Science is a man-made religion of faith in today's knowledge.

[waddletop]

So, what created God?

Or, did God just appear spontaneously?

If that could happen; did the universe appear spontaneously?

Science doesn't pretend to have an answer for these things. Science doesn't ask you to believe anything - check it for yourself.

Science is an attempt to fund a useful way of understanding reality.

Anything that does claim to be a useful way of understanding reality can be checked against reality.

The holy books of various religions don't check out against reality.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@waddletop

You understand that time, all space & mater was created at the same moment as our universe don't you? Please explain to me why a timeless, space-less & mater-less cause/creator would need a cause/creator itself and not have been eternal? The Bible doesn't claim to be a science book nor does an English book but this does not make one right or wrong, the Bible is a book of morality. Science itself can only prove morality, justice and ones self-awareness with free-will as an illusion.

[specialguy104]

@WILLTHEWGMAN Im an Atheist and I have morals. I have never been a Christian.

I just don't see how a god making everything magically appear is any more logical than saying a spec of pure energy exploded and created the the forming of the universe.

Im not trying to attack religion by the way. Its just why I see no reason to convert.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Science itself is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited five human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions & ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via this limited view. If bacteria had it's own logic & reason then used the scientific method how would they perceive the same world we live in with their senses, would we be mindless to them? Cont>

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Cont>: Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition to a truth seeking method and just as dogmatic and limited as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this regard philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proved it's own mother a myth!

[bioniclefan4life]

2:59 He also believed that the Earth was about the size of Mars, but unfortunately for him, the Earth was more than 2 1/2 times larger, and he would have starved out at sea if North America wasn't there for him to land on. And it wouln't surprise me if he believed that because of religion too.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

~ For most people it seems more logical to accept an eternal creator with will, cause and reason for the universe other than; “a “singularity” construct of mathematical theory that cannot truly exist beyond concept and has logical contradictions beyond natural occurrence and understanding.” Do they think we make such a choice in belief in God via religious blindness or logical deduction? Numbers look great on paper but what is the equation for love, hate, good or evil or even consciousness?

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@eric6942069

If science can admit when it is wrong then how do with know when it is every right for sure? If you assume science is currently correct but later something is found to be in error, did we just accept with faith that it is correct today? How was not dis-proven science like; Phlogiston theory, Geocentric theory, classical elemental theory, corpuscular theory of light and Newton's Laws of Motion anything more than faith in understanding? All false faiths in understanding by the way...

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

There is a truth in morality & its understanding is born into humans. Science always fails to explain the need in mankind for philosophy or why philosophy dominates laws of man and the science of evolution is ignored. Animals have no moral expectations even if science claims humans as just another evolved animal. Love, hate, good, evil & crime itself has no scientific meanings. Why do we give more credence to moral understanding than of science if one claims we don't have a soul?

[Hytegia]

Space and time are relative concepts based upon movement and perception. If you were moving through the universe at the speed of light, then time relative to your movement would be slowed down, and any objects you view would be moving absolutely none due to your relevance to them.

If you were absolutely stopped in the universe, time would move much faster for you because everything would be moving faster than you, causeing your perspective of space and time to skew.

they only exist here.

[burns725]

Asking what happened before the big bang is pointless and meaningless. As you no doubt already know time and space are two sides of the same coin. The big bang was the beginning of space & it was also the beginning of time. Time is the dimension that gives meaning to words like 'before' and 'after'. Without time these words have no meaning. To ask what happened before the big bang is to ask what happened before time, a concept upon which 'before' is contingent. No time means no 'before'.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@burns725

Not sure any science of today claims that there is nothing beyond are universe, most say that there 11 dimensions like in string theory. Even if time did not exist we know that energy did, that is what we are created from, our concept of time like in past and present is more of an idea than the dimension you claim did not exist before our universe. Stating there was no time before our universe is like stating there is no distance outside our universe and we don't know this.

[burns725]

@WILLTHEWGMAN ...and the 4th one would still be time, as per General Relativity. Matter is energy and space is time. With out space matter cant 'be' anywhere and with out time energy cant 'be energetic'. Our perception of time runs counter intuitive to how time actually functions. If you took any time to learn about science before attempting to debunk it you would not make such childish statements. You demonstrate no grasp of logic whatsoever. Read some science books.

