@STaFbaseball7 I agree that most Christians are just blinded brainwashed idiots who don't even think on what they're saying and don't consider reason, logic and the validity of some arguments atheists use. However some of us like to be different. I myself like to question my faith and to be flexible about my opinions. Even though we have the tendency to be pro God (as you have to be not) some of us like to put our beliefs aside to think about those issues rationally. Listening isn't agreeing.
@TheAtheistExperience Hey, I'm a fan of the show, don't insult me. I'm replying for the second time as I'm not sure why my replies don't go through. For me it takes more a leap of faith to believe that all conditions to life (trillions) fitted caotically. It takes a huge leap of faith to believe God did it too, but the latter is more likely than the first for ME. Sometimes it seems you are just obssessive with your thoughts even more than religious folks. God is as possible as evolution.
No, evolution is supported by good scientific evidence. God (Yahweh) was simply made up by tribes of primitive superstitious desert nomads from the Iron Age who worshiped dozens of gods and who repeatedly changed the stories about those gods.
@TheAtheistExperience Good scientific evidence? Good to you. I know of even atheist scientists who find problems with the THEORY of evolution. As regards to God, I agree that some cultures build up their gods, but are you saying that there isn't a possibility of existing an Universal God at all? Gimme your evidence... I believe it's possible you'll be disappointed at some stuff after you die just as it's possible I'll just cease to exist. Can't you admit a possibility that maybe you're wrong?
@TheAtheistExperience OK, will do. Please don't get me wrong. I like your show. Despite being a christian I love to question beliefs too. I just ask you guys to consider what I say. It seems like you're programmed to detect and destroy pro God arguments. I can't prove you God exists because I think it's above human inteligence, my existance is above a bacteria's intelligence. But you guys can't prove the impossibility of God either. And evidence for evolution are not so solid. It's disputed,
@TheAtheistExperience I'll search about that. Just think you could be more flexible as I TRY to be. Otherwise you are just like blind religious folks who can see only what they want to see. You're so sure of your assumptions. I have the guts to admit sometimes I'm not so sure that what I think is the absolute truth. Even scientific "truth" proves to be subjective and not so truth from time to time, Do you have the benefit of hindsight and 1000 ahead tech to really describe reallity with no flaw?
@goldcardbr The reason they destroy pro-God arguments is because the arguments are generally asinine and not because they were programmed to do so. Programming people is what religion does. It may be above *your* intelligence to know if God exists or not but others may be smarter than you. How do you know bacteria (plural) don't know of your existence? There are more bacteria per square inch on your body than you have of your own cells. That's a "bacterium" not a "bacteria".
@samanthajayable Pardon me for my poor English. I'm not a native speaker. Well I'm not a biologist, so I won't run the risk of speaking BS, but even if bacteria that are in ME perceive me it doesn't me that bacteria in a japanese person who never meets me will "know/perceive" I exist. My point is just because you don't perceive and/or understand something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist objectively. And if I don't understand something how am I going to be able to provide evidence? What u think?
@goldcardbr Oh and why do you avoid the main points and questions that I make? Tell me about the impossibility of God's existance. Do you have evidence as you like to ask for? If you do I'm very open to consider your thoughts rationally. And again, I'm really a big fan of you guys. You provide very intelligent arguments. Just don't like some jokes and statements you make but what the hell. I don't have to like it to appreciate your discussions. Take care.
@TheAtheistExperience Oh and why do you avoid the main points and questions that I make? Tell me about the impossibility of God's existance. Do you have evidence as you like to ask for? If you do I'm very open to consider your thoughts rationally. And again, I'm really a big fan of you guys. You provide very intelligent arguments. Just don't like some jokes and statements you make but what the hell. I don't have to like it to appreciate your discussions. Take care.
@TheAtheistExperience Tell me also about this: My point is just because you don't perceive and/or understand something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist objectively. And if I don't understand something (and I admit I don't understand the God I believe in) how am I going to be able to provide evidence? When humans didn't understand the law of attraction were we able to provide evidence for gravity? Plus credibility of evidence is relative, science itself has its own examples. What u think?
@TheAtheistExperience Agree to disagree. First of all you calling people retarded is so childish and so 20th century (as you like to say). Second, I do understand how evolution works, and that isn't the only rational explanation, if you insist to think that the problem is yours. Someone doing it takes a huge leap of faith, I won't lie. But believing all the conditions (trillions) of life were caotically fitted is more of a leap of faith to me. I like your show and respect you, stop insulting me.
@AntitheistPOV yes, I did. Dude, youre not right about this im sorry. Argument from ignorance is the best way to describe the fallacy he was using. It is no more calling the person ignorant than an argument from authority calls the person an authority. If you feel its belittling, you dont understand it
I really enjoyed this video ... some great explanations of the position a reasonable, critical-thinking person should take on the origins of the universe given the knowledge we have today.
@BottleConcreteBlond Absolutely1 He doesnt seem to take information in because he wants to talk rather than listen. I think its a widespread phenomenon especially on the left hand side of the atlantic! lol
Could someone explain me how all this complexity(physical laws, nature, life, evolution, etc.) may not have a plausible Intelligent Source??, not saying there is evidence, no, just asking how atheism see more plausible that laws of physics just made all up instead of an Intelligence Source that through the laws we "see" and millions of years caused all of us to exist.(I'm not talking about a God necessarily)
Laws of nature constitutes an overwhelming constraints in a way that no intelligent designer would apply.
A law giver could for example to decide that gravity would work between the sun and the earth but not between the earth and the moon or as well to jumble any law in any crazy way he sees fit.
The fact that the laws are blind and consistent proves that nature works without intent and clearly not as result of design.
@PRJking I see, I understand nature laws blindly "push" particles and atoms into certain road that snowballs into bigger and complex organic blocks through time..., I may even grant organic blocks start to grow survival parts (digestive, muscles, eyes, etc.), but.., reproductive organs??, here is where the Nature Laws confuse me, the obvious goal of these organs is to perpetuate life, why Nature Laws "bother" on this complex feature instead of just having a soup of dumb microorganisms.
Actually the evolution of sexual reproduction in general and sexual organs in private is very well explained by evolutionary biology.
There's a huge advantage in sexual reproduction first for its ability to make a larger genetic diversity by making mutations and other "mistakes" more often and second by making reproduction not depended on the chemical environment but instead an internal process where the fetus is protected.
