:"big bang: put firecracker under pile of lumber - explosion = a house."
Actually the thing I remember from my Cosmology teacher,case he used to say it in almost every session was "you can create a universe from a sack of potatoes"
My problem with the Cosmology teachers Sack of potatoes or the Catholic Priest's "super atom" is tha that atom or the poatoes turning into a universe breaks the laws of thermal dynamics by creating more matter and energy then started with
two multiverses collided and the result was our multiverse :-)
oh and culture is not your friend :-)
i think i feel a lot like the caller. i was raised christian but now that i think for myself and blind faith seems unwise. at the same time something in me really wants to beleive in some form of creationism. i soo wanna be around when/if we find an undisputed answer
...I'd say it's likely we'll know at some point whether Jesus existed and if so what he said. The Christians (and probably the Muslims, when the Christians have given up) will fight it every step of the way, though...
8:48 Sure you can, the New Testament accounts of Jesus clearly show who He was/is...
9:17 As a Christian, I don't attribute everything that I don't know to God...
9:28 When did it become acceptable to accept the fallacy of macro-evolution? There is NO evidence...The little that has been presented has either been manipulated or has been a lie...
@meaninter03 Macro evolution has never been observed. Quite often in these debates examples such as the peppered moth and viruses are presented as proof for Darwinian macro evolution when in fact these are great examples of micro evolution.
All you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). You never see any new information arising in a cell. Also, graduated transitional fossils are non-existent.
@meaninter03 So, you willingly admit that it IS a faith issue? Look, Atheism primary cause is NOT lack of evidence of God, but a resent particularly toward Christianity. That should really say something about Christians; something really BAD. Christians are directly responsible for many turning to Atheism, because of the vast amount of hypocrisy in the Church. But, there is A LOT more to Atheism than meets the eye.
Walking on stones in stormy water cause he knew thearea,telling someone to add water to the wine barrels to react with the consentrate on the bottom and knowing that his friend lazzereth had a sleeping disorder that would make him appear "dead" to those that did not know is hardly "miricles"
"nor god"
Define god
If you say a man up in the sky sitting on a cloud with his angels,nope
If you say God=force that binds/animates/converts matter,life,& energy(?)
Something to consider about the claim about intelligent design.
The earth moving around the Sun in 365.2425 days. It is hardly a intelligent timeperiod as it makes any form of time keeping messy to say the least. If God made the earth then why did he not bother to round off the decimal by adjusting the mass of the earth to conform with the gravitational pull of the sun so it would travel at 365 precisely. While if it formed naturally, irregularities like this are normal.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 I don't believe in God but the answer to your question is simple enough. We, humans, "created" time frames & perios. Time itself is motionless & effortless but in order for us to understand it we made a time frame; from millseconds to millenia. The Earth simply moves as it does. The 365.2425 days that it takes was OUR decision & OUR calculation.
@belwoodzzzz We base our maths on our reality, our base 10 is based on the number of fingers we have.
The day is calculated based on the time it takes for the earth to revolve (night to day and the movement of the sun). While I only posted this lightheartedly, the concept of an uneven timespan is not JUST human derived but derived from the observation of reality. If reality is imprecise then it goes to strengthen my point that the universe is not intelligently designed but randomly formed.
this man is looking for answers, he didn't call to preach or debate, he came to DISCUSS about philosophical question.
although i am excited by debates, I feel much better after discussing something with someone, each of us explains what he thinks in a calm way until we get to the ultimate. we do not come to say "im right you'r wrong!". we come to understand things better. It's so much better than a debate.
@kidi1232 i don't think this guy's looking for an 'answer' to his 'philosophical question' at all? if he was, he wouldn't be repeating & asking the EXACT same question that they already gave a perfectly good answer to. if he wanted an answer, he'd have moved on already. he seems to be 'soft selling' his belief in a god; he 'thinks' he has a 'profound question': but doesn't. he's being deceptive by pretending that he (sorta, kinda) agrees, but then goes on to repeat the same 'question'.
this energy and matter permeate our very being as humans. so what happens to it when our physical body dies? I'm not religious, I don't particularly subscribe to any theory because I don't know.
@monsieurkarl The energy dissipates as heat (your body goes cold when you die) and the matter is recycled by worms or in the case of your skeleton takes a long time to break down.
To answer matt question at the end: Its because ppl are scared of the dark, scared of what they dont know and it is admiting a weakness. (Knowledge is power)
I just read the video again and I loled about something, and it might be crazy... Just listen: You can say "proof there's god?" but it's a double-argument, for you can return to say "proof there isn't god". Atheist: "We began at the big bang. Don't know how, but we began there." Theist: "We did, but we also had complexities within our universe. Mathematical systems, lifeforms built like artwork. To say that just comes out of air... that's like believing in nothing (to his pixie reference lol)"
Hawking also said the universe didn't always exist. I think it was a book.I might have my sources wrong about him. But he isn't my source. There's actual timing of our universe's existence. It began 13.5 billion years ago. It started from a piece smaller than an atom. We know not what it is, and created everything. It is PHYSICALLY God. You can say it is a deity, powerful being, be comfortable to your taste. But you are hugging with your own ignorance that it isn't our creator.PHYSICAL term God.
@massiahmassiah7 I think a 'creator' implies intelligence and foresight? The Big Bang therefore did not create us, it started a proces. Unknowingly. We humens are a form of art, on a giant canvas which may contain many forms of art. Also I would disagree on the idea the singularity was smaller then an atom. It actually had to contain all the energy and matter (just energy I think) to fill the universe we know today. It may just be, that it was the dense center of a cosmic Black Hole that Banged.
If you know the big bang, you sort of go toe-to-toe with knowing the idea that we have a creator (that little dot). Now, people can manipulate its meaning, but it did "create" us. Therefore is God by definition. Not so entirely a deity or powerful being, but a thing that creates an entire realm of existence.
That man was my favorite caller.... He was the only one I ever saw to hang up on his own accord, and didn't argue 'till disconnection.... a respectable dude if you ask me
Hey all of you evolutionists. Do you know what you are? You are government sheep. The government indoctrinated you and so you remain. You are just a bunch of government patsies. Can't think on your own and to cowardly too fight.
It is quite obvious that we are missing something say, the nature dark matter dark energy or even the laws which govern a black hole on a quantum scale. We do know relativity appears to be contingent on a cosmological constant, which is most likely a simpler forum of matter. By our calculations we can see the way this eternal scalar field acts such as a higgs field and dark matter. We as naturalist are in good grounds to say what made and makes Universe isn't intelligent.
Every athiest reading this I'll make you a deal. Pray with me once and if nothing happens I'll leave you alone. God isn't real so you have nothing to worry about right? Time to put your money where your mouth is. Let us pray. Repeat this prayer. "Lord, Father of Jesus, if you are real, may I be completely miserable until I ask for forgiveness of my sins and accept you as my Lord and Savior."
@kuss86 Prayer is a waste of time. It has been proven scientifically. Any testable result that supposedly came from prayer can be explained by science. If prayer works, then why hasn't god healed a paraplegic by regrowing his limbs? How many people pray to god to make them win the lottery? How many people win? One, maybe. The bible says prayer will work every time. It never does. Prayer is a waste of time.
@MrWhat316 Because the universe exists, your god has not been proven to exist, we have waited 2,000 years for him to be proven to exist, and we are still waiting. Why can't you accept your holy book is a collection of fairy tales? Or do you think David Copperfield can really make an elephant disappear?
@desager1 My religion makes sense to me.It tells me that this world is test and it is up to me to pick signs of HIM and to be successful.If you are given a multiple choice question and you already know the answer so what is the meaning of such test.
