This wasn't very well articulated but the comments that seem very anti-atheism are not really any better
I can see why Antony Flew arrived at his conclusion and don't think this disqualifies him from being a great philosopher. However it is still illogical to assert that the universe is intelligently designed. After all, if eternity is impossible within our universe then any force outside would not be eternal either. An eternal force could have no logical reason to create a finite universe
"There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" by Anthony Flew
This book makes Richard Dawkins' book or Christopher Hirchens book look like comic books.
If Anthony Flew can see these things, why not Dawkins or why didn't Hitchens? The answer is Flew used his mind sufficiently in regards to arguments while Dawkins and Hitchens have not done so. They failed to put pieces together.
People still listen to this idiot's (dawkins) comments? He's not smarter than any of you, he's not wise, he's self centered and lacking wisdom. He's got arrogance and ego in abundance though. Why do people even bother with him?
But wait, the richest and most powerful people (not talking about fools like buffet) on this earth DO believe in Satan and God. How does Dawkins stand in that regard? These people fund his pointless work. Strange isn't it? Makes you think critically doesn't it?
whats very sad is someone claims to be wise says if someone believes in a creator they are from that point on stupid. this is hate hes preaching,discrimination,and ignorance on his part.think about it, ON C-SPAN?they want no God because with no God means no morals.do what thou wilt,ring a bell?i spit on richard and his satanic realm of propaganda.
wow that's funny on of the most popukar athiests converts and Dawkins says "he WAS a great philosopher. AMAZING. No dawkins maybe he realized something that you can not.
@nacho2354 Nice quote mining on your part. The term 'was' had to do with the fact that he wasn't a practicing academic philosopher any longer; he wasn't taking about the mans intellect. Yikes...
@LimiconCardiod "but I have never seen an example where information became more orderly through time (although that is a philosophy.)"
I just gave you an example - snowflakes.
Earth is an open system.
Information about the environment is processed by organisms and accumulates in species and other taxonomic levels. Natural selection is the mechanism which "imports" environmental information into the genome. Mutation and variation provide the raw material for selection to act upon.
@LimiconCardiod "Even in the theory of evolution, the humble ameoba has far more alleles than a human. "
So you are going to ignore all the accurate and helpful information people have been providing you with and just quote creationist web shites? Do you even know what you mean by what you just said?
@LimiconCardiod "How come the order in and of itself is not proof of an intellegent designer?"
A snowflake exhibits order. The symmetry of 6 is inherent in the water molecule, then expressed and amplified in water crystals.
The ride through the cloud is chaotic but NOT random. Warm air rises and cold air sinks. As the flake circulates it freezes and thaws, gradually building a hexagonal structure.
When the symmetry of the water molecule meets the chaos of a cloud, they produce snowflakes.
@LimiconCardiod "How come the order in and of itself is not proof of an intellegent designer? Science assumes there is a reason for every obersable phenomena?"
Don't confuse 'reason' as in mechanism with 'reason' as in purpose. They are two different words.
The order in the universe only shows there is symmetry and geometry in the universe. It is in the nature of a square to be square - it wasn't a random collections of lines that was assigned a description after or before the fact.
@LimiconCardiod "Either you know that and are lying or you didn't and need to get up to speed." This is superfluous to your argument and insulting. Now that I looked up falacies, ad hominem.
An adhominem would be if I said, "Limi screws goats, therefore his argument is invalid".
I said basically - "You are making a persistent error in your facts. If you don't know this you should learn the truth. If you do know this and persist, you are a liar" - that is a rational analysis of your argument.
@LimiconCardiod "Nature is pretty random. Life on earth just kind of suddenly appeared in the fossil charts. Anything known to be caused by nature, like the grand canyon, isn't very orderly. Nor does it ever get increasingly complex like life."
Ah now we are getting somewhere - we have gone from completely random to "pretty" random. From an absolute to a conditional.That's a start.
No scientist has ever said that nature and evolution are completely random. So please stop saying that they do.
@LimiconCardiod "Either, there is a creator of this universe, or the causes of all of these phenomena is randomness."
That's a false dichotomy. The alternative is NOT PURE RANDOMNESS so stop saying it is. That's called a strawman argument. Do you ever make your case without falsely stating the arguments of others?
Really dude - go study logical fallacies, then come back and post.
@Terncote Ok, I looked up the straw man fallicy, if randomness is not the cause of our Universe, and if you argue that God isn't either, then what is the cause of the Universe, of the big bang?
@LimiconCardiod "If there is only one universe (this one) then randomness certainly couldn't cause so much order in it and therefor there is a creator."
That's a baseless assertion. Worse it's an argument from ignorance. Nature shows that one does not need an intelligent agent to create order.
And in any case, it's never pure randomness is it? That's a specious characterisation of the position of science.
Either you know that and are lying or you didn't and need to get up to speed.
@Terncote "Either you know that and are lying or you didn't and need to get up to speed." This is superfluous to your argument and insulting. Now that I looked up falacies, ad hominem.
@Terncote "That's a baseless assertion. Worse it's an argument from ignorance. Nature shows that one does not need an intelligent agent to create order." I say this has no evidence. Nature is pretty random. Life on earth just kind of suddenly appeared in the fossil charts. Anything known to be caused by nature, like the grand canyon, isn't very orderly. Nor does it ever get increasingly complex like life.
Dawkins just comes across like a stuffy, cantankerous man, always wanting to bite someone's head off. It's rather sad when one thinks about the life he could have with Hope in Yeshua/ Jesus Christ.
Dawkins is left with no argument except that space aliens encoded DNA.
Since aliens would exist within the universe (space and time) Dawkins should next ask himself "whose mind is responsible for encoding the SPACE ALIEN''s DNA?"
@admiralLemons - and yet again the point goes sailing far over the head of yet another person. Do some reading on information theory, then pick up a physics book, audit some courses on cellular biology, and make sure you source the previously mentioned items from a reputable source - i.e. one that's has real standing in the academic world. Right now it is impossible to converse with you because you are amazingly ignorant of whats being talked about. Get on my level, i wont stoop to yours.
@Mr88playmaker - aside from your sounding like another Jared Loughner , I would like to address you erroneous statement about DNA. DNA is a long polymer with a deoxyribose and phosphate backbone and four different bases: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine - so it is matter you ignorant fuck. Information is a purely human construct. All our DNA does is direct chemical reactions which constitute life as we understand it. Go back to your fairy tales and magical sky daddy - just don't breed, ok?
@SpecialEdAllstar So, by your definition, if I write a letter to someone, I'm not actually writing in a particular language to somebody, I'm actually just arranging layers of 2d carbon in the form of graphite from my pencil on a page, to convey a message to fulfill a purpose. BUT IT"S MORE THAN THAT! I'm sending INFORMATION, through a MEDIUM, and of course that medium has to be matter. But the important part is that the information I send is TRANSCENDING its medium.
@fws91 Christianity has had the same effect on this planet as a medium sized comet impact event - it has dramatically harmed and hindered human progress. Christianity is pure evil. Your 'god' is a sadistic, child killing, genocidal, inept, and misogynistic monster - and it must be true because it says so in the bible. Christianity is the root of most problems we have on this planet. You deserve to be burnt out of history and existence - you aren't because decent people know that's evil as well.
In fact, if you are going to beat them, might I suggest that you do it away from cameras and use a drug to kidnap them with. I would do this twice just to let them know that you can get to them any time you want to. Intimidating this generation of Christians should be fairly easy, as they are spoiled , lazy and particularly fearful. Remember they will give in easily because they are powder puffs in America, all talk, no action. Do this, and you will see how faithless they really are.
@imaginativelads you statement is very pathetic. Why attack the christians,(mormon, and jehova's witnesses are CULTS not Christians, also ignore Westboro Baptist Church), if it weren't for Christians society for the most part would be bad. Their would be no law(our law is based on Judeo-Christian concepts), hospitals, education for literacy(puritans started educating kids to read so they could read the Scriptures) but it is sad that there are a lot of Christians that treat Christianity as a
@imaginativelads philosophy rather than a way of life like it was originally founded. As being called by God to be a pastor I plan to change this way of thinking, so that people may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven.
@fws91 You may be a great example of a truly moral Christian, but why do you condone the hatred of gay people? If you go by the philosophy of hating the sin and not the sinner then I'm sorry, but your God is inferior and must be ridiculed and mocked in order to FORCE you to comply. This is about putting you in your place, and the only thing modern right wing fanatics understand is torture. It unfortunate for you that you live in a generation that is relatively weak and easily pushed around.
@imaginativelads For one, I do NOT hate gay people nor condone it. Also I do hate sin but love sinners. I expose sin for what it is. Let me ask you, if your closest friend was wrongly murdered would you want justice and the person responsible put in jail. I would. God has to punish sinners or this world would be more worse than it is. God doesn't like homosexuality because of the psycological harm it and diseases it causes. He restricts it cuz it helps us in the long run.
@imaginativelads But those who do harm to gays because of their lifestyle is wrong and God will judge them. Also you better not gain control and do what was done in the middle ages. Do not repay evil for evil but rather repay evil with good.(1 Peter 3:9) Why are you taking it out on christians because they oppose homosexuality. It IS SIN. But God tells us the natural man cant understand these things because of their thinking and have been given over to a reprobate mind. The more you mow us
@fws91 You'd better hope that I never get control because those who criminalize people who are different will be dealt with, and I will make the dark ages ages look like a time of enlightenment. People must be punished severely or they will take the law for granted in these circumstances. If all men are truly created equal then punishment must be used often as an example to those who would interject their superstitions on others.
@imaginativelads Christians down, the more we will grow. I tell you my friend, you thinking is hypocritical, you complain about us repressing ppl yet you resort to torture others. Real progressive there mate. I am praying for that your heart will be filled with mercy and grace. Yahweh be with you. Amen
I submit that hostility towards right wing fundamentalist Christianity must not only be one of verbal insults, but physical brutality, if neccessary, must be done to keep them in their place. If one is to physically harm extremist Christians, you must be very clever about it, remembering not to make them martyrs. The opposition must be dealt with in the most extreme manner, but their deaths are not acceptable as this will only inspire others to their cause.
I'm not apposed to deism, what I'm apposed to is the fact that the Christian opportunists on the right will read Flew's conversion as a sign for them to assume they were right about everything, they aren't. I too am a convert to deism, but I despise right wing fundamentalism and believe they are to be MOCKED and RIDICULED for their lack of substancel. The only way to destroy them is to have a healthy opposition grounded in atheism, and perhaps hostility towards them to maintain a balance.
Atheism is by far and large the most absurd of philosophical beliefs; believing that the tremendous complexity of the universe, the complexity of our cells, DNA information codes, the human brain, morality, emotions, consciousness etc., came out of nothing, with no cause, with no reason, with no value, is compatible with believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the very thing Atheists use to bash Theists.
