Totally bull shit proportions on the timeline... I wonder how many theories and scientific research studies you didn't use to draw up that contrived piece of fecal waste.
You seriously call my rebuttal sophomoric for calling you out on your non use of factual evidence while claiming to disprove peoples beliefs with science?
Science is deriving fact out of testing logic. As I recall, logic is something you claim to have... Now tell me, how is contriving a randomly proportioned timeline out of the emptiness of your head and leading your "logical" explanations with the term "I think......." anything close to Scientific proof?
It was only sophomoric for calling it fecal waste. Logic involved a conclusion following a premise. A logical proof still counts as evidence. If you disagree you're an empiricist. Which is fine, but there's more to the universe than what you can see and feel.
What I don't understand is the idea that science will have a plausible, evidence-based explanation for what ultimately cannot be studied. For ex, anything involving the Big Bang can only be studied and calculated after the fact, with no way to test or replicate any aspect of the event. Anything prior to that falls into the same category, and Stephen Hawkins' attempt to nullify God from the equation is laughable. Science can't explain it, but it's not a fallacy to say, it will eventually!
The one thing that atheists forget, is, for example: Everything in the universe is contingent until we go all the way back to the big bang. The big bang obviously contained "intelligent information". So intelligent, in fact, as to allow life on earth. The big bang contained "information". Where did this info come from? Was it just sitting in space for eternity @ "infinite density" and then some Tuesday afternoon 13 billion yrs ago just exploded by itself? Science will make excuses to deny God
Simply not having yet scientifically discovered how the universe was formed does not make it "unknowable." When we didn't know the shape of the earth it wasn't unknowable we simply hadn't discovered it yet. Also if we could discover how a god/allah/tom cruise created the universe there would no longer be faith, a cornerstone of Abrahamic/tom cruisic religions.
why do social psychiatrists demean themselves? Their practical relevance is clearly well demonstrated when u look into vids of this sort. The argument for or against God is rarely ever the issue, it's about how the Illuminati can malign people on account of their psychopathies and lack of economic harmony with the rest of their world environment.
You fucking long haired moron. God explained the big bang to us hundreds of years ago. He also told us about the orbits, how everything was once dust, go back to school and read the holly books, or even study stephen hawking. Ignorant twat.
I don't understand this video. If you conclude with evidence that things exist because of certain natural processes that take place, why insert a God behind the scenes.
if God made the universe so that it appears he had no work in it and hides behind the natural processes that take place, wouldn't that seems a little deceptive?
People use unexplainable events as proof of God. if everything was explainable it would render God useless. The smaller the gaps get, the smaller God becomes.
You have no idea what the god-of-the-gaps means. This is a saying that, when religious people cant explain something they can only say "god did it". Atheists say "we dont know". So the god-of-the-gaps is just a religious persons way of saying "i dont know", but with some kind of delusional arrogance thinking that they have all the answers. Kind of pathetic don't you think?
In other words, there is NO scientific evidence you would ever accept that would show you that belief in god ismpetely unnecessar, as you think however we discover the universe came about, "that's just how God did it".
...It's not god of the Gaps, but it is stubbornness. Tell me, what's the difference between you saying that, and those who believe in Zeus completely understanding how lightning forms, and going, "Yup, that's just how Zeus does it."?
Agreed. God of the Gaps: Run a pencil line across a sheet of paper. The lead we'll call God; the beginning of the line, the beginning of the Universe as we know it - the end of the line, the end of the Universe. Then, in ink draw over the pencil line where science has figured it out. What is in the spaces between the ink/science? Pencil/God. For believers, yes, God is indeed in the gaps - BUT - He is also, beneath the science. God is in the gaps, but the gaps are in the science.
@RusconiDom Very good retort, it provided no counterarguments and instead attempted a weak ad hominem fallacy directed at my age and apparent "inferiority" rather than addressing the fact that your obvious anger through the use of the words fwak and attacking of 5thWatcher in general proves that 5thWatcher made points which jeopardized your current views and so you felt the need to lash out to hold onto said naive point of view.
@RusconiDom Wow, such anger seems unwarranted from a person who hasn't been affected by this video. Why don't you "just let go" and admit that yet another of athiesm's great arguments has been disproved.
The atheists grasp primarily on the Aristotelian view of the Prime Mover - that God is necessary to explain the origins of the universe, or the fact that there is one. After science provided naturalistic explanations, overturning as is hoped, the necessity of the God hypothesis,theism was decided to be just a superstitious alternative to a properly scientific explanation. This argument not only misconstrues Aristotle's logic, but the nature of science - which does NOT explain everything..
@thethikboy I hate people who hide behind a mist of philosophical bullshit. For people who don't understand his arguement it can be sumed upas follows-athiests misrepresent theists by saying that science proves everything and that thiests are just superstitious. For a simple retort simply say no one said science proves everything we just find the proof for god to be lacking.
@mindlymindful You are using the word philosophical and bullshit interchangeably which is ...well bullshit.
These are whether you like it or not philosophical arguments NOT scientific ones. Science doesn't or shouldn't be interested in metaphysical problems like the origin of matter. Matter is BTW a philsophical concept - scientific descriptions of it reduce to mathematical formulas. Everything depends on understanding the limits of empirical science.
@thethikboy dude did you real really not understand my arguement? alright I'll compensate by tpeing slowly and dumbing it down. Athiests never said that science proves everything. (<-read this repeatedly). The atheistic view point is simply "I don't belive in god". It is not saying that science proves anything. (written twice for full effect)
@mindlymindful You ranted about philosophy - hardly an argument. Now you're making a point defending atheism by defining it. I know what atheism is. It's usual and only defense is taken from a (claimed) scientific one - that God's existence is not provable by science - the origins of the universe can be explained without him. That presumes that God's existence is a scientific theory - or that science is interested in refuting such metaphysical beliefs. Both assumptions are false.
@5thWatcher Dude this doesn't disprove anything. What you're saying is an irrefutable hypothiesis it's the same as saying that little blue men in an alternate demension control the universe. And that whole thing about the "process" being god is pointless. Why even call it god if it's natrual?
@Londron Wow, apparently I didn't link tot the first video. I have now created said link as an annotation in this video. It basically goes into more detail about what I think about the argument and why God doesn't have to be an ever shrinking God.
@5thWatcher by getting knowledge of the universe we get knowledge of god? If that is the case, what makes god divine? Everything god is able to do would be things that human beings also will be able to do, all his knowledge would be knowledge we will achieve. and humans would be Gods! A God like that can be excluded with Occam's razor! by getting knowledge of the universe we get knowledge of god is to redefine the meaning of the word god as it was defined by our ancestors.
@franktastikart Wow, okay, so when do you expect humans to bea able to do something like create a universe? I think we'll need a few more billion years of evolution before we get to that point. You put waaaaay to much stock in humanity's advancements. I simple asteroid -- a relatively small rock in space -- could end our existence and you think we can just do all this stuff that the universe does? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.
@5thWatcher man are you in need of a education! it doesn't matter if we make it or not! that's what you get if you are right! and it may not take millions of years or thousand years even just a few hundred years. we are already doing it right now (on a small scale), what do you think a particle accelerator is all about? your feeble attempt to change the subject is laughable! go back to school. you obviously know nothing about the universe or God! all your doing is making a idiot of your self!
@franktastikart Our little experiments are a damn far cry from being able to create a universe. Just one star makes more energy in minutes than humans use in years. It's not "hundreds of years off", it's science fiction.
@5thWatcher we make mini suns in labs today! and you may be right that it may take longer, but that is because of people like you, who go around spreading there ignorance and stupidity! as long as dumb ass people like you keep beveling in nonsense like magical beings and 4 legged insects, we may never make it! but lets be thankfully that there are people out there that stayed in school! go back and learn something! right now you sound really dumb!
@franktastikart Dude, you have no idea what I spread. You obviously have seen no more than on video of mine and have decided to stereotype me based on your idea of what a Christian is. You are an idiot. Give up.
@5thWatcher stupidity breeds stupidity! i do not need to see your videos to know that your dumb! and that anything you post will be filled with stupidity! on every post that i made i have pointed out how wrong and uneducated you are! you know nothing about physics God or the universe! go back to school and get a real education. once you have that and start talking like a educated person, people will start taking you more seriously, and you will not be called dumb as much anymore!
@franktastikart Now you're just being ignorant. I challenge you to correct me on ONE POINT. Any point, and be specific. That's what you have been failing to do this whole time. SAying I don't know what I am talking about means nothing and is not a valid point. Give ANY REASON as to why, SPECIFICALLY.
Lots of people take me seriously, but so far I can't take you seriously. You have one more chance otherwise I'm just assuming you're a troll.
@5thWatcher by getting knowledge of the universe we get knowledge of god? If that is the case, what makes god divine? Everything god is able to do would be things that human beings also will be able to do, all his knowledge would be knowledge we will achieve. and humans would be Gods! A God like that can be excluded with Occam's razor! by getting knowledge of the universe we get knowledge of god is to redefine the meaning of the word god as it was defined by our ancestors.
@5thWatcher If the Christian god is behind the scenes in the whole picture then he deliberately causing nearly all evidence to point against him, essentially just purposefully dooming people that look at evidence critically to hell.
@9hello123 I look at the evidence and I see it differently. You probably aren't looking at as much evidence as you think you are. I can totally understand how a surface understanding of the issue could suggest the many 'atheist positions' are correct, but but even further research has had me realize there is hardly any clear winner at all, so it's just up to the individual, really.
@5thWatcher You can say evidence points to there being a god (it really doesn't; it just doesn't point either way since it is inherently unknowable) but to say it doesn't point against the Christian god is just demonstrably untrue. The Earth isn't 6000 years old, the stars weren't made after the Earth, humans aren't the same as they were when they were created, cattle evolved after man, to name but a few.
