I’m Taoist, so agree with your overall idea. However, a successful Big Bang to form the universe despite overwhelming odds isn’t proving evidence for creation. How many big bangs there have been? Perhaps it took a couple million for this one to work out.
2)Ok,then let me ask you this one day in some long long time ago there was a big bang right, and the big bang caused by mysterious singularity right so can you please answer me what caused the singularity? you know whats the answer I dont realy know,but all I know there was nothing (Physical) and suddenly something caused nothing to become something(I mean physical) what do you think caused that power to become something from nothing?
@beasman2 1) Being that I don't believe in a god in any sense of the term, I have no description or definition of what one would be. Instead I let those who believe that one does tell me what it is that they believe and I respond in turn.
2) Well you seemed to have already answered for me: "we don't know yet." Now how do you get from "we don't know yet" to "therefore god is the cause"?
Ok, listen I dont know what those "Others" told you or not but I do know this.God isn't some life form that sitting in the sky and we people need worship him, he\she\it is the main resone that caused life to form it self and you know why I say so because I know that we people cant know anything about the realty and from what I know something cant be created from nothing.I dont say that god is somebody thats sitting in the sky but i say that god is the power that came.....////
@beasman2 I understand what you saying, but what I am asking is what reason do we have to believe that any of it is true? How do you know that this god is the reason that caused life to form? How do you know he caused the physical world? How do you know that this god exists at all? What is your basis for supporting these claims?
@quicksilver3757 Deism is more or less a philosophical choice based on the uncertainty of current evidence pointing towards the origins of the universe. As a borderline deist personally I can say that if god were to be substantially disproven tomorrow, my life wouldn't change in the least
@generosos87 "Deism is more or less a philosophical choice based on the uncertainty of current evidence pointing towards the origins of the universe."- But it still assert claims regarding those origins that have yet to be found justifiable. And being a former deist myself, and now an atheist, I can say my life hasn't changed at all. But i didn't stop being a deist because god was disproved, thats a shifting of the burden of proof. I stopped because I found it couldn't be proven.
@quicksilver3757 Perhaps it's the exacting nature required for life to have every come into existance as we know it? Now, of course, this does not provide any foundation as to postulate -WHAT- God is like...but to append the ideology that all we see before us has been derived purely by chance and circumstance vacates the realm of logic and reason and steers more towards intellectual dishonesty. Still, it is merely a hypothesis unto which I am grateful science shows more to support then refute.
@mdlittle5466 "Now, of course, this does not provide any foundation as to postulate -WHAT- God is like."- It doesn't even provide a foundation for its existence. Nothing you've said has addressed what I asked.
"that all we see before us has been derived purely by chance and circumstance vacates the realm of logic"
1) Just because an intelligence isn't responsible for something doesn't mean its therefore purely chance or circumstance.
@mdlittle5466 2) Even if it did how does that vacate the realm of logic? You're going to have to do more than simply state that it does.
"it is merely a hypothesis unto which I am grateful science shows more to support then refute."- And just like this video, you have done nothing to support your claim. So my question still stands: How does anything addressed in this video, or in science, support your "hypothesis"?
@quicksilver3757 Excellent inquiry unto which I am content to say that neither of us will know with certainty until we 'shuffle off our mortal coils', so to speak. Please understand, I seek not to condemn you point of view...inasmuch as I hope that you can be just as civil regarding mine, as appendinging either when we both should be focusing on what -CAN- be ascertained is, essentially, a moot point. Agreed?
@mdlittle5466 "Excellent inquiry unto which I am content to say that neither of us will know with certainty until we 'shuffle off our mortal coils"-I haven't said anything about knowing with certainty. I've simply asked you backed up your assertions. You said that science supports this "hypothesis", and instead of supporting that claim you now seem to be backtracking.
@mdlittle5466 "I seek not to condemn you point of view...inasmuch as I hope that you can be just as civil regarding mine"- I never assumed you were condemning my view. Nor have I have said anything regarding yours. Ive simply asked you to support the claims you have made and you yet to do so. Once again your response has addressed nothing I've said or asked. You seem to be attempting to side step the issue.
@quicksilver3757 I have already presented what I use to employ, the video above. It so happens that it is also the evidence that others use to not concur belief in God. I cannot remedy that as it is simply differing points of view that have, yet, to be firmly established. I can show you gravity, the speed of light, the big bang...but if you don't want to believe in God, that's okay. I can show you a universe governed by laws, but I cannot show you the law-maker...we don't have tools that vast.
@mdlittle5466 "I have already presented what I use to employ, the video above."-Then we come back to my original question: How is any of this evidence of god? Simply pointing at something and calling it evidence is not enough. You must establish a link between the two. And so far both you and the video has failed to do so.
@mdlittle5466 "I can show you gravity, the speed of light, the big bang...but if you don't want to believe in God, that's okay."- It's not about what "I want". What I want is irrelevant to what is true. Gravity, the speed of light, the big bang is only evidence of gravity, the speed of light, and the big bang. Until you establish a connection between those and god then you have done nothing more than substituted one mystery for another.
@mdlittle5466 "I can show you a universe governed by laws, but I cannot show you the law-maker."
Then you cannot establish that a law-maker exists, or that the laws required a law-maker. And you certainly cannot call anything presented in this video as evidence.
@quicksilver3757 I guess it would only be fair to inquire you stance, if this be some form of debate or inquiry - what exactly is your position? Are you proclaiming that a structured and finely tuned universal laws that have managed to maintain thier function throughout the eons unto now whence intelligent life formed was...somehow...a fluke? A gigantic, universal accident in the making (...albiet, a well-functioning one...)?
@mdlittle5466 "Are you proclaiming that a structured and finely tuned universal laws that have managed to maintain thier function throughout the eons unto now whence intelligent life formed was...somehow...a fluke?"- Why must it be a fluke? This is the same problem that came up in your original response to me. Something not a result of intelligence is not the same as being the result of a fluke or accident. That's a non sequitur.
@quicksilver3757 I would not agree...I believe it is our duty, as human beings, to understand the reality that we have been granted the intellect to contemplate. Appending such queries as to God and origon when we do not have the means to adequately measure and quantify is only appending theory and no theory, thus far, can be absolutely proven. However, no existential theory can also be called wrong...then again, that's all faith is - a theory. To each thier own...
@mdlittle5466 "I believe it is our duty, as human beings, to understand the reality that we have been granted the intellect to contemplate."-I agree with striving to understand the world around us, however simply attributing things that we do not currently understand to be the result of a "god" does nothing to aid us in those endeavors, and can actually, instead, hinder our efforts.
@mdlittle5466 "Appending such queries as to God and origon when we do not have the means to adequately measure and quantify is only appending theory and no theory"-No its not. Greeks once attributed lightning to Zeus. What you're doing is no different. If there is a question to which we don't know the answer to yet, then the correct and intellectually honest position is to say "we don't know". To simply say the answer is "god" is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument.
@mdlittle5466 "However, no existential theory can also be called wrong"- I never said it was wrong. I said it was unjustified.
"that's all faith is - a theory."-No it isn't. I don't think you understand what a theory is. A theory is working explanatory model that has been tested, and both explains and is supported by evidence. It makes testable predictions by which we verify its validity. Faith has none of that.
@mdlittle5466 Faith is an argument that can be used by anyone, whether they be deist, christian, hindu, muslim etc. Arguments that can be applied across the board ultimately favor no individual claims, and are therefore meaningless.
You've once again failed to address any of my questions regarding your assertions. And instead you seem to be trying to avoid the burden by simply touting "To each their own".
@quicksilver3757 Perhaps, but this...thus far, has been naught but a one-sided discussion. However, by what I've been able to ascertain...you are an athiest, @quicksilver3757 . I make this ascertation based upon circumstantial evidence provided by your responses. Note, I could be very well wrong...and it's entirely unprovable without your confirmation, which is essentially Deism. By what evidence which has been established...from the natural laws down to DNA, alludes to a Creator.
@mdlittle5466 "However, by what I've been able to ascertain...you are an athiest"-Correct, I am an atheist. Though judging by what you say later, you seem to have a misconception as to what atheism is.
"By what evidence which has been established...from the natural laws down to DNA, alludes to a Creator."-Until you can actually show the connection between the 2, then no they don't. I have ask 3 times to back up this continuous assertion of yours and you have yet to do so.
@mdlittle5466 All you have said on the matter is that "they do". Sorry but I'm going to to need more then your simple assertion that they do. You need to actually back up what you say with some kind of support. Otherwise it is nothing more than god of the gaps argument or an argument from ignorance.
@quicksilver3757 Prior 'plank time' - the moment wence space and time was formed after 'the big bang', is where all human conceptualization terminates. However, the natural law of thermodynamics does not allow creation/destruction of matter/energy - we simply just don't know where all this mass/energy came from. The Creation and the natural laws alludes to a Creator. I'm not trying to 'convert you'. I'm a Deist, you're not going to 'hell' because there is no hell except what we make on earth...
@mdlittle5466 "we simply just don't know where all this mass/energy came from."-Then you cannot say that they came from a creator.
"The Creation and the natural laws alludes to a Creator."-Again you fail to show how they allude to a creator. Simply saying that they do is insufficient.
"I'm not trying to 'convert you'."-I have neither assumed you were nor have I asked you too. I've only asked that you provide some basis or support for the assertions you have made.