"why Nature Laws "bother" on this complex feature instead of just having a soup of dumb microorganisms."
Nature laws do not "bother", the work blindly without intent (as you claimed to understand), it just happens, subjected to bio-chemical laws.
you can't humanize nature, you may as well ask "how do electrons 'know' to move against the direction of the electric current" but this question is meaningless and we know the reason why they move that way (Newtons law).
@PRJking So, if organisms go more complex through time(evolution and change) and we see a tendency, couldn't be already an organic being that evolved into a level of adaptation with Laws of Physics, which after all we are surrounded and in constant contact, and dominates them just as we use wind, water, gravity, reached the atoms, etc. and setup a certain energy pattern combined with mass and started it up..., time went by and life popped up thanks to this pattern.(0 supernatural)
I don't get the hosts arguments, so all life complexity that surround us, through evolution and such, is more of a sign of no intelligence source??, that's what theist found hard to get and think atheists are wrong. Now, theists also are wrong on jumping on a God explanation and such(dumb, I know), but, even if there wasn't "nothing" at beginning well here we are now, a complexity that had a simple beginning, I'm fine with "we don't know" but not sure about "intelligence source's not plausible"
The vast majority of theists that call this show are calling to preach or condemn. This guy seemed to be asking genuine questions and willing to listen (though he rambled overmuch). He wasn't combative and he tried to concede to Matt's points towards the end where he misused the term faith, but Matt was too busy ranting at him to hear.
Pretty poor form. The hosts usually control themselves better than this.
@AntitheistPOV dafuq :/ matt was sooo patient. He put up with this guy talking over him for like 15mins without raising his voice or insulting him or anything. He was controlled, rational and he even got the guy to admit that he was wrong on several points.
You don't "get someone" to admit anything. People will deny and divert all day if they don't want to listen.
Matt wasn't patient. From the beginning of the clip he's shaking his head and spoiling for an argument, while the caller is quite calm and doesn't take offense.
Just because he's not shouting and swearing doesn't mean his attitude is civil. Look at his body language and the tone. Everything Matt said was correct, but the way he says it is unnecessarily rude.
@AntitheistPOV He's probably like that because the guy is talking like he just drank 50 cokes before hand. I would be pretty annoyed too if some guy who kept talking kept trying to make the same point over and over again for 15 minutes straight.
Matt frequently introduces the show as a means of, "promoting positive atheism". Is that what he's doing here? If someone calls in and is rude/threatening, I'd have no issue with Matt responding on kind. However, this guy isn't being intentionally rude, he just rambles and doesn't understand big bang theory (which is why he called).
Being unnecessarily rude is counter productive. Callers like this, that are actually willing to listen, are a rarity on this show.
@AntitheistPOV MAtt was shaking his head and baying for an opportunity because the guy was wrong. Simple as that. No rudeness, just an attempt at moving forward so he didnt have to correct the same misunderstandings over and over again. If that seems to rude to you, harden up
@AntitheistPOV He may sound like he wants to learn, but he's got that tone of voice that indicates that he thinks he has them on the ropes- phrasing it as a question is a common technique used by evangelists (e.g. hovind, comfort) in the hope that their position is validated by the lack of an answer. The reason i told you to "harden up" wasn't simply because you disagree with me, it was because your position is unnecessarily soft. Arrogance doesnt people over sure, but being right wins arguments
You mean the question where he says he believes in evolution, agrees with what he understands of the big bang theory and is on his way to becoming an atheist but he's having trouble getting past origins? Doesn't sound very particularly evangelistic to me.
There's no such thing as "winning" an argument. The point of discussion and this show is education.
@AntitheistPOV I didnt it was necessarily evangelistic, just that it was a tactic used BY evangelists.. And yes, i mean that one.
Obviously there is such a thing as winning an argument thats the whole premise of debating as a sport. But yes the point of this show is education, so why should matt not want any opportunity he can get to educate someone with such a profound misconception?
A debate is a contest. A discussion is an exchange of ideas.
The wasn't with Matt's argument, it was with his attitude. Unwarranted aggression isn't going to educate anyone, particularly when you're getting into a persons core beliefs and they're likely to be defensive enough as it is.
As I said, the show is supposed to be a means of promoting positive atheism. By-proxy name calling and belittling callers isn't the way to do that, even when the callers talk too much.
@AntitheistPOV I know the difference between a debate and a discussion. Don't patronise me. I was responding to your claim that "theres no such thing as winning an argument" by saying that a debate is a clear example of such an event. So wwhere's this aggression, name calling and belittling you're talking about? I can't say I would be able to defend that but i dont see that as having happened.
The aggression in his stance and jumping straight to terms like "argument from ignorance" or "incredulity". It's not what Matt's saying, it's his attitude and the way he's presenting it.
People that are seriously indoctrinated have a hard enough time breaking free. Calling a show for help and being made to feel stupid and told you're "arguing from ignorance" isn't helpful and discourages people that genuinely want help from calling in.
@AntitheistPOV When he says it is an "Argument from ignorance" he doesn't mean to call the caller ignorant. "Argument from ignorance" is the name given to a logical fallacy which asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. This is the logical fallacy the caller's argument presented. I suggest you read about this logical fallacy to get acquainted with it :)
Seems obvious to me that I'm familiar with the term since I went to the effort of quoting it.
My point, again, is that it's an obnoxious phrase. There are plenty of other terms he could have used that don't belittle the caller. I've stated at least twice that I don't disagree with Matt's arguments, I disagree with his attitude.
@AntitheistPOV oooh i see. No an argument from ignorance is simply the name of a logical fallacy. It's not calling the person ignorant, its saying that their argument is fallacious on the grounds that it has no evidence and their only way to supprt it is to say "i cant see how else it couldve happened". There is no insult. Read the wikipedia page on logical fallacies
@AntitheistPOV I've felt the sameway for some time. I think that several theists who ring in donot follow what the hosts say because they fail to dumb down their narrative. I may be wrong the callers that sound simple/thick may be crank callers. I findit really difficult to tell especially with the Texan accent.
As time is a property of the Universe, this means that time did not exist until the the Big Bang. This means the concept of 'before the Big Bang' does not exist. As space is a property of the Universe, this means that the concept of 'nothing' is irrelevant 'before' the Big Bang. Counter-intuitive I know; but well demonstrated in physics.