The fact of the matter is that Internet Atheism is a cult, nothing less....
Intelligent Design is a good point and the fine tuning of the planets is a unusual concept/coincidence or is it because it was designed? Check out our page the thoughts of our Great British Eccentric Jake Mangle-Wurzel.
Im a scientist and once an atheist. Biology and its complexity is more than enough. Plant life has been proven to be a very important aspect in human existence on earth. So the so called ''big bang'' theory mustve had a planner before animal life came into being, which wasnt the case. Apart from fossils which have remained till date labeled unknown origin. They all are in museums to be seen. You shall know the truth and the truth that you know and for whom you decided for will set you free
@BlackKlitschkofan How can you be a 'scientist' when you believe in talking snakes, huge boats filled with animals, parting of the sea, water into wine, coming back to life after been dead for days? You must either be lying, or really bad at your job. It's all very simple. PLANTS CAME BEFORE ANIMALS. Animals adapted for their sorroundings, not the other way round. Thats just common sense.
@DemonLDR How do you write a book to people 2,000 years and tell them the world is round and to have it survive to 1500 prescience? As with any book or author you have to know your audience, it was a book written to be timeless in values and morals with a history of civilizitions accounts, stories for lessons on life and finances.
A remarkable fact is that it predicted the nation state of Israel by name 2000 years ago as scheduled.
@flippyflappy1 Without science, nothing is fact. Fact requires rigerous testing, and need to be proven in more than one way. An old book is NEVER classed as evidence. Its either hersay, opinion, or superstition. If thw book was meant to be timeless, the church wouldnt need to keep changing it. If you believe it's timeless, then you believe in slavery, female repression, racism, muder, torture, sacrifical killings. How can you justify this immoral behaviour? History is NOT based on pseudoscience.
Richard Dawkins will arrogantly go around blasting theism and parade around the general population with his books and debate only people who are uneducated or moderately so. But he will get owned by people like Ben Stien, William Lane Craig and others to the point where Richard Dawkins admits their is an intelligent designer biting his teeth. He can admit there is an intelligent designer which undermines all his books etc. He will not debate with them anymore- what a hypocrite
@flippyflappy1 He doesn't argue with them for a reason.It's nothing to with his knowledge, arrogence, or lack of belief in his ability. The reason is simple. . .Believers do not listen. Every one of them resort to saying 'the bible says this, the bible says that.. The bible is NOT historical text. Theres NO evidence to back of it up, and it defies logic and physics. How can you argue with somone who has an invisable friend? If they stopped talking in riddles, maybe he'd try talking to them.
@DemonLDR I would research your statement about that. None of the people I mentioned resorted to the Bible because they are talking and debating with someone who does not beleive the bible.
Richard Dawkins undermined his position while biting his teeth acknoledging an intelligent designer with Ben Stein. Maybe you should read more into other atheists that have changed their position and READ their logical arguements for it.
Francis S Collins head of the Human Genome for example.
@DemonLDR I'm sorry, but a 500 word youtube post, will never be sufficient to the volumes a book can say. There are plenty of scientists top in their respective fields and they are far from being atheistic, why is that? Oh, and many of them like Antony Flew converted over with some not having a prior religious background. If Science and religion were mutually exclusive, wouldn't this be an impossiblity?
Richard Dawkins avoids people who cause him to acknoledge "Intelligent Design" -
Dawkins will also find God in his way, he is just on his road, he is little confused, but he will on end realized what is God, and become deist or theist.
@MrGlape I'd ike to put money on that. There is no way someone as knowledagble, strong willed, and passionate as Richard Dawkins, will ever 'find god'. The only way this could happen, is if there became some new, undisputable evidence that god, in fact, does exist. Thus meaning, Richard will die an atheist, as the chances of any proof being found (esp before his death) is very remote. Scientists wilingly change their views when evidence is available. Believers are unable to do this.
@DemonLDR Dont worry he will realize what is god as his friend anthony flew, they all are confused at start then after some time realize the truth. Because the doors would be opened for those who will knocking.
@MrGlape I doubt it. Atheists are not sheep. Its common sense that the odd few will 'find god',. Just like it's common sense to say that a few christians will become atheist, agnostic, or even a muslim.
The only door that recieves a knock, is the one in your mind. We live in a world based on physics, math, and logic. God, Jesus, and an afterlife, defies those standard rules. If god were real, him, or someone representing him, would have shown some real evidence. God is a weak persons saviour
@DemonLDR hes maybe weak so what? hes still strong enough to make the universe, as well as laughing, music, womens, cherries, oranges, water, animals, id say its still a pretty awesome god, also it does not defies physics logic or math since the whole universe shows incredibly intelligent design, if you dont see it youre closing your eyes
evidence alrdy had been shown, and wisdom was already written, you only need to read to learn how
@roflzi How can he be weak and almighty? He never made any of those things. Laughing and music is based on personal preference, so invalidates "free will". If the universe was created, Id ask for my money back. Earthquakes, volcanos, tsumamis, drout, floods, plague? Then for afters, it's "Here child, die of cancer for your 3rd bday", and "hello war hero; heres alzheimers,thank me when you're dead"
I know the book very well. I know it so well, that I realise it's only a story, and nothing more
@DemonLDR Actually wrong, god is in every being as higher self in ourselves. Your point that god is a weak persons saviour its simply stupid, and it shows your lack of understanding what is god, and what are aspects of god. I see that you are person which has mindset by atheistic or christian system, and I will simply say that we are "god". We have conscience in all of us, animals, humans, aliens,plants , some on lower some on higher level. But we are also in god, because all space is in god.
@MrGlape There's NOTHING to backup your claims. We've cracked the human genome, we know what every particle we're made of is, we cannot only explain them, and where they camefrom, we can even grow them artificially. We have figured out how to make new body parts, and its your religions that are holding it all back
Not everyone has a conscience, and the vast majority of animals don't. I feed my rattlesnake every week, but she'd still happily kill me. Does god have one? Neither did Hitler.
@DemonLDR Oh that was so ignorantly dumb and stupid at same time. Man you have lack of understanding, oh you are so lost and confused. Everyone has a conscience, god too, without god conscience universe couldnt have power to create itself. Hitler also had conscience, but here is not about conscience its about Ego. You are blinded by false ego, ego is the biggest human enemy. Its the same thing at Hitler, his ego was busting and he screw up himself.
@DemonLDR Problem with god and people is that people think that some oldman is far away who is observing them outside of them. They dont recognize god in theirselfes, that observation goes from inside, not outside. Another problem is that people arent aware of their awareness, thats why some people do bad and stupid thing because they are not aware and they are ignorant, lack of inteligence.
@MrGlape People do bad things because they are bad people. It has nothing to do with ignorance or inteligence. Maybe your point would hit the mark if you didn't talk in riddles all the time. Thats one of the main problems with religion. It seems to strip away the ability to have a normal conversation. All you do is quote, and make silly remarkd you'd expect to hear from a machine. 'look outside the box' - why don't you try doing that? Make a 'to and for' list, and see if god trumps all. EVIDENCE
@DemonLDR People are not bad, but they are blinded by false ego and lack of intelligence, other way every being as soul is good,blissful and eternal. And one big problem you have it you are comparing me with religion, Im sorry but its another lack of intelligence and big ignorant answer. If you wanna compare me with religion, then I cant talk with you, because I am not talking about religion. Religion doenst have anything with God.
@DemonLDR We've cracked the human genome as you say. Who was the head of the Human Genome Project? Scientist Francis S. Collins. He was an atheist turned to a Theist, and how might you ask? Through scientific observation and discoveries working in the field of genetics. The almost same way Antony Flew came to change his position from atheist to an intelligent designer.
You really should read from some of the top scientists on both sides of the debate to know your own arguement.
@DemonLDR also id like to add thats its pretty funny how much you look like a religious zealot the way you talk you type your comments, you dont hold the truth, so dont this
It won't be long until Mr Dawkings stops copying and selling Darwins notes. Then he will see that paper monney made from wood and big cars made from iron ore actually dont fullfill his life, or in fact anyone else's.
Live you life as want, good or bad.
You can choose and you have free will. A rich man can only be rich by using the backs of the poor.
@hughesscotland The pope's rich. There is no better example of what the money of the poor can do. He has 24hr, top quality securety, a specially made car, servents (or slaves?). He has a plane to himself, he gets police escorts everywhere he goes, and he, more than likely, has free access to all the altar boys he wants. How about the royals? They've taken billions off the poor, and done nothing in return. The queen is one of the richest women alive, yet still milks money from the poor. Sickening
This hate thing thats going on on these forums, only convinces me more that China is lauphing at us stupid americans. We can't get along even within our own country.Yet with all this arguing. Special forces went and killed Bin Laden. Take that China !@!!!
I hope Dawkins continued on his rant there and actually countered the anthropic principle for God’s existence or the biological complexity of the DNA molecule instead of merely resorting to insults, such as, “Oh, anyone who knows anything about biology would know that cellular machines were definitely not designed.” Dawkins arguments against intelligent design are exceptionally weak as shown in his popularized books. Dawkins is the delusional one here, not the theist who follows the evidence.
@austinmckenzie69 Exceptionally weak? Have you read The Blind Watchmaker or Climbing Mount Improbable? Those books are entirely about disproving the biological notion of design...
@Hektor88, yes, including his legendary ‘The Selfish Gene,’ bestseller ‘The God Delusion,’ and relatively recent ‘The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.’ You know there are other critics besides Dawkins who write wholesale books attempting to discredit the theory of intelligent design, right? Have you read Stephen C. Meyer’s ‘Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design’ or Fazale Rana’s ‘The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry’?
@MrJesusinuislife I am aware of other books discrediting Intelligent Design. I mention Dawkins because this video is of him, and he was the topic of the comment I was responding too. Stephen C Meyer is a fellow and spokesperson for the Discovery Institute, the hub of the I.D. movement, and Fazale Rana is an out and out creationist. No, I have not read their work, but I am familiar with the claims of the I.D. movement, and find them to be bogus. I have no current intention of reading their work.
@Hektor88, what if I picked up Dawkins’ book and read the subtitle ‘Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design’? Should I toss it aside and say, “This claim is bogus,” or should I say, “That’s a bogus claim, but I’m going to read it anyways to see the evidence if there is any.” I can only imagine what a caveman thought of the idea of round earth until he decided to see the evidence against it. If nobody sought to hear the other side, then we’d all still be cavemen.
@MrJesusinuislife I did not say I dismissed I.D. claims out of hand, as you seem to think I do. What I said was "**I am familiar with the claims of the I.D. movement**, and find them to be bogus" (emphasis added). Meaning, I have looked into their claims, I have considered what they say, and I have concluded that I.D. is simply a re-branding of Christian Creationism, just like the 2004 court ruled. Their claims cannot and do not explain nearly as much data as modern evolutionary biology.
