sorry christopher, but you are dead wrong on the no difference between serbs and croats other than religion and i know this because i am a Croat and i know that my countrymen and our neighbors to the east like to determine every miniscule difference they can wherever they can find it and our national histories, while more or less heavily intertsecting through out the ages, are distinctly separate.
despite numerous similarities there is quite a bit of ethnic difference between serbs and croats
Turek gives me a damn headache, because i can't help but bang my head against a nearby surface after every other sentence that comes out of his mouth.
Love is induced by the release of the hormone oxytocin. We perceive it as love but it is chemical. When we see things, it is the result of chemical reactions that arise through light-sensitive tissues in our eyes and the decoding in our brain. Purely chemical. Just because Turek wants to think that "luminous beings we are, yes, mmm!" doesn't make it so. Why he has such disdain for chemistry I don't know. I think that the fact that chemistry IS responsible makes it that much more amazing.
Turek's rebuttal also shows a real ignorance of science. The eye, for example, has evolved independently numerous times over the course of time. Also, it presupposes we are the only planet in this universe with 10e21 stars that has developed life. His misrepresentation of Hume's argument is childish. I agree that something outside the universe must have caused the expansion of our universe but it's much more likely that M-theory can do a better job of explaining it than "God did it".
Babies don't believe in God. That takes the indoctrination from their parents or later on the indoctrination of peers or born of a desperation to belong to something greater than ourselves so we don't feel so small and powerless. Religion is born of insecurity and fear. Turek is a great preacher, I'm sure he is hellfire behind a pulpit but he is spewing absolute nonsense.
Morality can be explained by the mirror neurons of a social species and the fact that there is stuff we don't want done to us so we agree not to do that stuff to do that stuff to each other. Doesn't stop most people from straying far from the ideal and trying to get away with screwing over their fellow humans and the planet itself to profit. Turek has a silver tongue and he has to talk fast so you don't actually hear what he is saying.
DNA came from RNA which came from proteins which are simple molecules, polymers of amino acids. Carbon compounds are prone to bonding with each other. Give 3 billion years and it's amazing what can happen. Not impressed by the comparison of the information in DNA accumulated over 3.5 billion years to a multiple of a limited work made by hairless monkeys. He is butchering science and it's disgusting.
If water was a linear molecule and not a dipole, we wouldn't be here. We ARE here. It's begging the question and his misinterpretation of science is laughable. He also completely misunderstands the anthropic principle. It doesn't purport to explain anything, it just says that the universe could not be any other way if it were to lead to organisms that could observe it. Makes no attempts to explain WHY this is, just says that it is what it is because it is.
In addition, there is zero evidence that our universe came from nothing. We can't see past the plasma wall moments after the Big Bang. Our universe can be explained by any number of theories (see "M theory") and it still makes more sense than a timeless God. You still have to explain the existence of God. You can't start with an unprovable assertion and have an argument that has any weight at all.
Turek's opening statement is a carbon copy from their first debate. He uses selective cherry-picked evidence from authority and sets up one straw man after another. Fitting scientific discoveries to the existence of a God is hindsight...which is when you look at the world with your head up your ass. The word "fine-tuning" is ridiculous...the chance of our universe being the way it is is 100%...because it's HERE. You have to have other examples to compare it to if you want to use statistics.
Turek isn't a debater, he's a salesman. He talks fast, makes jokes, asks the same question multiple times, and tells stories that are meant to tug at your heart instead of make you use your brain. PhD in Apologetics = Sale Pitching 101
Turek raises his hand and asks, "How many of you were able to attend that debate or were preoccupied at the time?" So, you're asking both groups, those who attended and those who didn't, to raise their hand at the same time? Credibility lost in 30 seconds.
Question to Turek. What if none of those soldiers had to die? His god created his Jesus to die for 'all our sins' his god could just have forgiven everyone's sins without sacrifice.
And what kind of sacrifice was it anyway, when Jesus knew he would rise from the dead 3 days later?
This Poor Man Turek...Trying to use simple Laws of Physics and Science as Evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer when the very foundation of all Religions depends on Faith and Faith defies all Logical Reason and Human Understanding. Hitchens is totally correct in his belief's about Religion except the God that Hitchkens is speaking of is nothing at all like the True God.
I am sure that for Turek to even be in the same building with Hitchkens is obviously the greatest accomplishment of Frank Turek's Lightweight Life. I am equally sure that Pigs on my Grandfathers Farm could out Debate Frank Turek on their worst day.
@naqdensjam - It is called fanaticism. Just as Jim Jones directed his followers to drink the Kool-Aid. And, the followers did.
That direction (control) derives from a form of faith (blind) cult control.
You see, people like Turek, are lost in an attitude that everyone must see (does see) the truth in what he is saying. Just because he says it (divine intervention). And, spending MOST of his time surrounded by "worshipers" he becomes disconnected with reason and reality.
@Absiintheee yes, if that which makes us humans believe in what we're saying when talking about metaphysical things, is merely physical, then we all fail. the analogy is that if your mind is incapable of processing the words here, it doesn't mean there isn't a real mind/meaning behind the words. your neurons and the chemicals involved are merely the medium thru which we do meaningfull human activity.
"How can he say "evil" without God!" "How can he say "moral" without God"!
BECAUSE THEY ARE WORDS THAT DESCRIBE THINGS.
Christians are so fucking dumb.. I mean.. they can't even see past their own definitions.. Because to them "morality" = "God's morality".. they cant comprehend that an atheist might say that "morality = the innate sense of fairness and human solidarity".
They're just like UGGGGGGH GOD = MORALITY = GOD WUT U SAYIN BRO, NO GOD NO MORALS DUHHHH
@TheOmnImpotent that's the point, it's not impossible to further knowledge on your own quest, without having to challenge an adversary going in a different direction than you are
When religious people use science its so cringe worthy. Its not a point they understand or comprehend, just quote other people and talk nonsense. Truth is assuming something about a place we know virtually NOTHING about is pointless, especially when some people, like turek, know less than what people who study it for 30,40.50 years know, and even then they hardly know the truth. Its just a foolish point.
@connorrehanfeaglasgo oh please, some of the greatest scientists in history were religious, like nicholas copernicus, isaac newton, galileo galilee, in fact their religion actually helped them be so profound in their quest for scientific knowledge, religion didn't hinder their charisma for science, it actually enhanced them and made them more determined and persistent, atheists like to think otherwise thinking that their side deserves the credit, i'm sorry but this isn't the real case
@KatanaRapierCombo2 ..that wasnt the point i made. read again please. he quotes cosmological theories and passes it off as if he comprehends what is actually going on, and gives his reasoning for this by saying god did it all, rather than addressing the real, human issues and destruction going on in the world due to foolish delusions.
Turek should stop giving examples from science. he obviously does not know the breadth of our knowledge of biology, chemistry and physics with which we've come to understand the world and our place within it. instead he just nitpicks lines from the greatest scientists and philosophers, and, without giving any context to qualify them, claims that everything we are currently debating in science can be explained by God. if you don't know how science works, get a scientific panel. epic fail
I got bored quickly by 10 minutes. If something didn`t come from nothing, how can `someone` create something from nothing ? Where did the `nothing` come from ?
The only problem with this debate is - No-one knows everything, so nobody has the correct answer about anything to do with the beginning of this universe.
We could be a by-product of another universe that collapsed. Who knows ? no-one.
@eric80510 my friend hitchens was not drunk lol. my view is the same hitchens and that is that we can not ever 100% now. and iv heard hitchens say this many times. and he knows we don't have the mental capacity to understand how we all started with absolute certainty. and because of that is Turik's obligation to prove his view. you must not understand Hitchens wording or his way of explaining or u must be more close minded and spent more time figuring out Turik's statements to Hitchens
Only if you are not very well read in modern science. I am not, by the way slandering you. I am just stating, as I have done before, that more than 90% of what Turek said is demonstrably false pseudo-scientific dribble.
In his 20 Minutes, Turek failed to at least once state, how he concludes from the stated facts to a designer. He "used" his time to drivel utter bullshit at 150 words per minute.
Turek is IMO, a worse person than even Kent Hovind. God's attitude is "There is a Christopher Hitchens and I love him", yet hasn't really ever seen fit to not fill Hitchens life with unnecessary pain, or give him the evidence required to believe in him. Turek, the soldier, and the insurgent all believe(d) in a god, and the insurgent won. If there god is real, that he's playing both sides and is one sick fuck, o and so is Turek. God didnt see fit to say to the insurgent hey stop this shit, NOW!.
Every time I see one of these supposedly intelligent theists debate, they start off shifting the burden of proof. Put up the evidence or sit down. I don't have to disprove Yahweh to disbelieve any more than Turek has to disprove Vishnu.
