@Mgiambr Used colloquially a theory is a hypothesis. It is a guess and requires no evidence to support it. "I have a theory that my lotto numbers will win this week" is an example.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis (or related hypotheses) and is supported by empirical evidence, repeated testing and scientific laws. If evidence contrary to the theory is presented, it is dis-proven. The theory of relativity is an example.
Scientific facts are verified and repeatable truths.
@Mgiambr Creationism is not a scientific theory it's a hypothesis. Science is not a scientific theory, method by which we gain knowledge. Space-time is a mathematical model, although it is demonstrated through the theory of special relativity.
Evolution, germ theory and relativity are examples of scientific theories.
amazing video, alot of this is very true. and alot i dunno about but have a very open mind too, it makes more sence then alot of opinions out there atm
George Bernard Shaw said... "If you can't change your mind, you'll never change anything" !!! What do you get when Concrete Operational thinkers try to rap their minds around Abstract ideas... ??? You get... Creationists.
But some scientist present their theories in an almost religious fervor and cling to it as though it was a theism. These new findings today very well may affect numerous paradigms held by the majority of physicists and what many people were taught was true in the classroom.
@tjxm21a not all of them should be generalized to the God of the gaps. Things like the beginning of physical world, the very narrow balance of the arrangement of the universe has their own theological implications. Let point out at least 3 atheists astrophysicists:
"Arranging the universe as we think it was arranged would have required a miracle"
..."An External Agent [external to space time] Intervened in cosmic history with reasons of it's own" - Dyson, Kleban, Susskind.
scientists at cern today have demonstrated that einstein was wrong about the speed of light being the maximum speed...what else might you be wrong about
@JonSchaffer57 "Science adapts to new findings." - I agree.
"That is the only way to truly expand your knowledge." - not absolutely. Religion does a great deal of literature, language which is strict to moral truth, theology and logic of philosophy. Their intellectual values are independent.
@tjxm21a They have found evidence it might be wrong. There is nothing definitive about those results yet, though. This is not the first time someone has claimed to find a particle that goes faster than c. Do not accept it as true until they publish the results in a peer reviewed journal.
You moron, reading crap from a book and pretending you know something we don't, does not make you an expert. hahahaha.
Explain to me why Dinosaurs have been found in the same rock as human bones. Explain the cave paintings and clay figures of humans riding dinosaurs, that date only 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 4,000 years, if dinosaurs have been dead for millions. Explain why there are Dinosaurs still roaming africa and Papua New Guinea?
God created the world from nothing, your argument proves the point.
@crustydownunder "You moron, reading crap from a book and pretending you know something we don't, does not make you an expert." Do you realize how incredibly stupid that statement is? Every time you preach from the bible..you preach "god's word" you're acting like you know so much more than others. You read crap from a book (the bible) and you pretend that you know so much more than people who don't believe. Hypocrite!
@Purpledragon1766 If you have some proof that explains the myth of evolution, I'll be more then happy to listen. If you don't have proof, then shut up, because you don't know any more than your text books tell you. Forget about God for a minute. Evolution? That is the best you got? You answer for everything is millions of years. OK. Tell me about the 15 human foot prints alongside dinosaur prints in the Paluxy river bed. And please, explain the "Limestone cowboy". You have been lied to. Good by
@crustydownunder Hmm.. wow should I believe the bible that's written on paper, yes, but can not be tested. Hmm or should I believe what's written in science books that's ALSO written BUT CAN be tested.
Evolution. Did you ever hear about diseases that become immune to drugs? Did you ever wonder why? It's because they're evolving, dumbass! It's adaptation!
@Purpledragon1766 Adaption is not evolution, if it was, the disease would have evolved into something different. And are you telling me that something is evolving to withstand drugs in less than a million years? Does this not disprove your theory? You are talking about adaption, the same way humans get blisters to form calluses, when using a shovel. Evolution would have us grow claws for digging.
@crustydownunder You lost me the second you said "The disease would be something different."
Something as small as a germ..yeah..it CAN evolve to be immune to a drug.
It doesn't disprove my theory because it's a small change. Now if we were talking about a single celled organism turning into a monkey or something..then yeah..it would take a REALLY long time.
I'm not going to fight you on definitions. I'm going to say "Evolution" so your simple creationist mind can understand.
@Purpledragon1766 there had to be a master creator. Secondly, people working in these labs do not believe in evolution yet confess to, because if they don't they loose their funding, are discredited and are blacklisted. That it a fact and it is the reason I gave up believing in evolution. Throwing out evidence that disproves your theory, is not science and should not be called science. proof found this way are results manipulated. This is not science and my conscience would bother me.
@crustydownunder You take a population of organisms and wipe the majority of it out. But one little trooper holds on to life and survives. In turn it reproduces and makes a bunch of organisms that are immune to THAT drug.
There are holes in science. That's why we're studying because science DOESN'T have all the answers. (yet) Science, unlike the bible, can be PROVEN in a science class at your local high school.
@Purpledragon1766 Ok, say I'll just say, that you win. Not because I can't understand evolution, it was preached at school in my day too. I just saw through the lies they told me. I couldn't believe how ignorant science can be when something doesn't fit their theory. Ignoring fact in preference of theory. But hey, that's just me, I'm a thinker. I thought it through and found creation made more scenes. You know why? Because anyone studying biology comes to but one conclusion.
@crustydownunder No. You're letting me "win" because you can't come back at me with anything. Science was only ignorant to you because they didn't mention god. Evolution was too hard for you to comprehend.
Ignoring fact in preference to theory? Are you talking about provable scientific fact as apposed to religious documents?
You're a thinker? Really? I would've never guessed!
I know why you chose creationism...creationism is the easy way out.
@Purpledragon1766 You wouldn't convert if someone came back from the dead and told you head been in hell.
Besides, I'm not trying to convert you, sunshine. I just can't honestly understand how people can believe evolution. Can I share what I actually struggle with in evolution? The biggest point is that God is spirit, and cannot be seen. he also will give no evidence of himself because that would require no faith. Evolution exists purely to discredit the bible and thus prove God doesn't exits
@Purpledragon1766 Mmm, but what if you are just the tiniest bit wrong? And when you die you find out the truth. (Because the bible says everything will be revealed then) I'd hate to believe I was right all my life to find out I was wrong at the end. However, if you are right and I am wrong, both you and I will just turn to rock and that's it. but if you are wrong, just a tiny bit wrong, you have a big shock coming, wouldn't you say? If you were wrong? Science does have a few holes in it.
@crustydownunder No point in scaring me with hell. I don't believe it exists.
That's Pascal's wager. You're saying if I believe in god and I'm wrong..I won't lose, but If I DON'T believe in god and I'm wrong..I'll lose. But if god were real..wouldn't it know that you were just believing in it "just to be safe" That's just your way of saying "better safe than sorry."
@Purpledragon1766 And anyway, what's not an answer about "God made it all". LOL. I would think that amazing. Science couldn't do it! Science has never created one living thing. But if God existed, he made everything. Do you know creation says God made everything from nothing. Science says nothing made everything out of nothing. how does nothing make something? The power behind creation might be God using elements in a way science can't see. ya think?
@crustydownunder Actually, science doesn't know what caused the beginning of the universe.
And when did I say science created life. Of coarse it hasn't, and it's irrelevant. Scientist's aren't saying SCIENCE created life. SCIENCE is the study. NATURE created life... nature as in "a series of events. Not by a creator."
@Purpledragon1766 I mean, if there was a God, let's say, and he is all powerful like he claims. Why couldn't he have used elements to cause the big bang? I believe it was a big bang. A spec of energy exploding into the universe, sounds like something a powerful being might do. just my belief. I don't think it would be too far fetched if there was a God.
@crustydownunder Then if you're saying that..then it's not so far-fetched to believe that god created evolution...Oh, but that's not creationism so it's wrong! *rolls eyes.*
@Purpledragon1766 Yeah but hang on. Lots of believers think that is possible. it's just that I, well, never mind, you'd never believe me. But some believe that evolution may have taken place. others think it's selective breeding. But that's another can of worms, LOL.
@crustydownunder I'd never believe you? I'm sure if you came to me with some physical evidence I'd be open-minded enough to understand. You take evolutionist's for idiots. We're not.
And I know I'm an atheist..but I'm not closed-minded..k?
@Purpledragon1766 In science, right? you have to look at the complete evidence. Ok, so if you are honest, science has holes in it when it comes to evolution. So, there is no complete evidence to support the theory, it is still a theory. And as I said before, you need faith to believe in one true God. I cannot present proof of his existence either, but, I you prove the bible is infallible. (Reading the original text) But, as for science, almost all experts disagree on even the tiniest points?
@Purpledragon1766 If the bible is accurate, then perhaps it has more to offer than mere directions. Anyway, that's all I'm sayin'. I know you believe what you believe. You'll never change my mind, I'll never change yours. It is inside me where I find the proof I need, I can't show it to you. My brother, wanted to know if Gods was real so he went every night out to his property in the dark and prayed for God to show himself. he did, not in the physical, in the spiritual. How does one show that
@crustydownunder I guess I can't make you believe in evolution so I'll just tell you why I think it's true.
Evolution IS written in books, yes. It IS "preached" in schools..yes.
But I know evolution is real because of diseases that become immune to drugs over time. If you think evolution is where organisms make drastic changes to themselves in a short amount of time, then you are sadly mistaken.
When the germ becomes immune to a drug, that IS evolution because it is change.
@Purpledragon1766 Evolution insists there is no God. I know their is. I can't help that. if you don't believe in God, that is fine> It's your choice, I just hate the fact that education tells you evolution is real, so don't bother believing in God. That's what the problem is. I know evolution is a big fraud, sure, science can unlock some mysteries, but they where created by God, had to be. Don't you think? Do you honestly deep down believe there is nothing beyond the grave? That breaks my heart
@crustydownunder No, I am spiritual..I just don't believe in god. Matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed.. I actually believe in reincarnation..that's it. nothing more..nothing less.
Listen. I respect your views. Don't think I'm some closed-minded atheist that's getting on your case. But, dude, you're coming to a video about evolution and you're attacking it tooth and nail. Of coarse I'm going to argue my point.