I have some sympathy and a lot of respect for this guy, unlike most other theist callers that call in; this guy seems to have a genuine curiosity, but is probably bogged down with some hyperactivity and over-eagerness, and he probably knows that from what he said about talking to others about his question. And in the end, he listened and seemed to take what the hosts said seriously and wants to look up the talk they referenced.
I actually didn't think this guy was that bad. He seemed to absorb some of the things Matt was saying at least somewhat, and he didn't interrupt the hosts every five seconds like all of the other callers seem to do.
@itstonymacaroni I agree. Though when he did interrupt, he went on for minutes at a time xD Man has some flaws, but overall he was all right. And he definitely sounded like he was listening and understanding in between :P
Theory, a lot of scientific theories out there for sure, science per say does not disprove that a "god" could exist* so does that mean we should all just put down our pens and in pure ignorance just say "there is a "god" ?
Yes I am ok with that, I am comfortable with that, would I like to know? sure but I will not jump to a conclusion for no good reason other than ignorance like every creationist/theist/deist etc does.
To me "Tracy" is not an atheist, why, because he sounds like So many creationist that try to talk over you trying to get a "point" accross that keeps leading to how do you "explain how we got here?". Any atheist would know that while man is looking out into the universe and now following the commonly accepted thery on 14.5 Bil. yr's. etc. there will be the one question and that is what chemistry's started the "big bang" how was it just sitting there all alone etc.. We are made of "star stuff".
you can tell Jeff Dee used to be incredibly good looking when he was in his 20's. He has perfect teeth and a really good jawline and facial structure.
But then...? Age? Prolonged lack of sleep? Glandular rapid weight gain? Or maybe he's a smoker?
I am a Falun Gong practitioner. Falun Dafa is a cultivation system in the Buddha School based on the principles of the Universe: 真 Truthfulness 善 Compassion 忍 Forbearance.
Since 1999 it has been brutally persecuted by the CCP in China. People are being killed, tortured, put into concentration camps and have organs harvested from live people, simply because of their belief. More than 3400 Falun Gong practitioners have died at the hands of CCP in the past 12 years.
The belief that since the big bang came from nothing there had to be a designer or a "god" to start it has just one problem. Then where did this "God" come from? If you can't answer that then why not stop one step before that and leave the God out of it and just say. We don't know. There is absolutely no need to add God in.
Talking to Tracy reminds me of walking my dog. He just wants to go, go, go, go go go! and he'll keep going even if you're trying to stop him. And once you're very firm and make him stop, he'll take the first opportunity to try and take off again. The difference is that Tracy is a human being, and he can clearly be reasoned with, unlike my dog, who only understands bribes.
@Sesoron I'm willing to bet this human isn't any better than your dog, most humans aren't really. Come to think of it, if you put a random Texan next to a random average family mutt dog, my money is on the dog when it comes to intelligence.
@Polybun No betting necessary, the dog fails. I've tried to convince him that God probably doesn't exist, but he always just comes back with the same old argument from authority. I tell him it's circular, but then he just starts chasing his tail. We're talking past each other, and it's getting nowhere. It might be a racial thing: he's a water dog, so he's especially impressed to hear about Jebus walking on water.
@Sesoron lol dang you and your analogy... it stuck with me through the entire clip, my roommate had a toy fox terrier.. and i kept seeing that dog when Tracy talked... Poison, pure poison but my fault for looking at comments :) I'm going to have to watch this a few times to shake the image.
How can Matt accept the big bang theory with the lack of explaination as to what initiated it, and then rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer due to lack of evidence? Isnt both the same situation? After all science deal with facts, therefore, science has the burden of proof. Concerning an intelligent designer, He is outside the universe, time and space and so may be it is rather wrong to ask evidence from what is beyond our reach?
@Kwartisaac I understand what you mean and I understand your questions.
First of all, we don't know if there was ever anything before the Big Bang. Period, we don't know, yet. Therefore the phrase "before the Big Bang" may be non sense.
In regards to your intelligent designer I ask you "What caused god?". If you say that god is uncaused then why not save a step and simply say that the universe is uncaused.
@lancevancedance No one can ever explain what caused God, because He is outside time, space and the universe, we dont have the capacity of knowledge, material resemblance or words to describe Him. Therefore to try or demand, is non sense! Thus we go by faith, this is my definative answer. You on the other hand, go with science, which deals with facts, therefore , you should give absolute certainty in whatever you claim backed by evidence! U dont say : we dont know yet!!!
@Kwartisaac How do you know that god is outside of space and time?
Btw- Neither I nor science has never claimed to have absolute certainty about anything. Remember, that's what religion does. When new info is discovered that contradicts the facts of science, then science adjusts its facts, it doesn't cover up the information in an attempt to appear all-knowing and infallible to the public. The internet that you are using now is a result of trial and error, a key aspect in the scientific method.
@lancevancedance You are absolutely right to admit the trial and error associated with science. Science has indeed absolute certainty else the surgeon wouldnt dare to put a fellow human being under the knife! The big bang theory is coupled with the question, 'who or what caused it?'. Until there is a clarification, I also keep my default position and reserve belief like Matt would confidently say.
@Kwartisaac I urge you to look up the definition of "absolute certainty". After doing this, it should be clear that nobody will ever have absolute certainty about anything.
Also, the Big Bang is theory about how the universe came into existence, it says nothing about what happened before the Big Bang event. This is because we don't know yet. It could be wrong. Some of the most intelligent people have been working on this theory AND offering some evidence to support the theory.
@lancevancedance I dont not doubt the big bang theory and I wont be dissapointed if it were an absolute truth, infact I love science, and I know it deals with facts in order to avoid deceiption. That is why the question of what caused what will always be asked in order to be sure.You are not certain about what caused The BB, how can you then conclude that it was nothing? It is like claiming a room is empty because you dont have the key to open the door and look for yourself.
@Kwartisaac I never said that "it was nothing", Remember, I said that I don't know if there is even such thing as "before the Big Bang" let alone what actually can before the Big Bang.
You keep saying absolute truth but you need to understand that we don't deal in absolute truths. What we do is based on the available evidence, we draw reasonable conclusions.(or no conclusions at all if the evidence is too small).
what if there was no beginning.. what if we just got bigger and slower.. and as for language, look to you m.o.
beastlyonion 1 hour ago
I have never heard such a bipolar caller.
fascism5 5 hours ago
@fascism5 rip that
beastlyonion 1 hour ago
Crikey that man likes to speak allot.
lucymango123 14 hours ago
Christians, why can't they listen to reason and logic?