@mdlittle5466 "I'm a Deist, you're not going to 'hell' because there is no hell except what we make on earth"-Yes, I'm well aware what a deism entails. I was once one myself for a brief period of time. What does this have to do with what we have been discussing?
@quicksilver3757 My apologies, most whom turned from theisms in general have done so due to the disdaine for the reward/punishment paradigm established in said theisms. Please feel free to disregard, though I do find your abandonment from your former deistic understanding to be quite fascinating.
@quicksilver3757 However, this is the very same stance you elect to append in order to defend your stance. Again, this is entirely unprovable without confirmation which has yet to be recieved. Therefore, your belief in there not being a Creator is just as much based on faith as the belief in a Creator...because neither can be proven - yet. I find Atheism to be a very complicated faith...striving to append a fallacy of reasoning: disproving a negative.
@mdlittle5466 "this is the very same stance you elect to append in order to defend your stance."-I have no stance to defend as I have made no assertion on the matter. I have only asked to back up your stance and the stance of this video. Both of which has yet to be done.
"your belief in there not being a Creator is just as much based on faith as the belief in a Creator"-Incorrect. Atheism is not the belief that a creator exists, it is lack of belief that one does.
@mdlittle5466 "I find Atheism to be a very complicated faith"-There's no faith involved. I have no need of such a useless and meaningless concept like faith.
"striving to append a fallacy of reasoning: disproving a negative."-Again incorrect. Atheism doesn't strive to disprove anything. Its merely the lack of a belief that a creator or god exists due to insufficient justification for the belief that there is one.
@quicksilver3757 Very good, you are correct...just as much as it is as meaningless to append Atheism because it is currently impossible to determine whether or not Atheism is true or not. Well done!
@mdlittle5466 I haven't appending atheism to anything. Atheism makes no assertion either way to existence of a god or creator. It is simply a lack of belief. It does not say that isn't one or that there couldn't be one.
@quicksilver3757 "I haven't appended atheism to anything"?...apparently you're making some sort of ascertation because you're refuting everything that's been shown and told you. I mean, if that's not denial...what is? You know, it's perfectly okay for you to say you just don't believe anything...when you say 'lack of belief', it sounds like 'God doesn't exist'. It's that proving a negative thing, again...
@mdlittle5466 I not refuting what's been shown or told. I'm saying what's been shown or told lacks the justification to say its the result of a god or creator.
"I mean, if that's not denial...what is?"-Think of it like a null hypothesis.
"You know, it's perfectly okay for you to say you just don't believe anything"-But that would be nihilism, not atheism.
@mdlittle5466 "when you say 'lack of belief', it sounds like 'God doesn't exist'"- There is a difference between saying 'lack a belief in a god' and 'I believe god doesn't exist'. The latter is a positive belief while the former is simply the absent of a belief.
@quicksilver3757 However, both strive to 'prove a negative' which is a fallacy of reasoning due to the inherent subject matter ascribed. In order to be accurate, it would also have to be stated 'lack of belief'...in what doesn't matter because said subject matter is not a valid criteria to address. You can't acknowledge something you don't believe in, because then you believe it is a relevant subject to deliberate - hence, trying to disprove a negative and an inadvertent display of faith...
@mdlittle5466 A 'lack of belief' or "absent of belief' is not striving to "prove" anything. It is a response to a belief. There is a belief: "A god exists". If you accept this belief, then you are a theist. If you do not accept this belief, in other words you lack this belief, then you are an atheist. It does not go on to try and prove opposite is true. It is simply saying "I am without a belief that a god exists". That's it. There is no 'proving a negative' involved.
@quicksilver3757 So, then by this direction of logic that you are followng...this vid, this conversation and everything that has been entailed within is of absolute no concern and/or importance to you...which leads me to wonder why you even bothered addressing the issue which you profess, vehemently, that this is a non-issue - to you.
@mdlittle5466 "this vid, this conversation and everything that has been entailed within is of absolute no concern and/or importance to you"-Quite the contrary, I find discussions such as ours to be very interesting, and intriguing.
"which leads me to wonder why you even bothered addressing the issue"-Because I wish to know exactly how anything mentioned in this evidence of a god or a creator, which was the subject of my original comment/question--which has yet to be answered.
@mdlittle5466 "which you profess, vehemently, that this is a non-issue - to you."- I have never said any such thing. I said "faith" is a non-issue. But I never said the notion of god was. Who exactly is doing the straw-manning here?
@quicksilver3757 ...but you -DO- have 'faith', regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge it...purely derived by the subject matter you elect to append. Again, you cannot profess a lack of faith in 'x' because in acknowledging 'x' - you profess 'x' as a valid subject of contention to deliberate. If you did not, you wouldn't mention 'x' and you certainly wouldn't be here professing such absurd statements as 'not believing in 'x''. You would simply not believe...
@mdlittle5466 "but you -DO- have 'faith', regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge it"- Nope, I don't.
"in acknowledging 'x' - you profess 'x' as a valid subject of contention to deliberate"-Also nope, acknowledging that a concept of a god exists does not entail that I have a belief regarding the actuality of that concept.
@mdlittle5466 "You would simply not believe"-I do not believe, yes--because I see no justification to hold the belief. If justification were to ever be provided, I would then believe. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
@quicksilver3757 It's not a hard concept to grasp, it's just impossible to attain. You simply cannot elect to not believe in anything because there would be absolutely no reason to even get out of bed in the morning. So, with that being said, come...be honest, what do you worship? Is it money?...there's a lot of people that worship that...alas.
@mdlittle5466 "You simply cannot elect to not believe in anything because there would be absolutely no reason to even get out of bed in the morning."-Again, atheism only deals with ONE belief. Not with belief in general.
"be honest, what do you worship? Is it money?"-I don't worshiping anything, at all.
@quicksilver3757 While I laud you staunch desire to thump your chest, professing your absence of faith...I do not see any logical reason to continue a conversation when you profess to believe this a non-issue when you have spent quite a bit of time trying to -MAKE- it an issue...then duck behind a strawman arguement and semantics. Truely, good sir...why did you even bother posting any comments whatsoever save for, perhaps, an overt desire for attention?
@mdlittle5466 "While I laud you staunch desire to thump your chest, professing your absence of faith."- How exactly is correcting a misconception regarding the notion of atheism entail "thumping my chest"?
"when you have spent quite a bit of time trying to -MAKE- it an issue"- I haven't been trying to make anything into an issue. I have only been trying to correct you misconception of my atheism, much like you were doing earlier today when you thought I wasn't aware of your deism.
@mdlittle5466 "then duck behind a strawman arguement and semantics."- I'm the one ducking? I have asking 4 times no to back your assertions regarding science/DNA/natural laws alluding to a creator and you have yet to do so. I have answered all your questions. You have yet to answer any of mine.
Also what strawman arguments have I committed? You can at least answer that question, can't you?
@quicksilver3757 Typo correction: I have *asked* 4 times *for you* to back *up* your assertions regarding science/DNA/natural laws alluding to a creator and you have yet to do so.
@quicksilver3757 You have an almost five minute video presentation before you explaining the natural laws and the exceedingly fine-tuned cosmological constants required for existance...if you believe that occured and is maintained purely at random - you have far greater faith then I, my friend.
@mdlittle5466 This didn't explain anything. I merely stated a scientific description of our universe and then at the end stated it was evidence of a creator. But at no time did it ever explain "how" it was evidence of a creator. Again simply pointing at something and calling it evidence is insufficient. You have actually show how it says what you allude it to.
@quicksilver3757 You professed to have formally been a Deist...you would already know 'The Watchmaker' analogy which is, essentially, what the entire video establishes. Is it insufficient?...does it draw a direct line to a giant sign saying 'God's house this way!' No, but circumstancially...in accordance to all that which we have discovered, yes...it does allude to structure and a source of creation. This does not satisfy you, I'm sorry...enjoy believing whatever it is you choose to believe in.
@mdlittle5466 "you would already know 'The Watchmaker' analogy "- Oh I know of the watchmaker argument. I also know its nothing but an argument from ignorance fallacy.
"No, but circumstancially...in accordance to all that which we have discovered, yes...it does allude to structure and a source of creation."- Until you show HOW it does this, then no it doesn't.
@quicksilver3757 The strawman arguement?...atheism, because there really is no such thing as atheism. Everyone, everywhere believes in something...atheism is a lie.
@mdlittle5466 "Everyone, everywhere believes in something"- I agree, but what does that have to do with atheism? Atheism only deals with ONE particular belief, the belief in the existence of a god(s). Not with belief in general.
@quicksilver3757 Answer your question? Allow me the priviledge to do something even better, I'll directly point out the root cause of your logical fallacy: You profess to have no faith, then request to be shown proof of faith. Now, tell me, how can anyone...and I do mean anyone, remotely hope to show you or give you reason to have faith when you already stoically refuse not to?
@mdlittle5466 "then request to be shown proof of faith."- No I haven't. You said that science, DNA, and the natural laws allude to a creator. I am asking HOW they do that. Im not asking you to show proof of faith, only that you back up your assertions regarding what you have said about science with some kind of support . Now can or can you not do that?