@Purpledragon1766 My wife used to believe in reincarnation, metaphysics. She doesn't anymore.
Well, lets just agree to disagree. (BTW. I wasn't saying science created life, I just meant, with all it's knowledge, science cannot create anything living, yet no one and nothing made all substance?) that's hard for me to believe.
I just hope you to continue to look for the truth, and I hope you find it. Whether that be evolution or reincarnation or whatever. Cause, the truth will set you free.
@Purpledragon1766 Wait a minute, I've been talking to a shella? And one ho is only like, 18 years old? Hahahahahaha. I don't bloody believe it. hahahaha.
I thought you would surely be a guy in his thirties. LOL. You did a pretty good job. I'm impressed.
@Purpledragon1766 I mean, evolution. I'd believe it if it were some other explanation, but I see right through evolution. once someone starts to question evolution, they find the truth.
7:42 This is a critical flaw of ALL creationists: their sense of infallibility, and their inability to admit mistakes. If they see themselves as scientists, they have to understand that scientists do in fact make mistakes, and learn from them. That's why the peer review process to so important to them, yet creationists seem to think they're immune from it, or perhaps they're afraid of it.
Our coming into existence is indeed a very important question, one that we may never be able to answer definitively. The true question is not what happened in the beginning...but what can we do to make sure, that if we don't discover some way extend our existence infinately, that we do make it to see the natural end of things. To thrive, and be perhaps the last conscious, sentient beings when the end of all things comes.
leading to the heat-death of the universe. Who knows, who can know? I think humanity should spend a little less time worrying about how everything began, and focus on how to make our existence last. If not created, and the Big bang theory is true, as well as theories of solar evolution, eventually our planet will be consumed by the sun. If we waste our existence fighting over theory, with each other . . . we will perish with the death of our planet, perhaps sooner.
Open mind..all the "evidence" people ask for to convince them otherwise is only presentable as such because of our perspective of said evidence. I can repeat myself many times. Wether created by a diety, or formed by a big bang (or both) eventually it will all come to an end. The matter converted to energy released as light will slowly reduce, big bang after big crunch over and over. Eventually, there wont be enough matter to hold the expansion together, and the last will expand for infinity
...adamant enough to say that our understanding is the only correct one and the only one. Perhaps the Big Bang is true, mathematically, and logically (again from our insignificant perspective, to deny this is the epitomy of human arrogance and bloated sense of self importance). Perhaps there is a God, who set things in motion and is now just sitting back and watching how things unfold, maybe the process has repeated multiple times through big bangs and crunches. I prefer to keep an open mind.
Our understanding of the universe, of the laws of physics is totally limited by what we can observe or test here on Earth. In our short existence, whether created or evolved, is like looking out from the smallest part of an atomin a complex molecule, and saying we know what the entire molecule is, how it works and are willing to accept only one side as the answer. Certain theories make logical sense, to our understanding of logic. Sure, we figured some things out..but not enough to be adamant ..
It's all theory, creation and the big bang. Until we can find a way to see how it happened, we can't know for sure. I admire your confidence. You have very intelligent arguments and a very well thought out method of explaining things. Do not forget, special relativiity, Entropy all theories, are just that. Theories. If the universe is billions of years old, who are we to say we figured it all out in 30,000, enough to be so confident that there is no other possible way.
I love how atheists casually ignore the problem of a finite universe and what caused the big bang. Its quite funny. Then there's the problem of thermodynamics and the simple fact energy cannot come from nothing.
Until these questions are answered, You will always have billions of creationists :)
Hoyle renounced his atheism when he understood that the big bang is mathematically and physically impossible. Self creation is not science. Its faith in unknowns.
@Amritizcool66 What atheist has ever told you that they believe the universe came from nothing? Any educated well reasoned atheist would tell you (and probably already has only to be ignored) that we don't know where the universe came from but that it's matter likely existed in a different form before the big bang. And its not faith in unknowns its a hypothesis based on observable data. believing jesus rose from the grave because an ancient text says so is faith in unknowns.
@johnnythesailorman "we don't know where the universe came from but that it's matter likely existed in a different form before the big bang" yes, Matter existed as energy, as science claims. However, Through cause and effect we can deem this as impossible. The energy that "converted to mass" has to have had a cause. Nothing material is eternal. Therefore, The energy must have had a cause, ergo, the universe must have been created. And we have plenty of other sources and personal testimonies :D
@Amritizcool66 Prove it. Prove that a universe can't be created from nothing. Just because energy can't be created or destroyed within the universe doesn't say anything about what's possible outside the universe, or even in other universes. You can't look at a single example of something and declare that because every example we have of it (that being one example) is a certain way that's the way all examples must be. And even if it were, a lack of an explanation doesn't prove god exists.
@diagoras54 "Prove that a universe can't be created from nothing" Wow.. just... WOW. You believe matter came into existence from energy that has been around for an infinite amount of time. The word "infinite" is a term used in non-material things. Nothing exists that is infinite. Nothing material. Non material things (like math and the laws of physics) can be considered infinite in nature. The only logical conclusion in the creation of energy is that it had a creator, A source.
@Amritizcool66 First, you should watch the part where I explain that it's possible that the energy always existed, but the fabric of spacetime was so curved that "time" hadn't yet started; just because the universe has a definite point at which time began doesn't mean that the energy/matter was created. Second, I'm not making any statements of fact, I'm saying that we have absolutely no idea what happened at the beginning of time, and I'm hypothesizing some ideas for natural explanations.
@diagoras54 "but the fabric of spacetime was so curved that "time" hadn't yet started; just because the universe has a definite point at which time began doesn't mean that the energy/matter was created" then earlier you say that I "have no direct evidence" even though you are blathering on with information attained indirectly. We have no firsthand account of the big bang, We have not observed it directly, Therefore, you are being a hypocrite. Its flawed logic to assume energy is has no begining
@Amritizcool66 For you to immediately jump from "We don't know" to "A creator" indicates an extreme level of bias: you have the preconception that there is a god, and you seek evidence, not the other way around. There is no correlation between an event occuring and it having been caused by an intelligence, or else every natural phenomenon from erosion to hurricanes would have to be caused by god.
@diagoras54 Your evidence is underdeveloped and hypothetical. They are not solid. What IS solid is the fact that logic and reason are unwavering. We KNOW energy cannot be infinite (energy being material) therefore, energy has to have had a cause. "or else every natural phenomenon from erosion to hurricanes would have to be caused by god." These examples all have causes (ie: water air fire etc) but the universes beginning has no cause. Therefore a creator must have been in charge.
@Amritizcool66 You have no direct evidence of a creator, and you have no direct evidence that the universe was created. Until you can prove one or the other with empirical evidence, not flawed logic, then there are too many variables to come to any conclusion.
@diagoras54 "Until you can prove one or the other with empirical evidence" empirical meaning direct observation. Did we directly observe the big bang? Nope. Therefore you were wrong saying I am not providing empirical data even though its all you have (and all you gave me)
The cosmological argument one of the strongest tools in the theist arsenal. It shows there is more than the 3 dimensions we are used to. There are known and unknowns. However there are unknown unknowns as well.
@Amritizcool66 So we can only know something exists if we directly observe it? I guess that means that subatomic particles don't exist, nor do black holes, nuclear fission or synapses. Are you at all familiar with the methods science uses to make determinations about the universe? The Big Bang was spurred by evidence in the form of galaxies moving away from each other, and astronomers then went searching for more evidence, finding the cosmic microwave background and other such proof.
@diagoras54 "So we can only know something exists if we directly observe it? I guess that means that subatomic particles don't exist, nor do black holes, nuclear fission or synapses." We have directly observed those things. You seem to lack basic scientific knowledge. We can see black holes because they leave a lack of light and can be identified. Nuclear fission happens right here on our sun the effect of subatomic particles can be observed (even though we cant see them)
Actually no, we have never directly observed a black whole or subatomic particles. We've inferred them by doing science but they have never been directly observed.
"Nuclear fission happens right here on our sun" - Again inferred not directly observed.
@infinit888 "Actually no, we have never directly observed a black whole or subatomic particles. We've inferred them by doing science but they have never been directly observed" we have observed a black hole. Its the lack of substance and the bending of space time we see. Its like how we see leaves blowing in the wind and can tell the direction of the wind. And subatomic particles are not seen, but we know they exist because they have been observed through empirical research.
@Amritizcool66 "we have observed a black hole" - We observed what black holes should do NOT the black hole itself. Pay attention to the language used. We are talking about direct observations. Can you show us a picture from a black hole? Let me save you some time. You can't - what you can do is produce an image of what a black hole should do to it's environment if it were there.
Considering the subatomic particles you are just reiterating my original point. Not directly observed.
@infinit888 continued: these calculations leave out many factors, instead, relying by faith, On antimatter, a substance we have not found a stable amount of. It seems you are reading from a source where they leave out the actual calculation and just tell you what the answer is. When you look at how much they exclude, You may change your mind. There is much study to be done. Its a nice theory though. Not "fact"like you stated XD
@Amritizcool66 Do you see that logical progression? Galactic red shift ->Big Bang theory -> search for more evidence -> more evidence found confirms theory and initial discovery. Here's how you work: we don't know what caused the Big Bang -> it must have been a creator -> we know it was a creator because we don't know what caused the Big Bang. Not only is it a circular reasoning, you haven't provided a single piece of physical evidence for its validity or the existence of this creator.
@diagoras54 And there are some galaxies that are within 1 light year of each other that are traveling in different directions (opposite directions, going in a degree below 180 degrees to the other) Science still has to explain this. So far they have nothing. How can an expansion cause some parts to go in opposite directions? Its like a point on a balloon that starts to head back to the center. And is the big bang had no beginning, Its quite safe to assume that there was an intelligent cause.
@Amritizcool66 "How can an expansion cause some parts to go in opposite directions?" - To quote desertphile "GRAVITY!!!"
"Its like a point on a balloon that starts to head back to the center." - The universe has no "center"
"Its quite safe to assume that there was an intelligent cause." - The only intelligence we've ever observed has a brain. How is it reasonable to assume that prior to the big bang there was a brain? How did it get there?