STaFbaseball7 1 day ago
@STaFbaseball7 I agree that most Christians are just blinded brainwashed idiots who don't even think on what they're saying and don't consider reason, logic and the validity of some arguments atheists use. However some of us like to be different. I myself like to question my faith and to be flexible about my opinions. Even though we have the tendency to be pro God (as you have to be not) some of us like to put our beliefs aside to think about those issues rationally. Listening isn't agreeing.
goldcardbr 14 hours ago
@TheAtheistExperience Hey, I'm a fan of the show, don't insult me. I'm replying for the second time as I'm not sure why my replies don't go through. For me it takes more a leap of faith to believe that all conditions to life (trillions) fitted caotically. It takes a huge leap of faith to believe God did it too, but the latter is more likely than the first for ME. Sometimes it seems you are just obssessive with your thoughts even more than religious folks. God is as possible as evolution.
goldcardbr 1 day ago
@goldcardbr
- "God is as possible as evolution."
No, evolution is supported by good scientific evidence. God (Yahweh) was simply made up by tribes of primitive superstitious desert nomads from the Iron Age who worshiped dozens of gods and who repeatedly changed the stories about those gods.
TheAtheistExperience 1 day ago
@TheAtheistExperience Good scientific evidence? Good to you. I know of even atheist scientists who find problems with the THEORY of evolution. As regards to God, I agree that some cultures build up their gods, but are you saying that there isn't a possibility of existing an Universal God at all? Gimme your evidence... I believe it's possible you'll be disappointed at some stuff after you die just as it's possible I'll just cease to exist. Can't you admit a possibility that maybe you're wrong?
goldcardbr 1 day ago
@goldcardbr
- " know of even atheist scientists who find problems with the THEORY of evolution."
Visit notjustatheory dotcom to read what a scientific "theory"really is. It doesn't get any better in science than theories.
TheAtheistExperience 1 day ago
@TheAtheistExperience OK, will do. Please don't get me wrong. I like your show. Despite being a christian I love to question beliefs too. I just ask you guys to consider what I say. It seems like you're programmed to detect and destroy pro God arguments. I can't prove you God exists because I think it's above human inteligence, my existance is above a bacteria's intelligence. But you guys can't prove the impossibility of God either. And evidence for evolution are not so solid. It's disputed,
goldcardbr 1 day ago
@goldcardbr
- "And evidence for evolution are not so solid. It's disputed,"
No, that fabled "controversy" is just an anti-scientific propaganda lie of that conservative Christian creationism movement in the United States.
TheAtheistExperience 1 day ago
@TheAtheistExperience I'll search about that. Just think you could be more flexible as I TRY to be. Otherwise you are just like blind religious folks who can see only what they want to see. You're so sure of your assumptions. I have the guts to admit sometimes I'm not so sure that what I think is the absolute truth. Even scientific "truth" proves to be subjective and not so truth from time to time, Do you have the benefit of hindsight and 1000 ahead tech to really describe reallity with no flaw?
goldcardbr 15 hours ago
@goldcardbr The reason they destroy pro-God arguments is because the arguments are generally asinine and not because they were programmed to do so. Programming people is what religion does. It may be above *your* intelligence to know if God exists or not but others may be smarter than you. How do you know bacteria (plural) don't know of your existence? There are more bacteria per square inch on your body than you have of your own cells. That's a "bacterium" not a "bacteria".
samanthajayable 15 hours ago
@samanthajayable Pardon me for my poor English. I'm not a native speaker. Well I'm not a biologist, so I won't run the risk of speaking BS, but even if bacteria that are in ME perceive me it doesn't me that bacteria in a japanese person who never meets me will "know/perceive" I exist. My point is just because you don't perceive and/or understand something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist objectively. And if I don't understand something how am I going to be able to provide evidence? What u think?
goldcardbr 14 hours ago
@goldcardbr Oh and why do you avoid the main points and questions that I make? Tell me about the impossibility of God's existance. Do you have evidence as you like to ask for? If you do I'm very open to consider your thoughts rationally. And again, I'm really a big fan of you guys. You provide very intelligent arguments. Just don't like some jokes and statements you make but what the hell. I don't have to like it to appreciate your discussions. Take care.
goldcardbr 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAtheistExperience Oh and why do you avoid the main points and questions that I make? Tell me about the impossibility of God's existance. Do you have evidence as you like to ask for? If you do I'm very open to consider your thoughts rationally. And again, I'm really a big fan of you guys. You provide very intelligent arguments. Just don't like some jokes and statements you make but what the hell. I don't have to like it to appreciate your discussions. Take care.
goldcardbr 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAtheistExperience Tell me also about this: My point is just because you don't perceive and/or understand something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist objectively. And if I don't understand something (and I admit I don't understand the God I believe in) how am I going to be able to provide evidence? When humans didn't understand the law of attraction were we able to provide evidence for gravity? Plus credibility of evidence is relative, science itself has its own examples. What u think?
goldcardbr 8 hours ago
@TheAtheistExperience Agree to disagree. First of all you calling people retarded is so childish and so 20th century (as you like to say). Second, I do understand how evolution works, and that isn't the only rational explanation, if you insist to think that the problem is yours. Someone doing it takes a huge leap of faith, I won't lie. But believing all the conditions (trillions) of life were caotically fitted is more of a leap of faith to me. I like your show and respect you, stop insulting me.
goldcardbr 1 day ago
this guy......coffee? insane? whats his deal?
XBladeWingX 2 days ago
This caller seems to really like to hear himself talk. Nearly 3 minutes to ask a question that's been answered dozens of times on this show.
EclipseStudio 3 days ago
- "OK"
- "Describe what evolution looks like"
- "Ok"
- "Say 'Ok' again!, say "OK" again! I dare ya, I double dare ya
motherfucker, say "Ok" one more goddamn time!
namnack 4 days ago
Tracy needs more education to be at peace with himself.
ChipArgyle 5 days ago
shut up, man!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol
isieAB 5 days ago
i loved this, that guy was so understanding no matter how stupid he was. and he wasnt as ignorant as some religious people
Sameebob 6 days ago
owww! show #666 I'm a-scared.
mrannen1958 1 week ago
Cocaine's a helluva drug.