You can say that all those aren't true if you like, but all the evidence points to it is.
@5thWatcher No there really isn't, everything I just said was only against creationist because I just looked in my bible to the first page to see things that were obviously not true but there is plenty against all forms of Christianity.
Force instance all evidence points to transubstantiation being completely untrue.
@5thWatcher I give you full marks for bravado, but you're doing nothing to advance logic. You've learned enough of the lingo to bandy it about with those whose grasp of it at best equals yours, but what you present is just a mishmash of unsupportable personal beliefs founded on nothing more than a sense of your own cleverness. Like a child playing with tools, you have a vague notion of what they are but no understanding of how they work. You may have a good mind, but it needs refining.
@THEkiloniner Wow, check out Mr. Arrogant over here. You're just another one of those guys that expects me to lay out a full and complete argument for God every time I utter the word. Apparently you are unaware youtube has time limits on videos and that people's attention spas are only so long. This this video deals with a very specific argument. Arguments specially for God are in other videos or fourth-coming. And seriously, if you want to stick around here, keep that ego in check.
@5thWatcher Calling me arrogant and admonishing me to keep my ego in check are diversions--a fallacy known as ad hominem. "He's a jerk so he's wrong!" It goes well for you with those who have the same level of understanding, but it's actually a weak attempt to get the attention away from yourself and your woeful abilities. As I said, you may have a good mind, but it needs work. This kind of response isn't work. Care to have another go, or will you carry out your thinly-veiled threat to block me?
@THEkiloniner Your original statement was a diversion to another argument, you are guilty of the same. if you want arguments for God, find the appropriate video and stay tuned because I'm doing another one like that soon.
@5thWatcher Most interesting. You claim that I demand "complete argument for God every time (you) utter the word." Where do you find this demand in my comments? Your fallacy is the infamous Red Herring. You seem sincere, and honest ignorance is better than cynicism. Still, that fact only goes so far. My statements are hardly diversions. They point out your inability to apply logic. You base each video on a claim that logic supports God. Your logic matters. Two replies. Two fallacies. Try again?
@THEkiloniner If that's not what you were asking for then that's because that's the best I could make of your vague comment. I'm not trying to red herring you, you just need to be less vague. (ambiguity is a fallacy too) In fact I see you are doing it again. You keep claiming that I am making logical mis-steps in my "videos" (can't even be specific about that) and you're still not where or how.
@5thWatcher Why don't I cite examples in your videos? Unnecessary to make my case, so far. My point has always been that you don't understand and can't apply logic. Example from your last reply: "Vague" and "ambiguous" are not synonymous. You fail to realize it (used interchangeably) or that to be fallacious both must meet specific criteria. Neither does here.
Define your terms. Precision matters. You fail even to grasp fundamentals. Why should I accept your case? More?
@THEkiloniner Okay this is getting silly now. You're basically just throwing out thinly veiled insults under the guise of pseudo-philosophical vernacular while still refusing to say anything of substance. You have no argument, and I am beginning to think you are incapable. I am here to debate. So make an argument: just pick something or we are done here.
@5thWatcher There have been no insults of any kind on my part. None of what I have been offering has been pseudo-philosophical vernacular, and you clearly don't recognize basic concepts of logic when you see them. What I have been doing in this exchange is a time-honored technique for examining faulty reasoning. There's no need to challenge your conclusions. I only need to demonstrate your flawed method.
@5thWatcher As to your request that I make an argument, I have been arguing consistently that you do not grasp the function or application of logic. I have pointed out several examples from our exchanges to support that argument, and you have helpfully provided several examples that I have not bothered to point out. Your protestations that I should make an argument simply show that you not only cannot grasp logic but you also cannot recognize it when it's in front of you.
@5thWatcher As an analogy, consider the following: Your frustration with me during this exchange is akin to you going to Mexico City and becoming frustrated with the inhabitants because they speak Spanish while you do not. Simply put, I speak logic. You do not. I can't be any clearer than that. I have amply demonstrated as much. So for those of us who actually study and value logic, who understand its complexities and subtleties, please stop calling what you do here logic or logical.
@5thWatcher If you ever decide to take logic seriously as an endeavor I am at your disposal. If I can aid you in any way in your study of logic, I am at your disposal. If you choose to continue along your current course I do hope you will be more forthcoming with those who would listen that you actually don't know a great deal about the technical application of logic. You're venturing into important territory, and it deserves more serious treatment than I've seen here so far. Peace. Your move.
@THEkiloniner (1) LOL. Well played. The only thing close to an argument you have come up with is that "vague" and "ambiguous" are not synonymous, which is a terrible argument because I was simply saying they are both. Also I never said they meant the same thing qualifying your aside point as a strawman. So far all you've done, including now, is tell me I am not logical, even with the creative use of metaphor, all well never offering a single reason as to how any argument of mine is flawed.
@THEkiloniner (2) For someone supposedly versed in the "technical application of logic", I'd think you'd know to use the term "deconstruction" for what you were describing when talking about "examining faulty reasoning". The only thing close to an argument you've made was an attempt to argue semantics, and you even did that in such a way as to misrepresent my position. Your sense of pride with your "logic abilities are totally unfounded and you are either sadly delusional or a troll. Sorry.
@5thWatcher I don't see the value in repeating the cases that have already been made against any of your specific videos. I hoped that by taking a different tack I might be able to point out your fundamental lack of understanding without tying my case to things you are clearly passionate about. Logic is not about passion. It's about precision and dispassionate analysis. If you come to an understanding of your ignorance perhaps you can learn to correct it. It's worth the effort on both our parts.
Are you trying to state that because your reasoning on the existance of god is based on the known universe that it negates a possibility of it being a god of the gaps argument? I would disagree with this, as a god of the gaps argument can apply to a statement about the known or unknown universe, simply by positing a god in any situation in which a natural explanation is not known.
@5thWatcher It's a gap regardless, unless of course you feel you have successfully reasoned it. I believe you think you have, but I don't agree. Let's meet a common ground, I will say you have a valid hypothesis. How would you like to test it to see if it is true?
@ShadowStarshine I couldn;t hope to prove that point anytime soon. it's a philo-religious theory. Science will vindicate it in time, I think, but we can only wait and see. All I am saying is that when we discover new things about how the universe works, that is God at work, that is how he made things. He doesn't have to "magically" intervine at all. He made a system that works.
@5thWatcher It's only actually a theory once evidence, testing and peer review have substantiated it. It's still a hypothesis. As far as the hypothesis goes, if you feel that you couldn't prove it, and that science is yet to, why not hold a tentative belief until it is proven?
@ShadowStarshine Scientifically speaking, yes. But the term "theory" applies to philosophy as well. Science is involved, but this theory relies mostly on reasoning, so it's philosophical in nature more than anything.
@5thWatcher If you are making that statement, that what you are proposing is philosophical in nature, is to state that God is an idea, or set of ideas, that only exist in the mind of those who think of it. That is to say, you are not saying God is a real existent thing that is a part of reality (Which I do not believe you think). I really think you want the scientific hypothesis application, because that way you are defining your god as a part of what shapes reality.
@ShadowStarshine I don't, but if you trying putting those words in my mouth actually meant that I believe them, then that would be a problem, but simply, that's not how it is.
@5thWatcher Emotions are real but, they have no bearing on wether or not something exists. Furthermore, if you lead people to believe god exists because the belief in it makes you feel good, you are lying to them.
@5thWatcher Sorry, I jus noticed I jumped to conclusions, let me adress what your saying. What exactly in the knowable events category do you consider evidence/proof of god? Clearly you can understand this is vital, or could you point me to a video, I'd love to hear your words of wisdom.
Don't be that guy, bro. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and that doesn't mean God can't exists, it just means he created us by means of evolution.
@pcrvg0808 I don't mean that it overwhelms you personally. I mean that there is multitudes of citable evidence and proof in support of evolution. I simply meant there's a lot of it.
@5thWatcher So then you believe that Scripture isnt true in some parts then...isnt the Bible your authority for all things about God? How do you interpret scripture?
@MaharlikaAWA No, you're making that up about me. I interpret scripture in a historical, cultural, scholarly and literary context in order to best understand what the writer intended to say at the time he wrote and within the context of the culture he wrote it in. It so happens that the creation story in Genesis has all the ear-marks of an allegory, so I consider it allegorical.
@5thWatcher What is allegorical about it? What convinces you of this? Was Adam even a real person? Did God form Him from the dust of the ground and Eve from the rib of Adam? Or was that all just made up for fun and wrote down in the Bible?
@MaharlikaAWA (1 of 2) Classical allegories almost always have talking animals, in this case a snake. Another clue is how God interacts with Adam and Eve; it's the only time in the entire Bible God appears in a human form and does not act all powerful or all knowing (IE, he has to ask Adam stuff). Another clue is that the story has a clear moral and story structure exactly like allegories do. And lastly, our understandings of the history of the earth show the story can't be litteral.
(2 of 2) Also, the way Genesis is composed indicates that it is is a compilation of earlier stories. It encompasses too many events over too long a time span for one man to have composed the entire work from personal experience. After noticing these things, I looked into scholarship on this issue, and I was surprised to find that the experts were saying much of the same things I was thinking on this matter.
@5thWatcher Why do you think Moses would have to live during those events to record them accurately? Also if He was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write then he would write accurately about the history of the world at the time.
Jesus Christ who you say is God also quoted Genesis and assumes the people are real people who did what they did. Was jesus then wrong? Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
@MaharlikaAWA Also Jesus and others refer to the creation story in order to teach morals, so they may have understood it for what it was, an allegory meant to teach a moral.
@5thWatcher It seems like you base what secular scholars and historians claim rather than the Word of God itself. You put Scripture below the words of men. Remember the bible says the wisdom of men is foolishness in the eyes of God. God is all knowing just because He asks questiosn does not mean he didnt know. God asks questions to test individuals and activate them. Jesus (whom you claim is God) also asked questions of people. Does this now prove He cant be God?
