Science needs data, that should b analyzed. In order for one to prove anything through the eyes of science. Since god is outside the bounds of our universe, u can not scientifically prove god's existence. Just as one can not prove that any one of us had a great great great great great grandfather. There is no scientific data available for this human that can b tested to prove that he existed. So u know now, it is not necessary for Gods existence to b proven scientifically
@kamina77 "Since god is outside the bounds of our universe, u can not scientifically prove god's existence."
If there is no observation that can be made that can distinguish a reality where god exists from one where it doesn't, then the concept "God" has exactly zero explanatory value. You don't win a debate by just declaring that "it's not necessary for God's existence to be proven scientifically". That just earns you the reply: "Ok, so it's a meaningless concept then. Occam's razor"
@Sinkh Do you really align yourself with Craig's version of this? There are better philosophers of religion, that have made better cases (which still are unsatisfactory in providing any evidence for theism). In every case, an assumption must be made, and bluntly so.
Good grief, this video is wrong. First of all, you've messed up the contingency argument. It doesn't say that an infinite chain cannot exist. It just says that every contingent thing has an external explanation, that the group of all contingent things is itself a contingent thing, and therefore the group has an external explanation. That would have to be something non-contingent.
Secondly, the kalam argument is from 600AD. Not modern.
Third, Craig provides sub arguments for the properties.
@Sinkh The first premise isn't even that sound. We don't know if the universe always existed in some form other than the one we know today or not. There is also no way to avoid the argument of what caused the thing that caused the universe. If you can accept that this thing that caused the universe doesn't need to have a cause, then why can't you lend the same acceptance to the universe, itself?
I have checked. Most atheists get them so wrong they end up criticizing an argument that exists only in their fevered imaginations. See my profile for videos PROPERLY explaining the five Thomistic arguments as well as the contingency argument.
The argument really is simple. An infinite series cannot exist. Because it has no beginning, and therefore no series. Therefore infinity must be nothing. And where there is a series, it must be finite, and must have the transcendent infinite as the cause.
If you can`t understand it, well then you can`t understand what the logic school is built on.
@ParadoxEternal I understand the argument, but the argument is flawed simply because it is demanding that we accept that everything has a cause while simultaneously stating that there is something without a cause. It doesn't matter if you give this attribute of "eternal" to it--that's arbitrary.
And, as the video stated, the argument is completely useless in support of any God simply because this argument can also support the theory that the universe started out as a singularity
@knowwaie Cause and effect only applies to the macro level, not at the sub-atomic level as physics clearly shows, uncaused events are the norm.
Also we have to define a cause, a cause is the rearrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time, since time and matter didn't exist before The Big Bang, there could be no cause. The real hilarious notion is you, the one who believes in a supernatural being who is immaterial but can somehow have a cause and effect relationship with material.
@knowwaie A God is defined as something that can’t be weighed, split in half, heated or cooled, something that lacks mass and electric charge….So how can something like that have a cause and effect relationship with something which has mass, electric charge, can be weighed, split in half, heated and cooled ect.? Obviously no rational thinking person can believe this is true, this is where you slap the supernatural or magical label on this immaterial being to make your fallacies work. Typical.
@knowwaie "Well, if you believe the universe to be itself infinite (which you must) then it would logically follow that either our 4.5 billion year figure is completely wrong"
When did I say the universe was infinite? You make absolutely no sense, how can you talk about logic when you have the IQ of a baby chimp? The universe began 4.54 billion years ago, nothing I states contradicted the beginning of the universe. I knew people who believed in God were delusional, but you take the cake buddy.
Your video seemd reasonable but fail's immediatly. The first premise is "What ever begins to exist, has to have a cause"
God never began to exist. To say God's are created is a fallacy. No one believes in created God's.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.
I dont necessarily think you're attcking Kalam's version, but if you are you're setting up a strawman trying to disprove the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
@knowwaie ".... goes through cycles of expansion and contraction"
The evidence does not support this. The universe's fate is The Big Freeze not the The Big Crunch, but I guess the Hindus were right about somethings so I'll give them credit for that. Also Hindus believe in the God "Vishnu", (A God with multiple limbs). Since I believe in no gods, your Hindu theory regarding me just went out the window, along with all your other premises.
@knowwaie "Right.. This is because logic is relative to acquired information. The only person who could be perfectly logical is someone who knows everything.."
True but the person who knows more still uses more logic than the uneducated one, which is of course, why I have had the upper hand in this debate from the beginning.
Until you acknowledge the complete difference between sub-atomic events and macro events, you haven't even scratched the surface for an argument.
@knowwaie If you called a million people and they were all scattered evenly throughout the globe, and you asked each one if the land was flat they would say "yes". If all across the entire planet, all million people say where they are is flat, then logic states the whole world is flat. You see my point? Sometimes your simple uneducated logic has no place in reality.
@knowwaie "This is why philosophy has always been said to be fruitless. Because it never gives answers, only more questions."
This is the only intelligent thing you have said this whole debate, I completely agree.
"Philosophy is to reality what masterbation is to sex" - Carl Marx
"Philosophy is dead" - Steven Hawking
The problem here is much of philosophy is based on simple unscientific logic..Everything that begins to exist, has a cause for example is simple logic used in theistic philosophy
You know i've literally debated tens of thousands of atheists and none of them will ever admit that they are Marxists.
Right, philosophy (logic [in case you didn't know these words are synonymous]) is obsolete. I have been saying this for YEARS and i've never even heard that quote form Hawkings. It came from my own intellect. I must be a fucking genius.
Again.. Philosophy is the use of logic. You just admitted you don't believe there is logic.
@knowwaie My apologies, it was actually Carl Sagan who I was quoting. Carl Marx was in my head because I was previously debating a Zeitgeist Movement nut job and I was actually using Carl Mark and how his ideas failed as an argument.
Of course I believe in Logic, I just don't believe in unscientific logic.
Logic says the sun goes up and comes down, therefore, it revolves around earth, the problem is we know we revolve around the sun. Sometimes simple unscientific logic (yours) doesn't cut it.
Oh good.. Even though that is much worse.. Forgive me for digressing but Carl Sagan proved that modern atheism is classical mysticism. We are all one consciousness in the singularity aren't we?
@knowwaie We are all made of star dust...Even though it sounds poetic and mystic the scientific evidence supports this claim so your criticisms are unfounded.
Exactly. Classic mysticism. The Hindus used to say this as well.. They also believed that the universe was 'uncased' and goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. Strange isn't it?.. There isn't even such a religion as Hinduism. The word Hindu is only the Arabic word for Indian. Hinduism was a state established secular church. Made by atheists. You are actually and "Hindu" and you don't even know it because you'll never expand beyond the current propaganda
I've been doing some thinking and i decided to come back and ridicule you a bit more..
You said that the Hindus were wrong about the contraction of the universe... Well, if you believe the universe to be itself infinite (which you must) then it would logically follow that either our 4.5 billion year figure is completely wrong or the universe has been expanded many times through eternity.. Otherwise you can try the multiverse theory. Either way, even the Hindus had better logic than you do.
And of course the law of conservation which we were just talking about... Yada yada..
You're far too retarded for this. Yet you have the gall to reply to comments and attack people who are religious. Don't ever do it again. Just stand in your corner and shut the fuck up.
@knowwaie The law of conservation only applies at the macro level, and you call me retarded? You have the scientific knowledge of a baby chimp and act like you are capable of rational thought. Since you are the one throwing names around, it seems you are the one attacking atheists, I'm not attacking the religious. You are so delusional regarding your magical immaterial man that you have lost your ability to think straight. Please try to sound like can manage thought above a second grade level.
@knowwaie Also the particle and anti-particle pairs at the sub-atomic level cancel out because the particle has positive energy but the anti-particle has negative energy so the total energy of the fluctuation would be zero, meaning no net energy was created the the conservation of energy wasn't even broken. It is not likely the universe had a cause based on all scientific knowledge, either you are a dumb as nails or you just like sounding like a completely ignorant bafoon.
This is even worse.. First of all, you just said to me that the universe is not eternal. If the universe is nothing but energy then energy has to be eternal. You are STILL saying that energy is eternal. This psychobabble about positive and negative energy equaling zero energy is complete lunacy. The energy is still there.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Go touch positive and negative electrical wires with each hand and tell me that it balances out to zero, if you're still alive.
@PlutoPowered What are you twelve?.. If not then you're retarded...
What law in physics states two opposite forces result in a balance of zero? It's found nowhere but in your psychosis. Go get your brain checked by a physician.
@knowwaie Like I said, go read a book about Physics. Or, here's a thought! Maybe watch a video on youtube about Physics! Maybe you'll learn something (and judging by your posts, you've a lot to learn).