What your fellow Atheists are giving explanation is not been proven as well.
@MrWhat316 I thought your god was all knowing, there is nothing you could do that he would not know of before hand, so what is the purpose of the test then. Your god should know what the outcome is before it even starts, it's just illogical. And why would you believe in something that has no evidence beside a book.
@desager1 ur god should know what the outcome is before it even starts
Answer:So at the the day of judgement we will not complain God for not giving us a chance. why would you believe in something that has no evidence beside a book
I am a person who believes in supernatural because of my personal experience through dreams and i believe some people are destine to remain blind and some people are given the right path by God.
@MrWhat316 Dreams are your sub-conscience playing out it's desires, fears, pleasures, ect. "For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." Demosthenes, Third Olynthiac. So you desired/wished there to be a god/supernatural being, and your mind made that true in a dream. Believing in a god simply because of a dream is irrational and illogical.
@MrWhat316 "Why" should your god care whether we can pass a test? We are one species on a insignificant planet among trillions of other planets in a Universe so vast as to be practically beyond comprehension. Compared to the Universe isn't the "test" laughably petty and childish? Doesn't it show the poverty of imagination of the people who thought this silly story up?
@MrWhat316 Also, in other Atheist Experience videos, you may find an argument against this saying that now you putting God as the universe. Why skip the fact that it's a universe and not a God? You're arguing semantics, not if there's a God or not.
@lewisner Why can't you accept the Tooth Fairy is real?
The thing is that major religion of the world i believe are judaism,christanity and Islam and ppl of their respective era accepted those religion because signs are shown to the ppl at that time.Tooth fairy is not a religion anyway so why you mention it?My point is that people did not blindly leave their forefathers religions and accepted new for no reason if you know the history of those then you know what i mean.
@MrWhat316 Your reply is rambling and incoherent."Signs shown to people" hundreds of years ago are MEANINGLESS. Roughly 800 MILLION people in the world believe in the Hindu gods. How are they wrong and you right?
I somehow think that atheists are the ones who don't open their mind just a little bit. She said that as long as this energy is eternal it didn't have to come from an origin. I mean really?! - what, it created itself ? - There must be something that started it back then. I think atheists somehow need a strong proof, maybe God descending to earth and showing himself. There must be something that placed this universe, or even the particle that existed before the BBT. - oh, well maybe ALIENS. lol.
You do not have to get back to something that always existed. Matter & Energy did not exist Pre Big Bang. Steven Hawkings, Lawrence Krauss and others believe the Universe simply popped into existence. The concept of conservation of Energy only applies within the present universe. not Pre Big Bang. These Atheists reject this because it implies Creation of some sort.
@Texmurphy51 "Matter & Energy did not exist Pre Big Bang"--Prove it and energy converting into matter is what caused the Big Bang btw. No knows being knowing what caused the Big Bang. No one is rejecting some thing being created, just being created by some all powerful being that conviently exist outside of nature is what atheists reject. Could you explain how you came to that conclusion? Just wondering because it's pretty flawed.
@HybridD91 Part 1 All calculations start about 10−37 seconds into the expansion of the Universe. Where did the primeval atom come from? If could not have just been sitting there. Some say from Nothing, Some say from another Univserse. YOU say the matter was there Post Big Bang. I say it was Nothing.
Now the argument against God is that you cant prove it, so it doesnt exist.
I say Nothing existed Pre BB,where you say matter existed, I say prove it.
@Texmurphy51 said "I say Nothing existed Pre BB,where you say matter existed, I say prove it." We don't have to. If you say Nothing existed pre BB that includes "god" so you are claiming "god" didn't exist. Well done.
First - I dont claim God did or did Not Exist, I am an Agnostic.
2nd - My reference to Nothing existing means ,matter, spacetime as we know it.
You understand this but have no explanation so resort to a crude trick. I am saying that you can no more prove matter existed pre Big Bang than you can say God existed. You dont know what existed, Thats The Point.
A being or beings could have existed that created our Universe, You cant know.
@Texmurphy51 As with most theists (although you don't admit it) you take an instantly aggressive tone. I'll be more specific.If you posit that "Nothing" (your word) existed before the BB, then that means that "god" or a "being" did not exist since that being, not being "Nothing" must by definition be "Something". If it is composed of Matter or Energy then it exists.If you claim it is composed of something other than matter or energy tell us what that thing is.
@lewisner As with most Atheists you do a personal attack on me, calling me a lier. I am a Agnostic who does not Believe in a God but allows the possibility. My word "Nothing" comes from the idea put forth by Science that Spacetime, matter & energy did not exist, as we know it, pre B.B. The point is what was there is UNKNOWN. Steven Hawking & Lawrence Krauss both say the Universe came from Nothing, so argue with them. You simply dont understand what Nothing Is. You stuck on semantics.
@Texmurphy51 Strawman. I never called you a liar. NOBODY says the Universe came from NOTHING. The Singularity was Matter and Energy super condensed. Didn't you even listen to this video? Nothing is the opposite of existence. It is the absence of Anything.I'm not using semantics, simply using words with their accepted meanings.
@lewisner Dude, the singularity only existed a fraction of a second before the Big Bang. What existed before that????????????? Did a matter singularity sit there for infinity before it exploded? What triggered it?
This series of problems with an infinitely old singularity is what spawned the brane cosmology which has infinite universes spawning new ones.
I used the term NOTHING in the same sense that Hawking & Krauss did in that the NOTHING is not what our Universe is construced from.
@Texmurphy51 "Dude, the singularity only existed a fraction of a second before the Big Bang". What are you talking about? The Singularity existed for an unquantified period before the BB. Nobody knows how long, or what cased the BB.
Nothing means zero, zilch, nowt. Matter is SOMETHING, it EXISTS. SOMETHING did not come from NOTHING.
@lewisner Hawking said that in a Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, & his books.
Your arguing with no facts.Pre B.B. conditions are unknown.Time might not have exited. You cant use conservation of energy to say matter existed also. The mathematics breaks down pre B.B. so speculation can run wild. Most now default to a multiverse. This idea however allows for the possibility of a superintellligent creator.
The funny thing is that most find quantum flux appearing from nothing is ok
@Texmurphy51 "Matter can neither can be created nor destroyed" Please explain how that statement is wrong? More importantly if you claim not to be a theist explain what your purpose is in arguing it is wrong?
@lewisner You dont understand, "matter" only exists in our Universe. Matter, Spacetime, etc did not exist Pre Big Bang. Mathematics break down at the point of singularity, what happened before that is UNKNOWN. Please do some research on the Physics.
E=Mc^2 means matter can be created out of energy, and energy out of matter. It is relatively hard to create matter, but it is possible. The sun constantly uses up matter in the form of hydrogen to create helium. The difference in mass between these two molecules is what fuels the heat and light coming from the sun all the time.
Your statement is false, people spreading old fashioned (newtonian) information can bog down discussions that rely on more accurate physics.
@sharkjack You seem to be a bit lost here "Creation" in the sense that Crotards or god botherers use it it refers to "creating" something out of nothing by magic. When the Sun turns Hydrogen into Helium it isn't "creating" Helium - it is simply converting one type of Matter into another type of Matter. Please tell me you realise this and aren't dumb enough to think the Sun creates Helium out of nothing?
@lewisner Creation out of nothing makes it incorrect, I agree with you there. However I meant create as in the formation of a new element, helium, formed out of the fusion of hydrogen. This to differentiate between chemical reactions, which store energy in the bonds between molecules, which can be released for energy. However in the sun, it is the loss of matter that happens when helium is formed out of hydrogen, that is source of energy for the light coming from the sun.
