DEFINITELY doesn't exist, because it can't be proved. Strawman arguement, that only the weak, vapid and scared will use.
Humans don't all see the same colors, and nearly 10% of all humans are colorblind--unable to distinguish between two colors that the rest of us can. I guess "god" is getting sloppy.
Here's a positive reason: because "laws" in science become laws only after a long and careful observation and the ability to make 100% correct predictions. If the laws were ever seen to have "changed," they would not become laws in the first place.
@djsinatra100 No, it's irrational induction. You assume that laws will not change based on past experience, not on anything you can objectively prove. You don't know why the laws of nature work, so how can you know they will work the way you expect in the future? Your reasoning is circular.
The Bible says that Christ created all things, and by His power all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17). The universe makes sense because God designed it and has given us the ability to recognize that.
You do NOT have to abandon Christianity to see that the arguments made in this video are poor. One person's failure to make an adequate point doesn't have overarching philosophical implications. A criticism of a poor argument specifically is not necessarily a general criticism of theism as a whole.
And ultimately, any reasonable person can see that the street preacher's argument is utterly fallacious. Whatever your opinion on God may be, whether you be an atheist, Christian, deist, pantheist, or any other option, you are intellectually obliged to reject the arguments forwarded by the street preacher on the grounds of their lack of intellectual merit. I offer congratulations to the few Christians who have submitted their disagreement with the preacher.
So the question is. Is your instrumentation calibrated and accurately reflecting your environment? And who has the authority to righteously judge whether or not our reflection or perception is rational.
Commenting on this video is a complete and utter waste of time. No Christian who has engaged the atheists in this comment section has shown one ounce of intellectual honesty. All they seem capable of doing is repeating the fallacious assertions that they have been conditioned to forward by their peers. If that doesn't work, they simply resort to ad hominem attacks. I keep waiting for a more civilized specimen from their flock to admonish them for making them look bad, but it isn't happening.
@UserBaines I should qualify this by saying I am speaking about those who have engaged me personally and some others. Some have been respectful and less assuming. Others have mischaracterized my skepticism as moral weakness with impunity. There's really no excuse for this even while looking through the prism of rigid theistic belief.
@bigspliffs "You have to have ALL truthful evidences to make the correct conclusion."
What conclusion is that ? YHWH is god?
Agian romans 1 claims this is clear to all people. yet Billions in fact most 'souls' living today or have ever lived have come to Very different conclusions that seemed just as clear to them.
If fact most people that have ever lived have not heard YHWH or jesus and for the this they are without excuse and condemed to hell.And where was one of your 'truthful evidences' ?
@bigspliffs Umm, what he did was quote Romans 1, which is essentially the basis for this video and, apparently, all of your commentary up to this point. Are you saying you don't know the bible or that you don't agree with Romans 1? To say that he put words into your mouth is just wrong.
Is your job to spend all day on this video, roaming the comments? Are you his daddy? Who really 'knows' the Bible? You have Israelites who condemn everyone who isn't within their 'imagined' group of elect. You have the Papacy who sin against the Word of God daily. You have Evangelists who, at the front of things, only want personal gain at the price of the deception of the people.....cont...
@bigspliffs At no point did I direct any of my commentary at your personal failings, rather they were directed at the failings of the horrendous assertions that you call arguments. But it is obviously in your Christian character to criticize and demean any and every person who would disagree with your extremely narrow view of biblical theology with strident personal attacks that have nothing to do with the arguments that they present. If you'd like to address any argument I've made, be my guest.
... And you have anyone who is truly for the Word of God, oppressed, ridiculed and in the worst cases, murdered!
I would bet my future that at this present time, you don't understand the Bible.
All of my commentary up to this point has been to based on Romans 1 lmao Please stop this childish behaviour. You are impressing no one but yourself and your group buddies. Very sad.
@bigspliffs There are people who have rationally functioning minds who will gladly meet their intellectual peers on the battlefield of logically supported argument. Then there are people who have nothing to say except to criticize and condescend people who disagree with them, resorting to every logical fallacy in the book along the way. You have abandoned any claim to serious conversation/debate a long time ago. The only thing that is sad is the pitiful functioning of your delusional brain.
@bigspliffs I haven't met a single person on youtube, that I care less about impressing than you. My four year old cousin might be more impressed with Sponge-Bob Squarepants than he is with Stephen Hawking. Why would I endeavor to impress someone who has been unfailingly dishonest, eager to abandon previously stated positions at the drop of a hat where seemingly convenient, and utterly incapable of understanding any of the concepts that any skeptic in this comments section has used.
@bigspliffs But any child can satisfy themselves when they abandon the need to make logical sense. Because you have no faculties of reason, you have no ability to distinguish rational arguments from irrational ones, and if you are the adjudicator for which is which, of course you will favor your own ridiculous assertions over clearly stated, empirically supported arguments. You are the very picture of immaturity and the epitome of why Christianity is harmful to the rationally functioning mind.
Are you quite finished with your self satisfactory ego trip? which i may add, is becoming more irrelevent than first thought of it.
I am not a Christian, i am of no denomination, get that. Who said i was here to debate YOU!? You wanted to throw your view in on a comment i made, which you are more than obligated to do, seeing youtube is based this way....cont
Your last 4 replies are nothing more than drivel and ridiculed attacks, further backing up a point i made earlier, either to you or another of your buddies.
You are able to sum me up in a few comments, and paint a picture of who i am and what i am capable of doing...WOW! EGO ALERT!!!
I'm still wondering why you still talking? Why you spam this video as if your life depended on it?...cont
this guy doesnt know anything unless god tells him so. fuckin scary. the dumbest i heard so far just makes you wanna throw up. if i was religious id tell him to shut the fuck up. if i was his god id strike him with lighting where he stands like please dont embarrass me
water will boil @100C under 1 atmosphere pressure anywhere, anytime. no god can change that.
"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (1 Corinthians 1:21)
Sometimes we should just skip the reasoning and preach Jesus. God is pleased to use the "foolishness" of "Christ crucified" to save people.
@Kwinnky You: "We cannot be completely certain of anything..." I see evidence all around me that points to God. Since I'm completely certain that God exists and you're not, then how can you be so sure my religion is just a security blanket? If you think our senses are so flawed, how can you trust your own evidences and be certain of anything yourself? You cannot w/o presupposing that there is such a thing as meaning and purpose in the universe. But where does such come from if not from God?