TheBurninator50 1 week ago 15
It's...like talking to a child...
seporokey 1 week ago
In case anyone was interested, here is the lecture Matt mentioned - watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
I strongly recommend it. It's very informative.
MrPianoJames 1 week ago 2
The answer is M theory or some such shit....Just sayin'.
TheCrimsonification 2 weeks ago
I just killed a spider...WHAT!?...ohhh rain an shit...
TheCrimsonification 2 weeks ago
Along time ago, in a galaxy far far away... a ginger put a flute in her pussy.... Or so the story goes... and I like potatoes.
TheCrimsonification 2 weeks ago
Like a lot of ugly people don't know they're ugly, a lot of stupid people don't know they're stupid.
gigisdad 2 weeks ago
What an incredibly annoying man.
KonijNx2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i wouldn't call him a halftheist, hes a christian wearing an atheist badge.
WeGameAlotSir 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
WeGameAlotSir 2 weeks ago
He is dumb, yet he is the smarttest caller I've seen on this show.
Detril2000 3 weeks ago
@gromby no, but he's misinterpreting it
messakg123 3 weeks ago
@AntitheistPOV yes, I did. Dude, youre not right about this im sorry. Argument from ignorance is the best way to describe the fallacy he was using. It is no more calling the person ignorant than an argument from authority calls the person an authority. If you feel its belittling, you dont understand it
messakg123 3 weeks ago
@messakg123 AntitheistPOV is not disputing the meaning of argument from ignorance.
gromby 3 weeks ago
I really enjoyed this video ... some great explanations of the position a reasonable, critical-thinking person should take on the origins of the universe given the knowledge we have today.
rossmetacraft 3 weeks ago
I think part of Tracy's problem is that he doesn't actually listen.
BottleConcreteBlond 3 weeks ago
@BottleConcreteBlond Absolutely1 He doesnt seem to take information in because he wants to talk rather than listen. I think its a widespread phenomenon especially on the left hand side of the atlantic! lol
1212JackJohnson 3 weeks ago
I'm not so sure Tracy is really an atheist.
BottleConcreteBlond 3 weeks ago 24
@BottleConcreteBlond He's a halftheist. They try to cover themselves.
elspoko 2 weeks ago
@elspoko "Halftheist"--I like that.
BottleConcreteBlond 2 weeks ago
Tracy Morgan?
SteveMiller88 3 weeks ago
TRACEY!
He got it! He learned! HE WAS ACCEPTING!!!
zdunichme 3 weeks ago
tough guy to talk to
myndzyeful 4 weeks ago
He sounds like The Thinking Atheist.
RagdollRalph 4 weeks ago
Could someone explain me how all this complexity(physical laws, nature, life, evolution, etc.) may not have a plausible Intelligent Source??, not saying there is evidence, no, just asking how atheism see more plausible that laws of physics just made all up instead of an Intelligence Source that through the laws we "see" and millions of years caused all of us to exist.(I'm not talking about a God necessarily)
giorgiomx 4 weeks ago
@giorgiomx
Laws of nature constitutes an overwhelming constraints in a way that no intelligent designer would apply.
A law giver could for example to decide that gravity would work between the sun and the earth but not between the earth and the moon or as well to jumble any law in any crazy way he sees fit.
The fact that the laws are blind and consistent proves that nature works without intent and clearly not as result of design.
PRJking 4 weeks ago
@PRJking I see, I understand nature laws blindly "push" particles and atoms into certain road that snowballs into bigger and complex organic blocks through time..., I may even grant organic blocks start to grow survival parts (digestive, muscles, eyes, etc.), but.., reproductive organs??, here is where the Nature Laws confuse me, the obvious goal of these organs is to perpetuate life, why Nature Laws "bother" on this complex feature instead of just having a soup of dumb microorganisms.
giorgiomx 3 weeks ago
@giorgiomx
Actually the evolution of sexual reproduction in general and sexual organs in private is very well explained by evolutionary biology.
There's a huge advantage in sexual reproduction first for its ability to make a larger genetic diversity by making mutations and other "mistakes" more often and second by making reproduction not depended on the chemical environment but instead an internal process where the fetus is protected.
So from an evolutionary pov there's no problem.
PRJking 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@giorgiomx
"why Nature Laws "bother" on this complex feature instead of just having a soup of dumb microorganisms."
Nature laws do not "bother", the work blindly without intent (as you claimed to understand), it just happens, subjected to bio-chemical laws.
you can't humanize nature, you may as well ask "how do electrons 'know' to move against the direction of the electric current" but this question is meaningless and we know the reason why they move that way (Newtons law).
PRJking 3 weeks ago
@PRJking So, if organisms go more complex through time(evolution and change) and we see a tendency, couldn't be already an organic being that evolved into a level of adaptation with Laws of Physics, which after all we are surrounded and in constant contact, and dominates them just as we use wind, water, gravity, reached the atoms, etc. and setup a certain energy pattern combined with mass and started it up..., time went by and life popped up thanks to this pattern.(0 supernatural)
giorgiomx 3 weeks ago
I don't get the hosts arguments, so all life complexity that surround us, through evolution and such, is more of a sign of no intelligence source??, that's what theist found hard to get and think atheists are wrong. Now, theists also are wrong on jumping on a God explanation and such(dumb, I know), but, even if there wasn't "nothing" at beginning well here we are now, a complexity that had a simple beginning, I'm fine with "we don't know" but not sure about "intelligence source's not plausible"
giorgiomx 4 weeks ago
For some reason Tracy reminds me of Donkey from Shrek.
weeryan2008 1 month ago
Matt was too aggressive.
The vast majority of theists that call this show are calling to preach or condemn. This guy seemed to be asking genuine questions and willing to listen (though he rambled overmuch). He wasn't combative and he tried to concede to Matt's points towards the end where he misused the term faith, but Matt was too busy ranting at him to hear.
Pretty poor form. The hosts usually control themselves better than this.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV dafuq :/ matt was sooo patient. He put up with this guy talking over him for like 15mins without raising his voice or insulting him or anything. He was controlled, rational and he even got the guy to admit that he was wrong on several points.
messakg123 1 month ago
@messakg123
You don't "get someone" to admit anything. People will deny and divert all day if they don't want to listen.