@Hektor88, a proponent of a flat earth society is pretty familiar with the claims of a round earth theorists, so what does that tell us about the flat earth believer? While he is obviously familiar with the other side's claims, he is ignorant of the round earth theorist's evidence for it! You consider what they say, but does that include the evidence, or what you've been spoon fed through atheistic lens? You should read the books to obtain an understanding of the why behind the claim of design.
@MrJesusinuislife My friend, I am not a conspiracy theorist, as flat earthers must be to explain away the mountains of evidence against their position. Please stop assuming I am ignorant or brainwashed. I understand evolutionary theory and the ideas of the I.D. movement. Darwin's theory is confirmed by mountains of evidence. And even if tomorrow it were shown to be wrong, it wouldn't mean I.D. is correct by default, because I.D. has already been proven wrong!
@Hektor88, I wasn’t equating you to a flat earth believer in that sense, but that you indicated yourself that the other side’s claims appeared to be so bogus that you refuse to read up on their evidences. Yes, intelligent design is not a default position and you would know that design theorists do not use that line of argumentation if you read the books aforementioned. I find it strange that you’ve already concluded that one side is right without hearing from the other spectrum. Have a nice day.
@MrJesusinuislife hilarious you suggest atheists read books on ID to get to know your side/evidence. If ID had any real, compelling evidence to back up it's claim, we would. The biggest problem you and any creationist face is when you examine the evidence, you can't already have decided there is a god because your conclusion will be the same as your belief. And if the evidence doesn't support your claim, you just go looking for new evidence. you can't cherry pick from reality.
@TrooperCX, questions about religion failing to look at the evidence from the other side is based on a false premise, so if you want to engage into a civilized discourse, practice asking unbiased questions that aren’t loaded with your preconceptions of the way religion really is. Asking the theist to answer the problem of why there’s no evidence for God’s existence won’t get you anywhere either. What you ought to be asking is what line of evidences is there for the theory of intelligent design?
@MrJesusinuislife we would all be living with out vaccines and air conditioning had theocracy and religion kept a super tight grip on society. Had this secular goverment not been founded, we might as well be cavemen. why didn't religion ever take a look at the other side for 1800 years? now we're supposed to hear out your bullshit claims that science can't know for sure the origin of life so god did it? your religion has had 2000 years to prove this shit and failed
@TrooperCX, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take you seriously, especially since you seem to lack the capability of engaging in a civilized discussion. Go to anyone on the street, spouting words like shit and see if they will care about what you have to say. If you want to initiate a fruitful, intelligent discourse, just ask a candid question as oppose to ranting about your ill-conceived opinions about the theory of intelligent design and religion, such as where's the evidence for your religion?
athiesm is really not athiesm at all. athiesm has become what it PREACHES from its pulpit not to be;a RELIGEON! and what is the religeon of those who wish to have no accountability for their actions, yet not wishing to completely go to the ultimate dark side? PANTHEISM. nearly all pronounced athiest, worship either nature, or themeselves. you do have a GOD and you are a religeon.
• Please click my name and watch my anti-religion song. WARNING to Christians: It mocks your entire being, your pedophile leaders and all of Hypco-cristianity. So only watch it if you can handle seeing everything you believe being exposed as an evil cult...all done with wit and charm of course.
Yea, I know, I'm a Troll...but I'm really proud of the video.
The Bible teaches that logic minus truth is futile, meaningless, random and chaotic nonsense: and that it is practiced by fools.
Re: "bacteria": A single bacteria that would have existed an infinite gazillion years ago can only have contained an EQUAL or HIGHER amount of information than the same bacteria today. That means Darwin had it backwards. Darwin did NOT know about DNA, and he had NO idea that biological lifeforms are WRITTEN/created and GOVERNED by symbolic information: NOUS /LOGOS.
@Mr88playmaker "There is NO such thing as an effect without a cause." You presume the cause of the failure of the singularity and the expansion of the universe came from outside the singularity itself..... Interesting. Do you not find it plausible that what ever power source was driving the singularity to do what it did could have been consumed/became unstable/or some other way failed so that the singularity could not maintain itself? Internal cause is still cause, does not need to be external.
@Mr88playmaker That just goes to show how narrow minded you are with the subject. Assuming all causes come from outside the thing that is impacted by the cause. You also jump the the conclusion that the universe is a creation. What proof is there that it was created in the sense of needing a creator? You state that "meaningless" and "random chaos" cannot spawn logic. But perhaps you just cannot understand things that are beyond you so you label them "random" and "meaningless"
@Mr88playmaker Actually using the word meaning to explain something is rather a silly venture in itself. What is the meaning of a tree falling in a wind storm? Yes it has a cause. But what is the meaning of it? Using a word such as meaning to describe events, the arising of intelligence from non intelligence for instance, is useless. Meaning implies that there was thought put into something thus it had a meaning. Things happen all the time without meaning. Are they random? Perhaps.
@Mr88playmaker As for the DNA code you speak of it is not information as intended to relay a message to another intelligence. We have figured out what the parts of DNA do, what they govern. But that does not mean an intelligence "wrote" it as you put it. DNA does not convey knowledge or intelligence. Though they are a byproduct of what DNA does. You skip so many steps and leap to conclusions to fit your view of a need for a creator.
@Mr88playmaker For the record, the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem has since been abandoned. Once quantum mechanics is taken into account, the singularity need not appear, according to "A Brief History of Time."
As for "There is NO such thing as an affect without a cause," I presume you would define god out of that statement, as he is a "necessary" being. Perhaps the universe itself could be "necessary," and not contingent on anything? Or is it an infinite regress of creators?
(quote): "As for "There is NO such thing as an affect without a cause," I presume you would define god out of that statement, as he is a "necessary" being. (end quote)
Nope. The 1st cause agent i.e. God means 1st (as in FIRST, that is first, as in 1st) cause. Not 2nd or 3rd but FIRST. A creation can not precede its creator. We know that biological machines are the product of information and language which arise from a MIND. The Greeks had it right. FIRST came the MIND of God -THEN came matter.
@Mr88playmaker pt 1: Not quite. The notion that information must come from a mind was first proposed by Werner Gitt, who defined the term as such to fit his creationist sensibilities. Modern information theory does not use his definition, and there is no reason to think information can only come from a mind, unless one arbitrarily defines it as such like Gitt did. A more thorough refutation of this "mind-information" idea can be found at the talkorigins website
On origins: Richard Dawkins had ignorantly maintained that we exists, THEREFORE some soup accidentally turned itself into the most technologically advanced symbolic information computing system in the entire known universe i.e. the 1st self-replicating cell.
@Mr88playmaker I am afraid most of those "facts" simply aren't. Information need not come from a mind. Go read Dawkins' essay "The Information Challenge," and you will not only have read some of his actual work, and thereby understand him a little better, but you will see why your views on information are outdated. The genetic code isn't "within" DNA, it IS DNA, and DNA is made of matter.
@Mr88playmaker Simply because you say something is fact does not mean it is for one thing. If information can only arise from a mind then there must have always been a mind but then there must have always been a mind before that one and that one and that one and it goes on forever so the idea of one god if flawed and there must be an infinite amount of gods which one of us it gave life. So Christianity under this belief is wrong.
@ihavevideoatoo maybe so, but you can say the same for matter, "how" or where did matter first appear, how, from what? why? so you still end up in that same "loop" either way you look at it.
@DaFoxx28 it is a loop you created by claiming something is a fact without any proof. Since we created things here in your mind EVERYTHING must have a creator. That may or may not be true but since we do not know you can't claim it as a fact.
@ihavevideoatoo What if we can't follow the basic assumption of science that every effect has a cause? I mean, we are dealing with a something before reality existed, before the beginning of space and time. Science's assumptions were based on reality, not whatever existed before reality. Breaking away from such an assumption could mean there is a self made God.
@LimiconCardiod uhh no that actually has nothing to do with science. You are confusing it i think with for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. Also the fact that it exists makes it reality. So you can't say god is out of reality when he exists. With that reasoning you are saying that something can come from nothing so couldn't the universe do them same? (Although that is not what I think)
@ihavevideoatoo Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with science. It does have something to do with the Philosophy of science though. Every thinking system or model needs basic assumptions. One of Sciences basic assumptions is that there is a cause for every effect. Then that cause is an effect with its own cause. Please excuse my language fallacy. I meant that God exists outside of this universe, not reality. Science was based on the rules of this Universe. Cont...
@LimiconCardiod I read Flew's book on why he switched. He points out that one of the best arguments against God, is a cosmologist, Victor Stenger, who argues that the universe came from nothing using symmetries. Flew also points out that Victor makes a mistake in thinking that symmetries are in the nothing the universe comes from, when in fact that would be something in nothing. Also, the universe can't be self made, because then things in the universe would be self made too. No evidence forthat
@LimiconCardiod Those assumptions are based off prior knowledge. It isn't like they just pull them out of their ass and say it must be true. It is now believed that there are universes outside of our own and a new idea that has come up is that two universes collided and that energy is what created ours so that could be an explanation. Science is not based off our rules. It can be changed to fit any rules as long as it can follow the scientific method so no, god is not counted out
@ihavevideoatoo So now we talk about mutually exclusive hypothesis. If there is only one universe (this one) then randomness certainly couldn't cause so much order in it and therefor there is a creator. Otherwise there is a multiverse each universe with random parameters until this universe is the one that just happened to have the correct parameters. Flew pointed out that there can be no evidence for or against a multiverse, if each universe is truly contained.
@ihavevideoatoo 1. Define Question: Is there an intelligent entity that engineered the universe we humans observe?
2. Gather Info: We know... a. There are orderly Laws of the Universe that Interact together. b. We know life began long after the beginning of the Universe. c. Humans are aware of their own actions, thoughts, and emotions. d. Humans, unlike computers or other informational systems in nature, can actively decide what to think about. Computers only react to previous Intel states.
@ihavevideoatoo 3. Form a hypothesis: (we have two) Either, there is a creator of this universe, or the causes of all of these phenomena is randomness. If randomness caused these events then such a notion would be so inconcevibly rare, that there must be a large number of universes other than our own, each with random parameters and this universe is the one with the laws of physics JUST right to support all four of these phenomina. In short, either there is God and one universe, or a multiverse.
@ihavevideoatoo 4. Perform Experiment: Unfortunately, there can't be an experiment performed to prove, or disprove the existence of a multiverse. However, Many experiments were done to prove that the universe has constants. Drop something at a certain distance and you can measure it to fall at 9.81 meters/second/second. We can experiment to see if there is life, by observing if your friend is alive. We can experiment concousness by poking someone, watching their anger, then asking if they...
@LimiconCardiod "However, Many experiments were done to prove that the universe has constants. Drop something at a certain distance and you can measure it to fall at 9.81 meters/second/second."
