Every reasonable person, unless they have daddy issues, love porn, or have some other psychological bias believe we were created...yet these dweebs who spent lunch period with apple sauce in their hair are terrified to entertain there's a God?
Knowing this why does anyone take them serious? They're the OJ Simpson jury and they admit it...so why is any rational reasoning applied to them when a 3rd grader can see there's a God?
@cfro251 Language is a funny thing. It was originally invented so that humans could convey meaning to one another. We have done this by inventing vocabulary, and the rules of grammar for combining vocabulary together. However, this has resulted in us having more freedom than is actually necessary for solving the original problem, that of conveying meaning, and it is actually possible to combine words together to create language that is in fact meaningless. Your post demonstrates this nicely.
@wowsa0 Well said. Although language is a great tool (for communication AND control), I believe that humans once possessed the ability to communicate telepathically. We all still have these abilities, just need some work (meditation & cleansing) to activate them. :D
@wowsa0 I know you were being insulting. I just don't care.
In my opinion, someone with your intellect should be keen, decisive, and efficient in promoting positivity and development of one's own ideas and experience.
@cfro251 Well, I'm sorry for coming across as overly negative, but it gets a bit frustrating when every science video is filled with weird comments like 'Everything is everything, we still exist in duality'... What is that even supposed to mean?
@wowsa0 The idea of duality: Even thought process is polarized. People seem to think it has to be science OR religion.
Everything that exists is connected. By the fact that everything IS energy and vibration, and there are NO exceptions, we can understand the connectivity of all things, and begin to integrate both science AND religion into a unified aspect of existence.
@wowsa0 The idea of duality: Even thought process is polarized. People seem to think it has to be science OR religion.
Everything that exists is connected. By the fact that everything IS energy and vibration, and there are NO exceptions, we can understand the connectivity of all things, and begin to integrate both science AND religion into a unified aspect of existence.
@cfro251 "Both creationism and evolution are correct."
Whether you're playing a game of semantic or really don't understand my point, it was just that the above statement is non-sense. There is zero evidence for creationism.
Okay, if the cosmological constant was off by 1 trillionth or however amount, it's true that we likely wouldn't exist, but it's an egotistical way of thinking to think that we're the end result of the universe. If it were off by that tiny degree, some other sentient being would be here in our place, or maybe not, and that would be the way of the universe, that we're only a part of.
@Zzyxzaa No informed scientist would argue that the universe is fine tuned for human life. After all, highly intelligent beings are a very improbable outcome of the evolutionary mechanism. If the history of life had been even slightly different at a number of crucial points, evolution would have taken a different path that would not lead to the development of hominids. Fine tuning is only a necessary condition for human life, not a sufficient one.
Having said that, I think you have underestimated just how deep this fine tuning problem is. Carbon based life of any kind would be impossible if certain constants and initial conditions of the universe had been appreciably different.
To give you an example, if the ratio of the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together to the strength of gravity had been slightly higher, all stars would be blue giants, if slightly lower, all stars would be red dwarfs. Red dwarfs do not explode into supernova, and so there would be no second generation stars to produce oxygen or carbon. On the other hand, blue giants do not have life spans long enough for the evolution of life to occur and may not even have planets.
Why is the idea our existence could of happened by chance so unacceptable, sure it is a ridiculously small probability however when there are enough chances for something to happen (e.g the entire universe) its not so strange, plus no one seems to realise even the most unlikely things happen all the time, in a strange way. If there were a probability for the chance of any one of the really low probability things happening in one day it'd be rather high.
@snipeors Indeed. This clip is just a tiny part of a documentary and documentary makers try to keep you interested by saying stuff like that. Dr Leonard Susskind is of the chairs of Super String Theory team at the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and if String Theory is true and there really are infinite number of universes then there is a chance no matter how small that conditions would arise for life to evolve and even without infinite universe there still exists a probability.
You may want to consider some Fire Insurance. It's like this, take the state of Texas and
fill it to a depth of two feet with silver dollars, paint one black blind fold someone and give them one chance to pick it up, that is the equivalent of the odds of random chance of fine tuning, "watch the video" We hold these truth to self apparent .
I cannot stress enough how important it is for believers in God to get educated. It is one thing to go to Bible study or sunday school and learn scripture, but a whole other thing to finally acknowledge the physical truths that those "evil" text books represent. Even today, after many hours of science in college, there are things that I cannot even begin to explain. Get educated, Christians. Scripture alone will not stand as grounded evidence.
The problem with science is, they are over stepping there abilities. science should not be about WHERE things came from, but only about HOW and WHY things work the way they do.
Buy doing so science has delved into the metaphysical. and by making the unsubstantiated assumption God does not exist because he is unfalsifiable, they then conclude a natural origin for everything (including abiogenesis) no matter how absurd. so why has science done this?
@toobsucker they start with a circular assumption of naturalism, then try to make theories of existence from naturalism, then believe in it no matter how logically invalid it could be,
Of course you don't need a degree in logic to see the absurdity in developing a theory of methodological naturalism (all observable phenomenons must have a natural origin because God is not falsifiable) based on what is NOT KNOWN.
No other area of science does this except Darwinian evolution.
The problems with falsifiability are glaring. just because something is not falsifiable does not mean its false. its simply means you lack the ability/intellect to devise the test.
"just because something is not falsifiable does not mean its false. its simply means you lack the ability/intellect to devise the test."
No, because something is not falsifiable means that you cannot test it or confirm it. God is truly unfalsifiable. And this is not just by our current scientific understanding, but God himself is stated to invisible until whenever he wishes to be seen and even then he only manifests himself as nature... So no, by definition its impossible.
"they start with a circular assumption of naturalism,"
It's not circular. Why do you think this?
You can't explain the supernatural, nor can you prove it. If science is to be credible it cannot include the supernatural. This would mean that the universe is asymmetric and that all science is fundamentally flawed and falls apart on the large scale. In other words, science would be useless and all its applications would fail.
"The problem with science is, they are over stepping there abilities."
No, it's not.
"science should not be about WHERE things came from, but only about HOW and WHY things work the way they do."
Actually the Where IS important. To fully understand a phenomena we must understand the where, how, and why. Science's job is complete and utter understanding of any and ALL problems that it challenges, anything less is not complete.
"He agrees the origins of observable phenomenons is based in what is currently know as the "metaphysical" or unknown and unknowns can NOT be theories"
Yes. Then again, science has yet to make any supported predictions about the origin of the universe. Even the Big Bang is not a story universal creation. The Big Bang ONLY picks up AFTER (a TINY fraction of a second after) the universe was created. Nobody knows how it was created...yet....
@tskasa1 "Yes. Then again, science has yet to make any supported predictions about the origin of the universe. Even the Big Bang is not a story universal creation. The Big Bang ONLY picks up AFTER (a TINY fraction of a second after) the universe was created. Nobody knows how it was created.yet.."
This is why science needs to keep its nose OUT of the origins of observable phenomenons and stick to what science is supposed to do. that is explaining WHY and HOW things work the way they do
"This is why science needs to keep its nose OUT of the origins of observable phenomenons and stick to what science is supposed to do."
No, just no. I never even IMPLIED that. I said that we don't know the answer YET. That does NOT mean that you give up. That would have been the same as giving up when we failed to break the soundbarrier. Science strives for COMPLETE theories of the universe, and that INCLUDES origins. And that is something many of us would appreciate knowing.
"Buy doing so science has delved into the metaphysical."
A few hundred years ago the formation of planets, rising of life, and many other things were considered metaphysical. It's not the metaphysical, it's just something we can't understand YET. That doesn't mean you give up on it. If it were like that then we would have stayed with a flat Earth forever, but those mavericks (scientists) who just hate to go with the flow protested and proved it wrong.
@toobsucker ANYTHING can be misunderstood as the metaphysical until explained properly by science.
"by making the unsubstantiated assumption God does not exist because he is unfalsifiable,"
Because if you have absolutely NO proof for something, HOW is it scientifically acceptable?! It isn't! Science HAS to be falsifiable, or else there is no point in it at all. If it's not falsifiable then you can't prove or disprove it.
@tskasa1 "Because if you have absolutely NO proof for something, HOW is it scientifically acceptable?"
You do not know science. dark energy has no direct evidence but is assumed from gravitational forces.
The string theory and multiverse have no direct evidence and are NOT falsifiable but yet are accepted by most of science
Falsifiability is seriously flawed. because something is not falsifiable does not mean its false. it could be 100% true only you lack the ability to devise the test
"dark energy has no direct evidence but is assumed from gravitational forces."
Wrong again. Dark Energy (a term used to refer to the Cosmological Constant) is simply a very vague term used to refer to what is driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. We KNOW that there is Dark Energy, because spacetime itself is expanding at an accelerating rate, but we don't (as of yet) know exactly what kind of particle it is, nor do we claim to. We just know what its result is.