@JKennah63 I had to read this argument twice, because I wasn't sure if it was a poor argument for God, or a parody of a poor argument for God. This has already been answered numerous times. The only one presupposing anything is you.
Fact that the world is empirically measured to have both some uniformity and chaos/entropy does NOT make god necessary Id say the opposite.
So our perceptions of the world are how we discover how the world works,Either of our perceptions can be wrong this is not argument. But Religionists are claiming to possess a very special type of knowledge about the world that usually based on credulity of pre-scientific dogmas. That are Usually mutually exclusion and equally unsupported by evidence.
@Pelonetillo lol, supposed contradictions... you can google a list of responses from apologists who are dedicated to rationalizing their absurd beliefs because theyre afraid they arent going to go to heaven when they die. anyone with a decent grasp of the english language and logic can see its full of contradictions. the people who deny this are either stupid or in denial.
Water will boil at the same temperature tomorrow as today because we have observed such things over the past few thousand years to be true without faltering. We know yellow is yellow because we named it yellow. Do we all see the same yellow? No. Some people have different issues with their eyes, including color blindness. Most can still point out yellow. Also, a god did not make the eye, evolution did. If he did make the eye, he's a moron. It's superior to others but has many flaws in design.
skywize 1 month ago
We dont asume, THEY ARE CONSTANTS! Their physical nature dont change, and this is explained that matter and energy dont disapear. Their properties are sole based on the construction of neutron and all other particles in an atom... Learn abit of physics and chemistry, then ask these questions you douche...
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
who's gonna believe this homeless trash
HaloSparta 1 month ago
Wow. he is right. Because of this point i realise god is the way....
Loveandlovable 1 month ago
god of the gaps
drewnut 1 month ago
That is one of the most idiotic theist arguments I've ever heard. Wow, that's a whole lot of stupid.
lumpheadthump 1 month ago
I just visited that site. Wow. Just wow. It's a great showcase of the silliness of apologetics, and a good indicator what's wrong with theistic reasoning. In any case, I'd never respond in the way they claim atheists respond.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
At least i can demonstrate water boiling. How have those God demonstrations been going? Darn, did i just respond to this gibberish?
trueleroix 1 month ago
It's not an assumption if it has been observed hundreds of times before. It's a prediction, not an assumption?
851852093114208513 2 months ago
Lol, bewildered old guy asking nonsensical questions pretending he has a theological argument. Sunglasses dude should have said : "How do you know that this reality that you think you understand isn't in fact a highly sophisticated computer program?"
mehico33 2 months ago
Instrumentation? We have to calibrate our instruments? Kinda like calibrating a young mind to being able to believe in an unproven theory in order for a person to have faith? My mind wasn't calibrated to have blind faith, and therefore I have to have facts before giving my life to an unproven belief. This street talker isn't even clever, and I would not even be willing to waste my time teaching him reality, because first he has to throw away his entire view of the world before he can see.
InteGrayting2 2 months ago
Typical new atheist. Doesn't understand philisophical questions.
lilrat489 2 months ago
We don't KNOW that water will boil, we trust that our past experiences and our data collected (in terms of the effects of water under heat and pressure) will prove accurate. He is right, everything changes, luckily, we have a few things, i.e. the laws of physics, that haven't changed for billions of years. Yet once again, they could, we just trust they won't, more so, we trust that we would notice if they did and would be able to quantify that change and catalyst.
AccessReality 2 months ago
As he was about to answer he cut off the video. Not to mention it's easy to pick retards off the street, try this with a slightly more experienced debater.
AccessReality 2 months ago
Your god is dead to me.
RippdUb 2 months ago
One more case of "I don't understand it so ... God."
adam1885282 2 months ago 11
hahahahahahahahashahaahahahahahaahhahahahahaha
travissokol 3 months ago
Well water doesn't always boil at 100 degrees celius. It depends on pressure.
Anyway, onto this crazy man. We know that the laws of the universe will continue the same as tomorrow because it has been the same for billions of years.
He also seems to misunderstand what the universe is by calling in an explosion. Poor crazy man, it's not his fault he's so deluded and ignorant.
boosie007666 3 months ago
How do we know anything ? that is a dumb question,things being logical or ilogical doesnt prove or disprove god,something as trivial as water boiling does not confirm either side.Atheists believe the way they do,because the Bible often does contradict itself,and (The problem of evil )plus we all know evolution exists,but yet(MOST) Christians cant accept the fact that it does,also there is other Religeons out there ,I believe there are pefectly logical reasons to being an Atheist .
FR0STY0115 3 months ago
If you don't believe in our scientific knowledge then take all your cars, phones, tv's, computers and medicine and throw them away because science has allowed these things to be created
Headhoncho211 3 months ago
Religious nut balls are everywhere.
TheDano1947 3 months ago
And all of his babbling proves what?
xretrovertigox 3 months ago 9
@xretrovertigox It's over your head.
Kinosis79 2 weeks ago
"In an explosion, where everything is constantly moving, everything changes, including logic and morality."
I don't believe you. Prove that that's what happens in an explosion. You may find that you have a very weak grasp on the word "explosion."
RugtimXII 3 months ago
The reason why atheists can know water will boil tomorrow in the same fashion it does today is because they assume it. Any realistic scientist would never assume water to boil at a specific temperature at all times (as this would be faith or blind assumption). But in general if the laws of the universe exist tomorrow in the same state it did today, and the many days and months and years before that then you can make that assumption. Maybe they wont always be right. But they have been so far.
vidfreak56 4 months ago
The universe operates consistently according to natural laws. It does not follow that the laws were created by some supernatural intelligence, and even if that were accepted we'd still have no reason to suppose that supernatural intelligence to be the Christian god.
soundofgeek 4 months ago
i don't see why just because your an athiest, you have to beleive everything about science. just because man has only come up with 2 different options, does not mean one of them is correct
jimmythacricket1 4 months ago
@jimmythacricket1
I would love to straighten you out before you go making generalizations.
It isn't that people "believe in science", because they are atheists, but rather that logical, rational people tend to lean towards the accuracy of science.