@MaharlikaAWA (1 of 2) I'm not saying that Genesis is entirely allegorical, only the creation story. Like I said Genesis is compilation. The flood actually has some historical basis, so I don't think that was an allegory, at least totally. I will also hand you the point about Jesus asking questions, but the other point I think still stand. I don't put the words of men above the Bible, I learn this stuff so that I can read the Bible in the context that it's authors intended.
(2 of 2) If Genesis is allegorical then the author would have written it as an allegory. I think these sort of contexts are important for proper Biblical understanding. Even if the Bible is "God-breathed" God can certainly breathe an allegory. After all, since we brought up Jesus' questions, Jesus used a lot of allegories, too, so it would only been the first of many.
@5thWatcher This is baseless. Nothing in God's or Christ's language even hint at allegory. Also why did Paul say that Adam was the first sinner and we are all under the "curse of Adam" in romans? Paul seemed to believe Adam was a real person. Also the geneologies in Gensis if Adam was not a real person wouldnt make ANY sense!
@MaharlikaAWA According to the genealogies, the earth is 6000 years old and we know that'd not the case. Recorded human history even goes back further than that. The curse of Adam is simply a reference to the inherent desire to sin that is part of the human condition, resulting from free will. (One of the lessons from the allegory could be that.) Most all references to Adam talk about original sin, that's what it's really about.
@5thWatcher That makes no sens. You accuse the God of the OD in Genesis as not being a real God since He ased questions yet Jesus Christ whom youclaim IS God asked questions as well and the samekind of questions. "Who touched me?" etc the woman witht he blood flow. So you are picking and choosing what you want to accept but not base on logic.
@MaharlikaAWA I am saying that I am giving you that point, but it still stands that it's the only time we see God in human form, it has talking animals (common for allegories), and the structure of it has a clear moral that it is meant to teach.
@5thWatcher Of course the Bible is meant to teach things. Talking animals does not automatically mean the genesis account is alegory when Jesus Christ affirms it as fact in the new testament and so do the apostles. The geneologies affirm that the people were real. You have not credible evidence to support your claims. Sodom and Gamorrah were real towns and Jesus even affirmed them in the new testament. Same with Noah and the Ark. The Old Testament also has prophecies of Jesus. Is that GodsWord?
S you you are using the god of the gaps to reinforce your need to believe in a supreme being willed all this into existence? Good that you didn't claim to know all about God, as such persons aren't to be trusted. The fact is, it's because of scientists who didn't give deference to the god of the gaps, and those who worship that god, we saw UR vid. & this comment is here to be read.
Its funny how god can claim things we don't understand... then when we understand them religious people find somewhere new to stick him...... God originally was responsible for earthquakes and natural disasters... then we learned about plate tectonics.... It's funny that you think we need "god to bring meaning to our existence" however, we live in a vast universe, we are a speck of dust in there, and meaning can be brought to your life by the contribution to the understanding of that universe.
Indirectly god is in the whole picture.Some 2000-3000 years ago people believe that god created volcano eruptions.Now people believe that god created the big bang which created the earth which created volcano eruptions...kinda funny..
"Or (God) is the process itself in the whole picture." ok, so then science is god and god is science (or god is everything if that's preferable) that's what you're saying? Why then assume there is a God? You talked about, in the first video, how everything is amazing, even if God isn't a magical being. I don't think you can see that yourself. Why does it have to be some mastermind behind everything? Is that so important to you?
Understanding the processus (science) and aknoweledge it as "god's way" means also to consider that god made exception in the bible since we find contradiction between holy books and science. Or it's to be taken literally, in which case... Why the fuck should we believe ?
Anyway, this video is just referring to an opinion, which is more plausible than the god of gaps though still lame. I'll stick with my opinion, where god is out of the picture.
the big bang is not "the beginning" of the universe it's a theory of how something came to be in existence the big misconception of that theory is that out of nothing something came which cannot occur and using that same logic god cannot occur. so please use your brain instead of just repeating ignorant facts.
I do not understand your take on god of the gaps, in fact, I dont really see you understand the god of the gaps argument from what transpires in this video, as it is totally compatible with all that you have stated, while still being a silly infinite regression unfalsifiability.
On the bright side, I like the "horrid desperation" acting, reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy too.
On the downside, I think your hair is horrible, sorry >.<
Why can't people see the silliness of the argument that because science can explain something, God didn't do it. If God exists, He created everything to exist within physical laws. He created those physical laws. Science is merely the discoverer of what God is able to do in our natural world using the laws He created. Thus, God of Gaps is a non-issue. God DOES do everything - both natural and supernatural.
Sorry, but just to make things clear before I continue, could you tell me if you believe in evolution? I mean, as you know there are many different types of religion, so could you clarify your particular type. Do you believe in the bible as the actual, literal truth or do you have your own interpretation of it? Do you believe in evolution through the mechanism of natural selection?
Thanks again for the quick reply. I don't believe anyone has said they can explain gravity. Bodies attract each other but no one really knows why. I can explain how an internal combustion engine works without god, so why would god be necessary? "Just because we can explain the universe without God doesn't mean God isn't there" . We can explain the universe without reference to semi-permeable gooseberry eating tango monkeys too. Do they exist?
@5thWatcher Can you rephrase that? I don't understand the point you just made there. He just said he "can" explain it, like many other people. Why would explaining something be related to it being created by man? Perhaps you could address the actual point, that you are adding god to the whole universe equation instead of a semi-permeable gooseberry eating tango monkey, and entirely on faith.
@yarabokin Its the bending of space, Einstein explained it in general relativity. If it wasnt true we wouldnt be able to see directly around the sun when there is a solar eclipse. Its basically what started quantum physics. It is well understood
@yarabokin wow. that is a much cooler example then the invisible spagetti monster. still just as flaw, seeing as no one has ever found dozens of ancient manuscript claiming to be written by semi-permeable gooseberry eating tango monkeys; but once they do I want to read those.
From my point of view you just said it. The universe can be explained without including god. Then why include him? I think (hope) we both agree that the universe started at a point and it is self sufficient. So why include something for which there is absolutely no evidence? Obviously I can't explain why the universe started, no one can, but to just say "oh it's god" is crazy. Are you saying god created himself? How does that work? It would imply he didn't exist at some point!
@yarabokin Just because we can explain the universe without God doesn't mean God isn't there. Sorta like, we can explain gravity without the theory of relativity, but both are there, and interact.
@5thWatcher But. Gravity and relativity are not living things, whereas people think that God is alive. Alive? Who created a conscience? Of course, a various mix of atoms, but again how could God form without gravity?
Plus, he made light up. And he made the heavens and the earth in the dark. And the snake talks. English. Amazing, that, amirite?
@MrFyrfly Can you please supply me with the tonnes of evidence for god? I mean you would have thought the tonnes of evidence would have convinced many scientists of the fact that god exists, but it hasn't. Why is that?
@yarabokin : actually, the origin has never really been explained...just hypothesized. Here is some logic for you. If you have a zero-dimensional singularity, you have a materialistic infinite. If it is indeed infinitely dense, there is also an infinite amount of matter. If you are to divide any number from that, you would still end up with 2 separate infinites. So why is our mass finite?
@jordankriese Seriously, I can't make head nor tail of that. What does "If you are to divide any number from that" mean, or have to do with anything?. What are "two separate infinities"?. If you resort to using semantics to prove the existance of god then you have a problem. Perhaps the truth is a little more simple...like um there is no god?
@yarabokin :my logic...this is what SCIENTISTS believe. That all matter came from an infinitely dense singularity. If you are to divide that singularity and add 2 dimensions, the mass will still equal infinite. No matter how many times you divide it. You see I could be just as irrational as you and state that "evolution doesn't happen" even though it does...simple "answer" (intellectually dishonest one as well) from a simple man :)
@jordankriese I'm not trying to be obtuse but I don''t really get what you are trying to say. What does "divide that singularity and add 2 dimensions," say about anything? What's the point? "the mass will still equal infinite". Okay, so what? And when it comes to god, he either exists or he doesn't. He isn.t a process like evolution. Out of interest, what are your views on evolution? Look after yourself mate ; )
@jordankriese Your math seems a bit off. Taking matter to a two or three dimensional format equals infinite?
There is no new matter forming, only organizing and decaying. The big bang is not a continuous event.
Ignoring these, wouldn't there be a flow of energy and matter into the void? Now, given that we are told that the universe is expanding, the likely answer would be that space itself was expanding.
The matter to the universe is finite, so you mean space, right?
@Midnightblue32 : not exactly. If all matter came from and can be compacted into a zero dimensional point, THEN the mass of everything must be infinite. I believe that yes, the universe is finite, and that something created it. Not a person, but rather an infinitely complex being. Now the fact that it is the Judeo-Christian God is questionable, but I believe that a God created it nonetheless.
Where does the zero dimensional point come in? I understand that by going with the big bang theory a point must have existed when existence was largely uniform and all matter/energy was united, however I don't think we can rule out the possibility of natural dimensions above zero, and my main problem with the equation is that for it to have a zero dimension it has to either be a magnetic force or must have never existed at all till that point. How would you define a god?
@Midnightblue32 : not necessarily. The thing is that when ALL matter is compacted to the extent that there are zero dimensions (if something is infinitely dense it will have zero dimensions...and many cosmologists believe that the amount of matter present in the cosmos is infinite. Check up on Andromedaswake) You get self refuting contradictions. My idea of a God is something that can create something from nothing.
@jordankriese Yes, but that is the entire point of the god of the gaps argument, but considering what page we are there is not much point on elaborating. I could ask the classic, "But who created this god?" but I don't think we'd get anywhere. Is this god more of an absent creator along deist lines, or more like one that sees us while we eat and sleep? I know this might be annoying but can you clarify how it must be infinite, I've never heard of there being infinite anything.