@quicksilver3757 Yes, it already has been done and you already have been shown...but now you refute what you previously professed, as a Deist, to understand (...though I don't see how that could have been likely...). You do understand that I cannot do anything more for you, correct? Enjoy believing whatever it is you choose to believe in, as a Deist...if you elect to not believe, it is of no actual importance to me - it is your choice. Be well.
@mdlittle5466 "it already has been done and you already have been shown"-No it hasn't. They only thing you have said is 'that they do' but never said "how" they ,or 'its in the video' which fails to do the same thing. Neither has answered my question.
"You do understand that I cannot do anything more for you, correct?"-Then my question remains unanswered.
@mdlittle5466 "why did you even bother posting any comments whatsoever save for, perhaps, an overt desire for attention?"- I have been trying to get an answer to my question. This has nothing to do with attention.
In court circumstantial evidence alone is not sufficient for a conviction.
Anyway, the scientific method is very different from the court system. I feel the comparison here is inapt.
We evolved in this universe, so why would we expect anything but we are a perfect fit. Who knows what life can evolve in other universes?
Anyway, if the multi-verse model is true, we would expect some universe to "win the lotto" . If I win the lotto does that mean there logically is a God?
In court an explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when THE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN RULED OUT.
I tried to make it a point to say that "the scientific method is very different from the court system. I feel the comparison here is inapt." Sorry if I was unclear.
The rest of the post is meant to be my primary argument.
What a way of meeting people and get to see their talent. At first was reluctant being on youtube, but getting to do this has brought me into the houses of some very special people. You are one of them. Life; isn't it wonderful!!! Keep up the good work. Have A Splendid Day!!!!
This is the same argument used by creationists to 'prove' God's existence without actually providing any real evidence for it, and it's the same argument that has been thoroughly and thoughtfully refuted by atheists time and time again.
Why must complex creations require a creator? Why couldn't everything have fallen into place without it? We certainly have evidence to attest to the latter, while we have none for the former.
@CapitalistOverlord Your statement is entirely inaccurate relative to Deism. These observations are part of a larger process that combines reason, understanding of nature, and personal experience for Deists. We do not say they "prove" God exists, but they do point to some kind of architect. Do not confuse the God of Creationists with the God of Deism. They are entirely different. Concluding that these are "silly" arguments presumes you have full knowledge. Best to be respectful of each other.
a.) Concluding that complex creations require a complex creator assumes that infinite gods must exist, or that one god existed for an infinite amount of time. Wouldn't it be easier to assume that the had universe always existed in some form?
b.) You didn't answer the questions I offered in the second paragraph. Please do so in your next comment.
@CapitalistOverlord The Universe has a beginning at the Big Bang. Time as we understand it does too, per Einstein's space-time model. Infinite time, then, is relevant only within our universe. Complex creations do not require a complex creator, BUT all things emerge from quantum energy obeying Natural Laws. Either some higher power created and ordered that energy OR Energy + Natural Laws = God. Either way, the universe did not spring from non-existence into existence on its own UNLESS it is God.
@LordSauceness Read the statement more closely. Non-existence is impossible so SOMETHING has always existed. If it turns out the energy underlying the universe and the natural laws governing it are eternal then together the ARE God. If not, then whatever created and ordered the energy is God.
@iDeismFounder-- *God* has always been thought of as some sort of being. Natural laws & energy are mindless and have no thought process of plannng. But 'tis true that something always has existed. I just prefer the natural world we see as opposed to the invisible one that deists and all theists believe.
If you wanna call natural world 'god', so be it. Whatever it is, it takes no interest in the welfare of mankind, that much is certain!
@LordSauceness I do not agree that Natural Laws and Energy are mindless. Human beings are an inseparable part of them and we have intelligence. Thus, energy and laws manifest intelligence in human form, at a minimum. We clearly take an interest in the welfare of humanity, so IMO your "certain"ty is unwarranted. I think we would be very short sighted if we said we are the only intelligence in the universe is us.
@iDeismFounder _"I do not agree that Natural Laws and Energy are mindless"
As a previously long time Christian turned atheist, I'm always fascinated how & why people chose to believe in some sort of god. I would love to have a good reason to do so again, but cannot find any. Hence my posts on vids such as this. Tell me, how does the law of gravity display intelligence?
@LordSauceness Why does the law of gravity exist in the first place? Why does energy follow any rules, let alone ones that have given rise to life from lifeless atoms?
@DeismTV -Ah, so you subscribe to the old 'there's a law here, so we must have a lawgiver' theory. It doesn't solve anything because we have to explain the lawgiver.......
The laws are there because the universe is here. That's what we see. Anything else is guessing.
@DeismTV We use to conclude that plagues were god's judgement for sins, natural disasters god's disapproving nod, at what point to do we start to conclude there's another explanation? Order & precision prove nothing. Purpose of the universe is what you make of it. It's up to you, and you alone to find meaning & purpose in life. The Deist position makes no sense to me. Why would any intelligence create a universe, and then never show up to say hello?
@LordSauceness Utilizing 'God' (i.e. - religion) to explain natural disasters is unwise, then again, living near a volcano is unwise...ignorance also supports social atrocities as well such as slavery, rape, theft, discrimination and murder. Precise order shows proof more significant and intended construction then any current established theory and just because someone says hello, and you are too distracted to notice...doen't mean that person didn't say hello. Trees that fall still make a noise.
@mdlittle5466 "and just because someone says hello, and you are too distracted to notice...doen't mean that person didn't say hello "
Who said hello? Zeus? Buddha? Kriishna? Jesus? Mohammed? Got anybody else to add to the list? Seems to me god is the one doing the distracting!
Precise order proves nothing. If you invoke a deity, then that deity must have had some purpose to it all. And it can't be just for the sake of humans. What is that purpose?
@iDeismFounder " We do not say they "prove" God exists, but they do point to some kind of architect"
Then, what brought God into existence? I fail to see how laws of nature prove the existence of any entity. 2 + 2 = 4 because is does, not as the result of some deity saying it is so... Natural law is just a more complex version...
@LordSauceness 2+2=4 is a mathematical concept...it exists immaterially. The laws governing the universe are very real and drive EVERYTHING....stars, planets, life, sentience, intelligence, evolution, gravity...all of it. Your attempting to make a false comparison...
@iDeismFounder _Fair enough. Experiment time: Take a bucket of water & hold it & , start spinning around, faster & faster. Begin to raise your arm. The water does not fall out of the bucket. Real world, real experiment.
No deity of any sort in sight, but, we have 'natural law at work here, keeping the water safe and sound.
@LordSauceness Their argument fails on two parts when they start arguing absolutes. First, Their holy book NEVER mentions any of that, so it is nothing but conjecture on the christians part. Second, Even if they did prove that a god existed that created these absolutes; they still have all their work ahead of them to prove that it is/was the christian god. Any way you look at it; Their arguments can't and won't hold up to any amount of scrunity.
@pillowbugg - Yep, agreed, mostly. The gospel of John makes it pretty clear though, the ALL things were made through Jesus. So you'd have to assume that includes 'natural' law. For me, the obvious is that with so many gods with their conflicting holy books running around, pretty much says god has not spoke at all to humans. We are then left with this amazing universe that deist's can't seem to resist invoking an architect to explain it all.
@sbkang85 So let's get this straight. (1) To assert something is moronic means you know ultimate truth, which you do not. (2) Psychopath, spying, judging...you CLEARLY no nothing about the Deist God. Perhaps some humility would serve you.
@iDeismFounder (1) Thinking something is moronic doesn't mean I know the ultimate truth. I can accept that I don't know the "ultimate truth". I just think your belief is moronic. Just because humans have yet to understand the origins of matter and the universe, you conclude that a god must have done it. Why does it have to be a god? How do you jump to that conclusion?
(2) Yea, I didn't see your screen name. You are right, you are a deist, not a theist. The Abrahamic God doesn't apply to you.
@sbkang85 So riddle me this. You admit that you don't know if there is a God or not, yet you still feel you are in a position to judge me as a very foolish or stupid person (based on the Oxford dictionary definition of moronic). On what authority do you place yourself above me? Why is it so hard for you to simply accept that other people can reach a different conclusion than you and not feel so threatened by it?
@iDeismFounder Who said anything about feeling threatened? For me, ridicule isn't associated with feeling threatened. Also, I said the conclusion of the video is moronic. I'm sure you're a very capable person in practical, real life.
And yes, I admit no-one can ever know for sure a god doesn't exist. But I'm sure you're familiar with the unicorn argument (can you prove unicorns don't exist?). Just because there are multiple possibilities, doesn't mean all possibilities are equally probable.
@sbkang85 Well...then I guess I must say that I feel your conclusions are moronic, founded in fundamentalist materialism. However, I have no issue with your conclusion so long as you do not attempt to force it on others. Best of luck to you...
lol after all that it comes to such a moronic conclusion...
Just because humans cannot explain it (yet), there must be an all-powerful invisible psychopath somewhere out there, spying on us while we take showers and judging us on how we make offspring. Brilliant video. (that last part is indeed sarcasm)
@sbkang85 Apparently, the scientific-method unnerves you...there should be no need for worry or fear, my friend. The calculations are accurate, the mathematics precise - I thought this would be well-pleasing news to ALL, yet...you reply with such derision. You may be happily suprised that your thoughts and beliefs are your own and you can be PROUD of them for there is no judgment here regarding thusly. Be well...and learn a little about the topic you've only just begun to understand - Deism.