You're in no position to judge anything.. It doesn't require any intellect to tell someone to read a book and that they should 'learn something'... Even though you're clueless about the subject.. Are you really going to argue that equal and opposite forces result in absence of any forces? This is straight retarded.
You need to go back to the basics of cause and effect.
Be honest, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just a little drone.
@knowwaie Once again, I'm in a position to clearly see that you don't know about what you're talking about regarding the subject of physics. Even a small amount of research into the subject would show that you are wrong with regards to just about everything you've said so far. It's pretty obvious you're a troll or a sock puppet anyway.
So far you've proved that you are a parrot... Do you honestly believe everything you read on the internet? It's no wonder you're all turning retarded.
So you're going to tell me that because there is information on the internet about something then it must be true. I can find this information on the internet. So what does that mean you imbecile? I can't question it? Are you kidding me? Is there something wrong with you? Of course, atheists are fanatical authoritarian.
Nice job retard.. Did you test that theory yet? Somehow we're supposed to neutralize electricity from positive and negative.. Maybe if you lick your fingers before you touch the wires?..
Now, go ahead and tell me that they are not the same thing. Prove how retarded you are. Please. I know you wont say anything else because you know you're completely ignorant. Then if you ever do say anything other than cliches it will probably be copied and pasted. Good luck dumb fuck.
Wow a college. What a wonderful achievement. You're one in millions. Did they teach you about Marx communism there too? Oh, there is so much we could talk about kid.. Have you ever actually thought about anything for yourself? Not at all. I guarantee education did nothing for you.
Go ahead, here's your chance to show how smart you are.
@knowwaie Yep, I'm one in a "millions". At least it taught me enough to be able to identify trolls (and be able to see that you have no clue as to what you're talking about). Good luck with your sex change!
@knowwaie You should seriously watch some physics videos or at least read the wikipedia entry. Your example of grabbing live wires shows an amazing ignorance of the topic, so instead of calling people "retards" you should do a little research. You're doing the equivalent of arguing with an author about the dialog of a specific character in his book when you've never read it and only heard the premise second-hand in a language you don't speak.
You are retarded.. I KNOW that physics is not the same as wires. It's called an ANALOGY. You're not able to understand analogy are you? This is why i call you retarded. You think you're smart but you're only a parrot. You really have no thought capacity at all.
The point of the analogy is still the same. Energy is energy even if there is negative energy.
Could you just recognize that there is something wrong with you? I'm not your father.. I shouldn't have to teach you.
@knowwaie Again, go at least read the wikipedia page on quantum physics, Mr Angry Guy. Focus some of that internet rage on actually learning something about the topic you're so furious about. Everyone obviously understands your simple analogy; it's just fundamentally flawed, like those creationists who insist on using clocks and cars as analogies for why evolution can't be real.
I'm not angry. I'm annoyed. No one should be as stupid as some of the people i've spoken to on youtube.. My insults are more humor than anger.
You just said it yourself, this information is all over the place. I'm sitting in front of a box with access to practically infinite information. I'm fully aware of the subject...
This is comical.. It's like something George Orwell said. You really don't understand analogy do you?.. These are all intended to be analogous. It's like you're all retarded.
Obviously, my analogy was intended to be offensive. The point of the analogy is that energy is never neutralized even in practical terms.
I've heard all about this idea and i'm familiar with the theory. I don't regard any of the jargon. Modern physicists made the classic mistake of confusing the models for the actual thing, which we were once warned about..
Let me ask you. Do you honesty believe that an atom really looks like what the pictures show? Do waves undulate straight up and down?
In fact, it's strange that you would even consider any of it. The conclusion of quantum mechanics is that everything is held together by light. Light that is apparently invisible to our eye, and doesn't necessarily come from the sun. It radiates from all objects.
So back to the subject at hand, in practical terms, what you're arguing is that at one time there was no light because there was an equal measure of darkness, or dark matter, negative energy, whatever jargon you want to apply.
If we're to understand Enstein's theory as the bending of space and time then wouldn't we also apply this to quantum physics? Atoms wouldn't necessarily even be spherical. It could be light traveling in a straight line from the center of the universe. This would even fit perfectly with the big bang model. The extent of universal time is the furthest distance light has traveled from the singularity. But then the theory crashes since light is coming from everything, not a center of the universe.
So in closing my thesis.. All matter is divided infinitely into fragments of light. (It's important to note that it is infinite. We will never reach a point where we find the smallest sub atomic particle). We keep giving new names (jargon) to different measurements of the same thing, that is light. It could be pictured as just one atom as opposed to many atoms since each is only a different form of the same thing. Light. Light is the fundamental principle of all physics. No jargon necessary.
It also follows in the magnetic spectrum. All matter (color) are only shadows of infinite light. The hardest substance is diamond, which reflects all colors while still absorbing all light. And we know diamond is carbon, which is only found in organic material.
It is all bazaar stuff to say the least. I don't know if you've actually attempted to understand it without depending on the formula in symbols. Those formulas should never be mistaken for the actual thing. Those are only symbols.
It only gets better.. We're not able to see that light with our eyes, and we will probably never develop a device to measure it. If we could see all the light that exists everything would most likely be white washed with a lining of all colors. Everyone wonders what the world really looks like, i think this would be an accurate depiction.
@knowwaie By the way, I got my Physics education in this thing called college. When you graduate from high school, you should try it! They have beer there!
And just to throw a little flavor into this discussion. I'd like to point out to you that there is a verse in the bible where Jesus calls himself the 'logos'. Why would he do that?
@knowwaie "Intelligence and logic would be a byproduct of disorder"
When did I ever day there was disorder in the the universe? Gravity creates order.
The only things that are clear cut is that you can't even argue against points I make, ignore the ones I do, and completely ignore the difference between macro level events and sub-atomic level events and you shut yourself out to scientific knowledge.
You already fell off the edge, like I said gravity causes order, so there is no coming back ;)
@knowwaie You didn't even know Relativity wasn't compatible with Quantum Physics because they occur at different scales. Your lack of scientific knowledge and reasoning is the very reason Atheists laugh at theists and call you irrational. Theists are the laughing stock of the rational thinking community.
This is funny, you think your grade 2 logic can trump scientific knowledge and all the things we know about the universe. Virtual particles are not magical, they are natural and occur all the time. Your non existent supernatural intelligent being (which can't even exit without a brain) is what is laughably funny. You are the most ignorant person I have ever debated, I had this argument in the bag after the first comment and you know it.
@knowwaie Nobody said intelligence had to be a bi-product of the universe, but common sense tells you it is (intelligence didn't even arise on earth until billions of years after the universe was created)
Also, virtual particles are not a bi-product of the universe. If they were then they would have to exist within space and time like intelligence does (intelligence is a bi-product of the brain,). Below Planck those space-time has no meaning when it comes to virtual particles....Woops!
I wasn't in doubt, I was completely lacking doubt that you lost the argument.
I guess in your case it's "when in doubt, blame science!!"
The problem is you are just too ignorant and stupid to know the difference between the properties of sub-atomic events and the properties of macroscopic events and how they differ. Oh and if you think scientists lie so much then the next time you get really sick, don't take the medication scientists made up, Pray to your sky daddy.
Intelligence is a byproduct of nature, therefor, it cannot be the cause... It take little more than a steady pulse to figure out that there would be no law of intelligence in the fabric of the universe (or is there?), but we'll ignore this for the time being and grant your premise.. So every law in existence would follow this same rule wouldn't it? Virtual particles are a byproduct of the universe. Hmm... Woops?
@knowwaie Beliefs should be based on evidence. Quantum Physics demonstrated in labs conclusively proves that particles pop into existence all the time, uncaused. Is there any evidence for God? Nope, not a single shred.
Maybe you should read a book and educate yourself before making yourself sound even more illogical and moronic than you already have, which would be a hard task to achieve mind you.
However, it makes Rational sense that for time and space to exist something outside of time and space is required. For time to start without this condition, whatever created time would have to come into existence, into time, before time to start time. This is merely absurd. Same with space. Something would have to exist in space, to create space, before space existed. What? This is why multiverse theories have popped up to explain the heavens without God. Something outside of T&S seems needed.
@djwishwon The only thing that is unexplained as of now when it comes to the start of the universe is what started the expansion. Creation is an action of beings in the natural realm. Time/Space must already be present and the natural laws of the Universe in place. The problem most humans have is they expand concepts of our being into areas they can't be present. People wanting a human to have created the Universe is no different than people who believed there was a humanoid face on the moon.