@tskasa1 "dark energy has no direct evidence but is assumed from gravitational forces." Wrong again""
You have no idea what your talking about
"In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy"
"Dark matter fills the universe, and exerts a gravitational pull on the "normal" matter, like stars and planets, around it. Yet it produces no detectable form of energy – no light, heat, radio waves, or anything else......"
Dark Matter (aka, the more general term for the Cosmological Constant) is something we KNOW exist. ALL that Dark Energy is, is a source of negative pressure that causes an anti-gravitational force (positive pressure, such as what is in matter/energy causes attraction, "exotic" matter/energy would cause negative pressure (and this is just one of many theories to explain it)).
So not only do we know its there, we even have possible explanations for it. And while there is SOME dispute about it in the world of physics, it is relatively tiny, with WELL over 90% of physicists agreeing that Dark Energy exists and does what it is predicted to do. And, just so you know, those were only two of many possible explanations....
Oh, and, also interesting to note, Dark Energy actually fits perfectly within equations of the necessities for a flat universe...
Wrong again. String Theory is referred to as promising with many physicists seeing it as a possible answer. Seeing as String Theory is STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT I REALLY doubt that it is as you say.
Some parts of String Theory are widely accepted, however, they have proof. But as a whole, no. At least not yet.
Wrong again. String Theory is referred to as promising with many physicists seeing it as a possible answer. Seeing as String Theory is STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT I REALLY doubt that it is as you say"
There is ZERO empirical evidence of other dimensions. atheistic science picks and chooses when to lets a speculation past the unfalsifiable criteria.
Google "discover magazine multiverse sciences alternative to an intelligent designer"
"There is ZERO empirical evidence of other dimensions."
Yes, there is zero evidence...CURRENTLY. Which is why string theory is not being held up as the answer all to many questions that it DOES answer. In fact, the detection of other dimensions is part of the reason that the LHC. Even if we cannot directly observe these said dimensions we CAN, however, indirectly observe it through interactions. So yes, the multiverse IS falsifiable. And the LHC is going to test it.
"There is ZERO empirical evidence of other dimensions."
Which I know. Why do you think I stated that it is still under development. And you know what, that is why String Theory is still under development and not held as the answer all. Physicists, however, DO see a strong future for it with the current proof and we expect to find more soon.
"There is ZERO empirical evidence of other dimensions."
Anywho, we can't directly observe higher dimensions, as we are only 3 dimensional creatures. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean we can't detect it. Like much in science you don't always have to observe something DIRECTLY, you can also do so INDIRECTLY. And, in fact, this is one of the reasons the LHC was built and one of the main experiments. Higher dimensions would interact with particles in a way we can notice, hence de LHC.
"Falsifiability is seriously flawed. because something is not falsifiable does not mean its false. it could be 100% true only you lack the ability to devise the test "
No, because something is not falsifiable you cannot ascertain whether it IS right or false. Unfalsifiability is the state of being unable to test something in a decisive matter. Which by definition, you cannot do with the supernatural.
@tskasa1 "No, because something is not falsifiable you cannot ascertain whether it IS right or false. Unfalsifiability is the state of being unable to test something in a decisive matter. Which by definition, you cannot do with the supernatural."
That does NOT address my point.
Can something be unfalsifiable and also be TRUE. YES NO?
"Can something be unfalsifiable and also be TRUE. YES/NO?"
No, you can't. Falsifiability is the same as saying is something testable/provable. If something IS real then you would be able to test it to confirm as such. And as far as I am aware there are NO exceptions.
"they then conclude a natural origin for everything"
Because science is ENTIRELY naturalistic. That is the very nature of science. Once you allow the supernatural into science it decomposes, falls apart, and nothing is certain anymore.
Nearly EVERY single scientific hypothesis or theory based on religion that has existed has been debunked repeatedly by science.
@tskasa1 Your statements are contradictory 1 "Once you allow the supernatural into science it decomposes, falls apart, and nothing is certain anymore."
2 "ANYTHING can be misunderstood as the metaphysical until explained properly by science."
I agree with statement 2. there is NOTHING metaphysical (super natural) only what we do not understand. which makes statement 1 invalid. since nothing is TRULY supernatural i.e. a Godlike intellect. there is no rational reason to discount it
No, I don't contradict myself. I was stating that the metaphysical has no place in science. God by definition is the metaphysical. By his own word, this almighty being is impossible to detect. The notion of God is postulated by the notion of faith which is belief in something which you cannot either prove or disprove. Ergo, God is the supernatural.
My second statement explains itself.
Even if there WERE a God, its origins would still have to be naturalistic.
@tskasa1 "No, I don't contradict myself...God by definition is the metaphysical....Even if there WERE a God, its origins would still have to be naturalistic."
Metaphysical: The word derives from the Greek words (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical"
Metaphysical: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
Moving on (about Dark Energy), we know that it exists as we observe its repulsive effects around us every day. This force is what drives the constantly accelerating expansion of the universe.
And while it IS invisible to electromagnetic radiation, that does not make it undetectable/unfalsifiable. We can detect it by the way it interacts with the universe around it (which is what we also do for Dark Matter, Black Holes, etc).
Dark Matter could be one of many things. It could be an "ocean" of "exotic" particles (exotic because they are unlike any kind of normal matter we see, as it causes negative pressure instead of positive pressure) that uniformly covers the universe. On the other hand, however, it could be a type of manifestation of the Higgs Field (Higgs Ocean, actually) as there are certain ways in which a Higgs Field can be made to produce NEGATIVE gravity.
No, I haven't. I fail to see where this contradiction is. Point it out to me. I was stating that God, BY DEFINITION, IS metaphysical. Your definition itself says what I was stating. Something that is above what is perceptible to the senses or its detection (either direct or indirect). So your point is??
Which is possible and has been shown to at least be partially possible.
"no matter how absurd. so why has science done this?"
Because we have proof that it did and does.
"They are mostly atheists with agendas"
Lolwut? The vast majority of scientists the world round are Christians. And then Muslims and Hindus. Atheists are actually a relative minority in science, and the same goes for Philosophy and atheists.
@tskasa1 You really have no idea what your talking about when it comes to the evidence of abiogenesis
The cells random "self assembly" has astronomical problems. only one of which is the Chicken & Egg problem
DNA information requires a complex decoding machine, the ribosome, but the instructions to build ribosomes are on the DNA, DNA needs enzymes to replicate, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA. DNA needs protection provided by the cell wall, but the cell wall is also encoded by the DNA.
"abiogenesis The cells random "self assembly" has astronomical problems. "
And yet its surprisingly that not that random. Abiogenesis does not say that life jumps out of nothing but that it slowly progresses from standard chemicals up to very simple life. And it's not even amino acids to life. After making amino acids there are several other steps all of which CAN self assemble, but would take a very long time to do so. There's a reason life didn't exist for a billion years...
@tskasa1 "Abiogenesis does not say that life jumps out of nothing but that it slowly progresses from standard chemicals up to very simple life."
Of course thats what abiogenesis predicts. however the facts of chemical evolution contradict the speculation
Watch Chemist Charles Thaxton on youtube. he tells you the TRUTH of the matter. all experiments for abiogenesis are done in VERY SMALL STEPS and KEPT AWAY from other chemicals.otherwise you have cross reactions that destroy the bonds
"all experiments for abiogenesis are done in VERY SMALL STEPS"
Because it happens in VERY SMALL, SLOW STEPS. So yes, it makes PERFECT sense. It didn't happen over night or even a year.
"and KEPT AWAY from other chemicals"
You mean like oxygen? Which we know was very low to near none in the early earth due to studies we have done on Ore deposits that tell us what it was like back then in the atmosphere. So we only include the elements that we know where there.
"however the facts of chemical evolution contradict the speculation"
Which chemical evolution? The one that states that chemicals evolved through stellar/solar processes? Because that would in no way, shape, or form disprove it. So please expand on your argument.
@tskasa1 Respond to this video..."Lolwut? The vast majority of scientists the world round are Christians. And then Muslims and Hindus. Atheists are actually a relative minority in science"
Another error in your belief system you need to change. how is it an "informed" evolutionists does not know the facts. I thought ALL evolutionists knew this. I know all atheists know this.
Per capita there are more atheists in science than ANY other field. just Google "Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
"Per capita there are more atheists in science than ANY other field."
I never said that. I said that the majority of SCIENTISTS WEREN'T ATHEISTS, not the other way around.
Yes, there are more atheists scientists than there are atheists anything else because atheists are attracted to science more some than say philosophy. This is mainly because science can answer the religions for us that religion can't. However, atheists are a minority in the scientific world.
change the constant and man (made of atoms from supernova could not have arisen and evolved). Meanwhile neglect that some other form of what could be called life (because it replicates and evolves, not because it's made of atoms) is having difficulty explain the fine tuning of their own universe.
