This is a standard case of a single fact spoiling a most interesting argument.
The uncertainty principle is based on the fact that detection changes the situation you're detecting, since obviously it dissipates energy, but here it's presumed as divinely inspired gospel.
Theist will fill any holes in their theories with magic, that is the nature if faith, Why is the Universe the ways it is? Why are flowers pretty? Why are babies cute? Why men earn more than women? Why did George Bush became president? because God wanted it so... No matter how little reason or lack of evidence faith demands full belief in magic!
Godlowdown is wrong while claiming to be right. AND he is wrong with a bloated sense of confidence like a proper douchebag. That's always frustrating to watch.
FAIL!!!!...1.) Virtual particles appear in the quantum vaccum...2.) quantum vaccum is a sea of fluctuating energy. A rich physical reality...endowed with a structure and governed by physical laws....QP AND VIRTUAL PARTICLES do NOT COME FROM PURE NOTHINGNESS the pop into being in a universe that already exists with space time energy matter laws and constants already in place! The quantum mechanical vacuum on which [virtual particles] depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing!!!
I'm amazed you actually bothered to refute this guy(He really isn't very bright!!) - but I'm strangely glad you did.
Simpletons like this are actually more annoying, and maybe even more damaging to "urban legend" education, than the WL Craigs, and Alvin Plantingas, whom they are trying to plagurise in this embarrassingly misunderstanding way!
A funny thing that I find about some theist like GodLowDown, is that he admits that faith is a bad thing, and the more you have it, the worse off you are. This is what he is telling us when he says "I just don't have that much faith as you atheists".
@biscoito1r No, when he and others say that, what they mean (and have explained) is that they think atheism takes more faith to believe than theism does.
And yet they believe that faith is a virtue ( something that a little leads to moving mountains ), if atheism really took more faith than theism, then shouldn't atheism be more virtuous then theism according to their own standards ?
@biscoito1r No, because from our (not their - I'm actually a Christian too) point of view, we've applied Occam's Razor (if you don't know what that is, Wiki explains it well as far as I know) after considering whichever particular arguments we've heard for and against God's existence.
@biscoito1r ...yeah, I still think it does make sense in relation to what you said. I meant that faith in the truth is good, while faith in a lie is not good.
@Abhorsen27 But by definition if something is known to be true, people won't have "faith" in it because you don't need to have faith in something that's true. Right?
Faith is only ever in something which can't be proven, or is absolutely false but they don't want to admit it. This is why I think faith is a daft concept.
@DGneoseeker1 A friend of mine said "I laugh at anyone who claims to be able to 'prove' God's existence." Honestly, I agree with him; I cannot 100% prove that God does or does not exist. However, I am still convinced that God does exist, and still view myself as a rational person.
From another perspective: prove that God exists? Pff. Prove that I exist. My point is that you can't. We are assuming our own existence, yet we ask for 100% certain proof of His existence.
You give me your address. I come over. I see you standing there. I poke you to check you're solid. Hey presto, you're proven to exist.
Or possibly I've merely proven that I'm completely and utterly batshit insane and I am imagining that you exist. This has unfortunate implications for the simile.
God is like a youtuber like yourself refusing to give his address so I can't get the proof. How do we know he's not an alternate troll account ?
@Abhorsen27 What experience have you had that could logically give you reason to believe all experience is fake? You have no evidence to supposed that all sensory information is false, as in the Matrix.
@Nervousification That's the whole problem; if it were the case, there would be no evidence. Therefore, I'm saying that [the idea that we are not in the Matrix, that this is indeed the one, true, top-level reality] is an assumption, not a proven fact (it cannot be proven or disproven).
@Abhorsen27 But even if we were in the Matrix, I would have still proved that something exists, even if you're a computer program or an artificial construct.
Hallucinations would be the exception, but in that case I could ask someone else to verify what I was experiencing.
@DGneoseeker1 So if I could be a construct, then couldn't that whole outer-Matrix reality be just another construct (meaning you don't really exist either), within another, within another, ad infinitum?
Or if you believe in any kind of Creator, is it not also an assumption that S/He/It was not also created by another, and another, ad infinitum?
If you answer no to either of those, then you must come up with some kind of reason for the rule of all events needing a cause to not apply.
@Abhorsen27 If I'm a programmed construct, then I still exist.
I'm just not human.
I would argue that the existence of a god makes no sense because if a universe needs a creator, then a creator needs a creator and that creator needs a creator. Ad infinitum. Literally. To infinity.
Therefore I put forth the alternative: The universe does NOT need a creator. The chain ends here. Infinitely simpler.
@DGneoseeker1 TROLL!!! God is no chicken.. Simply stating that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe and life. Hence, you don't know squat about God, your credibility falls short of knowledge. Atheist Fail. Theist WIN! lol
@WSSIIWarlordII Nobody but an atheist ever wins an argument.
And NOBODY knows anything about God. Firstly because he doesn't exist. :p
Secondly because you're basing everything on a book written by some guys who may or may not have been idiots. There's no way of knowing they were right or wrong.
Or if you discard the Christian God and just look at it as a deist, you're just saying "Something needed to make the universe". There's no reason to think it was an intelligent being.
@DGneoseeker1 It's ridiculous to expect a christian not to refute that however with the claim that god has "always been" Which is somehow a more valid claim than the big bang.
It is due to the fact that Energy is not definite so we need to use the uncertantly principal to find a "Range" of energy, since the particals born and die so quickly, since delta E and delta t are inversly since the time they are alive for is so small the energy is it there for is hidden by the uncertantly principle.
The title of the video explains man perfectly. Ya see we've got all of these studies,big words,science in a nutshell, but think about this. How many things can science explain to you with words that you already know from common sense(not common knowledge from school). Trust me, alot of things are common sense and don't need to be dissected a thousand ways, cause you just get the same result over and over again. If i can learn about my existence from just existing, why do i need handmedown info?
People like you depress me. You truly do sadden me greatly. The pursuit and sharing of knowledge is what helps makes humans distinct from other animals. Take a cork for example. It's "common sense" at this point that a cork floats in water. People like you would be perfectly content to stop right there. Why not try to find out WHY the cork floats though? Information determined through further study like this could help us answer questions that common sense cannot on its own.
Particles don't come from nothing, they collapse from a potential wave function. And also, I might add these virtual particles aren't popping in and out of existence they are de-cohering by borrowing energy. The reason they come into "existence" is because they are not coming from absolute nothing, they are coming from space time which is seething with energy. That immense energy constantly collapses from fluctuations in consistency. There is no "empty space", only a grounded state of fields.
@MrChimochay the thing is, that the energy 'borrowed' for theses particles to exist comes from, if you like the term, the future. the problem with the potential wave function explanation is that it kinda leaves a lot of room for error, as well as the fact that wave function collapses are about as understood as a made up word. they are unpredictable, and it could be assumed, if you like, that the wave function collapse is actually the particle leaving existence. an assumption yes, logical, kinda.
Why do we have to deal with this and not just catch them on, and insist they accept, that if they can claim god from nothing we can claim universe from nothing?
I'm not willing to accept that atheism is somehow only viable if science backs it. Atheism should be viable 50 000 years ago among the cave men.
Basically you see lightning while sitting in your cave, hmm where did it come from? I DONT KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU. That is STILL the response regarding the Universe. Why entertain fantasies?
@stiaa04 "Basically you see lightning while sitting in your cave, hmm where did it come from?" Why would anyone assume that some being caused it? If there was never any reason to attribute such things to a God, why would they? Seriously, why is there ghosts, magic, witches, miracles documented in the past.? If these things didn't happen why are they in our history? I don't think people, like to jump to supernatural explanations, not that they didn't (salem witch hunt). Why God or Devil?
I recon people belived in those honestly for the same reason that people belived in magic, witches, miracles and ghosts. And God. The god stories is the strongest ones cause as time passed by religions included lots of rituals, social expectations, group thinking, thought-repetition rules, these things are like brainwashing 101.
I like the questions Michio Kaku asks about this subject. Where did the quantum fluctuations come from? And I ask why must their be quantum fluctuation in the first place. If there be nothing, why must something come from nothing? And if that something came from quantum fluctuations, is it really coming from nothing? Our definition of "nothing" must not be a true "nothing" because if there be quantum fluctuations, there was something before something we say came from nothing.