An excellent video. In the art of non sequiturs. The fact that the universe formed as it did and not in any other possible number of combinations is no more impressive than seeing faces in the clouds.
The fact that the universe would as it did is not even circumstantial evidence in favour of a "deity" it is inferred evidence for a concept of a deity, which in order to mean anything means that the existence of the deity must precede the inference.
@faithisfiction On what evidence do you base your opinion? Surely you do not claim complete knowledge of the universe, especially the source of the energy and Natural Laws governing it. Without complete knowledge, you position is nothing more than opinion.
@iDeismFounder Actually, we do have the necessary scientific understanding for us to postulate the emergence of a universe without a cosmic finger, however, even if we did not that would still not justify the claim that not having one "means god did it". Thats merely an argumentum ad ignorantiam and its utterly unconvincing.
@faithisfiction Science describes how the universe operates, not the source of the energy comprising it or the source of the natural laws governing it. If you have evidence to the contrary then please share it. Otherwise, I find your position nothing more than a personal choice based on your predisposition to believe the material universe is all that there is.
@iDeismFounder Actually the works of Stenger and Hawking provide a valid scientific explanation for the "source of the energy" and why it is what it is. But again, even if we did not it still would not justify postulating a complex deity who pressed the starting button.
Indeed, its a "choice" to accept a purely scientific world view, but its the only view an rationalist can accept. If wishthinking leads you to another conclusion that's fine, but dont confuse the two.
@faithisfiction Their work provides for top down cosmology, not the source of the energy or the rules governing it. I disagree that accepting a purely scientific or materialistic view of the world is the only view a rationalist can accept. To do so is to accept that energy is self creating and self governing. I don't claim to have knowledge of God's nature or mind, but I do think an intelligent force behind all of this is more likely than not.
@iDeismFounder Again, I think you will find you are quite mistaken. Read Stengers: "God the failed Hypothesis". Hawking states a similar argument in "the grand design" although I'll reserve comment until I've had a chance to read it.
You think it more likely that a complex eternal intelligent creator caused the universe than that there is a scientific explanation? Logically that is by definition less likely.
@faithisfiction It's an easy quip to say go "read" it. I read Hawkings' A Brief History of Time and his paper on top down cosmology. In neither work does he claim to answer the questions I raised. He is arguing for the emergence of a universe from a pre-existing quantum field. AGAIN, that does NOT answer the questions I raised.
@iDeismFounder - Were we to go through the scientific explanations of Stenger & Hawking we should set aside a week of coffee and biscuits to discuss it, but a brief Stenger quote:
"...“nothing” is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be completely stable. In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition nothing-to-something is a natural one".
@faithisfiction You are proving my point. The vacuum is not "nothing" is comprised of quantum energy that transitions into something more complicated. Again, where did the underlying quantum field/vacuum come from?
@iDeismFounder - See, this is why I recommend you read his work, in particular his book "The Comprehensible Cosmos". He's referring to an energy vacuum.
While you're at it, I'm still intrigued how the absence of a scientific explanation would justify the claim that "god did it".
@faithisfiction Before we change the subject...where did the energy vacuum come from? That IS my point. Either God = Energy + Natural Law or God is something more. I don't claim revealed knowledge, but I find the materialist approach illogical...
@iDeismFounder To ask where the energy comes from is to enter into an infinite regression of asking "where does nothing come from". The point Stenger has made is the fact that the existence of something rather than nothing is a matter of statisical probability.
I tried putting up the link but its proven a little hard. Try again: csicop.org/sb/show/why_is_there_something_rather_than_nothing
@faithisfiction Nice try ;-) I am most certainly not confused! It seems like you continue to avoid the questions I have asked you. What is source of this vacuum energy?
@faithisfiction From the article, "... we can visualize a vacuum with equal numbers of bosons and fermions. Such a vacuum might have existed at the very beginning of the big bang. Indeed this is exactly what is to be expected if the vacuum out of which the universe emerged was supersymmetric..." Again, that is not "nothing" but a supersymmetric balance of bosons and fermions that appears like "nothing".
@iDeismFounder - He's making a comparison, he follows on to say "This suggests a more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions-nothing."
@faithisfiction Yes he does say that, but in the context of all opposites being in perfect symmetry and canceling one another out. Thus it is a definition of a net zero, but it most certainly is not "nothing"...just an equal number of positives and negatives. He goes on to say "nothing" is unstable and must then transition into something more complex. The truth is that his case is not a scientific one but a philosophical one using scientific terms...something many Deists do BTW.
first of all, the force at which the 4 forces are set at is not exact, yes if they were slightly different we wouldnt exist, but in an infinite multiverse or multitude of dimensions there would have to be an infinite number of universes like this one and the only reason we can be here and observe the unlikeliness of the universe is because it is that way. The universe is not ordered, its surprisingly uniform, and purpose is imposed upon life by you, as is the order
How do we test for infinite multiverses or a multitude of dimensions? I am not "imposing" purpose or order, but I am inferring based on observation of the universe. That is, of course, not infallible but it is reasonable.
@iDeismFounder the human brain is hardwired to find patterns, wether they exist or not, which implies order, maybe even purpose, thats why we see clouds and say, that looks like an elephant, when, in reality, it really doesnt. the infinite multiverses is, so far as i have learned about, is unprovable and merely a hypotheses, the extra dimensions however are predicted by string theory, as well as a few other theories im sure, and besides the extra dimensions, string theory predicts new particles
@gordonisnext Thanks for the comment. Even if there are multiple universes or dimensions, the underlying question remains. What is the source of the energy that comprises the uni/multiverses and the rules that govern it/them?
@iDeismFounder there doesnt need to be a source for the admittedly massive amounts of energy in our universe, the energy may have existed in one way or another forever, or it may be that before the big bang, our laws of causality did not exist, and nothing had a cause, until the universe was formed
@iDeismFounder yes, it may be that energy has always existed, or it may be that the energy from the big bang was delivered from another brane, it could be that energy is just a form of nothing, it may be there is no such thing as nothing, it may be that we did in fact spring from nothing, it may be all kinds of things, but god is not a valid nor reasonable cause for the universe. please elaborate on your second sentence, im not sure i understand what you mean
@iDeismFounder good question, its because energy now exists in our universe where there are certain laws of physics that govern energy in all of its forms, outside of this universe, possibly before or after, causality, logic, and the laws of physics might not exist, so i dont know how energy would act outside our laws of physics, so, in summation, it only follows these laws temporarily
@iDeismFounder not necessarily, but it is possible, i for one think m theory is more likely, but we'll see if any of the subatomic particles it predicts show up in the LHC.
@gordonisnext My issue is that even with the M theory, we have no explanation for the two fundamental components of any universe: energy and Natural Law. Extra dimensions and multiverses do not diminish the issue. I could accept that God may simply be energy + Natural Law.
@iDeismFounder okay, energy + natural laws do exist, i dont think they have supernatural qualities, but you can call them what you want, i dont quite see the point though. still, at the moment of the big bang and possibly before it, our physical laws may not have existed, the same goes for logic and causality, so it is quite possible that the universe literally sprang out of nothing.
@gordonisnext The only thing science can do is describe the natural universe. It cannot account for the source of energy or the Natural Laws it follows. So, either that combo is God or God is the source. This is basically a pandeist vs a deist viewpoint.
@iDeismFounder i dont much mind deists, i mostly argue against theists, but what else is there except the natural universe, and i assure you, science is working on the source of energy and the natural laws
I’m Taoist, so agree with your overall idea. However, a successful Big Bang to form the universe despite overwhelming odds isn’t proving evidence for creation. How many big bangs there have been? Perhaps it took a couple million for this one to work out.
Cathmoytura 3 months ago
Sorry but how is any of this evidence that a god exists?
quicksilver3757 5 months ago 103
@quicksilver3757
Look you Describe God as Human We describe God as a Source of realty
beasman2 4 months ago
@beasman2 1) I haven't described god as anything, much less human.
2) How do you know god is the source of reality? What evidence or reason do you have to support such a proposition?
quicksilver3757 4 months ago
@quicksilver3757
1)tell me how do you discribe god?
2)Ok,then let me ask you this one day in some long long time ago there was a big bang right, and the big bang caused by mysterious singularity right so can you please answer me what caused the singularity? you know whats the answer I dont realy know,but all I know there was nothing (Physical) and suddenly something caused nothing to become something(I mean physical) what do you think caused that power to become something from nothing?
beasman2 4 months ago
@beasman2 1) Being that I don't believe in a god in any sense of the term, I have no description or definition of what one would be. Instead I let those who believe that one does tell me what it is that they believe and I respond in turn.