[StructuredAtoms]

There is no faith in the world of science. There is only proof, cause and effect. When that proof is proved to be insufficient or otherwise false, science moves on and tries to find an alternative explanation. When religion's proof is proved to be insufficient or otherwise false, people make videos like these.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@StructuredAtoms

Interpretations of speculative evidence is not proof and theories of such are of science but not proof alone and never absolute truths. Scientific theory would not be included in your definition of science as you describe here; "...There is only proof, cause and effect"

This would mean if science were only proofs, theories would not be of science and excluded but they are. That is not what science is at all.. science does not = proof and a false assumption on your part!

[coolvideo28]

keep spreading the Truth. evolutionists will attack you because they hate the Truth but keep shining that light in the Dark

[jakedevon]

False science has definitely become a religion.

Real science points to the Creator.

After all, matter can't create itself. A Matter Maker made the matter.

Simple physics.

[vava54own]

@jakedevon

And may I ask who made the Matter Maker?

The creator of Matter Maker? and who made the creator of creator of Matter Maker?

Of course, it's simple physics.... but haven't you noticed that we are turning in circles with your arguments?

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@vava54own

Nor does science claim to answer these things for matter is energy; conservation of energy is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. So how did energy come about (what created it)?

[Idofphoenix]

Blah. Ad Hom isn't the right Fallacy but it is a fallacy none the less. sorry for the confusion.

[Idofphoenix]

Science does in fact ask what created the 'raisin bread' because it doesn't know and what scence does is try to answer the unknown. Any scientist or engineer (a scientist with human ingenuity as you put it) worth their salt knows this. Science can DRIVE ingenuity. You can claim science does not come from knowledge but you can claim that knowledge comes from science. Also, Christopher Columbus had no such inkling. Not that it would matter anyways since that'd just be an Ad Hom fallacy anyways.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@Idofphoenix

If "Science does in fact ask what created the 'raisin bread' because it doesn't know and what *science does is try to answer the unknown." ~How does it eliminate intelligent design as a mechanism or does it make the claim to do so? If no such claim is made we just argue theory vs. theory really... If science does make such a claim to refute any and/or all forms of possible intelligent designers (i.e. God) as a mechanism I don't know about that research, let me know please?

[Phsymorph]

If science is a man-made religion of faith, you must have a lot of faith in that religion as you are successfully using a computer to make and upload videos to youtube for the entire world to see. That's a lot of fancy technology right there brought by one of the most successful religions in the world, don't you think? So what has christianity brought to the table lately?

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@Phsymorph

Human ingenuity and knowledge with labor creates technology, not science! Invention and discovery are a lot older than any concept of science. There are no Laws, Principles or Theories in knowledge for a reason, only science can get away with these limitations. Science can be wrong and is wrong all the time, are eggs good are bad for me to eat, I can keep up with sciences option of knowledge...

[Phsymorph]

@WILLTHEWGMAN

You are right that there are other methods of acquiring technology than science. You cannot have technology without knowledge, and no method has proven more efficient at discovering knowledge than the scientific method.

Science is not wrong all the time. But you are right, science can be wrong. But the only way to find where science is wrong is through the use of the scientific method. It's a self-correcting process.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@Phsymorph

If science can be wrong then you take it by faith alone. To admit something might be and still give credence to it is by faith alone. There is no man-made absolutes in this world and science is counted in this statement in concept and by definition.

[Phsymorph]

@WILLTHEWGMAN

I give credence to science by its fruits. Ever since the discovery of the scientific method, our level of knowledge and understanding have sky-rocketed. As there are no absolutes as you point out, that alone makes everything a matter of faith. I would say science is that which demands the least amount of faith as everything undergoes heavy scrutiny, and what is already scientifically established is demonstrably correct.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@Phsymorph

If we discover within some multiverse system that the true Laws of Gravitation as we know them are some exceptions to a greater rule and only within our own universe; should we stop making Laws of science then? Why have Laws anyways with no absolute truths? Is not all in science just theory? Are we trying to fool ourselves with language like this?