@infinit888 "To quote desertphile "GRAVITY!!!"" so you are saying galaxies going in different directions are a result of gravity? hahaha. Good one. I'm saying they are traveling in different directions more than 180 degrees from each other. An "expansion" would not allow this to happen. Scientists still dont understand why this occurs. "The universe has no "center"" so there was no point where the universe expanded?
"How did it get there?" Thats implying God exists ergo, he needs no explanation
@Amritizcool66 You clearly lack any comprehension of cosmology whatsoever. First, expansion does explain galaxies moving in opposite directions; in fact, it requires it. Imagine a cake baking with raisins in it: as the cake rises and expands the raisins move directly away from each other. Second, there is no centre to the universe because the entire universe is the centre. The entire universe began expanding at the Big Bang, it's not spreading from one point.
@Amritizcool66 It's like drawing dots on a balloon to represent galaxies and inflating the balloon: every point on its surface is moving away from every other point, and no point on the surface is the centre of the expansion. In the case of the universe, the "surface" is three dimensional, with every three dimensional point in space moving away from every other. Clearly you don't understand the concepts you're arguing about, so there's no reason any of us should listen to a thing you say.
@diagoras54 Galaxies have head on collisions, Which should not happen in an "expanding balloon" can you explain this? the galaxies that collide do not keep traveling in one direction like a car rear ending a slower car in the same lane. You seem to lack basic understanding of physics and logic. Quite common in the atheistic community. Is it any wonder only a fraction of the population are atheists?
@Amritizcool66 "Galaxies have head on collisions, Which should not happen in an "expanding balloon" can you explain this?"
I already answered that! Didn't you read? GRAVITY!!! I will refrain from making a cheap petty stab at theism just like you did with atheism even though you've just made it very easy. After all do as you would be done by.
"Is it any wonder only a fraction of the population are atheists?" - That would be the smarter more educated fraction so don't cast any stones.
@infinit888 "GRAVITY"does not explain why head on collisions happen in a galaxy that is rapidly expanding from a point (ie: the place where the singularity expanded) You did not give me an explanation, So I will take it that you dont really know :)
@Amritizcool66 Your entire premise, which you've admitted is a god-of-the-gaps argument, is based on ignorance, so it has no validity. The fact that you don't or can't understand something is not a reason to conclude that god exists. I see no need to discuss this with you any further.
@diagoras54 "you've admitted is a god-of-the-gaps argument, is based on ignorance" so going to a logical explanation is illogical? You seem to have misguided faith in the theories put forth by science that are in serious need of more study. Many of these theories (like the theory that membranes collide creating universes, is complete guesswork and are often mathematically incorrect. How can the singularity have been " infinitely small and infinitely dense?" Nothing is infinitely dense XD
@Amritizcool66 On average galaxies are moving away from us due to inflation. There are instances where galaxies collide/move toward each other due to gravity. Like the Andromeda galaxy is doing with ours right now. Both facts are accounted for.
"so there was no point where the universe expanded?" - Either every point is the center or no point is. Choose which wording you prefer.
@Amritizcool66 "I'm saying they are traveling in different directions more than 180 degrees from each other" - Sigh... you do know that is physically impossible?
"Thats implying God" - A brain implies god? So my cat is god?
a1) intelligence caused x
o1) intelligence requires y
a2) y implies a1
-> and you think this circular mess accounts for y?
Seriously if you are not interested to have a real discussion (perhaps a result from your cognitive dissonance) just say so. Don't waste my time.
@infinit888 "Sigh... you do know that is physically impossible?" yep, That's my point. Its physically impossible.
"- A brain implies god? So my cat is god?" what is "real" if you are thinking real is what you see, touch or smell, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. So your cat may be god if you think he is. We need to break out of our 3 dimensional view of the universe and our dogmatic following of what we see from our rock called earth.
-> and you think this circular mess accounts for y?
Nope, however the same argument can be made on your account. You assume (based on flawed calculations) that the universe came from nothing with net energy that equals to zero based on antimatter, which we have not found a stable amount of. Now who's using circular logic ;)
Please dont waste my time with hypothetical bs and flawed and under-developed facts.
@Amritizcool66 You're drawing conclusions based on a lack of evidence and declaring it to be true just because no other hypothesis has any more evidence in its favour than yours does. Here are two: the universe was spawned from a black hole in another universe, and the universe always existed but in such a small and highly curved state that time couldn't begin until sufficient expansion occured. Your belief has no more evidence for it than either of these, yet you declare yours to be true.
@diagoras54 I never asserted mine was true. I simply stated it was a legitimate explanation regarding the lack of scientific answers. Its nice to see you finally understood that the "explanations" that science gives are just as plausible as the theory of a creator.
There is much evidence in favor of both sides. However, I feel the creation of the universe cannot have been caused by nothing. Nor do I believe energy is eternal (even though it is mathematically and physically impossible)
@Amritizcool66 So it's a god-of-the-gaps argument. That isn't a legitimate explanation for phenomena in the universe, so why should we accept it as one for the universe itself? And just because I can postulate an explanation doesn't mean I'll argue that it's true, let alone that it proves the existence of the divine. I withhold judgement on what actually created the universe until we have some evidence; otherwise it's just as plausible to claim it was made by a unicorn farting.
@diagoras54 "So it's a god-of-the-gaps argument. That isn't a legitimate explanation for phenomena in the universe" Yes it is a God of the gaps argument. These gaps are so wide, we have to understand there is no way we will ever know without opening our minds to more than the 3 dimensions we are used to. An intelligent being is a legitimate answer because the idea of constant energy is irrational and impossible. Can you have infinite anything? Nope :)
@Amritizcool66 "I simply stated it was a legitimate explanation" - Explanation perhaps, legitimate no.
"However, I feel the creation" - It's exactly that a feeling. A purposeful narrative you've been provided with when you were young. In the adult world we call that bias.
"Nor do I believe energy is eternal" - Calculations have been done which indicate that the universe might have zero sum energy so that belief does not necessarily follow. watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
@infinit888 "Explanation perhaps, legitimate no." so saying energy came from nowhere is? Nice contradiction.
"It's exactly that a feeling. A purposeful narrative you've been provided with when you were young" nice try at ad hominem, In the real world we call that a fallacious argument. We are all biased. What makes you think you aren't? hahha "the universe might have zero sum energy" You do realize those calculations are still in serious need of confirmation. They are hypothesized assumptions.
@Amritizcool66 "so saying energy came from nowhere is?" - That isn't a legitimate explanation either but luckily for me I didn't say that. Nice strawman. That's what I meant by you sacrificing reason.
"nice try at ad hominem" - Do you know any fallacies? It's an explanation as to why you feel so attached to your beliefs even when they go counter to reason.
"We are all biased" - The people who grow up in households where parents who don't know something say I don't know are a lot less biased.
@Amritizcool66 "What makes you think you aren't?" - I might be a little biased to but much less then you. I don't have a vested interest. My only dedication is to the facts. I'm not emotionally attached to any particular concept of the beginning. I don't need to fit/distort the facts to fit a preexisting narrative.
"They are hypothesized assumptions." - Not anymore. They have been confirmed by experiment. We live in a 'flat' universe. That indicates that the universe has a net energy of 0.
@infinit888 "I might be a little biased to but much less then you." wow a totally unbiased opinion *clap clap clap*
"We live in a 'flat' universe. That indicates that the universe has a net energy of 0." correct, the calculations say that. However, they factor in the possibility of antimatter (a substance with negative mass) and certain axiomatic principles must be exempt. Therefore, The theory requires the breaking of many laws (like how many physics problems require friction to be exempt)
@diagoras54 "what's possible outside the universe, or even in other universes" you make accusations on christian creationists beliefs of a God, calling us "absurd" even though you believe that there are multiple realities and universes. A concept found in science fiction (but not backed up by scientific research)
An obvious lack of explanation for such a fundamental question DOES prove there is more to the universe than we see. A creator? You decide.
In the last few frames of the video, showing evolution of man from a primate, the right-most man was added to be clean shaven and oh-so-Caucasian. This seems unnecessary because the drawing just to the left of him, although he has a beard, looks like a fully formed human.
In other words, somewhere there's an artist who wanted the "most evolved" to be shown as white and clean cut. After all, who could be more highly evolved than Ward Cleaver?
After reading some of the comments, it's apparent this is a very controversal topic. I have no problem with my idea of GOD and the ideas you put forth in your video. I think you are absolutely brilliant. As a educator, I will incorporate your ideas into our pool of discussion. Learning is a GOD given gift. Thank you for making this video.
Isn't the Higgs Field quite similar conceptually to what the cosmological constant was? I know Einstein vacillated considerably over the cosmological constant in his theories (in the end, describing it as the biggest mistake he ever made) but doesn't it compellingly address some of the issues that currently plague the standard model?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
most things you loons take as fact will be most likely changed or disproven in a century or so because that's what science is a guess at what they are seeing until someone else guesses a more reasonable answer to what they are seeing.
Show a scientific theory from the 20th Century that was widely accepted as being fact, and has now been proven entirely wrong. Science very rarely completely overturns a theory, because they're based on fact; rather, theories are refined and amended as new data is gathered. If you can't provide a coherent thought based on facts, kindly remove yourself from the discussion.
Bold words for someone who thinks magical wizards live in a heavenly paradise and create humans from dust and/or ribs and everything else from nothing just by snapping his fingers. Bold words indeed. And incredibly stupid.
Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence.
Spred; You asert "GOD" is outside space and time? If true, GOD may not be detected by our senses or through extension by technology. That said GOD may ony be perceived through the mind or imagination. Is it then reasonable to conclude GOD is imaginary? Regards
the amount of bull in these video's are laugh out load funny.this idiot is contradicting everything he's saying,he doesn't even have a clue about god.GOD is outside of space time and any other man made substance you want to include,he made the rules outside of the rules.
Provide evidence or stop insulting me. You have nothing on which to base that claim, and the lack of evidence for the existence of god, in any plane of existence, is the very reason I don't believe in one. And precisely where did I contradict myself?
@diagoras54 God is already there... Its impossible for you to see God cause you don't have the faith or belief that there is God.. God can't be felt by your 5 senses.. Its just through faith..
@darksideXXXXX So you require faith in god to be able to experience god? Why do you believe in god in the first place? What evidence is there to start believing in god before I have that faith? This is just a terrible circular argument.