2) Well you seemed to have already answered for me: "we don't know yet." Now how do you get from "we don't know yet" to "therefore god is the cause"?
quicksilver3757 4 months ago 83
@quicksilver3757
Ok, listen I dont know what those "Others" told you or not but I do know this.God isn't some life form that sitting in the sky and we people need worship him, he\she\it is the main resone that caused life to form it self and you know why I say so because I know that we people cant know anything about the realty and from what I know something cant be created from nothing.I dont say that god is somebody thats sitting in the sky but i say that god is the power that came.....////
beasman2 4 months ago
@quicksilver3757
(I didnt have any room)
/....from somewhere that we humans cant understand.therfore I dont discribe god as something I discribe him more mystirious and unknowne for us
If you steel didnt understand I mean that god is exeualy a power that switched from empty physical world to self realty as we human know it......
what would you want to ask next?
beasman2 4 months ago
@beasman2 I understand what you saying, but what I am asking is what reason do we have to believe that any of it is true? How do you know that this god is the reason that caused life to form? How do you know he caused the physical world? How do you know that this god exists at all? What is your basis for supporting these claims?
quicksilver3757 4 months ago
@quicksilver3757
Listen my fellow athaist can we take this argument to somewher more privet I have to write alot and I dont have enough room to write.
may I right in your privet channel?
beasman2 4 months ago
@beasman2 Sure, feel free to send me a P.M.
quicksilver3757 4 months ago
@quicksilver3757
why did you delted my massage?
beasman2 4 months ago
@beasman2 I haven't deleted any messages from you so I'm not sure what it is that you are talking about.
quicksilver3757 4 months ago
@quicksilver3757
Alrigh no harsh,I wasnt ofensed
beasman2 4 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Deism is more or less a philosophical choice based on the uncertainty of current evidence pointing towards the origins of the universe. As a borderline deist personally I can say that if god were to be substantially disproven tomorrow, my life wouldn't change in the least
generosos87 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@generosos87 "Deism is more or less a philosophical choice based on the uncertainty of current evidence pointing towards the origins of the universe."- But it still assert claims regarding those origins that have yet to be found justifiable. And being a former deist myself, and now an atheist, I can say my life hasn't changed at all. But i didn't stop being a deist because god was disproved, thats a shifting of the burden of proof. I stopped because I found it couldn't be proven.
quicksilver3757 1 day ago
@quicksilver3757 Perhaps it's the exacting nature required for life to have every come into existance as we know it? Now, of course, this does not provide any foundation as to postulate -WHAT- God is like...but to append the ideology that all we see before us has been derived purely by chance and circumstance vacates the realm of logic and reason and steers more towards intellectual dishonesty. Still, it is merely a hypothesis unto which I am grateful science shows more to support then refute.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "Now, of course, this does not provide any foundation as to postulate -WHAT- God is like."- It doesn't even provide a foundation for its existence. Nothing you've said has addressed what I asked.
"that all we see before us has been derived purely by chance and circumstance vacates the realm of logic"
1) Just because an intelligence isn't responsible for something doesn't mean its therefore purely chance or circumstance.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 2) Even if it did how does that vacate the realm of logic? You're going to have to do more than simply state that it does.
"it is merely a hypothesis unto which I am grateful science shows more to support then refute."- And just like this video, you have done nothing to support your claim. So my question still stands: How does anything addressed in this video, or in science, support your "hypothesis"?
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Excellent inquiry unto which I am content to say that neither of us will know with certainty until we 'shuffle off our mortal coils', so to speak. Please understand, I seek not to condemn you point of view...inasmuch as I hope that you can be just as civil regarding mine, as appendinging either when we both should be focusing on what -CAN- be ascertained is, essentially, a moot point. Agreed?
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "Excellent inquiry unto which I am content to say that neither of us will know with certainty until we 'shuffle off our mortal coils"-I haven't said anything about knowing with certainty. I've simply asked you backed up your assertions. You said that science supports this "hypothesis", and instead of supporting that claim you now seem to be backtracking.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago 11
@mdlittle5466 "I seek not to condemn you point of view...inasmuch as I hope that you can be just as civil regarding mine"- I never assumed you were condemning my view. Nor have I have said anything regarding yours. Ive simply asked you to support the claims you have made and you yet to do so. Once again your response has addressed nothing I've said or asked. You seem to be attempting to side step the issue.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 I have already presented what I use to employ, the video above. It so happens that it is also the evidence that others use to not concur belief in God. I cannot remedy that as it is simply differing points of view that have, yet, to be firmly established. I can show you gravity, the speed of light, the big bang...but if you don't want to believe in God, that's okay. I can show you a universe governed by laws, but I cannot show you the law-maker...we don't have tools that vast.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "I have already presented what I use to employ, the video above."-Then we come back to my original question: How is any of this evidence of god? Simply pointing at something and calling it evidence is not enough. You must establish a link between the two. And so far both you and the video has failed to do so.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "I can show you gravity, the speed of light, the big bang...but if you don't want to believe in God, that's okay."- It's not about what "I want". What I want is irrelevant to what is true. Gravity, the speed of light, the big bang is only evidence of gravity, the speed of light, and the big bang. Until you establish a connection between those and god then you have done nothing more than substituted one mystery for another.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "I can show you a universe governed by laws, but I cannot show you the law-maker."
Then you cannot establish that a law-maker exists, or that the laws required a law-maker. And you certainly cannot call anything presented in this video as evidence.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 I guess it would only be fair to inquire you stance, if this be some form of debate or inquiry - what exactly is your position? Are you proclaiming that a structured and finely tuned universal laws that have managed to maintain thier function throughout the eons unto now whence intelligent life formed was...somehow...a fluke? A gigantic, universal accident in the making (...albiet, a well-functioning one...)?
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "I guess it would only be fair to inquire you stance"-My stance is that I see no justification to warrant the belief in such a being.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "Are you proclaiming that a structured and finely tuned universal laws that have managed to maintain thier function throughout the eons unto now whence intelligent life formed was...somehow...a fluke?"- Why must it be a fluke? This is the same problem that came up in your original response to me. Something not a result of intelligence is not the same as being the result of a fluke or accident. That's a non sequitur.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 It also appears to be an argument from ignorance.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 I would not agree...I believe it is our duty, as human beings, to understand the reality that we have been granted the intellect to contemplate. Appending such queries as to God and origon when we do not have the means to adequately measure and quantify is only appending theory and no theory, thus far, can be absolutely proven. However, no existential theory can also be called wrong...then again, that's all faith is - a theory. To each thier own...
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "I believe it is our duty, as human beings, to understand the reality that we have been granted the intellect to contemplate."-I agree with striving to understand the world around us, however simply attributing things that we do not currently understand to be the result of a "god" does nothing to aid us in those endeavors, and can actually, instead, hinder our efforts.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "Appending such queries as to God and origon when we do not have the means to adequately measure and quantify is only appending theory and no theory"-No its not. Greeks once attributed lightning to Zeus. What you're doing is no different. If there is a question to which we don't know the answer to yet, then the correct and intellectually honest position is to say "we don't know". To simply say the answer is "god" is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "However, no existential theory can also be called wrong"- I never said it was wrong. I said it was unjustified.
"that's all faith is - a theory."-No it isn't. I don't think you understand what a theory is. A theory is working explanatory model that has been tested, and both explains and is supported by evidence. It makes testable predictions by which we verify its validity. Faith has none of that.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 Faith is an argument that can be used by anyone, whether they be deist, christian, hindu, muslim etc. Arguments that can be applied across the board ultimately favor no individual claims, and are therefore meaningless.
You've once again failed to address any of my questions regarding your assertions. And instead you seem to be trying to avoid the burden by simply touting "To each their own".
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Perhaps, but this...thus far, has been naught but a one-sided discussion. However, by what I've been able to ascertain...you are an athiest, @quicksilver3757 . I make this ascertation based upon circumstantial evidence provided by your responses. Note, I could be very well wrong...and it's entirely unprovable without your confirmation, which is essentially Deism. By what evidence which has been established...from the natural laws down to DNA, alludes to a Creator.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "However, by what I've been able to ascertain...you are an athiest"-Correct, I am an atheist. Though judging by what you say later, you seem to have a misconception as to what atheism is.
"By what evidence which has been established...from the natural laws down to DNA, alludes to a Creator."-Until you can actually show the connection between the 2, then no they don't. I have ask 3 times to back up this continuous assertion of yours and you have yet to do so.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 All you have said on the matter is that "they do". Sorry but I'm going to to need more then your simple assertion that they do. You need to actually back up what you say with some kind of support. Otherwise it is nothing more than god of the gaps argument or an argument from ignorance.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Prior 'plank time' - the moment wence space and time was formed after 'the big bang', is where all human conceptualization terminates. However, the natural law of thermodynamics does not allow creation/destruction of matter/energy - we simply just don't know where all this mass/energy came from. The Creation and the natural laws alludes to a Creator. I'm not trying to 'convert you'. I'm a Deist, you're not going to 'hell' because there is no hell except what we make on earth...
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "we simply just don't know where all this mass/energy came from."-Then you cannot say that they came from a creator.
"The Creation and the natural laws alludes to a Creator."-Again you fail to show how they allude to a creator. Simply saying that they do is insufficient.
"I'm not trying to 'convert you'."-I have neither assumed you were nor have I asked you too. I've only asked that you provide some basis or support for the assertions you have made.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "I'm a Deist, you're not going to 'hell' because there is no hell except what we make on earth"-Yes, I'm well aware what a deism entails. I was once one myself for a brief period of time. What does this have to do with what we have been discussing?
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 My apologies, most whom turned from theisms in general have done so due to the disdaine for the reward/punishment paradigm established in said theisms. Please feel free to disregard, though I do find your abandonment from your former deistic understanding to be quite fascinating.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 However, this is the very same stance you elect to append in order to defend your stance. Again, this is entirely unprovable without confirmation which has yet to be recieved. Therefore, your belief in there not being a Creator is just as much based on faith as the belief in a Creator...because neither can be proven - yet. I find Atheism to be a very complicated faith...striving to append a fallacy of reasoning: disproving a negative.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "this is the very same stance you elect to append in order to defend your stance."-I have no stance to defend as I have made no assertion on the matter. I have only asked to back up your stance and the stance of this video. Both of which has yet to be done.