@FlowCell The quantum treatment of particle creation/annihilation is nearly identical to the classical treatment of randomly-moving gas (actually, the same operators are used in both). The mechanism that causes the particles to pop into existence is nothing more than a mathematical expression of randomness. Even Thomas Aquinas said that if randomness is allowed to interact with causality, something may come from nothing for no reason. It was the exception to his Cosmological Argument.
Yeah, but you still have to deal with where "randomness" came from and the substrate upon which it acts. I'll grant you that randomness to order would be very much unlike the god Thomas Aquinas probably imagined, but for the sake of intellectual satisfaction, one must answer the question, "why something instead of nothing". Why does randomness exist? How does exist without matter? Is this a clue that their is something more fundamental then particles and waves?
@FlowCell I have no doubt that physics extends much deeper into the issue than we currently understand. And for the sake of intellectual satisfaction, I too would very much like to delve into this issue. However, it is one thing to ask a good question (such as you have done) and quite another thing to give a bad answer (such as Thomas Aquinas did). Inserting a giant sky daddy into the mix is probably not the way to go.
Just playing Devil's advocate, or God's advocate (I'm not sure which), Aquinas did say that God must be the most simple thing that could exist. In that sense, I think he was on the right track. The problem was weather or not such a simple state of existence (if it would be even meaningful to our monkey brains) could be conscious. If it is, then "God" is unlike anything we've imagined and nothing like that in the Bible.
The thing that cracks me up about this line of argumentation is the idea that time was created. Since creation is a thing that requires..... time. There must have been a thing which did not exist at time a, then a thing that did exist at time c. So what they are saying is a thing which must exist for something to be created was itself created.
when yoy think about it, man beats god. he walks on water, we walk on the moon. he destroys a bronze city (population of maybe 5 000) we destroy hiroshima and nagasaki. he cures leprosy and disease, we create vaccines and destroy disease. problem, yhwh?
GodLowDown: While your willingness to engage atheists in conversation is commendable you don't really say much that has merit regarding the question at hand. Your whole argument boils down to the idea that what ever the first cause is, it must be your god. There is absolutely no reason to believe the first cause is your god, or a Hindu god, or a Greek god, or any god at all. Supporting the logic that says your god is the first cause is is where you need to spend your energy.
Damn, one of the most famous early quantum physicists was quoted saying: "Damn, we just killed "God"...but of course a warped christian mind can always twist anything to make it fit into his fairy-tale world...
I don't even think your statement makes sense. The Universe is defined as the entirety of existence... Saying it existed forever implies there's some measure of time which encompasses it's duration. But the Universe includes all of time because it is the entirety of existence... so "The Universe" and "Forever" are one and the same in this regard. So I guess you're correct, in a fruitless, tautological sort of way.
You mistake proving gravity and proving the Theory of Gravity in the same way you misunderstand the evidence in support of the Big Bang Theory.
I don't need to prove anything. I just need to agree with the accepted Scientific theory, barring any personal evidence I may have to counter it... which I don't. Are you waiting for someone to prove Germ Theory right in front of you before taking an antibiotic for infection? It behooves you to defer to experts.
but you just told me, in response to saying that the big bang theory, that "Do you also think the Theory of Gravity is just an idea that a lot of people thought was good?"
than doesn't that mean that they should be proven in the same way, continuity use it
my only argument that i'm trying to back up, is that the big bang theory could just as easily not be true as it is
Sorry to be pedantic but energy & mass aren't fundamentally the same thing - yes, all mass can be expressed as energy, but not all energy corresponds to a mass (photons are massless). All cows are animals but not all animals are cows as my physics teacher said when explaining that all heat is IR light but not all IR light is heat :)
@jimi3001 Not to nitpick, but the word fundamentally here probably means they belong to the same parent group. aka all matter is energy and all energy is energy, they belong to the same parent group called energy. Another example all real numbers are numbers and all integers are also numbers. They fundamentally are the same thing numbers, but all integers are real numbers and all real numbers are not integers.
so....GodLowDown has a theory that backs his faith and you have a theory that backs your lack of faith who cares? til answers are found theories are part of the scientific process.
But dumping on someone elses theories when you yourself have no solid proof they are wrong is kind of weak.
erm... are you sure you know what theory means in a scientific sense? GodLowDown has a hypothesis at best. As for Antybu, he's using quantum mechanics. If you're going to dispute how accurate a prediction method quantum mechanics is (some of the best in all physics) then I suggest you step away from you computer. or anything else that uses transistors.
When the "theory" is "we have the answer and don't need to look any more" it's necessary to "dump on" that "theory" to further the search for answers. I think Antybu admitted @ one point that we don't know that this is the way the Universe started, but it's premature and fallacious to claim it's DEFINITELY NOT (which is what GodLowDown, and any Christian, must claim).
I think quantum mechanics has been massively abused from all sides. As far as I'm concerned all quantum mechanics does and can do is assign probability to the likely outcomes of an indeterminate system. This seems more like an inability to adequately define & model the system as opposed to a real sense of "duality." Observation is said to collapse the wave function, but in reality this is nothing more than a bit of semantics in that if we know the outcome via observation the probability = 1.
@eyeammi BTW, I'm an atheist. I just don't happen to believe that quantum mechanics is as mystical as the superstitious would have you believe or as unintuitive as a die hard theoretical physicist would have you believe. I am however more than happy to be convinced otherwise.
i saw his channel, full of arrogant bullshit and fallacies, now, arrogance is sometimes warented, like when you debate a creationist, its like debating a fucking child but you could refute these assholes all day, isnt going to do anything, they dont beleive from logic, it is from emotional plees
ok so virtual particles have no cause?? I doubt that. The possibility that some intelligent being did it is highly unlikely but i think there must be a cause for virtual particles as well, we just haven't found it yet.
@bewertow Atheism, with slight exception, and in context to the entire sum of human understanding since the dawn of man is a fringe anomoly persuading (graciously) a percent of human minds ever to ask the question.
What you should be asking yourself is what kind've existence could host two diametrically opposed viewpoints about a shared condition (existence) with highly intelligent proponentso n both sides? Thesits have an answer, atheists are..working on it.
His argument (God Low down's) is a plead to ignorance. His god is the god of the gaps....that is....."if scienece cannot explain it....god did it!" And that's the end of all arguments. Without producing an overwhelming and testable evidence of an alternative process to support his counter-proposal. They never cease to amaze me.
He says it's possible for the universe to "pop out of nothing" yet say it needs a cause, logic fail? If GodLowDown think he knows Quantum Physics, then he doesn't know Quantum Physics. What? Matter, energy, space, and time created at the same time? So why was there energy before space and time?
"Popping in and out of existence" or in and out of observation? I'll venture a guess that either a) existing then not existing, with no known mechanism present to achieve the effect or b) it always existed, just the technological inability to detect its existence spawns the illusion of "something coming from nothing." (b) seems more reasonable therefore atheists are still groundless in the denial of everything coming from something, or as I like to call it, "Causal Birth."
@Keatrocity Actually, it's not an observational problem. Though, the uncertainty principle (which is, essentially, the explanation of virtual particles) is often misunderstood as an observational limitation, the reason it's so profound is that it seems to be built in to the fabric of realty.
@antybu86 No confident claim can be made regarding our current capacity to observe this anomoly or "uncertainty principle". Most likely it is deficient and can be approved upon, as most other instruments of science. Still a mere Red Herring to the intuitive philisophical understanding about creation ex nihilo and the kind of Entity capable of such a feat.
@antybu86 I just believe the universe was created by something which may be the big bang.. the thing is.. we will never know the cause of the universe because it is impossible to time travel, and there are obviously life forms that are advanced in technology, but the only way to see them, since we do not have light speed and can never have light speed, is by wormholes, yet we have no proof of wormholes,
"Particles" are nothing more than "pieces" of energy arranged in a stable structure. "Virtual particles" are the fuzzy points between energy and "particles", where charge begins to lead towards order of some kind. Because we operate at the macro scale, and our instrumentation is geared towards our own conscious perception of time, this seething of energy into states of actual structure doesn't make sense to us in any intuitive way. And none this has anything to do w/ the Big Bang.