Have you heard of Ralians? They believe that aliens created the Earth and its inhabitants. They think that Buddha and Jesus were messengers sent to straighten out the world.
But they don't believe in God.
Wierd huh?
YetAnotherInfidel 4 months ago
@YetAnotherInfidel yea true. I guess they are just the two MAIN things people beleive in. point taken
jimmythacricket1 4 months ago
hohum....
popceed 4 months ago
Nothing gets the message of Gawd across better than the art of YELLING!
benaberry 5 months ago
Gawd is the supernatural alfa male. Why look to ourselves for answers when this Gawd has it solved for us.......BAAAAAAAAAAA,,,, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
benaberry 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
because some people understand the basic bonds which hold water molecules together. or they understand the basic properties of water. your ignorance is not an excuse
Nixom1334 5 months ago
because some people understand the basic bonds which hold water molecules together. or they understand the basic properties of water. your ignorance is not an excuse
Nixom1334 5 months ago
amateur stand-up comedians have better poes than this preacher.
Theist attribute -everything- to 'god'. If it is constancy of the natural world's phenomena it's becaose GAWD DIDIT! and if there is an rupture on the same constancy, then they call it a miracle and therefore GAWD DIDIT! again. It's a win-win system for the lazy bastards who don't whant to learn about real natural word and how it works.
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat
first time ive seen god spelt as gawd, thats a winner!
benaberry 5 months ago
@benaberry i didn't invent it but it sure is a winner
ZZzzzzzWhat 5 months ago
... change your views because of your hardened hearts. If you think the world is cruel why not rise above it by being with the Creator of it.. Just a thought for you good people, pshh.. Argue me..
pntblnguitarists 5 months ago
I'm confused.. People stop letting your blood boil and breathe. This is such a touchy subject but it seems we're all arguing for something our emotions lead us into. So stop fighting "what is" cause life is a war you cannot even hope to win on your own. Christianity is the answer period. Just start thinking on your own using what we have as a guide and you'll come to the conclusion that Christ really did overcome death for we know it by the Spirit. God reveals Himself, but me saying this won't
pntblnguitarists 5 months ago
@Imperator332 I'm impress that you use logic and reasoning against me as if this support your position. Look you can never take off until you give solid account why these things logic/morals even make sense in your world. You have inconsistency in your foundation to even reason with me. Yeah have a right to judge. I don't say you don't. But how do you justify it in your naturalistic world? You reason like there's an objective standard for people to believe like a borrowed capital
Vainslain 6 months ago
@Imperator332 Yeah you have thoughts alright, and moral inclinations too.. subjective that is. If this is the world as it suppose to be then any other individual can claim his version of morality including religious nuts who can equally "fuck" up yours. Who is to judge between us then? None as far as your worldview is concern. So your so-called morals counts nothing but arbitrary noise
Vainslain 6 months ago
Dumb atheists. If you can't answer very well why spend time spreading your non sense against theists. Philosophically you are pathetic. I do pity you. You act like brats who don't know any better. I can be cruel because you are wasting your god given brain in standing up against him. Thus it's stupidity
Vainslain 6 months ago
@Vainslain
I thought God said NOT to be cruel?
Some Christian you are. Oh wait, cruel, intolerant, idiotic, and attempting to dominate and coerce people.
Nevermind, you're the iconic Christian. A jackass.
imperator332 6 months ago
Comment removed
Vainslain 6 months ago
@Vainslain
Lol. Yeah, I'd remove that comment too. It would only prove Christians are hypocritical dickwads.
imperator332 6 months ago
@imperator332 really? look again dumb atheist ^___^ lol use your eyes evolution gave you. out of place perharps??
Vainslain 6 months ago
@imperator332 hypocritical? mmmm i wonder where you borrow that term. better quit moralizing.. morals doesn't exist in your world. it's pure matter.. i wonder why i even reasoning with blind nature LOLS XD
Vainslain 6 months ago
@Vainslain
Hypocritical? I borrowed it from the ancient Greeks.
Morals don't exist in my world? There it is, the sure sign that a Christian has absolutely no clue what they're talking about.
Civilization worked just fine before Christianity. Morality is not dependent on religion, much less YOUR religion.
If you want to live with your security blanket, go right ahead. I don't need one though.
imperator332 6 months ago
@imperator332 You borrowed it from ancient Greeks? When? When you are in grade school? And where did ancient Greeks borrowed theirs? And so on. See it goes back to God who gave humans a built in morals like the bible said. And when I say your world i.e your naturalistic world. You can't get morals from atoms bro. Be consistent
Vainslain 6 months ago
@Vainslain
*were. Past tense.
That's also something I learned in grade school.
The ancient Greeks didn't borrow the term hypocritical. They coined it. It basically meant "actor". From ὑποκρίνομαι, "to answer".
I learned that at university. Oddly enough, "God" was never the answer.
See, nobody's claiming to get morals from atoms. This is what's called "straw man".
Also something I learned in grade school.
Try again. You're quite entertaining.
imperator332 6 months ago
@imperator332 thanks for minor grammar correction. Your argument finally has merit ^_^ lol but pay more attention before you lose your ground atheist. I say if naturalism is true morals won't make sense in your world. Appealing to Greeks wont cut it. They didn't create morals, silly. So where exactly did it came from? Be consistent now.
I find your strawman accusation hilarious
Vainslain 6 months ago
@Vainslain
You asked whence I got the term "hypocrite". Not whence morals come.
The only one inconsistent is you.
Morals come from upbringing, society, and our own intuitions.
Try to keep up.
If morals didn't exist before Christianity, ancient civilizations would have never existed. Appealing to God as your all-purpose cop-out answer is just as useless as saying Zeus creates lightning.
I'm glad you found my accusation hilarious. I found your strawman hilarious.
imperator332 6 months ago
@Vainslain
Oh, by the way. It's not really a minor grammatical correction when you're confusing the tenses of the existential verb. It's a worrying degree of grammatical error, especially for a native speaker.
It's the type of thing, if said aloud, you would expect to come from an inbred, redneck, retard who never finished high school.
imperator332 6 months ago
@imperator332 Aah save the grammar lecture prof. It doesn't win you points. The fact is you just don't get me, period. That's why you keep laying eggs with your answer. You invoke moral standard using that term and a little gibe is not necessarily asking. But to cut to the chase your basis for morality begs a question. Which society and intuition is right since no one is alike? Can you account for that atheist? Btw no Christian would claim morals didn't exist before Christianity so you fail
Vainslain 6 months ago
@Vainslain
"The fact is you just don't get me, period." You sound like a whiny teenager.