The presence of constants and natural geometries in nature is NOT proof of an intelligent intervener / designer.
The interaction of atoms and molecules is determined by the mathematical relationships inherent in their structures and composition.
@Terncote How come the order in and of itself is not proof of an intellegent designer? Science assumes there is a reason for every obersable phenomena. I therefor must assume there is a reason for a constant. What do you think that reason is?
@ihavevideoatoo ...were aware of their anger. Finally, we can experiment to see if humans can think on a random topic, then we can measure this randomness using statistical analysis. I believe this measurement is called the R value. Do the same to a computer and you will find it not so random. Do this to evolution (an informational system) and you will find it not so random.
5. Analyze data: The data shows that the multiverse is unprovable. It shows the God hypothesis is plausible.
@LimiconCardiod it just just an explanation without any evidence. The best explanation to me for my left sock always getting lost in the washer is that gnomes steal them. Well what is your evidence?
@ihavevideoatoo My evidence was the four things I pointed out to you. Something caused physics to be orderly, Something caused life with its cababilities to store and change genetic data, something caused consciousness, and something caused choice.
@LimiconCardiod ur just saying something had to cause it without any evidence. Saying that something "caused" this to happen doesnt mean it had to be a god. It could be anything that caused it so just saying that doesnt even come close to linking it to a god. If anything physics is not really orderly i mean there is still so much we dont understand and so many different kinds of physics it doesn't make sense how you can say that. No data is really stored it is just duplicated.
@ihavevideoatoo It is the property of the order itself that points more towards something intelligent. I know the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to systems of heat, but I have never seen an example where information became more orderly through time (although that is a philosophy.) Even in the theory of evolution, the humble ameoba has far more alleles than a human. Energy spreads; the Universe is spreading; information breaks down with time. Combine this with a need for a cause, and...
@Hektor88 (QUOTE): "...first proposed by Werner Gitt, who defined the term as such to fit his creationist sensibilities." (END QUOTE)
Einstein (your favorite DEIST) pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify NO means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
@Mr88playmaker Irrelevant appeal to authority. That Einstein says so doesn't make it so. Additionally, you have shifted to discussing "symbolic" information and "meaning." I fully agree that "meaning," in an existential sense, can only be applied by minds, which is why the "meaning" of our lives is something we individually determine. But that's a separate topic. Information, as defined by information theorists, can, and does, appear via blind, naturalistic processes.
"The notion that information must come from a mind was first proposed by Werner Gitt,"
Gitt with it then, This is not rocket science.
Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
Symbolic information requires a mind. Only a mind can assign meaning to symbols. Genetic code writes/creates and governs all things biological-you via symbolic information.
As Percy Shelley said, "Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred...it is not permitted to assume the contested premises and thence infer the matter in dispute."
In short, the argument "we exist, therefore God" doesn't work, because it must be shown that were were indeed created before we can inquire about the creator(s).
The genetic code within DNA writes / creates all things biological-you and governs it all. For example the genetic code writes. creates your heart, circulatory system, your brain, your eyes, ears and hearing system, your hands, feet, mouth, nose... everything. Said genetic symbolic information (which writes YOU into being) is neither matter nor energy. Information only arsies out of thought (a MIND) and transcends its medium. The Greeks called it LOGOS. DNA killed material theory
Richard Dawkins admits that DNA carries the signature of a designer. He says that space aliens may have written the code. The problem with the space alien DNA author theory is that space aliens would reside within the cosmos making them also products of information and language (i.e. code)
There is nothing mythical in concluding that Intelligence only arises from an intelligent source.
"Irrational" is believing that logic arises out of meaningless, random chaos; and is continually evolving via meaningless, random chaos. Such "logic" (random meaningless nonsense) is a new idea and atheistic.
The secular (non religious) Greeks concluded that NOUS / LOGOS (mind / language) came FIRST, and then 2nd came the universe. DNA proves that symbolic information (NOUS / LOGOS) came first.
(A) Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(B) DNA code is symbolic INFORMATION like computer software & cells are computers.
(C) Even if humans had NEVER discovered DNA code: DNA code creates and governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(D) INFORMATION arises from a MIND. So does LANGUAGE.
Atheists can not scientifically defend Evolution. All they can do is attempt to re-frame the argument as one between science and religion. The findings of modern science point away from Evolution and toward Intelligent Design.
The real argument is one between True Science (Intelligent Design) and false science (Evolution). Richard Dawkins finally blew his cool and stopped pretending to be a scientist. He now writes books promoting atheism & hatred toward God as a way to save Evolution.
The reason that most Americans (and Brits and others) do not believe in Evolution is because Evolution is an antiquated, illogical, mathematically & biologically impossible theory dreamed up by some guy who was NOT even a scientist, and that had NO idea what a biological cell was or how it functions. Darwin himself admitted that his ideas and little drawings were dreamed up and that he had zero proof for any of it. His theory may as well have been: Time + chance = monkeys flying outa his butt.
@takingbackmavis (QUOTE) "wow, you are a complete idiot." (END QUOTE)
Nope. Remember, it is YOU who maintains that logic arises out of meaningless, random chaos; and is continually evolving via meaningless, random chaos.
Remember also that whereas I maintain that Intelligence arises from an Intelligent Source; YOU maintain that intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.
In Conclusion: by your own definition; YOU are the IDIOT.
Dawkins is mad at ex-atheist anthony flew because he just launched his book in 2005 "god dillussion" yet his once reverred anthony flew for being one of the dynamic atheist has now publicly announced that he was wrong to say there is no God. Prompting him to publish a new book in 2007 "There is a God" as a move to correct his error.
Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever knowing, wise.
18-and repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom we have prepared a painful chastisement.
I like Dawkins but I think him putting Flew down is a bit harsh. In my opinion Deism is completely respectable; it's when people believe that the creator of the universe actually cares if I believe in him or not that I start to get annoyed.
lol.... "anybody who knows anything biology, will immediately see that that is rediculous"...this guy is a retard, Antony Flew is a much more credible academic than he will ever be!
@Eilavesch lol typical...when antony flew is an athiest you all start to quote him and say how brilliant he is..as soon as he changes his mind..."he's lost his mind", "he it ignorant in biology".........OH PLEASE.
no offense but after reading The God Delusion, I have a hard time taking any of Dawkins opinions seriously.
philosophizer149 2 weeks ago
Dawkins is sooo classy! (sarcasm)
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
This wasn't very well articulated but the comments that seem very anti-atheism are not really any better
I can see why Antony Flew arrived at his conclusion and don't think this disqualifies him from being a great philosopher. However it is still illogical to assert that the universe is intelligently designed. After all, if eternity is impossible within our universe then any force outside would not be eternal either. An eternal force could have no logical reason to create a finite universe
ec123456789able 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Think you could correct the title? The word is "atheist" and not "athiest."
Lots of religious/philosophical terms end in "-ist." You know, like "BuddhIST" and "humanIST" and "JainIST" and "theIST." Same thing for "atheIST."
lease2coach1 4 weeks ago
Give up Dawkins.
PureAirSolutions 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" by Anthony Flew
This book makes Richard Dawkins' book or Christopher Hirchens book look like comic books.
If Anthony Flew can see these things, why not Dawkins or why didn't Hitchens? The answer is Flew used his mind sufficiently in regards to arguments while Dawkins and Hitchens have not done so. They failed to put pieces together.
PureAirSolutions 1 month ago
oh please Dawkins did you even read Antony Flew's last book? It was way better than your logically fallacious one. Stop smearing and lying.
synal 1 month ago
People still listen to this idiot's (dawkins) comments? He's not smarter than any of you, he's not wise, he's self centered and lacking wisdom. He's got arrogance and ego in abundance though. Why do people even bother with him?
But wait, the richest and most powerful people (not talking about fools like buffet) on this earth DO believe in Satan and God. How does Dawkins stand in that regard? These people fund his pointless work. Strange isn't it? Makes you think critically doesn't it?
Manifold73tube 1 month ago
whats very sad is someone claims to be wise says if someone believes in a creator they are from that point on stupid. this is hate hes preaching,discrimination,and ignorance on his part.think about it, ON C-SPAN?they want no God because with no God means no morals.do what thou wilt,ring a bell?i spit on richard and his satanic realm of propaganda.
davymatheny 1 month ago
We will all find out soon enough. But anyone why uses the argument " ha ha looser" I suspect might be in for a rude shock.
NorthofYou1 3 months ago
HAHA LOSERRRRR!
give it up and admit that you're wrong already. silly silly man. YOU are the "sad" one.
StarFlyer16 3 months ago
wow that's funny on of the most popukar athiests converts and Dawkins says "he WAS a great philosopher. AMAZING. No dawkins maybe he realized something that you can not.
nacho2354 4 months ago
Comment removed
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
@nacho2354 Nice quote mining on your part. The term 'was' had to do with the fact that he wasn't a practicing academic philosopher any longer; he wasn't taking about the mans intellect. Yikes...
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
@LimiconCardiod "but I have never seen an example where information became more orderly through time (although that is a philosophy.)"
I just gave you an example - snowflakes.
Earth is an open system.
Information about the environment is processed by organisms and accumulates in species and other taxonomic levels. Natural selection is the mechanism which "imports" environmental information into the genome. Mutation and variation provide the raw material for selection to act upon.
Terncote 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LimiconCardiod "Even in the theory of evolution, the humble ameoba has far more alleles than a human. "
So you are going to ignore all the accurate and helpful information people have been providing you with and just quote creationist web shites? Do you even know what you mean by what you just said?
Terncote 4 months ago
@LimiconCardiod "How come the order in and of itself is not proof of an intellegent designer?"
A snowflake exhibits order. The symmetry of 6 is inherent in the water molecule, then expressed and amplified in water crystals.
The ride through the cloud is chaotic but NOT random. Warm air rises and cold air sinks. As the flake circulates it freezes and thaws, gradually building a hexagonal structure.
When the symmetry of the water molecule meets the chaos of a cloud, they produce snowflakes.
Terncote 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LimiconCardiod "How come the order in and of itself is not proof of an intellegent designer? Science assumes there is a reason for every obersable phenomena?"
Don't confuse 'reason' as in mechanism with 'reason' as in purpose. They are two different words.
The order in the universe only shows there is symmetry and geometry in the universe. It is in the nature of a square to be square - it wasn't a random collections of lines that was assigned a description after or before the fact.
Terncote 4 months ago
@LimiconCardiod "Either you know that and are lying or you didn't and need to get up to speed." This is superfluous to your argument and insulting. Now that I looked up falacies, ad hominem.
An adhominem would be if I said, "Limi screws goats, therefore his argument is invalid".
I said basically - "You are making a persistent error in your facts. If you don't know this you should learn the truth. If you do know this and persist, you are a liar" - that is a rational analysis of your argument.