No one is abusing quantum mechanics except the assholes that used it to make weapons such as the nuke. Those are the people you should be complaining about, not a group of theists who are simply trying to relate quantum mechanics to their own world view. Space and time doesn't arise from interactions of energy, they arise from the perceptual apparatus that distinguishes the intensity and properties of different signals in relation to one another.
@SirFoggy2Doped You may have misunderstood my post. Absolutely "something" has always existed. Either it is a Creater capable of producing the natural world or it is the natural world itself. ONE exists necessarily and from the aggrogate collection of human understanding the universe and the physical world are dying, suggesting simply; a birth.
Antybu86 you also used the classic gold post shifting as well, with this whole "virtual particle." But in the end of the day is we don't know if there is a god or not? or who this deity might be anyway.
@vivaramones Excuse me if I'm getting the wrong idea, but are you trying to tell me that Antybu is supposed to tell you if God really exists or not? If you need a scientific proof for your faith, there's something wrong with your faith. Religion should never try to explain science, and Science shouldn't be used to prove God does exist, or what 'it' is. What Antybu does, is seperate those two things, which is healthy. You're my hero Antybu.
It's funny how GodLowDown believes in evolution, and even the big bang theory, but declares quantum physics "fantasies". He can fit those popular theories into his Godful outlook but quantum physics absolutely rapes his understanding of God. So he just brushes it off...
@MacabreManifesto Fantasy; In the sense, as it exists, is almost entirely theoretical steming from vague and inconsistent observations. Science demands consistency, current scientific capability cannot meet this demand therefore cannot turn hypothesis to theory.
Care to edify the forum as to how a mechanism God created suggests His unexistence?
@Keatrocity Fantasy results from inconsistent observations and/or peoples imaginations and manifesting them in pictures, or stories, or spoken word. Scientific knowledge results from making consistent observations and measurements and reasoning what patterns show up and manifesting the meaning of it all without making anything up along the way (in theory). We have made true observations in quantum physics, the things that godlowdown brushes off are all real, consistent observations that...
@Keatrocity ...reveal certain facts about the nature of our universe, we still have a long ways to go and a ton of quantum theory is pure speculation, but the speculation is still based on observation. BTW: you seem to say "Mechanism God Created" as if we actually know that a god exists, which is a hypothesis that is grounded in zero evidence. Early Mayans said that the god Loki caused Earthquakes, this does not mean that earthquakes are evidence for Loki, just a QM isn't evidence for a god.
It's easy to tell before watching a video if it's going to be logical (ie atheist leaning) or retarded (ie creationist based). Just look at the like to dislike ratio. You will find that 99% of all videos that are atheist will receive a much higher like rating, anything religious will receive a higher dislike rating, or even more popular with creationists, ratings and comments disabled.
@fallenone202 Hm, so logically, the more people you get to agree with you the more logical your belief, or in this case video.
Human experience should tell you might does not make right and while he with the gold may make the rule, it pays not an ounch of credence to the merit of said rule.
God Low Down seems like the typical apologist. Find something in science that seems to bear some relation to your preconceived notions, find out enough about it to sound intelligent, skip the rest that might go against your argument and then proceed; Arm chair Christian scientists are the worst.
This something from nothing argument gets really really really really old. Read Brian Greene's Books and research the Higg's Field. No one is actually ever suggesting something came from nothing.
@Trocker7 not sure if your being satirical, but anyway I myself have never used ad hominems or bad language on any of my comments I posted on his videos yet only few got through mainly those complaining of his total disregard for free speech.
Any comment he can't easily refute or that shows his understanding/knowledge of the subject of the video to be mistaken he doesn't allow.
He says he only allows intelligent comments on the debate yet a majority are UHUH UNHUH, UHUH, UNHUH arguments
@robvlob Yup. I posted several comments on several of his pages where I posed reasonable questions for him to answer and instead of answering these questions or facing the things I presented, he just refused to allow my comments. Funny part is, he made a video complaining about "atheist" censoring, when the atheists and people not even talking religion got hit by the people that hit him and he goes on to censor anyone who doesn't agree with him.....
@SecundiniusSineDei His lies about how he allows free speech are pathetic at most but whats worse is hes probably in the top 1/2 of the creation/Christian/theist channels as far as free speech is concerned. Most complain about how "atheists can't handle the truth" yet I would say the majority of theist/atheist channels that don't allow or censor free speech are theists I would bet 90+%
Jezuzfreek777 is the only theist channel I haven't been censored or blocked
@robvlob Yeah, there are a select few creationists/religious people who actually allow comments on their pages and they are willing to debate in a more logical manner than GLD. I have more respect for those who allow people to post evidence against what they have to say and let their viewers decide for themselves rather then "silencing" people who don't agree. I was thinking of doing my own series debunking GLD, but he's honestly not even worth my time.
It also interesting that GodLowDown acknowledges the legitimacy of the Big Bang, but seems to ignore that it began as a singularity; a point of space small enough for quantum events to take place.
I am glad to see someone sees things like this for what they are and how, without refuting it, will pass on into some peoples' minds as truth. Being precise in your arguments are very important to being believable and convincing. And is and should always be a vulnerability in that argument your have against true reality.
Very nice video but there really is nothing close to quantum physics in the bible and before getting onto the topic it should be clearly stated. It's better to stop them at tracks. Otherwise 5*
I'm really tired of theists trying to pin faith on atheists. In Christianity faith is a VIRTUE it is as if most people forget this. Either that or it shows how ignorant people are to their own faith.
exactly, for some reason it's a negative thing when atheists supposedly have faith. It's a subconscious projection of the flaws of their arguements onto others, because they dont want to be associated with those flaws, even though they are hopelessly bound to them.
Thats what you see on a computer screen at a particle accelerator. Those squiggly lines are actually the pathways of sub-atomic particles produced after atoms collide with one another at near the speed of light.
why is it that Atheists give themselves a "free pass" when it comes to them making the claims that the Universe just "happened", or is "infinite", when there is no empirical evidence for either?
guys, while GodLowDown might not understand Quantum Physics that well, he makes a good point. Atheists have "faith", and they are exercising it.
it's still talking about a preexisting "force" and how it relates to particles.... if something is "preexisting", then there had to be something there before it.
you guys need to stop the silly games... you keep trying to go "one step back" but not "all the way". just cut to the chase... go to the lowest common denominator in this debate.... you either believe the Universe is infinite, (which is impossible), or you believe in an infinite God(which is the best explanation).
Your infinite god has the same problem. If he is all that exists he is not even aware of his own existence. You are only aware of your existence if there is something outside of yourself to compare yourself to.
no justin, God doesn't have the same problem..... if God is "God", then He must be infinite.
we must perceive God to be "bigger" than a super hero... if God is not infinite, then He must not be "God". and if God isn't aware of Himself, then He must not be "God".
did it ever occur to you that nothing occurs to God?
Capnn, when it comes to the origins of the universe, we can only base our explanations on the observable evidence. Now, nobody can be certain exactly how it happened, but quantum mechanics opens up a lot of "odd" possibilities (due to the "oddness" which has been observed).
The problem with using "God" is that it's an explanation that works against us. Sure, maybe we've answered one question, but it leads to a thousand more. You might ask "why does God exist?" or "what laws govern God?"
right anty, but what does that question "why does God exist?" have to do with how we got here? that's besides the point.
plus, isn't it kinda crazy for -us- to ask why God exists? if God is indeed "God", then He just -is-.
and if there were "laws" that governed God, then He must not be "God".
but in the end, you are right, neither of us can prove the origin of the Universe... that said, why do you opt to put your belief in "nothingness" if there isn't any evidence for it? i'm curious...
Well, "why does God exist?" would be an equivalent of the famous "why is there something rather than nothing?" And I'm afraid, "God just is" isn't anymore of a satisfactory answer than "the universe just is," at least, that's my opinion.
Also, there must be some laws that govern God? For instance, he must be governed by some desire to create, right?