[moyga]

You totally misunderstand what science is, your ignorance saddens me. Maybe you should actually go to university and study some science and some philosophy of science before you try to speak authoritatively about it.

Also, Science doesn't make claims to knowledge it doesn't currently have, so what? That's a good thing! Which is more irrational? Admitting you don't know something that you do not or pretending to non-existent knowledge like religion does?

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Science has a grand idea of itself. It somehow proves that the theory of evolution prevents intelligent design but ALL of sciences' Hypotheses, Theories, Principles, and Laws can be changed at any future given time because they have one thing in common, None are Absolute!

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Science seems to be geared towards disproving things related to religion and proving ideas like man-made global warming as a doctrine. Science fails to have an open mind when its eyes and doctrine are in opposition to any other idea. How many non-theist scientific studies have there been on intelligent design in evolution, like in regard to the complexity of DNA for example?

[moyga]

Omg man, actually go and study science, you totally misunderstand it. Tell me, do you have ANY IDEA how your phone, TV, computer or the internet works? How a disk can play a movie? Scientists figured out how to create those things, science works, if it didn't those things wouldn't exist. If not for science, you wouldn't have over 90 percent of the things you own and use today that make your life better.

Like, your fridge, your plastic cups, your medicine, your freaking light bulbs!

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Science is not Knowledge and said to be more than just a method.

Human ingenuity with knowledge and labor creates technology, not science! I don't use science, I use technology. Only scientific fields use sciences!

[moyga]

You are wrong, that technology is created through science, if you really understood how they were created and what science was you would understand that.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Science does not make Technology no more than a spelling book makes my poems or a Grammar book helped William Carlos Williams with his poems. We both ignore these books of rules by Man!

[moyga]

Again, the fact that Science will admit a theory is wrong if new evidence arises that proves that theory wrong is a GOOD THING, which is again, something religion does not do. Being absolute is a BAD THING, it entails close-mindedness and ignorance.

There is tones of evidence for evolution.Yes it is 'possible' they might find something that somehow disproves evolution tomorrow but its also 'possible' that the flying spaghetti monster exists. The possibility of something isn't evidence for it.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

To admit something might be and still give credence to it is by faith alone. Having set laws in which we limit challenges such as the law of gravity is by faith in our knowledge, not a rule by nature.

For a sample; what we observer in our single universe and what we know to be gravitation could be an example to the exception of a greater rule of gravitation, yet undiscovered in a "multiverse".

The flying spaghetti monster is a "straw man" with no thousands of years of history and faith.

[PlatonicUniverse]

One can argue that science operates under faith based principles ( a few have been named), but I don't think one can say that Science is really a religion...there are no churches for science, and the laws of science do not tell people what or what not to do, for example.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

A religion is any systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one's origins (science is like this).

But you are correct in stating in some regard it is not like part 2 of the defined word: one's place in the world, or a responsibility to live and act in the world in particular ways.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@jeffgoin

Please stay on point, this video and information is only about science as a religion of faith, not debate of other religions.

Your comment in regard to another religion of faith other than science was not realivent, thus deleted.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

No mater how you slice and dice it, theory and evidence alone is never proven fact. Science even admits this.

Hard science has even proven prior hard science wrong in many cases.

Science can Not be always fact without challenges via new knowledge, that would not be scientific!

[AbbeyNormal]

But you still drive cars and take medicine, I'm guessing.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Sure do but not all are safe in both cases, that snake oil stuff in the 1800s never helped anyone.

I drink clean water, breath oxygen and follow the laws of gravity when I can as well.

[AbbeyNormal]

Snake oil is not science or medicine. It's peddled by people with a poor understanding of science to people with a dirt poor understanding of science.

My point is that you use modern technology and medicine because it works. It's demonstrated over and over again that the principles behind these machines are solid and produce results. Faith does not produce results, or else it would be science.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

I could send you a long list recalled medical items by science, today's! Fin Phin...