"You invoke moral standard using that term" With hypocrite? Really? I thought it was pretty morally neutral, and only displayed the phenomena of someone not doing, or doing the opposite, of what they claim.
"Which society and intuition is right since no one is alike?"
Stop thinking in terms of black and white, right and wrong. You've screwed yourself into a corner by starting with this.
imperator332 6 months ago
@Vainslain
"Btw no Christian would claim morals didn't exist before Christianity so you fail"
Actually, you fail. If morals existed before Christianity, then they don't come from your religion. Which means non-Christians (atheists included), have morals.
God not needed. The Christian God, a deplorable character who issued an apocalypse against the people of Earth (all life, really), and commands one of the most sadistic warband ever known, wouldn't be a good source for morals anyways.
imperator332 6 months ago
@imperator332 That's what i said that people do have morals before Christianity. Thats what we teach in Roman 2:14-15 where mankind got built in morality inside but suppress the God who instill it 1:18-20. You are so inept in your understanding you dont know what you are you talking about. Pls do your homework. You still fail
Vainslain 6 months ago
@imperator332 See you keep invoking moral claims here. Nothing neutral bout what you said since you telling me I'm wrong. Where you get the standard to judge anything including God's? Your personal intuition? Great. I might counter you with mine. The Society? Secular or religious? Obviously you got no objective morals to appeal man. You screwed yourself for having none. So inconsistent it cracks me up
Vainslain 6 months ago
@Vainslain
I'm telling you you're wrong because you are. It has no more moral claim than if I said 1+1=3 is wrong.
Pull your head out of your ass. You're arguing points you don't understand, and setting up some awful strawmans as a result.
I hope I don't have any objective morals. If I did, then I'd be an idiot, thinking in plainly black and white terms, following my Leader like a drone.
Instead, I have thoughts. And that tends to fuck up the whole religious thing...
imperator332 6 months ago
@Vainslain
You keep coming up with these horrible strawman arguments, and talking about how I don't have a "right" to judge because I don't believe the same thing as you.
This conversation is pointless. Unless you can put forward an argument that isn't couched in ad hominems, strawmans, logical fallacies, and shoddy reasoning, I see little reason to waste any more time on you.
If you want to live in ignorance, go right ahead.
imperator332 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imperator332 Wow a mouthful of moral judgement coming from a dumb atheist. Sorry by biblical definition you are an indeed an IDIOT ^_^ and say what??? God said don't be cruel?! You are indeed a moron LOL. Why should I even pay attention to every word an idiot says?We just atoms and molecules right? My molecules said I'm better than you! harhar ^__^
Vainslain 6 months ago
We know that scientific fact is demonstrable. We know what we know because we've observed it. We have not observed God changing things at a whim. We have witnessed scientific laws occurring every time a particular situation occurs.
JAB63096 6 months ago
This guy goes on about how scientist blindly assume natural events... then argues that scientist always check the calibration of their instruments to ensure 'good data'? 'How do explosions become ordered systems?' argument speaks volumes that this guy has never read anything definitive on Modern Cosmology! Timothy Ferris's 'The First 3 minutes' is a must read as well as his 'The Red Limit'. I don't mind religious people, I just hate stupidity and uninvited interference!
granddad2002 6 months ago
@rationalresponder
yes, there isn't a law that says the laws of science will operate tomorrow as they do today, which drives scientists nuts! and extraordinary claims require such evidence. we have sophisticated modern technology, and confirmed evidence via testing and observation that make you and i 100% confident that they will.
if such changes in science were to occur (basically anything short of us transforming into simpsons characters) would all happen within the laws of physics.
inconsp1cuous1515 7 months ago
@imperator332
@ForLifeEternal
the principle of uniformity in the laws of physics is as much of a break in logic as the assumption that something could act outside of these laws. Both are unfalsifiable
du4316 7 months ago
The atheist (actually, in reality he is just lost, not saved, not regenerated by the true and living God, so we have to have compassion on him - afterall, "atheism" is just a philosophical pressuposition which rules the minds of unsaved people) knew he couldn't answer, so he starts using curse words. Go figure.
"Is that your argument, is that your argument, is that your argument" - yes it was his argument, and atheism does not have the answer. The answer belongs to Biblical Christianity. Yawn.
orlibonurb 8 months ago
The flaw with this type of apologetic is that the same question can be asked of the theist: why is god reliable by nature, omnipotent by nature, or have any of the qualities he does? To respond that god has these qualities simply because "he just does" or "that's what it means to be god" or "he must" is to be in the same position as the nonbeliever who states that the universe behaves the way it does simply because of its nature. Yet the theist goes the extra, unnecessary step of positing a god.
thurstonite 8 months ago
Uneducated people curse when pressured
bassboi2001 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Get a good friendship with good girls naneedj.info
you are the only solution for bbw naneedj.info
krish8253 10 months ago
This guy is an complete asshole!!
Hope2009pc 10 months ago
We don't absolutely know water will boil at the same temperature tomorrow, we can be almost certain based on past experience - we can repeat the experiment and get the same results. Same goes for the laws of motion, which we trust our lives to every day. This has nothing to do with the existence of god. BTW the big bang was not an explosion, it was a rapid expansion of space.
bogusnachos 10 months ago
If Atheists didn't exist, Satan would have to invent them.
.....wait...
dougmoerhoffman 11 months ago
Well, so the author of this video is saying that if the Sun doesn't come out tomorrow, we atheists will say God did it?
-Sigh- Too much for rational response.
LesPaul2006 11 months ago
If Christians didn't exist, some comedian would have to invent them.
