Does God Exist? Answer to therealdarthkye is Still "No".

[vbfl920]

And again, at the very least, it's highly controversial that matter itself didn't come into being at the Big Bang. I still have never heard matter spoken of as being "timeless",completely apart from the Big Bang.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 I don't think it's nearly as controversial as you make it out to be. Matter isn't "timeless" but it did exist in a timeless state.

[vbfl920]

Granting you that for the sake of argument.....That's a non-sequitur. We haven't seen matter come into existence, therefore it must've always been around. That doesn't follow.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 If you consider there was no time before the big bang, it existed in a timeless state, energy is neither created nor destroyed. That's something that exists eternally.

[vbfl920]

I can't comment like that because I'm on an IPhone.

No, just because the Big Bang shows (depending which model you're referring to) that matter expanded....this doesn't equate to demonstrating that matter has been around forever. I don't think any scientist will claim that conclusively.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 "this doesn't equate to demonstrating that matter has been around forever."

If matter existed in a timeless state, then yes it does. We can find no proof of creation ex nihilo, therefore there is nothing to say that the creation event happened.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@ItsTheSuperFly Fact. A better . . . or perhaps more accurate question, would be "is there any reason to think God exists from a factual standpoint?"

[vbfl920]

Either way, you still haven't answered the question.

Which theory shows that matter and energy are eternal?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 People are going to have a hard time following the conversation unless you use the reply feature vbfl. I can also easily miss it if it isn't sent to me as a reply.

I'm telling you, for the third time now, the Big Bang theory does state, from at least the perspective of a good many high level physicists, that space-time was created, and that the matter\energy we see today never began to exist, but rather merely changed form.

[nospacesallowed]

@HonestDiscussioner Space-time being created isn't exactly right either. We have tracked it back to the planck time, which the laws of the universe break down. Even space time we can't say was created. Especially since Time being created makes no sense. An act of creation there must've been a time y1 in which thing x didn't exist, and a time y3 where it did and the creation event is between y1 and y3. When was time created? It is like saying the bike was invented while I was riding my bike.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@nospacesallowed It may be difficult to conceive, but I don't think impossible. There wasn't "a time without time" certainly, but there could be "a state of affairs in which time did not exist". The expansion of the universe created space-time, but none of this suggests that it must be the case that there was creation "ex nihilo" or "from nothing", but that whatever matter and energy is today either existed eternally or was in some or form, but nothing suggests it was created "ex nihilo".

[nospacesallowed]

@HonestDiscussioner There may have been a state of affairs where there was not space-time. My point is the use of the word create is not applicable to time since time is inherent in the concept of creation. It is like saying English came to exist at the end of Hamlet, because English was needed to write Hamlet. I think it might be more accurate to say our current concept of space-time came to be in the expansion or that it settled in its form during expansion.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@nospacesallowed Well I don't need to use the word "create" . . how about "began"? I think I could go along with your model none-the-less.

[vbfl920]

cont....On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself." - PCW Davies

Which theory shows that matter and energy are eternal? You cannot just claim that.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 That's only one physicist, the one that apologists usually quote. Not all physicist believe that to be the case, and here Davies is extrapolating based on the data. It's not the only interpretation of it though. For example while Hawking used to believe that, but he now no longer does. If you're trying to say there's only one version of the Big Bang theory you're go

[vbfl920]

"If we extrapolate [back into the past], we reach a point where all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe… For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. ...cont.

[vbfl920]

Again, HD, the standard model posits the absolute beginning of matter and energy, in addition to time.

Which model shows that matter and energy have always existed?

You can't just claim that.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 "the standard model posits the absolute beginning of matter and energy, in addition to time."

No, where did you get that idea? The standard model of the big-bang posits the absolute beginning of space-time. Not matter\energy.

[vbfl920]

Well, the first "law" isn't some all encompassing metaphysical law. It's merely an observation we've made. It says that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed BY matter and energy itself. That certainly doesn't rule out something else - that isnt made of matter - being able to create and destroy it.

Again, which scientific theory shows that matter and energy are eternal into the past?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 Not eternal into the past. Time began at the big bang, but it doesn't say that energy was created at that point. So there was never a time in which it didn't exist, and it existed in a timeless state.

[JuryDutySummons]

Damnit, I want sushi now.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@JuryDutySummons Only NOW? That means at some point you didn't want sushi??

SHAME!

[vbfl920]

HD, you claim the universe is eternal.

Which theory of science shows this?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 Not that the universe is eternal, but that the matter and energy that comprises the universe is eternal. I don't need to cite a scientific theory, but I can cite a law: conservation of matter and energy. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

To answer your exact question, certain understandings of the Big Bang theory would allow for this.

[Gnomefro]

@vbfl920 "Which theory of science shows this?"