It is VERY irresponsible of a tv network to present such biased ideas as science.A constant being "finely tuned" ?! and why pervert the concept of a natural law into an excuse for superstition ?
This is precisely the reason why science is not a democracy: the human mind is too conceited to accept being merely part of the universe.
an athiest that dont believe in god, and he always fight the believers and saying that theres no god, and now hes recognized in this video that the universe is designed by the creator,,
@love187punk you feel sorry for intelligent scientists who would never consider your holy trinity made earth in 6 days you stupid fucking religious doosh
why are they always saying how scientists don't want, or practically refuse, to believe in god or a designer? there are plenty of very famous scientists who do or did believe in god, einstein being just one, newton another. The views of some of these scientists might not conform to certain established religions, but nevertheless they were not atheists.
God/Allah created the universe as they said in the video the design requieres a designer
it's such a perfect world, can't be done randomly, just think abt it, if u throw 5pails containig 5 different colors in each one over a wall, you'll get a randomly shaped stuff, organization can never be the result of arbitrariness!! just think about it
But how do you know the universe was meant to be designed this way and no other way? Assuming it could have existed differently, you can still make the argument it was meant to be designed that particular way and not another. The design argument is circular in that it assumes the universe was designed this way, when in fact that's what it's supposed to be proving. It only seems perfect because you set this universe as the standard.
U dont have to know everything, there is some truth that only god/Allah knows!!
did u know that bees cant fly according to physics? however we all know that bees do fly!! how? only God knows. in the Quran there is a verse that explains how the foetus develops in the woman's womb!! and the Quran as you probably know is a 14 centuries old book!! there are some striking truths in the Quran!
777Skeptic>>Thank you for arguing without insults, VERY RARE ON YOUTUBE!! :'(
They worked out how bees fly, they don't fly in the same way birds fly. I am not arguing that the holy books do not contain great truths, but they also contain great lies. I think many clever people contributed to those books but did not fully understand the reasons and so added the stuff about god in.
my original point is suggesting that there is a creator!
evidences from the Holy book is a reinforcement to this suggestion, the holy book was sent by God and it contains truths that scientists could not solve until the 20th century and many other truths are still unsolved!
You were originally arguing that organization can never be a result of "arbitrariness," which I'm sure you meant randomness. After my rebuttal, your new post didn't in any way try to defend your argument, instead you talk about how we can't know everything and flying bees and fetuses.
when i said that organization can never be the result of randomness, i was alluding to the existence of a creator/designer AKA GOD!
so the existence of God is the core of my argument.
the examples I gave from the Holy Book are to show that there is a divine power that rules the world, and the scientific truths that are in the Book are proofs of God existence, because they were told 14 centuries ago! how can illiterate people come up with such knowledge?
In a debate, you'd be called out on goalpost shifting (changing your argument instead of defending the original). My rebuttal still stands. You have yet to address my counter-arguments. It's right below the your first post. Don't expect people to address your new arguments if you don't come back to defend your original ones.
The bible doesn't count as evidence, and the bible assumes there is a designer when in fact that's what you're supposed to be proving. It's circular logic again.
Also, if the universe existed differently, you could still argue it wasn't meant to be designed that particular way. So the design argument actually tells us nothing new about the universe.
well actually i was referring to Quran by the Holy Book, I am Muslim, I believe in Jesus too but as a messenger not a God and i also believe that the Bible is corrupted, it has been modified to serve certain people's needs, in the Quran there is a proof that the Earth is rounded.
and in Sura''chapter" 36 aya "verse"40 u can find: It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit!!
@metallic1slim Yes, of course organization cannot result out of randomness...if it is the only example. Just as we cannot disprove the existence of your supernatural deity watching over all of, we cannot (as of yet) disprove that other universes exist too. When a trillion^(n) other universes exist with different cosmological constants, then it becomes very possible for one with our tuning to arise. We just only know of this because we're in it but there is evidence to suggest to others.
Assuming the universe could exist differently with different physical constants, why assume this universe had premeditated design? It could just have existed any other way and you could still argue it was meant to be designed THAT particular way because you ended with with THAT universe and not THIS one.
Many theoretical physicists these days in fact go by the theorie that there may be multiverses. In fact the big-bang simply put could have been caused by the collision of two other universes. All very exiting but unclear where that theorie is going but at least mathematically there seems to be a lot of promise in it.
They could have used any constant really... e.g. Pi And Pi has the added bonus of being infinitely long and therefor no human (AHA!) will ever be able to write down the whole sequence. Spooky :-D
But then, no human will ever be able to kiss his own ass either... this surely must be design too, just so we can only kiss His ass ;-)
if ppl say all the whole world created by a explosion ......
ok but he quistion is ..... this explosion needs a power to make it happend !
who made this power and from where it came ?? another power ? ok wt makes this another power ??
it's all start from zero point that is no thing was there , so it means there is a god who made all that and the life can't be so easly like 50 -70 years for human
it can't end so simple ....
there is another life ! . who said life is simple ? it's NOT
man .. god is a infinit power no one made god . God is the whole world because god made it not by an explosion or something but made it by his power
god's propertise is that: 1- has no son or family like human 2- infinite power (can make ANY thing ) 3- he is who make destiny (destiny is any thing happend and you didnt do it in perpuse so u cant say it's my destiny is to kill that guys but its HIS destiny that he got killed by you )
=]... sorry but all wt you wrote is full of nonsence and stupid quistions :S.
nothing was befor god yah god created him self by his power . about destiny
god created people and let them do wt every they want becasue god wanna see them what are they gona do if no one stopes them . when u ask why god let ppl do bad things and he can stop them , i'll tell u its because he is testing them to see who's good and bad . WHY there is heven and hell then ?? . and about the A+ thingy i wont answer it
dude the whole thing is god made ppl to test them to know who deservies the heven and who deserves the hell .plaese dont ask me that stuped quistion > dont he have infinite power ?? so he can know who deservise heven and hell .
wanna know the real thing ?
read Islam !
becasue islam is the only relegion in the world wich belives in god in the right way . why ? because the human didnt make changes in it so it's 100% godness relegion.the only real relegions are islam christanian and joiush
the sentence son of god means he got a wife lol and might get a doughter too ?
omg .. it means god a human then --,,--.
thats y i say islam is better .
and about the quiran we read , it's a book contains the words the god said it not a words written by human like in bible .
and if wanna ask me how come we're sure if its not written by human , i just tell you that quiran said things will happn and it does hapend ! all of them happend except one , that is the JDGMENT DAY!(THE MOMENT OF TRTH)
Why couldn't the cosmological constant and other constants, like the fine structure constant, have evolved by random selection? What works, persists. What doesn't is discarded. Evolution doesn't necessarily deny the existence of God or creator.
Lets say you spill a glass a water keeping all other values (gravity, etc) constant and even; if you spilled it a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, ONE of those times you'd get a specific pattern that we assign value to for whatever reason. But the water pattern itself is just mindless matter, and there's no reason for it 'evolve' from one pattern to another; it just spills and that's that.
If you believe science precludes the existence of a designer or some other force that suggests sentient life has a special relationship with and power over nature, check out some of the Quantum theory vids here on Youtube. Look at light experiments that yield one result when they aren't observed, and a completely different result when they are observed, and you'll see a strong suggestion that thought itself effects physics. It doesn't say there's a God, but it does suggest we know nothing yet.
This is true, very true. And this is why scientists exist. We know only a TINY, TINY, TINY percent of what there is to know about the universe. And it is NOT our job to simply give up and say "God did it, problem solved" it is our job to keep delving into it and researching into it. To do as such would be nothing short of a CRIME to society and humanity.
@tskasa1 "And to know truly how and why you must know where they come from and why it happened."
Incorrect. I do not need to know WHERE a car was made in order to explain HOW AND WHY it functions the way it does Michael Ruse agrees in a speech " Professor Michael Ruse Saturday, February 13, 1993"
"I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science"
"Incorrect. I do not need to know WHERE a car was made in order to explain HOW AND WHY it functions"
Are you comparing a car to elementary physics or Cosmology? Seriously? Especially since both fields rely on what happened before to explain what happens now.
Not to mention that (most especially in physics) you cannot have a complete theory without taking into account the origins. Without the Big Bang we wouldn't be able to explain why the background radiation is so uniform, why the universe is seemingly flat (at least the observable universe), why galaxies and stars were able to form as they do instead of it simply being a uniform ball of gas (Quantum Fluctuations early on during inflation), etc, etc, etc.