Why could God not have created the world via the Big Bang and Humans via evolution? Why are these concepts to bible thumpers contradictory? Catholics, Orthodox, some main stream protestants and normal people have zero issue with science?
@jec11703 The point is that both the Big Bang and evolution are not in need of any creator. And if "Catholics, Orthodox, some main stream protestants" have "zero issues" with science, it's only because they have convinced themselves that they have some higher knowledge. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
@TomFynn My point was is that main stream Christians, in my experience seem to be fine with science. Those people are not taking trips to Kentucky to see the Creation museum (or as I call it The Fred Flintstone Museum). Its well known knowledge...for example the earth is not 6 thousand years old---I know call me crazy. 500 years ago you'd be telling me the earth is flat and we are the center of the universe. Science now tell us thats wrong,
When He was dead He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched all the navies that were ever built all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life
@lxAgnosticxl Correction: the stories told about that life have been enormously influential. While he was alive, Jesus affected at most a couple hundred mile radius from the place of his birth.
@lxAgnosticxl We can play this game where we each cite literature or academic papers that the other hasn't read and then sigh audibly at their ignorance. "How dare you be ignorant of the Wilfred Owen poem that I like so much, you BUFFOON?", "What kind of fool doesn't understand that your beta matrix must be of full column rank?"
Or we can recognize that the reason that you cited this VERY, VERY well known poem (that I have never heard of), is to advance an argument that it doesn't substantiate.
@lxAgnosticxl I know it was in the video. It was used explicitly as an argument. Turek used it to attempt to show how important the life of Jesus is historically. And since when can't poems make arguments? That would be a surprise to Langston Hughes, for one.
The problem is that poems are VERY iffy. Most poetry is both allegorical (i.e. not literal) and tends to either hyperbolize or outright fabricate events. Ancient Greece has tons of examples of this.
Such a cheap trick at the end by Turek, using the story of the Navy Seal just to tug on the heart strings of the audience. It just sounds so contrived and disingenuous. That made me sick Frank, thumbs down to you because the story had nothing to do with religion, it made no mention of the religious beliefs of the soldier Frank just tacked on the quote from Jesus at the end to try and tie it all together. I'm angry now!
@tskasa1 i don't know how you can say atheists aren't angrier than theists. go to any debate on youtube twixt a theist and atheist and read the atheists comments. you don't notice anything? it's almost 100% angry cussing and insulting. even when one of the comments has some usefull info, it's couched with some insults to. and how does saying your morals are better than someone elses not = moral superiority? and materialism (atheism) is an affirmation that matter is all there is.
Yes that was indeed a despicable and shameful trick pulled by Turek. I had expected better ethics from him. He knew very well that Hitchens was specifically referring to the immorality of "vicarious absolution" derived from the Christian belief that the human sacrifice of Jesus somehow gives their believers a free pass. Hitchens himself writes that heroism (he even uses the example of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to shield others) elevates mankind and deserves to be praised.
If Turek is so short on time, why does he waste so much of it arguing for something which no one disputes -- that the universe had a beginning? There's no atheist or scientist I know of who doubts that.
Turek's arguements made me lean more towards the atheism. He didn't convince me that there must be a supernatural "god". I don't believe you need god to scare you into having good morals.
1:19:17, the second he said that he thought that the old testament was the word of god, he lost all credibility in my eyes. Cause theres some horrible immoral, nonsensical, shit in that book that no self respecting human being should believe in.
"Because of all matter, all time and all space came out of nothing" Yes, and the universe will revert to nothing, which is explained that matter and energy evantually explain. Though this is an incredible time span which we are talking about, it still reverts back to zero, making the same criteria for the big bang to happen again. The steady state theory of a infinite times of regression causing the same thing to happen again might be right.
"Yes, and the universe will revert to nothing...Though this is an incredible time span which we are talking about, it still reverts back to zero"
No it won't. Mainly because there is nothing to revert back from in the first place. The net energy value of the universe is already zero (which we know from cosmological geometry, among other things).
"The steady state theory of a infinite times of regression causing the same thing to happen again might be right."
1) That's not what Steady State says. The Steady State Theory describes a universe that is neither expanding nor contracting.
2) No it isn't. The "Big Crunch" Theory only applies if the rate of cosmological expansion is slowing down, whereas in our case it is increasing, making a Big Crunch essentially impossible.
@tskasa1 Yeah sorry about the steady state claim, But the big crunch idea of infinite rectraction of the universe to the point were it was before the big bang might be right. All matter decays eventually, And before tthe big bang the universe was zero. Everything we know will eventually become zero again, because the universe is a closed system. Returning to the criteria before the big bang. So, if this is true, the big bang could possibly happen again.
"But the big crunch idea of infinite rectraction of the universe to the point were it was before the big bang might be right"
No, for that to happen there would need to be a negative universal acceleration. That is to say that the universe is slowing down. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which means that it is increasing in size towards infinity.
Exactly. It decays. There is a HUGE difference between decay and disappearance of. The matter is breaking down into subatomic particles, which themselves are a manifestation of a field which are a manifestation of energy. The net energy of the universe NEVER changes (technically). It's a fixed value that never changes, even when matter decays, because when matter decays it breaks further and further into its parts.
@tskasa1 ... Yes, and the fixed net energy in the universe is ZERO which eventually will make all matter and anti matter become the suggested number, making the criteria before the big bang possible again. I never said anything about energy "disapearing" merely it returning to its original zero state. View the universe as a huge battery, the charge is divided into a positive and a negative, put together they make zero.
Zero was the number before the big bang, making the criteria possible again.
"I never said anything about energy "disapearing" merely it returning to its original zero state."
Except that there is nothing to return from. You can't return to a value that you already are at. That's like saying you are going to return from your house to your house, your statement is none-sensical.
@tskasa1 Yes, but the state of the net energy will eventually revert to zero with no positive nor negatives.Again, you dont seem to be able to grasp my arguement. Im not saying its going to revert to its original value, but its original STATE. I never mention anything about its value.
"Yes, but the state of the net energy will eventually revert to zero with no positive nor negatives. Im not saying its going to revert to its original value, but its original STATE. I never mention anything about its value."
Oh. that's just plain idiotic then. If you want to claim this that goes against all of modern physics, you are going to need to give me some proof of this.
@tskasa1 How does it goes againt modern science? Matter decays in a closed system, and revert to zero. Thats all im saying. I simply apply it to the universe as a whole.
If the positives and the negatives revert to their original state of absolutely nothing, which modern day science suggests, then the criteria for the big bang is met. Is this so hard to understand?
(I want to make it clear, this is not fact, simply the usage of deductive reasoning. I never claimed it to be true.)
"How does it goes againt modern science? Matter decays in a closed system, and revert to zero. "
Except that that is not how it works. First of all, "matter decay" doesn't extend much below protons and neutrons as everything else is already a fundamental particle, and fundamental particles can't decay. Secondly, the idea of proton decay is not even a known fact, it is a hypothesis that is still being worked on (cont.)
(cont.) And that there is not very much solid evidence for it (albeit there are hypothetical and theoretical reasons to look into it but nowhere near enough to justify calling the hypothesis valid as of yet) as things stand. The Standard Model makes this especially difficult as under the Standard Model protons don't decay because they are the lightest baryon (which means they don't really have a lower energy state to decay into).
@tskasa1 True, though the question in hand is that there should be negatives for these baryons, if not, the net value is not zero as science suggests.
"If the positives and the negatives revert to their original state of absolutely nothing, which modern day science suggests, then the criteria for the big bang is met. Is this so hard to understand?"
Except that modern day science doesn't suggest that. Even your misunderstanding of proton decay doesn't suggest that. Just like when atoms decay, there is NO energy being lost, it is just going elsewhere
@tskasa1 Once again, I never say anything about the disapearance of energy, it simply converge with their negative duplicate to reach ZERO. You continue with these arguements even when I say that the net value doesnt change, but the state of which it is in does change.
Also, another Big Bang event could just as easily happen today as it could happen at any point in time in history (albeit the probability of it happening at any point in time are constantly ridiculously improbable) because the required criteria for it (a zero net energy state universe) has already been met.
@tskasa1 Yes, the net energy is met, but not the criteria. For the big bang to happen again you need the same criteria as before the big bang, which the universe will eventually revert to. This has been my point all along, it seems you havent understood my arguement.
"Yes, the net energy is met, but not the criteria"
Except that the zero-net energy state is the ONLY criteria needed for the big bang (well, that and space-time, because quantum fuckery in space time is what sparked the Big Bang).