000SMITH000 11 months ago
How can you trust that the bible is real? We know water boils at 100C because it is a fact. That will never change.
moneyismagic101 1 year ago
I love how the title is the "Atheist Assumption" when the theist in the video is assuming that atheists believe in a chaotic universe and that the only way for a universe to have stable conditions (governance by "laws") there must be a deity. When will the hypocrisy end?
twaallen32 1 year ago
Is that REALLY your argument for the existance of god??... It could very well be the argument for the existance of a the matrix. Don't you see?, the computers calibrated the system so that we water would allways boil at the same temperature in the matrix. WE ARE IN THE MATRIX!!! Only if you have faith and repent your natural actions will you ever be able to get out of the matrix afer you die!
rsolano60 1 year ago
Laws of physics, explosions, logic and morality.. He seems to have problems to stay on topic..
To some extent, he's right: there's no absolute certainty that water will boil, in a philosophical way at least. Also, prooving logic seems to be impossible, lots of mathematicians tried.
But in a discussion where you agree on this premis, it needs to go both ways. Making an extraordinary, unfounded claim to get rid of a problem is useless. That way, you could use whatever you want as an explanation.
argh523 1 year ago
they wont change but our UNDERSTANDING of it may change.
thats like going back to when we had LESS understanding and saying we dont know, therefore god did it. same crap, different phrasing.
lambchopxoxo 1 year ago
In motion an object will change neither speed nor direction without a cause. Similarly there is no reason to believe that the laws of physics would change without a cause.
Things need no reason to stay the same, they need a reason to change.
miricles for example would be where a deity exerted a change on the laws of physics to create an abnormal event.
I find it ironic that his god is attributed credit for both changing of these traits and their unchanging.
BlueGlowingLight4 1 year ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 Perhapse it would shed some light on how we (those who roll our eyes at this question) view it if i ask this:
How do you know your bible will say the same thing tomorrow as it does today?
Does that make you role your eyes?
As i mentioned in my other comment the reason is again simple, there is no reason that a change would occur, no known mechanism by which the bible could be rewriten while sitting on your shelf.
BlueGlowingLight4 1 year ago 12
@BlueGlowingLight4 "As i mentioned in my other comment the reason is again simple, there is no reason that a change would occur, no known mechanism by which the bible could be rewriten while sitting on your shelf."
Interesting really, b/c as soon as this is lauded as paramount to ensure "assuredness" we could say "Why has it through all eternity, never been any example of life being sprouted from inanimate material?" So why does the atheist bend to allow this to occur?
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
@hexusziggurat you seem to be implying that Abiogenesis would violate the known physical/chemical laws of our universe. While I don't pretend to keep up to date with the latest developments I do understand (at least in layman's terms) a proposed mechanism by which a simple self replicating cell can be formed in nature. Bear in mind that these cells would be so primitive that they'd likely be consumed by other organisms very quickly if indeed they are even formed in Earth's current environment.
BlueGlowingLight4 10 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 even the most primitive oragnisms cannot spring to life from inanimate material. No body plan, no replication plan etc. How would something form a plan for itself prior to its existence?
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
@hexusziggurat you seem not to understand just how primitive these first cells would have been. You may have noticed i neglected to mention 'biological' in my last comment, this is because biology is in actual fact highly sophisticated chemistry. These 'cells' were self replicating chemicals. A single molecule that (through know chemical properties) would divide when it grew too big. It would have had no proteins, no enzymes, nothing but the minimum; the rest would come as a result of evolution.
BlueGlowingLight4 10 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 ....i understand primitive....you'd have to have a great deal of faith in that concept to "evolve".
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
@hexusziggurat not really, it's the same as the observable modern process of natural selection with slightly varied parameters as to how it changes with replications. That we do not fully understand how various layers of complexity emerged does not mean that they could not have. There is no reason a barrier should exist that prevents these evolutionary steps from occurring.
The only alternative is an unknown being caused it. I might add that the support you were offering for this... (Cont.)
BlueGlowingLight4 10 months ago
(Cont) ...beings existence was that the only way this process could occur was by it's intervention thus making the argument circular. There is no need to invoke a god of the gaps just because there is a gap.
As for my having faith, in a certain use of the word i suppose i do. However i prefer to avoid using such ambiguous wording. I have expectations based on previous observations; that evolution does occur, etc. and I have trust that my sources are reliable. I have no dogmatic 'faith'... (Cont)
BlueGlowingLight4 10 months ago
(Cont.) ...and would change my stance given credible evidence.
BlueGlowingLight4 10 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 ...theres no "gap"...nothing is being invoked. How does that make the "arguement" circular? I'm curious.
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
why do ppl have to curse so harshly in a debate no matter who's around? its just like the sneering of the Pharisees when they debated with Jesus. the exact same attitude blinded by disdain bc the self-righteous cant stand to admit he's not always right.
sKewbrain 1 year ago
This idea that one either knows for a fact with 100 % certainty or simply makes a faith based assumption with 0 % certainty is ludicrous and the least true dichotomy I can think of, dismissing 1 to 99, and I’m tired of hearing it. It’s a dishonest tactic, when a person realises that he doesn’t know what he tries to assert, and so desperately attempts to make the case that we don’t know anything either, so he doesn’t have to feel shame.
jillum89 1 year ago
There is a fundamental difference between trusting past experiences and that something demonstrated countless times in the past will not suddenly change, and having faith in something which has never been demonstrated.
I do not have "faith" the sun will rise tomorrow, I have a mountain of evidence that suggests this outcome.
PS: Does this mean God hates color blind people?
imperator332 1 year ago 23
@imperator332 ,
No, God does not hate anyone. If someone is color blind, that is a defect that has to do with the perception in someone's senses, however there is something we all have that works perfectly: our conscience. IT tells us the truth whether we like it or not, even though we'd like to look away from it sometimes. As for the faith aspect, tell me please who/what gave the laws of the Universe & why haven't they evolved since the beginning? I guess you need a little faith for this one...
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo
"IT tells us the truth whether we like it or not, even though we'd like to look away from it sometimes."
Indeed it does. For no matter how comforting the idea of a God who loves you is, the truth remains he's only your imaginary friend.
"As for the faith aspect, tell me please who/what gave the laws of the Universe & why haven't they evolved since the beginning?"
1. I don't know. And I don't claim to know.
2. Nonsensical claim.
3. No faith required.
imperator332 1 year ago
@imperator332,
1."the truth remains he's only your imaginary friend". If you say "the truth", that doesn't automatically make it the truth. There are things science cannot prove nor see, but we believe they exist because of the results of their existence. Gravity is only one of them. It's the same with God.