@sharkjack Nice piece of backtracking once you realised the stupidity of your earlier comment. In no sense is "converting" Hydrogen into Helium "creation" which is a term traditionally used by Creotards to describe an Invisible Man In The Sky "creating" Matter out of nothing.
@HybridD91 Part 2 Many theories say only vacuum fluctions existed Pre BB. These are not MY theories you are saying are flawed. The physical laws of our universe did not exist during or shortly after the BB. I think you better brush up on some Cosmological Theory before you try and use it to disprove a Creator. The idea of saying conservation of energy disproves god is idiotic.
@Texmurphy51 "The idea of saying conservation of energy disproves god is idiotic"--And, what does this have to do with me? Again, no one knows what happened before the cause or what caused the cause. I know the physical laws didn't exist during or shortly after, I was addressing your claims about what was before the Big Bang, no one knows. Brush up on your reading skills and I wasn't trying to disprove God btw.
@HybridD91 As to the conservation of energy disproving God... Did You Watch This Video???? I thought that the discussion was relevent to this Video. You asked me how I came to my conclusions and I am telling you.
It's absolutely fantastic to see the people on the show (the hosts, not the callers) debunk at least my assumption of the Texan redneck. Great to see we've got people spreading the right ideals.
this stupid idiot lady said that matter just exists , we don't know how to destroy it therefore it doesnt need to have a beginning...really? would any scientist claim that any piece of matter in the universe is of infinite age? cause thats what Einstein here is implying....i hate when atheists drastically overestimate their intelligence
Nice that the caller admitted that he simply feels more comfortable believing in something watching over him and guiding him, but HE DOESN'T KNOW. If more faith driven people would talk to Matt and just understand that we have no idea how we got here, but they have hope, and they aren't misguided by any of the shackles of the insanity and contradictions of ANY religion, then the designer hypothesis would probably hold more respect in the scientific community.
These videos are good examples that religion and science do not mix. Priests and scientists at the end of the day are just people. Religion primarily is concerned (or at least should be) living a better life, while science is about trying to understand the universe. I dont like religions claiming to know more than science, but I dont like hearing scientists minimize the utility of religion to the tangible.
@mynameisabag There are and have never been movements of scientists attacking religion (even though they would be justified in many ways). There are only a few outspoken ones today like Dawkins and Myers only in response to religious anti-intellectual arrogance. On the other hand, religion attacking science is a staple of human history, including today with creationist charlatans trying to take over the science classroom, stifling stem-cell research, etc.
Before I was alive... Never existed, this is my world, i observe it trough my senses, it is my perception and only mine matters as it is my universe as we are all our own gods if we choose to believe so
@Scotty2Hotty395 It's possible the story of an old woman arguing with a scientist sprung to mind while she was saying "eternal" & it sounded like she said "a turtle"
One of the best callers I've heard. Someone who actually seemed to want to learn/understand, rather than just preach. Most certainly my fav clip that I've seen yet.
I have a big problem with the 'people need an explanation to comfort them' defense of religion. The problem I have is when the explanation is defined in a way that makes it irrefutable by reasoning or evidence, but the explanation also involves a moral system. A moral system that is practised by someone is not a private matter since it naturally concerns other people, and yet we have a situation where it becomes impossible to have a rational debate about the justification for the moral system.
The question of God aside, I CAN answer Dillahunty's question. Saying "God created the universe" IS different than saying "pixie's did it." This is because when speaking about "God" we are assuming a creator whose nature we admit we can't grasp. Saying "pixie's did it" actually IS more absurd, because we "know" the nature of pixie's through fairy tales, etc. and "know" that they're a human invention. (insert dorky atheist rebuttal here about how you "know" God is a human invention too, lol.)
Except for the fact that we "Know" the nature of "God" as much as we "know" the nature of pixies. Would you prefer he said "Titans"? Because these are both incomprehensible metaphysical beings capable of universal creation.
Your argument seems to be that the inherent definition of god requires that you don't understand it.
You're right to a point. I'm not saying that the definition 'requires' that we don't understand God. I'm saying that philosophically, 'God' is a being we can't ascribe attributes to because (acc. to belief) he made us, not the other way around. The Bible is really a bunch of speculation about the attributes of God. Pixies, (and to a point Titans) we've generally 'proven' don't exist and that we invented them. Harder to do that with God because he's still a working explanation for many people.
@instereovideos It's no less impossible to prove the non-existence of pixies as it is for gods, regardless of how many people currently regard either theory more valid.
The only thing we can say for sure about either proposition (god vs pixies) as a cause for the universe, is that they both must be capable of creating a universe within which intelligent life can postulate their existences in the absence of any evidence. All such theories are therefore equally weighted.
@waspbloke thanks. notice i didn't bring "how many people regard either theory more valid" into it. You missed what I said, so you're not really arguing a point. If you read it right, you'd see that yes, it is "less impossible" even though that phrase doesn't make sense, so you probably mean "less probable." So no, all theories are not "therefore equally weighted." You have to think it through : )
@cantleysugar Nice nursery rhyme. However, perpetual motion of an object is impossible when there is friction slowing the object down. But no object will ever become completely static because THAT is impossible, there will always be movement, if only on the subatomic scale. In a vacuum, an object will contine moving forever. Logic has everything it needs. The spirit is an illusion.
@cantleysugar Well, that's a completely unrelated issue, nice one. But since you asked, i rather like this little stock reply to the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question: "Well, why not? Why expect nothing rather than something? No experiment could support the hypothesis There is nothing because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer."
@cantleysugar In other words, what reason is there to think that nothing should exist rather than something? I also like this answer: "I don't know, maybe God did it, but if he did, then why is there a God rather than no God?" There we go, an infinite regress for you.
@cantleysugar Excuse me? Scientists want to discover ALL the answers, they won't stop with the original cause. However, science first needs to establish if there ever even was an original cause. We can't make informed guesses about a causal event before we've established that there was one. If we ever find out that there was an original cause, then of course i'll be curious about it. I just don't want to jump to any PREMATURE conclusions, that's all. But with science, curiosity never ends, ever.
And Allah has Created every animal from water; of them are some creeping on their bellies; some walk on two legs; and some on four. Allah Creates what He wills: for sure Allah has Power over all things.
Why don't we wory about Jes killing 1400 people in 2 days,istead what happen 1400 years ago even if not true.
Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. ..... "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him ." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) What a corraption.
It just occurred to me, maybe you mean Joshua. Well, no Christian sees Joshua as a role model, but every Muslim (correct me if I'm wrong here) sees Muhammad as the ultimate role model. This is a problem since Muhammad was a murdering sadist who slept with a nine year old girl.
And the book you follow is full of raping, enslaving, pillaging, marauders...what's your point?
That's my biggest beef with all religion...they all tout themselves as being the highest of moral standards, but you find no morals when reading ANY of their scriptures. But blind followers don't read scripture, they leave it to their priests and holy authorities to tell them what is what, who do a great job at picking and choosing.
Actually current evidence shows that the universe is expanding at a rapidly increasing rate. For the universe to be able to contract on itself, it would have to be slowing down and it isn't.
So I'm not allowed to use words that are in the dictionary? Fuck off. They're words like any other, and if that's the only defense you have, you have no defense.
You just said that there's something wrong with the logic that states that no evidence is equivalent to non-existence. If you see a problem with that statement, then I say that unicorns exist. There's no evidence, but that doesn't stop me from believing they exist, as improbable as their existence is. How retarded do I sound?
I see what you're trying to do. You're saying that because we have no evidence for a god now, we can't assume they don't exist.
Theists have had thousands of years to show their evidence and they have failed. There is no reason to believe that something (God) came from nothing, which is the theist claim, not the claim of the Big Bang theory.