My point is that science itself has proven science wrong in many cases so take it as it only is, faith in today's knowledge and only this!

I use technology everyday, not seeing how this changes any of that?

[AbbeyNormal]

So since science has been proven wrong that must make it no good, right? So you should stop using medicine and technology. Or maybe you're trying to say that because it's not perfect, it's inferior to prayer? Because I can tell you, in clinical trials prayer doesn't do so hot. I'd also like to point out that when science is wrong, it's science that lets us correct it. Unlike believing in god, science allows you to admit you were wrong and fix the mistake.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

I don't use science, I use technology.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Human ingenuity and knowledge creates technology, not science!

[AbbeyNormal]

What do you think technology is? It's the practical application of scientific knowledge. It couldn't exist if we didn't know anything about how the universe works.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

In Science we can think more than we can do but in Technologies' case, we have only what we have made from knowledge alone, not such by science.

[AbbeyNormal]

What does that even mean? Are you pointing out that technology demonstrates known scientific principles? Because I agree. Those principles are the same ones that all scientific knowledge is based on. There's always going to be more to know, but what we do know is well demonstrated by our ability to use technology. That knowledge was not gained through faith or prayer but through harsh scrutiny. The kind that the supernatural does not stand up to.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Science can Not be always final fact without challenges via new knowledge, that would not be scientific otherwise! There are no final laws to knowledge for even in the smallest or largest examples; any and all modern knowledge could be dis-proven later as simply and exception to the rule of a greater for example.

There seems to be an assumption of final laws in science but can't be if it is based off of changing knowledge, that can be only by faith.

[AbbeyNormal]

The nature of science is to change and grow with new information. The nature of faith is to cling to the same ideas and refuse to change with new information. They're nothing alike.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.

Science is a man-made religion of faith in today's knowledge.

[AbbeyNormal]

I really don't see how accepting the trustworthiness of something that's repeatable, testable and demonstrable counts as "faith". I don't have "faith" that something will fall straight down if I drop it, it just always happens and I've got every reason to think it will always happen until something else happens.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

If science is 100% from knowledge it would not have set rules or laws because knowledge does not. Science is not Knowledge, it is only today's understanding of how we understand knowledge of today to be.

[AbbeyNormal]

Science is a method. The scientific body of knowledge is tested constantly by that method. The method's purpose is not to prove things true but to find anything that would prove something untrue. That's falsification. When something is demonstrated untrue, it is removed from the scientific body of knowledge. This is why creationism is not considered science, it is falsified by the evidence.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

But is it like that everywhere? No! The observation is not proof of all even for this rule itself. A rule or law in science is not the end-all because knowledge is fluid with no rules or limits of laws of nature, Every law of science is created only by Man's current understand of knowledge to be, thus we ourselves limit the idea of a fluid science by claiming such fixed laws!

[AbbeyNormal]

There are only a few places where creationism is considered even a little bit valid, and it's always motivated by a highly religious population.

The physical laws are what we use do describe reality. If you claim the laws are otherwise, you have to demonstrate it by finding something that breaks those laws.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

I only claim that; Science is a man-made religion of faith in today's knowledge.

[AbbeyNormal]

And I say it isn't, for the reasons I stated above. Are we starting over now?

[PortVienna80]

@WILLTHEWGMAN

I'll add to that: many,but not all, cosmologists believe in dark matter,even though we have no physical evidence through science of its existence. So don't they have to go by faith,"..the assurance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen"?

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

With, M-theory (an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified), a creator could exist on the 11th dimensional plane and have created the lower 10 dimensions including our own world of 3 dimensions (our universe).

In fact, a created could exist as another sample; on the 8th dimensional plane and have created the 3 higher dimensions (9th to 11th) and as well all the lower (7th to 1st) dimensions! You, I or science does not know!

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

or the 11th dimension could be God himself and have created the 10 lower dimensions!

[Shoebomb23]

Actually M0 theory indicates that the 11th dimension is only 11 nanometers wide and goes on infinitely in both directions, for our purposes forward and reverse. additionally M theory indicates that nothing lives in the 1th dimension, it is simple a place were infinite energy exists, which is eternal.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

So they know what the 11th dimension is? We can't even fathom a 4th dimension, our eyes are not made to understand or see much less our mind! So nothing lives in the first dimension but energy exists? So God can exists just not live, well, he created life so that makes sense! No seeing how any of this disproves Creationism?