2.since you do not know what causes the laws to stay the same, you cannot affirm they'll change or not so u'll have to BELIEVE they won't change in order 4 u to act & live normally.
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo
1. So when you said " IT tells us the truth whether we like it or not", of course, that doesn't automatically make it the truth. Well done defeating your own argument.
2. Yes, I BELIEVE the sun will come up tomorrow. But I BELIEVE because of what EVIDENCE says about the possibility. It is not a faith-based position to use empirical knowledge to make accurate prediction.
imperator332 1 year ago
@flotopo
If you're saying Gravity is the same as God, then please provide the empirical tests which definitively substantiate God's existence.
Please provide the material evidence for God's actions.
If there were empirical evidence for god's existence, there would be no faith. For empirical evidence of God's existence would simply be "science".
imperator332 1 year ago
@imperator332,
Well, you didn't pay attention to the definition of faith, so it's only normal u'll see faith only in the respect that serves ur arguments. But that means u want to willingly stay in ignorance. The world and the Universe with all its complexity and especially the laws contained in it are enough proof God exists because it all looks intelligently designed, not chaotically.
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo
"it all looks intelligently designed, not chaotically."
It might "look" intelligently designed....for someone who hasn't studied it.
100 billion galaxies, and only one we know of that has life.
And on that one miserable little planet, our time is running out. In a mere 4 billion years, our sun will become a red giant, which will extinguish all life.
And Andromeda will crash into the Milky Way, which will end life as well.
Designed indeed. By who? Hitler?
imperator332 1 year ago
@imperator332,
The scientists within the SETI program believe that if they pick up a signal from the universe that carries mathematical information in the form of prime numbers, then they believe that's enough proof that alliens exist. The human DNA contains so much information that is so much more complex than prime numbers, that it is ridiculous to say the source of all we can see is not an intelligent mind that chose to create it all. The SETI scientists's standard has been met and surpassed.
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo
Humans are some of the most inefficient creatures I've studied. Poor eyesight, strength, speed, an immune system that's easily compromised, with our only saving grace being a well developed brain, and clearly, given there are still people who think the world is 4000 years old, even that isn't very well developed.
Either God is an evil being who created E. Coli "perfectly designed" to kill us, or he's a terrible designer who accidentally created Andromeda to crash into us.
imperator332 1 year ago
@flotopo Why would God chose to create us? If he is perfect why would he create something as imperfect as us?
moneyismagic101 1 year ago
@imperator332, definition of FAITH:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or THING.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or MATERIAL EVIDENCE.
Faith is not about God or religion only, as you've just read. this THING regarding to the stability of the laws that govern the Universe, has to be believed in order to be acted upon, even though you may not have any MATERIAL EVIDENCE. What u do is u live out of faith, even though u don;t like the term.
flotopo 1 year ago
@flotopo
1. By this definition, you've reduced faith to nothing. It's as much faith to believe in God as it is to believe the Lions are a terrible football team. That really does your religion a disservice.
2. Exactly the point. Does NOT rest on logical proof or material evidence. There is no material evidence for God, or anything he has done.
I don't live out on faith. I live making predictions from available evidence.
imperator332 1 year ago
@imperator332
1.) Induction never leads to certainty.
2.) What constitutes "a mountain of evidence"? The sum total of experiences you've had up until the present moment?
DJAnihilist 1 year ago
@DJAnihilist
1. Absolute certainty is entirely useless. I am as certain as I need to be with regards to the sun rising.
2. Mine, mathematics and cosmology (the rotation of the earth in short), all of recored history's experience that the sun continues to rise in the same manner.
If there's any irony in saying I think the only thing that would prevent the sun rising tomorrow would be an act of God.
That said, if it doesn't come up tomorrow, I'll admit I was wrong. ;)
imperator332 1 year ago
@imperator332 actually if you base everything on scientism (the religion that science explains everything...which it cannot) then science itself allows for constant change when new evidence is brought forth...which could really happen at any time if you tempt the idea that life can sprang up from inanimate material (origin)..we (from atheism) could just say that really anything from the norm could happen...so we therfor take thngs on faith that they remain constant. Evidence is temporal.
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
@imperator332
That isn't the question. We all agree matter will behave tomorrow as it did today - the uniformity of nature. The question for an atheist who believes that random chance and time are responsible for the universe is, why is it true that matter will behave tomorrow as it did today? Why is it uniform?
You are arguing that nature will be uniform in the future because it has been uniform in the past, so you are assuming uniformity to claim uniformity, which is a circular argument.
ForLifeEternal 10 months ago
@ForLifeEternal
Matter will behave more or less the same because there isn't anything currently perceptible that will alter it.
The sun will rise tomorrow, barring unseen circumstances which might prevent it from rising tomorrow.
In the past, ie, during the Big Bang, it wasn't the same. Matter behaved differently.
I'm not arguing nature will be uniform because it's always been uniform. I'm arguing unless you have another force in play, an object in motion will stay in motion.
imperator332 10 months ago
@imperator332
1st: You stated: "I do not have "faith" the sun will rise tomorrow, I have a mountain of evidence that suggests this outcome." This is an argument for uniformity, and that post is a circular argument and not valid. Agree?
2nd: Inertia is a law of science (physics). How does an evolutionist account for laws of science that are universal, unchanging, and immaterial? If all that exists came about be chance (random processes), how can you account for this?
ForLifeEternal 10 months ago
@ForLifeEternal
1. No. It's not circular. The sum of evidence suggests an outcome. Uniformity? If the evidence suggested otherwise, I would say otherwise.
2. The physics at the Big Bang are different. Since this defeats the notion the laws are "unchanging", the question is invalid.
3. I don't need "faith" to evaluate evidence. Assumptions aren't made things were different, the evidence SHOWS things were different, because the patterns we see don't work the same.
imperator332 10 months ago
@imperator332
My friend, if you can't see that your post I responded to is a logical fallacy (begging the question aka circular reasoning), then it will be impossible to debate this further. And this is merely an exercise in logic - not science vs. religion.
You say the physics were different, but you are intellectually dishonest in that you won't admit to the assumptions necessary for this to occur. You don't "know" anything: you believe - your faith is in a theory.
Best wishes...Paul
ForLifeEternal 10 months ago
@ForLifeEternal
If you can't see that you didn't understand what I said, yes, debate will be impossible. You missed the very thing I was demonstrating was the difference.