"your belief in there not being a Creator is just as much based on faith as the belief in a Creator"-Incorrect. Atheism is not the belief that a creator exists, it is lack of belief that one does.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Correction: Atheism is not the belief that a creator *does not* exist. Please excuse the typo.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "I find Atheism to be a very complicated faith"-There's no faith involved. I have no need of such a useless and meaningless concept like faith.
"striving to append a fallacy of reasoning: disproving a negative."-Again incorrect. Atheism doesn't strive to disprove anything. Its merely the lack of a belief that a creator or god exists due to insufficient justification for the belief that there is one.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 So, technically...what you're saying is that 'faith', in and of itself, is essentially a non-issue, correct?
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 Correct, as it is a completely meaningless concept and is incapable of determining what is or is not true.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Very good, you are correct...just as much as it is as meaningless to append Atheism because it is currently impossible to determine whether or not Atheism is true or not. Well done!
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 I haven't appending atheism to anything. Atheism makes no assertion either way to existence of a god or creator. It is simply a lack of belief. It does not say that isn't one or that there couldn't be one.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 "I haven't appended atheism to anything"?...apparently you're making some sort of ascertation because you're refuting everything that's been shown and told you. I mean, if that's not denial...what is? You know, it's perfectly okay for you to say you just don't believe anything...when you say 'lack of belief', it sounds like 'God doesn't exist'. It's that proving a negative thing, again...
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 I not refuting what's been shown or told. I'm saying what's been shown or told lacks the justification to say its the result of a god or creator.
"I mean, if that's not denial...what is?"-Think of it like a null hypothesis.
"You know, it's perfectly okay for you to say you just don't believe anything"-But that would be nihilism, not atheism.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "when you say 'lack of belief', it sounds like 'God doesn't exist'"- There is a difference between saying 'lack a belief in a god' and 'I believe god doesn't exist'. The latter is a positive belief while the former is simply the absent of a belief.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 However, both strive to 'prove a negative' which is a fallacy of reasoning due to the inherent subject matter ascribed. In order to be accurate, it would also have to be stated 'lack of belief'...in what doesn't matter because said subject matter is not a valid criteria to address. You can't acknowledge something you don't believe in, because then you believe it is a relevant subject to deliberate - hence, trying to disprove a negative and an inadvertent display of faith...
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 A 'lack of belief' or "absent of belief' is not striving to "prove" anything. It is a response to a belief. There is a belief: "A god exists". If you accept this belief, then you are a theist. If you do not accept this belief, in other words you lack this belief, then you are an atheist. It does not go on to try and prove opposite is true. It is simply saying "I am without a belief that a god exists". That's it. There is no 'proving a negative' involved.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 So, then by this direction of logic that you are followng...this vid, this conversation and everything that has been entailed within is of absolute no concern and/or importance to you...which leads me to wonder why you even bothered addressing the issue which you profess, vehemently, that this is a non-issue - to you.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "this vid, this conversation and everything that has been entailed within is of absolute no concern and/or importance to you"-Quite the contrary, I find discussions such as ours to be very interesting, and intriguing.
"which leads me to wonder why you even bothered addressing the issue"-Because I wish to know exactly how anything mentioned in this evidence of a god or a creator, which was the subject of my original comment/question--which has yet to be answered.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "which you profess, vehemently, that this is a non-issue - to you."- I have never said any such thing. I said "faith" is a non-issue. But I never said the notion of god was. Who exactly is doing the straw-manning here?
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 ...but you -DO- have 'faith', regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge it...purely derived by the subject matter you elect to append. Again, you cannot profess a lack of faith in 'x' because in acknowledging 'x' - you profess 'x' as a valid subject of contention to deliberate. If you did not, you wouldn't mention 'x' and you certainly wouldn't be here professing such absurd statements as 'not believing in 'x''. You would simply not believe...
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "but you -DO- have 'faith', regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge it"- Nope, I don't.
"in acknowledging 'x' - you profess 'x' as a valid subject of contention to deliberate"-Also nope, acknowledging that a concept of a god exists does not entail that I have a belief regarding the actuality of that concept.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "You would simply not believe"-I do not believe, yes--because I see no justification to hold the belief. If justification were to ever be provided, I would then believe. How is this a hard concept to grasp?
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 It's not a hard concept to grasp, it's just impossible to attain. You simply cannot elect to not believe in anything because there would be absolutely no reason to even get out of bed in the morning. So, with that being said, come...be honest, what do you worship? Is it money?...there's a lot of people that worship that...alas.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "You simply cannot elect to not believe in anything because there would be absolutely no reason to even get out of bed in the morning."-Again, atheism only deals with ONE belief. Not with belief in general.
"be honest, what do you worship? Is it money?"-I don't worshiping anything, at all.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Again, this leads me to wonder why you even bothered posting comments - is there something bothering you?
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 While I laud you staunch desire to thump your chest, professing your absence of faith...I do not see any logical reason to continue a conversation when you profess to believe this a non-issue when you have spent quite a bit of time trying to -MAKE- it an issue...then duck behind a strawman arguement and semantics. Truely, good sir...why did you even bother posting any comments whatsoever save for, perhaps, an overt desire for attention?
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "While I laud you staunch desire to thump your chest, professing your absence of faith."- How exactly is correcting a misconception regarding the notion of atheism entail "thumping my chest"?
"when you have spent quite a bit of time trying to -MAKE- it an issue"- I haven't been trying to make anything into an issue. I have only been trying to correct you misconception of my atheism, much like you were doing earlier today when you thought I wasn't aware of your deism.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "then duck behind a strawman arguement and semantics."- I'm the one ducking? I have asking 4 times no to back your assertions regarding science/DNA/natural laws alluding to a creator and you have yet to do so. I have answered all your questions. You have yet to answer any of mine.
Also what strawman arguments have I committed? You can at least answer that question, can't you?
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Typo correction: I have *asked* 4 times *for you* to back *up* your assertions regarding science/DNA/natural laws alluding to a creator and you have yet to do so.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 You have an almost five minute video presentation before you explaining the natural laws and the exceedingly fine-tuned cosmological constants required for existance...if you believe that occured and is maintained purely at random - you have far greater faith then I, my friend.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 This didn't explain anything. I merely stated a scientific description of our universe and then at the end stated it was evidence of a creator. But at no time did it ever explain "how" it was evidence of a creator. Again simply pointing at something and calling it evidence is insufficient. You have actually show how it says what you allude it to.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 You professed to have formally been a Deist...you would already know 'The Watchmaker' analogy which is, essentially, what the entire video establishes. Is it insufficient?...does it draw a direct line to a giant sign saying 'God's house this way!' No, but circumstancially...in accordance to all that which we have discovered, yes...it does allude to structure and a source of creation. This does not satisfy you, I'm sorry...enjoy believing whatever it is you choose to believe in.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "you would already know 'The Watchmaker' analogy "- Oh I know of the watchmaker argument. I also know its nothing but an argument from ignorance fallacy.
"No, but circumstancially...in accordance to all that which we have discovered, yes...it does allude to structure and a source of creation."- Until you show HOW it does this, then no it doesn't.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "if you believe that occured and is maintained purely at random"-This not my belief. You are blatantly mischaracterizing my position.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 The strawman arguement?...atheism, because there really is no such thing as atheism. Everyone, everywhere believes in something...atheism is a lie.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "Everyone, everywhere believes in something"- I agree, but what does that have to do with atheism? Atheism only deals with ONE particular belief, the belief in the existence of a god(s). Not with belief in general.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Answer your question? Allow me the priviledge to do something even better, I'll directly point out the root cause of your logical fallacy: You profess to have no faith, then request to be shown proof of faith. Now, tell me, how can anyone...and I do mean anyone, remotely hope to show you or give you reason to have faith when you already stoically refuse not to?
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "then request to be shown proof of faith."- No I haven't. You said that science, DNA, and the natural laws allude to a creator. I am asking HOW they do that. Im not asking you to show proof of faith, only that you back up your assertions regarding what you have said about science with some kind of support . Now can or can you not do that?
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@quicksilver3757 Yes, it already has been done and you already have been shown...but now you refute what you previously professed, as a Deist, to understand (...though I don't see how that could have been likely...). You do understand that I cannot do anything more for you, correct? Enjoy believing whatever it is you choose to believe in, as a Deist...if you elect to not believe, it is of no actual importance to me - it is your choice. Be well.
mdlittle5466 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "it already has been done and you already have been shown"-No it hasn't. They only thing you have said is 'that they do' but never said "how" they ,or 'its in the video' which fails to do the same thing. Neither has answered my question.
"You do understand that I cannot do anything more for you, correct?"-Then my question remains unanswered.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
@mdlittle5466 "why did you even bother posting any comments whatsoever save for, perhaps, an overt desire for attention?"- I have been trying to get an answer to my question. This has nothing to do with attention.
quicksilver3757 2 months ago
In court circumstantial evidence alone is not sufficient for a conviction.
Anyway, the scientific method is very different from the court system. I feel the comparison here is inapt.