@Midnightblue32 I'll take a look at him/her/it later today... during the day. Terms like infinite aren't very clear especially when something is infinitely zero. Now if it was dropping below zero like -2D that would be clearer, but still confusing.
@Midnightblue32 : even areas above 3d can be confusing. But upon the understanding of such things it makes sense. To a 2d being (they may exist, I don't know. We can't see the 2nd dimension without the 3rd) we would seem like gods because we are infinite to them, and have an infinite number of cross sections. Now use that and compare it to us. If there were a 4 dimensional being (or 5), it would be a God. It makes sense to me.
@jordankriese@jordankriese I have heard the dimensional argument up to this point before, the last person I talked to mentioned nine. The problem is that the fourth dimension loosely defined as time is entirely theoretical, as are all others beyond the third.
@jordankriese Now, assuming causality came into the problem, and putting forward that there MUST be a creator for creation, you then state that the creator was eternal needing no cause. This special pleading(?), all must be created except for this element. LOGICALLY we know the universe exists, so why not stop there, and say it is eternal rather than jumping to a new conclusion?
@Midnightblue32 : religion wasn't jumping to a new conclusion. I do believe that it came first. I believe Plato was the first person to mention atheos. I'm not jumping to a new conclusion. And there are an infinite number of possibilities. This could quite simply be a very lucid dream. But stating that anything is any more possible...or even logical than the other when the other cannot berefuted is illogical in itself.
@jordankriese The human works by understanding patterns, and collecting knew information predictable patterns. Which is why the buildings having a builder argument sounds strong, except that it is never accounted for that the entire concept does not translate to anything that humans cannot touch, so then there is the jump that someone must have. Someone who MUST be all powerful, and all knowing, despite no justification for these traits.
@Midnightblue32 : when did I use the building having a builder argument? I mean it is logical (you wouldn't think it sprang out of the ground by itself), but I didn't use the argument in the first place. And certainly he would be all knowing, but that is entirely different from all powerful. Certainly very powerful, but how can he be "all powerful" if there is no infinite? That makes no sense.
@jordankriese I'm just pointing out the way the brain works, the logic behind your argument looks be the same sort of magical thinking. Thats actually the term, and I do like it. My point is that the answer cultures go with is that after they find a problem they cannot explain they find a reason for it which can break all the rules a logical reason would never get through. So they leap to it being SUPER POWERFUL INFINITUM! Just to get around the problem of logic. That is how gods are born, IMO.
@Midnightblue32 : THIS IS TRUE! And as you may have noticed, my way of thinking is far different from many of those that belong to the same religion. God doesn't URGE all things, he PERMITS most of the time. This is why we should look for natural explanations.
@jordankriese@jordankriese Ya know, I could not remember where I had heard the atheos thing. I was tempted to write it off as my mistake and here say, then I thought, "Too easy." Now its a book called Religion in the Roman Empire. PG 183 found it on Google! I can send you the link, this box won't take it.
@jordankriese "stating that anything is any more possible...or even logical than the other when the other cannot be refuted is illogical in itself." No. Say I told you that Santa and Jesus were fighting for Christmas Day, you cannot prove they don't exist, or that they aren't fighting, you must have a position on whether it is true or not. Logic tells you that at least one of those people isn't real. You know that the statement is wrong without refutation. This is reason. Logic's best friend.
@Midnightblue32 : it's not a question of if they both exist but if they existed. Both Jesus Christ and Saint Nicholas have historical evidence pointing towards their existence. Saint Nicholas may not have had reindeer, but he most definitely contributed to the world. Jesus died a long time ago, so did Saint Nicholas. They both existed.
@jordankriese I messed up. I should have excluded that answer, because I did not mean the statement to be past tense. I will go on however. They were both alive, they were both real, and they are both worshiped as moral guardians. They are now fighting for Christmas. Its impossible to disprove either, as they exist in such a way that they cannot be seen. By your logic it is just as plausible that what I say is true as well as false.
@Midnightblue32 : not necessarily. It is quite easy to imagine actually. If you are to make a three dimensional object and move it from one point to another, this would be duration. And it always heads in a straight line. And it does make sense. Time cannot exist without space. Or I should rephrase that...relativity would not exist without matter. Much like the third could not exist without the second.
@jordankriese A little side issue. You are correct that Atheos dates back to the Romans, but originally it was a term for early Christians who rejected the roman pantheon, clearly they lacked belief. Its really more of a hand-me-down title. Also, while Plato used the word, it was Aristotle that gave it life. The "A" standing for "No" or "Non" and the "theos" being "gods" or "belief" and "gnostic" translates to "knowledge."
As concepts the meanings are much older than religion.
@Midnightblue32 : can you show me where Atheos was referring to Christians? Where is your source? And isn't theos religion? It is definitely different than polytheos. I'm sure that the Greeks were smart enough to know the difference. Because atheos requires the belief in no god. One can state that when comparing to all religions, everyone is an atheist. But that just makes no logical sense...
@jordankriese Turns out I was off in my recollection. Atheos was apparently different from Atheism and is only translated as such for convenience. The connotation was one who did not show proper respect to the gods. No, theos is a reference to gods, but religion is part of that package. No surprise. How that doesn't make sense because they still believe in their own gods? An atheist is an atheist because he has no god of his own and doesn't believe in the gods of others. That makes senses.
@jordankriese It sounds reasonable, but its coming out of the left field. We can't place the building of a house with a builder on the same place as a piece of flint that has never been touched by human hands. I like the magician analogy, except that regardless of the magician the trick doesn't make sense by simply adding magic. Rather than explain, it just says "Well, God, did it." Also, I think Ray Comfort used this argument.
@Midnightblue32 : I think that he's always been there. Period. If you have a magician, you can pull a bunny out of a hat when there appeared to be none inside the hat in the first place. When you don't have the magician...well...there is just the bunny...that came out of nowhere...I think the magician LOGICALLY makes sense. The bunny just appearing doesn't.
@jordankriese Now as far as "pertain to our knowledge" are you saying that there are things we cannot know about a being who allegedly designed us in his infinite wisdom? Assuming that design plays a role in your argument of course.
@Midnightblue32 : knowledge is a touchy word. The only "knowledge" that humans have truly acquired is pure mathematics. However, there are things that cannot be mathematically proven that can be pragmatically proven.
@jordankriese Given the quotations, I'd like to know what you think Knowledge is. I consider experience, and sciences such as biology, and interpersonal communications to be forms of knowledge. Now, whether they are disputed or not only changes their status when they have been disproved (IMO). This is why Republicans and Liberals still exist, opposing view points of which neither can be conclusively proved wrong.
Totally bull shit proportions on the timeline... I wonder how many theories and scientific research studies you didn't use to draw up that contrived piece of fecal waste.
ZophiaMei 1 week ago
@ZophiaMei Wow, eat me. You obviously disagree but can't seem to use the science you shun me for not using in your sophomoric rebuttal.
5thWatcher 1 week ago
@5thWatcher
You seriously call my rebuttal sophomoric for calling you out on your non use of factual evidence while claiming to disprove peoples beliefs with science?
Science is deriving fact out of testing logic. As I recall, logic is something you claim to have... Now tell me, how is contriving a randomly proportioned timeline out of the emptiness of your head and leading your "logical" explanations with the term "I think......." anything close to Scientific proof?
Bite me!
ZophiaMei 5 days ago
@ZophiaMei Maybe later.
It was only sophomoric for calling it fecal waste. Logic involved a conclusion following a premise. A logical proof still counts as evidence. If you disagree you're an empiricist. Which is fine, but there's more to the universe than what you can see and feel.
5thWatcher 4 days ago
Great! Now demonstrate that god is present in the knowable part.
baldurus1 2 weeks ago
What I don't understand is the idea that science will have a plausible, evidence-based explanation for what ultimately cannot be studied. For ex, anything involving the Big Bang can only be studied and calculated after the fact, with no way to test or replicate any aspect of the event. Anything prior to that falls into the same category, and Stephen Hawkins' attempt to nullify God from the equation is laughable. Science can't explain it, but it's not a fallacy to say, it will eventually!
Sickopath333 1 month ago
The one thing that atheists forget, is, for example: Everything in the universe is contingent until we go all the way back to the big bang. The big bang obviously contained "intelligent information". So intelligent, in fact, as to allow life on earth. The big bang contained "information". Where did this info come from? Was it just sitting in space for eternity @ "infinite density" and then some Tuesday afternoon 13 billion yrs ago just exploded by itself? Science will make excuses to deny God
bheadh 1 month ago
ooo a skittle XD
Deeredman4 1 month ago
Simply not having yet scientifically discovered how the universe was formed does not make it "unknowable." When we didn't know the shape of the earth it wasn't unknowable we simply hadn't discovered it yet. Also if we could discover how a god/allah/tom cruise created the universe there would no longer be faith, a cornerstone of Abrahamic/tom cruisic religions.
09bagges 1 month ago
Can't tell if Poe.
atan0k 2 months ago
why do social psychiatrists demean themselves? Their practical relevance is clearly well demonstrated when u look into vids of this sort. The argument for or against God is rarely ever the issue, it's about how the Illuminati can malign people on account of their psychopathies and lack of economic harmony with the rest of their world environment.
newagecozaki 2 months ago
You fucking long haired moron. God explained the big bang to us hundreds of years ago. He also told us about the orbits, how everything was once dust, go back to school and read the holly books, or even study stephen hawking. Ignorant twat.
shootomatic 2 months ago
I don't understand this video. If you conclude with evidence that things exist because of certain natural processes that take place, why insert a God behind the scenes.
if God made the universe so that it appears he had no work in it and hides behind the natural processes that take place, wouldn't that seems a little deceptive?