There are theological explanations for this, but if you bring God into the realm of science, then I'm afraid those aren't good enough.
not really, because we have to look at how Christians (Theists) define God... is God is spiritual, infinite, and all powerful, then how can we compare His purpose to that of the Universe which is made up of space, time and matter. apples and oranges.
if God wants to create something, why must there be a "law" governing Him? if God is "God", would He be the one that implements all of these Scientific "laws". i feel like your concept of God needs to be widened infinitely to understand Him.
No matter how much you adjust your parameters or how large you allow a magnitude of a statement to be, it doesn't bring you any closer to understanding any God.
There is no absolute proof for God and little evidence in general. There is no reliable source to tell what said God truly is, how he/she/it exists and if any religion depicts said God in even a remotely correct fashion. Nothing will allow you to understand a God in a intellectual honest way.
"if there were "laws" that governed God, then He must not be "God"."
There are laws that govern the,by religion proposed,gods.
He creates, he makes plans, changes his mind, makes new plans, he demands worshipping, he is claimed to be just and merciful and his mercy never wins it from his justice. He manifests himself in 3 different ways, he makes souls, angels, the devil etc etc. Quite obvious that this is not more reasonable than energy being the default state of existence.
@ReligionInTheBin Even if God's behavior was not governed by laws, God would still have traits, such as personality and being eternal and omnipotent and all. Now, an eternal god couldn't decide for himself to be eternal; that would mean he was not eternal at some point, which makes him not eternal. If God had always existed, then why? Why is God eternal?
Since God cannot give himself trait, he must have been created by another Creator, requiring an endless string of Creators to create our God.
We don't. At least, anymore than we know unicorns don't exist. Now, my challenge for you is this. Give us just 1 method/proof that we can use to conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that unicorns doesn't exist. Would we have to search every square inch of the planet? Well, they could move around so that won't work. Could we use satellite images? No, because the could be underground. All I ask is 1 method of proving they don't exist.
Also, Casmir effect, though requiring a longer explanation, is a good example of the reality of these virtual particles. Because it points to real empirical evidence of their existence, and can me measured in a lab.
It looks like all 'GodLowDown' is doing is rehashing the tired old Kalam Cosmological Argument that apologists like William Lane Craig have been using for years.
Even if we give them the first point "The Universe has a cause," what evidence do they then base their assumption that "God is that cause" on?
NOTHING!
We can't observe anything outside of our Universe so who is to say what the cause of the Universe is?
so what evidence do you have that the cause WASN'T God oh NOTHING?
at least I have the account of my mother who has died and been there before. she described it the way every1 else does like going though a black hole, seeing all points in time, and interacting with a light being they knew was God.
I sorry I have to agree with GodLowDown. You atheists are kicking Christian azz in the faith department. LMCAO
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a standard case of a single fact spoiling a most interesting argument.
The uncertainty principle is based on the fact that detection changes the situation you're detecting, since obviously it dissipates energy, but here it's presumed as divinely inspired gospel.
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
Theist will fill any holes in their theories with magic, that is the nature if faith, Why is the Universe the ways it is? Why are flowers pretty? Why are babies cute? Why men earn more than women? Why did George Bush became president? because God wanted it so... No matter how little reason or lack of evidence faith demands full belief in magic!
estuchedepeluche 2 months ago
I can see why you never bothered to respond to his second response...i face palmed so hard i got a massive head ache from it
JEL625 3 months ago
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO!!! :D
This is gold. Explains my thoughts while watching his video precisely.
GuitarMannnnnn 3 months ago
Godlowdown is wrong while claiming to be right. AND he is wrong with a bloated sense of confidence like a proper douchebag. That's always frustrating to watch.
FrozenPetrolPie 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FAIL!!!!...1.) Virtual particles appear in the quantum vaccum...2.) quantum vaccum is a sea of fluctuating energy. A rich physical reality...endowed with a structure and governed by physical laws....QP AND VIRTUAL PARTICLES do NOT COME FROM PURE NOTHINGNESS the pop into being in a universe that already exists with space time energy matter laws and constants already in place! The quantum mechanical vacuum on which [virtual particles] depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing!!!
fivethirty 4 months ago
god is fake and gay....
MrWAZZAPDUDE 6 months ago
I'm amazed you actually bothered to refute this guy(He really isn't very bright!!) - but I'm strangely glad you did.
Simpletons like this are actually more annoying, and maybe even more damaging to "urban legend" education, than the WL Craigs, and Alvin Plantingas, whom they are trying to plagurise in this embarrassingly misunderstanding way!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
A funny thing that I find about some theist like GodLowDown, is that he admits that faith is a bad thing, and the more you have it, the worse off you are. This is what he is telling us when he says "I just don't have that much faith as you atheists".
biscoito1r 10 months ago
@biscoito1r No, when he and others say that, what they mean (and have explained) is that they think atheism takes more faith to believe than theism does.
Abhorsen27 9 months ago
@Abhorsen27
And yet they believe that faith is a virtue ( something that a little leads to moving mountains ), if atheism really took more faith than theism, then shouldn't atheism be more virtuous then theism according to their own standards ?
biscoito1r 9 months ago
@biscoito1r No, because from our (not their - I'm actually a Christian too) point of view, we've applied Occam's Razor (if you don't know what that is, Wiki explains it well as far as I know) after considering whichever particular arguments we've heard for and against God's existence.
Abhorsen27 9 months ago
@Abhorsen27
Ok, now read what you wrote and see if it makes any sense in relation to what I said.
biscoito1r 9 months ago
@biscoito1r ...yeah, I still think it does make sense in relation to what you said. I meant that faith in the truth is good, while faith in a lie is not good.
Abhorsen27 8 months ago
@Abhorsen27 But by definition if something is known to be true, people won't have "faith" in it because you don't need to have faith in something that's true. Right?
Faith is only ever in something which can't be proven, or is absolutely false but they don't want to admit it. This is why I think faith is a daft concept.
DGneoseeker1 7 months ago
@DGneoseeker1 A friend of mine said "I laugh at anyone who claims to be able to 'prove' God's existence." Honestly, I agree with him; I cannot 100% prove that God does or does not exist. However, I am still convinced that God does exist, and still view myself as a rational person.
From another perspective: prove that God exists? Pff. Prove that I exist. My point is that you can't. We are assuming our own existence, yet we ask for 100% certain proof of His existence.
Abhorsen27 6 months ago
@Abhorsen27 Prove that you exist?
Sure I can.
You give me your address. I come over. I see you standing there. I poke you to check you're solid. Hey presto, you're proven to exist.
Or possibly I've merely proven that I'm completely and utterly batshit insane and I am imagining that you exist. This has unfortunate implications for the simile.
God is like a youtuber like yourself refusing to give his address so I can't get the proof. How do we know he's not an alternate troll account ?
DGneoseeker1 6 months ago
@DGneoseeker1 That would not be enough; all you've suggested is input from the five senses, which can be faked, as in the Matrix.
Abhorsen27 6 months ago
@Abhorsen27 What experience have you had that could logically give you reason to believe all experience is fake? You have no evidence to supposed that all sensory information is false, as in the Matrix.
Nervousification 6 months ago
@Nervousification That's the whole problem; if it were the case, there would be no evidence. Therefore, I'm saying that [the idea that we are not in the Matrix, that this is indeed the one, true, top-level reality] is an assumption, not a proven fact (it cannot be proven or disproven).
Abhorsen27 6 months ago
@Abhorsen27 Acceptable answer.
Nervousification 6 months ago
@Abhorsen27 But even if we were in the Matrix, I would have still proved that something exists, even if you're a computer program or an artificial construct.
Hallucinations would be the exception, but in that case I could ask someone else to verify what I was experiencing.
DGneoseeker1 6 months ago
@DGneoseeker1 So if I could be a construct, then couldn't that whole outer-Matrix reality be just another construct (meaning you don't really exist either), within another, within another, ad infinitum?
Or if you believe in any kind of Creator, is it not also an assumption that S/He/It was not also created by another, and another, ad infinitum?
If you answer no to either of those, then you must come up with some kind of reason for the rule of all events needing a cause to not apply.
Abhorsen27 6 months ago
@Abhorsen27 If I'm a programmed construct, then I still exist.
I'm just not human.
I would argue that the existence of a god makes no sense because if a universe needs a creator, then a creator needs a creator and that creator needs a creator. Ad infinitum. Literally. To infinity.