I suggest you sue any school that never told you how idiotic your argument is.
They don't believe in it. They test for it and come up with ideas that may explain the phenomena that they see. Big difference, as no one tests for God; they just assume he exists without even thinking about the consequences of that belief.
Scientists don't 'believe' in a multiverse, they have theories that support the likely existence of such phenomenons, they did not just come out one day and say 'Hey, you know what would be really cool...'.
They may have been out there, but it was the evidence that was discovered that caused us to acknowledge their existence. No one just got up one morning and said..I think I'm going to invent the concept of a black hole and assume they exist, then look for evidence to support my theory, that's not how science works. Science doesn't make incredible claims without incredible evidence.
I'll say it right now, if there isn't any evidence for something's existence, then it doesn't manifest itself in reality, and if something doesn't manifest in reality, then there's no way to tell it apart from something that doesn't exist. Therefor it does not exist. Something can't exist unless it manifests in some measurable way, otherwise it's existence came from someone's imagination. It's a cart before the horse situation.
That's not their logic. Their logic is if there's no evidence for something, then it is incorrect to assert that it does exist. Positive claims require positive evidence.
Yep, but the universes aren't just bubbles in a boiling kettle. So that's a pretty dumb question. Your analogy is one that specifically requires a creator. If a tree grows in the forest, who planted it? No one.
I hope you are being facetious with your analogy...because if you are trying to make a point then you are only making a fool of yourself.
You are spinning your question to presume a who and eliminate the possibility of a what. People are familiar with a kettle requiring a person to turn it on, so it offers some false credibility. The question you should be asking is: If the universe had a beginning, what caused it to begin. To then leap from 'a what' to 'a who' requires evidence of a who.
Ok again, there's no kettle, so stop using your flawed analogy...
As for 'what' caused the universe to exist, you are again assuming things you don't have evidence for. Could it not be possible that the universe existed in some other state before it was transformed into the state we know it as today? We see examples of this all the time and it requires no god; take water transforming into steam for example. Through energy, matter can be transformed from one state to another.
with knowledge should come understanding, and with understanding should come reason..true knowledge doesn't come from inserting answers for unknowns . it distorts the whole process whichs, in the end, leads to faulty reasoning.
As much as I enjoy ardent creationists being cut down by Matt and Tracy, I enjoy it much more when creationists call and are open to learning M and T's position.
He's on his way to atheisation. ^^ just They give him the tools to make his own path.... And he's one of the rare to listen to what is said... How refreshing...
I absolutely agree with you both. When you can get someone out of their belief delusion, the person in question probably feels better knowing that they are wiser than they were before.
This has been flagged as spam show
:"big bang: put firecracker under pile of lumber - explosion = a house."
Actually the thing I remember from my Cosmology teacher,case he used to say it in almost every session was "you can create a universe from a sack of potatoes"
My problem with the Cosmology teachers Sack of potatoes or the Catholic Priest's "super atom" is tha that atom or the poatoes turning into a universe breaks the laws of thermal dynamics by creating more matter and energy then started with
Big Bang is creationist crap
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
big bang: put firecracker under pile of lumber - explosion = a house.
sue200012 1 month ago
@sue200012 I think you might need to read up on the big bang theory. Thats way off.
TheDharmawheel 1 week ago
two multiverses collided and the result was our multiverse :-)
oh and culture is not your friend :-)
i think i feel a lot like the caller. i was raised christian but now that i think for myself and blind faith seems unwise. at the same time something in me really wants to beleive in some form of creationism. i soo wanna be around when/if we find an undisputed answer
merrick926 1 month ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
...I'd say it's likely we'll know at some point whether Jesus existed and if so what he said. The Christians (and probably the Muslims, when the Christians have given up) will fight it every step of the way, though...
IoEstasCedonta 2 months ago
These two are intelligent fools... Or "clever devils" as C.S. would say.
Hommel125 2 months ago
Comment removed
Hommel125 2 months ago
0:54 Really? metaresearch(dot)org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
8:48 Sure you can, the New Testament accounts of Jesus clearly show who He was/is...
9:17 As a Christian, I don't attribute everything that I don't know to God...
9:28 When did it become acceptable to accept the fallacy of macro-evolution? There is NO evidence...The little that has been presented has either been manipulated or has been a lie...
kachoban 3 months ago
@kachoban Your claim on macroevolution is a lie. But you wouldn't (and I'll bet, couldn't) see it.
meaninter03 3 months ago
@meaninter03 Macro evolution has never been observed. Quite often in these debates examples such as the peppered moth and viruses are presented as proof for Darwinian macro evolution when in fact these are great examples of micro evolution.
All you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). You never see any new information arising in a cell. Also, graduated transitional fossils are non-existent.
It's that simple.
kachoban 3 months ago
@kachoban OK. No one's observed Jesus doing miracles, nor god. And yet you believe those stories.
meaninter03 3 months ago
@meaninter03 So, you willingly admit that it IS a faith issue? Look, Atheism primary cause is NOT lack of evidence of God, but a resent particularly toward Christianity. That should really say something about Christians; something really BAD. Christians are directly responsible for many turning to Atheism, because of the vast amount of hypocrisy in the Church. But, there is A LOT more to Atheism than meets the eye.
kachoban 3 months ago
@kachoban Lies. Your religion is not the center of the universe.
And what more is there to the simple notion that I don't believe in non existent supernatural nothing?
meaninter03 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"No one's observed Jesus doing miracles"
Walking on stones in stormy water cause he knew thearea,telling someone to add water to the wine barrels to react with the consentrate on the bottom and knowing that his friend lazzereth had a sleeping disorder that would make him appear "dead" to those that did not know is hardly "miricles"
"nor god"
Define god
If you say a man up in the sky sitting on a cloud with his angels,nope
If you say God=force that binds/animates/converts matter,life,& energy(?)
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
Amazing response from Tracy :)
kamath234 4 months ago
89 people think the Universe was built by transcendent magical universe buildin pixies.
lewisner 5 months ago
In the beginning there was god and it said Abracadabra and the universe said woah! Cool! and therefore it was created.
DallasMavericksGuy 6 months ago
Something to consider about the claim about intelligent design.
The earth moving around the Sun in 365.2425 days. It is hardly a intelligent timeperiod as it makes any form of time keeping messy to say the least. If God made the earth then why did he not bother to round off the decimal by adjusting the mass of the earth to conform with the gravitational pull of the sun so it would travel at 365 precisely. While if it formed naturally, irregularities like this are normal.
AMomentOfClarity2011 7 months ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 I don't believe in God but the answer to your question is simple enough. We, humans, "created" time frames & perios. Time itself is motionless & effortless but in order for us to understand it we made a time frame; from millseconds to millenia. The Earth simply moves as it does. The 365.2425 days that it takes was OUR decision & OUR calculation.
belwoodzzzz 6 months ago
@belwoodzzzz We base our maths on our reality, our base 10 is based on the number of fingers we have.
The day is calculated based on the time it takes for the earth to revolve (night to day and the movement of the sun). While I only posted this lightheartedly, the concept of an uneven timespan is not JUST human derived but derived from the observation of reality. If reality is imprecise then it goes to strengthen my point that the universe is not intelligently designed but randomly formed.