Evidence posits an explanation. That explanation is not "faith in a theory".
The only assumption is presuming we're interpreting our facts correctly. And that's ALWAYS open to question.
If you think this is the same thing as believing Jesus came to Earth 2000 years ago to die for our sins, you are crazy.
imperator332 10 months ago
@ForLifeEternal
Intellectual dishonesty? Seriously? Go fuck yourself.
We have models that predict things. Our models don't work at the Big Bang. That's how we "know" things were different.
Just like we have models that predict the sun will rise tomorrow. If it rises, the model works. If it does't, then something must have changed.
If you can't understand that, you're hopeless....And should bet all your money that the sun won't rise tomorrow, since you think it's just "faith".
imperator332 10 months ago
@imperator332
3rd: you must have "faith" in the Big Bang theory, since many assumptions must be made to say that matter behaved differently in the past (i.e. temperature, mass of the proposed "singularity", rates of expansion, etc.) Since these are only assumptions, you cannot "know" that matter behaved differently; you must assume, believe, or in other words, "have faith." The object of your faith appears to be in scientific theory, which is constantly changing.
ForLifeEternal 10 months ago
@imperator332 lol that is awesome man. I hate this channel, but I can't stop watching because it just makes me sooooo pissed off that these people are SO positive that this is true.
yardsale94 6 months ago
yeah our eyes see yellow and everyone agrees it yellow. But thats just humans being sopolistic. thats what we see, unless your color blind. But different animals have different seeing ability. Dogs see in black and white, but they have built in night vision. Some bugs just see inferred. Eagles have sight way better than ours.
flubno 1 year ago
well u know what happens when u assume... it makes an ASSoutofUandME
ChromaticFungus 1 year ago
Non sequitors are the worst types of arguments ever.
iversonmatthew 1 year ago
Hi Chad, thank you for uploading this video. I appreciate your time in sharing and voicing your opinions on these matters as I have always found these debates interesting. But a few videos, I have noticed, come off as rather biased. This debate in particular, includes only the beginning. I think it would only have been fair if the entire event was shown on youtube. It may even make your argument more effective.
Thanks again : )
zt1900 1 year ago
This is so very, very sad. It actually has upset me.
People that believe in God a dangerous. Some in only a small sense, in that they slow progression, and some in a greater sense in that the shoot doctors or fly planes into buildings.
Your question was idiotic beyond belief. It is the same as an Atheist saying that god DEFINITELY doesn't exist, because it can't be proved. Strawman arguement, that only the weak, vapid and scared will use.
clive2345 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing... Great vid!
bigdaddycj31 1 year ago
toujours avec cette connerie de dieu?en nom de dieu on vous encule
hologramaet 1 year ago
Humans don't all see the same colors, and nearly 10% of all humans are colorblind--unable to distinguish between two colors that the rest of us can. I guess "god" is getting sloppy.
djsinatra100 1 year ago
Here's a positive reason: because "laws" in science become laws only after a long and careful observation and the ability to make 100% correct predictions. If the laws were ever seen to have "changed," they would not become laws in the first place.
It's not "assumption" it's RATIONAL DEDUCTION.
djsinatra100 1 year ago
@djsinatra100 No, it's irrational induction. You assume that laws will not change based on past experience, not on anything you can objectively prove. You don't know why the laws of nature work, so how can you know they will work the way you expect in the future? Your reasoning is circular.
The Bible says that Christ created all things, and by His power all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17). The universe makes sense because God designed it and has given us the ability to recognize that.
JKennah63 1 year ago
have fun with your crutch...i mean church
RainK9 1 year ago
COOL!!
guioximitsu 1 year ago
good point.
AaronTrutsJC 1 year ago
I noticed you have a white line etched on the pavement. I guess you told everybody not to cross the line.
senseofstile 1 year ago
Christians gays...
Somebody can explain me about of this.
Bye
solonostico11 1 year ago
You do NOT have to abandon Christianity to see that the arguments made in this video are poor. One person's failure to make an adequate point doesn't have overarching philosophical implications. A criticism of a poor argument specifically is not necessarily a general criticism of theism as a whole.
UserBaines 1 year ago
And ultimately, any reasonable person can see that the street preacher's argument is utterly fallacious. Whatever your opinion on God may be, whether you be an atheist, Christian, deist, pantheist, or any other option, you are intellectually obliged to reject the arguments forwarded by the street preacher on the grounds of their lack of intellectual merit. I offer congratulations to the few Christians who have submitted their disagreement with the preacher.
UserBaines 1 year ago
@UserBaines P.S.
"I offer congratulations to the few Christians who have submitted their disagreement with the preacher."
I don't know who you think you are, but assuming your congratulations is worthy of anything online, is almost the height of self exaltation!
Damn...i wouldn't be surprised if you stuffed your head between your legs everytime you let one rip!
Goodbye :)
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs Haha, you are a complete and utter joke.
UserBaines 1 year ago
Relgion also trusts instrumentation. In fact justification for the bible is often based on eyewitness accounts of Jesus.
Ramshobraja 1 year ago
So the question is. Is your instrumentation calibrated and accurately reflecting your environment? And who has the authority to righteously judge whether or not our reflection or perception is rational.
ModernDayProphets 1 year ago
Commenting on this video is a complete and utter waste of time. No Christian who has engaged the atheists in this comment section has shown one ounce of intellectual honesty. All they seem capable of doing is repeating the fallacious assertions that they have been conditioned to forward by their peers. If that doesn't work, they simply resort to ad hominem attacks. I keep waiting for a more civilized specimen from their flock to admonish them for making them look bad, but it isn't happening.
UserBaines 1 year ago
@UserBaines I should qualify this by saying I am speaking about those who have engaged me personally and some others. Some have been respectful and less assuming. Others have mischaracterized my skepticism as moral weakness with impunity. There's really no excuse for this even while looking through the prism of rigid theistic belief.
UserBaines 1 year ago
@bigspliffs "You have to have ALL truthful evidences to make the correct conclusion."
What conclusion is that ? YHWH is god?
Agian romans 1 claims this is clear to all people. yet Billions in fact most 'souls' living today or have ever lived have come to Very different conclusions that seemed just as clear to them.