God existing outside of time and space is an axiom. There is no definitive, just like there is no definitive proof of anything. All views rest on axioms which are by definition unprovable. Nobody takes the arguments against the Kalam seriously outside of Atheists. But what is taken seriously is of no importance. That is merely the logical fallacy of appeal to authority or majority. One time, the scientific community at large did not take Bio-genesis seriously as well. MORE
Premise: All causes lead to their respective effects
Premise 2: All effects are preceded by their respective causes
It is these two premises that allowed us to trace causality backwards and form a chain of logic that apparently led to the point of inferring the ‘first cause’. To assert a 'uncaused cause’ is to DENY the premise 2 above
CONTRADICTION
Read More at Vox Mentis voxmentis(dot)com/2011/04/comparison-of-paradoxes-refutation-of.html
@TheSiddharthkaushal The way you presented the the premises is a contradiction, however, this is not the only way to present the argument. Here is another way:
All NATURAL causes lead to their respective NATURAL effects
All NATURAL effects are preceded by their respective NATURAL causes
I have never seen the argument put as you stated them so your argument seems to be a strawman. Also, since the Kalam is talking about natural things caused by a supernatural thing, this reply is meaningless.
"assert a 'uncaused cause’ is to DENY the premise 2 above"
You just don't get it... The uncaused cause logically follows from the fact that the universe was caused. Your only other ground to stand on is to find something which could cause the universe, but itself uncaused.
You're only making an excuse. In the end of every debate like this there is an atheist crying the typical 'we don't know and neither do you'. Which is about as effective as, i know you are but what am i. Childishness.
@knowwaie You cannot have an infinite causal chain. One cause did not have the effect of causing everything to unfold in the way it has. A basic understanding of the Universe or just life in general makes this apparent. We cannot trace everything back to one cause.
The Universe was not caused. In order to have a cause time must already exist. Matter and Energy are eternal (2nd law of thermodynamics) After T=0 is not the result of a cause. Think about it every time you do anything it is in the realm of time. The cause and effects happen in the realm of time. Nothing caused the Universe.
@knowwaie Yes it is, and since I'm in a good mood too, I'm not gonna call you a fucking ignorant and I'll actually give you an advice : Learn about quantum physics.
You'd only be remotely smart if you said the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed is your reasoning for saying this...
But i know it's not.. See, not only do i know all about quantum physics, far beyond what you could even comprehend, but i also know what you're going to say and it's ridiculous.
Go ahead, tell me about those particles that disappear from existence and i'll tell you how clueless you are about basic mechanics of, not only physics, but existence.
@knowwaie I'm gonna tell you exactly why it makes no sense to assert this : NOTHING in the macro Universe can currently begin to exist, what's here is here. Nothing is added, it's only transformed. Hence we have NO BASIS whatsoever on which we can affirmatively say that things that begin to exist must have causes.
To calm your arrogance, do some researches on "Virtual particles". You don't know as much about physics (and existence, for that matter) as you think you do...
Lets begin with existence. If something exists it always exists. Virtual particles exist and therefor cannot 'stop existing'. If it 'disappears' and 'reappears' again then existence is not the word you're looking for. The discrepancy is over this word existence. Would you sincerely argue that a virtual particle exists then no longer exists? Is there even such a word a reexistence? I'm afraid not.. You even said yourself "only transformed".. No?
@knowwaie This is besides the point that the two assumptions made in the Kalam Cosmological argument are flawed.
1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause : We have no basis to say that, because everything that's in the Universe is only transformed.
2) The Universe began to exist : We don't know that. The Universe as we know began, but that doesn't mean that what's in the Universe didn't always exist.
3) Therefore God : Even if the two premises were right, this conclusion is a leap.
@knowwaie And what does it have to do with anything ? It still doesn't mean that everything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence, and even if it did, it doesn't mean that a god did it.
@knowwaie Yes because the scientific data supports a start to the universe (The Big Bang). Atheists support whatever the science supports and data supports. Anyway..
The Cosmological Argument = Logical Fallacy
It’s actually only logical that there must be uncaused events otherwise every event/cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes. Since we know the universe had a beginning, it’s only logical to assume the Universe was an uncaused event.
@knowwaie So, it's not true that everything that begins to exist needs a cause (virtual particles pop into existence all the time uncaused), but it is true that everything that exists needs a beginning. So if the theory is God is eternal, then he can't exist, because he didn't have a beginning.
@knowwaie Well we aren't the ones believing in something that doesn't exist, so it seems the psychotic ones are the ones with the delusion there is something there when there isn't, it seems you fit nicely into this category. Also the theory of God is that he never began to exist, so if you are arguing that he popped into existence, you are refuting God more than reinforcing him. Looks like you don't know what the word Irony means, you and Webster should get acquainted.
I didn't think i'd have to spell it out.. Though, i thought i'd made it clear i my response. It's the word 'uncaused' that you're using whimsically...
The point is you're either dishonest or retarded if you're going to argue 'oh god is so hard to believe' yet you're really spewing this lunacy about 'uncaused magical particles' on no other ground but opposition to the god hypothesis.
Again, it's nothing but mindless parrot talk when you say "uncaused virtual praticles". Mindless parrot talk.
@knowwaie Quantum Mechanics is a proven fact, the Uncertainty Principle tells us that virtual particles pop into existence all the time uncaused. The only thing magic is this moronic belief in a supernatural being who created the universe, there is no evidence of this. Also, everything that exists has a beginning, so if your theory is "God exists, with no beginning" Then you are just fooling yourself. Also you shouldn't be using words like retarded, your imaginary God might send you to HELL!lol
@knowwaie The cosmological argument is the most moronic, illogical, irrational argument I have ever heard. You should be ashamed for buying into such nonsense.
@knowwaie Educate yourself on Quantum Mechanics before sounding like even more of a clown shoe than you already do, the ground isn't in opposition to the God hypothesis, the ground is scientific evidence. Look that up, "Scientific Evidence" ....It may help you become less delusional and ignorant.
You're such a retard that i feel bad calling you retarded...
I've know about this subject long before you kids started ruining it with this silly idea of 'paranormal particles'. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.
You are parroting something you know absolutely nothing about (nor does anyone) and for no other reason than opposition. You're all so sick in the head that you don't even care that you don't know what you're talking about. All that matter is opposition. This is called 'propaganda'.
@knowwaie They are not paranormal, virtual particles are quite normal. It's clear you know nothing about Quantum Physics, and to say "nor does anyone" shows how absolutely moronic and stupid you truly are. Only a complete delusional idiot believes in fairy tales and myths, God is the the most retarded concept I have ever hear of, I feel sorry for anyone who believes this fictional character exists. Anyway, I think you need to get some medication or something for your delusion, you need help bro.
Right, "nor does anyone". Holy shit kid.. There are lectures about the subject right on this very fucking site.. You're so brainwashed that you don't even know that you're sitting in front of a device that contains all information.
The fact that you are attempting to argue from this position shows you are a >PARROT<
The most comical part about all this is how you crack heads are always the ones to accuse us of living in the stone age. You're still living in the dark ages of fraternities.
@knowwaie So if someone is educated enough to lecture about it, that means they must know about it. This directly contradicts your premise that nobody knows anything about it. Do you see the irony regarding your ignorance? Also you seem to forget that God is a fairy tale , a myth, something that has no place in objective reality. Not only are fairy tales for children, they are more for little girls. As a grown man you really should re-think your position regarding your delusional beliefs.
There it is again. You must have said god about a dozen times now.
What is your goal here? To educate or to perpetuate propaganda against religion? You are a propaganda tool, nothing more. You would be embarrassed if you understood that this is your only purpose. It has absolutely nothing to do with science. It has to do with defaming a group of people by whatever means necessary. Even if the conclusion doesn't directly follow, it doesn't matter, because the goal is defamation of religion.
I want to put this out there in a way you can understand.
At one time you were arguing that the law of conservation of energy disproved god. Matter can neither be created or destroyed, therefor, there is no creator. Make sense?.. But now you're doing a complete 180 and arguing the opposite... So when i was arguing against you retards before i was actually correct.
This is the scariest part of your lunacy. You don't find this odd?..
I find human psychology much more interesting than physics.
@knowwaie Quantum Fluctuations don't violate the conservation of energy because the negative and positive particles that annihilate each other equal zero. This means no net energy was created.
@knowwaie What happens is the -1 and 1 appear turn into 0 then disappear. The expansion of the universes was due to the fact that the space between the particles grew faster than the speed of light , meaning the 1 had no way to jump to the -1 to equal 0 and disappear. This is why our universe was an expanding fluctuation rather than one annihilated itself.
@knowwaie Only macroscopic events need causes. If the singularity"could be measured it would be at the sub-atomic level, not macroscopic. Since we know uncaused events are the norm at the sub-atomic level, it is logical to assume the universe was an uncaused Vacuum Fluctuation where the space between the particles grew faster than the speed of light instead of the particles annihilating themselves. What caused inflation? We don't know, but to infer God here would be a "God of the Gaps" fallacy.