AMomentOfClarity2011 6 months ago
this video should be more popular.
this man is looking for answers, he didn't call to preach or debate, he came to DISCUSS about philosophical question.
although i am excited by debates, I feel much better after discussing something with someone, each of us explains what he thinks in a calm way until we get to the ultimate. we do not come to say "im right you'r wrong!". we come to understand things better. It's so much better than a debate.
kidi1232 7 months ago 8
@kidi1232 i don't think this guy's looking for an 'answer' to his 'philosophical question' at all? if he was, he wouldn't be repeating & asking the EXACT same question that they already gave a perfectly good answer to. if he wanted an answer, he'd have moved on already. he seems to be 'soft selling' his belief in a god; he 'thinks' he has a 'profound question': but doesn't. he's being deceptive by pretending that he (sorta, kinda) agrees, but then goes on to repeat the same 'question'.
bunkopaniczny 2 months ago
I think this kid just essientially wanted to know what caused the big bang, which no one knows obviously
pulseshock2009 8 months ago
this energy and matter permeate our very being as humans. so what happens to it when our physical body dies? I'm not religious, I don't particularly subscribe to any theory because I don't know.
monsieurkarl 9 months ago
@monsieurkarl The energy dissipates as heat (your body goes cold when you die) and the matter is recycled by worms or in the case of your skeleton takes a long time to break down.
lewisner 8 months ago
Matt should be the fifth horseman. Matt 2012.
kappapi560 10 months ago
To answer matt question at the end: Its because ppl are scared of the dark, scared of what they dont know and it is admiting a weakness. (Knowledge is power)
Yahweigh 11 months ago
Its all turtles from here...
13eyond13irthday030 11 months ago
This is a good example of what healthy skepticism is. Alway listen, try to understand, ask what you don't, ect.
TearsOfWar1 11 months ago
all hail the cosmic turtle!
ShroomFuu86 1 year ago
Can't cross the event horizon?! But SG1 does it all the time!
Kingucktoad 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
soyfrutodetuimaginacion.blogspot.com
LeatherEira 1 year ago
I just read the video again and I loled about something, and it might be crazy... Just listen: You can say "proof there's god?" but it's a double-argument, for you can return to say "proof there isn't god". Atheist: "We began at the big bang. Don't know how, but we began there." Theist: "We did, but we also had complexities within our universe. Mathematical systems, lifeforms built like artwork. To say that just comes out of air... that's like believing in nothing (to his pixie reference lol)"
massiahmassiah7 1 year ago
@massiahmassiah7 not sure I get what you´re saying...
bommobiel 9 months ago
Hawking also said the universe didn't always exist. I think it was a book.I might have my sources wrong about him. But he isn't my source. There's actual timing of our universe's existence. It began 13.5 billion years ago. It started from a piece smaller than an atom. We know not what it is, and created everything. It is PHYSICALLY God. You can say it is a deity, powerful being, be comfortable to your taste. But you are hugging with your own ignorance that it isn't our creator.PHYSICAL term God.
massiahmassiah7 1 year ago
@massiahmassiah7 I think a 'creator' implies intelligence and foresight? The Big Bang therefore did not create us, it started a proces. Unknowingly. We humens are a form of art, on a giant canvas which may contain many forms of art. Also I would disagree on the idea the singularity was smaller then an atom. It actually had to contain all the energy and matter (just energy I think) to fill the universe we know today. It may just be, that it was the dense center of a cosmic Black Hole that Banged.
bukifuriku 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know the big bang, you sort of go toe-to-toe with knowing the idea that we have a creator (that little dot). Now, people can manipulate its meaning, but it did "create" us. Therefore is God by definition. Not so entirely a deity or powerful being, but a thing that creates an entire realm of existence.
massiahmassiah7 1 year ago
tracice looks amazing in this episodes
ddbd 1 year ago
That man was my favorite caller.... He was the only one I ever saw to hang up on his own accord, and didn't argue 'till disconnection.... a respectable dude if you ask me
KaslarProductions 1 year ago
the bible and christianity is just a peace keeping object its nothing more and nothing less
RzRpkWrathMrMoo 1 year ago
This guy is an obvious homosexual. Evolution and or atheism is the bastion of the homosexual.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick
You don't actually know what a homosexual is, do you?
LordOmberus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thechessstick
You don't actually know what a homosexual is, do you?
LordOmberus 1 year ago
@thechessstick can'ttellifserious.jpg
geilman 1 year ago
@thechessstick Says the homo. Ya want to get tagether some time??? Ill bring your inner man out ;)
gotnatas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey all of you evolutionists. Do you know what you are? You are government sheep. The government indoctrinated you and so you remain. You are just a bunch of government patsies. Can't think on your own and to cowardly too fight.
thechessstick 1 year ago
It is quite obvious that we are missing something say, the nature dark matter dark energy or even the laws which govern a black hole on a quantum scale. We do know relativity appears to be contingent on a cosmological constant, which is most likely a simpler forum of matter. By our calculations we can see the way this eternal scalar field acts such as a higgs field and dark matter. We as naturalist are in good grounds to say what made and makes Universe isn't intelligent.
SuperSharko 1 year ago
Every athiest reading this I'll make you a deal. Pray with me once and if nothing happens I'll leave you alone. God isn't real so you have nothing to worry about right? Time to put your money where your mouth is. Let us pray. Repeat this prayer. "Lord, Father of Jesus, if you are real, may I be completely miserable until I ask for forgiveness of my sins and accept you as my Lord and Savior."
kuss86 1 year ago
@kuss86 cool story brah
misnoto 1 year ago
@kuss86 You idiot! lol!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@kuss86 Prayer is a waste of time. It has been proven scientifically. Any testable result that supposedly came from prayer can be explained by science. If prayer works, then why hasn't god healed a paraplegic by regrowing his limbs? How many people pray to god to make them win the lottery? How many people win? One, maybe. The bible says prayer will work every time. It never does. Prayer is a waste of time.
WhosAsking03 1 year ago
2:05
Shut up, Matt.
Tracie's talking.
You've hogged enough airtime.
If you're going to have co-hosts, then treat them with respect.
If you have to be the center of attention throughout each episode, then don't have co-hosts.
SinnFein4ever 1 year ago
@SinnFein4ever The caller was talking, not the co-host.
IWantToBelieve2887 1 year ago
@SinnFein4ever she isn't as good an orator as Matt is why
bman16407 1 year ago
Tracie's hair needs to evolve.
ROMEYYOUROCK 1 year ago
What's the song at the beginning? It sounds like Tool.
HeavenlyRa 1 year ago
So Atheist believes that universe is uncreated and always existed so why they can't accept that God is uncreated and eternal??
MrWhat316 1 year ago
@MrWhat316 Because the universe exists, your god has not been proven to exist, we have waited 2,000 years for him to be proven to exist, and we are still waiting. Why can't you accept your holy book is a collection of fairy tales? Or do you think David Copperfield can really make an elephant disappear?
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 My religion makes sense to me.It tells me that this world is test and it is up to me to pick signs of HIM and to be successful.If you are given a multiple choice question and you already know the answer so what is the meaning of such test.
What your fellow Atheists are giving explanation is not been proven as well.
MrWhat316 1 year ago
@MrWhat316 I thought your god was all knowing, there is nothing you could do that he would not know of before hand, so what is the purpose of the test then. Your god should know what the outcome is before it even starts, it's just illogical. And why would you believe in something that has no evidence beside a book.
desager1 1 year ago
@desager1 ur god should know what the outcome is before it even starts
Answer:So at the the day of judgement we will not complain God for not giving us a chance. why would you believe in something that has no evidence beside a book
I am a person who believes in supernatural because of my personal experience through dreams and i believe some people are destine to remain blind and some people are given the right path by God.