Therefore I put forth the alternative: The universe does NOT need a creator. The chain ends here. Infinitely simpler.
DGneoseeker1 6 months ago
@DGneoseeker1 lol You just killed science in that statement...
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII Oh? Do explain why.
DGneoseeker1 4 months ago
@DGneoseeker1 Is it necessary to have an explanation for the explanation? So the egg does not need a chicken? And fine tuning does not need a tuner?
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII The first egg containing a Chicken cannot have been born from a Chicken. lol
Think about it, it's blindingly obvious. Must have been something slightly different to a Chicken.
Besides, to use your own metaphor, God would be a chicken, and being a chicken, needs something to lay his egg.
God is an explanation for nothing, since the same question has to be asked about HIS origin.
DGneoseeker1 4 months ago
@DGneoseeker1 TROLL!!! God is no chicken.. Simply stating that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe and life. Hence, you don't know squat about God, your credibility falls short of knowledge. Atheist Fail. Theist WIN! lol
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII Nobody but an atheist ever wins an argument.
And NOBODY knows anything about God. Firstly because he doesn't exist. :p
Secondly because you're basing everything on a book written by some guys who may or may not have been idiots. There's no way of knowing they were right or wrong.
Or if you discard the Christian God and just look at it as a deist, you're just saying "Something needed to make the universe". There's no reason to think it was an intelligent being.
DGneoseeker1 4 months ago
Also, it's a ridiculous argument to claim that a universe needed a creator while an intelligent being did not.
DGneoseeker1 4 months ago
@DGneoseeker1 It's ridiculous to expect a christian not to refute that however with the claim that god has "always been" Which is somehow a more valid claim than the big bang.
WazcallyWabbit 3 months ago
@WazcallyWabbit And why is that somehow a more valid claim?
Why, because God said so, so it's magically true!
DGneoseeker1 3 months ago
I totally ducked and covered at the end of this video.
zyzoggman 11 months ago
It is due to the fact that Energy is not definite so we need to use the uncertantly principal to find a "Range" of energy, since the particals born and die so quickly, since delta E and delta t are inversly since the time they are alive for is so small the energy is it there for is hidden by the uncertantly principle.
chowzor 1 year ago
The title of the video explains man perfectly. Ya see we've got all of these studies,big words,science in a nutshell, but think about this. How many things can science explain to you with words that you already know from common sense(not common knowledge from school). Trust me, alot of things are common sense and don't need to be dissected a thousand ways, cause you just get the same result over and over again. If i can learn about my existence from just existing, why do i need handmedown info?
bigmikeistheshit 1 year ago
@bigmikeistheshit
People like you depress me. You truly do sadden me greatly. The pursuit and sharing of knowledge is what helps makes humans distinct from other animals. Take a cork for example. It's "common sense" at this point that a cork floats in water. People like you would be perfectly content to stop right there. Why not try to find out WHY the cork floats though? Information determined through further study like this could help us answer questions that common sense cannot on its own.
SeruQuik 11 months ago
Particles don't come from nothing, they collapse from a potential wave function. And also, I might add these virtual particles aren't popping in and out of existence they are de-cohering by borrowing energy. The reason they come into "existence" is because they are not coming from absolute nothing, they are coming from space time which is seething with energy. That immense energy constantly collapses from fluctuations in consistency. There is no "empty space", only a grounded state of fields.
MrChimochay 1 year ago
@MrChimochay the thing is, that the energy 'borrowed' for theses particles to exist comes from, if you like the term, the future. the problem with the potential wave function explanation is that it kinda leaves a lot of room for error, as well as the fact that wave function collapses are about as understood as a made up word. they are unpredictable, and it could be assumed, if you like, that the wave function collapse is actually the particle leaving existence. an assumption yes, logical, kinda.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
Why do we have to deal with this and not just catch them on, and insist they accept, that if they can claim god from nothing we can claim universe from nothing?
I'm not willing to accept that atheism is somehow only viable if science backs it. Atheism should be viable 50 000 years ago among the cave men.
Basically you see lightning while sitting in your cave, hmm where did it come from? I DONT KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU. That is STILL the response regarding the Universe. Why entertain fantasies?
stiaa04 1 year ago
@stiaa04 "Basically you see lightning while sitting in your cave, hmm where did it come from?" Why would anyone assume that some being caused it? If there was never any reason to attribute such things to a God, why would they? Seriously, why is there ghosts, magic, witches, miracles documented in the past.? If these things didn't happen why are they in our history? I don't think people, like to jump to supernatural explanations, not that they didn't (salem witch hunt). Why God or Devil?
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb Note that there are alot of other things that you happen to not mention like say:
Gnomes, trolls, santa, fairies, jinns, kami, unicorns, etc
I recon people belived in those honestly for the same reason that people belived in magic, witches, miracles and ghosts. And God. The god stories is the strongest ones cause as time passed by religions included lots of rituals, social expectations, group thinking, thought-repetition rules, these things are like brainwashing 101.
stiaa04 1 year ago
I like the questions Michio Kaku asks about this subject. Where did the quantum fluctuations come from? And I ask why must their be quantum fluctuation in the first place. If there be nothing, why must something come from nothing? And if that something came from quantum fluctuations, is it really coming from nothing? Our definition of "nothing" must not be a true "nothing" because if there be quantum fluctuations, there was something before something we say came from nothing.
FlowCell 1 year ago
@FlowCell The quantum treatment of particle creation/annihilation is nearly identical to the classical treatment of randomly-moving gas (actually, the same operators are used in both). The mechanism that causes the particles to pop into existence is nothing more than a mathematical expression of randomness. Even Thomas Aquinas said that if randomness is allowed to interact with causality, something may come from nothing for no reason. It was the exception to his Cosmological Argument.
Yudovitch 10 months ago
@Yudovitch
Yeah, but you still have to deal with where "randomness" came from and the substrate upon which it acts. I'll grant you that randomness to order would be very much unlike the god Thomas Aquinas probably imagined, but for the sake of intellectual satisfaction, one must answer the question, "why something instead of nothing". Why does randomness exist? How does exist without matter? Is this a clue that their is something more fundamental then particles and waves?
FlowCell 10 months ago
@FlowCell I have no doubt that physics extends much deeper into the issue than we currently understand. And for the sake of intellectual satisfaction, I too would very much like to delve into this issue. However, it is one thing to ask a good question (such as you have done) and quite another thing to give a bad answer (such as Thomas Aquinas did). Inserting a giant sky daddy into the mix is probably not the way to go.
Yudovitch 10 months ago
@Yudovitch
Just playing Devil's advocate, or God's advocate (I'm not sure which), Aquinas did say that God must be the most simple thing that could exist. In that sense, I think he was on the right track. The problem was weather or not such a simple state of existence (if it would be even meaningful to our monkey brains) could be conscious. If it is, then "God" is unlike anything we've imagined and nothing like that in the Bible.
FlowCell 10 months ago
The thing that cracks me up about this line of argumentation is the idea that time was created. Since creation is a thing that requires..... time. There must have been a thing which did not exist at time a, then a thing that did exist at time c. So what they are saying is a thing which must exist for something to be created was itself created.
nospacesallowed 1 year ago
when yoy think about it, man beats god. he walks on water, we walk on the moon. he destroys a bronze city (population of maybe 5 000) we destroy hiroshima and nagasaki. he cures leprosy and disease, we create vaccines and destroy disease. problem, yhwh?
Sutorenja 1 year ago
Comment removed
nmagerl 1 year ago
Comment removed
nmagerl 1 year ago
GodLowDown: While your willingness to engage atheists in conversation is commendable you don't really say much that has merit regarding the question at hand. Your whole argument boils down to the idea that what ever the first cause is, it must be your god. There is absolutely no reason to believe the first cause is your god, or a Hindu god, or a Greek god, or any god at all. Supporting the logic that says your god is the first cause is is where you need to spend your energy.
nmagerl 1 year ago
I swear there is some movie star who shares a resemblance with you, because you look so familiar.