You're guilty of this same "god of the gaps" phrase but in the opposite direction. You're saying because there are gaps in our understanding of a possible 'creator' then those gaps prove the non existence thereof. Why is this not subject to the same logical fallacy?
That said. What happen to the speed of light being a constant? Another example of these 180 turns. So i was wrong in the past when i argued light is not constant, but now i am correct. Do you really not see this? It's disgusting.
@knowwaie "You're saying because there are gaps in our understanding of a possible 'creator' then those gaps prove the non existence thereof."
Not the same, because there is no understanding of a creator, there isn't even proof he exists. There is proof Quantum Mechanics exists, so your comparing apples and oranges.
"What happened to the speed of light being a constant?" This is only at the macro-level. The inflation process that was the kick off to expansion took place inside the singularity
Here we are, right back to propaganda.. Attack the sky daddy, it makes everything all better. When in doubt attack religion and you're always correct. It's an amazing phenomena .
Right, i just told you that i'm not concerned with this subject. What i know i've learned in passing. Even a layman can clearly see the contradictions, in fact only a layman could possibly see it.
Right, scientists are working on telling the truth so it's ok to lie until then as long as you attack religion. Retarded?
Oh, and before you attempt to argue that it wasn't light that moved faster than the spread of light, i need only point you back to Einstein's theory. So you are in effect arguing that light is not a constant.
This whole thing is so comical. I'm not even an expert on the subject, nor am i even interested in it. But there are such obvious flaws in all these claims that it is as if you have to constantly lie.
"Science is self correcting", translation: "lying until further notice"
@knowwaie What's comical is you not knowing that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible, and scientists have been trying to unify the theory forever. What happens at the sub-atomic level does not happen at the macro level. You clearly have no knowledge about what physicists have been trying to do for years regarding this unification. Your ignorance and lack of logic and education shows with every sentence I have to read. I mean, being this simple minded, no wonder you believe in God.
@knowwaie You keep on acting like I'm pulling 180's while being completely ignorant to the fact that what happens at the macro level using Relativity is not compatible with what happens at the sub-atomic levels and Quantum Mechanics. Maybe you should read up one the subject before you make yourself sound even more moronic and idiotic than you already have.
@knowwaie I never said intelligence wasn't according to natural law ( I just stated it didn't have to be a bi-product of the universe but it was anyway, if you can learn to read). Stars didn't have to be a bi-product of the universe, but the fact that stars exist prove they are, our universe could have turned out very differently, this disproves theism, because a God would have made sure the universe turned out this way. Like I said, you lose before you even started.
Intelligence is not natural law.. Or there would be no such thing as UNintelligence..
This is where logic comes in.. IF there is no God then it logically follows that intelligence would have to be a byproduct of nature. But it's not.. Intelligence would have to be a 'social construct'. A human invention. I've been saying for years that according to your view there is no such thing as intelligence. Logic and rationality are on the same ground as morality. Isn't it true that logic is relative?
Natural Law allows intelligence, if not we wouldn't be here, if you want to talk about logic then maybe you should use it once and a while because it's clear you are mistaking your lack of logic for logic. If the laws of nature didn't exist, neither would intelligence meaning intelligence is a bi-product of the universe. You are simply just embarrassing yourself because there is one huge flaw in what you say:
@knowwaie You think that logic that applies to the macro level, applies to the sub-atomic level (which it doesn't, not by a long shot). The problem? If the singularity could be measured it would be at the sub-atomic level. Uncaused events are the norm at the Sub-atomic level but caused events are not. Logic dictates that the singularity must have been uncaused due to the scale it was at. This is where you slip, fall, and never come back from your blissful delusion.
This is so simple and clear cut that i can't believe you even fight it.
One of the things in existence which defies the laws of our universe is logic. There is no logic. Did you find it under a rock somewhere? Did you put logic under a microscope? Maybe you saw it through a telescope?
Does math tell use how to think logically? Then what is illogic? anit-math? Then what is 'law'?.. The opposite of chaos. Intelligence and logic would be a byproduct of disorder, according to your logic.
You don't have to say it.. Do you honestly think that no one knows better than you do?.. Oh ok, since i purportedly believe that there is a god then i'm disqualified, is that it?
It's as simple as this.. What came first logic of illogic?.. Common sense would tell you that logic came from illogic. You even admit this by calling ancient people primitive. They were illogical. So logic must not be a natural law can it? Good lord kid.. You're such a genius that you never learn anything new.
@knowwaie "Common sense would tell you that logic came from illogic."
So you are admitting that logic (intelligence) came from illogic (non-intelligence).
You just disproved your own intelligent creator theory and made yourself look like a complete failure in the process. Let me explain something to you, I don't believe that nobody knows better than me, but judging by your lack of education and rational thought, I can safely assure you that I know more than you, by a long shot.
I'll teach you. It's as simple as this. If x is true then z follows'. If x is not true then y follows. This is why philosophy has always been said to be fruitless. Because it never gives answers, only more questions. This is because you kids today don't know what logic is. When you use the word you only means something that 'feels' good to you.
That said, if there is a god then it logically follows that our illogic is "evil". You get it?
The Heisenberg principle merely states that particle destination is impossible to determine by measurement of it's present position and speed. The reason why? 'No one knows'. But that doesn't stop lunatics like yourself from trying to build a case from it.
And look what you're doing. You've actually said the word 'God' more than i have. In fact i haven't said the word once other than in rebuttal. Don't you find that odd? Maybe you should take the time to understand what propaganda means.
Your first fallacy is a false dilemma. The Laws of Logic are eternal, that is there is no conceivable time they do not exist, same with numbers. Yet, one would hardly think of logic as dynamic or static. Dynamic and static are physical states of motion and since God (and logic) does not exist in time and space, ideas like motion do not apply to Him. This does not debunk the argument I am afraid.
Science needs data, that should b analyzed. In order for one to prove anything through the eyes of science. Since god is outside the bounds of our universe, u can not scientifically prove god's existence. Just as one can not prove that any one of us had a great great great great great grandfather. There is no scientific data available for this human that can b tested to prove that he existed. So u know now, it is not necessary for Gods existence to b proven scientifically
kamina77 5 days ago
@kamina77 "Since god is outside the bounds of our universe, u can not scientifically prove god's existence."
If there is no observation that can be made that can distinguish a reality where god exists from one where it doesn't, then the concept "God" has exactly zero explanatory value. You don't win a debate by just declaring that "it's not necessary for God's existence to be proven scientifically". That just earns you the reply: "Ok, so it's a meaningless concept then. Occam's razor"
Gnomefro 1 day ago
@Sinkh Do you really align yourself with Craig's version of this? There are better philosophers of religion, that have made better cases (which still are unsatisfactory in providing any evidence for theism). In every case, an assumption must be made, and bluntly so.
BER2ERKER 1 week ago
LOGIC
UltimatePlayer000001 1 week ago
JESUS
onehndrdprcntcreep 1 week ago
Good grief, this video is wrong. First of all, you've messed up the contingency argument. It doesn't say that an infinite chain cannot exist. It just says that every contingent thing has an external explanation, that the group of all contingent things is itself a contingent thing, and therefore the group has an external explanation. That would have to be something non-contingent.
Secondly, the kalam argument is from 600AD. Not modern.
Third, Craig provides sub arguments for the properties.
Sinkh 1 month ago
@Sinkh But it also in no way supports God, let alone the Christian God. It could also be used to support any number of theories or made-up entities.
DeadFishFactory 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory
But they are a start. And to accurately criticize them, one must accurately understand them first. Which this video does not.
Sinkh 1 month ago
@Sinkh The first premise isn't even that sound. We don't know if the universe always existed in some form other than the one we know today or not. There is also no way to avoid the argument of what caused the thing that caused the universe. If you can accept that this thing that caused the universe doesn't need to have a cause, then why can't you lend the same acceptance to the universe, itself?
DeadFishFactory 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory
See my profile for videos on Thomistic and Leibnizian cosmological arguments, which I beleive are better than kalam.
Sinkh 1 month ago
@Sinkh And both have been debunked, if you bothered to check.
DeadFishFactory 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory
I have checked. Most atheists get them so wrong they end up criticizing an argument that exists only in their fevered imaginations. See my profile for videos PROPERLY explaining the five Thomistic arguments as well as the contingency argument.
Sinkh 4 weeks ago
The argument really is simple. An infinite series cannot exist. Because it has no beginning, and therefore no series. Therefore infinity must be nothing. And where there is a series, it must be finite, and must have the transcendent infinite as the cause.
If you can`t understand it, well then you can`t understand what the logic school is built on.
ParadoxEternal 1 month ago
@ParadoxEternal So you're saying that nothing can be infinite except for superinfinity? The argument just doesn't make sense.
DeadFishFactory 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory Whats so hard to understand about the argument? What is this "superinfinity"? lol.