MrWhat316 1 year ago
@MrWhat316 Dreams are your sub-conscience playing out it's desires, fears, pleasures, ect. "For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." Demosthenes, Third Olynthiac. So you desired/wished there to be a god/supernatural being, and your mind made that true in a dream. Believing in a god simply because of a dream is irrational and illogical.
desager1 1 year ago
@MrWhat316 "Why" should your god care whether we can pass a test? We are one species on a insignificant planet among trillions of other planets in a Universe so vast as to be practically beyond comprehension. Compared to the Universe isn't the "test" laughably petty and childish? Doesn't it show the poverty of imagination of the people who thought this silly story up?
lewisner 1 year ago
@MrWhat316 Also, in other Atheist Experience videos, you may find an argument against this saying that now you putting God as the universe. Why skip the fact that it's a universe and not a God? You're arguing semantics, not if there's a God or not.
HeavenlyRa 1 year ago
@MrWhat316 Why can't you accept the Tooth Fairy is real?
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner Why can't you accept the Tooth Fairy is real?
The thing is that major religion of the world i believe are judaism,christanity and Islam and ppl of their respective era accepted those religion because signs are shown to the ppl at that time.Tooth fairy is not a religion anyway so why you mention it?My point is that people did not blindly leave their forefathers religions and accepted new for no reason if you know the history of those then you know what i mean.
MrWhat316 1 year ago
@MrWhat316 Your reply is rambling and incoherent."Signs shown to people" hundreds of years ago are MEANINGLESS. Roughly 800 MILLION people in the world believe in the Hindu gods. How are they wrong and you right?
lewisner 1 year ago
Like Bill Maher said, I preach the gospel of "I don't know".
gupsphoo 1 year ago
Depeche Mode AND Free Enquiry? nice.
kitchenaut 1 year ago
I somehow think that atheists are the ones who don't open their mind just a little bit. She said that as long as this energy is eternal it didn't have to come from an origin. I mean really?! - what, it created itself ? - There must be something that started it back then. I think atheists somehow need a strong proof, maybe God descending to earth and showing himself. There must be something that placed this universe, or even the particle that existed before the BBT. - oh, well maybe ALIENS. lol.
flywithfeet 1 year ago
@flywithfeet again, with your logic its safe to assume that this god must have been planted aswell.
VarykGerai 1 year ago
You do not have to get back to something that always existed. Matter & Energy did not exist Pre Big Bang. Steven Hawkings, Lawrence Krauss and others believe the Universe simply popped into existence. The concept of conservation of Energy only applies within the present universe. not Pre Big Bang. These Atheists reject this because it implies Creation of some sort.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 "Matter & Energy did not exist Pre Big Bang"--Prove it and energy converting into matter is what caused the Big Bang btw. No knows being knowing what caused the Big Bang. No one is rejecting some thing being created, just being created by some all powerful being that conviently exist outside of nature is what atheists reject. Could you explain how you came to that conclusion? Just wondering because it's pretty flawed.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 *No one knows what caused the cause of the Big Bang*
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 Part 1 All calculations start about 10−37 seconds into the expansion of the Universe. Where did the primeval atom come from? If could not have just been sitting there. Some say from Nothing, Some say from another Univserse. YOU say the matter was there Post Big Bang. I say it was Nothing.
Now the argument against God is that you cant prove it, so it doesnt exist.
I say Nothing existed Pre BB,where you say matter existed, I say prove it.
....continued
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 "YOU say the matter was there Post Big Bang. I say it was Nothing"--Energy converted into matter, that's what caused the Big Bang.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 said "I say Nothing existed Pre BB,where you say matter existed, I say prove it." We don't have to. If you say Nothing existed pre BB that includes "god" so you are claiming "god" didn't exist. Well done.
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner Nice play on words.
First - I dont claim God did or did Not Exist, I am an Agnostic.
2nd - My reference to Nothing existing means ,matter, spacetime as we know it.
You understand this but have no explanation so resort to a crude trick. I am saying that you can no more prove matter existed pre Big Bang than you can say God existed. You dont know what existed, Thats The Point.
A being or beings could have existed that created our Universe, You cant know.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 As with most theists (although you don't admit it) you take an instantly aggressive tone. I'll be more specific.If you posit that "Nothing" (your word) existed before the BB, then that means that "god" or a "being" did not exist since that being, not being "Nothing" must by definition be "Something". If it is composed of Matter or Energy then it exists.If you claim it is composed of something other than matter or energy tell us what that thing is.
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner As with most Atheists you do a personal attack on me, calling me a lier. I am a Agnostic who does not Believe in a God but allows the possibility. My word "Nothing" comes from the idea put forth by Science that Spacetime, matter & energy did not exist, as we know it, pre B.B. The point is what was there is UNKNOWN. Steven Hawking & Lawrence Krauss both say the Universe came from Nothing, so argue with them. You simply dont understand what Nothing Is. You stuck on semantics.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Strawman. I never called you a liar. NOBODY says the Universe came from NOTHING. The Singularity was Matter and Energy super condensed. Didn't you even listen to this video? Nothing is the opposite of existence. It is the absence of Anything.I'm not using semantics, simply using words with their accepted meanings.
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner Dude, the singularity only existed a fraction of a second before the Big Bang. What existed before that????????????? Did a matter singularity sit there for infinity before it exploded? What triggered it?
This series of problems with an infinitely old singularity is what spawned the brane cosmology which has infinite universes spawning new ones.
I used the term NOTHING in the same sense that Hawking & Krauss did in that the NOTHING is not what our Universe is construced from.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 "Dude, the singularity only existed a fraction of a second before the Big Bang". What are you talking about? The Singularity existed for an unquantified period before the BB. Nobody knows how long, or what cased the BB.
Nothing means zero, zilch, nowt. Matter is SOMETHING, it EXISTS. SOMETHING did not come from NOTHING.
BTW where did Hawking say that?
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner Hawking said that in a Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, & his books.
Your arguing with no facts.Pre B.B. conditions are unknown.Time might not have exited. You cant use conservation of energy to say matter existed also. The mathematics breaks down pre B.B. so speculation can run wild. Most now default to a multiverse. This idea however allows for the possibility of a superintellligent creator.
The funny thing is that most find quantum flux appearing from nothing is ok
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 "Matter can neither can be created nor destroyed" Please explain how that statement is wrong? More importantly if you claim not to be a theist explain what your purpose is in arguing it is wrong?
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner You dont understand, "matter" only exists in our Universe. Matter, Spacetime, etc did not exist Pre Big Bang. Mathematics break down at the point of singularity, what happened before that is UNKNOWN. Please do some research on the Physics.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Groan.
lewisner 1 year ago
E=Mc^2 means matter can be created out of energy, and energy out of matter. It is relatively hard to create matter, but it is possible. The sun constantly uses up matter in the form of hydrogen to create helium. The difference in mass between these two molecules is what fuels the heat and light coming from the sun all the time.
Your statement is false, people spreading old fashioned (newtonian) information can bog down discussions that rely on more accurate physics.
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack You seem to be a bit lost here "Creation" in the sense that Crotards or god botherers use it it refers to "creating" something out of nothing by magic. When the Sun turns Hydrogen into Helium it isn't "creating" Helium - it is simply converting one type of Matter into another type of Matter. Please tell me you realise this and aren't dumb enough to think the Sun creates Helium out of nothing?