Terncote 4 months ago
@LimiconCardiod "Nature is pretty random. Life on earth just kind of suddenly appeared in the fossil charts. Anything known to be caused by nature, like the grand canyon, isn't very orderly. Nor does it ever get increasingly complex like life."
Ah now we are getting somewhere - we have gone from completely random to "pretty" random. From an absolute to a conditional.That's a start.
No scientist has ever said that nature and evolution are completely random. So please stop saying that they do.
Terncote 4 months ago
@LimiconCardiod "Either, there is a creator of this universe, or the causes of all of these phenomena is randomness."
That's a false dichotomy. The alternative is NOT PURE RANDOMNESS so stop saying it is. That's called a strawman argument. Do you ever make your case without falsely stating the arguments of others?
Really dude - go study logical fallacies, then come back and post.
Terncote 4 months ago
@Terncote Ok, I looked up the straw man fallicy, if randomness is not the cause of our Universe, and if you argue that God isn't either, then what is the cause of the Universe, of the big bang?
LimiconCardiod 4 months ago
@LimiconCardiod "If there is only one universe (this one) then randomness certainly couldn't cause so much order in it and therefor there is a creator."
That's a baseless assertion. Worse it's an argument from ignorance. Nature shows that one does not need an intelligent agent to create order.
And in any case, it's never pure randomness is it? That's a specious characterisation of the position of science.
Either you know that and are lying or you didn't and need to get up to speed.
Terncote 4 months ago
@Terncote "Either you know that and are lying or you didn't and need to get up to speed." This is superfluous to your argument and insulting. Now that I looked up falacies, ad hominem.
LimiconCardiod 4 months ago
@Terncote "That's a baseless assertion. Worse it's an argument from ignorance. Nature shows that one does not need an intelligent agent to create order." I say this has no evidence. Nature is pretty random. Life on earth just kind of suddenly appeared in the fossil charts. Anything known to be caused by nature, like the grand canyon, isn't very orderly. Nor does it ever get increasingly complex like life.
LimiconCardiod 4 months ago
Dawkins just comes across like a stuffy, cantankerous man, always wanting to bite someone's head off. It's rather sad when one thinks about the life he could have with Hope in Yeshua/ Jesus Christ.
BreathOFLaminin 5 months ago
Dawkins is left with no argument except that space aliens encoded DNA.
Since aliens would exist within the universe (space and time) Dawkins should next ask himself "whose mind is responsible for encoding the SPACE ALIEN''s DNA?"
Mr88playmaker 6 months ago
Definitely a huge hit against atheism. Flew's change of mind would be as drastic for theists as William Lane Craig or Plantinga becoming an atheist.
REDRAGON12345 6 months ago
@admiralLemons - and yet again the point goes sailing far over the head of yet another person. Do some reading on information theory, then pick up a physics book, audit some courses on cellular biology, and make sure you source the previously mentioned items from a reputable source - i.e. one that's has real standing in the academic world. Right now it is impossible to converse with you because you are amazingly ignorant of whats being talked about. Get on my level, i wont stoop to yours.
SpecialEdAllstar 6 months ago
Comment removed
SpecialEdAllstar 6 months ago
@Mr88playmaker - aside from your sounding like another Jared Loughner , I would like to address you erroneous statement about DNA. DNA is a long polymer with a deoxyribose and phosphate backbone and four different bases: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine - so it is matter you ignorant fuck. Information is a purely human construct. All our DNA does is direct chemical reactions which constitute life as we understand it. Go back to your fairy tales and magical sky daddy - just don't breed, ok?
SpecialEdAllstar 6 months ago
@SpecialEdAllstar So, by your definition, if I write a letter to someone, I'm not actually writing in a particular language to somebody, I'm actually just arranging layers of 2d carbon in the form of graphite from my pencil on a page, to convey a message to fulfill a purpose. BUT IT"S MORE THAN THAT! I'm sending INFORMATION, through a MEDIUM, and of course that medium has to be matter. But the important part is that the information I send is TRANSCENDING its medium.
AdmiralLemons 6 months ago
@fws91 Christianity has had the same effect on this planet as a medium sized comet impact event - it has dramatically harmed and hindered human progress. Christianity is pure evil. Your 'god' is a sadistic, child killing, genocidal, inept, and misogynistic monster - and it must be true because it says so in the bible. Christianity is the root of most problems we have on this planet. You deserve to be burnt out of history and existence - you aren't because decent people know that's evil as well.
SpecialEdAllstar 6 months ago
richard dawkins is afraid he is going to be next lol
fws91 7 months ago
In fact, if you are going to beat them, might I suggest that you do it away from cameras and use a drug to kidnap them with. I would do this twice just to let them know that you can get to them any time you want to. Intimidating this generation of Christians should be fairly easy, as they are spoiled , lazy and particularly fearful. Remember they will give in easily because they are powder puffs in America, all talk, no action. Do this, and you will see how faithless they really are.
imaginativelads 7 months ago
@imaginativelads you statement is very pathetic. Why attack the christians,(mormon, and jehova's witnesses are CULTS not Christians, also ignore Westboro Baptist Church), if it weren't for Christians society for the most part would be bad. Their would be no law(our law is based on Judeo-Christian concepts), hospitals, education for literacy(puritans started educating kids to read so they could read the Scriptures) but it is sad that there are a lot of Christians that treat Christianity as a
fws91 7 months ago
@imaginativelads philosophy rather than a way of life like it was originally founded. As being called by God to be a pastor I plan to change this way of thinking, so that people may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven.
fws91 7 months ago
@fws91 You may be a great example of a truly moral Christian, but why do you condone the hatred of gay people? If you go by the philosophy of hating the sin and not the sinner then I'm sorry, but your God is inferior and must be ridiculed and mocked in order to FORCE you to comply. This is about putting you in your place, and the only thing modern right wing fanatics understand is torture. It unfortunate for you that you live in a generation that is relatively weak and easily pushed around.
imaginativelads 7 months ago
@imaginativelads For one, I do NOT hate gay people nor condone it. Also I do hate sin but love sinners. I expose sin for what it is. Let me ask you, if your closest friend was wrongly murdered would you want justice and the person responsible put in jail. I would. God has to punish sinners or this world would be more worse than it is. God doesn't like homosexuality because of the psycological harm it and diseases it causes. He restricts it cuz it helps us in the long run.
fws91 7 months ago
@imaginativelads But those who do harm to gays because of their lifestyle is wrong and God will judge them. Also you better not gain control and do what was done in the middle ages. Do not repay evil for evil but rather repay evil with good.(1 Peter 3:9) Why are you taking it out on christians because they oppose homosexuality. It IS SIN. But God tells us the natural man cant understand these things because of their thinking and have been given over to a reprobate mind. The more you mow us
fws91 7 months ago
@fws91 You'd better hope that I never get control because those who criminalize people who are different will be dealt with, and I will make the dark ages ages look like a time of enlightenment. People must be punished severely or they will take the law for granted in these circumstances. If all men are truly created equal then punishment must be used often as an example to those who would interject their superstitions on others.
imaginativelads 7 months ago
@imaginativelads Christians down, the more we will grow. I tell you my friend, you thinking is hypocritical, you complain about us repressing ppl yet you resort to torture others. Real progressive there mate. I am praying for that your heart will be filled with mercy and grace. Yahweh be with you. Amen
fws91 7 months ago
I submit that hostility towards right wing fundamentalist Christianity must not only be one of verbal insults, but physical brutality, if neccessary, must be done to keep them in their place. If one is to physically harm extremist Christians, you must be very clever about it, remembering not to make them martyrs. The opposition must be dealt with in the most extreme manner, but their deaths are not acceptable as this will only inspire others to their cause.
imaginativelads 7 months ago
I'm not apposed to deism, what I'm apposed to is the fact that the Christian opportunists on the right will read Flew's conversion as a sign for them to assume they were right about everything, they aren't. I too am a convert to deism, but I despise right wing fundamentalism and believe they are to be MOCKED and RIDICULED for their lack of substancel. The only way to destroy them is to have a healthy opposition grounded in atheism, and perhaps hostility towards them to maintain a balance.
imaginativelads 7 months ago
Atheism is by far and large the most absurd of philosophical beliefs; believing that the tremendous complexity of the universe, the complexity of our cells, DNA information codes, the human brain, morality, emotions, consciousness etc., came out of nothing, with no cause, with no reason, with no value, is compatible with believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the very thing Atheists use to bash Theists.
The fact of the matter is that Internet Atheism is a cult, nothing less....
tjobv 7 months ago
Shame, way for a great mind to fail, leaving no credibility for all those years.
Xoxinwulf 7 months ago
Intelligent Design is a good point and the fine tuning of the planets is a unusual concept/coincidence or is it because it was designed? Check out our page the thoughts of our Great British Eccentric Jake Mangle-Wurzel.
MrSomebody2011 8 months ago
Im a scientist and once an atheist. Biology and its complexity is more than enough. Plant life has been proven to be a very important aspect in human existence on earth. So the so called ''big bang'' theory mustve had a planner before animal life came into being, which wasnt the case. Apart from fossils which have remained till date labeled unknown origin. They all are in museums to be seen. You shall know the truth and the truth that you know and for whom you decided for will set you free
BlackKlitschkofan 8 months ago
@BlackKlitschkofan How can you be a 'scientist' when you believe in talking snakes, huge boats filled with animals, parting of the sea, water into wine, coming back to life after been dead for days? You must either be lying, or really bad at your job. It's all very simple. PLANTS CAME BEFORE ANIMALS. Animals adapted for their sorroundings, not the other way round. Thats just common sense.
DemonLDR 7 months ago
@DemonLDR How do you write a book to people 2,000 years and tell them the world is round and to have it survive to 1500 prescience? As with any book or author you have to know your audience, it was a book written to be timeless in values and morals with a history of civilizitions accounts, stories for lessons on life and finances.
A remarkable fact is that it predicted the nation state of Israel by name 2000 years ago as scheduled.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
flippyflappy1 7 months ago
@flippyflappy1 Without science, nothing is fact. Fact requires rigerous testing, and need to be proven in more than one way. An old book is NEVER classed as evidence. Its either hersay, opinion, or superstition. If thw book was meant to be timeless, the church wouldnt need to keep changing it. If you believe it's timeless, then you believe in slavery, female repression, racism, muder, torture, sacrifical killings. How can you justify this immoral behaviour? History is NOT based on pseudoscience.
DemonLDR 7 months ago
@DemonLDR
Richard Dawkins will arrogantly go around blasting theism and parade around the general population with his books and debate only people who are uneducated or moderately so. But he will get owned by people like Ben Stien, William Lane Craig and others to the point where Richard Dawkins admits their is an intelligent designer biting his teeth. He can admit there is an intelligent designer which undermines all his books etc. He will not debate with them anymore- what a hypocrite
flippyflappy1 7 months ago
@flippyflappy1 He doesn't argue with them for a reason.It's nothing to with his knowledge, arrogence, or lack of belief in his ability. The reason is simple. . .Believers do not listen. Every one of them resort to saying 'the bible says this, the bible says that.. The bible is NOT historical text. Theres NO evidence to back of it up, and it defies logic and physics. How can you argue with somone who has an invisable friend? If they stopped talking in riddles, maybe he'd try talking to them.