ALL of those question would have to return to near the moment of creation to explain why. Other examples include Grand Unification (electroweak is the farthest its gotten as of yet and it too relies on the very early universe to explain itself). This is just one of MANY things, like I've said before, that relies on going back then. This requires that we go back in time to explain our CURRENT universe.
Finally, about the quote: Yes, he stated that, however I simply love how he stated historically and philosophically. As, historically, science at one point was dominated by the Church and the Church forced it to state things such as that the Earth was at the center of the universe (this would later become the Milky Way as enforced by Church doctrine until disproven even later on) or that the Earth was flat.
Anywho, on to the quote itself: He NEVER, however, states what he is actually talking about. He never specifies a field nor a discipline, nor a sub division, nor even a broad group. So not only do you have no idea what he is talking about, he could as easily have been talking about modern medicine or biology, or even cell theory as much as he could've been talking about evolution and the such. So the quote doesn't do you much good do to being very vague.
"atheistic science picks and chooses when to lets a speculation past the unfalsifiable criteria."
What atheistic science? You act as if this is all one great conspiracy? Have you forgotten that the VAST majority of scientists in the world in pretty much EVER field is a theist? And that that majority too agrees with them? Science is WHOLLY naturalistic, and it is as such because it learned not to include the metaphysical.
"By attempting to predict the origins of observable phenomenons science makes metaphysical assumptions that are not within its abilities"
No. Because everything in the universe has a PHYSICAL, NATURAL causation. And NO observation has EVER implied anything that even remotely suggests otherwise. Science only uses empirical evidence, down to what happened at the Big Bang.
Ezekiel 23 (KJV) And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity...Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses
the cosmological constant is not a valid theory anymore, it was created to fight gravity in an infinite everlasting universe, when hubble discovered the big bang it was revoked.
Ya gotta love these guys. They come up with a mathematical constant that can be explained in no other way than by intelligent design, and then cannot stand it, so they create out of their vaporous imagination, trillions of parallel universes so that their deity--probabilities--will then make ours the one that worked--a theory that can never be proven. Never mind that the Gambler's Fallacy clearly shows that no two randomly occurring events effect each other.
Actually about 20% (1.1 million) people are non-religious. Counting all religions approx 5 billion people believe in something else than Christianity. Approximately 90% of Christians hardly ever go to church and Atheism is on the rise.
we're designed, there is a designer, who ever denies this is such a retarded, no doubt, a robot needs hundreds of programmers/designers/INTELLIGENT people to be created, although robots aren't able to think, create or love, then how come intelligence race came to existence by chance or w/e u can call that isn't intellegent/aware/desgin...
no wonder atheists make less than 5% of the population of the earth, make sense that they're utterly retarded
021.030 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
would an entertainer not want an audience..life is written in..it evolves toward the creators intelligence via natural selection..then once life reaches a certain "critical intelligence", well from there I don't know..
Hear the crazy thing
Every reasonable person, unless they have daddy issues, love porn, or have some other psychological bias believe we were created...yet these dweebs who spent lunch period with apple sauce in their hair are terrified to entertain there's a God?
Knowing this why does anyone take them serious? They're the OJ Simpson jury and they admit it...so why is any rational reasoning applied to them when a 3rd grader can see there's a God?
Rizzy55 1 week ago
the cosmological constant is soooooo 2012
oh wait..it is 2012
btw the odds 1 in
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
point to a Creator. If logic means anything
Rizzy55 1 week ago
Total bunk.
quidproquo2004 1 month ago
Everything is Everything.
We still exist in duality..
God is Science, God is the creation.
Both creationism and evolution are correct.
cfro251 5 months ago
@cfro251 Language is a funny thing. It was originally invented so that humans could convey meaning to one another. We have done this by inventing vocabulary, and the rules of grammar for combining vocabulary together. However, this has resulted in us having more freedom than is actually necessary for solving the original problem, that of conveying meaning, and it is actually possible to combine words together to create language that is in fact meaningless. Your post demonstrates this nicely.
wowsa0 4 months ago
@wowsa0 Well said. Although language is a great tool (for communication AND control), I believe that humans once possessed the ability to communicate telepathically. We all still have these abilities, just need some work (meditation & cleansing) to activate them. :D
cfro251 4 months ago
@cfro251 Right I'm assuming you're trolling now or did you really not understand that I was insulting you?
wowsa0 4 months ago
@wowsa0 I know you were being insulting. I just don't care.
In my opinion, someone with your intellect should be keen, decisive, and efficient in promoting positivity and development of one's own ideas and experience.
But to each his own, I suppose. :)
cfro251 4 months ago
@cfro251 Well, I'm sorry for coming across as overly negative, but it gets a bit frustrating when every science video is filled with weird comments like 'Everything is everything, we still exist in duality'... What is that even supposed to mean?
wowsa0 4 months ago
@wowsa0 The idea of duality: Even thought process is polarized. People seem to think it has to be science OR religion.
Everything that exists is connected. By the fact that everything IS energy and vibration, and there are NO exceptions, we can understand the connectivity of all things, and begin to integrate both science AND religion into a unified aspect of existence.
cfro251 4 months ago
@cfro251 a last thought to try to make ur desired beliefs a reality. not going to happen
emptybookreader 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wowsa0 The idea of duality: Even thought process is polarized. People seem to think it has to be science OR religion.
Everything that exists is connected. By the fact that everything IS energy and vibration, and there are NO exceptions, we can understand the connectivity of all things, and begin to integrate both science AND religion into a unified aspect of existence.
cfro251 4 months ago
@cfro251 Wrong: creationism is not science.
quidproquo2004 1 month ago
@quidproquo2004 I didn't say creationism WAS science. perhaps read more carefully before speaking :)
cfro251 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cfro251 "Both creationism and evolution are correct."
Whether you're playing a game of semantic or really don't understand my point, it was just that the above statement is non-sense. There is zero evidence for creationism.
quidproquo2004 4 weeks ago
Okay, if the cosmological constant was off by 1 trillionth or however amount, it's true that we likely wouldn't exist, but it's an egotistical way of thinking to think that we're the end result of the universe. If it were off by that tiny degree, some other sentient being would be here in our place, or maybe not, and that would be the way of the universe, that we're only a part of.
Zzyxzaa 7 months ago
Comment removed
astronomer747 7 months ago
@Zzyxzaa No informed scientist would argue that the universe is fine tuned for human life. After all, highly intelligent beings are a very improbable outcome of the evolutionary mechanism. If the history of life had been even slightly different at a number of crucial points, evolution would have taken a different path that would not lead to the development of hominids. Fine tuning is only a necessary condition for human life, not a sufficient one.
astronomer747 7 months ago
Having said that, I think you have underestimated just how deep this fine tuning problem is. Carbon based life of any kind would be impossible if certain constants and initial conditions of the universe had been appreciably different.
astronomer747 7 months ago
To give you an example, if the ratio of the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together to the strength of gravity had been slightly higher, all stars would be blue giants, if slightly lower, all stars would be red dwarfs. Red dwarfs do not explode into supernova, and so there would be no second generation stars to produce oxygen or carbon. On the other hand, blue giants do not have life spans long enough for the evolution of life to occur and may not even have planets.
astronomer747 7 months ago
15 people are atheists.
loordargyle 8 months ago
Pi appears to be infinitely fine tune...
Gplex 9 months ago
من أفضل الصفحات على الإطلااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااااق :
أنشرها بقدر حبك في الله ورسوله وقرآنه وشوقك لجنتة
...وهذة الصفحة لدعوة من على غير الإسلام لدين الإسلام الصحيح وعرض فيديوهات لأشخاص أسلموا ولماذا أسلموا
alshamy2 10 months ago
Comment removed
prototype00000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Awesome! If you don't believe- learn!
IronHorsez88 11 months ago
What is the song at the beginning of this video!? I must know!
okcomputer21 11 months ago
Why is the idea our existence could of happened by chance so unacceptable, sure it is a ridiculously small probability however when there are enough chances for something to happen (e.g the entire universe) its not so strange, plus no one seems to realise even the most unlikely things happen all the time, in a strange way. If there were a probability for the chance of any one of the really low probability things happening in one day it'd be rather high.
snipeors 1 year ago
@snipeors Indeed. This clip is just a tiny part of a documentary and documentary makers try to keep you interested by saying stuff like that. Dr Leonard Susskind is of the chairs of Super String Theory team at the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and if String Theory is true and there really are infinite number of universes then there is a chance no matter how small that conditions would arise for life to evolve and even without infinite universe there still exists a probability.
muzammilali007 1 year ago
@muzammilali007 what documentary? know where i can find it?
supersymbiotic 1 year ago
@supersymbiotic It's the 3'rd episode of a BBC documentary called "What We Still Don't Know" enjoy
watch?v=senjNisW_8c&feature=related
muzammilali007 1 year ago
Comment removed
funnystarchild 8 months ago
You may want to consider some Fire Insurance. It's like this, take the state of Texas and
fill it to a depth of two feet with silver dollars, paint one black blind fold someone and give them one chance to pick it up, that is the equivalent of the odds of random chance of fine tuning, "watch the video" We hold these truth to self apparent .