@tskasa1 Positives and negatives cant create more positives and negatives. IF the universe revert to zero of these terms, the criteria is met. The big bang require the non-existance of positives and negatives. Im not talking about the net energy, but the positives and negatives.
"Positives and negatives cant create more positives and negatives."
And that is irrelevant, because it is not the "positives and negatives" that contribute to a creation event, it is (supposedly) quantum fluctuations in space time itself.
"The big bang require the non-existance of positives and negatives."
No, a Big Bang requires a zero-net energy state that quantum physics can work with. We already have that and always will and always did.
@tskasa1 The idea here is that the positives and negatives are already in existance. The big bang require these to not exist at the point of "creation", and these are gone if the positives and negatives converge. There cannot be a division of zero into positives and negatives if they are already in existance!
"The idea here is that the positives and negatives are already in existance. The big bang require these to not exist at the point of "creation","
No it doesn't. OUR Big Bang worked like that (we think), but that is not mandatory for any Big Bang Event to happen. You only need zero net energy and space-time with quantum mechanics to make it work.
@tskasa1 Hmm well yes, but I think weve gone off topic. Im currently not really seeiong this debate going anywere since we both slided into the discussion of "the possibility of a new big bang in the time of positives and negatives" instead of "the possibility of the conversion of negatives and positives to revert back to its original state".
You have convinced me though that the big bang didnt need the criteria of what I spoke of, and wont use it in the future. Box1
@RawSwedishMeatball But, I pretty sure that I gave you the possibility of the modified "big crunch idea". Think about it, you agree with me that positives and negatives will eventually return to their origina state since you didnt fight me on that. Then even space and time, which are positives should decay, leaving the universe as it was. With infinity, the possibilty of a new big bang is undeniable. box2
"Think about it, you agree with me that positives and negatives will eventually return to their origina state since you didnt fight me on that. "
Because as I've stated before, the state of the universe hasn't changed at all. The net total of the universe's energy hasn't changed, and the energy total of the universe is what fuels expansion and hence would fuel either a Big Crunch or a Big Rip.
Space and time transcend the Big Bang. They have always existed. Not necessirily as we know them today, as modern space-time is polluted with tons of stuff (matter, anti-matter, energy, etc.). But space and time had to, nonetheless, exist prior to the Big Bang or else you could never have had one. The Big Bang is just the farthest we can ever go back, not really the absolute beginning.
@tskasa1 Wow. Listen to any renowned physicist and they will say the same. Time and space didnt exist before the big bang, hell, time didnt even exist so you can even use the word "before".
"Time and space didnt exist before the big bang, hell, time didnt even exist so you can even use the word "before"."
No, time and space as we normally think of it didn't exist before the Big Bang. Or at least we can't prove that it did hence we assume that it didn't, because anything else would be an unjustified assumption. All the Big Bang really is is the farthest we can look back in time (cont.)
(cont.) You can't into the past before the Big Bang for a lot of reasons: the universe was opaque back then, different if not entirely nonexistent laws of physics, etc.
Space-time as well didn't exist...but only how we normally define it today. Empty space did. And I mean truly empty space. Which is to say space where nothing but the unavoidable quantum fluctuations necessary to form the "cosmic egg" came from existed (cont.)
We can't define space back then as we do today because space is...well, polluted I guess would be the word. Space-time is affected by energy and gravity that did not exist in a pre-big bang universe. However, a background wherein quantum fluctuations are free to happen (i.e. truly empty space) are not bound by this limitation, and not only is it not bound, it is NECESSARY for most modern iterations of the Inflationary Big Bang Theory (cont.)
@tskasa1 One thing. You can base a bias on the current universe and expect to get a good result on how the universe was before the big bang. The very idea is ridiculus. I understand what you are trying to say, but the very idea on having a bias on pre-bigbang universes is just wrong. You say it yourself, a universe pre-big bang is different, so you cant base it upon todays observed facts without exstensive study in the subject.
(cont.) Time runs along the same vein. We define, or at least able to differentiate, time today by changes. That is to say we know time exists because changes happen. You can't have change without time, and we observe time in the form of changes. In a pre-Big Bang universe, however, you wouldn't need to have this system. You could just as well have empty space wherein nothing really changes on a noticeable scale, but you still need time to allow change
"Im not talking about the net energy, but the positives and negatives."
But the net energy IS what matters, because the net energy is what actually contributes into the equation. It's like trying to find the total distance traveled by a projectile (the "net distance") and then ignoring that both the negatives and positive come into play in it. The net energy is THE most important factor (outside of the existence of space-time).
It's funny, Hitchens is nearly spot on for me; I agree with all he says except that I think the existence of god makes sense. I'm technically agnostic rather than deistic, it's just that my instinct is that science will never create life from scratch (this could be proven wrong any day!), and I find it telling that life itself seems to break the laws of thermodynamics. Beyond this, I'd say Hitchens is right about everything else concerning religion.
@skidancin Joke: Scientist says to God, "We don't need you anymore. We can do anything you can do." God says, "Really? Can you create a human being from the dirt of the earth?" The scientist says, "Sure. Watch this," and proceeds to grab some earth with which to work. But God says, "Hold it.Get your own dirt." :)
Christopher Hitchens' "sense" is ridiculously overrated, as even his brother Peter (who loves him) points out his book "The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith."
@tamething1 Love the joke! Thanks. But yes, as even the folks he debated with allowed regularly, he makes plenty of very valid points, I love to hear them, and do wish far more folks would understand and reject much of what religion has brought us.
@skidancin Think about this: Every 18 months, for the past 40 years, the speed of computer processors has doubled. In the not too distant futures(a lot of people say probably in the next 20 years), computers will reach a point where they can improve themselves, without relying on humans. If they doubled every 18 months with humans doing the work, having a computer that can improve itself will exponentially explode in speed, very, very quickly. At that point, creating life might be inevitable
@tskasa1 Sticking to the 2nd law of thermodynamics for the moment, life will grow and evolve rather than just breaking down. Compared to ordinary matter, matter containing life plainly behaves in special ways. We've failed so far to create even the simplest life from scratch. Try as we have, so far we need some "kept alive" bit in order to even come "close." The "spark of life" may remain unknowable to science, never to be quantified. I'd wager a bit if I could.
OMG, Such a silly notion that turek does. The big bang is rare, okay yes, and therefor humes arguement is still wrong. That is incredibily stupid, what about the background radiation that penetrates the whole universe? I wouldt call that rare, would you?
I think our friend Mr. Turek should have a talk with Dr. Lawrence Krauss, It's a shame he didn't catch his AMA on reddit today. SOMETHING can come from NOTHING. NEWSFLASH: his entire argument is wrong, no matter how convincing his "runs on the boardwalk" and "New Jersey talking speed" is.
I think Hitchens errors when he says much of our own planet is much too hot or much too cold to support anything like a life. Instead, I think we've found life in surprising conditions on earth, pretty much everywhere. NO?.
@rossmetacraft That's the only thing I can imagine he means...but he doesn't say that and frankly given that any sort of life would excite us if found on some other planet, he probably shouldn't have used that line. The universe is big enough to make his case without ruling out much or most of the the earth.
Well, good arguement about the beginning of the universe, though, incredibly stupid to asume it to be the christian god that would role as the creator, neither does the cause of the big bang need to be a being of sorts, It can simply be a force causating the universe just as the higgs field causate matter
Why does turok spend so much time trying to connect with the crowd? This is a tactic incredibly foul, going for personal emotions instead of using logic and reason to win the people over...
@85Damix OK let me rephrase: I was born and raised Catholic, and attended a Catholic private preparatory school. Funny thing is, this prep school did more to convince me of the nonexistence of God, than it did to reaffirm my faith. Immersed in an academic environment, I came to the conclusion that the existence God did not mesh with what I believed in in the world. And then recently, I decided to stop deluding myself and revealed my thoughts to my parents. Better?
I don't blame Hitchens. It's hard for someone not educated in the sciences to be able to actually counter Turek's huge amount of bullshit. Honestly, the man is one of the most either blatantly dishonest scumbags or ridiculously ignorant idiots I've ever come across.
..everything happens for a reason..which raises the question ultimately..if there is a creator, who created that creator who created that creator..and so on...its unexplainable and far too complex for us to compute. Beyond atheism or theism, let's go just on scientific evidence..as Einstein once concluded 'energy cannot be created or destroyed'..well we're created alright, but we can't be destroyed ..there is evidence of life after death..look up russian scientist Konstantin Korotkov...
@JesseyCK energy cannot be destroyed (can be created) but that means after your death your the energy changes into thing around like a tree or rock or heat. Korotkov was alcoholic and freak.