DemonLDR 7 months ago
@DemonLDR I would research your statement about that. None of the people I mentioned resorted to the Bible because they are talking and debating with someone who does not beleive the bible.
Richard Dawkins undermined his position while biting his teeth acknoledging an intelligent designer with Ben Stein. Maybe you should read more into other atheists that have changed their position and READ their logical arguements for it.
Francis S Collins head of the Human Genome for example.
flippyflappy1 7 months ago
@DemonLDR I'm sorry, but a 500 word youtube post, will never be sufficient to the volumes a book can say. There are plenty of scientists top in their respective fields and they are far from being atheistic, why is that? Oh, and many of them like Antony Flew converted over with some not having a prior religious background. If Science and religion were mutually exclusive, wouldn't this be an impossiblity?
Richard Dawkins avoids people who cause him to acknoledge "Intelligent Design" -
flippyflappy1 7 months ago
@flippyflappy1 Dawkins puts down a fellow former atheist! DNA is what changed flew INFORMATION!!! Dawkins is a sick twisted man!!
5tonyvvvv 7 months ago
@BlackKlitschkofan Well said
joelarnda 7 months ago
An ad Hominum attack on Flew based on his age. Actually the "Dork" is a self opiniated man making money for his God, himself.
FlgOff044038 8 months ago
Dawkins will also find God in his way, he is just on his road, he is little confused, but he will on end realized what is God, and become deist or theist.
MrGlape 8 months ago
@MrGlape I'd ike to put money on that. There is no way someone as knowledagble, strong willed, and passionate as Richard Dawkins, will ever 'find god'. The only way this could happen, is if there became some new, undisputable evidence that god, in fact, does exist. Thus meaning, Richard will die an atheist, as the chances of any proof being found (esp before his death) is very remote. Scientists wilingly change their views when evidence is available. Believers are unable to do this.
DemonLDR 8 months ago in playlist Apologetic Philosophy
@DemonLDR Then he will realize that god exist when he die. xD
MrGlape 8 months ago
@MrGlape That comment is pointless, and adds nothing to the debate, besides childish stupidity.
DemonLDR 8 months ago
@DemonLDR Or maybe fear of death, I men fear of God at the end? huhuhu
MrGlape 8 months ago
@DemonLDR Dont worry he will realize what is god as his friend anthony flew, they all are confused at start then after some time realize the truth. Because the doors would be opened for those who will knocking.
MrGlape 8 months ago
@MrGlape I doubt it. Atheists are not sheep. Its common sense that the odd few will 'find god',. Just like it's common sense to say that a few christians will become atheist, agnostic, or even a muslim.
The only door that recieves a knock, is the one in your mind. We live in a world based on physics, math, and logic. God, Jesus, and an afterlife, defies those standard rules. If god were real, him, or someone representing him, would have shown some real evidence. God is a weak persons saviour
DemonLDR 8 months ago
@DemonLDR Here are real evidences by quantnum phizics. Here watch it, watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw&feature=related
MrGlape 8 months ago
@DemonLDR hes maybe weak so what? hes still strong enough to make the universe, as well as laughing, music, womens, cherries, oranges, water, animals, id say its still a pretty awesome god, also it does not defies physics logic or math since the whole universe shows incredibly intelligent design, if you dont see it youre closing your eyes
evidence alrdy had been shown, and wisdom was already written, you only need to read to learn how
to test it
just read the whole, then test him and see
roflzi 7 months ago
@roflzi How can he be weak and almighty? He never made any of those things. Laughing and music is based on personal preference, so invalidates "free will". If the universe was created, Id ask for my money back. Earthquakes, volcanos, tsumamis, drout, floods, plague? Then for afters, it's "Here child, die of cancer for your 3rd bday", and "hello war hero; heres alzheimers,thank me when you're dead"
I know the book very well. I know it so well, that I realise it's only a story, and nothing more
DemonLDR 7 months ago
@DemonLDR Actually wrong, god is in every being as higher self in ourselves. Your point that god is a weak persons saviour its simply stupid, and it shows your lack of understanding what is god, and what are aspects of god. I see that you are person which has mindset by atheistic or christian system, and I will simply say that we are "god". We have conscience in all of us, animals, humans, aliens,plants , some on lower some on higher level. But we are also in god, because all space is in god.
MrGlape 7 months ago
@MrGlape There's NOTHING to backup your claims. We've cracked the human genome, we know what every particle we're made of is, we cannot only explain them, and where they camefrom, we can even grow them artificially. We have figured out how to make new body parts, and its your religions that are holding it all back
Not everyone has a conscience, and the vast majority of animals don't. I feed my rattlesnake every week, but she'd still happily kill me. Does god have one? Neither did Hitler.
DemonLDR 7 months ago
@DemonLDR Oh that was so ignorantly dumb and stupid at same time. Man you have lack of understanding, oh you are so lost and confused. Everyone has a conscience, god too, without god conscience universe couldnt have power to create itself. Hitler also had conscience, but here is not about conscience its about Ego. You are blinded by false ego, ego is the biggest human enemy. Its the same thing at Hitler, his ego was busting and he screw up himself.
MrGlape 7 months ago
@DemonLDR Problem with god and people is that people think that some oldman is far away who is observing them outside of them. They dont recognize god in theirselfes, that observation goes from inside, not outside. Another problem is that people arent aware of their awareness, thats why some people do bad and stupid thing because they are not aware and they are ignorant, lack of inteligence.
MrGlape 7 months ago
@MrGlape People do bad things because they are bad people. It has nothing to do with ignorance or inteligence. Maybe your point would hit the mark if you didn't talk in riddles all the time. Thats one of the main problems with religion. It seems to strip away the ability to have a normal conversation. All you do is quote, and make silly remarkd you'd expect to hear from a machine. 'look outside the box' - why don't you try doing that? Make a 'to and for' list, and see if god trumps all. EVIDENCE
DemonLDR 7 months ago
@DemonLDR People are not bad, but they are blinded by false ego and lack of intelligence, other way every being as soul is good,blissful and eternal. And one big problem you have it you are comparing me with religion, Im sorry but its another lack of intelligence and big ignorant answer. If you wanna compare me with religion, then I cant talk with you, because I am not talking about religion. Religion doenst have anything with God.
MrGlape 7 months ago
@DemonLDR We've cracked the human genome as you say. Who was the head of the Human Genome Project? Scientist Francis S. Collins. He was an atheist turned to a Theist, and how might you ask? Through scientific observation and discoveries working in the field of genetics. The almost same way Antony Flew came to change his position from atheist to an intelligent designer.
You really should read from some of the top scientists on both sides of the debate to know your own arguement.
joelarnda 7 months ago
@DemonLDR also id like to add thats its pretty funny how much you look like a religious zealot the way you talk you type your comments, you dont hold the truth, so dont this
roflzi 7 months ago
@roflzi Please rephrase, as this makes little sense
DemonLDR 7 months ago
@DemonLDR Science slowly is more and more advanced. Chill man, they will get realization and answer one day that all matter has created by spirit.
MrGlape 7 months ago
HE MAKES ME ASHAMED TO BE CLASSED AS BRITISH.
It won't be long until Mr Dawkings stops copying and selling Darwins notes. Then he will see that paper monney made from wood and big cars made from iron ore actually dont fullfill his life, or in fact anyone else's.
Live you life as want, good or bad.
You can choose and you have free will. A rich man can only be rich by using the backs of the poor.
ying/ yang...up/down..left/right..right/wrong..rich/poor..master/slave
Nature will ballance.
hughesscotland 8 months ago
@hughesscotland The pope's rich. There is no better example of what the money of the poor can do. He has 24hr, top quality securety, a specially made car, servents (or slaves?). He has a plane to himself, he gets police escorts everywhere he goes, and he, more than likely, has free access to all the altar boys he wants. How about the royals? They've taken billions off the poor, and done nothing in return. The queen is one of the richest women alive, yet still milks money from the poor. Sickening
DemonLDR 8 months ago
To those who wish to respond to austinmckenzie69, my brother’s account, this is my authentic account: MrJesusinuislife.
MrJesusinuislife 8 months ago
Comment removed
MrJesusinuislife 8 months ago
This hate thing thats going on on these forums, only convinces me more that China is lauphing at us stupid americans. We can't get along even within our own country.Yet with all this arguing. Special forces went and killed Bin Laden. Take that China !@!!!
Tom6093 9 months ago
I hope Dawkins continued on his rant there and actually countered the anthropic principle for God’s existence or the biological complexity of the DNA molecule instead of merely resorting to insults, such as, “Oh, anyone who knows anything about biology would know that cellular machines were definitely not designed.” Dawkins arguments against intelligent design are exceptionally weak as shown in his popularized books. Dawkins is the delusional one here, not the theist who follows the evidence.
austinmckenzie69 9 months ago 8
@austinmckenzie69 Exceptionally weak? Have you read The Blind Watchmaker or Climbing Mount Improbable? Those books are entirely about disproving the biological notion of design...
Hektor88 9 months ago
@Hektor88, yes, including his legendary ‘The Selfish Gene,’ bestseller ‘The God Delusion,’ and relatively recent ‘The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.’ You know there are other critics besides Dawkins who write wholesale books attempting to discredit the theory of intelligent design, right? Have you read Stephen C. Meyer’s ‘Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design’ or Fazale Rana’s ‘The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry’?
MrJesusinuislife 8 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife I am aware of other books discrediting Intelligent Design. I mention Dawkins because this video is of him, and he was the topic of the comment I was responding too. Stephen C Meyer is a fellow and spokesperson for the Discovery Institute, the hub of the I.D. movement, and Fazale Rana is an out and out creationist. No, I have not read their work, but I am familiar with the claims of the I.D. movement, and find them to be bogus. I have no current intention of reading their work.
Hektor88 8 months ago
@Hektor88, what if I picked up Dawkins’ book and read the subtitle ‘Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design’? Should I toss it aside and say, “This claim is bogus,” or should I say, “That’s a bogus claim, but I’m going to read it anyways to see the evidence if there is any.” I can only imagine what a caveman thought of the idea of round earth until he decided to see the evidence against it. If nobody sought to hear the other side, then we’d all still be cavemen.
MrJesusinuislife 8 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife I did not say I dismissed I.D. claims out of hand, as you seem to think I do. What I said was "**I am familiar with the claims of the I.D. movement**, and find them to be bogus" (emphasis added). Meaning, I have looked into their claims, I have considered what they say, and I have concluded that I.D. is simply a re-branding of Christian Creationism, just like the 2004 court ruled. Their claims cannot and do not explain nearly as much data as modern evolutionary biology.