4JesusRace 1 year ago
I cannot stress enough how important it is for believers in God to get educated. It is one thing to go to Bible study or sunday school and learn scripture, but a whole other thing to finally acknowledge the physical truths that those "evil" text books represent. Even today, after many hours of science in college, there are things that I cannot even begin to explain. Get educated, Christians. Scripture alone will not stand as grounded evidence.
justincurtis101 1 year ago
god isn't real
DestructiveDru 1 year ago
@DestructiveDru you just dont want him to be real. Buddy 1 part in 10^120, you have to throw away your brain not to think God exists
henbenhena 1 year ago
@DestructiveDru MR IDIOT
amrzeitoun 1 year ago
La Elah Ella Allah
D777OM 1 year ago
The problem with science is, they are over stepping there abilities. science should not be about WHERE things came from, but only about HOW and WHY things work the way they do.
Buy doing so science has delved into the metaphysical. and by making the unsubstantiated assumption God does not exist because he is unfalsifiable, they then conclude a natural origin for everything (including abiogenesis) no matter how absurd. so why has science done this?
They are mostly atheists with agendas
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker they start with a circular assumption of naturalism, then try to make theories of existence from naturalism, then believe in it no matter how logically invalid it could be,
SlippPeace 1 year ago
@SlippPeace
Of course you don't need a degree in logic to see the absurdity in developing a theory of methodological naturalism (all observable phenomenons must have a natural origin because God is not falsifiable) based on what is NOT KNOWN.
No other area of science does this except Darwinian evolution.
The problems with falsifiability are glaring. just because something is not falsifiable does not mean its false. its simply means you lack the ability/intellect to devise the test.
toobsucker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
"based on what is NOT KNOWN."
Science NEVER makes presumptions on what it does NOT know.
"No other area of science does this except Darwinian evolution."
And physics. And chemistry. And Quantum Mechanics. And cosmology. And astrophysics. Etc, etc, etc.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"just because something is not falsifiable does not mean its false. its simply means you lack the ability/intellect to devise the test."
No, because something is not falsifiable means that you cannot test it or confirm it. God is truly unfalsifiable. And this is not just by our current scientific understanding, but God himself is stated to invisible until whenever he wishes to be seen and even then he only manifests himself as nature... So no, by definition its impossible.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@SlippPeace
"they start with a circular assumption of naturalism,"
It's not circular. Why do you think this?
You can't explain the supernatural, nor can you prove it. If science is to be credible it cannot include the supernatural. This would mean that the universe is asymmetric and that all science is fundamentally flawed and falls apart on the large scale. In other words, science would be useless and all its applications would fail.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@SlippPeace
"then try to make theories of existence from naturalism,"
Yes, and:
a) we have plenty of proof for it
b) EVERYTHING else life undergoes is wholly naturalistic, it's a logical step
"then believe in it no matter how logically invalid it could be,"
Name one. Just ONE such theory that has no evidential backing for it. Just ONE. Science does not HAVE to be logical, read up on Quantum Mechanics.
Science doesn't require LOGIC, it requires EVIDENCE.
tskasa1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SlippPeace shut up fag
Vsboy25petmonkey 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"The problem with science is, they are over stepping there abilities."
No, it's not.
"science should not be about WHERE things came from, but only about HOW and WHY things work the way they do."
Actually the Where IS important. To fully understand a phenomena we must understand the where, how, and why. Science's job is complete and utter understanding of any and ALL problems that it challenges, anything less is not complete.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "Science's job is complete and utter understanding of any and ALL problems that it challenges"
LOL... yikes.. science does not even know whats in our own solar system. yet its job is supposed to give complete and utter understanding?
Science does not agree with you. look up the speech by Professor Michael Ruse Saturday, February 13, 1993
He agrees the origins of observable phenomenons is based in what is currently know as the "metaphysical" or unknown and unknowns can NOT be theories
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"He agrees the origins of observable phenomenons is based in what is currently know as the "metaphysical" or unknown and unknowns can NOT be theories"
Yes. Then again, science has yet to make any supported predictions about the origin of the universe. Even the Big Bang is not a story universal creation. The Big Bang ONLY picks up AFTER (a TINY fraction of a second after) the universe was created. Nobody knows how it was created...yet....
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "Yes. Then again, science has yet to make any supported predictions about the origin of the universe. Even the Big Bang is not a story universal creation. The Big Bang ONLY picks up AFTER (a TINY fraction of a second after) the universe was created. Nobody knows how it was created.yet.."
This is why science needs to keep its nose OUT of the origins of observable phenomenons and stick to what science is supposed to do. that is explaining WHY and HOW things work the way they do
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"This is why science needs to keep its nose OUT of the origins of observable phenomenons and stick to what science is supposed to do."
No, just no. I never even IMPLIED that. I said that we don't know the answer YET. That does NOT mean that you give up. That would have been the same as giving up when we failed to break the soundbarrier. Science strives for COMPLETE theories of the universe, and that INCLUDES origins. And that is something many of us would appreciate knowing.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"Buy doing so science has delved into the metaphysical."
A few hundred years ago the formation of planets, rising of life, and many other things were considered metaphysical. It's not the metaphysical, it's just something we can't understand YET. That doesn't mean you give up on it. If it were like that then we would have stayed with a flat Earth forever, but those mavericks (scientists) who just hate to go with the flow protested and proved it wrong.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker ANYTHING can be misunderstood as the metaphysical until explained properly by science.
"by making the unsubstantiated assumption God does not exist because he is unfalsifiable,"
Because if you have absolutely NO proof for something, HOW is it scientifically acceptable?! It isn't! Science HAS to be falsifiable, or else there is no point in it at all. If it's not falsifiable then you can't prove or disprove it.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "Because if you have absolutely NO proof for something, HOW is it scientifically acceptable?"
You do not know science. dark energy has no direct evidence but is assumed from gravitational forces.
The string theory and multiverse have no direct evidence and are NOT falsifiable but yet are accepted by most of science
Falsifiability is seriously flawed. because something is not falsifiable does not mean its false. it could be 100% true only you lack the ability to devise the test
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"dark energy has no direct evidence but is assumed from gravitational forces."
Wrong again. Dark Energy (a term used to refer to the Cosmological Constant) is simply a very vague term used to refer to what is driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. We KNOW that there is Dark Energy, because spacetime itself is expanding at an accelerating rate, but we don't (as of yet) know exactly what kind of particle it is, nor do we claim to. We just know what its result is.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "dark energy has no direct evidence but is assumed from gravitational forces." Wrong again""
You have no idea what your talking about
"In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy"
"Dark matter fills the universe, and exerts a gravitational pull on the "normal" matter, like stars and planets, around it. Yet it produces no detectable form of energy – no light, heat, radio waves, or anything else......"
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"You have no idea what your talking about"
Oh the irony! I actually do...
Dark Matter (aka, the more general term for the Cosmological Constant) is something we KNOW exist. ALL that Dark Energy is, is a source of negative pressure that causes an anti-gravitational force (positive pressure, such as what is in matter/energy causes attraction, "exotic" matter/energy would cause negative pressure (and this is just one of many theories to explain it)).
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
So not only do we know its there, we even have possible explanations for it. And while there is SOME dispute about it in the world of physics, it is relatively tiny, with WELL over 90% of physicists agreeing that Dark Energy exists and does what it is predicted to do. And, just so you know, those were only two of many possible explanations....
Oh, and, also interesting to note, Dark Energy actually fits perfectly within equations of the necessities for a flat universe...
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"The string theory"
Wrong again. String Theory is referred to as promising with many physicists seeing it as a possible answer. Seeing as String Theory is STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT I REALLY doubt that it is as you say.
Some parts of String Theory are widely accepted, however, they have proof. But as a whole, no. At least not yet.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 ""The string theory"
Wrong again. String Theory is referred to as promising with many physicists seeing it as a possible answer. Seeing as String Theory is STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT I REALLY doubt that it is as you say"
There is ZERO empirical evidence of other dimensions. atheistic science picks and chooses when to lets a speculation past the unfalsifiable criteria.
Google "discover magazine multiverse sciences alternative to an intelligent designer"
The multiverse is unfalsifiable
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"There is ZERO empirical evidence of other dimensions."
Yes, there is zero evidence...CURRENTLY. Which is why string theory is not being held up as the answer all to many questions that it DOES answer. In fact, the detection of other dimensions is part of the reason that the LHC. Even if we cannot directly observe these said dimensions we CAN, however, indirectly observe it through interactions. So yes, the multiverse IS falsifiable. And the LHC is going to test it.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"The multiverse is unfalsifiable"
Wrong, it actually is. Explanation why upcoming.