"well we're created alright, but we can't be destroyed"
Oh, we're created. But that doesn't mean there is a sentient creator.
"there is evidence of life after death..look up russian scientist Konstantin Korotkov..."
What about him? I don't care if a scientists says something. What a scientist believes is irrelevant because ultimately that is just an opinion. What I DO care about is the evidence and reasoning that they can provide to support their position.
How so? I haven't closed off any options. I've just stated that nearly everything Turek has said about science is falsifiably wrong, which it is. It's not a matter of being narrow or close minded, it's a matter of yes-or-no, objective fact.
...well, human weren't created for saturn or jupiter, we inhabit, and are born naturally on this planet, because we are able to sustain life and live in on earth..if this 'God' made a mistake by creating freezing temperatures or chaotic environments not fit for life, we can't use us humans in the equation..there have never been human remains found on any planets and really, virtually little or no life anywhere in the universe, so God did not place us in these bad spaces just for us to extinct
"as Einstein once concluded 'energy cannot be created or destroyed'"
First of all, Einstein never concluded that. Einstein simply said they were equivalent. The conservation theories LONG predate him. Secondly, Eistein was wrong about that just like he was wrong about the universe's expansion and quantum mechanics. We know that he is wrong because we observe the exact opposite of what he says in quantum mechanics...every.single.day.
after watching this..i am left with questions unanswered myself..for example..dr. turek explains the existance of a God, and one example is our natural 'knowing' of right and wrong.."we know not to kill babies, and we are born with this moral'...which, suffice to say, can be explained by survival instinct..we don't kill babies bc it would extint out offspring and our human race..also...mr. hitchen.. "so if there is a God, he must be cruel"..or made mistakes? bc there r inhabitable places..
"dr. turek explains the existance of a God, and one example is our natural 'knowing' of right and wrong.."
Only on certain matters. And these matters are matters of the life of death not of an individual, but of a SOCIETY. Humans are social animals, not solitary animals, and our survival is dependent on the ability of our society as a whole to survive. Hence when the society is strong, we benefit the most. Murder and the like are detrimental to society. It is natural
Depends on who those babies belong to. If those babies belong to our society, then we would never touch them. Bloody hell, we would kill someone else for so much as harming those babies. But if they come from a completely different culture from our own? Especially one that we would be hostile against or neutral? We wouldn't give a damn. And there are historical examples of this aplenty.
Nice story about the Navy Seal there at the end by Turek. Kind of ironic though. The SEAL's job is to break one of the 10 commandments (many would argue the most important one) upon the orders of his commander-in-chief -- who, last I checked, is not God. So if the SEAL killed an enemy combatant and died without asking forgiveness (and why would we believe he would ask forgiveness for killing an enemy?), then he would be sent to hell according to Tureks religion.
He's an annoying idiot. His whole argument basically comes down to "the universe started, therefore a creator must've created it, but nothing created the creator (double standard much?) and it happens to be the Christian god so being gay is wrong! Proof people!
And hearing a Christian try to explain physics is painful.
And they let this sack of shit(Turek) to tarnish the heroic deed of one human being, with imaginary bullshit, WITH SUPERNATURAL INHUMANE CHARACTER?
Yes, every single time. When some heroic human does the right thing, these minions of disgust RUSHES to monopolize the deed for their filthy, insane and retard(no offense to actual ppl who suffer from it.) jeesus, god or holy FART.
It only means, that they wont respect humanity as long they have this bronze age death cult.
Looking back at Christianity, even 20 years ago, you can see how little arguments they have left to cling to. Claiming Jesus on toast is divine and the uncertainty of quantum mechanics is proof of a god is all they have left. It's wonderful watching religion writhe as it dies.
sorry christopher, but you are dead wrong on the no difference between serbs and croats other than religion and i know this because i am a Croat and i know that my countrymen and our neighbors to the east like to determine every miniscule difference they can wherever they can find it and our national histories, while more or less heavily intertsecting through out the ages, are distinctly separate.
despite numerous similarities there is quite a bit of ethnic difference between serbs and croats
MatoVuc 3 days ago
Turek gives me a damn headache, because i can't help but bang my head against a nearby surface after every other sentence that comes out of his mouth.
MatoVuc 3 days ago
Love is induced by the release of the hormone oxytocin. We perceive it as love but it is chemical. When we see things, it is the result of chemical reactions that arise through light-sensitive tissues in our eyes and the decoding in our brain. Purely chemical. Just because Turek wants to think that "luminous beings we are, yes, mmm!" doesn't make it so. Why he has such disdain for chemistry I don't know. I think that the fact that chemistry IS responsible makes it that much more amazing.
MarkRosengarten 4 days ago
Turek's rebuttal also shows a real ignorance of science. The eye, for example, has evolved independently numerous times over the course of time. Also, it presupposes we are the only planet in this universe with 10e21 stars that has developed life. His misrepresentation of Hume's argument is childish. I agree that something outside the universe must have caused the expansion of our universe but it's much more likely that M-theory can do a better job of explaining it than "God did it".
MarkRosengarten 4 days ago
Babies don't believe in God. That takes the indoctrination from their parents or later on the indoctrination of peers or born of a desperation to belong to something greater than ourselves so we don't feel so small and powerless. Religion is born of insecurity and fear. Turek is a great preacher, I'm sure he is hellfire behind a pulpit but he is spewing absolute nonsense.
MarkRosengarten 4 days ago
Morality can be explained by the mirror neurons of a social species and the fact that there is stuff we don't want done to us so we agree not to do that stuff to do that stuff to each other. Doesn't stop most people from straying far from the ideal and trying to get away with screwing over their fellow humans and the planet itself to profit. Turek has a silver tongue and he has to talk fast so you don't actually hear what he is saying.
MarkRosengarten 4 days ago
DNA came from RNA which came from proteins which are simple molecules, polymers of amino acids. Carbon compounds are prone to bonding with each other. Give 3 billion years and it's amazing what can happen. Not impressed by the comparison of the information in DNA accumulated over 3.5 billion years to a multiple of a limited work made by hairless monkeys. He is butchering science and it's disgusting.
MarkRosengarten 4 days ago
If water was a linear molecule and not a dipole, we wouldn't be here. We ARE here. It's begging the question and his misinterpretation of science is laughable. He also completely misunderstands the anthropic principle. It doesn't purport to explain anything, it just says that the universe could not be any other way if it were to lead to organisms that could observe it. Makes no attempts to explain WHY this is, just says that it is what it is because it is.
MarkRosengarten 4 days ago
In addition, there is zero evidence that our universe came from nothing. We can't see past the plasma wall moments after the Big Bang. Our universe can be explained by any number of theories (see "M theory") and it still makes more sense than a timeless God. You still have to explain the existence of God. You can't start with an unprovable assertion and have an argument that has any weight at all.
MarkRosengarten 4 days ago
Turek's opening statement is a carbon copy from their first debate. He uses selective cherry-picked evidence from authority and sets up one straw man after another. Fitting scientific discoveries to the existence of a God is hindsight...which is when you look at the world with your head up your ass. The word "fine-tuning" is ridiculous...the chance of our universe being the way it is is 100%...because it's HERE. You have to have other examples to compare it to if you want to use statistics.
MarkRosengarten 4 days ago
Turek is a cunt
weefeatures 1 week ago
So many suppositions, false inferences, bad ideas, bad metaphysics, ugh
firewolfstone 1 week ago
Turek isn't a debater, he's a salesman. He talks fast, makes jokes, asks the same question multiple times, and tells stories that are meant to tug at your heart instead of make you use your brain. PhD in Apologetics = Sale Pitching 101
mltcm8 1 week ago 5
@mltcm8 right on point sir, couldn't have said it better myself
567AMANDEEP 1 week ago
Turek raises his hand and asks, "How many of you were able to attend that debate or were preoccupied at the time?" So, you're asking both groups, those who attended and those who didn't, to raise their hand at the same time? Credibility lost in 30 seconds.
mltcm8 1 week ago
@mltcm8 The point was that we wanted to see who was paying attention. I guess you missed that.
frostedpornflakes 16 hours ago
Question to Turek. What if none of those soldiers had to die? His god created his Jesus to die for 'all our sins' his god could just have forgiven everyone's sins without sacrifice.
And what kind of sacrifice was it anyway, when Jesus knew he would rise from the dead 3 days later?
Ridiculous!
1TheLoneWolf1 1 week ago
Geez Turek talks a lot of shit.