@diagoras54 faith. yes of course. i believe in God because He is the creator and everything exist because of Him. God is endless,eternal, infinite, no beginning, no end, the ultimate being and He has everything. The existence of everything is one great evidence. To Him, we indebted our lives and existence so therefore we must acknowledge His love of creating us. And to you, who created you? that atom? How could that atom exist to its own to create everything from nothing?
@darksideXXXXX That doesn't make any sense; you believe god exists because god exists? How do you know god is endless, eternal, infinite, endless, and the ultimate being? What is your source for this information? What is your basis for making this claim? You can't make a statement about god's characteristics without first demonstrating that god exists, and "I have faith because god exists" is not an argument for god's existence.
@diagoras54 Well. to you it has no sense because you didn't believe it. Anyone knows what is God. I think only people like you didn't know it because you didn't have a faith and religion. I can say it the way you speak here. You can't make a scientific basis or studies which regards to faith and religion because no matter how the science tries to explain it, it can't. People like you are the product ignorance of the divine law that's why most of you didn't know what is right and wrong to others.
@diagoras54 I can say people like are quite impressive with regards to knowledge for things, you can explain it, you can prove it and you can create. But too bad, even tough you have the knowledge but you didn't have faith. You can't even justify how that atom appear from nothing to create the universe.
@darksideXXXXX you cant explain any of those things either. God did it? You call that an answer? Well i say it was the spaghetti monster. You have no more proof that it was god than i say it was the spaghetti monster. Given this, saying someone did it without any tangible evidence pointing to it is pure bullshit. An answer merely thrown out to hide ignorance.
@Boomx2Brian it is already explained.. things you explained are sufficient enough as an explaination how God created it. For us, its a test of faith.. We are not ignorant its just that we don't want ask any of it.. coz like you it leads you to question about God.. If there is no God there is no morality.. If there is no God, there is no law.. If there is no God, i could kill you for an instant.. I would definitely kill you and eat you..
Look up ``evolution of morality``, and you don`t take your morals from the god of the bible especially, if you just read your bible you would understand why.
``If there is no God, there is no law``
Man made laws for man, show me one instance that is verifiable that this is not true.
``If there is no God, i could kill you for an instant..``
If you did you would ironically be following the orders from your god.
too bad most laws made by man was just based on the teachings of the sacred scripture the rest of it are just to fulfill man's selfish desires.
"If there is no God, i could kill you for an instant.."
Well of course, if there is no God.. I will be no strings attached therefore i can do what i want even to kill anyone when i like anytime. It will be free for all. no laws. no morality.
``too bad most laws made by man was just based on the teachings of the sacred scripture``
Too bad most laws made my man are NOT based on teachings of the atrocious scripture, which are? If you say do not kill or steal you need to be slapped.
``I will be no strings attached therefore i can do what i want even to kill anyone when i like anytime``
no strings attached? So you dont actually care if you kill someone? Please stay deluded and it isnt god who sends you to jail.
@Feralus69 I dont care if i kill someone anyway he's the one i hated most.. why bother.. its better to kill him such annoying thing.. ok so its difficult for me to reply such comment at the same for me so i will make short for you people.. i just want you to answer my simple question.. WHAT/WHO IS THE BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE OF EVERYTHING? if you could prove that there is no God therefore i would agree with you without hesitation..
"I dont care if i kill someone anyway he's the one i hated most.. why bother.."
Because a normal person wouldn't no matter if he was religious or not, but if he was religious statistically they have more chance of committing homicide, look er up.
"WHAT/WHO IS THE BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE OF EVERYTHING?"
No one knows yet, including all religions ever invented, and asking a loaded question with a "who" like you want to lowers the potential of what it could be.
"if you could prove that there is no God therefore i would agree with you without hesitation.. ``
I don`t need to, I dont hold the burden of proof, do you believe in bigfoot or fairies or the tea pot orbiting pluto until they are proven not to exist? You cant disprove an unfalsifiable hypothesis, you need to prove it exists in order to rationally and truthfully and honestly say it does, if you cant show it and you say it then you are being dishonest.
@Feralus69 Why did you pass the ball to me? Hahaha... If you can't prove it.. Mean it.. And don't pretend that you know coz you just seemed stupid to me...
@Feralus69 so you mean the church is lying, prophets are lying and Jesus is lying to all believers all over the world for centuries? what i speak here is came from what i learned from the teachings of the church. now if you tell me that i'm dishonest therefore it is the same as you say that the church, prophets and Jesus is lying..
You dont need to be lying in order to believe something that isnt true. Were early people lying that the world was flat before the discovery that it was round? of course not. Are prophets of other religions lying?
``Jesus is lying to all believers all over the world for centuries?``
How could a man named Jesus which is disputed to even have evidence to show he existed as depicted in the bible be lying when hes dead? And sure, why not?
``what i speak here is came from what i learned from the teachings of the church.``
Obviously.
``now if you tell me that i'm dishonest therefore it is the same as you say that the church, prophets and Jesus is lying.. ``
There is a fine line between being dishonest when discussing your religion and just saying you believe it just because. If you are being dishonest when arguing for your religion you are going to be called on it, but if you believe just because, thats the end.
"There is a fine line between being dishonest when discussing your religion and just saying you believe it just because. If you are being dishonest when arguing for your religion you are going to be called on it, but if you believe just because, thats the end."
You say it because you didnt have a religion.. You are just doing mere accusations.. Its quite obnoxious that you can believe such thing without a reason.. You said that therefore that is what you always do.. DISHONEST!!
'you need to prove it (god) exists in order to rationally and truthfully and honestly say it does, if you cant show it and you say it then you are being dishonest.' copy pasted from a previous post to you from me.
"But it is more obnoxious to believe without a reason.. Isnt it"
I would call it more stupid than obnoxious, but even if you have a reason for your belief it doesnt make it real.
"you need to prove it (god) exists in order to rationally and truthfully and honestly say it does, if you cant show it and you say it then you are being dishonest."
For us to prove God's existence, we just simply give you the question had earlier.
What/Who is the beginning of the existence of everything?
"I would call it more stupid than obnoxious, but even if you have a reason for your belief it doesnt make it real."
"For us to prove God's existence, we just simply give you the question had earlier."
A question isnt proof. Do you know what proof is? How about evidence?
"What/Who is the beginning of the existence of everything?"
I dont know, the big bang was the start of the universe but no one knows exactly the beginning of existence if it was the big bang or not. Oh and thats not proving a god exists because no one knows.
Oh, so you went from ``accurate`` to ``100% accurate``, how typical to move the goalposts. Would you not agree that someone with a 150 IQ is smarter than someone with a 90 IQ?
I disagree, I think the "stupid bastard" is the one that claimed that IQ tests aren't accurate when they demonstrably are. Not to exact 100% standards like you later switched your argument to, but to a reasonable margin they are correct.
creationism, scienc, space time,... ARE ALL THEORY!
Mgiambr 3 months ago
@Mgiambr Not a scientific theory. A theory in science does not mean the same thing as theory in everyday language.
TheMors666 2 months ago
@TheMors666... Define theory and fact, then see what category those fit into.
Mgiambr 2 months ago
@Mgiambr Used colloquially a theory is a hypothesis. It is a guess and requires no evidence to support it. "I have a theory that my lotto numbers will win this week" is an example.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis (or related hypotheses) and is supported by empirical evidence, repeated testing and scientific laws. If evidence contrary to the theory is presented, it is dis-proven. The theory of relativity is an example.
Scientific facts are verified and repeatable truths.
TheMors666 2 months ago
@Mgiambr Creationism is not a scientific theory it's a hypothesis. Science is not a scientific theory, method by which we gain knowledge. Space-time is a mathematical model, although it is demonstrated through the theory of special relativity.
Evolution, germ theory and relativity are examples of scientific theories.
TheMors666 2 months ago
@TheMors666 Evolution is actually a fact. Evolution by natural selection is what's a theory.
Nebuli2 2 months ago
@Nebuli2 Yes, quite true. The theory of natural selection (as well as genetic drift) is the explanation of the fact that evolution occurs.
TheMors666 2 months ago
if what you say about Kent Hovind at the end, he's a textbook Narcisist.
Defhrone 4 months ago
amazing video, alot of this is very true. and alot i dunno about but have a very open mind too, it makes more sence then alot of opinions out there atm
WhacoJacko 5 months ago
George Bernard Shaw said... "If you can't change your mind, you'll never change anything" !!! What do you get when Concrete Operational thinkers try to rap their minds around Abstract ideas... ??? You get... Creationists.
Redshift313 5 months ago
But some scientist present their theories in an almost religious fervor and cling to it as though it was a theism. These new findings today very well may affect numerous paradigms held by the majority of physicists and what many people were taught was true in the classroom.
tjxm21a 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjxm21a not all of them should be generalized to the God of the gaps. Things like the beginning of physical world, the very narrow balance of the arrangement of the universe has their own theological implications. Let point out at least 3 atheists astrophysicists:
"Arranging the universe as we think it was arranged would have required a miracle"
..."An External Agent [external to space time] Intervened in cosmic history with reasons of it's own" - Dyson, Kleban, Susskind.
SignsOfMyRule1 5 months ago
scientists at cern today have demonstrated that einstein was wrong about the speed of light being the maximum speed...what else might you be wrong about
tjxm21a 5 months ago
@tjxm21a Science adapts to new findings. That is the only way to truly expand your knowledge. If you're wrong about something, correct yourself.
JonSchaffer57 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonSchaffer57 "Science adapts to new findings." - I agree.
"That is the only way to truly expand your knowledge." - not absolutely. Religion does a great deal of literature, language which is strict to moral truth, theology and logic of philosophy. Their intellectual values are independent.
SignsOfMyRule1 5 months ago
@tjxm21a They have found evidence it might be wrong. There is nothing definitive about those results yet, though. This is not the first time someone has claimed to find a particle that goes faster than c. Do not accept it as true until they publish the results in a peer reviewed journal.
Landrar 5 months ago
You moron, reading crap from a book and pretending you know something we don't, does not make you an expert. hahahaha.