People use unexplainable events as proof of God. if everything was explainable it would render God useless. The smaller the gaps get, the smaller God becomes.
sariglenn 2 months ago
You have no idea what the god-of-the-gaps means. This is a saying that, when religious people cant explain something they can only say "god did it". Atheists say "we dont know". So the god-of-the-gaps is just a religious persons way of saying "i dont know", but with some kind of delusional arrogance thinking that they have all the answers. Kind of pathetic don't you think?
archdtaylor 2 months ago
Someone completely missed the point of the pale blue dot....
LeonhardEuler1 2 months ago
In other words, there is NO scientific evidence you would ever accept that would show you that belief in god ismpetely unnecessar, as you think however we discover the universe came about, "that's just how God did it".
...It's not god of the Gaps, but it is stubbornness. Tell me, what's the difference between you saying that, and those who believe in Zeus completely understanding how lightning forms, and going, "Yup, that's just how Zeus does it."?
BigLundi 2 months ago
Pantheism. Look up Spinoza.
taicleis 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are very strange.
Ryakki 3 months ago
Agreed. God of the Gaps: Run a pencil line across a sheet of paper. The lead we'll call God; the beginning of the line, the beginning of the Universe as we know it - the end of the line, the end of the Universe. Then, in ink draw over the pencil line where science has figured it out. What is in the spaces between the ink/science? Pencil/God. For believers, yes, God is indeed in the gaps - BUT - He is also, beneath the science. God is in the gaps, but the gaps are in the science.
4GodSoLoves 4 months ago
@4GodSoLoves
Seriously? This again?
AtheistExplains 3 months ago
@RusconiDom Very good retort, it provided no counterarguments and instead attempted a weak ad hominem fallacy directed at my age and apparent "inferiority" rather than addressing the fact that your obvious anger through the use of the words fwak and attacking of 5thWatcher in general proves that 5thWatcher made points which jeopardized your current views and so you felt the need to lash out to hold onto said naive point of view.
jskyler91 6 months ago
@RusconiDom Wow, such anger seems unwarranted from a person who hasn't been affected by this video. Why don't you "just let go" and admit that yet another of athiesm's great arguments has been disproved.
jskyler91 6 months ago
The atheists grasp primarily on the Aristotelian view of the Prime Mover - that God is necessary to explain the origins of the universe, or the fact that there is one. After science provided naturalistic explanations, overturning as is hoped, the necessity of the God hypothesis,theism was decided to be just a superstitious alternative to a properly scientific explanation. This argument not only misconstrues Aristotle's logic, but the nature of science - which does NOT explain everything..
thethikboy 7 months ago
@thethikboy I hate people who hide behind a mist of philosophical bullshit. For people who don't understand his arguement it can be sumed upas follows-athiests misrepresent theists by saying that science proves everything and that thiests are just superstitious. For a simple retort simply say no one said science proves everything we just find the proof for god to be lacking.
mindlymindful 6 months ago
@mindlymindful You are using the word philosophical and bullshit interchangeably which is ...well bullshit.
These are whether you like it or not philosophical arguments NOT scientific ones. Science doesn't or shouldn't be interested in metaphysical problems like the origin of matter. Matter is BTW a philsophical concept - scientific descriptions of it reduce to mathematical formulas. Everything depends on understanding the limits of empirical science.
thethikboy 6 months ago
@thethikboy dude did you real really not understand my arguement? alright I'll compensate by tpeing slowly and dumbing it down. Athiests never said that science proves everything. (<-read this repeatedly). The atheistic view point is simply "I don't belive in god". It is not saying that science proves anything. (written twice for full effect)
mindlymindful 6 months ago
@mindlymindful You ranted about philosophy - hardly an argument. Now you're making a point defending atheism by defining it. I know what atheism is. It's usual and only defense is taken from a (claimed) scientific one - that God's existence is not provable by science - the origins of the universe can be explained without him. That presumes that God's existence is a scientific theory - or that science is interested in refuting such metaphysical beliefs. Both assumptions are false.
thethikboy 6 months ago
@RusconiDom This is just a response to the "God of the Gaps" argument. Did you feel I should have addressed some aspect of it that I did not?
Nothing is telling me god doesn't exist. You're just assuming my situation.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@5thWatcher Dude this doesn't disprove anything. What you're saying is an irrefutable hypothiesis it's the same as saying that little blue men in an alternate demension control the universe. And that whole thing about the "process" being god is pointless. Why even call it god if it's natrual?
mindlymindful 6 months ago
I think I must have missed the argument against it...
Londron 7 months ago
@Londron Yeah, actually, you did. I can't imagine I wouldn't link to the video in an annotation though, so check that out.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@Londron Wow, apparently I didn't link tot the first video. I have now created said link as an annotation in this video. It basically goes into more detail about what I think about the argument and why God doesn't have to be an ever shrinking God.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
like the video one critque though we should add a third much larger part to the end of the diagram
junkmonkeyramm2 8 months ago
we do know what happened from the start of the universe and we have prof of it! go back to school!
franktastikart 9 months ago
@franktastikart Uhhh, no, YOU go back to school, or at least watch the video again, you clearly misunderstood it.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher by getting knowledge of the universe we get knowledge of god? If that is the case, what makes god divine? Everything god is able to do would be things that human beings also will be able to do, all his knowledge would be knowledge we will achieve. and humans would be Gods! A God like that can be excluded with Occam's razor! by getting knowledge of the universe we get knowledge of god is to redefine the meaning of the word god as it was defined by our ancestors.
franktastikart 8 months ago
@franktastikart Wow, okay, so when do you expect humans to bea able to do something like create a universe? I think we'll need a few more billion years of evolution before we get to that point. You put waaaaay to much stock in humanity's advancements. I simple asteroid -- a relatively small rock in space -- could end our existence and you think we can just do all this stuff that the universe does? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher man are you in need of a education! it doesn't matter if we make it or not! that's what you get if you are right! and it may not take millions of years or thousand years even just a few hundred years. we are already doing it right now (on a small scale), what do you think a particle accelerator is all about? your feeble attempt to change the subject is laughable! go back to school. you obviously know nothing about the universe or God! all your doing is making a idiot of your self!
franktastikart 8 months ago
@franktastikart Our little experiments are a damn far cry from being able to create a universe. Just one star makes more energy in minutes than humans use in years. It's not "hundreds of years off", it's science fiction.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher we make mini suns in labs today! and you may be right that it may take longer, but that is because of people like you, who go around spreading there ignorance and stupidity! as long as dumb ass people like you keep beveling in nonsense like magical beings and 4 legged insects, we may never make it! but lets be thankfully that there are people out there that stayed in school! go back and learn something! right now you sound really dumb!
franktastikart 8 months ago
@franktastikart Dude, you have no idea what I spread. You obviously have seen no more than on video of mine and have decided to stereotype me based on your idea of what a Christian is. You are an idiot. Give up.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher stupidity breeds stupidity! i do not need to see your videos to know that your dumb! and that anything you post will be filled with stupidity! on every post that i made i have pointed out how wrong and uneducated you are! you know nothing about physics God or the universe! go back to school and get a real education. once you have that and start talking like a educated person, people will start taking you more seriously, and you will not be called dumb as much anymore!
franktastikart 8 months ago
@franktastikart Now you're just being ignorant. I challenge you to correct me on ONE POINT. Any point, and be specific. That's what you have been failing to do this whole time. SAying I don't know what I am talking about means nothing and is not a valid point. Give ANY REASON as to why, SPECIFICALLY.
Lots of people take me seriously, but so far I can't take you seriously. You have one more chance otherwise I'm just assuming you're a troll.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher by getting knowledge of the universe we get knowledge of god? If that is the case, what makes god divine? Everything god is able to do would be things that human beings also will be able to do, all his knowledge would be knowledge we will achieve. and humans would be Gods! A God like that can be excluded with Occam's razor! by getting knowledge of the universe we get knowledge of god is to redefine the meaning of the word god as it was defined by our ancestors.
franktastikart 8 months ago
@5thWatcher If the Christian god is behind the scenes in the whole picture then he deliberately causing nearly all evidence to point against him, essentially just purposefully dooming people that look at evidence critically to hell.
9hello123 8 months ago
@9hello123 I look at the evidence and I see it differently. You probably aren't looking at as much evidence as you think you are. I can totally understand how a surface understanding of the issue could suggest the many 'atheist positions' are correct, but but even further research has had me realize there is hardly any clear winner at all, so it's just up to the individual, really.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher You can say evidence points to there being a god (it really doesn't; it just doesn't point either way since it is inherently unknowable) but to say it doesn't point against the Christian god is just demonstrably untrue. The Earth isn't 6000 years old, the stars weren't made after the Earth, humans aren't the same as they were when they were created, cattle evolved after man, to name but a few.
You can say that all those aren't true if you like, but all the evidence points to it is.
9hello123 8 months ago
@9hello123 That's only evidence against Creationists. I'm not a creationist. c'mon now.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@5thWatcher No there really isn't, everything I just said was only against creationist because I just looked in my bible to the first page to see things that were obviously not true but there is plenty against all forms of Christianity.
Force instance all evidence points to transubstantiation being completely untrue.
9hello123 7 months ago
@5thWatcher I give you full marks for bravado, but you're doing nothing to advance logic. You've learned enough of the lingo to bandy it about with those whose grasp of it at best equals yours, but what you present is just a mishmash of unsupportable personal beliefs founded on nothing more than a sense of your own cleverness. Like a child playing with tools, you have a vague notion of what they are but no understanding of how they work. You may have a good mind, but it needs refining.