1TheLoneWolf1 1 week ago
This Poor Man Turek...Trying to use simple Laws of Physics and Science as Evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer when the very foundation of all Religions depends on Faith and Faith defies all Logical Reason and Human Understanding. Hitchens is totally correct in his belief's about Religion except the God that Hitchkens is speaking of is nothing at all like the True God.
nickelbird103 2 weeks ago
Here is a good point to Debate..( Are some things more Important than the Truth? ) or ( Are somethings Sometimes more Important than the Truth )
nickelbird103 2 weeks ago
I am sure that for Turek to even be in the same building with Hitchkens is obviously the greatest accomplishment of Frank Turek's Lightweight Life. I am equally sure that Pigs on my Grandfathers Farm could out Debate Frank Turek on their worst day.
nickelbird103 2 weeks ago
lol most of the first presentation of Turek was just argument from authority and throwing around big numbers to impress.
gigor11 2 weeks ago
Frank Turek didn't give a single evidence for god. I am sorry but this is sad he looks like a smart guy.
naqdensjam 2 weeks ago
@naqdensjam - It is called fanaticism. Just as Jim Jones directed his followers to drink the Kool-Aid. And, the followers did.
That direction (control) derives from a form of faith (blind) cult control.
You see, people like Turek, are lost in an attitude that everyone must see (does see) the truth in what he is saying. Just because he says it (divine intervention). And, spending MOST of his time surrounded by "worshipers" he becomes disconnected with reason and reality.
Rocketryman 2 weeks ago
Tureks mockery of the world makes me sick.
He keeps asking Hitchens whether he thinks love.. transcendence.. logic, are all "chemical".
Implied within the question is the assumption that if they ARE chemical.. then it is worthless.
But why is it so?
Yes, love is chemical. Its a combination of oxytocin and other neurotransmitters.
Does this reduce its allure..?
Does this reduce the subtleties that each individual has unique to them?
Is this even negative in any sense?
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
@Absiintheee yes, if that which makes us humans believe in what we're saying when talking about metaphysical things, is merely physical, then we all fail. the analogy is that if your mind is incapable of processing the words here, it doesn't mean there isn't a real mind/meaning behind the words. your neurons and the chemicals involved are merely the medium thru which we do meaningfull human activity.
MrSomethingscary 2 weeks ago
I hate this religious bullshit
"How can he say "evil" without God!" "How can he say "moral" without God"!
BECAUSE THEY ARE WORDS THAT DESCRIBE THINGS.
Christians are so fucking dumb.. I mean.. they can't even see past their own definitions.. Because to them "morality" = "God's morality".. they cant comprehend that an atheist might say that "morality = the innate sense of fairness and human solidarity".
They're just like UGGGGGGH GOD = MORALITY = GOD WUT U SAYIN BRO, NO GOD NO MORALS DUHHHH
Absiintheee 3 weeks ago
@Absiintheee personal opinion
KatanaRapierCombo2 1 week ago
how about they are both equally plausible?
KatanaRapierCombo2 3 weeks ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 That is the worst possible stance you can take, as it gets rid of any reason for debate, as well as furthering of knowledge.
TheOmnImpotent 1 week ago
@TheOmnImpotent that's the point, it's not impossible to further knowledge on your own quest, without having to challenge an adversary going in a different direction than you are
KatanaRapierCombo2 1 week ago
When religious people use science its so cringe worthy. Its not a point they understand or comprehend, just quote other people and talk nonsense. Truth is assuming something about a place we know virtually NOTHING about is pointless, especially when some people, like turek, know less than what people who study it for 30,40.50 years know, and even then they hardly know the truth. Its just a foolish point.
connorrehanfeaglasgo 3 weeks ago
@connorrehanfeaglasgo oh please, some of the greatest scientists in history were religious, like nicholas copernicus, isaac newton, galileo galilee, in fact their religion actually helped them be so profound in their quest for scientific knowledge, religion didn't hinder their charisma for science, it actually enhanced them and made them more determined and persistent, atheists like to think otherwise thinking that their side deserves the credit, i'm sorry but this isn't the real case
KatanaRapierCombo2 1 week ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 All of your examples lived in a time where being a Christian was the one and only option.
Megatog615 1 week ago
@Megatog615 no they're not, i don't think there has ever truly been such a time or place, contrary to popular belief
KatanaRapierCombo2 6 days ago
@KatanaRapierCombo2 ..that wasnt the point i made. read again please. he quotes cosmological theories and passes it off as if he comprehends what is actually going on, and gives his reasoning for this by saying god did it all, rather than addressing the real, human issues and destruction going on in the world due to foolish delusions.
connorrehanfeaglasgo 1 week ago
Comment removed
KatanaRapierCombo2 6 days ago
@connorrehanfeaglasgo alright then, my mistake
however those foolish delusions run on the minds of atheists as well
KatanaRapierCombo2 6 days ago
Turek should stop giving examples from science. he obviously does not know the breadth of our knowledge of biology, chemistry and physics with which we've come to understand the world and our place within it. instead he just nitpicks lines from the greatest scientists and philosophers, and, without giving any context to qualify them, claims that everything we are currently debating in science can be explained by God. if you don't know how science works, get a scientific panel. epic fail
njin72 3 weeks ago
Hahahahha, 53:44
Turek: How does he know what the intensions of the designer was?
Hitchens: How do you ?
I love you Hitchens :D
Grokfyr 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
i love how ever C.O.S.M.O.S agument is on the Index to Creationist Claims.... Check it out if u are in doubt... Google it
Grokfyr 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
I got bored quickly by 10 minutes. If something didn`t come from nothing, how can `someone` create something from nothing ? Where did the `nothing` come from ?
The only problem with this debate is - No-one knows everything, so nobody has the correct answer about anything to do with the beginning of this universe.
We could be a by-product of another universe that collapsed. Who knows ? no-one.
C10985 3 weeks ago
A Jersey Goil vs. The Hitch? No contest.
Tippersnore 4 weeks ago
Listening to Turek was enlightening. Hitchens however appeared to be drunk.
eric80510 4 weeks ago
@eric80510 my friend hitchens was not drunk lol. my view is the same hitchens and that is that we can not ever 100% now. and iv heard hitchens say this many times. and he knows we don't have the mental capacity to understand how we all started with absolute certainty. and because of that is Turik's obligation to prove his view. you must not understand Hitchens wording or his way of explaining or u must be more close minded and spent more time figuring out Turik's statements to Hitchens
cavs608 3 weeks ago
@eric80510
"Listening to Turek was enlightening"
Only if you are not very well read in modern science. I am not, by the way slandering you. I am just stating, as I have done before, that more than 90% of what Turek said is demonstrably false pseudo-scientific dribble.
tskasa1 2 weeks ago
In his 20 Minutes, Turek failed to at least once state, how he concludes from the stated facts to a designer. He "used" his time to drivel utter bullshit at 150 words per minute.
mhoeltken 1 month ago
Turek is IMO, a worse person than even Kent Hovind. God's attitude is "There is a Christopher Hitchens and I love him", yet hasn't really ever seen fit to not fill Hitchens life with unnecessary pain, or give him the evidence required to believe in him. Turek, the soldier, and the insurgent all believe(d) in a god, and the insurgent won. If there god is real, that he's playing both sides and is one sick fuck, o and so is Turek. God didnt see fit to say to the insurgent hey stop this shit, NOW!.
mistereveready 1 month ago
Every time I see one of these supposedly intelligent theists debate, they start off shifting the burden of proof. Put up the evidence or sit down. I don't have to disprove Yahweh to disbelieve any more than Turek has to disprove Vishnu.
ralph489 1 month ago
Why could God not have created the world via the Big Bang and Humans via evolution? Why are these concepts to bible thumpers contradictory? Catholics, Orthodox, some main stream protestants and normal people have zero issue with science?
jec11703 1 month ago
@jec11703 The point is that both the Big Bang and evolution are not in need of any creator. And if "Catholics, Orthodox, some main stream protestants" have "zero issues" with science, it's only because they have convinced themselves that they have some higher knowledge. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
TomFynn 1 month ago
@TomFynn My point was is that main stream Christians, in my experience seem to be fine with science. Those people are not taking trips to Kentucky to see the Creation museum (or as I call it The Fred Flintstone Museum). Its well known knowledge...for example the earth is not 6 thousand years old---I know call me crazy. 500 years ago you'd be telling me the earth is flat and we are the center of the universe. Science now tell us thats wrong,
jec11703 1 month ago
When He was dead He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched all the navies that were ever built all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Correction: the stories told about that life have been enormously influential. While he was alive, Jesus affected at most a couple hundred mile radius from the place of his birth.
ralph489 1 month ago
@ralph489
eerrrhhh Correction its part of the solitary life READ IT!!!!!1
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl I don't have to read the book to recognize an obvious equivocation between the thing being described and the description.
ralph489 1 month ago
@ralph489
*SIGH* It's not my writting , its a VERY ,VERY well known poem
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Who cares what it is? If it's that transparently stupid, then it's wrong, be it book, poem, or whatever else.
ralph489 1 month ago
@ralph489
All you've managed to show is you live under a rock, i wasn't arguing for anything thus no fallacy was committed ,its poetry you moron.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl We can play this game where we each cite literature or academic papers that the other hasn't read and then sigh audibly at their ignorance. "How dare you be ignorant of the Wilfred Owen poem that I like so much, you BUFFOON?", "What kind of fool doesn't understand that your beta matrix must be of full column rank?"