Explain to me why Dinosaurs have been found in the same rock as human bones. Explain the cave paintings and clay figures of humans riding dinosaurs, that date only 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 4,000 years, if dinosaurs have been dead for millions. Explain why there are Dinosaurs still roaming africa and Papua New Guinea?
God created the world from nothing, your argument proves the point.
crustydownunder 7 months ago
@crustydownunder "You moron, reading crap from a book and pretending you know something we don't, does not make you an expert." Do you realize how incredibly stupid that statement is? Every time you preach from the bible..you preach "god's word" you're acting like you know so much more than others. You read crap from a book (the bible) and you pretend that you know so much more than people who don't believe. Hypocrite!
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 If you have some proof that explains the myth of evolution, I'll be more then happy to listen. If you don't have proof, then shut up, because you don't know any more than your text books tell you. Forget about God for a minute. Evolution? That is the best you got? You answer for everything is millions of years. OK. Tell me about the 15 human foot prints alongside dinosaur prints in the Paluxy river bed. And please, explain the "Limestone cowboy". You have been lied to. Good by
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder Hmm.. wow should I believe the bible that's written on paper, yes, but can not be tested. Hmm or should I believe what's written in science books that's ALSO written BUT CAN be tested.
Evolution. Did you ever hear about diseases that become immune to drugs? Did you ever wonder why? It's because they're evolving, dumbass! It's adaptation!
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Adaption is not evolution, if it was, the disease would have evolved into something different. And are you telling me that something is evolving to withstand drugs in less than a million years? Does this not disprove your theory? You are talking about adaption, the same way humans get blisters to form calluses, when using a shovel. Evolution would have us grow claws for digging.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder You lost me the second you said "The disease would be something different."
Something as small as a germ..yeah..it CAN evolve to be immune to a drug.
It doesn't disprove my theory because it's a small change. Now if we were talking about a single celled organism turning into a monkey or something..then yeah..it would take a REALLY long time.
I'm not going to fight you on definitions. I'm going to say "Evolution" so your simple creationist mind can understand.
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 there had to be a master creator. Secondly, people working in these labs do not believe in evolution yet confess to, because if they don't they loose their funding, are discredited and are blacklisted. That it a fact and it is the reason I gave up believing in evolution. Throwing out evidence that disproves your theory, is not science and should not be called science. proof found this way are results manipulated. This is not science and my conscience would bother me.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder Okay...find me ONE piece of evidence..proof that god created the earth. AND IT HAS TO BE GOOD!
Do this and I'll convert on the spot!
Oh, and here's the challenge..you CAN NOT use the bible. and...GO!
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@crustydownunder You take a population of organisms and wipe the majority of it out. But one little trooper holds on to life and survives. In turn it reproduces and makes a bunch of organisms that are immune to THAT drug.
There are holes in science. That's why we're studying because science DOESN'T have all the answers. (yet) Science, unlike the bible, can be PROVEN in a science class at your local high school.
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Ok, say I'll just say, that you win. Not because I can't understand evolution, it was preached at school in my day too. I just saw through the lies they told me. I couldn't believe how ignorant science can be when something doesn't fit their theory. Ignoring fact in preference of theory. But hey, that's just me, I'm a thinker. I thought it through and found creation made more scenes. You know why? Because anyone studying biology comes to but one conclusion.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder No. You're letting me "win" because you can't come back at me with anything. Science was only ignorant to you because they didn't mention god. Evolution was too hard for you to comprehend.
Ignoring fact in preference to theory? Are you talking about provable scientific fact as apposed to religious documents?
You're a thinker? Really? I would've never guessed!
I know why you chose creationism...creationism is the easy way out.
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 You wouldn't convert if someone came back from the dead and told you head been in hell.
Besides, I'm not trying to convert you, sunshine. I just can't honestly understand how people can believe evolution. Can I share what I actually struggle with in evolution? The biggest point is that God is spirit, and cannot be seen. he also will give no evidence of himself because that would require no faith. Evolution exists purely to discredit the bible and thus prove God doesn't exits
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder I'm sorry. Actual fact isn't discrediting anything...especially if that "thing" can't be proven.
Do you know why I reject the concept of creationism? It's because I want answers. And saying "god created it" isn't an answer. As it cannot be proven.
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Mmm, but what if you are just the tiniest bit wrong? And when you die you find out the truth. (Because the bible says everything will be revealed then) I'd hate to believe I was right all my life to find out I was wrong at the end. However, if you are right and I am wrong, both you and I will just turn to rock and that's it. but if you are wrong, just a tiny bit wrong, you have a big shock coming, wouldn't you say? If you were wrong? Science does have a few holes in it.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder No point in scaring me with hell. I don't believe it exists.
That's Pascal's wager. You're saying if I believe in god and I'm wrong..I won't lose, but If I DON'T believe in god and I'm wrong..I'll lose. But if god were real..wouldn't it know that you were just believing in it "just to be safe" That's just your way of saying "better safe than sorry."
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 And anyway, what's not an answer about "God made it all". LOL. I would think that amazing. Science couldn't do it! Science has never created one living thing. But if God existed, he made everything. Do you know creation says God made everything from nothing. Science says nothing made everything out of nothing. how does nothing make something? The power behind creation might be God using elements in a way science can't see. ya think?
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder Actually, science doesn't know what caused the beginning of the universe.
And when did I say science created life. Of coarse it hasn't, and it's irrelevant. Scientist's aren't saying SCIENCE created life. SCIENCE is the study. NATURE created life... nature as in "a series of events. Not by a creator."
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 I mean, if there was a God, let's say, and he is all powerful like he claims. Why couldn't he have used elements to cause the big bang? I believe it was a big bang. A spec of energy exploding into the universe, sounds like something a powerful being might do. just my belief. I don't think it would be too far fetched if there was a God.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder Then if you're saying that..then it's not so far-fetched to believe that god created evolution...Oh, but that's not creationism so it's wrong! *rolls eyes.*
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Yeah but hang on. Lots of believers think that is possible. it's just that I, well, never mind, you'd never believe me. But some believe that evolution may have taken place. others think it's selective breeding. But that's another can of worms, LOL.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder I'd never believe you? I'm sure if you came to me with some physical evidence I'd be open-minded enough to understand. You take evolutionist's for idiots. We're not.
And I know I'm an atheist..but I'm not closed-minded..k?
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 In science, right? you have to look at the complete evidence. Ok, so if you are honest, science has holes in it when it comes to evolution. So, there is no complete evidence to support the theory, it is still a theory. And as I said before, you need faith to believe in one true God. I cannot present proof of his existence either, but, I you prove the bible is infallible. (Reading the original text) But, as for science, almost all experts disagree on even the tiniest points?
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 If the bible is accurate, then perhaps it has more to offer than mere directions. Anyway, that's all I'm sayin'. I know you believe what you believe. You'll never change my mind, I'll never change yours. It is inside me where I find the proof I need, I can't show it to you. My brother, wanted to know if Gods was real so he went every night out to his property in the dark and prayed for God to show himself. he did, not in the physical, in the spiritual. How does one show that
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder Fine, I won't say that your brother didn't "see god". But I WILL say that people have also claimed to see UFOS, and aliens.
And at least we can agree on one thing. You're never going to change my mind. I'm going to stop before I seem like I'm trying to convert you.
I think creationism is ludicrous, you think the same way about evolution: Lets leave it at that.
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Sure. Cheers mate. been a pleasure chatting to you. Nothing like a good disagreement to get minds thinking?
have a good one.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder Wow...haha. You actually are nice.
Sorry if I got a bit bitchy there. G'night.
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Hahaha—no, I guessed your age watching your vids. So how do we chat?
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder Under my profile picture I think you should see "send message."
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@crustydownunder I guess I can't make you believe in evolution so I'll just tell you why I think it's true.
Evolution IS written in books, yes. It IS "preached" in schools..yes.
But I know evolution is real because of diseases that become immune to drugs over time. If you think evolution is where organisms make drastic changes to themselves in a short amount of time, then you are sadly mistaken.
When the germ becomes immune to a drug, that IS evolution because it is change.
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Evolution insists there is no God. I know their is. I can't help that. if you don't believe in God, that is fine> It's your choice, I just hate the fact that education tells you evolution is real, so don't bother believing in God. That's what the problem is. I know evolution is a big fraud, sure, science can unlock some mysteries, but they where created by God, had to be. Don't you think? Do you honestly deep down believe there is nothing beyond the grave? That breaks my heart
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder No, I am spiritual..I just don't believe in god. Matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed.. I actually believe in reincarnation..that's it. nothing more..nothing less.
Listen. I respect your views. Don't think I'm some closed-minded atheist that's getting on your case. But, dude, you're coming to a video about evolution and you're attacking it tooth and nail. Of coarse I'm going to argue my point.
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 My wife used to believe in reincarnation, metaphysics. She doesn't anymore.
Well, lets just agree to disagree. (BTW. I wasn't saying science created life, I just meant, with all it's knowledge, science cannot create anything living, yet no one and nothing made all substance?) that's hard for me to believe.
I just hope you to continue to look for the truth, and I hope you find it. Whether that be evolution or reincarnation or whatever. Cause, the truth will set you free.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder Oh, I already know the truth. Don't worry. ;)
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Hahahaha. You actually are funny. LOL.
Yeah, I'm not a total prick. And no need to apologise, you conducted yourself very well seeing how I hard tried to rattle your chain. LOL.
Perhaps we'll have another discussion someday soon :-)
Live long and Prosper, Mate.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder I'm counting on it. Haha. Good debate! Thankyou. It's good for the brain.
Now, I won't keep you up much longer..(unless you're in a different time zone) Well, it's 2:44 AM over here so, tata. Debate soon.
Check out my videos if you REALLY want a debate!
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Time zone? I live in Australia, it is 4:22 pm here. LOL. And I'll check out your vids right now. LOL. Cheers Bro :-)
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 Wait a minute, I've been talking to a shella? And one ho is only like, 18 years old? Hahahahahaha. I don't bloody believe it. hahahaha.
I thought you would surely be a guy in his thirties. LOL. You did a pretty good job. I'm impressed.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
@crustydownunder First of all, girls aren't stupid ya know. ;)
and you got my age spot on. Or did I mention it in a video? hmm...