"There is ZERO empirical evidence of other dimensions."
Which I know. Why do you think I stated that it is still under development. And you know what, that is why String Theory is still under development and not held as the answer all. Physicists, however, DO see a strong future for it with the current proof and we expect to find more soon.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"There is ZERO empirical evidence of other dimensions."
Anywho, we can't directly observe higher dimensions, as we are only 3 dimensional creatures. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean we can't detect it. Like much in science you don't always have to observe something DIRECTLY, you can also do so INDIRECTLY. And, in fact, this is one of the reasons the LHC was built and one of the main experiments. Higher dimensions would interact with particles in a way we can notice, hence de LHC.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"Falsifiability is seriously flawed. because something is not falsifiable does not mean its false. it could be 100% true only you lack the ability to devise the test "
No, because something is not falsifiable you cannot ascertain whether it IS right or false. Unfalsifiability is the state of being unable to test something in a decisive matter. Which by definition, you cannot do with the supernatural.
tskasa1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 "No, because something is not falsifiable you cannot ascertain whether it IS right or false. Unfalsifiability is the state of being unable to test something in a decisive matter. Which by definition, you cannot do with the supernatural."
That does NOT address my point.
Can something be unfalsifiable and also be TRUE. YES NO?
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"Can something be unfalsifiable and also be TRUE. YES/NO?"
No, you can't. Falsifiability is the same as saying is something testable/provable. If something IS real then you would be able to test it to confirm as such. And as far as I am aware there are NO exceptions.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"they then conclude a natural origin for everything"
Because science is ENTIRELY naturalistic. That is the very nature of science. Once you allow the supernatural into science it decomposes, falls apart, and nothing is certain anymore.
Nearly EVERY single scientific hypothesis or theory based on religion that has existed has been debunked repeatedly by science.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 Your statements are contradictory 1 "Once you allow the supernatural into science it decomposes, falls apart, and nothing is certain anymore."
2 "ANYTHING can be misunderstood as the metaphysical until explained properly by science."
I agree with statement 2. there is NOTHING metaphysical (super natural) only what we do not understand. which makes statement 1 invalid. since nothing is TRULY supernatural i.e. a Godlike intellect. there is no rational reason to discount it
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
No, I don't contradict myself. I was stating that the metaphysical has no place in science. God by definition is the metaphysical. By his own word, this almighty being is impossible to detect. The notion of God is postulated by the notion of faith which is belief in something which you cannot either prove or disprove. Ergo, God is the supernatural.
My second statement explains itself.
Even if there WERE a God, its origins would still have to be naturalistic.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "No, I don't contradict myself...God by definition is the metaphysical....Even if there WERE a God, its origins would still have to be naturalistic."
Metaphysical: The word derives from the Greek words (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical"
Metaphysical: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
You contradict yourself over and over again
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
Moving on (about Dark Energy), we know that it exists as we observe its repulsive effects around us every day. This force is what drives the constantly accelerating expansion of the universe.
And while it IS invisible to electromagnetic radiation, that does not make it undetectable/unfalsifiable. We can detect it by the way it interacts with the universe around it (which is what we also do for Dark Matter, Black Holes, etc).
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
Continuing about Dark Matter:
Dark Matter could be one of many things. It could be an "ocean" of "exotic" particles (exotic because they are unlike any kind of normal matter we see, as it causes negative pressure instead of positive pressure) that uniformly covers the universe. On the other hand, however, it could be a type of manifestation of the Higgs Field (Higgs Ocean, actually) as there are certain ways in which a Higgs Field can be made to produce NEGATIVE gravity.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"You contradict yourself over and over again"
No, I haven't. I fail to see where this contradiction is. Point it out to me. I was stating that God, BY DEFINITION, IS metaphysical. Your definition itself says what I was stating. Something that is above what is perceptible to the senses or its detection (either direct or indirect). So your point is??
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "Nearly EVERY single scientific hypothesis or theory based on religion that has existed has been debunked repeatedly by science. "
Man your clueless. JUNK DNA was predicted by ALL creationists to not be junk many years before evolutionary science predicted the opposite.
ERVs were predicted by creationists to be valid regulators YEARS before the facts came out that ERVs regulate over 20% of our genome
Just Google Darwin's failed predictions and learn the truth.
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"including abiogenesis"
Which is possible and has been shown to at least be partially possible.
"no matter how absurd. so why has science done this?"
Because we have proof that it did and does.
"They are mostly atheists with agendas"
Lolwut? The vast majority of scientists the world round are Christians. And then Muslims and Hindus. Atheists are actually a relative minority in science, and the same goes for Philosophy and atheists.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 You really have no idea what your talking about when it comes to the evidence of abiogenesis
The cells random "self assembly" has astronomical problems. only one of which is the Chicken & Egg problem
DNA information requires a complex decoding machine, the ribosome, but the instructions to build ribosomes are on the DNA, DNA needs enzymes to replicate, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA. DNA needs protection provided by the cell wall, but the cell wall is also encoded by the DNA.
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"abiogenesis The cells random "self assembly" has astronomical problems. "
And yet its surprisingly that not that random. Abiogenesis does not say that life jumps out of nothing but that it slowly progresses from standard chemicals up to very simple life. And it's not even amino acids to life. After making amino acids there are several other steps all of which CAN self assemble, but would take a very long time to do so. There's a reason life didn't exist for a billion years...
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "Abiogenesis does not say that life jumps out of nothing but that it slowly progresses from standard chemicals up to very simple life."
Of course thats what abiogenesis predicts. however the facts of chemical evolution contradict the speculation
Watch Chemist Charles Thaxton on youtube. he tells you the TRUTH of the matter. all experiments for abiogenesis are done in VERY SMALL STEPS and KEPT AWAY from other chemicals.otherwise you have cross reactions that destroy the bonds
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"all experiments for abiogenesis are done in VERY SMALL STEPS"
Because it happens in VERY SMALL, SLOW STEPS. So yes, it makes PERFECT sense. It didn't happen over night or even a year.
"and KEPT AWAY from other chemicals"
You mean like oxygen? Which we know was very low to near none in the early earth due to studies we have done on Ore deposits that tell us what it was like back then in the atmosphere. So we only include the elements that we know where there.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"however the facts of chemical evolution contradict the speculation"
Which chemical evolution? The one that states that chemicals evolved through stellar/solar processes? Because that would in no way, shape, or form disprove it. So please expand on your argument.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 Respond to this video..."Lolwut? The vast majority of scientists the world round are Christians. And then Muslims and Hindus. Atheists are actually a relative minority in science"
Another error in your belief system you need to change. how is it an "informed" evolutionists does not know the facts. I thought ALL evolutionists knew this. I know all atheists know this.
Per capita there are more atheists in science than ANY other field. just Google "Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"Per capita there are more atheists in science than ANY other field."
I never said that. I said that the majority of SCIENTISTS WEREN'T ATHEISTS, not the other way around.
Yes, there are more atheists scientists than there are atheists anything else because atheists are attracted to science more some than say philosophy. This is mainly because science can answer the religions for us that religion can't. However, atheists are a minority in the scientific world.
tskasa1 1 year ago
change the constant and man (made of atoms from supernova could not have arisen and evolved). Meanwhile neglect that some other form of what could be called life (because it replicates and evolves, not because it's made of atoms) is having difficulty explain the fine tuning of their own universe.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we proved God is exist , now , will you obey the laws ? i dont think so
salasmomonicesalas 1 year ago
we proved God is exist , now , will you obey the laws ? i dont think so
salasmomonicesalas 1 year ago
we proved God is exist , now , will you obey the laws ? i dont think so
salasmomonicesalas 1 year ago
It is VERY irresponsible of a tv network to present such biased ideas as science.A constant being "finely tuned" ?! and why pervert the concept of a natural law into an excuse for superstition ?
This is precisely the reason why science is not a democracy: the human mind is too conceited to accept being merely part of the universe.
igoronline 2 years ago
lol its called they study it .......... they can tell get ur dick out of religion bitch
clintmak67 2 years ago
While their could be a cosmic consciousness (God) that does not by any streach mean that it MUST be the xtian, muslim, or jewish god!
In fact there is nothing that says it would have to be any of the god things that any human has ever conceived of!