There is no way the universe, defined as "the entirety of existence" could not be eternal. That would lead you to state that something comes from nothing - in the completely inert sense of nothing. This is a contradiction in terms and you don't need to go out and investigate that this is a false idea, as the hypothesis is self refuting.

[Gnomefro]

@vbfl920 You could ask what the primary building blocks of existence are though, and as there's no evidence for gods, our only candidates happen to be in the realm of physics. Making up transcendental stuff just leads you to undermine the possibility of causal knowledge about reality. The lack of evidence also means that any transcendental pseudo explanation is just as "good" and has identical explanatory power of zero.

[TheJohnVandivier]

I love this. "My pro-sushi agenda" lmao.

[metalsusa1]

Short answer, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[micometer]

@metalsusa1 Long answer.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[YetAnotherInfidel]

They will submit the divine command theory, in which God's commands are intrinsically good and moral. That, to me, is just unjustified and still subjective to that God.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@YetAnotherInfidel Actually they won't. Kye has refused to accept my video response on the grounds that it offers nothing new to the discussion. How this is the case when I've addressed arguments he just recently made, I don't know.

[YetAnotherInfidel]

@HonestDiscussioner

Really? That upsets me.

I get that all the time, by the way, when I present some argument that they just cannot rap their heads around. They usually send me on my way to evangelical creationist sites that explain that genomes cannot gain information or that the flood left some kind of sign.

I have read through all of these sites. Of course, nothing to see...

I wish there was a way to keep them from running.

[Urchak]

Morality: the subjective emotional responses in regards to action held by an individual.

Moral is often used to stand in for the unstated phrase "i like when people do this" and its contrary position immoral standing in for "i dont like when people do this".

Theist arguments for absolute morality are just like theist arguments for absolute causality. Pushing the argument one step farther away to gods morality "god likes when people do this".

[mordinvan]

@Urchak

This is theists are the first to say morality is situational, and contingent upon whatever their god wants, which means it can't be absolute.

[Urchak]

@mordinvan exactly my point. Their argument for an absolute moral authority, I.e. whatever their god says is moral at that point (or whatever they say their god says is moral) is just as internally inconsistent as their argument for an uncaused cause.

[TheraminTrees]

The old divine 'moral'/'laws of logic' arguments always feel like animated corpses — long dead, but still getting propped up and put on parade. It's a ghoulish spectacle isn't it.

[mordinvan]

@TheraminTrees

I simply dismiss all moral arguments as 'arguments from negative consequence, maybe I can't say its absolutely wrong to eat babies, as a law of the universe, but a) doesn't mean I won't shoot you if I see you trying to eat a living human infant, and b) doesn't mean the universe cares, no matter how much theists wish it would.

[procrastinator99]

FORESTS EVERYWHERE.

[hotkonto]

The sushi fits in perfectly between my chop sticks, therefore God must exist.

[TheTomtompiper]

I wonder who wrote his script?  Obviously he hasn't a clue what the words mean, so he didn't pen it himself.

[Xgya2000]

4:15

All praise sushi!

Sushis are proof of design, and that God loves us!

Great video, as always.

[Nilguiri]

7:37 temp aural spatial creation? You thinking of tempura, mate!

(mmm... sushi)

[Skindoggiedog]

There's a touch of 'hitting the kid in the wheelchair' about these videos.

I know you're not being mean, HD, but I still find this very hard to watch.

[StrikaAmaru]

Don't you LOVE it when morons want to refute advanced scientific notions with a dictionary and introductory-level logic?

[ultimatejesus]

neat video but it sounds like your mic was in a cracker box on the other side of the room

[HonestDiscussioner]

@ultimatejesus I'm getting a new camera with a better microphone in about three weeks.

[FractalMachine]

sushi is awesome!

[dodgermutt]

We don't even fully understand spacetime so how does this bozo think he can prove the existence of an eternal being or infinite anything when we are not yet sure that spacetime has always existed as it does now?

[TheNakedAtheist]

I've never gotten the point of epydemic2020's nature argument. How is it different in any real sense to be a slave to your nature, or a slave to the nature of the universe. Your nature is still limited by something, a something that you have no control over.

[smarthandsomeguy]

Obviously his points are a Craig ripoff.

[belfastfreethinker]

Good video

But...

Your audio's too low. I can barely hear you even with the volume turned up. I then get deafened by the other clips

[TheNakedAtheist]

@belfastfreethinker

I was going to point out the same thing, and it's a recurring theme with HD's video's. I'm constantly having to turn up my volume to hear him compared with other people's video's.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@belfastfreethinker I'm getting a new camera with a better microphone in about three weeks.

[wrongfire]

Calling anything "random" is just ignorance of the true reason.