Lets start talking via PM. We're spamming this video.
Purpledragon1766 6 months ago
@Purpledragon1766 I mean, evolution. I'd believe it if it were some other explanation, but I see right through evolution. once someone starts to question evolution, they find the truth.
crustydownunder 6 months ago
7:42 This is a critical flaw of ALL creationists: their sense of infallibility, and their inability to admit mistakes. If they see themselves as scientists, they have to understand that scientists do in fact make mistakes, and learn from them. That's why the peer review process to so important to them, yet creationists seem to think they're immune from it, or perhaps they're afraid of it.
Akira625 7 months ago
Comment removed
crustydownunder 7 months ago
All man constructed religions, (personal gods) are myths.
To prove this however does not prove how the Universe was created.
What happend before the Big Bang is unknown & may be unknowable.
Speculation on how it happened to fit our Universe is just that. It may have come from nothing, multiverses or been created in some way.
You cant disprove a Creator by disprove myth religions.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
Our coming into existence is indeed a very important question, one that we may never be able to answer definitively. The true question is not what happened in the beginning...but what can we do to make sure, that if we don't discover some way extend our existence infinately, that we do make it to see the natural end of things. To thrive, and be perhaps the last conscious, sentient beings when the end of all things comes.
d4rk0v3 11 months ago
leading to the heat-death of the universe. Who knows, who can know? I think humanity should spend a little less time worrying about how everything began, and focus on how to make our existence last. If not created, and the Big bang theory is true, as well as theories of solar evolution, eventually our planet will be consumed by the sun. If we waste our existence fighting over theory, with each other . . . we will perish with the death of our planet, perhaps sooner.
d4rk0v3 11 months ago
Open mind..all the "evidence" people ask for to convince them otherwise is only presentable as such because of our perspective of said evidence. I can repeat myself many times. Wether created by a diety, or formed by a big bang (or both) eventually it will all come to an end. The matter converted to energy released as light will slowly reduce, big bang after big crunch over and over. Eventually, there wont be enough matter to hold the expansion together, and the last will expand for infinity
d4rk0v3 11 months ago
...adamant enough to say that our understanding is the only correct one and the only one. Perhaps the Big Bang is true, mathematically, and logically (again from our insignificant perspective, to deny this is the epitomy of human arrogance and bloated sense of self importance). Perhaps there is a God, who set things in motion and is now just sitting back and watching how things unfold, maybe the process has repeated multiple times through big bangs and crunches. I prefer to keep an open mind.
d4rk0v3 11 months ago
Our understanding of the universe, of the laws of physics is totally limited by what we can observe or test here on Earth. In our short existence, whether created or evolved, is like looking out from the smallest part of an atomin a complex molecule, and saying we know what the entire molecule is, how it works and are willing to accept only one side as the answer. Certain theories make logical sense, to our understanding of logic. Sure, we figured some things out..but not enough to be adamant ..
d4rk0v3 11 months ago
It's all theory, creation and the big bang. Until we can find a way to see how it happened, we can't know for sure. I admire your confidence. You have very intelligent arguments and a very well thought out method of explaining things. Do not forget, special relativiity, Entropy all theories, are just that. Theories. If the universe is billions of years old, who are we to say we figured it all out in 30,000, enough to be so confident that there is no other possible way.
d4rk0v3 11 months ago
Comment removed
d4rk0v3 11 months ago
I love how atheists casually ignore the problem of a finite universe and what caused the big bang. Its quite funny. Then there's the problem of thermodynamics and the simple fact energy cannot come from nothing.
Until these questions are answered, You will always have billions of creationists :)
Hoyle renounced his atheism when he understood that the big bang is mathematically and physically impossible. Self creation is not science. Its faith in unknowns.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 What atheist has ever told you that they believe the universe came from nothing? Any educated well reasoned atheist would tell you (and probably already has only to be ignored) that we don't know where the universe came from but that it's matter likely existed in a different form before the big bang. And its not faith in unknowns its a hypothesis based on observable data. believing jesus rose from the grave because an ancient text says so is faith in unknowns.
johnnythesailorman 1 year ago
@johnnythesailorman "we don't know where the universe came from but that it's matter likely existed in a different form before the big bang" yes, Matter existed as energy, as science claims. However, Through cause and effect we can deem this as impossible. The energy that "converted to mass" has to have had a cause. Nothing material is eternal. Therefore, The energy must have had a cause, ergo, the universe must have been created. And we have plenty of other sources and personal testimonies :D
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 Prove it. Prove that a universe can't be created from nothing. Just because energy can't be created or destroyed within the universe doesn't say anything about what's possible outside the universe, or even in other universes. You can't look at a single example of something and declare that because every example we have of it (that being one example) is a certain way that's the way all examples must be. And even if it were, a lack of an explanation doesn't prove god exists.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 "Prove that a universe can't be created from nothing" Wow.. just... WOW. You believe matter came into existence from energy that has been around for an infinite amount of time. The word "infinite" is a term used in non-material things. Nothing exists that is infinite. Nothing material. Non material things (like math and the laws of physics) can be considered infinite in nature. The only logical conclusion in the creation of energy is that it had a creator, A source.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 First, you should watch the part where I explain that it's possible that the energy always existed, but the fabric of spacetime was so curved that "time" hadn't yet started; just because the universe has a definite point at which time began doesn't mean that the energy/matter was created. Second, I'm not making any statements of fact, I'm saying that we have absolutely no idea what happened at the beginning of time, and I'm hypothesizing some ideas for natural explanations.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 "but the fabric of spacetime was so curved that "time" hadn't yet started; just because the universe has a definite point at which time began doesn't mean that the energy/matter was created" then earlier you say that I "have no direct evidence" even though you are blathering on with information attained indirectly. We have no firsthand account of the big bang, We have not observed it directly, Therefore, you are being a hypocrite. Its flawed logic to assume energy is has no begining
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 For you to immediately jump from "We don't know" to "A creator" indicates an extreme level of bias: you have the preconception that there is a god, and you seek evidence, not the other way around. There is no correlation between an event occuring and it having been caused by an intelligence, or else every natural phenomenon from erosion to hurricanes would have to be caused by god.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Your evidence is underdeveloped and hypothetical. They are not solid. What IS solid is the fact that logic and reason are unwavering. We KNOW energy cannot be infinite (energy being material) therefore, energy has to have had a cause. "or else every natural phenomenon from erosion to hurricanes would have to be caused by god." These examples all have causes (ie: water air fire etc) but the universes beginning has no cause. Therefore a creator must have been in charge.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 You have no direct evidence of a creator, and you have no direct evidence that the universe was created. Until you can prove one or the other with empirical evidence, not flawed logic, then there are too many variables to come to any conclusion.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 "Until you can prove one or the other with empirical evidence" empirical meaning direct observation. Did we directly observe the big bang? Nope. Therefore you were wrong saying I am not providing empirical data even though its all you have (and all you gave me)
The cosmological argument one of the strongest tools in the theist arsenal. It shows there is more than the 3 dimensions we are used to. There are known and unknowns. However there are unknown unknowns as well.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 So we can only know something exists if we directly observe it? I guess that means that subatomic particles don't exist, nor do black holes, nuclear fission or synapses. Are you at all familiar with the methods science uses to make determinations about the universe? The Big Bang was spurred by evidence in the form of galaxies moving away from each other, and astronomers then went searching for more evidence, finding the cosmic microwave background and other such proof.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 "So we can only know something exists if we directly observe it? I guess that means that subatomic particles don't exist, nor do black holes, nuclear fission or synapses." We have directly observed those things. You seem to lack basic scientific knowledge. We can see black holes because they leave a lack of light and can be identified. Nuclear fission happens right here on our sun the effect of subatomic particles can be observed (even though we cant see them)
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 "We have directly observed those things"
Actually no, we have never directly observed a black whole or subatomic particles. We've inferred them by doing science but they have never been directly observed.
"Nuclear fission happens right here on our sun" - Again inferred not directly observed.
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 "Actually no, we have never directly observed a black whole or subatomic particles. We've inferred them by doing science but they have never been directly observed" we have observed a black hole. Its the lack of substance and the bending of space time we see. Its like how we see leaves blowing in the wind and can tell the direction of the wind. And subatomic particles are not seen, but we know they exist because they have been observed through empirical research.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 "we have observed a black hole" - We observed what black holes should do NOT the black hole itself. Pay attention to the language used. We are talking about direct observations. Can you show us a picture from a black hole? Let me save you some time. You can't - what you can do is produce an image of what a black hole should do to it's environment if it were there.
Considering the subatomic particles you are just reiterating my original point. Not directly observed.
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 continued: these calculations leave out many factors, instead, relying by faith, On antimatter, a substance we have not found a stable amount of. It seems you are reading from a source where they leave out the actual calculation and just tell you what the answer is. When you look at how much they exclude, You may change your mind. There is much study to be done. Its a nice theory though. Not "fact"like you stated XD
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 Do you see that logical progression? Galactic red shift ->Big Bang theory -> search for more evidence -> more evidence found confirms theory and initial discovery. Here's how you work: we don't know what caused the Big Bang -> it must have been a creator -> we know it was a creator because we don't know what caused the Big Bang. Not only is it a circular reasoning, you haven't provided a single piece of physical evidence for its validity or the existence of this creator.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 And there are some galaxies that are within 1 light year of each other that are traveling in different directions (opposite directions, going in a degree below 180 degrees to the other) Science still has to explain this. So far they have nothing. How can an expansion cause some parts to go in opposite directions? Its like a point on a balloon that starts to head back to the center. And is the big bang had no beginning, Its quite safe to assume that there was an intelligent cause.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 "How can an expansion cause some parts to go in opposite directions?" - To quote desertphile "GRAVITY!!!"
"Its like a point on a balloon that starts to head back to the center." - The universe has no "center"
"Its quite safe to assume that there was an intelligent cause." - The only intelligence we've ever observed has a brain. How is it reasonable to assume that prior to the big bang there was a brain? How did it get there?
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 "To quote desertphile "GRAVITY!!!"" so you are saying galaxies going in different directions are a result of gravity? hahaha. Good one. I'm saying they are traveling in different directions more than 180 degrees from each other. An "expansion" would not allow this to happen. Scientists still dont understand why this occurs. "The universe has no "center"" so there was no point where the universe expanded?