Or we can recognize that the reason that you cited this VERY, VERY well known poem (that I have never heard of), is to advance an argument that it doesn't substantiate.
ralph489 1 month ago
@ralph489
WTF is wrong with you? it was in the video. There no argument in a poem you retard!
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl I know it was in the video. It was used explicitly as an argument. Turek used it to attempt to show how important the life of Jesus is historically. And since when can't poems make arguments? That would be a surprise to Langston Hughes, for one.
ralph489 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ralph489
"And since when can't poems make arguments?"
The problem is that poems are VERY iffy. Most poetry is both allegorical (i.e. not literal) and tends to either hyperbolize or outright fabricate events. Ancient Greece has tons of examples of this.
tskasa1 2 weeks ago
Such a cheap trick at the end by Turek, using the story of the Navy Seal just to tug on the heart strings of the audience. It just sounds so contrived and disingenuous. That made me sick Frank, thumbs down to you because the story had nothing to do with religion, it made no mention of the religious beliefs of the soldier Frank just tacked on the quote from Jesus at the end to try and tie it all together. I'm angry now!
moungy 1 month ago 27
@moungy atheists are always angry, full of moral superiority, so frustrated with having to defend their non-belief system. sorry?
MrSomethingscary 2 weeks ago
@MrSomethingscary
"atheists are always angry,"
Not any more than the average bloke of any other group be it religious or not.
"full of moral superiority,"
Not moral superiority, just denouncing immoral actions mandated by certain books.
"so frustrated with having to defend their non-belief system."
Since when do you have to defend a negative? Oh that's right, you don't. The burden of proof is always with side affirmative.
tskasa1 2 weeks ago
@tskasa1 i don't know how you can say atheists aren't angrier than theists. go to any debate on youtube twixt a theist and atheist and read the atheists comments. you don't notice anything? it's almost 100% angry cussing and insulting. even when one of the comments has some usefull info, it's couched with some insults to. and how does saying your morals are better than someone elses not = moral superiority? and materialism (atheism) is an affirmation that matter is all there is.
MrSomethingscary 2 weeks ago
@MrSomethingscary Just because you perceive something as a threat doesn't mean it is. Provide examples and citations otherwise you have no argument.
Direnaar 2 weeks ago
Yes that was indeed a despicable and shameful trick pulled by Turek. I had expected better ethics from him. He knew very well that Hitchens was specifically referring to the immorality of "vicarious absolution" derived from the Christian belief that the human sacrifice of Jesus somehow gives their believers a free pass. Hitchens himself writes that heroism (he even uses the example of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to shield others) elevates mankind and deserves to be praised.
afklgb 1 day ago
If Turek is so short on time, why does he waste so much of it arguing for something which no one disputes -- that the universe had a beginning? There's no atheist or scientist I know of who doubts that.
doctorphantasm 1 month ago
I cant believe Turek used that soldier story at the end. I find it offensive.
bryanchance100 1 month ago 12
Turek's arguements made me lean more towards the atheism. He didn't convince me that there must be a supernatural "god". I don't believe you need god to scare you into having good morals.
bryanchance100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please everybody change the expreshion (OMG) to OMD .....oh my Dawin.......... its a start to correct the language.
thescroopy1 1 month ago
1:19:17, the second he said that he thought that the old testament was the word of god, he lost all credibility in my eyes. Cause theres some horrible immoral, nonsensical, shit in that book that no self respecting human being should believe in.
Tinithor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yet another debate Hitchens loses before he was thrown into Hell.
blinky6522 1 month ago
even thou turek is screaming .. he is NOT convincing at all lol
Sconezeta 1 month ago
"Because of all matter, all time and all space came out of nothing" Yes, and the universe will revert to nothing, which is explained that matter and energy evantually explain. Though this is an incredible time span which we are talking about, it still reverts back to zero, making the same criteria for the big bang to happen again. The steady state theory of a infinite times of regression causing the same thing to happen again might be right.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@RawSwedishMeatball
"Yes, and the universe will revert to nothing...Though this is an incredible time span which we are talking about, it still reverts back to zero"
No it won't. Mainly because there is nothing to revert back from in the first place. The net energy value of the universe is already zero (which we know from cosmological geometry, among other things).
tskasa1 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"The steady state theory of a infinite times of regression causing the same thing to happen again might be right."
1) That's not what Steady State says. The Steady State Theory describes a universe that is neither expanding nor contracting.
2) No it isn't. The "Big Crunch" Theory only applies if the rate of cosmological expansion is slowing down, whereas in our case it is increasing, making a Big Crunch essentially impossible.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 Yeah sorry about the steady state claim, But the big crunch idea of infinite rectraction of the universe to the point were it was before the big bang might be right. All matter decays eventually, And before tthe big bang the universe was zero. Everything we know will eventually become zero again, because the universe is a closed system. Returning to the criteria before the big bang. So, if this is true, the big bang could possibly happen again.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"But the big crunch idea of infinite rectraction of the universe to the point were it was before the big bang might be right"
No, for that to happen there would need to be a negative universal acceleration. That is to say that the universe is slowing down. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which means that it is increasing in size towards infinity.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"All matter decays eventually,"
Exactly. It decays. There is a HUGE difference between decay and disappearance of. The matter is breaking down into subatomic particles, which themselves are a manifestation of a field which are a manifestation of energy. The net energy of the universe NEVER changes (technically). It's a fixed value that never changes, even when matter decays, because when matter decays it breaks further and further into its parts.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 ... Yes, and the fixed net energy in the universe is ZERO which eventually will make all matter and anti matter become the suggested number, making the criteria before the big bang possible again. I never said anything about energy "disapearing" merely it returning to its original zero state. View the universe as a huge battery, the charge is divided into a positive and a negative, put together they make zero.
Zero was the number before the big bang, making the criteria possible again.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"I never said anything about energy "disapearing" merely it returning to its original zero state."
Except that there is nothing to return from. You can't return to a value that you already are at. That's like saying you are going to return from your house to your house, your statement is none-sensical.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 Yes, but the state of the net energy will eventually revert to zero with no positive nor negatives.Again, you dont seem to be able to grasp my arguement. Im not saying its going to revert to its original value, but its original STATE. I never mention anything about its value.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"Yes, but the state of the net energy will eventually revert to zero with no positive nor negatives. Im not saying its going to revert to its original value, but its original STATE. I never mention anything about its value."
Oh. that's just plain idiotic then. If you want to claim this that goes against all of modern physics, you are going to need to give me some proof of this.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 How does it goes againt modern science? Matter decays in a closed system, and revert to zero. Thats all im saying. I simply apply it to the universe as a whole.
If the positives and the negatives revert to their original state of absolutely nothing, which modern day science suggests, then the criteria for the big bang is met. Is this so hard to understand?
(I want to make it clear, this is not fact, simply the usage of deductive reasoning. I never claimed it to be true.)
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RawSwedishMeatball
"How does it goes againt modern science? Matter decays in a closed system, and revert to zero. "
Except that that is not how it works. First of all, "matter decay" doesn't extend much below protons and neutrons as everything else is already a fundamental particle, and fundamental particles can't decay. Secondly, the idea of proton decay is not even a known fact, it is a hypothesis that is still being worked on (cont.)
tskasa1 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
(cont.) And that there is not very much solid evidence for it (albeit there are hypothetical and theoretical reasons to look into it but nowhere near enough to justify calling the hypothesis valid as of yet) as things stand. The Standard Model makes this especially difficult as under the Standard Model protons don't decay because they are the lightest baryon (which means they don't really have a lower energy state to decay into).
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 True, though the question in hand is that there should be negatives for these baryons, if not, the net value is not zero as science suggests.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RawSwedishMeatball
"True, though the question in hand is that there should be negatives for these baryons, if not, the net value is not zero as science suggests."
You don't need negatives for baryons to have zero net energy. Matter and anti-matter both count as positive energy contributions to the universe.
"I never say anything about the disapearance of energy, it simply converge with their negative duplicate to reach ZERO."
And it already does...
tskasa1 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"If the positives and the negatives revert to their original state of absolutely nothing, which modern day science suggests, then the criteria for the big bang is met. Is this so hard to understand?"