THEkiloniner 10 months ago
@THEkiloniner Wow, check out Mr. Arrogant over here. You're just another one of those guys that expects me to lay out a full and complete argument for God every time I utter the word. Apparently you are unaware youtube has time limits on videos and that people's attention spas are only so long. This this video deals with a very specific argument. Arguments specially for God are in other videos or fourth-coming. And seriously, if you want to stick around here, keep that ego in check.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher Calling me arrogant and admonishing me to keep my ego in check are diversions--a fallacy known as ad hominem. "He's a jerk so he's wrong!" It goes well for you with those who have the same level of understanding, but it's actually a weak attempt to get the attention away from yourself and your woeful abilities. As I said, you may have a good mind, but it needs work. This kind of response isn't work. Care to have another go, or will you carry out your thinly-veiled threat to block me?
THEkiloniner 8 months ago
@THEkiloniner Your original statement was a diversion to another argument, you are guilty of the same. if you want arguments for God, find the appropriate video and stay tuned because I'm doing another one like that soon.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher Most interesting. You claim that I demand "complete argument for God every time (you) utter the word." Where do you find this demand in my comments? Your fallacy is the infamous Red Herring. You seem sincere, and honest ignorance is better than cynicism. Still, that fact only goes so far. My statements are hardly diversions. They point out your inability to apply logic. You base each video on a claim that logic supports God. Your logic matters. Two replies. Two fallacies. Try again?
THEkiloniner 8 months ago
@THEkiloniner If that's not what you were asking for then that's because that's the best I could make of your vague comment. I'm not trying to red herring you, you just need to be less vague. (ambiguity is a fallacy too) In fact I see you are doing it again. You keep claiming that I am making logical mis-steps in my "videos" (can't even be specific about that) and you're still not where or how.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher Why don't I cite examples in your videos? Unnecessary to make my case, so far. My point has always been that you don't understand and can't apply logic. Example from your last reply: "Vague" and "ambiguous" are not synonymous. You fail to realize it (used interchangeably) or that to be fallacious both must meet specific criteria. Neither does here.
Define your terms. Precision matters. You fail even to grasp fundamentals. Why should I accept your case? More?
THEkiloniner 8 months ago
@THEkiloniner Okay this is getting silly now. You're basically just throwing out thinly veiled insults under the guise of pseudo-philosophical vernacular while still refusing to say anything of substance. You have no argument, and I am beginning to think you are incapable. I am here to debate. So make an argument: just pick something or we are done here.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher There have been no insults of any kind on my part. None of what I have been offering has been pseudo-philosophical vernacular, and you clearly don't recognize basic concepts of logic when you see them. What I have been doing in this exchange is a time-honored technique for examining faulty reasoning. There's no need to challenge your conclusions. I only need to demonstrate your flawed method.
THEkiloniner 7 months ago
@5thWatcher As to your request that I make an argument, I have been arguing consistently that you do not grasp the function or application of logic. I have pointed out several examples from our exchanges to support that argument, and you have helpfully provided several examples that I have not bothered to point out. Your protestations that I should make an argument simply show that you not only cannot grasp logic but you also cannot recognize it when it's in front of you.
THEkiloniner 7 months ago
@5thWatcher As an analogy, consider the following: Your frustration with me during this exchange is akin to you going to Mexico City and becoming frustrated with the inhabitants because they speak Spanish while you do not. Simply put, I speak logic. You do not. I can't be any clearer than that. I have amply demonstrated as much. So for those of us who actually study and value logic, who understand its complexities and subtleties, please stop calling what you do here logic or logical.
THEkiloniner 7 months ago
@5thWatcher If you ever decide to take logic seriously as an endeavor I am at your disposal. If I can aid you in any way in your study of logic, I am at your disposal. If you choose to continue along your current course I do hope you will be more forthcoming with those who would listen that you actually don't know a great deal about the technical application of logic. You're venturing into important territory, and it deserves more serious treatment than I've seen here so far. Peace. Your move.
THEkiloniner 7 months ago
@THEkiloniner (1) LOL. Well played. The only thing close to an argument you have come up with is that "vague" and "ambiguous" are not synonymous, which is a terrible argument because I was simply saying they are both. Also I never said they meant the same thing qualifying your aside point as a strawman. So far all you've done, including now, is tell me I am not logical, even with the creative use of metaphor, all well never offering a single reason as to how any argument of mine is flawed.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@THEkiloniner (2) For someone supposedly versed in the "technical application of logic", I'd think you'd know to use the term "deconstruction" for what you were describing when talking about "examining faulty reasoning". The only thing close to an argument you've made was an attempt to argue semantics, and you even did that in such a way as to misrepresent my position. Your sense of pride with your "logic abilities are totally unfounded and you are either sadly delusional or a troll. Sorry.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
@5thWatcher I don't see the value in repeating the cases that have already been made against any of your specific videos. I hoped that by taking a different tack I might be able to point out your fundamental lack of understanding without tying my case to things you are clearly passionate about. Logic is not about passion. It's about precision and dispassionate analysis. If you come to an understanding of your ignorance perhaps you can learn to correct it. It's worth the effort on both our parts.
THEkiloniner 8 months ago
Are you trying to state that because your reasoning on the existance of god is based on the known universe that it negates a possibility of it being a god of the gaps argument? I would disagree with this, as a god of the gaps argument can apply to a statement about the known or unknown universe, simply by positing a god in any situation in which a natural explanation is not known.
ShadowStarshine 10 months ago
@ShadowStarshine Yeah but once you put him in a place that's not known, you've created a gap. But as I explain, I think He's in all the places.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher It's a gap regardless, unless of course you feel you have successfully reasoned it. I believe you think you have, but I don't agree. Let's meet a common ground, I will say you have a valid hypothesis. How would you like to test it to see if it is true?
ShadowStarshine 10 months ago
@ShadowStarshine I couldn;t hope to prove that point anytime soon. it's a philo-religious theory. Science will vindicate it in time, I think, but we can only wait and see. All I am saying is that when we discover new things about how the universe works, that is God at work, that is how he made things. He doesn't have to "magically" intervine at all. He made a system that works.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher It's only actually a theory once evidence, testing and peer review have substantiated it. It's still a hypothesis. As far as the hypothesis goes, if you feel that you couldn't prove it, and that science is yet to, why not hold a tentative belief until it is proven?
ShadowStarshine 10 months ago
@ShadowStarshine Scientifically speaking, yes. But the term "theory" applies to philosophy as well. Science is involved, but this theory relies mostly on reasoning, so it's philosophical in nature more than anything.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher If you are making that statement, that what you are proposing is philosophical in nature, is to state that God is an idea, or set of ideas, that only exist in the mind of those who think of it. That is to say, you are not saying God is a real existent thing that is a part of reality (Which I do not believe you think). I really think you want the scientific hypothesis application, because that way you are defining your god as a part of what shapes reality.
ShadowStarshine 10 months ago
@ShadowStarshine I don't, but if you trying putting those words in my mouth actually meant that I believe them, then that would be a problem, but simply, that's not how it is.
5thWatcher 8 months ago
@5thWatcher Emotions are real but, they have no bearing on wether or not something exists. Furthermore, if you lead people to believe god exists because the belief in it makes you feel good, you are lying to them.
ligerman30 10 months ago
@ligerman30 Where are you getting all this?
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher Sorry, I jus noticed I jumped to conclusions, let me adress what your saying. What exactly in the knowable events category do you consider evidence/proof of god? Clearly you can understand this is vital, or could you point me to a video, I'd love to hear your words of wisdom.
ligerman30 10 months ago
@ligerman30 "My Case for a Creator" video outlines how creation via a prime mover is consistant with what we know about the birth of the universe.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
Darwin theory is close to getting debunked by science itself . where is the gap now ?
pcrvg0808 11 months ago
@pcrvg0808
Don't be that guy, bro. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and that doesn't mean God can't exists, it just means he created us by means of evolution.
5thWatcher 11 months ago
@5thWatcher Evolution theory hasn,t overwhelmed me . And don,t think you have a greater mind than i do just because our views and resources differ .
pcrvg0808 11 months ago
@pcrvg0808 I don't mean that it overwhelms you personally. I mean that there is multitudes of citable evidence and proof in support of evolution. I simply meant there's a lot of it.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher So then you believe that Scripture isnt true in some parts then...isnt the Bible your authority for all things about God? How do you interpret scripture?
MaharlikaAWA 10 months ago
@MaharlikaAWA No, you're making that up about me. I interpret scripture in a historical, cultural, scholarly and literary context in order to best understand what the writer intended to say at the time he wrote and within the context of the culture he wrote it in. It so happens that the creation story in Genesis has all the ear-marks of an allegory, so I consider it allegorical.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher What is allegorical about it? What convinces you of this? Was Adam even a real person? Did God form Him from the dust of the ground and Eve from the rib of Adam? Or was that all just made up for fun and wrote down in the Bible?
MaharlikaAWA 10 months ago
@MaharlikaAWA (1 of 2) Classical allegories almost always have talking animals, in this case a snake. Another clue is how God interacts with Adam and Eve; it's the only time in the entire Bible God appears in a human form and does not act all powerful or all knowing (IE, he has to ask Adam stuff). Another clue is that the story has a clear moral and story structure exactly like allegories do. And lastly, our understandings of the history of the earth show the story can't be litteral.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
(2 of 2) Also, the way Genesis is composed indicates that it is is a compilation of earlier stories. It encompasses too many events over too long a time span for one man to have composed the entire work from personal experience. After noticing these things, I looked into scholarship on this issue, and I was surprised to find that the experts were saying much of the same things I was thinking on this matter.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher Why do you think Moses would have to live during those events to record them accurately? Also if He was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write then he would write accurately about the history of the world at the time.
Jesus Christ who you say is God also quoted Genesis and assumes the people are real people who did what they did. Was jesus then wrong? Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
John 8:56–58—Abraham
MaharlikaAWA 10 months ago
@MaharlikaAWA Also Jesus and others refer to the creation story in order to teach morals, so they may have understood it for what it was, an allegory meant to teach a moral.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher That is just your own idea which isnt found in the Bible and you cant say the Bible hints at this.