ParadoxEternal 1 month ago
@ParadoxEternal I understand the argument, but the argument is flawed simply because it is demanding that we accept that everything has a cause while simultaneously stating that there is something without a cause. It doesn't matter if you give this attribute of "eternal" to it--that's arbitrary.
And, as the video stated, the argument is completely useless in support of any God simply because this argument can also support the theory that the universe started out as a singularity
DeadFishFactory 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie Cause and effect only applies to the macro level, not at the sub-atomic level as physics clearly shows, uncaused events are the norm.
Also we have to define a cause, a cause is the rearrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time, since time and matter didn't exist before The Big Bang, there could be no cause. The real hilarious notion is you, the one who believes in a supernatural being who is immaterial but can somehow have a cause and effect relationship with material.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie A God is defined as something that can’t be weighed, split in half, heated or cooled, something that lacks mass and electric charge….So how can something like that have a cause and effect relationship with something which has mass, electric charge, can be weighed, split in half, heated and cooled ect.? Obviously no rational thinking person can believe this is true, this is where you slap the supernatural or magical label on this immaterial being to make your fallacies work. Typical.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 It can because knowwafag says it can!
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 It can because knowwafag says it can!
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie "Well, if you believe the universe to be itself infinite (which you must) then it would logically follow that either our 4.5 billion year figure is completely wrong"
When did I say the universe was infinite? You make absolutely no sense, how can you talk about logic when you have the IQ of a baby chimp? The universe began 4.54 billion years ago, nothing I states contradicted the beginning of the universe. I knew people who believed in God were delusional, but you take the cake buddy.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Your video seemd reasonable but fail's immediatly. The first premise is "What ever begins to exist, has to have a cause"
God never began to exist. To say God's are created is a fallacy. No one believes in created God's.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.
I dont necessarily think you're attcking Kalam's version, but if you are you're setting up a strawman trying to disprove the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Stianchez 1 month ago
hey just stop arguing and go support ron paul, all we can do is asume, because nobody in the universe knows the true everything
BeatsOutDBricks 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1) A cause is a rearrangement of exiting matter preceding its effect in time
(2) Time and matter did not exist before the universe
(3) The universe did not have a cause
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie ".... goes through cycles of expansion and contraction"
The evidence does not support this. The universe's fate is The Big Freeze not the The Big Crunch, but I guess the Hindus were right about somethings so I'll give them credit for that. Also Hindus believe in the God "Vishnu", (A God with multiple limbs). Since I believe in no gods, your Hindu theory regarding me just went out the window, along with all your other premises.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie "Right.. This is because logic is relative to acquired information. The only person who could be perfectly logical is someone who knows everything.."
True but the person who knows more still uses more logic than the uneducated one, which is of course, why I have had the upper hand in this debate from the beginning.
Until you acknowledge the complete difference between sub-atomic events and macro events, you haven't even scratched the surface for an argument.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie If you called a million people and they were all scattered evenly throughout the globe, and you asked each one if the land was flat they would say "yes". If all across the entire planet, all million people say where they are is flat, then logic states the whole world is flat. You see my point? Sometimes your simple uneducated logic has no place in reality.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie "This is why philosophy has always been said to be fruitless. Because it never gives answers, only more questions."
This is the only intelligent thing you have said this whole debate, I completely agree.
"Philosophy is to reality what masterbation is to sex" - Carl Marx
"Philosophy is dead" - Steven Hawking
The problem here is much of philosophy is based on simple unscientific logic..Everything that begins to exist, has a cause for example is simple logic used in theistic philosophy
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Of all the people to quote, Karl Marx. Amazing..
You know i've literally debated tens of thousands of atheists and none of them will ever admit that they are Marxists.
Right, philosophy (logic [in case you didn't know these words are synonymous]) is obsolete. I have been saying this for YEARS and i've never even heard that quote form Hawkings. It came from my own intellect. I must be a fucking genius.
Again.. Philosophy is the use of logic. You just admitted you don't believe there is logic.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie My apologies, it was actually Carl Sagan who I was quoting. Carl Marx was in my head because I was previously debating a Zeitgeist Movement nut job and I was actually using Carl Mark and how his ideas failed as an argument.
Of course I believe in Logic, I just don't believe in unscientific logic.
Logic says the sun goes up and comes down, therefore, it revolves around earth, the problem is we know we revolve around the sun. Sometimes simple unscientific logic (yours) doesn't cut it.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Oh good.. Even though that is much worse.. Forgive me for digressing but Carl Sagan proved that modern atheism is classical mysticism. We are all one consciousness in the singularity aren't we?
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie We are all made of star dust...Even though it sounds poetic and mystic the scientific evidence supports this claim so your criticisms are unfounded.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
"We are all made of star dust"
Exactly. Classic mysticism. The Hindus used to say this as well.. They also believed that the universe was 'uncased' and goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. Strange isn't it?.. There isn't even such a religion as Hinduism. The word Hindu is only the Arabic word for Indian. Hinduism was a state established secular church. Made by atheists. You are actually and "Hindu" and you don't even know it because you'll never expand beyond the current propaganda
knowwaie 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
I've been doing some thinking and i decided to come back and ridicule you a bit more..
You said that the Hindus were wrong about the contraction of the universe... Well, if you believe the universe to be itself infinite (which you must) then it would logically follow that either our 4.5 billion year figure is completely wrong or the universe has been expanded many times through eternity.. Otherwise you can try the multiverse theory. Either way, even the Hindus had better logic than you do.
knowwaie 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
And of course the law of conservation which we were just talking about... Yada yada..
You're far too retarded for this. Yet you have the gall to reply to comments and attack people who are religious. Don't ever do it again. Just stand in your corner and shut the fuck up.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie The law of conservation only applies at the macro level, and you call me retarded? You have the scientific knowledge of a baby chimp and act like you are capable of rational thought. Since you are the one throwing names around, it seems you are the one attacking atheists, I'm not attacking the religious. You are so delusional regarding your magical immaterial man that you have lost your ability to think straight. Please try to sound like can manage thought above a second grade level.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie Also the particle and anti-particle pairs at the sub-atomic level cancel out because the particle has positive energy but the anti-particle has negative energy so the total energy of the fluctuation would be zero, meaning no net energy was created the the conservation of energy wasn't even broken. It is not likely the universe had a cause based on all scientific knowledge, either you are a dumb as nails or you just like sounding like a completely ignorant bafoon.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This is even worse.. First of all, you just said to me that the universe is not eternal. If the universe is nothing but energy then energy has to be eternal. You are STILL saying that energy is eternal. This psychobabble about positive and negative energy equaling zero energy is complete lunacy. The energy is still there.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Go touch positive and negative electrical wires with each hand and tell me that it balances out to zero, if you're still alive.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie Go read a physics book.
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
@PlutoPowered What are you twelve?.. If not then you're retarded...
What law in physics states two opposite forces result in a balance of zero? It's found nowhere but in your psychosis. Go get your brain checked by a physician.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie Like I said, go read a book about Physics. Or, here's a thought! Maybe watch a video on youtube about Physics! Maybe you'll learn something (and judging by your posts, you've a lot to learn).
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
Wow, a thought? You don't say...
You're in no position to judge anything.. It doesn't require any intellect to tell someone to read a book and that they should 'learn something'... Even though you're clueless about the subject.. Are you really going to argue that equal and opposite forces result in absence of any forces? This is straight retarded.
You need to go back to the basics of cause and effect.
Be honest, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just a little drone.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie Once again, I'm in a position to clearly see that you don't know about what you're talking about regarding the subject of physics. Even a small amount of research into the subject would show that you are wrong with regards to just about everything you've said so far. It's pretty obvious you're a troll or a sock puppet anyway.
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
Comment removed
knowwaie 1 month ago
This is so comical..
So far you've proved that you are a parrot... Do you honestly believe everything you read on the internet? It's no wonder you're all turning retarded.
So you're going to tell me that because there is information on the internet about something then it must be true. I can find this information on the internet. So what does that mean you imbecile? I can't question it? Are you kidding me? Is there something wrong with you? Of course, atheists are fanatical authoritarian.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie Cool story bro! Did you get your Physics book yet?
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
Nice job retard.. Did you test that theory yet? Somehow we're supposed to neutralize electricity from positive and negative.. Maybe if you lick your fingers before you touch the wires?..
Now, go ahead and tell me that they are not the same thing. Prove how retarded you are. Please. I know you wont say anything else because you know you're completely ignorant. Then if you ever do say anything other than cliches it will probably be copied and pasted. Good luck dumb fuck.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie umadbro?
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
Wow a college. What a wonderful achievement. You're one in millions. Did they teach you about Marx communism there too? Oh, there is so much we could talk about kid.. Have you ever actually thought about anything for yourself? Not at all. I guarantee education did nothing for you.