Hektor88 8 months ago
@Hektor88, a proponent of a flat earth society is pretty familiar with the claims of a round earth theorists, so what does that tell us about the flat earth believer? While he is obviously familiar with the other side's claims, he is ignorant of the round earth theorist's evidence for it! You consider what they say, but does that include the evidence, or what you've been spoon fed through atheistic lens? You should read the books to obtain an understanding of the why behind the claim of design.
MrJesusinuislife 8 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife My friend, I am not a conspiracy theorist, as flat earthers must be to explain away the mountains of evidence against their position. Please stop assuming I am ignorant or brainwashed. I understand evolutionary theory and the ideas of the I.D. movement. Darwin's theory is confirmed by mountains of evidence. And even if tomorrow it were shown to be wrong, it wouldn't mean I.D. is correct by default, because I.D. has already been proven wrong!
Have a good day.
Hektor88 8 months ago
@Hektor88, I wasn’t equating you to a flat earth believer in that sense, but that you indicated yourself that the other side’s claims appeared to be so bogus that you refuse to read up on their evidences. Yes, intelligent design is not a default position and you would know that design theorists do not use that line of argumentation if you read the books aforementioned. I find it strange that you’ve already concluded that one side is right without hearing from the other spectrum. Have a nice day.
MrJesusinuislife 8 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife hilarious you suggest atheists read books on ID to get to know your side/evidence. If ID had any real, compelling evidence to back up it's claim, we would. The biggest problem you and any creationist face is when you examine the evidence, you can't already have decided there is a god because your conclusion will be the same as your belief. And if the evidence doesn't support your claim, you just go looking for new evidence. you can't cherry pick from reality.
TrooperCX 8 months ago
@TrooperCX, questions about religion failing to look at the evidence from the other side is based on a false premise, so if you want to engage into a civilized discourse, practice asking unbiased questions that aren’t loaded with your preconceptions of the way religion really is. Asking the theist to answer the problem of why there’s no evidence for God’s existence won’t get you anywhere either. What you ought to be asking is what line of evidences is there for the theory of intelligent design?
MrJesusinuislife 8 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife we would all be living with out vaccines and air conditioning had theocracy and religion kept a super tight grip on society. Had this secular goverment not been founded, we might as well be cavemen. why didn't religion ever take a look at the other side for 1800 years? now we're supposed to hear out your bullshit claims that science can't know for sure the origin of life so god did it? your religion has had 2000 years to prove this shit and failed
TrooperCX 8 months ago
@TrooperCX, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take you seriously, especially since you seem to lack the capability of engaging in a civilized discussion. Go to anyone on the street, spouting words like shit and see if they will care about what you have to say. If you want to initiate a fruitful, intelligent discourse, just ask a candid question as oppose to ranting about your ill-conceived opinions about the theory of intelligent design and religion, such as where's the evidence for your religion?
MrJesusinuislife 8 months ago
athiesm is really not athiesm at all. athiesm has become what it PREACHES from its pulpit not to be;a RELIGEON! and what is the religeon of those who wish to have no accountability for their actions, yet not wishing to completely go to the ultimate dark side? PANTHEISM. nearly all pronounced athiest, worship either nature, or themeselves. you do have a GOD and you are a religeon.
solinari399 9 months ago
@solinari399 noooo They are "preaching" against religion plus you should learn to spell RELIGION before you try to argue against atheism read a book
gman3440 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
• Please click my name and watch my anti-religion song. WARNING to Christians: It mocks your entire being, your pedophile leaders and all of Hypco-cristianity. So only watch it if you can handle seeing everything you believe being exposed as an evil cult...all done with wit and charm of course.
Yea, I know, I'm a Troll...but I'm really proud of the video.
AtheistSongs 9 months ago
The Bible teaches that logic minus truth is futile, meaningless, random and chaotic nonsense: and that it is practiced by fools.
Re: "bacteria": A single bacteria that would have existed an infinite gazillion years ago can only have contained an EQUAL or HIGHER amount of information than the same bacteria today. That means Darwin had it backwards. Darwin did NOT know about DNA, and he had NO idea that biological lifeforms are WRITTEN/created and GOVERNED by symbolic information: NOUS /LOGOS.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago
(1) The universe and time itself came into being at what astronomers call the "Singularity".
(2) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
There is NO such thing as an effect without a cause.
(3) The universe --time, space, all matter, energy, everything-- BEGAN to exist (see: Singularity).
(4) A creation can not precede its creator: therefore the CAUSE of the universe can not exist within the universe or within time.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago 3
@Mr88playmaker The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is a really good argument! :)
thetraceur123 9 months ago 2
@Mr88playmaker "There is NO such thing as an effect without a cause." You presume the cause of the failure of the singularity and the expansion of the universe came from outside the singularity itself..... Interesting. Do you not find it plausible that what ever power source was driving the singularity to do what it did could have been consumed/became unstable/or some other way failed so that the singularity could not maintain itself? Internal cause is still cause, does not need to be external.
CtheWolfe 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker That just goes to show how narrow minded you are with the subject. Assuming all causes come from outside the thing that is impacted by the cause. You also jump the the conclusion that the universe is a creation. What proof is there that it was created in the sense of needing a creator? You state that "meaningless" and "random chaos" cannot spawn logic. But perhaps you just cannot understand things that are beyond you so you label them "random" and "meaningless"
CtheWolfe 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Actually using the word meaning to explain something is rather a silly venture in itself. What is the meaning of a tree falling in a wind storm? Yes it has a cause. But what is the meaning of it? Using a word such as meaning to describe events, the arising of intelligence from non intelligence for instance, is useless. Meaning implies that there was thought put into something thus it had a meaning. Things happen all the time without meaning. Are they random? Perhaps.
CtheWolfe 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker As for the DNA code you speak of it is not information as intended to relay a message to another intelligence. We have figured out what the parts of DNA do, what they govern. But that does not mean an intelligence "wrote" it as you put it. DNA does not convey knowledge or intelligence. Though they are a byproduct of what DNA does. You skip so many steps and leap to conclusions to fit your view of a need for a creator.
CtheWolfe 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker For the record, the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem has since been abandoned. Once quantum mechanics is taken into account, the singularity need not appear, according to "A Brief History of Time."
As for "There is NO such thing as an affect without a cause," I presume you would define god out of that statement, as he is a "necessary" being. Perhaps the universe itself could be "necessary," and not contingent on anything? Or is it an infinite regress of creators?
Hektor88 9 months ago
(quote): "As for "There is NO such thing as an affect without a cause," I presume you would define god out of that statement, as he is a "necessary" being. (end quote)
Nope. The 1st cause agent i.e. God means 1st (as in FIRST, that is first, as in 1st) cause. Not 2nd or 3rd but FIRST. A creation can not precede its creator. We know that biological machines are the product of information and language which arise from a MIND. The Greeks had it right. FIRST came the MIND of God -THEN came matter.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker pt 1: Not quite. The notion that information must come from a mind was first proposed by Werner Gitt, who defined the term as such to fit his creationist sensibilities. Modern information theory does not use his definition, and there is no reason to think information can only come from a mind, unless one arbitrarily defines it as such like Gitt did. A more thorough refutation of this "mind-information" idea can be found at the talkorigins website
Hektor88 9 months ago
@Hektor88
Fact: Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence between an encoder and decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
Fact: There are only two known languages:
1. Of human mind origin (including all things Morse Code, computer code etc.)
2. DNA code.
Fact: Information only arises from a MIND.
Fact: Language only arises from a MIND.
Fact: Matter can not and does not bestow meaning to symbols.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago 3
On origins: Richard Dawkins had ignorantly maintained that we exists, THEREFORE some soup accidentally turned itself into the most technologically advanced symbolic information computing system in the entire known universe i.e. the 1st self-replicating cell.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker You are attacking a straw man of Dawkins work. Go actually read his stuff.
Hektor88 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker i'm not gay but I woud totally fuck you.
dharper26 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker I am afraid most of those "facts" simply aren't. Information need not come from a mind. Go read Dawkins' essay "The Information Challenge," and you will not only have read some of his actual work, and thereby understand him a little better, but you will see why your views on information are outdated. The genetic code isn't "within" DNA, it IS DNA, and DNA is made of matter.
Hektor88 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Simply because you say something is fact does not mean it is for one thing. If information can only arise from a mind then there must have always been a mind but then there must have always been a mind before that one and that one and that one and it goes on forever so the idea of one god if flawed and there must be an infinite amount of gods which one of us it gave life. So Christianity under this belief is wrong.
ihavevideoatoo 7 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo maybe so, but you can say the same for matter, "how" or where did matter first appear, how, from what? why? so you still end up in that same "loop" either way you look at it.
DaFoxx28 5 months ago
@DaFoxx28 it is a loop you created by claiming something is a fact without any proof. Since we created things here in your mind EVERYTHING must have a creator. That may or may not be true but since we do not know you can't claim it as a fact.
ihavevideoatoo 5 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo i haven't claimed anything as fact. I don't think anyone on this earth can as far as our true origins, yet many try quite often.
DaFoxx28 5 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo What if we can't follow the basic assumption of science that every effect has a cause? I mean, we are dealing with a something before reality existed, before the beginning of space and time. Science's assumptions were based on reality, not whatever existed before reality. Breaking away from such an assumption could mean there is a self made God.
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@LimiconCardiod There just can't be a self made [insert noun here] within this universe.
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@LimiconCardiod uhh no that actually has nothing to do with science. You are confusing it i think with for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. Also the fact that it exists makes it reality. So you can't say god is out of reality when he exists. With that reasoning you are saying that something can come from nothing so couldn't the universe do them same? (Although that is not what I think)
ihavevideoatoo 5 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with science. It does have something to do with the Philosophy of science though. Every thinking system or model needs basic assumptions. One of Sciences basic assumptions is that there is a cause for every effect. Then that cause is an effect with its own cause. Please excuse my language fallacy. I meant that God exists outside of this universe, not reality. Science was based on the rules of this Universe. Cont...
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@LimiconCardiod I read Flew's book on why he switched. He points out that one of the best arguments against God, is a cosmologist, Victor Stenger, who argues that the universe came from nothing using symmetries. Flew also points out that Victor makes a mistake in thinking that symmetries are in the nothing the universe comes from, when in fact that would be something in nothing. Also, the universe can't be self made, because then things in the universe would be self made too. No evidence forthat
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@LimiconCardiod Those assumptions are based off prior knowledge. It isn't like they just pull them out of their ass and say it must be true. It is now believed that there are universes outside of our own and a new idea that has come up is that two universes collided and that energy is what created ours so that could be an explanation. Science is not based off our rules. It can be changed to fit any rules as long as it can follow the scientific method so no, god is not counted out
ihavevideoatoo 5 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo So now we talk about mutually exclusive hypothesis. If there is only one universe (this one) then randomness certainly couldn't cause so much order in it and therefor there is a creator. Otherwise there is a multiverse each universe with random parameters until this universe is the one that just happened to have the correct parameters. Flew pointed out that there can be no evidence for or against a multiverse, if each universe is truly contained.