MaharlikaAWA 10 months ago
@MaharlikaAWA The Bible really does hint at it. It's inherent in the style it was written in.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
Jesus did not act like Genesis was allegory but historical fact.
MaharlikaAWA 10 months ago
@5thWatcher It seems like you base what secular scholars and historians claim rather than the Word of God itself. You put Scripture below the words of men. Remember the bible says the wisdom of men is foolishness in the eyes of God. God is all knowing just because He asks questiosn does not mean he didnt know. God asks questions to test individuals and activate them. Jesus (whom you claim is God) also asked questions of people. Does this now prove He cant be God?
MaharlikaAWA 10 months ago
@MaharlikaAWA (1 of 2) I'm not saying that Genesis is entirely allegorical, only the creation story. Like I said Genesis is compilation. The flood actually has some historical basis, so I don't think that was an allegory, at least totally. I will also hand you the point about Jesus asking questions, but the other point I think still stand. I don't put the words of men above the Bible, I learn this stuff so that I can read the Bible in the context that it's authors intended.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
(2 of 2) If Genesis is allegorical then the author would have written it as an allegory. I think these sort of contexts are important for proper Biblical understanding. Even if the Bible is "God-breathed" God can certainly breathe an allegory. After all, since we brought up Jesus' questions, Jesus used a lot of allegories, too, so it would only been the first of many.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher This is baseless. Nothing in God's or Christ's language even hint at allegory. Also why did Paul say that Adam was the first sinner and we are all under the "curse of Adam" in romans? Paul seemed to believe Adam was a real person. Also the geneologies in Gensis if Adam was not a real person wouldnt make ANY sense!
MaharlikaAWA 10 months ago
@MaharlikaAWA According to the genealogies, the earth is 6000 years old and we know that'd not the case. Recorded human history even goes back further than that. The curse of Adam is simply a reference to the inherent desire to sin that is part of the human condition, resulting from free will. (One of the lessons from the allegory could be that.) Most all references to Adam talk about original sin, that's what it's really about.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher That makes no sens. You accuse the God of the OD in Genesis as not being a real God since He ased questions yet Jesus Christ whom youclaim IS God asked questions as well and the samekind of questions. "Who touched me?" etc the woman witht he blood flow. So you are picking and choosing what you want to accept but not base on logic.
MaharlikaAWA 10 months ago
@MaharlikaAWA I am saying that I am giving you that point, but it still stands that it's the only time we see God in human form, it has talking animals (common for allegories), and the structure of it has a clear moral that it is meant to teach.
5thWatcher 10 months ago
@5thWatcher Of course the Bible is meant to teach things. Talking animals does not automatically mean the genesis account is alegory when Jesus Christ affirms it as fact in the new testament and so do the apostles. The geneologies affirm that the people were real. You have not credible evidence to support your claims. Sodom and Gamorrah were real towns and Jesus even affirmed them in the new testament. Same with Noah and the Ark. The Old Testament also has prophecies of Jesus. Is that GodsWord?
MaharlikaAWA 10 months ago
S you you are using the god of the gaps to reinforce your need to believe in a supreme being willed all this into existence? Good that you didn't claim to know all about God, as such persons aren't to be trusted. The fact is, it's because of scientists who didn't give deference to the god of the gaps, and those who worship that god, we saw UR vid. & this comment is here to be read.
5lkk 1 year ago
Its funny how god can claim things we don't understand... then when we understand them religious people find somewhere new to stick him...... God originally was responsible for earthquakes and natural disasters... then we learned about plate tectonics.... It's funny that you think we need "god to bring meaning to our existence" however, we live in a vast universe, we are a speck of dust in there, and meaning can be brought to your life by the contribution to the understanding of that universe.
WhiteSyd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are a moron.
TheOne42 1 year ago
Indirectly god is in the whole picture.Some 2000-3000 years ago people believe that god created volcano eruptions.Now people believe that god created the big bang which created the earth which created volcano eruptions...kinda funny..
MeetYourMeaker 1 year ago
Of course Life is meaningless. The purpose of Life is for you to make your Life meaningful.
panterguy 1 year ago
Hahaha. Worst. Science. Ever.
tpr007 1 year ago
which god?
xxwrecxx 1 year ago
There are not ''before big-bang'' like there are no south south pole on the Earth...
Doum92 1 year ago
"Or (God) is the process itself in the whole picture." ok, so then science is god and god is science (or god is everything if that's preferable) that's what you're saying? Why then assume there is a God? You talked about, in the first video, how everything is amazing, even if God isn't a magical being. I don't think you can see that yourself. Why does it have to be some mastermind behind everything? Is that so important to you?
breakfastroute 1 year ago
"Or (God) is the process itself in the whole picture."
That sounds almost like Pantheism.
Omfsm! Did you just have a Naturalistic Revelation? Either way... Taste the Rainbow.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
Understanding the processus (science) and aknoweledge it as "god's way" means also to consider that god made exception in the bible since we find contradiction between holy books and science. Or it's to be taken literally, in which case... Why the fuck should we believe ?
Anyway, this video is just referring to an opinion, which is more plausible than the god of gaps though still lame. I'll stick with my opinion, where god is out of the picture.
VonBoche 1 year ago
Why believe in a god at all? I have heard no convincing arguments in favour of belief in a deity.
TempleOfSin 1 year ago
Very interesting.
lol the end is cool XDDD
But what I think is that the bible says that men won't ever acknowledge gods work to the very bottom. So I think that won't happen actually.
Changer01 1 year ago
the big bang is not "the beginning" of the universe it's a theory of how something came to be in existence the big misconception of that theory is that out of nothing something came which cannot occur and using that same logic god cannot occur. so please use your brain instead of just repeating ignorant facts.
chastultz3 1 year ago
I do not understand your take on god of the gaps, in fact, I dont really see you understand the god of the gaps argument from what transpires in this video, as it is totally compatible with all that you have stated, while still being a silly infinite regression unfalsifiability.
On the bright side, I like the "horrid desperation" acting, reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy too.
On the downside, I think your hair is horrible, sorry >.<
Azotadeth 1 year ago
Why can't people see the silliness of the argument that because science can explain something, God didn't do it. If God exists, He created everything to exist within physical laws. He created those physical laws. Science is merely the discoverer of what God is able to do in our natural world using the laws He created. Thus, God of Gaps is a non-issue. God DOES do everything - both natural and supernatural.
pbaylis1 1 year ago
That ending was random and beautiful.
SuperMalario7 1 year ago
Dust in the wind... All we are is dust in the wind
Tolstoievsky 1 year ago
Great...now give evidence for it.
sulthus 1 year ago
Sorry, but just to make things clear before I continue, could you tell me if you believe in evolution? I mean, as you know there are many different types of religion, so could you clarify your particular type. Do you believe in the bible as the actual, literal truth or do you have your own interpretation of it? Do you believe in evolution through the mechanism of natural selection?
yarabokin 1 year ago
Thanks again for the quick reply. I don't believe anyone has said they can explain gravity. Bodies attract each other but no one really knows why. I can explain how an internal combustion engine works without god, so why would god be necessary? "Just because we can explain the universe without God doesn't mean God isn't there" . We can explain the universe without reference to semi-permeable gooseberry eating tango monkeys too. Do they exist?
yarabokin 1 year ago
@yarabokin Perhaps the combustion engine is a good example actually... you can't fully explain it without the fact that it was created by man.
5thWatcher 1 year ago
@5thWatcher Can you rephrase that? I don't understand the point you just made there. He just said he "can" explain it, like many other people. Why would explaining something be related to it being created by man? Perhaps you could address the actual point, that you are adding god to the whole universe equation instead of a semi-permeable gooseberry eating tango monkey, and entirely on faith.
krazyjakee 1 year ago
@yarabokin General theory of relativity.
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus Hi! I was about what "causes" gravity. A massless particle? A type of energy? I don't believe that's well understood.
yarabokin 1 year ago
@yarabokin Its the bending of space, Einstein explained it in general relativity. If it wasnt true we wouldnt be able to see directly around the sun when there is a solar eclipse. Its basically what started quantum physics. It is well understood
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus cheers!
yarabokin 1 year ago
@yarabokin wow. that is a much cooler example then the invisible spagetti monster. still just as flaw, seeing as no one has ever found dozens of ancient manuscript claiming to be written by semi-permeable gooseberry eating tango monkeys; but once they do I want to read those.
kradrol 1 year ago
From my point of view you just said it. The universe can be explained without including god. Then why include him? I think (hope) we both agree that the universe started at a point and it is self sufficient. So why include something for which there is absolutely no evidence? Obviously I can't explain why the universe started, no one can, but to just say "oh it's god" is crazy. Are you saying god created himself? How does that work? It would imply he didn't exist at some point!
yarabokin 1 year ago
@yarabokin Just because we can explain the universe without God doesn't mean God isn't there. Sorta like, we can explain gravity without the theory of relativity, but both are there, and interact.
5thWatcher 1 year ago
@5thWatcher But. Gravity and relativity are not living things, whereas people think that God is alive. Alive? Who created a conscience? Of course, a various mix of atoms, but again how could God form without gravity?
Plus, he made light up. And he made the heavens and the earth in the dark. And the snake talks. English. Amazing, that, amirite?
TheSpectator360 1 year ago
@5thWatcher Occam's Razor.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
@5thWatcher theory of relativity is based on logic and evidence of which god has neither.
krazyjakee 1 year ago
@yarabokin we CAN'T explain the universe without God. everything else is just theory, and there is TONS of evidence for God.