Matt wasn't patient. From the beginning of the clip he's shaking his head and spoiling for an argument, while the caller is quite calm and doesn't take offense.
Just because he's not shouting and swearing doesn't mean his attitude is civil. Look at his body language and the tone. Everything Matt said was correct, but the way he says it is unnecessarily rude.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV He's probably like that because the guy is talking like he just drank 50 cokes before hand. I would be pretty annoyed too if some guy who kept talking kept trying to make the same point over and over again for 15 minutes straight.
auroraman56 1 month ago
@auroraman56
Matt frequently introduces the show as a means of, "promoting positive atheism". Is that what he's doing here? If someone calls in and is rude/threatening, I'd have no issue with Matt responding on kind. However, this guy isn't being intentionally rude, he just rambles and doesn't understand big bang theory (which is why he called).
Being unnecessarily rude is counter productive. Callers like this, that are actually willing to listen, are a rarity on this show.
AntitheistPOV 4 weeks ago
@AntitheistPOV MAtt was shaking his head and baying for an opportunity because the guy was wrong. Simple as that. No rudeness, just an attempt at moving forward so he didnt have to correct the same misunderstandings over and over again. If that seems to rude to you, harden up
messakg123 4 weeks ago
@messakg123
Calling someone who has called to learn ignorant and credulous is rude. As is telling someone to, "harden up" because you don't agree with them.
Arrogance doesn't win people over.
AntitheistPOV 4 weeks ago
@AntitheistPOV He may sound like he wants to learn, but he's got that tone of voice that indicates that he thinks he has them on the ropes- phrasing it as a question is a common technique used by evangelists (e.g. hovind, comfort) in the hope that their position is validated by the lack of an answer. The reason i told you to "harden up" wasn't simply because you disagree with me, it was because your position is unnecessarily soft. Arrogance doesnt people over sure, but being right wins arguments
messakg123 4 weeks ago
@messakg123
You mean the question where he says he believes in evolution, agrees with what he understands of the big bang theory and is on his way to becoming an atheist but he's having trouble getting past origins? Doesn't sound very particularly evangelistic to me.
There's no such thing as "winning" an argument. The point of discussion and this show is education.
AntitheistPOV 4 weeks ago
@AntitheistPOV I didnt it was necessarily evangelistic, just that it was a tactic used BY evangelists.. And yes, i mean that one.
Obviously there is such a thing as winning an argument thats the whole premise of debating as a sport. But yes the point of this show is education, so why should matt not want any opportunity he can get to educate someone with such a profound misconception?
messakg123 3 weeks ago
@messakg123
A debate is a contest. A discussion is an exchange of ideas.
The wasn't with Matt's argument, it was with his attitude. Unwarranted aggression isn't going to educate anyone, particularly when you're getting into a persons core beliefs and they're likely to be defensive enough as it is.
As I said, the show is supposed to be a means of promoting positive atheism. By-proxy name calling and belittling callers isn't the way to do that, even when the callers talk too much.
AntitheistPOV 3 weeks ago
@AntitheistPOV I know the difference between a debate and a discussion. Don't patronise me. I was responding to your claim that "theres no such thing as winning an argument" by saying that a debate is a clear example of such an event. So wwhere's this aggression, name calling and belittling you're talking about? I can't say I would be able to defend that but i dont see that as having happened.
messakg123 3 weeks ago
@messakg123
The aggression in his stance and jumping straight to terms like "argument from ignorance" or "incredulity". It's not what Matt's saying, it's his attitude and the way he's presenting it.
People that are seriously indoctrinated have a hard enough time breaking free. Calling a show for help and being made to feel stupid and told you're "arguing from ignorance" isn't helpful and discourages people that genuinely want help from calling in.
AntitheistPOV 3 weeks ago
@AntitheistPOV When he says it is an "Argument from ignorance" he doesn't mean to call the caller ignorant. "Argument from ignorance" is the name given to a logical fallacy which asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. This is the logical fallacy the caller's argument presented. I suggest you read about this logical fallacy to get acquainted with it :)
gutaitas 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gutaitas
Seems obvious to me that I'm familiar with the term since I went to the effort of quoting it.
My point, again, is that it's an obnoxious phrase. There are plenty of other terms he could have used that don't belittle the caller. I've stated at least twice that I don't disagree with Matt's arguments, I disagree with his attitude.
AntitheistPOV 3 weeks ago
@AntitheistPOV oooh i see. No an argument from ignorance is simply the name of a logical fallacy. It's not calling the person ignorant, its saying that their argument is fallacious on the grounds that it has no evidence and their only way to supprt it is to say "i cant see how else it couldve happened". There is no insult. Read the wikipedia page on logical fallacies
messakg123 3 weeks ago
@messakg123
Did you even read what I said?
AntitheistPOV 3 weeks ago
@AntitheistPOV I've felt the sameway for some time. I think that several theists who ring in donot follow what the hosts say because they fail to dumb down their narrative. I may be wrong the callers that sound simple/thick may be crank callers. I findit really difficult to tell especially with the Texan accent.
1212JackJohnson 3 weeks ago
Cocaine's a helluva drug....
Killer0fTheSun 1 month ago
ohh i think he's a nice guy, he's on his merry way to coming to terms with his atheism.
moralreef 1 month ago
O MY GOD LET PEPOLE TALK
nicobandicoot 1 month ago
that guy is off his face.
neomysterio 1 month ago
Is he on meth? or cocaine?
TheGinetik 1 month ago
most annoying caller ever!!!!!
discofunksoul 1 month ago
what's an escoversion?
killerinthenameof86 1 month ago
it would be great if the could gt Sam Harris on h show
mandrillx 1 month ago
ha ha episode #666 and the red background probably gave the fundies the wrong idea.
whatsnextyoulittlefu 1 month ago
Lol; the title '666'
ThatBritishGenius 1 month ago
What is it with this guy? Did he swallow a bottle of No-Doz, washing it all down with a gallon of espresso?
Akira625 1 month ago
@Akira625 He just went ahead and injected pure caffeine into his arm.
werebee 1 month ago
As time is a property of the Universe, this means that time did not exist until the the Big Bang. This means the concept of 'before the Big Bang' does not exist. As space is a property of the Universe, this means that the concept of 'nothing' is irrelevant 'before' the Big Bang. Counter-intuitive I know; but well demonstrated in physics.
spacecadet35 1 month ago
this guy tried to act intelligent and had no fucking clue what he was saying
LoluskPoo 1 month ago
I like this guy. Proof that not all christians (is he a christian already?) are asses.