Except that modern day science doesn't suggest that. Even your misunderstanding of proton decay doesn't suggest that. Just like when atoms decay, there is NO energy being lost, it is just going elsewhere
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 Once again, I never say anything about the disapearance of energy, it simply converge with their negative duplicate to reach ZERO. You continue with these arguements even when I say that the net value doesnt change, but the state of which it is in does change.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
Also, another Big Bang event could just as easily happen today as it could happen at any point in time in history (albeit the probability of it happening at any point in time are constantly ridiculously improbable) because the required criteria for it (a zero net energy state universe) has already been met.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 Yes, the net energy is met, but not the criteria. For the big bang to happen again you need the same criteria as before the big bang, which the universe will eventually revert to. This has been my point all along, it seems you havent understood my arguement.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"Yes, the net energy is met, but not the criteria"
Except that the zero-net energy state is the ONLY criteria needed for the big bang (well, that and space-time, because quantum fuckery in space time is what sparked the Big Bang).
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 Positives and negatives cant create more positives and negatives. IF the universe revert to zero of these terms, the criteria is met. The big bang require the non-existance of positives and negatives. Im not talking about the net energy, but the positives and negatives.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"Positives and negatives cant create more positives and negatives."
And that is irrelevant, because it is not the "positives and negatives" that contribute to a creation event, it is (supposedly) quantum fluctuations in space time itself.
"The big bang require the non-existance of positives and negatives."
No, a Big Bang requires a zero-net energy state that quantum physics can work with. We already have that and always will and always did.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 The idea here is that the positives and negatives are already in existance. The big bang require these to not exist at the point of "creation", and these are gone if the positives and negatives converge. There cannot be a division of zero into positives and negatives if they are already in existance!
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"The idea here is that the positives and negatives are already in existance. The big bang require these to not exist at the point of "creation","
No it doesn't. OUR Big Bang worked like that (we think), but that is not mandatory for any Big Bang Event to happen. You only need zero net energy and space-time with quantum mechanics to make it work.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 Hmm well yes, but I think weve gone off topic. Im currently not really seeiong this debate going anywere since we both slided into the discussion of "the possibility of a new big bang in the time of positives and negatives" instead of "the possibility of the conversion of negatives and positives to revert back to its original state".
You have convinced me though that the big bang didnt need the criteria of what I spoke of, and wont use it in the future. Box1
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball But, I pretty sure that I gave you the possibility of the modified "big crunch idea". Think about it, you agree with me that positives and negatives will eventually return to their origina state since you didnt fight me on that. Then even space and time, which are positives should decay, leaving the universe as it was. With infinity, the possibilty of a new big bang is undeniable. box2
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@RawSwedishMeatball Ive had a great time debating you, and if you wish to continue, do so.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RawSwedishMeatball
"Think about it, you agree with me that positives and negatives will eventually return to their origina state since you didnt fight me on that. "
Because as I've stated before, the state of the universe hasn't changed at all. The net total of the universe's energy hasn't changed, and the energy total of the universe is what fuels expansion and hence would fuel either a Big Crunch or a Big Rip.
tskasa1 2 weeks ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
"Then even space and time,"
Space and time transcend the Big Bang. They have always existed. Not necessirily as we know them today, as modern space-time is polluted with tons of stuff (matter, anti-matter, energy, etc.). But space and time had to, nonetheless, exist prior to the Big Bang or else you could never have had one. The Big Bang is just the farthest we can ever go back, not really the absolute beginning.
tskasa1 2 weeks ago
@tskasa1 Wow. Listen to any renowned physicist and they will say the same. Time and space didnt exist before the big bang, hell, time didnt even exist so you can even use the word "before".
RawSwedishMeatball 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RawSwedishMeatball
"Time and space didnt exist before the big bang, hell, time didnt even exist so you can even use the word "before"."
No, time and space as we normally think of it didn't exist before the Big Bang. Or at least we can't prove that it did hence we assume that it didn't, because anything else would be an unjustified assumption. All the Big Bang really is is the farthest we can look back in time (cont.)
tskasa1 2 weeks ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
(cont.) You can't into the past before the Big Bang for a lot of reasons: the universe was opaque back then, different if not entirely nonexistent laws of physics, etc.
Space-time as well didn't exist...but only how we normally define it today. Empty space did. And I mean truly empty space. Which is to say space where nothing but the unavoidable quantum fluctuations necessary to form the "cosmic egg" came from existed (cont.)
tskasa1 2 weeks ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
We can't define space back then as we do today because space is...well, polluted I guess would be the word. Space-time is affected by energy and gravity that did not exist in a pre-big bang universe. However, a background wherein quantum fluctuations are free to happen (i.e. truly empty space) are not bound by this limitation, and not only is it not bound, it is NECESSARY for most modern iterations of the Inflationary Big Bang Theory (cont.)
tskasa1 2 weeks ago
@tskasa1 One thing. You can base a bias on the current universe and expect to get a good result on how the universe was before the big bang. The very idea is ridiculus. I understand what you are trying to say, but the very idea on having a bias on pre-bigbang universes is just wrong. You say it yourself, a universe pre-big bang is different, so you cant base it upon todays observed facts without exstensive study in the subject.
RawSwedishMeatball 2 weeks ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
(cont.) Time runs along the same vein. We define, or at least able to differentiate, time today by changes. That is to say we know time exists because changes happen. You can't have change without time, and we observe time in the form of changes. In a pre-Big Bang universe, however, you wouldn't need to have this system. You could just as well have empty space wherein nothing really changes on a noticeable scale, but you still need time to allow change
tskasa1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RawSwedishMeatball
"Im not talking about the net energy, but the positives and negatives."
But the net energy IS what matters, because the net energy is what actually contributes into the equation. It's like trying to find the total distance traveled by a projectile (the "net distance") and then ignoring that both the negatives and positive come into play in it. The net energy is THE most important factor (outside of the existence of space-time).
tskasa1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RawSwedishMeatball
"Everything we know will eventually become zero again,"
No, it won't. Because the net energy of the universe is ALREADY zero. And that is a well known fact in physics.
"Returning to the criteria before the big bang. So, if this is true, the big bang could possibly happen again."
All of modern physics is quite clear about one thing: That is not going to happen. At all.
tskasa1 1 month ago
It's funny, Hitchens is nearly spot on for me; I agree with all he says except that I think the existence of god makes sense. I'm technically agnostic rather than deistic, it's just that my instinct is that science will never create life from scratch (this could be proven wrong any day!), and I find it telling that life itself seems to break the laws of thermodynamics. Beyond this, I'd say Hitchens is right about everything else concerning religion.
skidancin 1 month ago
@skidancin Joke: Scientist says to God, "We don't need you anymore. We can do anything you can do." God says, "Really? Can you create a human being from the dirt of the earth?" The scientist says, "Sure. Watch this," and proceeds to grab some earth with which to work. But God says, "Hold it.Get your own dirt." :)
Christopher Hitchens' "sense" is ridiculously overrated, as even his brother Peter (who loves him) points out his book "The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith."
tamething1 1 month ago
@tamething1 Love the joke! Thanks. But yes, as even the folks he debated with allowed regularly, he makes plenty of very valid points, I love to hear them, and do wish far more folks would understand and reject much of what religion has brought us.
skidancin 1 month ago
@skidancin Think about this: Every 18 months, for the past 40 years, the speed of computer processors has doubled. In the not too distant futures(a lot of people say probably in the next 20 years), computers will reach a point where they can improve themselves, without relying on humans. If they doubled every 18 months with humans doing the work, having a computer that can improve itself will exponentially explode in speed, very, very quickly. At that point, creating life might be inevitable
andyrosebrook 1 month ago
@andyrosebrook Hey, my "never" is a long time, granted. Still, "might" is a big significant word given the subject matter.
skidancin 1 month ago
@skidancin
"and I find it telling that life itself seems to break the laws of thermodynamics."
Why would it violate the laws of thermodynamics?
"it's just that my instinct is that science will never create life from scratch"
Why do you think that?
"But God says, "Hold it.Get your own dirt.""
And then scientists says: "If you want to brag, then you have to too, buddy."
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1 Sticking to the 2nd law of thermodynamics for the moment, life will grow and evolve rather than just breaking down. Compared to ordinary matter, matter containing life plainly behaves in special ways. We've failed so far to create even the simplest life from scratch. Try as we have, so far we need some "kept alive" bit in order to even come "close." The "spark of life" may remain unknowable to science, never to be quantified. I'd wager a bit if I could.
skidancin 1 month ago
OMG, Such a silly notion that turek does. The big bang is rare, okay yes, and therefor humes arguement is still wrong. That is incredibily stupid, what about the background radiation that penetrates the whole universe? I wouldt call that rare, would you?