MrFyrfly 1 year ago
@MrFyrfly Can you please supply me with the tonnes of evidence for god? I mean you would have thought the tonnes of evidence would have convinced many scientists of the fact that god exists, but it hasn't. Why is that?
yarabokin 1 year ago
@yarabokin : actually, the origin has never really been explained...just hypothesized. Here is some logic for you. If you have a zero-dimensional singularity, you have a materialistic infinite. If it is indeed infinitely dense, there is also an infinite amount of matter. If you are to divide any number from that, you would still end up with 2 separate infinites. So why is our mass finite?
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese Seriously, I can't make head nor tail of that. What does "If you are to divide any number from that" mean, or have to do with anything?. What are "two separate infinities"?. If you resort to using semantics to prove the existance of god then you have a problem. Perhaps the truth is a little more simple...like um there is no god?
yarabokin 1 year ago
@yarabokin :my logic...this is what SCIENTISTS believe. That all matter came from an infinitely dense singularity. If you are to divide that singularity and add 2 dimensions, the mass will still equal infinite. No matter how many times you divide it. You see I could be just as irrational as you and state that "evolution doesn't happen" even though it does...simple "answer" (intellectually dishonest one as well) from a simple man :)
jordankriese 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jordankriese I'm not trying to be obtuse but I don''t really get what you are trying to say. What does "divide that singularity and add 2 dimensions," say about anything? What's the point? "the mass will still equal infinite". Okay, so what? And when it comes to god, he either exists or he doesn't. He isn.t a process like evolution. Out of interest, what are your views on evolution? Look after yourself mate ; )
yarabokin 1 year ago
@jordankriese Your math seems a bit off. Taking matter to a two or three dimensional format equals infinite?
There is no new matter forming, only organizing and decaying. The big bang is not a continuous event.
Ignoring these, wouldn't there be a flow of energy and matter into the void? Now, given that we are told that the universe is expanding, the likely answer would be that space itself was expanding.
The matter to the universe is finite, so you mean space, right?
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : not exactly. If all matter came from and can be compacted into a zero dimensional point, THEN the mass of everything must be infinite. I believe that yes, the universe is finite, and that something created it. Not a person, but rather an infinitely complex being. Now the fact that it is the Judeo-Christian God is questionable, but I believe that a God created it nonetheless.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese
Where does the zero dimensional point come in? I understand that by going with the big bang theory a point must have existed when existence was largely uniform and all matter/energy was united, however I don't think we can rule out the possibility of natural dimensions above zero, and my main problem with the equation is that for it to have a zero dimension it has to either be a magnetic force or must have never existed at all till that point. How would you define a god?
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : not necessarily. The thing is that when ALL matter is compacted to the extent that there are zero dimensions (if something is infinitely dense it will have zero dimensions...and many cosmologists believe that the amount of matter present in the cosmos is infinite. Check up on Andromedaswake) You get self refuting contradictions. My idea of a God is something that can create something from nothing.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : and I believe my concept of God is fairly reasonable.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese Yes, but that is the entire point of the god of the gaps argument, but considering what page we are there is not much point on elaborating. I could ask the classic, "But who created this god?" but I don't think we'd get anywhere. Is this god more of an absent creator along deist lines, or more like one that sees us while we eat and sleep? I know this might be annoying but can you clarify how it must be infinite, I've never heard of there being infinite anything.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 I'll take a look at him/her/it later today... during the day. Terms like infinite aren't very clear especially when something is infinitely zero. Now if it was dropping below zero like -2D that would be clearer, but still confusing.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : even areas above 3d can be confusing. But upon the understanding of such things it makes sense. To a 2d being (they may exist, I don't know. We can't see the 2nd dimension without the 3rd) we would seem like gods because we are infinite to them, and have an infinite number of cross sections. Now use that and compare it to us. If there were a 4 dimensional being (or 5), it would be a God. It makes sense to me.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese @jordankriese I have heard the dimensional argument up to this point before, the last person I talked to mentioned nine. The problem is that the fourth dimension loosely defined as time is entirely theoretical, as are all others beyond the third.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@jordankriese Now, assuming causality came into the problem, and putting forward that there MUST be a creator for creation, you then state that the creator was eternal needing no cause. This special pleading(?), all must be created except for this element. LOGICALLY we know the universe exists, so why not stop there, and say it is eternal rather than jumping to a new conclusion?
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : religion wasn't jumping to a new conclusion. I do believe that it came first. I believe Plato was the first person to mention atheos. I'm not jumping to a new conclusion. And there are an infinite number of possibilities. This could quite simply be a very lucid dream. But stating that anything is any more possible...or even logical than the other when the other cannot berefuted is illogical in itself.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese The human works by understanding patterns, and collecting knew information predictable patterns. Which is why the buildings having a builder argument sounds strong, except that it is never accounted for that the entire concept does not translate to anything that humans cannot touch, so then there is the jump that someone must have. Someone who MUST be all powerful, and all knowing, despite no justification for these traits.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : when did I use the building having a builder argument? I mean it is logical (you wouldn't think it sprang out of the ground by itself), but I didn't use the argument in the first place. And certainly he would be all knowing, but that is entirely different from all powerful. Certainly very powerful, but how can he be "all powerful" if there is no infinite? That makes no sense.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese I'm just pointing out the way the brain works, the logic behind your argument looks be the same sort of magical thinking. Thats actually the term, and I do like it. My point is that the answer cultures go with is that after they find a problem they cannot explain they find a reason for it which can break all the rules a logical reason would never get through. So they leap to it being SUPER POWERFUL INFINITUM! Just to get around the problem of logic. That is how gods are born, IMO.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : THIS IS TRUE! And as you may have noticed, my way of thinking is far different from many of those that belong to the same religion. God doesn't URGE all things, he PERMITS most of the time. This is why we should look for natural explanations.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese @jordankriese Ya know, I could not remember where I had heard the atheos thing. I was tempted to write it off as my mistake and here say, then I thought, "Too easy." Now its a book called Religion in the Roman Empire. PG 183 found it on Google! I can send you the link, this box won't take it.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : you didn't send me the link. You should send it to my inbox. The one below doesn't include the entire URL
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "stating that anything is any more possible...or even logical than the other when the other cannot be refuted is illogical in itself." No. Say I told you that Santa and Jesus were fighting for Christmas Day, you cannot prove they don't exist, or that they aren't fighting, you must have a position on whether it is true or not. Logic tells you that at least one of those people isn't real. You know that the statement is wrong without refutation. This is reason. Logic's best friend.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : it's not a question of if they both exist but if they existed. Both Jesus Christ and Saint Nicholas have historical evidence pointing towards their existence. Saint Nicholas may not have had reindeer, but he most definitely contributed to the world. Jesus died a long time ago, so did Saint Nicholas. They both existed.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese I messed up. I should have excluded that answer, because I did not mean the statement to be past tense. I will go on however. They were both alive, they were both real, and they are both worshiped as moral guardians. They are now fighting for Christmas. Its impossible to disprove either, as they exist in such a way that they cannot be seen. By your logic it is just as plausible that what I say is true as well as false.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : not necessarily. It is quite easy to imagine actually. If you are to make a three dimensional object and move it from one point to another, this would be duration. And it always heads in a straight line. And it does make sense. Time cannot exist without space. Or I should rephrase that...relativity would not exist without matter. Much like the third could not exist without the second.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese A little side issue. You are correct that Atheos dates back to the Romans, but originally it was a term for early Christians who rejected the roman pantheon, clearly they lacked belief. Its really more of a hand-me-down title. Also, while Plato used the word, it was Aristotle that gave it life. The "A" standing for "No" or "Non" and the "theos" being "gods" or "belief" and "gnostic" translates to "knowledge."
As concepts the meanings are much older than religion.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : can you show me where Atheos was referring to Christians? Where is your source? And isn't theos religion? It is definitely different than polytheos. I'm sure that the Greeks were smart enough to know the difference. Because atheos requires the belief in no god. One can state that when comparing to all religions, everyone is an atheist. But that just makes no logical sense...
jordankriese 1 year ago
id=svRVFsAP6kgC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=atheos+roman&source=bl&ots=lIJ0drUrnr&sig=yZrqDX_tfjyyL0W86sidY6DhkNk&hl=en&ei=bhj9S6bZK8GqlAfdpeSbCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=atheos%20roman&f=false
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@jordankriese Turns out I was off in my recollection. Atheos was apparently different from Atheism and is only translated as such for convenience. The connotation was one who did not show proper respect to the gods. No, theos is a reference to gods, but religion is part of that package. No surprise. How that doesn't make sense because they still believe in their own gods? An atheist is an atheist because he has no god of his own and doesn't believe in the gods of others. That makes senses.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@jordankriese It sounds reasonable, but its coming out of the left field. We can't place the building of a house with a builder on the same place as a piece of flint that has never been touched by human hands. I like the magician analogy, except that regardless of the magician the trick doesn't make sense by simply adding magic. Rather than explain, it just says "Well, God, did it." Also, I think Ray Comfort used this argument.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : I think that he's always been there. Period. If you have a magician, you can pull a bunny out of a hat when there appeared to be none inside the hat in the first place. When you don't have the magician...well...there is just the bunny...that came out of nowhere...I think the magician LOGICALLY makes sense. The bunny just appearing doesn't.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese Now as far as "pertain to our knowledge" are you saying that there are things we cannot know about a being who allegedly designed us in his infinite wisdom? Assuming that design plays a role in your argument of course.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago
@Midnightblue32 : knowledge is a touchy word. The only "knowledge" that humans have truly acquired is pure mathematics. However, there are things that cannot be mathematically proven that can be pragmatically proven.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese Given the quotations, I'd like to know what you think Knowledge is. I consider experience, and sciences such as biology, and interpersonal communications to be forms of knowledge. Now, whether they are disputed or not only changes their status when they have been disproved (IMO). This is why Republicans and Liberals still exist, opposing view points of which neither can be conclusively proved wrong.
Midnightblue32 1 year ago