We evolved in this universe, so why would we expect anything but we are a perfect fit. Who knows what life can evolve in other universes?
Anyway, if the multi-verse model is true, we would expect some universe to "win the lotto" . If I win the lotto does that mean there logically is a God?
watch?v=r0nT3ENCGSM
CMrace 7 months ago
@CMrace People are convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.
DeismTV 7 months ago
@DeismTV
In court an explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when THE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN RULED OUT.
I tried to make it a point to say that "the scientific method is very different from the court system. I feel the comparison here is inapt." Sorry if I was unclear.
The rest of the post is meant to be my primary argument.
CMrace 7 months ago
Thank you very much for Sharing!!!!!
What a way of meeting people and get to see their talent. At first was reluctant being on youtube, but getting to do this has brought me into the houses of some very special people. You are one of them. Life; isn't it wonderful!!! Keep up the good work. Have A Splendid Day!!!!
A New Friend
Erick
erickdircks 7 months ago
this is dumb
itroll2vent 11 months ago
This is the same argument used by creationists to 'prove' God's existence without actually providing any real evidence for it, and it's the same argument that has been thoroughly and thoughtfully refuted by atheists time and time again.
Why must complex creations require a creator? Why couldn't everything have fallen into place without it? We certainly have evidence to attest to the latter, while we have none for the former.
Great video, silly arguments.
CapitalistOverlord 1 year ago
@CapitalistOverlord Your statement is entirely inaccurate relative to Deism. These observations are part of a larger process that combines reason, understanding of nature, and personal experience for Deists. We do not say they "prove" God exists, but they do point to some kind of architect. Do not confuse the God of Creationists with the God of Deism. They are entirely different. Concluding that these are "silly" arguments presumes you have full knowledge. Best to be respectful of each other.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder
a.) Concluding that complex creations require a complex creator assumes that infinite gods must exist, or that one god existed for an infinite amount of time. Wouldn't it be easier to assume that the had universe always existed in some form?
b.) You didn't answer the questions I offered in the second paragraph. Please do so in your next comment.
CapitalistOverlord 1 year ago
@CapitalistOverlord The Universe has a beginning at the Big Bang. Time as we understand it does too, per Einstein's space-time model. Infinite time, then, is relevant only within our universe. Complex creations do not require a complex creator, BUT all things emerge from quantum energy obeying Natural Laws. Either some higher power created and ordered that energy OR Energy + Natural Laws = God. Either way, the universe did not spring from non-existence into existence on its own UNLESS it is God.
DeismTV 1 year ago
@DeismTV- "Either way, the universe did not spring from non-existence into existence on its own UNLESS it is God"
The old watchmaker argument revisited?
How did God spring into existence?
LordSauceness 1 year ago
@LordSauceness Read the statement more closely. Non-existence is impossible so SOMETHING has always existed. If it turns out the energy underlying the universe and the natural laws governing it are eternal then together the ARE God. If not, then whatever created and ordered the energy is God.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder-- *God* has always been thought of as some sort of being. Natural laws & energy are mindless and have no thought process of plannng. But 'tis true that something always has existed. I just prefer the natural world we see as opposed to the invisible one that deists and all theists believe.
If you wanna call natural world 'god', so be it. Whatever it is, it takes no interest in the welfare of mankind, that much is certain!
LordSauceness 1 year ago
@LordSauceness I do not agree that Natural Laws and Energy are mindless. Human beings are an inseparable part of them and we have intelligence. Thus, energy and laws manifest intelligence in human form, at a minimum. We clearly take an interest in the welfare of humanity, so IMO your "certain"ty is unwarranted. I think we would be very short sighted if we said we are the only intelligence in the universe is us.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder _"I do not agree that Natural Laws and Energy are mindless"
As a previously long time Christian turned atheist, I'm always fascinated how & why people chose to believe in some sort of god. I would love to have a good reason to do so again, but cannot find any. Hence my posts on vids such as this. Tell me, how does the law of gravity display intelligence?
LordSauceness 1 year ago
@LordSauceness Why does the law of gravity exist in the first place? Why does energy follow any rules, let alone ones that have given rise to life from lifeless atoms?
DeismTV 1 year ago
@DeismTV -Ah, so you subscribe to the old 'there's a law here, so we must have a lawgiver' theory. It doesn't solve anything because we have to explain the lawgiver.......
The laws are there because the universe is here. That's what we see. Anything else is guessing.
LordSauceness 1 year ago
@LordSauceness We do not have to explain the lawgiver to conclude one exists.
DeismTV 1 year ago
@DeismTV We use to conclude that plagues were god's judgement for sins, natural disasters god's disapproving nod, at what point to do we start to conclude there's another explanation? Order & precision prove nothing. Purpose of the universe is what you make of it. It's up to you, and you alone to find meaning & purpose in life. The Deist position makes no sense to me. Why would any intelligence create a universe, and then never show up to say hello?
LordSauceness 1 year ago
@LordSauceness Utilizing 'God' (i.e. - religion) to explain natural disasters is unwise, then again, living near a volcano is unwise...ignorance also supports social atrocities as well such as slavery, rape, theft, discrimination and murder. Precise order shows proof more significant and intended construction then any current established theory and just because someone says hello, and you are too distracted to notice...doen't mean that person didn't say hello. Trees that fall still make a noise.
mdlittle5466 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdlittle5466 "and just because someone says hello, and you are too distracted to notice...doen't mean that person didn't say hello "
Who said hello? Zeus? Buddha? Kriishna? Jesus? Mohammed? Got anybody else to add to the list? Seems to me god is the one doing the distracting!
Precise order proves nothing. If you invoke a deity, then that deity must have had some purpose to it all. And it can't be just for the sake of humans. What is that purpose?
LordSauceness 11 months ago
@iDeismFounder " We do not say they "prove" God exists, but they do point to some kind of architect"
Then, what brought God into existence? I fail to see how laws of nature prove the existence of any entity. 2 + 2 = 4 because is does, not as the result of some deity saying it is so... Natural law is just a more complex version...
LordSauceness 1 year ago
@LordSauceness 2+2=4 is a mathematical concept...it exists immaterially. The laws governing the universe are very real and drive EVERYTHING....stars, planets, life, sentience, intelligence, evolution, gravity...all of it. Your attempting to make a false comparison...
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder _Fair enough. Experiment time: Take a bucket of water & hold it & , start spinning around, faster & faster. Begin to raise your arm. The water does not fall out of the bucket. Real world, real experiment.
No deity of any sort in sight, but, we have 'natural law at work here, keeping the water safe and sound.
LordSauceness 1 year ago
@LordSauceness Their argument fails on two parts when they start arguing absolutes. First, Their holy book NEVER mentions any of that, so it is nothing but conjecture on the christians part. Second, Even if they did prove that a god existed that created these absolutes; they still have all their work ahead of them to prove that it is/was the christian god. Any way you look at it; Their arguments can't and won't hold up to any amount of scrunity.
pillowbugg 11 months ago
@pillowbugg - Yep, agreed, mostly. The gospel of John makes it pretty clear though, the ALL things were made through Jesus. So you'd have to assume that includes 'natural' law. For me, the obvious is that with so many gods with their conflicting holy books running around, pretty much says god has not spoke at all to humans. We are then left with this amazing universe that deist's can't seem to resist invoking an architect to explain it all.
LordSauceness 11 months ago
@sbkang85 So let's get this straight. (1) To assert something is moronic means you know ultimate truth, which you do not. (2) Psychopath, spying, judging...you CLEARLY no nothing about the Deist God. Perhaps some humility would serve you.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder (1) Thinking something is moronic doesn't mean I know the ultimate truth. I can accept that I don't know the "ultimate truth". I just think your belief is moronic. Just because humans have yet to understand the origins of matter and the universe, you conclude that a god must have done it. Why does it have to be a god? How do you jump to that conclusion?
(2) Yea, I didn't see your screen name. You are right, you are a deist, not a theist. The Abrahamic God doesn't apply to you.
sbkang85 1 year ago
@sbkang85 So riddle me this. You admit that you don't know if there is a God or not, yet you still feel you are in a position to judge me as a very foolish or stupid person (based on the Oxford dictionary definition of moronic). On what authority do you place yourself above me? Why is it so hard for you to simply accept that other people can reach a different conclusion than you and not feel so threatened by it?
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder Who said anything about feeling threatened? For me, ridicule isn't associated with feeling threatened. Also, I said the conclusion of the video is moronic. I'm sure you're a very capable person in practical, real life.
And yes, I admit no-one can ever know for sure a god doesn't exist. But I'm sure you're familiar with the unicorn argument (can you prove unicorns don't exist?). Just because there are multiple possibilities, doesn't mean all possibilities are equally probable.
sbkang85 1 year ago
@sbkang85 Well...then I guess I must say that I feel your conclusions are moronic, founded in fundamentalist materialism. However, I have no issue with your conclusion so long as you do not attempt to force it on others. Best of luck to you...
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder Fundamentalist materialism? Is that when a person requires sufficient evidence to believe a claim?
trueleroix 1 year ago
lol after all that it comes to such a moronic conclusion...