PastorIblis 2 years ago
an athiest that dont believe in god, and he always fight the believers and saying that theres no god, and now hes recognized in this video that the universe is designed by the creator,,
i just feel sorry for them !!
love187punk 2 years ago
@love187punk you feel sorry for intelligent scientists who would never consider your holy trinity made earth in 6 days you stupid fucking religious doosh
ko3madara 1 year ago
wtf ?
love187punk 1 year ago
why are they always saying how scientists don't want, or practically refuse, to believe in god or a designer? there are plenty of very famous scientists who do or did believe in god, einstein being just one, newton another. The views of some of these scientists might not conform to certain established religions, but nevertheless they were not atheists.
colorconnection 2 years ago
Francis S. Collins would be the best example.
miniontemple 2 years ago
@colorconnection how do you know they believed in zeus or posiedon or jesus or buddha just cause they said they did doesnt mean anything idiot
ko3madara 1 year ago
God/Allah created the universe as they said in the video the design requieres a designer
it's such a perfect world, can't be done randomly, just think abt it, if u throw 5pails containig 5 different colors in each one over a wall, you'll get a randomly shaped stuff, organization can never be the result of arbitrariness!! just think about it
metallic1slim 2 years ago 2
But how do you know the universe was meant to be designed this way and no other way? Assuming it could have existed differently, you can still make the argument it was meant to be designed that particular way and not another. The design argument is circular in that it assumes the universe was designed this way, when in fact that's what it's supposed to be proving. It only seems perfect because you set this universe as the standard.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
U dont have to know everything, there is some truth that only god/Allah knows!!
did u know that bees cant fly according to physics? however we all know that bees do fly!! how? only God knows. in the Quran there is a verse that explains how the foetus develops in the woman's womb!! and the Quran as you probably know is a 14 centuries old book!! there are some striking truths in the Quran!
777Skeptic>>Thank you for arguing without insults, VERY RARE ON YOUTUBE!! :'(
metallic1slim 2 years ago
They worked out how bees fly, they don't fly in the same way birds fly. I am not arguing that the holy books do not contain great truths, but they also contain great lies. I think many clever people contributed to those books but did not fully understand the reasons and so added the stuff about god in.
adisize 2 years ago
That completely deviates from your original point.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
how come?
my original point is suggesting that there is a creator!
evidences from the Holy book is a reinforcement to this suggestion, the holy book was sent by God and it contains truths that scientists could not solve until the 20th century and many other truths are still unsolved!
metallic1slim 2 years ago
You were originally arguing that organization can never be a result of "arbitrariness," which I'm sure you meant randomness. After my rebuttal, your new post didn't in any way try to defend your argument, instead you talk about how we can't know everything and flying bees and fetuses.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
yes randomness, that's what i meant!
when i said that organization can never be the result of randomness, i was alluding to the existence of a creator/designer AKA GOD!
so the existence of God is the core of my argument.
the examples I gave from the Holy Book are to show that there is a divine power that rules the world, and the scientific truths that are in the Book are proofs of God existence, because they were told 14 centuries ago! how can illiterate people come up with such knowledge?
metallic1slim 2 years ago
I posted my reply about 20 times, but it's not showing up on YouTube.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
Ok, I think YouTube is working now.
In a debate, you'd be called out on goalpost shifting (changing your argument instead of defending the original). My rebuttal still stands. You have yet to address my counter-arguments. It's right below the your first post. Don't expect people to address your new arguments if you don't come back to defend your original ones.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
I know that the universe was meant to be this way because there are many clues, indications and signs in the Book that tell so!
metallic1slim 2 years ago
The bible doesn't count as evidence, and the bible assumes there is a designer when in fact that's what you're supposed to be proving. It's circular logic again.
Also, if the universe existed differently, you could still argue it wasn't meant to be designed that particular way. So the design argument actually tells us nothing new about the universe.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
well actually i was referring to Quran by the Holy Book, I am Muslim, I believe in Jesus too but as a messenger not a God and i also believe that the Bible is corrupted, it has been modified to serve certain people's needs, in the Quran there is a proof that the Earth is rounded.
and in Sura''chapter" 36 aya "verse"40 u can find: It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit!!
this is just one example
metallic1slim 2 years ago
@metallic1slim Yes, of course organization cannot result out of randomness...if it is the only example. Just as we cannot disprove the existence of your supernatural deity watching over all of, we cannot (as of yet) disprove that other universes exist too. When a trillion^(n) other universes exist with different cosmological constants, then it becomes very possible for one with our tuning to arise. We just only know of this because we're in it but there is evidence to suggest to others.
DamienZshadow 1 year ago
Comment removed
mas3ary 2 years ago
islam islam islam islam islam
all of that are in quran
the last religon from allah (god)
is isssssssslaaaaaaaaam
mas3ary 2 years ago
Assuming the universe could exist differently with different physical constants, why assume this universe had premeditated design? It could just have existed any other way and you could still argue it was meant to be designed THAT particular way because you ended with with THAT universe and not THIS one.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
Many theoretical physicists these days in fact go by the theorie that there may be multiverses. In fact the big-bang simply put could have been caused by the collision of two other universes. All very exiting but unclear where that theorie is going but at least mathematically there seems to be a lot of promise in it.
kleykenb 2 years ago
Even without the multiverse theory, there still isn't any reason to assume the universe was meant to be designed this particular way.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
You're right, of course.
They could have used any constant really... e.g. Pi And Pi has the added bonus of being infinitely long and therefor no human (AHA!) will ever be able to write down the whole sequence. Spooky :-D
But then, no human will ever be able to kiss his own ass either... this surely must be design too, just so we can only kiss His ass ;-)
kleykenb 2 years ago
if ppl say all the whole world created by a explosion ......
ok but he quistion is ..... this explosion needs a power to make it happend !
who made this power and from where it came ?? another power ? ok wt makes this another power ??
it's all start from zero point that is no thing was there , so it means there is a god who made all that and the life can't be so easly like 50 -70 years for human
it can't end so simple ....
there is another life ! . who said life is simple ? it's NOT
snake96300000000 2 years ago
if ppl say all the world created by a god ....
ok but the quistion is ... this god needs a power to make it happend !
who made this god and from where it came ?? another god ? ok wt makes this another god ??
............. See what I'm getting at here ? .................
kleykenb 2 years ago
dude what do u think when u hear the word GOD ?
man .. god is a infinit power no one made god . God is the whole world because god made it not by an explosion or something but made it by his power
god's propertise is that: 1- has no son or family like human 2- infinite power (can make ANY thing ) 3- he is who make destiny (destiny is any thing happend and you didnt do it in perpuse so u cant say it's my destiny is to kill that guys but its HIS destiny that he got killed by you )
snake96300000000 2 years ago
erhm.. so god did not exist but still god created god ?! By infiinite power ?! And he makes destiny but still things go wrong ?! Odd fellow. This god.
Maybe he can also get an A+ on a scientific exam by answering "God" to all the questions then.
Cause one thing IS clear : if he could pull that off he really would have performed a miracle !
kleykenb 2 years ago
=]... sorry but all wt you wrote is full of nonsence and stupid quistions :S.
nothing was befor god yah god created him self by his power . about destiny
god created people and let them do wt every they want becasue god wanna see them what are they gona do if no one stopes them . when u ask why god let ppl do bad things and he can stop them , i'll tell u its because he is testing them to see who's good and bad . WHY there is heven and hell then ?? . and about the A+ thingy i wont answer it
snake96300000000 2 years ago
dude the whole thing is god made ppl to test them to know who deservies the heven and who deserves the hell .plaese dont ask me that stuped quistion > dont he have infinite power ?? so he can know who deservise heven and hell .
wanna know the real thing ?
read Islam !
becasue islam is the only relegion in the world wich belives in god in the right way . why ? because the human didnt make changes in it so it's 100% godness relegion.the only real relegions are islam christanian and joiush
snake96300000000 2 years ago
man last thing . we're not fighting here
all what i wanna say is that issue got 2 stages. stage 1 - is beliving in god
stage 2- is how to belive in god ( the way we belive in him ) .
about stage 1 the percentage of hard is NONE because the humn mind cant accept that explosion lucky thingy.
i just say islam is the best way because it asys god has no family and that fits with god's prevlegies
but in christanian how come they say the sentence ( the son of god ) OMG!!!
snake96300000000 2 years ago 2
the sentence son of god means he got a wife lol and might get a doughter too ?
omg .. it means god a human then --,,--.
thats y i say islam is better .
and about the quiran we read , it's a book contains the words the god said it not a words written by human like in bible .
and if wanna ask me how come we're sure if its not written by human , i just tell you that quiran said things will happn and it does hapend ! all of them happend except one , that is the JDGMENT DAY!(THE MOMENT OF TRTH)
snake96300000000 2 years ago
You get an F- , young man.
Now go and live your life a lie.
kleykenb 2 years ago
is that anglish ?
didnt understand but i guess you meant fuck off .
lol it's ok u get your ending life now and i'll get my lasting life later
snake96300000000 2 years ago
Where knowledge ends, religion beings. The Greeks couldn't explain thunder so they made up a god to explain it. History seems to repeat itself.