[MrSkyProductions]

Your argument starts with a logical fallacy . It begins with an assumption, To think that we people are the desired outcome of the universe is a bit egomaniacal dont you think. If you realize the true size and scope of the universe it is clear that humans are just a byproduct. Even if there was an intervening force that created our manifestation of the universe, its more than ridiculous for you to claim that mankind was the intended outcome.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

hhmm, Where do I assume life, people or anything is a, "desired outcome of the universe"?

This video is not based on any desired outcome, and only refers once to "Life itself could have created.." as a sample of the endless possibilities or options... and not being egomaniacal !

[Shoebomb23]

That is the very basis of your argument right, why would you care about a creator if you weren't the intended creation. what if the "creator" is not a being, what if as Einstein proposed the "creator" was simply the natural laws of the universe. The intended outcome and the only outcome is the paradoxical universe it self. If we corrected the world's logical fallacy, no doubt it would adversely affect every religious institution, dont you think.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

A lot of what if's there.

God created our being, no one assumes that God is just a simple higher being. God is stated to be the light, the beginning and the end and no one knows for sure in what way we are created in God's image, it could be on the nano level or in some way no yet discovered.

Above the 3rd dimension I have no assumptions, please give me evidence to disprove Creationism?

[MrSkyProductions]

energy = eternal, e=mc2, indicates that all matter is is just another form of energy, meaning if energy is eternal, and the present universe is just the matter form of this energy, that means there is no creator. additionally new explorations into M theory which indicates that our universe is only a small part of the larger picture, that our universe is a stem of a larger eternal structure. Interesting research you should do, before trying to debunk hard science.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

M theory or not, there has to be a first or being of anything and that first would have had to have created itself or always existed, in the 3rd dimension or the 11th...

[MrSkyProductions]

That is also another assumption, that there has to be a first, or being. What if as M theory states, that the 11th dimension is simple. A pure eternal stream of energy, non purpose. It exists simply because it cannot not exist. Simply what if the 11th dimension is one of the laws of the universe. but my question to you is why does the creator matter. lets strip off this illusion that humans are the intended result of the universe, and start asking questions about being.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

No, the assumption is one or the other, that either something always existed or that the first thing that did, like some pure form of energy created itself out of nothing, from nothing then all was created from this.

Please give me evidences to completely discount Creationism from all levels of the 11 dimension of M-Theory, this is my point, you can't!

[MrSkyProductions]

We realize that man is only a spec, in a vast cosmos, whose actions are so inconsequential, that merely this discussion has furthered the human race. this is simply my opinion, but i think that the only way that man can truly progress and evolve if you will, is to realize the meaninglessness to our existence. I realize to some this maybe paradoxical, how can realizing our meaningless progress humanity, my answer is simple, to comprehend our vulnerability and meaninglessness...

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

You State, "but i think that the only way that man can truly progress and evolve if you will, is to realize the meaninglessness to our existence" I thought evolution of man was a part of that progress and without any realization, just arbitrary dumb luck? You can't have it both ways, either there is a point to life or it is arbitrary!

How does any of this discount Creationism?

[MrSkyProductions]

to comprehend our vulnerability and meaninglessness is not only half the battle, it is the entire war. The day our race finally realizes that truly we are inconsequential, that we are merely a spec allows us to truly confront being, and what it means to be human. I think religion is an ancient philosophy, one that is bread of insecurity and in the search of meaning. I think we must truly move past that and begin to ask radical new questions, as a sort of metaphysical question of ontology.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Again, what scientific method and annalist are you using to discount any Creationism on any level using M-Theory or not? So you don't see Creationism of our world (our known universe) possible at all in regard as having be made by a higher intelligence? What is the proof of this discount if so?

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

also you state, "that means there is no creator."

Please explain this assumption and creator of what, the higher 11th dimension and below or just the first 3 we live in?