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo There can be evidence for or against a creator though. (sorry ran out of wordage in the last post.)
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@LimiconCardiod there can be but you have to
1. show it
2. show it logically proves there must be a creater ( not just were here that means theres a god )
3. it has to go through the scientific method
ihavevideoatoo 5 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo 1. Define Question: Is there an intelligent entity that engineered the universe we humans observe?
2. Gather Info: We know... a. There are orderly Laws of the Universe that Interact together. b. We know life began long after the beginning of the Universe. c. Humans are aware of their own actions, thoughts, and emotions. d. Humans, unlike computers or other informational systems in nature, can actively decide what to think about. Computers only react to previous Intel states.
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo 3. Form a hypothesis: (we have two) Either, there is a creator of this universe, or the causes of all of these phenomena is randomness. If randomness caused these events then such a notion would be so inconcevibly rare, that there must be a large number of universes other than our own, each with random parameters and this universe is the one with the laws of physics JUST right to support all four of these phenomina. In short, either there is God and one universe, or a multiverse.
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo 4. Perform Experiment: Unfortunately, there can't be an experiment performed to prove, or disprove the existence of a multiverse. However, Many experiments were done to prove that the universe has constants. Drop something at a certain distance and you can measure it to fall at 9.81 meters/second/second. We can experiment to see if there is life, by observing if your friend is alive. We can experiment concousness by poking someone, watching their anger, then asking if they...
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@LimiconCardiod "However, Many experiments were done to prove that the universe has constants. Drop something at a certain distance and you can measure it to fall at 9.81 meters/second/second."
The presence of constants and natural geometries in nature is NOT proof of an intelligent intervener / designer.
The interaction of atoms and molecules is determined by the mathematical relationships inherent in their structures and composition.
Terncote 4 months ago
@Terncote How come the order in and of itself is not proof of an intellegent designer? Science assumes there is a reason for every obersable phenomena. I therefor must assume there is a reason for a constant. What do you think that reason is?
LimiconCardiod 4 months ago
Comment removed
Terncote 4 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo ...were aware of their anger. Finally, we can experiment to see if humans can think on a random topic, then we can measure this randomness using statistical analysis. I believe this measurement is called the R value. Do the same to a computer and you will find it not so random. Do this to evolution (an informational system) and you will find it not so random.
5. Analyze data: The data shows that the multiverse is unprovable. It shows the God hypothesis is plausible.
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo 6. Draw Conclusions for new hypothesis: The God hypothesis holds.
7. Publish Results: Here it is.
8. Retest: Many already are.
Anyway, that is my view on the deal. I doubt there are any satisfactory explainations other than an intelligent creator that explains such phenomena.
LimiconCardiod 5 months ago
@LimiconCardiod it just just an explanation without any evidence. The best explanation to me for my left sock always getting lost in the washer is that gnomes steal them. Well what is your evidence?
ihavevideoatoo 4 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo My evidence was the four things I pointed out to you. Something caused physics to be orderly, Something caused life with its cababilities to store and change genetic data, something caused consciousness, and something caused choice.
LimiconCardiod 4 months ago
@LimiconCardiod ur just saying something had to cause it without any evidence. Saying that something "caused" this to happen doesnt mean it had to be a god. It could be anything that caused it so just saying that doesnt even come close to linking it to a god. If anything physics is not really orderly i mean there is still so much we dont understand and so many different kinds of physics it doesn't make sense how you can say that. No data is really stored it is just duplicated.
ihavevideoatoo 4 months ago
@ihavevideoatoo It is the property of the order itself that points more towards something intelligent. I know the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to systems of heat, but I have never seen an example where information became more orderly through time (although that is a philosophy.) Even in the theory of evolution, the humble ameoba has far more alleles than a human. Energy spreads; the Universe is spreading; information breaks down with time. Combine this with a need for a cause, and...
LimiconCardiod 4 months ago
@LimiconCardiod , and you have some kind of intelligent creator.
LimiconCardiod 4 months ago
@Hektor88 (QUOTE): "...first proposed by Werner Gitt, who defined the term as such to fit his creationist sensibilities." (END QUOTE)
Einstein (your favorite DEIST) pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify NO means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Irrelevant appeal to authority. That Einstein says so doesn't make it so. Additionally, you have shifted to discussing "symbolic" information and "meaning." I fully agree that "meaning," in an existential sense, can only be applied by minds, which is why the "meaning" of our lives is something we individually determine. But that's a separate topic. Information, as defined by information theorists, can, and does, appear via blind, naturalistic processes.
Hektor88 9 months ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The notion that information must come from a mind was first proposed by Werner Gitt,"
Gitt with it then, This is not rocket science.
Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
Symbolic information requires a mind. Only a mind can assign meaning to symbols. Genetic code writes/creates and governs all things biological-you via symbolic information.
The implications for atheists are ugly.
Mr88playmaker 6 months ago
@Mr88playmaker pt 2:
"A creation can not precede its creator."
As Percy Shelley said, "Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred...it is not permitted to assume the contested premises and thence infer the matter in dispute."
In short, the argument "we exist, therefore God" doesn't work, because it must be shown that were were indeed created before we can inquire about the creator(s).
Hektor88 9 months ago
@Hektor88
The genetic code within DNA writes / creates all things biological-you and governs it all. For example the genetic code writes. creates your heart, circulatory system, your brain, your eyes, ears and hearing system, your hands, feet, mouth, nose... everything. Said genetic symbolic information (which writes YOU into being) is neither matter nor energy. Information only arsies out of thought (a MIND) and transcends its medium. The Greeks called it LOGOS. DNA killed material theory
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago 5
Richard Dawkins admits that DNA carries the signature of a designer. He says that space aliens may have written the code. The problem with the space alien DNA author theory is that space aliens would reside within the cosmos making them also products of information and language (i.e. code)
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Dawkins puts down his own kind! DNA is what changed flew INFORMATION!!! Dawkins is a sick twisted man!!
5tonyvvvv 7 months ago
There is nothing mythical in concluding that Intelligence only arises from an intelligent source.
"Irrational" is believing that logic arises out of meaningless, random chaos; and is continually evolving via meaningless, random chaos. Such "logic" (random meaningless nonsense) is a new idea and atheistic.
The secular (non religious) Greeks concluded that NOUS / LOGOS (mind / language) came FIRST, and then 2nd came the universe. DNA proves that symbolic information (NOUS / LOGOS) came first.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago 2
(A) Information is the communication or reception of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(B) DNA code is symbolic INFORMATION like computer software & cells are computers.
(C) Even if humans had NEVER discovered DNA code: DNA code creates and governs all things biological via the communication of KNOWLEDGE or INTELLIGENCE between an encoder and a decoder utilizing agreed upon symbols.
(D) INFORMATION arises from a MIND. So does LANGUAGE.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago 2
i dont know if i am athiest ): i am thinking hard i need hel message me please
YEAWELLCOOLWHIP 9 months ago
Empirical proof that Atheists are illogical dummies.
There are only two options:
(1) Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source (the MIND of GOD)
(2) Intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.
To their embarrassment, Atheists are stuck with option no.2 ---- a position that can NOT be logically or scientifically defended.
FUNNY but TRUE: Atheists maintain that logic arises out of meaningless random chaos and is continually evolving via meaningless random chaos.
Class dismissed.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago 3
Atheists can not scientifically defend Evolution. All they can do is attempt to re-frame the argument as one between science and religion. The findings of modern science point away from Evolution and toward Intelligent Design.
The real argument is one between True Science (Intelligent Design) and false science (Evolution). Richard Dawkins finally blew his cool and stopped pretending to be a scientist. He now writes books promoting atheism & hatred toward God as a way to save Evolution.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago 3
The reason that most Americans (and Brits and others) do not believe in Evolution is because Evolution is an antiquated, illogical, mathematically & biologically impossible theory dreamed up by some guy who was NOT even a scientist, and that had NO idea what a biological cell was or how it functions. Darwin himself admitted that his ideas and little drawings were dreamed up and that he had zero proof for any of it. His theory may as well have been: Time + chance = monkeys flying outa his butt.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago 3
@Mr88playmaker wow, you are a complete idiot.
takingbackmavis 9 months ago
@takingbackmavis (QUOTE) "wow, you are a complete idiot." (END QUOTE)
Nope. Remember, it is YOU who maintains that logic arises out of meaningless, random chaos; and is continually evolving via meaningless, random chaos.
Remember also that whereas I maintain that Intelligence arises from an Intelligent Source; YOU maintain that intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.
In Conclusion: by your own definition; YOU are the IDIOT.
P.S. There's egg on your face.
Class dismissed.
Mr88playmaker 9 months ago 3
Dawkins is mad at ex-atheist anthony flew because he just launched his book in 2005 "god dillussion" yet his once reverred anthony flew for being one of the dynamic atheist has now publicly announced that he was wrong to say there is no God. Prompting him to publish a new book in 2007 "There is a God" as a move to correct his error.
279cute 10 months ago
@279cute Quran:
(Surah-4-the women-vs-17)
Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever knowing, wise.
18-and repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom we have prepared a painful chastisement.
quranresponse 10 months ago
I like Dawkins but I think him putting Flew down is a bit harsh. In my opinion Deism is completely respectable; it's when people believe that the creator of the universe actually cares if I believe in him or not that I start to get annoyed.
idreamtofflight 10 months ago
Antony Flew was an old old man with dimentia. Let him rest in peace.Maybe he was insane his whole life. Who knew???
And GAWD...Dawkins is BORING AS HELL..oops..BORING AS SHIT. (shit exists..hell doesn't-or so I've been informed).
1955JAFO 10 months ago
lol.... "anybody who knows anything biology, will immediately see that that is rediculous"...this guy is a retard, Antony Flew is a much more credible academic than he will ever be!
mikey0892 10 months ago
@mikey0892 Only thing is, he DID study biology, while Anthony Flew did not.
Eilavesch 10 months ago
@Eilavesch lol typical...when antony flew is an athiest you all start to quote him and say how brilliant he is..as soon as he changes his mind..."he's lost his mind", "he it ignorant in biology".........OH PLEASE.
mikey0892 10 months ago 11
@mikey0892 I actually didn't know him until this vid and the one where he explains why he converted, but whatever.
Eilavesch 10 months ago
@Eilavesch Me neither, he's probably more famous now than he ever before was for all the theists picking up on his case.
2CSST2 9 months ago