InfinityDz 1 month ago
Wow! Someone needs to cut back on the caffeine.......
carpy1970 1 month ago 3
I have some sympathy and a lot of respect for this guy, unlike most other theist callers that call in; this guy seems to have a genuine curiosity, but is probably bogged down with some hyperactivity and over-eagerness, and he probably knows that from what he said about talking to others about his question. And in the end, he listened and seemed to take what the hosts said seriously and wants to look up the talk they referenced.
Paur 1 month ago
TRACEY IS ON SOME CHARLIE SHEEN.
repomayne 1 month ago
i think tracy is a dude
Hughdapu 1 month ago
Wow, that "cold medicine" has longlasting effects...
lease2coach1 1 month ago
easy on the coke there tracy.
thepirates1990 1 month ago
Matt is usually not so patient. :)
gokschi 1 month ago 23
@gokschi Only seems that way coz Jeff is there :)
greyglee 1 month ago
@gokschi I am more surprised by Jeff's patience....hahaha
jsmd09 1 month ago
This guy reminds me of three-dog for some reason...
Gameguy602 1 month ago
14:46 oh now they cut him off?...
chrism4n14 1 month ago
I liked Tracy.
kozmy21 1 month ago
If there is a divine designer, could he really conceive of mollusks, monarch butterflies AND Carrot Top? I don't think so.
Brenda2OOO 1 month ago
Man they sure have their work cut out for them in the bible belt!
Brave people to be sure with all the Christian fundamentalist in Texas.
So many stupid people call in passionately defending something they have never understodd in the first place.
TheMuskokaman 1 month ago
couldn't even watch the whole video because of this mumbling fool
youthank8 1 month ago
How patient was that O_o Respect!
YOVENNA 1 month ago
I don't know about you but I think Tracy is really fucking high! lol
mrhellbilly666 1 month ago 8
Love this guy.
tttc 1 month ago
Episode 666! Proof that this show is of the devil and all the religious crazy mumbo jumbo is true!!! :O
TheDecadeProject 1 month ago
@TheDecadeProject OMG, A NUMBER THAT POPS UP ALL THE TIME, GOD MUST BE REAL! xD
QBiggie95 1 month ago
his voice sounds cool ^^
wamuq 1 month ago
Fucking amazing-ness xDDD
LOSTKILLERDRAENEI 1 month ago
This guy has the right voice to do radio shows or make commercials. too bad he's an idiot
VanessaTexasGal 1 month ago
Booga BOOga BOOGA 666 muahahahahah!!
DamionCrane 1 month ago
I think Tracy might be black.
dahuterschuter 1 month ago 34
@dahuterschuter I think everyone in the world without a doubt believes that.
PenIsland34567 1 month ago
@dahuterschuter not sure... His voice isn't dark enough... but does it matter???
BlackMoridin 1 month ago
@dahuterschuter Ohhh wait, i'm further in the vid now, and i agree, i think he's black.
BlackMoridin 1 month ago
@dahuterschuter it would be really weird if he wasn't.
AlexWwwolf 1 month ago
@dahuterschuter I'd love it if he was a scrawny white guy.
TBlenx1995 3 weeks ago
I actually didn't think this guy was that bad. He seemed to absorb some of the things Matt was saying at least somewhat, and he didn't interrupt the hosts every five seconds like all of the other callers seem to do.
itstonymacaroni 1 month ago
@itstonymacaroni I agree. Though when he did interrupt, he went on for minutes at a time xD Man has some flaws, but overall he was all right. And he definitely sounded like he was listening and understanding in between :P
zebezd 1 month ago
I think he's smoking pot. Not even kidding, you can hear something like it in the background. lol
TheAdamantAtheist 1 month ago
@TheAdamantAtheist He wouldn't be talking so fast.
PopaRocks 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gaybykersonacid Yep.
Theory, a lot of scientific theories out there for sure, science per say does not disprove that a "god" could exist* so does that mean we should all just put down our pens and in pure ignorance just say "there is a "god" ?
LogicalStatements1 1 month ago
Comment removed
LogicalStatements1 1 month ago
Caller is like:
"and you are ok with that"
Yes I am ok with that, I am comfortable with that, would I like to know? sure but I will not jump to a conclusion for no good reason other than ignorance like every creationist/theist/deist etc does.
LogicalStatements1 1 month ago
what an obnoxious man, but maybe they got through to him in the end a little.
Daugueffxi 1 month ago
@Gaybykersonacid Aliens! :P
ActuallyLiam 1 month ago
Don't quote me on this, but I believe the word you are looking for in 8:40 is "Singularity".
mallaaian 1 month ago
4:30!!!!!
MrChaos424242 1 month ago
Clearly stated his argument is based on ignorance but besides that he doesn't know what he is talking about he sounds like someone I would like.
MrChaos424242 1 month ago
Intelligence is simply an emergent characteristic like color or a great many others.
MrMZaccone 1 month ago
marijuana makes you atheist
bigclag96 1 month ago
@bigclag96
Hahaha! :D
xxjonkoxx 1 month ago
If you accept that there is an intelligent design lol there has to be a beginning to the intelligence as well.
lupefanatic08 2 months ago
1. Watch video
2. Turn on Youtube's holiday snow thingy
3. Hell has officially frozen over
4. This is because I've heard an Atheist claim to believe in intelligent design
5. What the actual fuck
TheCircusReject 2 months ago
@TheCircusReject Hmm I kinda like the snow thing , I havent noticed it .
YevonZ 2 months ago
To me "Tracy" is not an atheist, why, because he sounds like So many creationist that try to talk over you trying to get a "point" accross that keeps leading to how do you "explain how we got here?". Any atheist would know that while man is looking out into the universe and now following the commonly accepted thery on 14.5 Bil. yr's. etc. there will be the one question and that is what chemistry's started the "big bang" how was it just sitting there all alone etc.. We are made of "star stuff".
SpoonyG925 2 months ago
i like tracy he was actually honest. thats rare for theists who call.
oneadamtwelve86 2 months ago 2
To gild refined gold, to paint the lilly, to throw perfume on the violet, is just fucking silly.