Go ahead, here's your chance to show how smart you are.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie Yep, I'm one in a "millions". At least it taught me enough to be able to identify trolls (and be able to see that you have no clue as to what you're talking about). Good luck with your sex change!
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
Hah, ok kid..
You notice that it says "Troll prince" right on my page?... Wow you must be a genius to figure this out..
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie You should seriously watch some physics videos or at least read the wikipedia entry. Your example of grabbing live wires shows an amazing ignorance of the topic, so instead of calling people "retards" you should do a little research. You're doing the equivalent of arguing with an author about the dialog of a specific character in his book when you've never read it and only heard the premise second-hand in a language you don't speak.
VanDammesCokeDealer 1 month ago
You are retarded.. I KNOW that physics is not the same as wires. It's called an ANALOGY. You're not able to understand analogy are you? This is why i call you retarded. You think you're smart but you're only a parrot. You really have no thought capacity at all.
The point of the analogy is still the same. Energy is energy even if there is negative energy.
Could you just recognize that there is something wrong with you? I'm not your father.. I shouldn't have to teach you.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie Again, go at least read the wikipedia page on quantum physics, Mr Angry Guy. Focus some of that internet rage on actually learning something about the topic you're so furious about. Everyone obviously understands your simple analogy; it's just fundamentally flawed, like those creationists who insist on using clocks and cars as analogies for why evolution can't be real.
VanDammesCokeDealer 1 month ago
I'm not angry. I'm annoyed. No one should be as stupid as some of the people i've spoken to on youtube.. My insults are more humor than anger.
You just said it yourself, this information is all over the place. I'm sitting in front of a box with access to practically infinite information. I'm fully aware of the subject...
This is comical.. It's like something George Orwell said. You really don't understand analogy do you?.. These are all intended to be analogous. It's like you're all retarded.
knowwaie 1 month ago
Obviously, my analogy was intended to be offensive. The point of the analogy is that energy is never neutralized even in practical terms.
I've heard all about this idea and i'm familiar with the theory. I don't regard any of the jargon. Modern physicists made the classic mistake of confusing the models for the actual thing, which we were once warned about..
Let me ask you. Do you honesty believe that an atom really looks like what the pictures show? Do waves undulate straight up and down?
knowwaie 1 month ago
In fact, it's strange that you would even consider any of it. The conclusion of quantum mechanics is that everything is held together by light. Light that is apparently invisible to our eye, and doesn't necessarily come from the sun. It radiates from all objects.
So back to the subject at hand, in practical terms, what you're arguing is that at one time there was no light because there was an equal measure of darkness, or dark matter, negative energy, whatever jargon you want to apply.
knowwaie 1 month ago
If we're to understand Enstein's theory as the bending of space and time then wouldn't we also apply this to quantum physics? Atoms wouldn't necessarily even be spherical. It could be light traveling in a straight line from the center of the universe. This would even fit perfectly with the big bang model. The extent of universal time is the furthest distance light has traveled from the singularity. But then the theory crashes since light is coming from everything, not a center of the universe.
knowwaie 1 month ago
So in closing my thesis.. All matter is divided infinitely into fragments of light. (It's important to note that it is infinite. We will never reach a point where we find the smallest sub atomic particle). We keep giving new names (jargon) to different measurements of the same thing, that is light. It could be pictured as just one atom as opposed to many atoms since each is only a different form of the same thing. Light. Light is the fundamental principle of all physics. No jargon necessary.
knowwaie 1 month ago
It also follows in the magnetic spectrum. All matter (color) are only shadows of infinite light. The hardest substance is diamond, which reflects all colors while still absorbing all light. And we know diamond is carbon, which is only found in organic material.
It is all bazaar stuff to say the least. I don't know if you've actually attempted to understand it without depending on the formula in symbols. Those formulas should never be mistaken for the actual thing. Those are only symbols.
knowwaie 1 month ago
It only gets better.. We're not able to see that light with our eyes, and we will probably never develop a device to measure it. If we could see all the light that exists everything would most likely be white washed with a lining of all colors. Everyone wonders what the world really looks like, i think this would be an accurate depiction.
That's my theory, let me know what you think.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie By the way, I got my Physics education in this thing called college. When you graduate from high school, you should try it! They have beer there!
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
And just to throw a little flavor into this discussion. I'd like to point out to you that there is a verse in the bible where Jesus calls himself the 'logos'. Why would he do that?
knowwaie 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie Because he spelled loco wrong?
PlutoPowered 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie "Intelligence and logic would be a byproduct of disorder"
When did I ever day there was disorder in the the universe? Gravity creates order.
The only things that are clear cut is that you can't even argue against points I make, ignore the ones I do, and completely ignore the difference between macro level events and sub-atomic level events and you shut yourself out to scientific knowledge.
You already fell off the edge, like I said gravity causes order, so there is no coming back ;)
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie You didn't even know Relativity wasn't compatible with Quantum Physics because they occur at different scales. Your lack of scientific knowledge and reasoning is the very reason Atheists laugh at theists and call you irrational. Theists are the laughing stock of the rational thinking community.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is funny, you think your grade 2 logic can trump scientific knowledge and all the things we know about the universe. Virtual particles are not magical, they are natural and occur all the time. Your non existent supernatural intelligent being (which can't even exit without a brain) is what is laughably funny. You are the most ignorant person I have ever debated, I had this argument in the bag after the first comment and you know it.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Virtual particles are not magical, they are natural and occur all the time."
(1) A bi-product of X, in any form, cannot create X
(2) Virtual particles is a bi-product of the universe
(3) Virtual particles, in any form, could not have created the universe
Are you ok?
knowwaie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie Nobody said intelligence had to be a bi-product of the universe, but common sense tells you it is (intelligence didn't even arise on earth until billions of years after the universe was created)
Also, virtual particles are not a bi-product of the universe. If they were then they would have to exist within space and time like intelligence does (intelligence is a bi-product of the brain,). Below Planck those space-time has no meaning when it comes to virtual particles....Woops!
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1) A bi-product of X, in any form, cannot create X
(2) Intelligence is a bi-product of the universe
(3) Intelligence, in any form, could not have created the universe
Intelligence is not a physical law..
But you're right. This is a statement against religion so it must be correct.
knowwaie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie "When in doubt"
I wasn't in doubt, I was completely lacking doubt that you lost the argument.
I guess in your case it's "when in doubt, blame science!!"
The problem is you are just too ignorant and stupid to know the difference between the properties of sub-atomic events and the properties of macroscopic events and how they differ. Oh and if you think scientists lie so much then the next time you get really sick, don't take the medication scientists made up, Pray to your sky daddy.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Debunking God is easy..
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This is great...
Intelligence is a byproduct of nature, therefor, it cannot be the cause... It take little more than a steady pulse to figure out that there would be no law of intelligence in the fabric of the universe (or is there?), but we'll ignore this for the time being and grant your premise.. So every law in existence would follow this same rule wouldn't it? Virtual particles are a byproduct of the universe. Hmm... Woops?
knowwaie 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1) The Big Bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe
(2) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate
(3) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe.
(4) God would ensure the singularity contained properties which would guarantee that it involved into an animate universe
(5) God did not create the singularity.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie Beliefs should be based on evidence. Quantum Physics demonstrated in labs conclusively proves that particles pop into existence all the time, uncaused. Is there any evidence for God? Nope, not a single shred.
Maybe you should read a book and educate yourself before making yourself sound even more illogical and moronic than you already have, which would be a hard task to achieve mind you.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Saying that every finite being has a cause is a pressumption. It is possible that every living thing has no cause at all.
AzumiRM 2 months ago
This video is stupid, it merely spews pointless pseudo-logical psycho-babble and proves nothing.
astrolifter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cosmological argument 2 assumptions:
1. GOD CAN exist without being created.
2. NOTHING CAN exist without being created.
As you can see the only way for both these statements to be true is if God is actually equivalent to nothing and that would make you an athiest.
So either Nothing or something can exist without a creator. The first disproves a god, the second has no need for 1.
Both possibilities point to either no god or no need for one in order for stuff to exist.