JesusxXxLovesxXxYou 1 year ago
Damn, one of the most famous early quantum physicists was quoted saying: "Damn, we just killed "God"...but of course a warped christian mind can always twist anything to make it fit into his fairy-tale world...
winterstellar 1 year ago
perhaps the universe always existed, forever
MolotovDaSkwerl 1 year ago
@MolotovDaSkwerl
I don't even think your statement makes sense. The Universe is defined as the entirety of existence... Saying it existed forever implies there's some measure of time which encompasses it's duration. But the Universe includes all of time because it is the entirety of existence... so "The Universe" and "Forever" are one and the same in this regard. So I guess you're correct, in a fruitless, tautological sort of way.
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
@CharBroiled04
perhaps your looking to deep into this
first off how do we even know it began, if i am correct, the big bang theory is just an idea that a lot of people that was good
MolotovDaSkwerl 1 year ago
@MolotovDaSkwerl
Do you also think the Theory of Gravity is just an idea that a lot of people thought was good?
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
@CharBroiled04
perhaps when you prove the big bang happened making a few couple universes on your own time (you know, as often as people prove gravity)
we can talk
MolotovDaSkwerl 1 year ago
@MolotovDaSkwerl
You mistake proving gravity and proving the Theory of Gravity in the same way you misunderstand the evidence in support of the Big Bang Theory.
I don't need to prove anything. I just need to agree with the accepted Scientific theory, barring any personal evidence I may have to counter it... which I don't. Are you waiting for someone to prove Germ Theory right in front of you before taking an antibiotic for infection? It behooves you to defer to experts.
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CharBroiled04
but you just told me, in response to saying that the big bang theory, that "Do you also think the Theory of Gravity is just an idea that a lot of people thought was good?"
than doesn't that mean that they should be proven in the same way, continuity use it
my only argument that i'm trying to back up, is that the big bang theory could just as easily not be true as it is
MolotovDaSkwerl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CharBroiled04
you seemed to imply that they could be proven the same way when you said this
"Do you also think the Theory of Gravity is just an idea that a lot of people thought was good?"
MolotovDaSkwerl 1 year ago
This is a brutal over-simplification
Ephemerance 1 year ago
Sorry to be pedantic but energy & mass aren't fundamentally the same thing - yes, all mass can be expressed as energy, but not all energy corresponds to a mass (photons are massless). All cows are animals but not all animals are cows as my physics teacher said when explaining that all heat is IR light but not all IR light is heat :)
jimi3001 1 year ago
@jimi3001 Not to nitpick, but the word fundamentally here probably means they belong to the same parent group. aka all matter is energy and all energy is energy, they belong to the same parent group called energy. Another example all real numbers are numbers and all integers are also numbers. They fundamentally are the same thing numbers, but all integers are real numbers and all real numbers are not integers.
nospacesallowed 1 year ago
Smaaall correction, Einstein's equation is the "Mass-Energy equivalence", because matter is defined "something that has mass and volume".
amandarandom89 1 year ago
so....GodLowDown has a theory that backs his faith and you have a theory that backs your lack of faith who cares? til answers are found theories are part of the scientific process.
But dumping on someone elses theories when you yourself have no solid proof they are wrong is kind of weak.
Shargrailar 1 year ago
@Shargrailar
erm... are you sure you know what theory means in a scientific sense? GodLowDown has a hypothesis at best. As for Antybu, he's using quantum mechanics. If you're going to dispute how accurate a prediction method quantum mechanics is (some of the best in all physics) then I suggest you step away from you computer. or anything else that uses transistors.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@Shargrailar
When the "theory" is "we have the answer and don't need to look any more" it's necessary to "dump on" that "theory" to further the search for answers. I think Antybu admitted @ one point that we don't know that this is the way the Universe started, but it's premature and fallacious to claim it's DEFINITELY NOT (which is what GodLowDown, and any Christian, must claim).
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
"they're bolth fundementally the same thing" hahaha! great! hahaha
gerinja 1 year ago
I think quantum mechanics has been massively abused from all sides. As far as I'm concerned all quantum mechanics does and can do is assign probability to the likely outcomes of an indeterminate system. This seems more like an inability to adequately define & model the system as opposed to a real sense of "duality." Observation is said to collapse the wave function, but in reality this is nothing more than a bit of semantics in that if we know the outcome via observation the probability = 1.
eyeammi 1 year ago
@eyeammi BTW, I'm an atheist. I just don't happen to believe that quantum mechanics is as mystical as the superstitious would have you believe or as unintuitive as a die hard theoretical physicist would have you believe. I am however more than happy to be convinced otherwise.
eyeammi 1 year ago
Problem is that Einstein was a deist and Heisenberg a theist.
bgbyer 1 year ago
i saw his channel, full of arrogant bullshit and fallacies, now, arrogance is sometimes warented, like when you debate a creationist, its like debating a fucking child but you could refute these assholes all day, isnt going to do anything, they dont beleive from logic, it is from emotional plees
blazereef 1 year ago
Jesus: Hey i just made water out of wine using magic!
scientist: Hey i just made a bomb using science that can destroy a entire city and leave anyone near it get cancer and die a slow painful death.
Jesus:Uh...I give up i cant win with my magic tricks.
houkou1 1 year ago
I love quantum theory
whydie666 1 year ago
ok so virtual particles have no cause?? I doubt that. The possibility that some intelligent being did it is highly unlikely but i think there must be a cause for virtual particles as well, we just haven't found it yet.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
Well how the hell can those"Virtual Particles"just pop in and out of existence??
Obviously something more is going on there....
Fun to explore ^_^
SirFoggy2Doped 1 year ago
maybe Hal and ziggy need to pop out of a glowing portal to help him right things wrong, so that maybe his next leap, will be the leap home.
thedavidleebooth 1 year ago
God is for dumbasses. There's a reason 93% of physicists, the smartest scientists in the world, are either atheists or agnostic.
bewertow 1 year ago
@bewertow Atheism, with slight exception, and in context to the entire sum of human understanding since the dawn of man is a fringe anomoly persuading (graciously) a percent of human minds ever to ask the question.
What you should be asking yourself is what kind've existence could host two diametrically opposed viewpoints about a shared condition (existence) with highly intelligent proponentso n both sides? Thesits have an answer, atheists are..working on it.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity It's funny how people who make shit up always have an answer...
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
I was going to like this video, but I saw it was at 666 likes, so I just left it alone.
pgdevil 1 year ago
His argument (God Low down's) is a plead to ignorance. His god is the god of the gaps....that is....."if scienece cannot explain it....god did it!" And that's the end of all arguments. Without producing an overwhelming and testable evidence of an alternative process to support his counter-proposal. They never cease to amaze me.
pedrom41 1 year ago
He says it's possible for the universe to "pop out of nothing" yet say it needs a cause, logic fail? If GodLowDown think he knows Quantum Physics, then he doesn't know Quantum Physics. What? Matter, energy, space, and time created at the same time? So why was there energy before space and time?
HybridD91 1 year ago
"Popping in and out of existence" or in and out of observation? I'll venture a guess that either a) existing then not existing, with no known mechanism present to achieve the effect or b) it always existed, just the technological inability to detect its existence spawns the illusion of "something coming from nothing." (b) seems more reasonable therefore atheists are still groundless in the denial of everything coming from something, or as I like to call it, "Causal Birth."
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity Actually, it's not an observational problem. Though, the uncertainty principle (which is, essentially, the explanation of virtual particles) is often misunderstood as an observational limitation, the reason it's so profound is that it seems to be built in to the fabric of realty.
antybu86 1 year ago 12
@antybu86 No confident claim can be made regarding our current capacity to observe this anomoly or "uncertainty principle". Most likely it is deficient and can be approved upon, as most other instruments of science. Still a mere Red Herring to the intuitive philisophical understanding about creation ex nihilo and the kind of Entity capable of such a feat.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity *improved upon
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@antybu86 I just believe the universe was created by something which may be the big bang.. the thing is.. we will never know the cause of the universe because it is impossible to time travel, and there are obviously life forms that are advanced in technology, but the only way to see them, since we do not have light speed and can never have light speed, is by wormholes, yet we have no proof of wormholes,
ReviewrOfGames 1 year ago
@antybu86
"Particles" are nothing more than "pieces" of energy arranged in a stable structure. "Virtual particles" are the fuzzy points between energy and "particles", where charge begins to lead towards order of some kind. Because we operate at the macro scale, and our instrumentation is geared towards our own conscious perception of time, this seething of energy into states of actual structure doesn't make sense to us in any intuitive way. And none this has anything to do w/ the Big Bang.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
No one is abusing quantum mechanics except the assholes that used it to make weapons such as the nuke. Those are the people you should be complaining about, not a group of theists who are simply trying to relate quantum mechanics to their own world view. Space and time doesn't arise from interactions of energy, they arise from the perceptual apparatus that distinguishes the intensity and properties of different signals in relation to one another.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision And a tree doesn't make a sound if no one is around....