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner Creation out of nothing makes it incorrect, I agree with you there. However I meant create as in the formation of a new element, helium, formed out of the fusion of hydrogen. This to differentiate between chemical reactions, which store energy in the bonds between molecules, which can be released for energy. However in the sun, it is the loss of matter that happens when helium is formed out of hydrogen, that is source of energy for the light coming from the sun.
sharkjack 1 year ago
@sharkjack Nice piece of backtracking once you realised the stupidity of your earlier comment. In no sense is "converting" Hydrogen into Helium "creation" which is a term traditionally used by Creotards to describe an Invisible Man In The Sky "creating" Matter out of nothing.
lewisner 1 year ago
@HybridD91 Part 2 Many theories say only vacuum fluctions existed Pre BB. These are not MY theories you are saying are flawed. The physical laws of our universe did not exist during or shortly after the BB. I think you better brush up on some Cosmological Theory before you try and use it to disprove a Creator. The idea of saying conservation of energy disproves god is idiotic.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 "The idea of saying conservation of energy disproves god is idiotic"--And, what does this have to do with me? Again, no one knows what happened before the cause or what caused the cause. I know the physical laws didn't exist during or shortly after, I was addressing your claims about what was before the Big Bang, no one knows. Brush up on your reading skills and I wasn't trying to disprove God btw.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 As to the conservation of energy disproving God... Did You Watch This Video???? I thought that the discussion was relevent to this Video. You asked me how I came to my conclusions and I am telling you.
Watch the video
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
It's absolutely fantastic to see the people on the show (the hosts, not the callers) debunk at least my assumption of the Texan redneck. Great to see we've got people spreading the right ideals.
Flamefrog 1 year ago
this stupid idiot lady said that matter just exists , we don't know how to destroy it therefore it doesnt need to have a beginning...really? would any scientist claim that any piece of matter in the universe is of infinite age? cause thats what Einstein here is implying....i hate when atheists drastically overestimate their intelligence
rokikay 1 year ago
Nice that the caller admitted that he simply feels more comfortable believing in something watching over him and guiding him, but HE DOESN'T KNOW. If more faith driven people would talk to Matt and just understand that we have no idea how we got here, but they have hope, and they aren't misguided by any of the shackles of the insanity and contradictions of ANY religion, then the designer hypothesis would probably hold more respect in the scientific community.
KaitonsCorner 1 year ago
These videos are good examples that religion and science do not mix. Priests and scientists at the end of the day are just people. Religion primarily is concerned (or at least should be) living a better life, while science is about trying to understand the universe. I dont like religions claiming to know more than science, but I dont like hearing scientists minimize the utility of religion to the tangible.
mynameisabag 1 year ago
@mynameisabag There are and have never been movements of scientists attacking religion (even though they would be justified in many ways). There are only a few outspoken ones today like Dawkins and Myers only in response to religious anti-intellectual arrogance. On the other hand, religion attacking science is a staple of human history, including today with creationist charlatans trying to take over the science classroom, stifling stem-cell research, etc.
trtnec 1 year ago
Before I was alive... Never existed, this is my world, i observe it trough my senses, it is my perception and only mine matters as it is my universe as we are all our own gods if we choose to believe so
MintzJunior 1 year ago
:(
I'm part of a minority. I guess that means I'm wrong.
GodofChaos45 1 year ago
l like this caller, I don't know he just seems less douchey than a lot of other callers.
CENSOREDFORSEX 1 year ago
is tracy saying that the universe is 'eternal' or 'a turtle'?
Scotty2Hotty395 1 year ago 24
@Scotty2Hotty395 She's saying that there is no beginning. Therefore the Universe is eternal.
TheAndyLoraProgram 1 year ago
@TheAndyLoraProgram Something has got to be eternal. Nothing cant exist
LBTennis 1 year ago
@LBTennis I agree - it is eternal.
TheAndyLoraProgram 1 year ago
@Scotty2Hotty395 A turtle.
LBTennis 1 year ago
@Scotty2Hotty395 a turtle methinks
oOpumpkinheadOo 1 year ago
@Scotty2Hotty395 Definitely a turtle , ask NephlimFree to tell you why.
akulabite 10 months ago
@Scotty2Hotty395 I like turtles.
bommobiel 9 months ago
@Scotty2Hotty395 it's on a turtle duh! dont you even know that? lol
TheGodlessGuitarist 7 months ago
@Scotty2Hotty395 It's possible the story of an old woman arguing with a scientist sprung to mind while she was saying "eternal" & it sounded like she said "a turtle"
Tarynus 5 months ago
One of the best callers I've heard. Someone who actually seemed to want to learn/understand, rather than just preach. Most certainly my fav clip that I've seen yet.
BoooDave 1 year ago 40
I have a big problem with the 'people need an explanation to comfort them' defense of religion. The problem I have is when the explanation is defined in a way that makes it irrefutable by reasoning or evidence, but the explanation also involves a moral system. A moral system that is practised by someone is not a private matter since it naturally concerns other people, and yet we have a situation where it becomes impossible to have a rational debate about the justification for the moral system.
TorstenBaden 1 year ago
HOPEFULLY ILL RIP =)
MintzJunior 1 year ago
@MintzJunior Is there any other way to rest? Dont worry tho. Remember how it was before you were alive. Yea thats what it will be like.
LBTennis 1 year ago
The question of God aside, I CAN answer Dillahunty's question. Saying "God created the universe" IS different than saying "pixie's did it." This is because when speaking about "God" we are assuming a creator whose nature we admit we can't grasp. Saying "pixie's did it" actually IS more absurd, because we "know" the nature of pixie's through fairy tales, etc. and "know" that they're a human invention. (insert dorky atheist rebuttal here about how you "know" God is a human invention too, lol.)
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos
Except for the fact that we "Know" the nature of "God" as much as we "know" the nature of pixies. Would you prefer he said "Titans"? Because these are both incomprehensible metaphysical beings capable of universal creation.
Your argument seems to be that the inherent definition of god requires that you don't understand it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
You're right to a point. I'm not saying that the definition 'requires' that we don't understand God. I'm saying that philosophically, 'God' is a being we can't ascribe attributes to because (acc. to belief) he made us, not the other way around. The Bible is really a bunch of speculation about the attributes of God. Pixies, (and to a point Titans) we've generally 'proven' don't exist and that we invented them. Harder to do that with God because he's still a working explanation for many people.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos It's no less impossible to prove the non-existence of pixies as it is for gods, regardless of how many people currently regard either theory more valid.
The only thing we can say for sure about either proposition (god vs pixies) as a cause for the universe, is that they both must be capable of creating a universe within which intelligent life can postulate their existences in the absence of any evidence. All such theories are therefore equally weighted.
waspbloke 1 year ago
@waspbloke thanks. notice i didn't bring "how many people regard either theory more valid" into it. You missed what I said, so you're not really arguing a point. If you read it right, you'd see that yes, it is "less impossible" even though that phrase doesn't make sense, so you probably mean "less probable." So no, all theories are not "therefore equally weighted." You have to think it through : )
instereovideos 1 year ago
Eternal movement, as a notion,
Is nothing but perpetual motion.
And that, as you can plainly see
Is an impossibility.
But at the point where science
The spirit gives what logic lacks
cantleysugar 2 years ago
@cantleysugar Nice nursery rhyme. However, perpetual motion of an object is impossible when there is friction slowing the object down. But no object will ever become completely static because THAT is impossible, there will always be movement, if only on the subatomic scale. In a vacuum, an object will contine moving forever. Logic has everything it needs. The spirit is an illusion.
BrokenBassBin 1 year ago
@BrokenBassBin Okay smartypants, why is there something rather than nothing?
cantleysugar 1 year ago
@cantleysugar Well, that's a completely unrelated issue, nice one. But since you asked, i rather like this little stock reply to the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question: "Well, why not? Why expect nothing rather than something? No experiment could support the hypothesis There is nothing because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer."
BrokenBassBin 1 year ago
@cantleysugar In other words, what reason is there to think that nothing should exist rather than something? I also like this answer: "I don't know, maybe God did it, but if he did, then why is there a God rather than no God?" There we go, an infinite regress for you.
BrokenBassBin 1 year ago
@BrokenBassBin
.