Both = NO GOD
PooeyBum11 4 months ago
However, it makes Rational sense that for time and space to exist something outside of time and space is required. For time to start without this condition, whatever created time would have to come into existence, into time, before time to start time. This is merely absurd. Same with space. Something would have to exist in space, to create space, before space existed. What? This is why multiverse theories have popped up to explain the heavens without God. Something outside of T&S seems needed.
djwishwon 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djwishwon The only thing that is unexplained as of now when it comes to the start of the universe is what started the expansion. Creation is an action of beings in the natural realm. Time/Space must already be present and the natural laws of the Universe in place. The problem most humans have is they expand concepts of our being into areas they can't be present. People wanting a human to have created the Universe is no different than people who believed there was a humanoid face on the moon.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
Comment removed
djwishwon 4 months ago
God existing outside of time and space is an axiom. There is no definitive, just like there is no definitive proof of anything. All views rest on axioms which are by definition unprovable. Nobody takes the arguments against the Kalam seriously outside of Atheists. But what is taken seriously is of no importance. That is merely the logical fallacy of appeal to authority or majority. One time, the scientific community at large did not take Bio-genesis seriously as well. MORE
djwishwon 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution can easily explain as WHY WE TEND TO BELIEVE in Cosmological Argument even thoug it is SIMPLY WRONG. It is due to an error of perception.
For Full explanation see Vox Mentis at voxmentis(dot)com/2011/05/differentiating-paradoxes-refutation-of.html
TheSiddharthkaushal 4 months ago
Cosmological Argument is absolutely unconvincing
Premise: All causes lead to their respective effects
Premise 2: All effects are preceded by their respective causes
It is these two premises that allowed us to trace causality backwards and form a chain of logic that apparently led to the point of inferring the ‘first cause’. To assert a 'uncaused cause’ is to DENY the premise 2 above
CONTRADICTION
Read More at Vox Mentis voxmentis(dot)com/2011/04/comparison-of-paradoxes-refutation-of.html
TheSiddharthkaushal 4 months ago
@TheSiddharthkaushal The way you presented the the premises is a contradiction, however, this is not the only way to present the argument. Here is another way:
All NATURAL causes lead to their respective NATURAL effects
All NATURAL effects are preceded by their respective NATURAL causes
I have never seen the argument put as you stated them so your argument seems to be a strawman. Also, since the Kalam is talking about natural things caused by a supernatural thing, this reply is meaningless.
djwishwon 4 months ago
@djwishwon LOL at you making up rules about supernatural things
friendofthefunk 4 months ago
"assert a 'uncaused cause’ is to DENY the premise 2 above"
You just don't get it... The uncaused cause logically follows from the fact that the universe was caused. Your only other ground to stand on is to find something which could cause the universe, but itself uncaused.
You're only making an excuse. In the end of every debate like this there is an atheist crying the typical 'we don't know and neither do you'. Which is about as effective as, i know you are but what am i. Childishness.
knowwaie 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie You cannot have an infinite causal chain. One cause did not have the effect of causing everything to unfold in the way it has. A basic understanding of the Universe or just life in general makes this apparent. We cannot trace everything back to one cause.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Universe was not caused. In order to have a cause time must already exist. Matter and Energy are eternal (2nd law of thermodynamics) After T=0 is not the result of a cause. Think about it every time you do anything it is in the realm of time. The cause and effects happen in the realm of time. Nothing caused the Universe.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
@knowwaie It's not the only problem with the argument. Even the first premise is wrong.
Quartrez 2 months ago
Everything that begins to exist has a cause is a false premise?...
I'm in a good mood right now so i'm not going to call you a moron yet.
knowwaie 2 months ago
Comment removed
Quartrez 2 months ago
Comment removed
Quartrez 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie Yes it is, and since I'm in a good mood too, I'm not gonna call you a fucking ignorant and I'll actually give you an advice : Learn about quantum physics.
Quartrez 2 months ago
You'd only be remotely smart if you said the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed is your reasoning for saying this...
But i know it's not.. See, not only do i know all about quantum physics, far beyond what you could even comprehend, but i also know what you're going to say and it's ridiculous.
Go ahead, tell me about those particles that disappear from existence and i'll tell you how clueless you are about basic mechanics of, not only physics, but existence.
knowwaie 2 months ago
Comment removed
Quartrez 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie I'm gonna tell you exactly why it makes no sense to assert this : NOTHING in the macro Universe can currently begin to exist, what's here is here. Nothing is added, it's only transformed. Hence we have NO BASIS whatsoever on which we can affirmatively say that things that begin to exist must have causes.
To calm your arrogance, do some researches on "Virtual particles". You don't know as much about physics (and existence, for that matter) as you think you do...
Quartrez 2 months ago
What a wonderful contradiction you've created.
Lets begin with existence. If something exists it always exists. Virtual particles exist and therefor cannot 'stop existing'. If it 'disappears' and 'reappears' again then existence is not the word you're looking for. The discrepancy is over this word existence. Would you sincerely argue that a virtual particle exists then no longer exists? Is there even such a word a reexistence? I'm afraid not.. You even said yourself "only transformed".. No?
knowwaie 2 months ago
Comment removed
Quartrez 2 months ago
@knowwaie This is besides the point that the two assumptions made in the Kalam Cosmological argument are flawed.
1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause : We have no basis to say that, because everything that's in the Universe is only transformed.
2) The Universe began to exist : We don't know that. The Universe as we know began, but that doesn't mean that what's in the Universe didn't always exist.
3) Therefore God : Even if the two premises were right, this conclusion is a leap.
Quartrez 2 months ago
You are right. *IF* the universe is itself eternal then the argument collapses.. You're really just learning this now?..
Are you arguing that the universe is eternal?
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Depends on what you mean by "universe". Sounds stupid, but I'd rather argue using precise labels than vague ones.
Quartrez 2 months ago
Comment removed
knowwaie 2 months ago
Comment removed
knowwaie 2 months ago
Also, atheists did once believe that the universe was eternal. They don't tend to argue for this today..
knowwaie 2 months ago
Comment removed
Quartrez 2 months ago
@knowwaie And what does it have to do with anything ? It still doesn't mean that everything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence, and even if it did, it doesn't mean that a god did it.
Quartrez 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie Yes because the scientific data supports a start to the universe (The Big Bang). Atheists support whatever the science supports and data supports. Anyway..
The Cosmological Argument = Logical Fallacy
It’s actually only logical that there must be uncaused events otherwise every event/cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes. Since we know the universe had a beginning, it’s only logical to assume the Universe was an uncaused event.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@knowwaie So, it's not true that everything that begins to exist needs a cause (virtual particles pop into existence all the time uncaused), but it is true that everything that exists needs a beginning. So if the theory is God is eternal, then he can't exist, because he didn't have a beginning.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
"virtual particles pop into existence all the time uncaused"
Yeah well, god just popped into existence uncaused..
13,596 psychotic atheists i've debated don't know what the word hypocrisy means.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie Well we aren't the ones believing in something that doesn't exist, so it seems the psychotic ones are the ones with the delusion there is something there when there isn't, it seems you fit nicely into this category. Also the theory of God is that he never began to exist, so if you are arguing that he popped into existence, you are refuting God more than reinforcing him. Looks like you don't know what the word Irony means, you and Webster should get acquainted.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
I didn't think i'd have to spell it out.. Though, i thought i'd made it clear i my response. It's the word 'uncaused' that you're using whimsically...
The point is you're either dishonest or retarded if you're going to argue 'oh god is so hard to believe' yet you're really spewing this lunacy about 'uncaused magical particles' on no other ground but opposition to the god hypothesis.
Again, it's nothing but mindless parrot talk when you say "uncaused virtual praticles". Mindless parrot talk.
knowwaie 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie Quantum Mechanics is a proven fact, the Uncertainty Principle tells us that virtual particles pop into existence all the time uncaused. The only thing magic is this moronic belief in a supernatural being who created the universe, there is no evidence of this. Also, everything that exists has a beginning, so if your theory is "God exists, with no beginning" Then you are just fooling yourself. Also you shouldn't be using words like retarded, your imaginary God might send you to HELL!lol
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie The cosmological argument is the most moronic, illogical, irrational argument I have ever heard. You should be ashamed for buying into such nonsense.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie Educate yourself on Quantum Mechanics before sounding like even more of a clown shoe than you already do, the ground isn't in opposition to the God hypothesis, the ground is scientific evidence. Look that up, "Scientific Evidence" ....It may help you become less delusional and ignorant.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
You're such a retard that i feel bad calling you retarded...
I've know about this subject long before you kids started ruining it with this silly idea of 'paranormal particles'. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.
You are parroting something you know absolutely nothing about (nor does anyone) and for no other reason than opposition. You're all so sick in the head that you don't even care that you don't know what you're talking about. All that matter is opposition. This is called 'propaganda'.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie They are not paranormal, virtual particles are quite normal. It's clear you know nothing about Quantum Physics, and to say "nor does anyone" shows how absolutely moronic and stupid you truly are. Only a complete delusional idiot believes in fairy tales and myths, God is the the most retarded concept I have ever hear of, I feel sorry for anyone who believes this fictional character exists. Anyway, I think you need to get some medication or something for your delusion, you need help bro.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Right, "nor does anyone". Holy shit kid.. There are lectures about the subject right on this very fucking site.. You're so brainwashed that you don't even know that you're sitting in front of a device that contains all information.