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo
what ever helps you sleep at night, my philosophically enlightened friend
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@Keatrocity Yeah one of the fundamental laws of nature is that energy can not be created or destroyed...
So does this mean that something has always existed?
Something can NEVER EVER EVER come from nothing.
THERE MUST BE something for something to happen.
SirFoggy2Doped 1 year ago
@SirFoggy2Doped You may have misunderstood my post. Absolutely "something" has always existed. Either it is a Creater capable of producing the natural world or it is the natural world itself. ONE exists necessarily and from the aggrogate collection of human understanding the universe and the physical world are dying, suggesting simply; a birth.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
Antybu86 you also used the classic gold post shifting as well, with this whole "virtual particle." But in the end of the day is we don't know if there is a god or not? or who this deity might be anyway.
vivaramones 1 year ago
@vivaramones It's possible that I shifted the goal posts, but I can't figure out how. Would you mind explaining?
antybu86 1 year ago 4
@vivaramones Excuse me if I'm getting the wrong idea, but are you trying to tell me that Antybu is supposed to tell you if God really exists or not? If you need a scientific proof for your faith, there's something wrong with your faith. Religion should never try to explain science, and Science shouldn't be used to prove God does exist, or what 'it' is. What Antybu does, is seperate those two things, which is healthy. You're my hero Antybu.
Lemingow 10 months ago
HE HAS FAITH THAT HE KNOWS OF WHAT HE SPEAKS
billygundum 1 year ago
watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
do watch. i believe that any person from any spiritual background will get a lot out of this video.
TiTSxxMcGEE 1 year ago
It's funny how GodLowDown believes in evolution, and even the big bang theory, but declares quantum physics "fantasies". He can fit those popular theories into his Godful outlook but quantum physics absolutely rapes his understanding of God. So he just brushes it off...
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
@MacabreManifesto Fantasy; In the sense, as it exists, is almost entirely theoretical steming from vague and inconsistent observations. Science demands consistency, current scientific capability cannot meet this demand therefore cannot turn hypothesis to theory.
Care to edify the forum as to how a mechanism God created suggests His unexistence?
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity Fantasy results from inconsistent observations and/or peoples imaginations and manifesting them in pictures, or stories, or spoken word. Scientific knowledge results from making consistent observations and measurements and reasoning what patterns show up and manifesting the meaning of it all without making anything up along the way (in theory). We have made true observations in quantum physics, the things that godlowdown brushes off are all real, consistent observations that...
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
@Keatrocity ...reveal certain facts about the nature of our universe, we still have a long ways to go and a ton of quantum theory is pure speculation, but the speculation is still based on observation. BTW: you seem to say "Mechanism God Created" as if we actually know that a god exists, which is a hypothesis that is grounded in zero evidence. Early Mayans said that the god Loki caused Earthquakes, this does not mean that earthquakes are evidence for Loki, just a QM isn't evidence for a god.
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago
It's easy to tell before watching a video if it's going to be logical (ie atheist leaning) or retarded (ie creationist based). Just look at the like to dislike ratio. You will find that 99% of all videos that are atheist will receive a much higher like rating, anything religious will receive a higher dislike rating, or even more popular with creationists, ratings and comments disabled.
fallenone202 1 year ago
@fallenone202 Hm, so logically, the more people you get to agree with you the more logical your belief, or in this case video.
Human experience should tell you might does not make right and while he with the gold may make the rule, it pays not an ounch of credence to the merit of said rule.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
God Low Down seems like the typical apologist. Find something in science that seems to bear some relation to your preconceived notions, find out enough about it to sound intelligent, skip the rest that might go against your argument and then proceed; Arm chair Christian scientists are the worst.
myironlungca 1 year ago
This something from nothing argument gets really really really really old. Read Brian Greene's Books and research the Higg's Field. No one is actually ever suggesting something came from nothing.
myironlungca 1 year ago
Now, That ending was awesome... the links I have viewed in the description are very entertaining to say the least.
DavySigfusson 1 year ago
You actually Have Godlowdown wrong, he removes comments that are just insults, and creates intelligent arguments of others.
Trocker7 1 year ago
@Trocker7 not sure if your being satirical, but anyway I myself have never used ad hominems or bad language on any of my comments I posted on his videos yet only few got through mainly those complaining of his total disregard for free speech.
Any comment he can't easily refute or that shows his understanding/knowledge of the subject of the video to be mistaken he doesn't allow.
He says he only allows intelligent comments on the debate yet a majority are UHUH UNHUH, UHUH, UNHUH arguments
robvlob 1 year ago
@robvlob Yup. I posted several comments on several of his pages where I posed reasonable questions for him to answer and instead of answering these questions or facing the things I presented, he just refused to allow my comments. Funny part is, he made a video complaining about "atheist" censoring, when the atheists and people not even talking religion got hit by the people that hit him and he goes on to censor anyone who doesn't agree with him.....
SecundiniusSineDei 1 year ago
@SecundiniusSineDei His lies about how he allows free speech are pathetic at most but whats worse is hes probably in the top 1/2 of the creation/Christian/theist channels as far as free speech is concerned. Most complain about how "atheists can't handle the truth" yet I would say the majority of theist/atheist channels that don't allow or censor free speech are theists I would bet 90+%
Jezuzfreek777 is the only theist channel I haven't been censored or blocked
robvlob 1 year ago
@robvlob Yeah, there are a select few creationists/religious people who actually allow comments on their pages and they are willing to debate in a more logical manner than GLD. I have more respect for those who allow people to post evidence against what they have to say and let their viewers decide for themselves rather then "silencing" people who don't agree. I was thinking of doing my own series debunking GLD, but he's honestly not even worth my time.
SecundiniusSineDei 1 year ago
Ugh, I so hate it when retards like GodLowDown hijack Quantum Mechanics for their purposes to confuse the gullible.
lagerbaer 1 year ago
nice ending lol
wakcedout 1 year ago
It also interesting that GodLowDown acknowledges the legitimacy of the Big Bang, but seems to ignore that it began as a singularity; a point of space small enough for quantum events to take place.
Good video.
SolRosenberg84 1 year ago
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it.
When he just said energy, I knew it.
some one should tell this asshole that energy and matter are the same FUCKING THING!
E=mc2
2:34
anzuki 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheAnonymouz 1 year ago
@TheAnonymouz
yes, its takes time to travel between two planets.
It takes 8 sec for the light from the sun to get to Earth.
It is the interaction of matter and energy.
The space between point A and B, and the time it takes to go through.
that is space time.
anzuki 1 year ago
I am glad to see someone sees things like this for what they are and how, without refuting it, will pass on into some peoples' minds as truth. Being precise in your arguments are very important to being believable and convincing. And is and should always be a vulnerability in that argument your have against true reality.
rich2rock 1 year ago
Very nice video but there really is nothing close to quantum physics in the bible and before getting onto the topic it should be clearly stated. It's better to stop them at tracks. Otherwise 5*
miraenna 2 years ago
@antybu86
Good pwnage in this video. What is an Antybu?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
1. Einstein
2. Bohr
3. Heisenberg (looked at wikipedia to be sure)
4 Schrödinger
What did I win?
iamtheVitor 2 years ago 13
The satisfaction of being smart.
antybu86 2 years ago 20
I'm really tired of theists trying to pin faith on atheists. In Christianity faith is a VIRTUE it is as if most people forget this. Either that or it shows how ignorant people are to their own faith.
insidetrip101 2 years ago
exactly, for some reason it's a negative thing when atheists supposedly have faith. It's a subconscious projection of the flaws of their arguements onto others, because they dont want to be associated with those flaws, even though they are hopelessly bound to them.