TheCraich 2 months ago
you can tell Jeff Dee used to be incredibly good looking when he was in his 20's. He has perfect teeth and a really good jawline and facial structure.
But then...? Age? Prolonged lack of sleep? Glandular rapid weight gain? Or maybe he's a smoker?
ClappingForChlamydia 2 months ago
This guy reminds me of the Kanye West interrupt.
jadlerhalofan 2 months ago
The caller is clearly lying. He's a creationist.
Wh3tst0nE 2 months ago
"Tracy.....Tracy.......Tracy! TRACY! TRACY!!!"
Khhaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnn!
GregJPreece 2 months ago
I am a Falun Gong practitioner. Falun Dafa is a cultivation system in the Buddha School based on the principles of the Universe: 真 Truthfulness 善 Compassion 忍 Forbearance.
Since 1999 it has been brutally persecuted by the CCP in China. People are being killed, tortured, put into concentration camps and have organs harvested from live people, simply because of their belief. More than 3400 Falun Gong practitioners have died at the hands of CCP in the past 12 years.
faluninfo(.)net
Xiaolian7 2 months ago
tracy sounds kinda like a hippie freind of mine.
cristophershaffer 2 months ago
The belief that since the big bang came from nothing there had to be a designer or a "god" to start it has just one problem. Then where did this "God" come from? If you can't answer that then why not stop one step before that and leave the God out of it and just say. We don't know. There is absolutely no need to add God in.
Erholts 2 months ago
At least Tracy eventually shut up long enough for them to talk.
LoogyHead 2 months ago
Tracy is a goddamn nut. :'| Someone needs to put a muzzle on that man.
RiskyCricket 2 months ago
First caller smoke meth. Lots and lots of meth
petegriswold 2 months ago
This first caller smokes meth. LOOOOOOOOOOOTS of meth
petegriswold 2 months ago
Talking to Tracy reminds me of walking my dog. He just wants to go, go, go, go go go! and he'll keep going even if you're trying to stop him. And once you're very firm and make him stop, he'll take the first opportunity to try and take off again. The difference is that Tracy is a human being, and he can clearly be reasoned with, unlike my dog, who only understands bribes.
Sesoron 2 months ago 30
@Sesoron I'm willing to bet this human isn't any better than your dog, most humans aren't really. Come to think of it, if you put a random Texan next to a random average family mutt dog, my money is on the dog when it comes to intelligence.
Polybun 2 months ago
@Polybun No betting necessary, the dog fails. I've tried to convince him that God probably doesn't exist, but he always just comes back with the same old argument from authority. I tell him it's circular, but then he just starts chasing his tail. We're talking past each other, and it's getting nowhere. It might be a racial thing: he's a water dog, so he's especially impressed to hear about Jebus walking on water.
Sesoron 2 months ago
@Sesoron OMG i was laughing through out your entire comment. Classic
nagga123456789 1 month ago
@Sesoron lol dang you and your analogy... it stuck with me through the entire clip, my roommate had a toy fox terrier.. and i kept seeing that dog when Tracy talked... Poison, pure poison but my fault for looking at comments :) I'm going to have to watch this a few times to shake the image.
skwiggs103 1 month ago
Has this caller been snorting cocaine? lol
BlackFloyd94 2 months ago
tracy talks alot.
MrBabylouise2 2 months ago
How can Matt accept the big bang theory with the lack of explaination as to what initiated it, and then rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer due to lack of evidence? Isnt both the same situation? After all science deal with facts, therefore, science has the burden of proof. Concerning an intelligent designer, He is outside the universe, time and space and so may be it is rather wrong to ask evidence from what is beyond our reach?
Kwartisaac 2 months ago
@Kwartisaac I understand what you mean and I understand your questions.
First of all, we don't know if there was ever anything before the Big Bang. Period, we don't know, yet. Therefore the phrase "before the Big Bang" may be non sense.
In regards to your intelligent designer I ask you "What caused god?". If you say that god is uncaused then why not save a step and simply say that the universe is uncaused.
lancevancedance 2 months ago
@lancevancedance No one can ever explain what caused God, because He is outside time, space and the universe, we dont have the capacity of knowledge, material resemblance or words to describe Him. Therefore to try or demand, is non sense! Thus we go by faith, this is my definative answer. You on the other hand, go with science, which deals with facts, therefore , you should give absolute certainty in whatever you claim backed by evidence! U dont say : we dont know yet!!!
Kwartisaac 2 months ago
@Kwartisaac How do you know that god is outside of space and time?
Btw- Neither I nor science has never claimed to have absolute certainty about anything. Remember, that's what religion does. When new info is discovered that contradicts the facts of science, then science adjusts its facts, it doesn't cover up the information in an attempt to appear all-knowing and infallible to the public. The internet that you are using now is a result of trial and error, a key aspect in the scientific method.
lancevancedance 2 months ago
@lancevancedance You are absolutely right to admit the trial and error associated with science. Science has indeed absolute certainty else the surgeon wouldnt dare to put a fellow human being under the knife! The big bang theory is coupled with the question, 'who or what caused it?'. Until there is a clarification, I also keep my default position and reserve belief like Matt would confidently say.
Kwartisaac 2 months ago
@Kwartisaac I urge you to look up the definition of "absolute certainty". After doing this, it should be clear that nobody will ever have absolute certainty about anything.
Also, the Big Bang is theory about how the universe came into existence, it says nothing about what happened before the Big Bang event. This is because we don't know yet. It could be wrong. Some of the most intelligent people have been working on this theory AND offering some evidence to support the theory.
lancevancedance 2 months ago
@lancevancedance I dont not doubt the big bang theory and I wont be dissapointed if it were an absolute truth, infact I love science, and I know it deals with facts in order to avoid deceiption. That is why the question of what caused what will always be asked in order to be sure.You are not certain about what caused The BB, how can you then conclude that it was nothing? It is like claiming a room is empty because you dont have the key to open the door and look for yourself.
Kwartisaac 2 months ago
@Kwartisaac I never said that "it was nothing", Remember, I said that I don't know if there is even such thing as "before the Big Bang" let alone what actually can before the Big Bang.
You keep saying absolute truth but you need to understand that we don't deal in absolute truths. What we do is based on the available evidence, we draw reasonable conclusions.(or no conclusions at all if the evidence is too small).
lancevancedance 2 months ago