The fact that you are attempting to argue from this position shows you are a >PARROT<
The most comical part about all this is how you crack heads are always the ones to accuse us of living in the stone age. You're still living in the dark ages of fraternities.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie So if someone is educated enough to lecture about it, that means they must know about it. This directly contradicts your premise that nobody knows anything about it. Do you see the irony regarding your ignorance? Also you seem to forget that God is a fairy tale , a myth, something that has no place in objective reality. Not only are fairy tales for children, they are more for little girls. As a grown man you really should re-think your position regarding your delusional beliefs.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
There it is again. You must have said god about a dozen times now.
What is your goal here? To educate or to perpetuate propaganda against religion? You are a propaganda tool, nothing more. You would be embarrassed if you understood that this is your only purpose. It has absolutely nothing to do with science. It has to do with defaming a group of people by whatever means necessary. Even if the conclusion doesn't directly follow, it doesn't matter, because the goal is defamation of religion.
knowwaie 1 month ago
I want to put this out there in a way you can understand.
At one time you were arguing that the law of conservation of energy disproved god. Matter can neither be created or destroyed, therefor, there is no creator. Make sense?.. But now you're doing a complete 180 and arguing the opposite... So when i was arguing against you retards before i was actually correct.
This is the scariest part of your lunacy. You don't find this odd?..
I find human psychology much more interesting than physics.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie I have never made any stance that went against the conservation of energy though, so your 180 never happened.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie Quantum Fluctuations don't violate the conservation of energy because the negative and positive particles that annihilate each other equal zero. This means no net energy was created.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie -1 + 1 = 0
This means there was no energy created when the fluctuations occur.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie What happens is the -1 and 1 appear turn into 0 then disappear. The expansion of the universes was due to the fact that the space between the particles grew faster than the speed of light , meaning the 1 had no way to jump to the -1 to equal 0 and disappear. This is why our universe was an expanding fluctuation rather than one annihilated itself.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie Only macroscopic events need causes. If the singularity"could be measured it would be at the sub-atomic level, not macroscopic. Since we know uncaused events are the norm at the sub-atomic level, it is logical to assume the universe was an uncaused Vacuum Fluctuation where the space between the particles grew faster than the speed of light instead of the particles annihilating themselves. What caused inflation? We don't know, but to infer God here would be a "God of the Gaps" fallacy.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
You're guilty of this same "god of the gaps" phrase but in the opposite direction. You're saying because there are gaps in our understanding of a possible 'creator' then those gaps prove the non existence thereof. Why is this not subject to the same logical fallacy?
That said. What happen to the speed of light being a constant? Another example of these 180 turns. So i was wrong in the past when i argued light is not constant, but now i am correct. Do you really not see this? It's disgusting.
knowwaie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie "You're saying because there are gaps in our understanding of a possible 'creator' then those gaps prove the non existence thereof."
Not the same, because there is no understanding of a creator, there isn't even proof he exists. There is proof Quantum Mechanics exists, so your comparing apples and oranges.
"What happened to the speed of light being a constant?" This is only at the macro-level. The inflation process that was the kick off to expansion took place inside the singularity
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie The singularity is at the sub-atomic level. The speed only needed to be faster than light for a split second within the sub-atomic level.
The only thing disgusting is seeing a grown man still believing in fairy tales about a magical supernatural sky daddy.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Here we are, right back to propaganda.. Attack the sky daddy, it makes everything all better. When in doubt attack religion and you're always correct. It's an amazing phenomena .
Right, i just told you that i'm not concerned with this subject. What i know i've learned in passing. Even a layman can clearly see the contradictions, in fact only a layman could possibly see it.
Right, scientists are working on telling the truth so it's ok to lie until then as long as you attack religion. Retarded?
knowwaie 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Oh, and before you attempt to argue that it wasn't light that moved faster than the spread of light, i need only point you back to Einstein's theory. So you are in effect arguing that light is not a constant.
This whole thing is so comical. I'm not even an expert on the subject, nor am i even interested in it. But there are such obvious flaws in all these claims that it is as if you have to constantly lie.
"Science is self correcting", translation: "lying until further notice"
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie What's comical is you not knowing that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible, and scientists have been trying to unify the theory forever. What happens at the sub-atomic level does not happen at the macro level. You clearly have no knowledge about what physicists have been trying to do for years regarding this unification. Your ignorance and lack of logic and education shows with every sentence I have to read. I mean, being this simple minded, no wonder you believe in God.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie You keep on acting like I'm pulling 180's while being completely ignorant to the fact that what happens at the macro level using Relativity is not compatible with what happens at the sub-atomic levels and Quantum Mechanics. Maybe you should read up one the subject before you make yourself sound even more moronic and idiotic than you already have.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
You actually just proved theology. It's pretty wild. You can easily see it when you think properly.
Everything in existence is according to natural law EXCEPT for intelligence. Very odd isn't it, wise guy?
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie I never said intelligence wasn't according to natural law ( I just stated it didn't have to be a bi-product of the universe but it was anyway, if you can learn to read). Stars didn't have to be a bi-product of the universe, but the fact that stars exist prove they are, our universe could have turned out very differently, this disproves theism, because a God would have made sure the universe turned out this way. Like I said, you lose before you even started.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Intelligence is not natural law.. Or there would be no such thing as UNintelligence..
This is where logic comes in.. IF there is no God then it logically follows that intelligence would have to be a byproduct of nature. But it's not.. Intelligence would have to be a 'social construct'. A human invention. I've been saying for years that according to your view there is no such thing as intelligence. Logic and rationality are on the same ground as morality. Isn't it true that logic is relative?
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie "Intelligence is not natural law"
Natural Law allows intelligence, if not we wouldn't be here, if you want to talk about logic then maybe you should use it once and a while because it's clear you are mistaking your lack of logic for logic. If the laws of nature didn't exist, neither would intelligence meaning intelligence is a bi-product of the universe. You are simply just embarrassing yourself because there is one huge flaw in what you say:
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@knowwaie You think that logic that applies to the macro level, applies to the sub-atomic level (which it doesn't, not by a long shot). The problem? If the singularity could be measured it would be at the sub-atomic level. Uncaused events are the norm at the Sub-atomic level but caused events are not. Logic dictates that the singularity must have been uncaused due to the scale it was at. This is where you slip, fall, and never come back from your blissful delusion.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
This is so simple and clear cut that i can't believe you even fight it.
One of the things in existence which defies the laws of our universe is logic. There is no logic. Did you find it under a rock somewhere? Did you put logic under a microscope? Maybe you saw it through a telescope?
Does math tell use how to think logically? Then what is illogic? anit-math? Then what is 'law'?.. The opposite of chaos. Intelligence and logic would be a byproduct of disorder, according to your logic.
knowwaie 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
You don't have to say it.. Do you honestly think that no one knows better than you do?.. Oh ok, since i purportedly believe that there is a god then i'm disqualified, is that it?
It's as simple as this.. What came first logic of illogic?.. Common sense would tell you that logic came from illogic. You even admit this by calling ancient people primitive. They were illogical. So logic must not be a natural law can it? Good lord kid.. You're such a genius that you never learn anything new.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie "Common sense would tell you that logic came from illogic."
So you are admitting that logic (intelligence) came from illogic (non-intelligence).
You just disproved your own intelligent creator theory and made yourself look like a complete failure in the process. Let me explain something to you, I don't believe that nobody knows better than me, but judging by your lack of education and rational thought, I can safely assure you that I know more than you, by a long shot.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
You really don't know how logic works do you?...
I'll teach you. It's as simple as this. If x is true then z follows'. If x is not true then y follows. This is why philosophy has always been said to be fruitless. Because it never gives answers, only more questions. This is because you kids today don't know what logic is. When you use the word you only means something that 'feels' good to you.
That said, if there is a god then it logically follows that our illogic is "evil". You get it?
knowwaie 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
The Heisenberg principle merely states that particle destination is impossible to determine by measurement of it's present position and speed. The reason why? 'No one knows'. But that doesn't stop lunatics like yourself from trying to build a case from it.
And look what you're doing. You've actually said the word 'God' more than i have. In fact i haven't said the word once other than in rebuttal. Don't you find that odd? Maybe you should take the time to understand what propaganda means.
knowwaie 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Your first fallacy is a false dilemma. The Laws of Logic are eternal, that is there is no conceivable time they do not exist, same with numbers. Yet, one would hardly think of logic as dynamic or static. Dynamic and static are physical states of motion and since God (and logic) does not exist in time and space, ideas like motion do not apply to Him. This does not debunk the argument I am afraid.
djwishwon 4 months ago