Okay science may be about finding a reason
For stuff that we don't understand,
But original cause is where your curiosity
Reaches a premature end.
cantleysugar 1 year ago
@cantleysugar Excuse me? Scientists want to discover ALL the answers, they won't stop with the original cause. However, science first needs to establish if there ever even was an original cause. We can't make informed guesses about a causal event before we've established that there was one. If we ever find out that there was an original cause, then of course i'll be curious about it. I just don't want to jump to any PREMATURE conclusions, that's all. But with science, curiosity never ends, ever.
BrokenBassBin 1 year ago
Great finish, Matt
yurity 2 years ago
And Allah has Created every animal from water; of them are some creeping on their bellies; some walk on two legs; and some on four. Allah Creates what He wills: for sure Allah has Power over all things.
[Noble Quran 24:45]
Godmadereligion 2 years ago
Dear Muslim can you tell me who
beheaded seven hundred Jews?
And is it true all Muslims try
To emulate that crazy guy?
cantleysugar 2 years ago
Why don't we wory about Jes killing 1400 people in 2 days,istead what happen 1400 years ago even if not true.
Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. ..... "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him ." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) What a corraption.
Godmadereligion 2 years ago
I'm guessing English is not your first language. Who the hell is Jes??
cantleysugar 2 years ago
It just occurred to me, maybe you mean Joshua. Well, no Christian sees Joshua as a role model, but every Muslim (correct me if I'm wrong here) sees Muhammad as the ultimate role model. This is a problem since Muhammad was a murdering sadist who slept with a nine year old girl.
cantleysugar 2 years ago
And the book you follow is full of raping, enslaving, pillaging, marauders...what's your point?
That's my biggest beef with all religion...they all tout themselves as being the highest of moral standards, but you find no morals when reading ANY of their scriptures. But blind followers don't read scripture, they leave it to their priests and holy authorities to tell them what is what, who do a great job at picking and choosing.
JD2005 2 years ago 3
Wow...so you're prejudice and deluded?
I think you belong on FSTDT/RSTDT
SkythIII 2 years ago
2:50
Actually current evidence shows that the universe is expanding at a rapidly increasing rate. For the universe to be able to contract on itself, it would have to be slowing down and it isn't.
MrKennyKRH 2 years ago
I liked this caller, he seems very reasonable
luker4459 2 years ago 2
So if there;s no evidence for something, then it does not exist. That's their logic.
Who can spot the flaw?
cantleysugar 2 years ago
@cantleysugar
Are you fucking retarded? Seriously?
zach312 2 years ago
Maybe I am retarded, but at least I can express myself without resorting to obscenities.
cantleysugar 2 years ago
So I'm not allowed to use words that are in the dictionary? Fuck off. They're words like any other, and if that's the only defense you have, you have no defense.
You just said that there's something wrong with the logic that states that no evidence is equivalent to non-existence. If you see a problem with that statement, then I say that unicorns exist. There's no evidence, but that doesn't stop me from believing they exist, as improbable as their existence is. How retarded do I sound?
zach312 2 years ago
100 years ago there was no evidence for black holes. But they were still out there.
By the way, I suggest you sue your charm school.
cantleysugar 2 years ago
I see what you're trying to do. You're saying that because we have no evidence for a god now, we can't assume they don't exist.
Theists have had thousands of years to show their evidence and they have failed. There is no reason to believe that something (God) came from nothing, which is the theist claim, not the claim of the Big Bang theory.
I suggest you sue any school that never told you how idiotic your argument is.
zach312 2 years ago
Show me evidence for the multiverse. Doesn't stop a lot of apparently sane scientists believing in it.
cantleysugar 2 years ago
They don't believe in it. They test for it and come up with ideas that may explain the phenomena that they see. Big difference, as no one tests for God; they just assume he exists without even thinking about the consequences of that belief.
zach312 2 years ago
"They test for it and come up with ideas that may explain..."
I can see you're not a scientist.
The idea of a multiverse is merely an attempt to get round the Anthropic Principle.
cantleysugar 2 years ago
The multiverse is a hypothesis. Scientists are currently working on ways to test for it.
If you dont understand the scientific method, then look it up.
luker4459 2 years ago
Scientists don't 'believe' in a multiverse, they have theories that support the likely existence of such phenomenons, they did not just come out one day and say 'Hey, you know what would be really cool...'.
JD2005 2 years ago
They may have been out there, but it was the evidence that was discovered that caused us to acknowledge their existence. No one just got up one morning and said..I think I'm going to invent the concept of a black hole and assume they exist, then look for evidence to support my theory, that's not how science works. Science doesn't make incredible claims without incredible evidence.
JD2005 2 years ago
@cantleysugar
No. If theres no evidence for something, then there's no reason to accept that it is true.
Who ever said that if theres no evidence for something then it doesnt exist? Classic strawman.
luker4459 2 years ago
I'll say it right now, if there isn't any evidence for something's existence, then it doesn't manifest itself in reality, and if something doesn't manifest in reality, then there's no way to tell it apart from something that doesn't exist. Therefor it does not exist. Something can't exist unless it manifests in some measurable way, otherwise it's existence came from someone's imagination. It's a cart before the horse situation.
JD2005 2 years ago
That's not their logic. Their logic is if there's no evidence for something, then it is incorrect to assert that it does exist. Positive claims require positive evidence.
wretcherwretch 2 years ago 2
If universes are just bubbles
In a boiling kettle
Who put the kettle on?
cantleysugar 2 years ago
Yep, but the universes aren't just bubbles in a boiling kettle. So that's a pretty dumb question. Your analogy is one that specifically requires a creator. If a tree grows in the forest, who planted it? No one.
wretcherwretch 2 years ago 2
hahaha u are supposing that it was a person who put the kettle on, how do u know that? u are commiting a logical error with this biased question...
stagesix6 2 years ago
I hope you are being facetious with your analogy...because if you are trying to make a point then you are only making a fool of yourself.
You are spinning your question to presume a who and eliminate the possibility of a what. People are familiar with a kettle requiring a person to turn it on, so it offers some false credibility. The question you should be asking is: If the universe had a beginning, what caused it to begin. To then leap from 'a what' to 'a who' requires evidence of a who.
JD2005 2 years ago
Alright, have it your way. WHAT put the kettle on?
cantleysugar 2 years ago
Ok again, there's no kettle, so stop using your flawed analogy...
As for 'what' caused the universe to exist, you are again assuming things you don't have evidence for. Could it not be possible that the universe existed in some other state before it was transformed into the state we know it as today? We see examples of this all the time and it requires no god; take water transforming into steam for example. Through energy, matter can be transformed from one state to another.
JD2005 2 years ago
i would have hung up on that guy lol he needs to read the god delusion
TheWheelerr 2 years ago
Such intelligent, and well measured points they makes, my congratulations to both of them.
DenClose 2 years ago 2
blunt, realistic rationality is scarce.
irrational comfort seeking is abundant.
accepting we don't know is hard.
inserting imaginative fantasy is easy.
therefore, atheists are the minority
and theists are the majority.
with knowledge should come understanding, and with understanding should come reason..true knowledge doesn't come from inserting answers for unknowns . it distorts the whole process whichs, in the end, leads to faulty reasoning.
itzahazylife 2 years ago
As much as I enjoy ardent creationists being cut down by Matt and Tracy, I enjoy it much more when creationists call and are open to learning M and T's position.
Kapidye29 2 years ago 42
He's on his way to atheisation. ^^ just They give him the tools to make his own path.... And he's one of the rare to listen to what is said... How refreshing...
Acrimonator 2 years ago 2
@Acrimonator
I absolutely agree with you both. When you can get someone out of their belief delusion, the person in question probably feels better knowing that they are wiser than they were before.
wasssup1990 2 years ago