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
I think our friend Mr. Turek should have a talk with Dr. Lawrence Krauss, It's a shame he didn't catch his AMA on reddit today. SOMETHING can come from NOTHING. NEWSFLASH: his entire argument is wrong, no matter how convincing his "runs on the boardwalk" and "New Jersey talking speed" is.
PhillipJLoureiro 1 month ago
speaking fast doesn't mean you'er right?
Nietzschean1000 1 month ago
Opinions dont matter he says... then why is there 33 000 different versions of the bible? these are certainly opinions...
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
I think Hitchens errors when he says much of our own planet is much too hot or much too cold to support anything like a life. Instead, I think we've found life in surprising conditions on earth, pretty much everywhere. NO?.
skidancin 1 month ago
@skidancin Perhaps he means human life?
rossmetacraft 1 month ago
@rossmetacraft That's the only thing I can imagine he means...but he doesn't say that and frankly given that any sort of life would excite us if found on some other planet, he probably shouldn't have used that line. The universe is big enough to make his case without ruling out much or most of the the earth.
skidancin 1 month ago
Theists interprite messages from natural formations and effects, this does not need a causation as in the term "intelligent being".
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
yes "WE" wouldt be here, but other life would be...
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
Well, good arguement about the beginning of the universe, though, incredibly stupid to asume it to be the christian god that would role as the creator, neither does the cause of the big bang need to be a being of sorts, It can simply be a force causating the universe just as the higgs field causate matter
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RawSwedishMeatball
"It can simply be a force.."!!
lol.. You mean like Star Wars???
sfyr 1 month ago
Why does turok spend so much time trying to connect with the crowd? This is a tactic incredibly foul, going for personal emotions instead of using logic and reason to win the people over...
Religion folks... religion...
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
Hitchen is awesome :)
85Damix 1 month ago
There is no evidence for god.
85Damix 1 month ago
STOP. YELLING.
TheAzureSky1 1 month ago
I'm a newly converted athiest, and it pains me to see Hitchens beaten so badly in a debate.
PhillipJLoureiro 1 month ago
@PhillipJLoureiro converted to atheism .... there is no such things ... you belive in flying carpenter or you are racional person.
85Damix 1 month ago
@85Damix OK let me rephrase: I was born and raised Catholic, and attended a Catholic private preparatory school. Funny thing is, this prep school did more to convince me of the nonexistence of God, than it did to reaffirm my faith. Immersed in an academic environment, I came to the conclusion that the existence God did not mesh with what I believed in in the world. And then recently, I decided to stop deluding myself and revealed my thoughts to my parents. Better?
PhillipJLoureiro 1 month ago
@PhillipJLoureiro
I don't blame Hitchens. It's hard for someone not educated in the sciences to be able to actually counter Turek's huge amount of bullshit. Honestly, the man is one of the most either blatantly dishonest scumbags or ridiculously ignorant idiots I've ever come across.
tskasa1 1 month ago
..everything happens for a reason..which raises the question ultimately..if there is a creator, who created that creator who created that creator..and so on...its unexplainable and far too complex for us to compute. Beyond atheism or theism, let's go just on scientific evidence..as Einstein once concluded 'energy cannot be created or destroyed'..well we're created alright, but we can't be destroyed ..there is evidence of life after death..look up russian scientist Konstantin Korotkov...
JesseyCK 1 month ago
@JesseyCK energy cannot be destroyed (can be created) but that means after your death your the energy changes into thing around like a tree or rock or heat. Korotkov was alcoholic and freak.
85Damix 1 month ago
@JesseyCK
"well we're created alright, but we can't be destroyed"
Oh, we're created. But that doesn't mean there is a sentient creator.
"there is evidence of life after death..look up russian scientist Konstantin Korotkov..."
What about him? I don't care if a scientists says something. What a scientist believes is irrelevant because ultimately that is just an opinion. What I DO care about is the evidence and reasoning that they can provide to support their position.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@tskasa1
Im not a Christian..
but you're narrow-minded..
sfyr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sfyr
"Im not a Christian..
but you're narrow-minded.."
How so? I haven't closed off any options. I've just stated that nearly everything Turek has said about science is falsifiably wrong, which it is. It's not a matter of being narrow or close minded, it's a matter of yes-or-no, objective fact.
tskasa1 1 month ago
...well, human weren't created for saturn or jupiter, we inhabit, and are born naturally on this planet, because we are able to sustain life and live in on earth..if this 'God' made a mistake by creating freezing temperatures or chaotic environments not fit for life, we can't use us humans in the equation..there have never been human remains found on any planets and really, virtually little or no life anywhere in the universe, so God did not place us in these bad spaces just for us to extinct
JesseyCK 1 month ago
@JesseyCK
"as Einstein once concluded 'energy cannot be created or destroyed'"
First of all, Einstein never concluded that. Einstein simply said they were equivalent. The conservation theories LONG predate him. Secondly, Eistein was wrong about that just like he was wrong about the universe's expansion and quantum mechanics. We know that he is wrong because we observe the exact opposite of what he says in quantum mechanics...every.single.day.
tskasa1 1 month ago
@JesseyCK Your god can't make mistakes, that's why he's your god.
PhillipJLoureiro 1 month ago
after watching this..i am left with questions unanswered myself..for example..dr. turek explains the existance of a God, and one example is our natural 'knowing' of right and wrong.."we know not to kill babies, and we are born with this moral'...which, suffice to say, can be explained by survival instinct..we don't kill babies bc it would extint out offspring and our human race..also...mr. hitchen.. "so if there is a God, he must be cruel"..or made mistakes? bc there r inhabitable places..
JesseyCK 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesseyCK
"dr. turek explains the existance of a God, and one example is our natural 'knowing' of right and wrong.."
Only on certain matters. And these matters are matters of the life of death not of an individual, but of a SOCIETY. Humans are social animals, not solitary animals, and our survival is dependent on the ability of our society as a whole to survive. Hence when the society is strong, we benefit the most. Murder and the like are detrimental to society. It is natural
tskasa1 1 month ago
@JesseyCK
"we know not to kill babies"
Depends on who those babies belong to. If those babies belong to our society, then we would never touch them. Bloody hell, we would kill someone else for so much as harming those babies. But if they come from a completely different culture from our own? Especially one that we would be hostile against or neutral? We wouldn't give a damn. And there are historical examples of this aplenty.
tskasa1 1 month ago
Nice story about the Navy Seal there at the end by Turek. Kind of ironic though. The SEAL's job is to break one of the 10 commandments (many would argue the most important one) upon the orders of his commander-in-chief -- who, last I checked, is not God. So if the SEAL killed an enemy combatant and died without asking forgiveness (and why would we believe he would ask forgiveness for killing an enemy?), then he would be sent to hell according to Tureks religion.
EpilepticChipmunk 1 month ago 2
to be honest, you guys are just trolling! Turek makes really strong arguments here... just watch again with an open mind if u r not sure...
eerereps 1 month ago
I hate Frank Turek, Hitchens stats at 0:25:47
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby 25:54
aqouby 1 month ago
He's an annoying idiot. His whole argument basically comes down to "the universe started, therefore a creator must've created it, but nothing created the creator (double standard much?) and it happens to be the Christian god so being gay is wrong! Proof people!
And hearing a Christian try to explain physics is painful.
milkel79 1 month ago
DNA has nothing to do with the natural forces!? wow.........
mikesnavy 1 month ago
Hey Exposedatheist, you do realize these videos are not really working in favour of your case?
Styhn 1 month ago
And they let this sack of shit(Turek) to tarnish the heroic deed of one human being, with imaginary bullshit, WITH SUPERNATURAL INHUMANE CHARACTER?
Yes, every single time. When some heroic human does the right thing, these minions of disgust RUSHES to monopolize the deed for their filthy, insane and retard(no offense to actual ppl who suffer from it.) jeesus, god or holy FART.
It only means, that they wont respect humanity as long they have this bronze age death cult.
preetor1 1 month ago
As much as I dislike Turek's arguments his ending was extremely poignant.
jeebateeba56 1 month ago
Looking back at Christianity, even 20 years ago, you can see how little arguments they have left to cling to. Claiming Jesus on toast is divine and the uncertainty of quantum mechanics is proof of a god is all they have left. It's wonderful watching religion writhe as it dies.
KhetNiu 1 month ago
Has anyone told Turek that Theism has never explained *anything*?
TomFynn 1 month ago
i dont get the ending speech, what this have to do with christianity?
soth3d 1 month ago