"How did it get there?" Thats implying God exists ergo, he needs no explanation
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 You clearly lack any comprehension of cosmology whatsoever. First, expansion does explain galaxies moving in opposite directions; in fact, it requires it. Imagine a cake baking with raisins in it: as the cake rises and expands the raisins move directly away from each other. Second, there is no centre to the universe because the entire universe is the centre. The entire universe began expanding at the Big Bang, it's not spreading from one point.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 It's like drawing dots on a balloon to represent galaxies and inflating the balloon: every point on its surface is moving away from every other point, and no point on the surface is the centre of the expansion. In the case of the universe, the "surface" is three dimensional, with every three dimensional point in space moving away from every other. Clearly you don't understand the concepts you're arguing about, so there's no reason any of us should listen to a thing you say.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Galaxies have head on collisions, Which should not happen in an "expanding balloon" can you explain this? the galaxies that collide do not keep traveling in one direction like a car rear ending a slower car in the same lane. You seem to lack basic understanding of physics and logic. Quite common in the atheistic community. Is it any wonder only a fraction of the population are atheists?
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 "Galaxies have head on collisions, Which should not happen in an "expanding balloon" can you explain this?"
I already answered that! Didn't you read? GRAVITY!!! I will refrain from making a cheap petty stab at theism just like you did with atheism even though you've just made it very easy. After all do as you would be done by.
"Is it any wonder only a fraction of the population are atheists?" - That would be the smarter more educated fraction so don't cast any stones.
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 "GRAVITY"does not explain why head on collisions happen in a galaxy that is rapidly expanding from a point (ie: the place where the singularity expanded) You did not give me an explanation, So I will take it that you dont really know :)
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 Your entire premise, which you've admitted is a god-of-the-gaps argument, is based on ignorance, so it has no validity. The fact that you don't or can't understand something is not a reason to conclude that god exists. I see no need to discuss this with you any further.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 "you've admitted is a god-of-the-gaps argument, is based on ignorance" so going to a logical explanation is illogical? You seem to have misguided faith in the theories put forth by science that are in serious need of more study. Many of these theories (like the theory that membranes collide creating universes, is complete guesswork and are often mathematically incorrect. How can the singularity have been " infinitely small and infinitely dense?" Nothing is infinitely dense XD
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 On average galaxies are moving away from us due to inflation. There are instances where galaxies collide/move toward each other due to gravity. Like the Andromeda galaxy is doing with ours right now. Both facts are accounted for.
"so there was no point where the universe expanded?" - Either every point is the center or no point is. Choose which wording you prefer.
infinit888 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 "I'm saying they are traveling in different directions more than 180 degrees from each other" - Sigh... you do know that is physically impossible?
"Thats implying God" - A brain implies god? So my cat is god?
a1) intelligence caused x
o1) intelligence requires y
a2) y implies a1
-> and you think this circular mess accounts for y?
Seriously if you are not interested to have a real discussion (perhaps a result from your cognitive dissonance) just say so. Don't waste my time.
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 "Sigh... you do know that is physically impossible?" yep, That's my point. Its physically impossible.
"- A brain implies god? So my cat is god?" what is "real" if you are thinking real is what you see, touch or smell, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. So your cat may be god if you think he is. We need to break out of our 3 dimensional view of the universe and our dogmatic following of what we see from our rock called earth.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@infinit888 "a1) intelligence caused x
o1) intelligence requires y
a2) y implies a1
-> and you think this circular mess accounts for y?
Nope, however the same argument can be made on your account. You assume (based on flawed calculations) that the universe came from nothing with net energy that equals to zero based on antimatter, which we have not found a stable amount of. Now who's using circular logic ;)
Please dont waste my time with hypothetical bs and flawed and under-developed facts.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 You're drawing conclusions based on a lack of evidence and declaring it to be true just because no other hypothesis has any more evidence in its favour than yours does. Here are two: the universe was spawned from a black hole in another universe, and the universe always existed but in such a small and highly curved state that time couldn't begin until sufficient expansion occured. Your belief has no more evidence for it than either of these, yet you declare yours to be true.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 I never asserted mine was true. I simply stated it was a legitimate explanation regarding the lack of scientific answers. Its nice to see you finally understood that the "explanations" that science gives are just as plausible as the theory of a creator.
There is much evidence in favor of both sides. However, I feel the creation of the universe cannot have been caused by nothing. Nor do I believe energy is eternal (even though it is mathematically and physically impossible)
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 So it's a god-of-the-gaps argument. That isn't a legitimate explanation for phenomena in the universe, so why should we accept it as one for the universe itself? And just because I can postulate an explanation doesn't mean I'll argue that it's true, let alone that it proves the existence of the divine. I withhold judgement on what actually created the universe until we have some evidence; otherwise it's just as plausible to claim it was made by a unicorn farting.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 "So it's a god-of-the-gaps argument. That isn't a legitimate explanation for phenomena in the universe" Yes it is a God of the gaps argument. These gaps are so wide, we have to understand there is no way we will ever know without opening our minds to more than the 3 dimensions we are used to. An intelligent being is a legitimate answer because the idea of constant energy is irrational and impossible. Can you have infinite anything? Nope :)
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 "I simply stated it was a legitimate explanation" - Explanation perhaps, legitimate no.
"However, I feel the creation" - It's exactly that a feeling. A purposeful narrative you've been provided with when you were young. In the adult world we call that bias.
"Nor do I believe energy is eternal" - Calculations have been done which indicate that the universe might have zero sum energy so that belief does not necessarily follow. watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 "Explanation perhaps, legitimate no." so saying energy came from nowhere is? Nice contradiction.
"It's exactly that a feeling. A purposeful narrative you've been provided with when you were young" nice try at ad hominem, In the real world we call that a fallacious argument. We are all biased. What makes you think you aren't? hahha "the universe might have zero sum energy" You do realize those calculations are still in serious need of confirmation. They are hypothesized assumptions.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 "so saying energy came from nowhere is?" - That isn't a legitimate explanation either but luckily for me I didn't say that. Nice strawman. That's what I meant by you sacrificing reason.
"nice try at ad hominem" - Do you know any fallacies? It's an explanation as to why you feel so attached to your beliefs even when they go counter to reason.
"We are all biased" - The people who grow up in households where parents who don't know something say I don't know are a lot less biased.
infinit888 1 year ago
@Amritizcool66 "What makes you think you aren't?" - I might be a little biased to but much less then you. I don't have a vested interest. My only dedication is to the facts. I'm not emotionally attached to any particular concept of the beginning. I don't need to fit/distort the facts to fit a preexisting narrative.
"They are hypothesized assumptions." - Not anymore. They have been confirmed by experiment. We live in a 'flat' universe. That indicates that the universe has a net energy of 0.
infinit888 1 year ago
@infinit888 "I might be a little biased to but much less then you." wow a totally unbiased opinion *clap clap clap*
"We live in a 'flat' universe. That indicates that the universe has a net energy of 0." correct, the calculations say that. However, they factor in the possibility of antimatter (a substance with negative mass) and certain axiomatic principles must be exempt. Therefore, The theory requires the breaking of many laws (like how many physics problems require friction to be exempt)
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
@diagoras54 "what's possible outside the universe, or even in other universes" you make accusations on christian creationists beliefs of a God, calling us "absurd" even though you believe that there are multiple realities and universes. A concept found in science fiction (but not backed up by scientific research)
An obvious lack of explanation for such a fundamental question DOES prove there is more to the universe than we see. A creator? You decide.
Amritizcool66 1 year ago
In the last few frames of the video, showing evolution of man from a primate, the right-most man was added to be clean shaven and oh-so-Caucasian. This seems unnecessary because the drawing just to the left of him, although he has a beard, looks like a fully formed human.
In other words, somewhere there's an artist who wanted the "most evolved" to be shown as white and clean cut. After all, who could be more highly evolved than Ward Cleaver?
pburto 1 year ago
I love you.
TheSecretEye 1 year ago
@TheSecretEye So do I.
diagoras54 1 year ago
After reading some of the comments, it's apparent this is a very controversal topic. I have no problem with my idea of GOD and the ideas you put forth in your video. I think you are absolutely brilliant. As a educator, I will incorporate your ideas into our pool of discussion. Learning is a GOD given gift. Thank you for making this video.
koakau 1 year ago
@diagoras54
Isn't the Higgs Field quite similar conceptually to what the cosmological constant was? I know Einstein vacillated considerably over the cosmological constant in his theories (in the end, describing it as the biggest mistake he ever made) but doesn't it compellingly address some of the issues that currently plague the standard model?
Gidwan 1 year ago
Complex subjects made digestible.
Excellent work!
IllPropaganda 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
most things you loons take as fact will be most likely changed or disproven in a century or so because that's what science is a guess at what they are seeing until someone else guesses a more reasonable answer to what they are seeing.
spreadem2009 2 years ago
Show a scientific theory from the 20th Century that was widely accepted as being fact, and has now been proven entirely wrong. Science very rarely completely overturns a theory, because they're based on fact; rather, theories are refined and amended as new data is gathered. If you can't provide a coherent thought based on facts, kindly remove yourself from the discussion.
diagoras54 2 years ago 2
"science is a guess"
Bold words for someone who thinks magical wizards live in a heavenly paradise and create humans from dust and/or ribs and everything else from nothing just by snapping his fingers. Bold words indeed. And incredibly stupid.
A11ex 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@A11ex in regards to RNA/DNA - could you please explain the problem of Chirality? Your hands are an example of Chirality.*
Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments in 1952 - all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality.