This argument is deceptive in that you define "god" as the thing that caused the universe, when there are obvious religious connotations that follow.
777Skeptic 2 years ago
please someone translate this in arabic
SakuraXnight 2 years ago
Thank you nice video
Mohanad53 2 years ago
trilion trilion trilion trilion trilion trilion trilion trilion trilion trilion
eldeebhider7 2 years ago
When Atheists come to a dead end, they say *We came from trilions of trilions of trilions of years of mutation!!!* LOL
It is a psychological problem.
VelVet120 2 years ago
Guys, don't say trillion trillion just say 1 in 10^121, note 1 in 10^50 is considered impossible in probability. =D
Lol, ATheists hide in fear when they see this, some even say theres no such thing and call Einstein a retard. LOL! funny huh guys.
ogirv101 3 years ago
if ur an astrophysicist.. u should know
the quaran is quite a cosmology book
if u read it u can see alot.. the only thing that is incorrect about it is the belief
ChillC 3 years ago
trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion TRILLION
ChillC 3 years ago
Why couldn't the cosmological constant and other constants, like the fine structure constant, have evolved by random selection? What works, persists. What doesn't is discarded. Evolution doesn't necessarily deny the existence of God or creator.
plbeale 3 years ago
Lets say you spill a glass a water keeping all other values (gravity, etc) constant and even; if you spilled it a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, ONE of those times you'd get a specific pattern that we assign value to for whatever reason. But the water pattern itself is just mindless matter, and there's no reason for it 'evolve' from one pattern to another; it just spills and that's that.
MisterBusta 3 years ago
If you believe science precludes the existence of a designer or some other force that suggests sentient life has a special relationship with and power over nature, check out some of the Quantum theory vids here on Youtube. Look at light experiments that yield one result when they aren't observed, and a completely different result when they are observed, and you'll see a strong suggestion that thought itself effects physics. It doesn't say there's a God, but it does suggest we know nothing yet.
cormyat07 3 years ago 2
@cormyat07
This is true, very true. And this is why scientists exist. We know only a TINY, TINY, TINY percent of what there is to know about the universe. And it is NOT our job to simply give up and say "God did it, problem solved" it is our job to keep delving into it and researching into it. To do as such would be nothing short of a CRIME to society and humanity.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "And it is NOT our job to simply give up and say "God did it, problem solved"
Its not the job of science to predict origins of observable phenomenons. science has stepped out of its abilities by doing so.
Science is only about WHY observable phenomenons work the way they do and HOW observable phenomenons work the way they do.
By attempting to predict the origins of observable phenomenons science makes metaphysical assumptions that are not within its abilities
toobsucker 1 year ago
@toobsucker
"Its not the job of science to predict origins of observable phenomenons. "
Yes.
"science has stepped out of its abilities by doing so."
How so? As far as I know, it hasn't.
"Science is only about WHY observable phenomenons work the way they do and HOW observable phenomenons work the way they do."
And to know truly how and why you must know where they come from and why it happened.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "And to know truly how and why you must know where they come from and why it happened."
Incorrect. I do not need to know WHERE a car was made in order to explain HOW AND WHY it functions the way it does Michael Ruse agrees in a speech " Professor Michael Ruse Saturday, February 13, 1993"
"I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science"
toobsucker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
"Incorrect. I do not need to know WHERE a car was made in order to explain HOW AND WHY it functions"
Are you comparing a car to elementary physics or Cosmology? Seriously? Especially since both fields rely on what happened before to explain what happens now.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
Not to mention that (most especially in physics) you cannot have a complete theory without taking into account the origins. Without the Big Bang we wouldn't be able to explain why the background radiation is so uniform, why the universe is seemingly flat (at least the observable universe), why galaxies and stars were able to form as they do instead of it simply being a uniform ball of gas (Quantum Fluctuations early on during inflation), etc, etc, etc.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
ALL of those question would have to return to near the moment of creation to explain why. Other examples include Grand Unification (electroweak is the farthest its gotten as of yet and it too relies on the very early universe to explain itself). This is just one of MANY things, like I've said before, that relies on going back then. This requires that we go back in time to explain our CURRENT universe.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
Finally, about the quote: Yes, he stated that, however I simply love how he stated historically and philosophically. As, historically, science at one point was dominated by the Church and the Church forced it to state things such as that the Earth was at the center of the universe (this would later become the Milky Way as enforced by Church doctrine until disproven even later on) or that the Earth was flat.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
Anywho, on to the quote itself: He NEVER, however, states what he is actually talking about. He never specifies a field nor a discipline, nor a sub division, nor even a broad group. So not only do you have no idea what he is talking about, he could as easily have been talking about modern medicine or biology, or even cell theory as much as he could've been talking about evolution and the such. So the quote doesn't do you much good do to being very vague.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@toobsucker
Oh, I almost forgot about this comment:
"atheistic science picks and chooses when to lets a speculation past the unfalsifiable criteria."
What atheistic science? You act as if this is all one great conspiracy? Have you forgotten that the VAST majority of scientists in the world in pretty much EVER field is a theist? And that that majority too agrees with them? Science is WHOLLY naturalistic, and it is as such because it learned not to include the metaphysical.
tskasa1 1 year ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 I have 17 responses from you in my email. I dont have much time right now and will attempt to answer them all in I.M. next week
toobsucker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
"By attempting to predict the origins of observable phenomenons science makes metaphysical assumptions that are not within its abilities"
No. Because everything in the universe has a PHYSICAL, NATURAL causation. And NO observation has EVER implied anything that even remotely suggests otherwise. Science only uses empirical evidence, down to what happened at the Big Bang.
tskasa1 1 year ago
Ezekiel 23 (KJV) And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity...Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses
SAY AMEN
1MoreMuslim 3 years ago
the cosmological constant is not a valid theory anymore, it was created to fight gravity in an infinite everlasting universe, when hubble discovered the big bang it was revoked.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 4 years ago
it's a good thing God can do math.
SnowConeStudios 4 years ago
Ya gotta love these guys. They come up with a mathematical constant that can be explained in no other way than by intelligent design, and then cannot stand it, so they create out of their vaporous imagination, trillions of parallel universes so that their deity--probabilities--will then make ours the one that worked--a theory that can never be proven. Never mind that the Gambler's Fallacy clearly shows that no two randomly occurring events effect each other.
And they say OUR God is imaginary!
gabrielet 4 years ago
A theory that can never be proven? Have you ever heard of religion? That's a theory which completely lacks falsifiability. Parallel universes do not.
End of.
Saturdog 3 years ago
Actually about 20% (1.1 million) people are non-religious. Counting all religions approx 5 billion people believe in something else than Christianity. Approximately 90% of Christians hardly ever go to church and Atheism is on the rise.
kleykenb 2 years ago
we're designed, there is a designer, who ever denies this is such a retarded, no doubt, a robot needs hundreds of programmers/designers/INTELLIGENT people to be created, although robots aren't able to think, create or love, then how come intelligence race came to existence by chance or w/e u can call that isn't intellegent/aware/desgin...
no wonder atheists make less than 5% of the population of the earth, make sense that they're utterly retarded
ahmedig0 4 years ago
021.030 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
Al-Qur'an, 021.030
nmarouene 4 years ago 2
Leonard Susskind is an atheist. The quotes must be drastically out of context.
ImagineAZ 4 years ago
Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, or is it Sir Martin Rees. he`s clever :P
peteq1972 4 years ago
What documentary is this off? I have seen it before and I am trying to find it.
lucaskelly11 4 years ago
Found it.
lucaskelly11 4 years ago
I find it funny that so many people(From the video and comments) can be so open minded and knowledgable and still be closeminded and ignorant.
Oooo... a buncha decimal places. Its realy realy precise... Precise compared to what? Relative relative relative!!!
There might be an entire universe deep inside every cell in your body. Which would make all those decimal places very, very, incredibly UNprecise.
sheesh... These people are scientist! Humanity is doomed.
SwaeOcean 4 years ago
i think u did not understood this video, we are talking about fraction (%) , and the percentage is already relative. your brain is doomed.
nmarouene 4 years ago
If you want to know what the universe looks like, look at a yin-yang symbol. We are in the black side.
6thCreated 4 years ago
Another Link to Islam!!
Alhamdoe-Lillah
abcfarid 4 years ago
Here we again with the ID camp. If we can't explain it...it's got to be god.
LifeonEuropa 5 years ago
"Chance"...what a joke!
Steadno 5 years ago
would an entertainer not want an audience..life is written in..it evolves toward the creators intelligence via natural selection..then once life reaches a certain "critical intelligence", well from there I don't know..
johnsmdm 5 years ago
The universe is God ITtself.
markdask 5 years ago
This is assumption and it is a thin veiled ID argument.
We are not central to the