Just because humans cannot explain it (yet), there must be an all-powerful invisible psychopath somewhere out there, spying on us while we take showers and judging us on how we make offspring. Brilliant video. (that last part is indeed sarcasm)
sbkang85 1 year ago
@sbkang85 Apparently, the scientific-method unnerves you...there should be no need for worry or fear, my friend. The calculations are accurate, the mathematics precise - I thought this would be well-pleasing news to ALL, yet...you reply with such derision. You may be happily suprised that your thoughts and beliefs are your own and you can be PROUD of them for there is no judgment here regarding thusly. Be well...and learn a little about the topic you've only just begun to understand - Deism.
mdlittle5466 1 year ago
What is the name of the song??
siggy16 1 year ago
@siggy16 Music is Preliator by Globus (Album: Epicon)
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
An excellent video. In the art of non sequiturs. The fact that the universe formed as it did and not in any other possible number of combinations is no more impressive than seeing faces in the clouds.
The fact that the universe would as it did is not even circumstantial evidence in favour of a "deity" it is inferred evidence for a concept of a deity, which in order to mean anything means that the existence of the deity must precede the inference.
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction On what evidence do you base your opinion? Surely you do not claim complete knowledge of the universe, especially the source of the energy and Natural Laws governing it. Without complete knowledge, you position is nothing more than opinion.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder Actually, we do have the necessary scientific understanding for us to postulate the emergence of a universe without a cosmic finger, however, even if we did not that would still not justify the claim that not having one "means god did it". Thats merely an argumentum ad ignorantiam and its utterly unconvincing.
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction Science describes how the universe operates, not the source of the energy comprising it or the source of the natural laws governing it. If you have evidence to the contrary then please share it. Otherwise, I find your position nothing more than a personal choice based on your predisposition to believe the material universe is all that there is.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder Actually the works of Stenger and Hawking provide a valid scientific explanation for the "source of the energy" and why it is what it is. But again, even if we did not it still would not justify postulating a complex deity who pressed the starting button.
Indeed, its a "choice" to accept a purely scientific world view, but its the only view an rationalist can accept. If wishthinking leads you to another conclusion that's fine, but dont confuse the two.
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction Their work provides for top down cosmology, not the source of the energy or the rules governing it. I disagree that accepting a purely scientific or materialistic view of the world is the only view a rationalist can accept. To do so is to accept that energy is self creating and self governing. I don't claim to have knowledge of God's nature or mind, but I do think an intelligent force behind all of this is more likely than not.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder Again, I think you will find you are quite mistaken. Read Stengers: "God the failed Hypothesis". Hawking states a similar argument in "the grand design" although I'll reserve comment until I've had a chance to read it.
You think it more likely that a complex eternal intelligent creator caused the universe than that there is a scientific explanation? Logically that is by definition less likely.
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction If I am mistaken, then please state their explanation for the source of the energy and laws in the universe.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder - In light of the 480 character limitation applicable on youtube, here's a better idea... read their work.
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction It's an easy quip to say go "read" it. I read Hawkings' A Brief History of Time and his paper on top down cosmology. In neither work does he claim to answer the questions I raised. He is arguing for the emergence of a universe from a pre-existing quantum field. AGAIN, that does NOT answer the questions I raised.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder - Were we to go through the scientific explanations of Stenger & Hawking we should set aside a week of coffee and biscuits to discuss it, but a brief Stenger quote:
"...“nothing” is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be completely stable. In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition nothing-to-something is a natural one".
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction You are proving my point. The vacuum is not "nothing" is comprised of quantum energy that transitions into something more complicated. Again, where did the underlying quantum field/vacuum come from?
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder - See, this is why I recommend you read his work, in particular his book "The Comprehensible Cosmos". He's referring to an energy vacuum.
While you're at it, I'm still intrigued how the absence of a scientific explanation would justify the claim that "god did it".
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction Before we change the subject...where did the energy vacuum come from? That IS my point. Either God = Energy + Natural Law or God is something more. I don't claim revealed knowledge, but I find the materialist approach illogical...
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder To ask where the energy comes from is to enter into an infinite regression of asking "where does nothing come from". The point Stenger has made is the fact that the existence of something rather than nothing is a matter of statisical probability.
I tried putting up the link but its proven a little hard. Try again: csicop.org/sb/show/why_is_there_something_rather_than_nothing
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction Again, the vacuum discussed is not "nothing". It is comprised of enormous amounts of energy! I will check out the link you sent.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder - I assure you, you're mistaken about the terminology. Nevertheless, I hope reading the article will clarify the confusion.
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction Nice try ;-) I am most certainly not confused! It seems like you continue to avoid the questions I have asked you. What is source of this vacuum energy?
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder - Its an energy "energy vacuum " not an "vacuum energy". Did you read the article?
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction From the article, "... we can visualize a vacuum with equal numbers of bosons and fermions. Such a vacuum might have existed at the very beginning of the big bang. Indeed this is exactly what is to be expected if the vacuum out of which the universe emerged was supersymmetric..." Again, that is not "nothing" but a supersymmetric balance of bosons and fermions that appears like "nothing".
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder - He's making a comparison, he follows on to say "This suggests a more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions-nothing."
So back to my question....
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction Yes he does say that, but in the context of all opposites being in perfect symmetry and canceling one another out. Thus it is a definition of a net zero, but it most certainly is not "nothing"...just an equal number of positives and negatives. He goes on to say "nothing" is unstable and must then transition into something more complex. The truth is that his case is not a scientific one but a philosophical one using scientific terms...something many Deists do BTW.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iDeismFounder - Its an energy "vacuum " not an "vacuum energy". Did you read the article?
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder - See the related article by Stenger in Sceptical inquirer, June 2006
faithisfiction 1 year ago
@faithisfiction Do you have a link?
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
EXCELENTE VIDEO !
arcguede 1 year ago
@arcguede Thanks! I appreciate the kind words ;-)
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
first of all, the force at which the 4 forces are set at is not exact, yes if they were slightly different we wouldnt exist, but in an infinite multiverse or multitude of dimensions there would have to be an infinite number of universes like this one and the only reason we can be here and observe the unlikeliness of the universe is because it is that way. The universe is not ordered, its surprisingly uniform, and purpose is imposed upon life by you, as is the order
gordonisnext 1 year ago
@gordonisnext Thanks for the post ;-)
How do we test for infinite multiverses or a multitude of dimensions? I am not "imposing" purpose or order, but I am inferring based on observation of the universe. That is, of course, not infallible but it is reasonable.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder the human brain is hardwired to find patterns, wether they exist or not, which implies order, maybe even purpose, thats why we see clouds and say, that looks like an elephant, when, in reality, it really doesnt. the infinite multiverses is, so far as i have learned about, is unprovable and merely a hypotheses, the extra dimensions however are predicted by string theory, as well as a few other theories im sure, and besides the extra dimensions, string theory predicts new particles
gordonisnext 1 year ago
@gordonisnext Thanks for the comment. Even if there are multiple universes or dimensions, the underlying question remains. What is the source of the energy that comprises the uni/multiverses and the rules that govern it/them?
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder there doesnt need to be a source for the admittedly massive amounts of energy in our universe, the energy may have existed in one way or another forever, or it may be that before the big bang, our laws of causality did not exist, and nothing had a cause, until the universe was formed
gordonisnext 1 year ago
@gordonisnext Are you suggesting that the energy has always existed? Are you also suggesting that the energy is self governing (i.e. physics)?
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder yes, it may be that energy has always existed, or it may be that the energy from the big bang was delivered from another brane, it could be that energy is just a form of nothing, it may be there is no such thing as nothing, it may be that we did in fact spring from nothing, it may be all kinds of things, but god is not a valid nor reasonable cause for the universe. please elaborate on your second sentence, im not sure i understand what you mean
gordonisnext 1 year ago
@gordonisnext If the energy has always existed, why does it follow specific laws of physics?
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder good question, its because energy now exists in our universe where there are certain laws of physics that govern energy in all of its forms, outside of this universe, possibly before or after, causality, logic, and the laws of physics might not exist, so i dont know how energy would act outside our laws of physics, so, in summation, it only follows these laws temporarily
gordonisnext 1 year ago
@gordonisnext So we have eternal energy that randomly follows Natural Laws?
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder not necessarily, but it is possible, i for one think m theory is more likely, but we'll see if any of the subatomic particles it predicts show up in the LHC.
gordonisnext 1 year ago
@gordonisnext My issue is that even with the M theory, we have no explanation for the two fundamental components of any universe: energy and Natural Law. Extra dimensions and multiverses do not diminish the issue. I could accept that God may simply be energy + Natural Law.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder okay, energy + natural laws do exist, i dont think they have supernatural qualities, but you can call them what you want, i dont quite see the point though. still, at the moment of the big bang and possibly before it, our physical laws may not have existed, the same goes for logic and causality, so it is quite possible that the universe literally sprang out of nothing.
gordonisnext 1 year ago
@gordonisnext The only thing science can do is describe the natural universe. It cannot account for the source of energy or the Natural Laws it follows. So, either that combo is God or God is the source. This is basically a pandeist vs a deist viewpoint.
iDeismFounder 1 year ago
@iDeismFounder i dont much mind deists, i mostly argue against theists, but what else is there except the natural universe, and i assure you, science is working on the source of energy and the natural laws
gordonisnext 1 year ago
What song is this?
WMCnotWMD 1 year ago
@WMCnotWMD Music is Preliator by Globus (Album: Epicon)