[themanofearth]

Equivocation fallacy = most common unrecognised fallacy committed by theists.

[MyContext]

@PinkProgram @Greycloud24 @PinkProgram Maybe I have a deficit of some sort...

However, how can ANY CHANGE be said to occur if there is no time. It maybe a horrible linkage on my part to presume that ANY CHANGE denotes the existence of time regardless of the interval of the change. However, even if it takes eons to the eons to the eons (power-wise), if something/anything happens or could happen that itself denotes the existence/presence of time, which is separate from measurement.

[MyContext]

@MyContext Effectively, reality without time would be permanently static. All of the dimensions (except any dimension(s) based on time) regardless of how many others there are - would still be intact...thus there is a state of timelessness... However, if anything can disturb that static state, then the dimension cannot be said to be timeless - only static pending external changes that can occur...

[ABARANOWSKISKI]

I am really getting tired of religious people making claims about science that they don't understand, and probably could never understand, because only a handfull of people alive can understand it, like cosmology. in no other fields of science would they dare make assertions about things they don't understand, it is the epiphany of arrogance.

[TheLivingDinosaur]

Aaah - the dictionary. That last crumbling bastion of the apologist/creationist with no argument to make. As soon as they whip that baby out in an attempt to change your argument into one they think they can refute, you know they're desperately treading water in order stop themselves from drowning in the bullshit ocean of their own making.

[Venaloid]

DarthKye didn't even listen to his own reading of the definitions:

Eternal: without end or beginning. y=x

Intfinite: endless (but not beginningless) y=x, x>0



[SiriusMined]

darth kye doesn't seem to understand the difference between temporal and spacial.

[greycloud24]

"things cannot be two things which contradict each other". this is another logic principle that gets shattered by quantum physics. light exists both as a wave and a particle. and depending it being observed, it acts completely as a wave, or completely as a particle. because of this simple fact, light violates the contradiction principle, and thus is an example that can be pointed to that shatters his statement.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@greycloud24 Well, that wouldn't really counter his argument. There simply has to be some sort of logical principle, even one as simple as 1 + 1 = 2, for him to make his point. Unless you can refute every law of logic entirely, he can still make his point, though it's still incorrect based off of what TheraminTrees said.

[greycloud24]

@HonestDiscussioner quantum physics frequently destroy the base of logical assumptions. they shatter the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. once we shatter these two base principles, we realize that the universe simply does not work like we think it or perceive it to work. but people who are able to really grasp this tend not to be science deniers.

[greycloud24]

@HonestDiscussioner watch this video and how it destroys arguments based on morality =D. no really this is the best argument against biblical morality i have ever seen, and it doesn't even argue against biblical morality. rather it is the science behind morality, by tedtalks, as this guy discusses the chemicals behind morality. /watch?v=rFAdlU2ETjU

[HonestDiscussioner]

@greycloud24 I'll take a look at that tomorrow while I'm working out.

[gambleor]

On a more relevant topic, have you seen my video on the Euthyphro dilemma?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@gambleor No, but I will now that you've mentioned it.

[gambleor]

Damn it man! I'm hungry and you're talking about sushi!

[HonestDiscussioner]

@gambleor nom nom nom nom

[JoakimfromAnka]

What is God's nature but just another word for God's psychology? His emotions, preferences, desires. Moral from an agents nature=moral from the agents preference.

[MyContext]

I find the idea of time (concept) EVER being non-existent impossible, since, without it there could be NO change. This appears to be an absurdity from my frame of reference - and yet it is being suggested and/or claimed all too often. I grant that a particular notion of time may be absent, however, time altogether...not being present...what am I missing?

[PinkProgram]

@MyContext the 4 dimensional line on which your sense of temporal progress resides came into being about 13.7 billion years ago. If you go back beyond that point you get onto another 4 dimensional line going in the opposite direction through space. The point at which they connect is where the universe is being expanded... like a balloon :3 It helps to think of the universe as a 10 dimensional bubble in 11 dimensions ^_^

[HonestDiscussioner]

@MyContext I thought about this too, but the idea of a state-state relationship having causation leads me to believe that it is possible for there to be change without time, but that change would have to cause time.

[greycloud24]

@MyContext look into quantum physics and superposition along with wave function collapse. i don't think that time is required for things to change on a very small scale. since the big bang supposedly began with the all known energy being condensed into a single point, the physics of that object would be bound to the laws of quantum physics. it would very much violate the Heisenberg principle, and that along with entropy could cause time and space to exist.

[aderek79]

Is this guy reading his arguments so stiffly because he's just not good in front of the camera, or is he just regurgitation the work of others?

[HonestDiscussioner]

@aderek79 I recognize a lot of it from Craig, so I think he's using a lot of his work.