Staunts 2 years ago
another one bites the dusty dusty dust
PlanetBongoSan 2 years ago
I liked this video. Very well put together. Kudos.
Palearch 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists are ether muslims or queers, with no father and a feminist mothjer. Queers
TryDeletingMe 2 years ago
What about people with no mother and a feminist father?
antybu86 2 years ago
As soon as you said censor happy user GodLowDown I had to subscribe lol. That guy for some odd reason has really been annoying me.
janjust 2 years ago
Comment removed
janjust 2 years ago
Can I just abuse my Quantum Physics book? It beats the hell out of my brain for hours a day.
harvellt 2 years ago
SCIENCE!
nothinbuthax 2 years ago
I love it when those of faith admit that faith is kind of a negative thing.
64kix 2 years ago
Is the blueprint at 4:13 black holes?
MATTY360ELITE 2 years ago
Thats what you see on a computer screen at a particle accelerator. Those squiggly lines are actually the pathways of sub-atomic particles produced after atoms collide with one another at near the speed of light.
kennegun 2 years ago
Thankyou =]
MATTY360ELITE 2 years ago
why is it that Atheists give themselves a "free pass" when it comes to them making the claims that the Universe just "happened", or is "infinite", when there is no empirical evidence for either?
guys, while GodLowDown might not understand Quantum Physics that well, he makes a good point. Atheists have "faith", and they are exercising it.
God is still the best explanation.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
There's empirical evidence that the Universe might have happened from Nothing. The virtual particle formation is an example.
The Casimir effect is emipical evidence.
acrh22 2 years ago
it's still talking about a preexisting "force" and how it relates to particles.... if something is "preexisting", then there had to be something there before it.
you guys need to stop the silly games... you keep trying to go "one step back" but not "all the way". just cut to the chase... go to the lowest common denominator in this debate.... you either believe the Universe is infinite, (which is impossible), or you believe in an infinite God(which is the best explanation).
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
CapnnOrdinary "infinite God"
Your infinite god has the same problem. If he is all that exists he is not even aware of his own existence. You are only aware of your existence if there is something outside of yourself to compare yourself to.
justintempler 2 years ago
no justin, God doesn't have the same problem..... if God is "God", then He must be infinite.
we must perceive God to be "bigger" than a super hero... if God is not infinite, then He must not be "God". and if God isn't aware of Himself, then He must not be "God".
did it ever occur to you that nothing occurs to God?
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
Capnn, when it comes to the origins of the universe, we can only base our explanations on the observable evidence. Now, nobody can be certain exactly how it happened, but quantum mechanics opens up a lot of "odd" possibilities (due to the "oddness" which has been observed).
The problem with using "God" is that it's an explanation that works against us. Sure, maybe we've answered one question, but it leads to a thousand more. You might ask "why does God exist?" or "what laws govern God?"
antybu86 2 years ago
right anty, but what does that question "why does God exist?" have to do with how we got here? that's besides the point.
plus, isn't it kinda crazy for -us- to ask why God exists? if God is indeed "God", then He just -is-.
and if there were "laws" that governed God, then He must not be "God".
but in the end, you are right, neither of us can prove the origin of the Universe... that said, why do you opt to put your belief in "nothingness" if there isn't any evidence for it? i'm curious...
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
Well, "why does God exist?" would be an equivalent of the famous "why is there something rather than nothing?" And I'm afraid, "God just is" isn't anymore of a satisfactory answer than "the universe just is," at least, that's my opinion.
Also, there must be some laws that govern God? For instance, he must be governed by some desire to create, right?
There are theological explanations for this, but if you bring God into the realm of science, then I'm afraid those aren't good enough.
antybu86 2 years ago
not really, because we have to look at how Christians (Theists) define God... is God is spiritual, infinite, and all powerful, then how can we compare His purpose to that of the Universe which is made up of space, time and matter. apples and oranges.
if God wants to create something, why must there be a "law" governing Him? if God is "God", would He be the one that implements all of these Scientific "laws". i feel like your concept of God needs to be widened infinitely to understand Him.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
No matter how much you adjust your parameters or how large you allow a magnitude of a statement to be, it doesn't bring you any closer to understanding any God.
There is no absolute proof for God and little evidence in general. There is no reliable source to tell what said God truly is, how he/she/it exists and if any religion depicts said God in even a remotely correct fashion. Nothing will allow you to understand a God in a intellectual honest way.
Lol @ improper grammar to refer to God :P
TheAnonymouz 1 year ago
@CapnnOrdinary
"if there were "laws" that governed God, then He must not be "God"."
There are laws that govern the,by religion proposed,gods.
He creates, he makes plans, changes his mind, makes new plans, he demands worshipping, he is claimed to be just and merciful and his mercy never wins it from his justice. He manifests himself in 3 different ways, he makes souls, angels, the devil etc etc. Quite obvious that this is not more reasonable than energy being the default state of existence.
ReligionInTheBin 1 year ago 25
@ReligionInTheBin Even if God's behavior was not governed by laws, God would still have traits, such as personality and being eternal and omnipotent and all. Now, an eternal god couldn't decide for himself to be eternal; that would mean he was not eternal at some point, which makes him not eternal. If God had always existed, then why? Why is God eternal?
Since God cannot give himself trait, he must have been created by another Creator, requiring an endless string of Creators to create our God.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843
where'd the particle of energy that started the universe come from?
MolotovDaSkwerl 1 year ago
@MolotovDaSkwerl
1: What's makes you think the 'universe' 'started', and makes you think it was one particular particle of energy?
2: I don't know, you don't know, and religion provides only explanatory models that are archaic, infantile and incoherent.
Any questions?
Pomme843 1 year ago
@Pomme843
1:i don't quite think it began, but that is the general thesis of the big bang theory
2:k
MolotovDaSkwerl 1 year ago
CapnnOrdinary "and if God isn't aware of Himself, then He must not be "God"."
That is my point. If nothing exists, nothing can be thought about. So yes, nothing occurs to god.
justintempler 2 years ago
so making a positive claim like that requires some empirical evidence brody.
how do you know God doesn't exist?
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
CapnnOrdinary "so making a positive claim like that"
YOU are the one making the positive claim that God exists, not me.
Law of non-contradiction
Law of excluded middle
Law of identity
You can not define your own existence without something outside of yourself to form a contradiction.
Our discussion is based on those same laws of logic.. You assume that my words are not yours.
justintempler 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"how do you know God doesn't exist?"
We don't. At least, anymore than we know unicorns don't exist. Now, my challenge for you is this. Give us just 1 method/proof that we can use to conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that unicorns doesn't exist. Would we have to search every square inch of the planet? Well, they could move around so that won't work. Could we use satellite images? No, because the could be underground. All I ask is 1 method of proving they don't exist.
Ripley747 2 years ago
Conceptually and philosophically, how is infinite god different from an infinite universe/force/vaccum?
The god concept is simply an oversimplification when it comes to dealing with infinities. And as such, it's pretty much nonsensical.
Your comments only show that you prefer to subscribe to a prehistoric way of thinking. That is: "If I don't understand something, god did it."
acrh22 2 years ago
Edit:
Also, Casmir effect, though requiring a longer explanation, is a good example of the reality of these virtual particles. Because it points to real empirical evidence of their existence, and can me measured in a lab.
acrh22 2 years ago
Great video... well done.
razeal113 2 years ago
It looks like all 'GodLowDown' is doing is rehashing the tired old Kalam Cosmological Argument that apologists like William Lane Craig have been using for years.
Even if we give them the first point "The Universe has a cause," what evidence do they then base their assumption that "God is that cause" on?
NOTHING!
We can't observe anything outside of our Universe so who is to say what the cause of the Universe is?
baudiirocz 2 years ago
@baudiirocz
so what evidence do you have that the cause WASN'T God oh NOTHING?
at least I have the account of my mother who has died and been there before. she described it the way every1 else does like going though a black hole, seeing all points in time, and interacting with a light being they knew was God.
I sorry I have to agree with GodLowDown. You atheists are kicking Christian azz in the faith department. LMCAO
Jonisdaman 2 years ago