If fact most people that have ever lived have not heard YHWH or jesus and for the this they are without excuse and condemed to hell.And where was one of your 'truthful evidences' ?
Greathiway 1 year ago
@Greathiway Wow! You put words in my mouth..and then as me questions based on what words/thoughts you gave me in your own head lol
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs Umm, what he did was quote Romans 1, which is essentially the basis for this video and, apparently, all of your commentary up to this point. Are you saying you don't know the bible or that you don't agree with Romans 1? To say that he put words into your mouth is just wrong.
UserBaines 1 year ago
@UserBaines 1).
Is your job to spend all day on this video, roaming the comments? Are you his daddy? Who really 'knows' the Bible? You have Israelites who condemn everyone who isn't within their 'imagined' group of elect. You have the Papacy who sin against the Word of God daily. You have Evangelists who, at the front of things, only want personal gain at the price of the deception of the people.....cont...
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs At no point did I direct any of my commentary at your personal failings, rather they were directed at the failings of the horrendous assertions that you call arguments. But it is obviously in your Christian character to criticize and demean any and every person who would disagree with your extremely narrow view of biblical theology with strident personal attacks that have nothing to do with the arguments that they present. If you'd like to address any argument I've made, be my guest.
UserBaines 1 year ago
@UserBaines 2).
... And you have anyone who is truly for the Word of God, oppressed, ridiculed and in the worst cases, murdered!
I would bet my future that at this present time, you don't understand the Bible.
All of my commentary up to this point has been to based on Romans 1 lmao Please stop this childish behaviour. You are impressing no one but yourself and your group buddies. Very sad.
:) God Bless
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs There are people who have rationally functioning minds who will gladly meet their intellectual peers on the battlefield of logically supported argument. Then there are people who have nothing to say except to criticize and condescend people who disagree with them, resorting to every logical fallacy in the book along the way. You have abandoned any claim to serious conversation/debate a long time ago. The only thing that is sad is the pitiful functioning of your delusional brain.
UserBaines 1 year ago
@bigspliffs I haven't met a single person on youtube, that I care less about impressing than you. My four year old cousin might be more impressed with Sponge-Bob Squarepants than he is with Stephen Hawking. Why would I endeavor to impress someone who has been unfailingly dishonest, eager to abandon previously stated positions at the drop of a hat where seemingly convenient, and utterly incapable of understanding any of the concepts that any skeptic in this comments section has used.
UserBaines 1 year ago
@bigspliffs But any child can satisfy themselves when they abandon the need to make logical sense. Because you have no faculties of reason, you have no ability to distinguish rational arguments from irrational ones, and if you are the adjudicator for which is which, of course you will favor your own ridiculous assertions over clearly stated, empirically supported arguments. You are the very picture of immaturity and the epitome of why Christianity is harmful to the rationally functioning mind.
UserBaines 1 year ago
@UserBaines 1.
Are you quite finished with your self satisfactory ego trip? which i may add, is becoming more irrelevent than first thought of it.
I am not a Christian, i am of no denomination, get that. Who said i was here to debate YOU!? You wanted to throw your view in on a comment i made, which you are more than obligated to do, seeing youtube is based this way....cont
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@UserBaines 2.
Your last 4 replies are nothing more than drivel and ridiculed attacks, further backing up a point i made earlier, either to you or another of your buddies.
You are able to sum me up in a few comments, and paint a picture of who i am and what i am capable of doing...WOW! EGO ALERT!!!
I'm still wondering why you still talking? Why you spam this video as if your life depended on it?...cont
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@UserBaines 3.
And why you don't get the message that i don't care what you, or anyone on youtube thinks of me lol
Are you serious!?! LMAO
My energy is focused on things that actually matter in life. Nonsensical one way arguments are the bottom of the food chain.
So, finally. Thank you, God Bless and good night :)
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs 'Wow! You put words in my mouth..'
I qutoed you saying:
"You have to have ALL truthful evidences to make the correct conclusion."
And responded.
What conclusion is that ? YHWH is god?
How is asking this question putting words in your mouth? If you disagree just say it.
Greathiway 11 months ago
this guy doesnt know anything unless god tells him so. fuckin scary. the dumbest i heard so far just makes you wanna throw up. if i was religious id tell him to shut the fuck up. if i was his god id strike him with lighting where he stands like please dont embarrass me
water will boil @100C under 1 atmosphere pressure anywhere, anytime. no god can change that.
johnyu812 1 year ago
"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (1 Corinthians 1:21)
Sometimes we should just skip the reasoning and preach Jesus. God is pleased to use the "foolishness" of "Christ crucified" to save people.
songsofjesus 1 year ago
@songsofjesus you skipped reasoning a long time ago. you are beyond help. repent for your ignorance and at least die like a man
johnyu812 1 year ago
@Kwinnky You: "We cannot be completely certain of anything..." I see evidence all around me that points to God. Since I'm completely certain that God exists and you're not, then how can you be so sure my religion is just a security blanket? If you think our senses are so flawed, how can you trust your own evidences and be certain of anything yourself? You cannot w/o presupposing that there is such a thing as meaning and purpose in the universe. But where does such come from if not from God?
SDG
JKennah63 1 year ago
@JKennah63 I had to read this argument twice, because I wasn't sure if it was a poor argument for God, or a parody of a poor argument for God. This has already been answered numerous times. The only one presupposing anything is you.
UserBaines 1 year ago
Fact that the world is empirically measured to have both some uniformity and chaos/entropy does NOT make god necessary Id say the opposite.
So our perceptions of the world are how we discover how the world works,Either of our perceptions can be wrong this is not argument. But Religionists are claiming to possess a very special type of knowledge about the world that usually based on credulity of pre-scientific dogmas. That are Usually mutually exclusion and equally unsupported by evidence.
Greathiway 1 year ago
Fucking JESUS Did it!!!!!!!
Pablo113 1 year ago
excellent vid!
sldeyo 1 year ago
@Pelonetillo lol, supposed contradictions... you can google a list of responses from apologists who are dedicated to rationalizing their absurd beliefs because theyre afraid they arent going to go to heaven when they die. anyone with a decent grasp of the english language and logic can see its full of contradictions. the people who deny this are either stupid or in denial.
Pelonetillo 1 year ago