It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A11ex
Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Spred; You asert "GOD" is outside space and time? If true, GOD may not be detected by our senses or through extension by technology. That said GOD may ony be perceived through the mind or imagination. Is it then reasonable to conclude GOD is imaginary? Regards
1Skeptik1 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
the amount of bull in these video's are laugh out load funny.this idiot is contradicting everything he's saying,he doesn't even have a clue about god.GOD is outside of space time and any other man made substance you want to include,he made the rules outside of the rules.
spreadem2009 2 years ago
Provide evidence or stop insulting me. You have nothing on which to base that claim, and the lack of evidence for the existence of god, in any plane of existence, is the very reason I don't believe in one. And precisely where did I contradict myself?
diagoras54 2 years ago 2
@diagoras54 God is already there... Its impossible for you to see God cause you don't have the faith or belief that there is God.. God can't be felt by your 5 senses.. Its just through faith..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX So you require faith in god to be able to experience god? Why do you believe in god in the first place? What evidence is there to start believing in god before I have that faith? This is just a terrible circular argument.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 faith. yes of course. i believe in God because He is the creator and everything exist because of Him. God is endless,eternal, infinite, no beginning, no end, the ultimate being and He has everything. The existence of everything is one great evidence. To Him, we indebted our lives and existence so therefore we must acknowledge His love of creating us. And to you, who created you? that atom? How could that atom exist to its own to create everything from nothing?
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX That doesn't make any sense; you believe god exists because god exists? How do you know god is endless, eternal, infinite, endless, and the ultimate being? What is your source for this information? What is your basis for making this claim? You can't make a statement about god's characteristics without first demonstrating that god exists, and "I have faith because god exists" is not an argument for god's existence.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Well. to you it has no sense because you didn't believe it. Anyone knows what is God. I think only people like you didn't know it because you didn't have a faith and religion. I can say it the way you speak here. You can't make a scientific basis or studies which regards to faith and religion because no matter how the science tries to explain it, it can't. People like you are the product ignorance of the divine law that's why most of you didn't know what is right and wrong to others.
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@diagoras54 I can say people like are quite impressive with regards to knowledge for things, you can explain it, you can prove it and you can create. But too bad, even tough you have the knowledge but you didn't have faith. You can't even justify how that atom appear from nothing to create the universe.
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX you cant explain any of those things either. God did it? You call that an answer? Well i say it was the spaghetti monster. You have no more proof that it was god than i say it was the spaghetti monster. Given this, saying someone did it without any tangible evidence pointing to it is pure bullshit. An answer merely thrown out to hide ignorance.
Boomx2Brian 1 year ago
@Boomx2Brian it is already explained.. things you explained are sufficient enough as an explaination how God created it. For us, its a test of faith.. We are not ignorant its just that we don't want ask any of it.. coz like you it leads you to question about God.. If there is no God there is no morality.. If there is no God, there is no law.. If there is no God, i could kill you for an instant.. I would definitely kill you and eat you..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
``If there is no God there is no morality..``
Look up ``evolution of morality``, and you don`t take your morals from the god of the bible especially, if you just read your bible you would understand why.
``If there is no God, there is no law``
Man made laws for man, show me one instance that is verifiable that this is not true.
``If there is no God, i could kill you for an instant..``
If you did you would ironically be following the orders from your god.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 "If there is no God, there is no law"
too bad most laws made by man was just based on the teachings of the sacred scripture the rest of it are just to fulfill man's selfish desires.
"If there is no God, i could kill you for an instant.."
Well of course, if there is no God.. I will be no strings attached therefore i can do what i want even to kill anyone when i like anytime. It will be free for all. no laws. no morality.
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
``too bad most laws made by man was just based on the teachings of the sacred scripture``
Too bad most laws made my man are NOT based on teachings of the atrocious scripture, which are? If you say do not kill or steal you need to be slapped.
``I will be no strings attached therefore i can do what i want even to kill anyone when i like anytime``
no strings attached? So you dont actually care if you kill someone? Please stay deluded and it isnt god who sends you to jail.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 I dont care if i kill someone anyway he's the one i hated most.. why bother.. its better to kill him such annoying thing.. ok so its difficult for me to reply such comment at the same for me so i will make short for you people.. i just want you to answer my simple question.. WHAT/WHO IS THE BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE OF EVERYTHING? if you could prove that there is no God therefore i would agree with you without hesitation..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
"I dont care if i kill someone anyway he's the one i hated most.. why bother.."
Because a normal person wouldn't no matter if he was religious or not, but if he was religious statistically they have more chance of committing homicide, look er up.
"WHAT/WHO IS THE BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE OF EVERYTHING?"
No one knows yet, including all religions ever invented, and asking a loaded question with a "who" like you want to lowers the potential of what it could be.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
"if you could prove that there is no God therefore i would agree with you without hesitation.. ``
I don`t need to, I dont hold the burden of proof, do you believe in bigfoot or fairies or the tea pot orbiting pluto until they are proven not to exist? You cant disprove an unfalsifiable hypothesis, you need to prove it exists in order to rationally and truthfully and honestly say it does, if you cant show it and you say it then you are being dishonest.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 Why did you pass the ball to me? Hahaha... If you can't prove it.. Mean it.. And don't pretend that you know coz you just seemed stupid to me...
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
"Why did you pass the ball to me?"
I didnt have it in the first place.
"If you can't prove it.. Mean it.. And don't pretend that you know coz you just seemed stupid to me... ``
What am i pretending to know?
``so you mean consciousness in morality was already there?``
You need to be conscious in order to be moral... what are you trying to get at?
``How could he become conscious in morality if he didn't even know morality?``
Who? What are you even talking about?
Feralus69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feralus69
"I didnt have it in the first place."
This proves an excuse that you know nothing.
"You need to be conscious in order to be moral... what are you trying to get at?"
You said man by definition is an animal right? Look at the other animals except man are they conscious in morality?
"Who? What are you even talking about? "
You are really a moron that you argue with me by sentence even my sentences are made related in idea.
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@Feralus69 so you mean the church is lying, prophets are lying and Jesus is lying to all believers all over the world for centuries? what i speak here is came from what i learned from the teachings of the church. now if you tell me that i'm dishonest therefore it is the same as you say that the church, prophets and Jesus is lying..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
``prophets are lying``
You dont need to be lying in order to believe something that isnt true. Were early people lying that the world was flat before the discovery that it was round? of course not. Are prophets of other religions lying?
``Jesus is lying to all believers all over the world for centuries?``
How could a man named Jesus which is disputed to even have evidence to show he existed as depicted in the bible be lying when hes dead? And sure, why not?
Feralus69 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
``what i speak here is came from what i learned from the teachings of the church.``
Obviously.
``now if you tell me that i'm dishonest therefore it is the same as you say that the church, prophets and Jesus is lying.. ``
There is a fine line between being dishonest when discussing your religion and just saying you believe it just because. If you are being dishonest when arguing for your religion you are going to be called on it, but if you believe just because, thats the end.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69
"There is a fine line between being dishonest when discussing your religion and just saying you believe it just because. If you are being dishonest when arguing for your religion you are going to be called on it, but if you believe just because, thats the end."
You say it because you didnt have a religion.. You are just doing mere accusations.. Its quite obnoxious that you can believe such thing without a reason.. You said that therefore that is what you always do.. DISHONEST!!
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
"You are just doing mere accusations.."
Accusing dishonesty for being just that based on actual tangible evidence in quotations from the dishonest person isn't just 'mere' accusations.
"Its quite obnoxious that you can believe such thing without a reason.."
But is it obnoxious to believe it with a reason?
"You said that therefore that is what you always do.. DISHONEST!!``
What? That makes no sense at all, rephrase it so it does. What do I always do and how is it dishonest?
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69
"Accusing dishonesty for being just that based on actual tangible evidence in quotations from the dishonest person isn't just 'mere' accusations."
When do i become dishonest? I believe your idiot..
"But is it obnoxious to believe it with a reason?"
But it is more obnoxious to believe without a reason.. Isnt it?
"What? That makes no sense at all, rephrase it so it does. What do I always do and how is it dishonest?"
You're the only one who can answer it.. besides its your own self..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
"When do i become dishonest?"
'you need to prove it (god) exists in order to rationally and truthfully and honestly say it does, if you cant show it and you say it then you are being dishonest.' copy pasted from a previous post to you from me.
"But it is more obnoxious to believe without a reason.. Isnt it"
I would call it more stupid than obnoxious, but even if you have a reason for your belief it doesnt make it real.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
"You're the only one who can answer it.. besides its your own self.. "
Well, im just going to assume you dont have a IQ high enough to restate what you just said in another form, which is what i asked for.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69
"you need to prove it (god) exists in order to rationally and truthfully and honestly say it does, if you cant show it and you say it then you are being dishonest."
For us to prove God's existence, we just simply give you the question had earlier.
What/Who is the beginning of the existence of everything?
"I would call it more stupid than obnoxious, but even if you have a reason for your belief it doesnt make it real."
Some doesnt make it real..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
"For us to prove God's existence, we just simply give you the question had earlier."
A question isnt proof. Do you know what proof is? How about evidence?
"What/Who is the beginning of the existence of everything?"
I dont know, the big bang was the start of the universe but no one knows exactly the beginning of existence if it was the big bang or not. Oh and thats not proving a god exists because no one knows.
Feralus69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feralus69
"Well, im just going to assume you dont have a IQ high enough to restate what you just said in another form, which is what i asked for."
IQ isnt accurate..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
"IQ isnt accurate.."
Is that what your parents told you?
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69
"Is that what your parents told you?"
No.. Facts told me it's not 100% accurate..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
``No.. Facts told me it's not 100% accurate..``
Oh, so you went from ``accurate`` to ``100% accurate``, how typical to move the goalposts. Would you not agree that someone with a 150 IQ is smarter than someone with a 90 IQ?
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 hahaha.. stupid bastard didnt get what i'm saying..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
I disagree, I think the "stupid bastard" is the one that claimed that IQ tests aren't accurate when they demonstrably are. Not to exact 100% standards like you later switched your argument to, but to a reasonable margin they are correct.
Feralus69 1 year ago
@Feralus69 Hahaha.. Nonsense.. it's still didnt get to the point of what i'm saying..
darksideXXXXX 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
i'm pretty sure it did, if you think it didn't why not enlighten?
Feralus69 1 year ago
@darksideXXXXX
``It will be free for all. no laws. no morality. ``
Except that all laws and morality do not come from any god, they come from society indefinitely.
``God brings the concept of morality.``
Slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, genocide, etc is a good standard of morality to you?
``then i wouldn't know am i doing right or wrong to others.``
Um, yea you would, how do you think early man survived in hunter gatherer societies before the invention of the bible and god?
Feralus69 1 year ago