@ReverendWyrm the existence of God(s) is for the realm of philosophy. Like love, good, evil and other concepts.
It cannot (at least as yet) be objectively verified any more than existence of love can be objectively verified. It can, however, be logical deduced from what we understand about ourselves and the universe.
A mathematician might be able to create a formula proving God, but that would be as meaningless as the formulas that "prove" the big bang or the geocentric universe.
@eleutheromaniac "the existence of God(s) is for the realm of philosophy. Like love, good, evil and other concepts." If "God" is an actual entity than it belongs in the realm of science. Whether something is actually extant is very different than abstracts concepts like love. Either something actually exists in reality or it does not.
"It can...be logical deduced..." There's no logical reason to assume any kind of god exists as I've already explained.
@ReverendWyrm you say it's 'hypothesizing' but the entire big bang theory is supported by its existence. take away dark matter and dark energy and the theory that so many scientists base all their work on falls down like a house of cards.
@ReverendWyrm so in other words they are beginning with a theory and seeing if they can make the facts conform to it. working in the complete opposite direction of the scientific method. "dark matter exists...now we just have to prove it!"
ptolemy had a similiar modus operandi. it took 1400 years and the invention of the telescope to finally put his bogus theory and mathematical rhetoric to rest, I just hope we don't have to wait that long for the big bung theory to be put in the waste bin.
@eleutheromaniac "so in other words they are beginning with a theory and seeing if they can make the facts conform to it." No, they are beginning with an observation in regard to gravitation and the mass of the Universe and developing a hypothesis. The idea of dark matter is far from the status of Theory in the scientific sense.
"dark matter exists...now we just have to prove it!" This isn't the opposite of the scientific method. The existence of Dark matter is the hypothesis.
The "rejection of reality" is believing that something can come from nothing. Ironic that atheists purport that theists believe in "magic", when the very definition of magic is to create something from nothing.
If all creation came from something--which it must have since logically and scientifically it is known ex nihilo nihil fit--then a First Cause; an uncreated Prime Mover must have always existed.
The only thing which is actually debatable is the exact nature of this Prime Mover.
@eleutheromaniac There is no prime mover because space time is a curve on itself regressing to an infinite future. No Atheists say something came from nothing. there was always time before because time is infinite. your argument is so 1910 and it's really ignorant and boring that christians haven't caught up to what Atheists and scientists actually say about our reality. Your argument of a prime mover is self defeating. Who moved the prime mover if everything needs a prime mover? very ignorant
@GodKillerAtheist "There is no prime mover because space time is a curve on itself regressing to an infinite future" And just like that, causality magically disappears in a puff of pseudo-scientific gibberish.
"time is infinite", on that account we are in agreement.
"christians", swing and a miss, padre. i'm not a christian. there are more flavours than chocolate and vanilla.
"Who moved the prime mover if everything needs a prime mover" I don't think you know what "prime" means.
@eleutheromaniac "If all creation came from something...then a First Cause...must have always existed." If ALL must have a cause to exist than it logically follows that said cause must have one as well. Declaring otherwise is merely special pleading. You make the same fatal mistake as William Lane Craig by applying the known Universe's natural law of cause and effect to a pre-universe state within which those laws may not apply.
@eleutheromaniac If however you allow for an uncaused infinity, some kind of Prime Mover or deity for instance, than it can simply be said that the energy used to form the Big Bang singularity is equally uncaused, no god(s) required. We know energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed in our Universe, it stands to reason that IF anything is eternal it must be said energy. If a god needs no cause neither does said energy.
@GodKillerAtheist science vs. religion is a false dichotomy. science deals with objects, religion--and all philosophy--deals with concepts
and again, dark matter is not a "scientific discovery", in order for it to be scientific, it must be observable and falsifiable. It is philosophy, similiar to a belief in a Prime Mover. Difference is, belief in a Prime Mover has a logical coherence which dark energy and dark matter lack, and that is how one should judge the value of a philosophical belief
@eleutheromaniac The problem is you don't understand how science works. A scientific theory sin't a philosophy we know there is more matter than should be here it's been observed sadly you know nothings know nothing about it. Anything is more valid because your prime mover is an ultimate and therefore ultimately improbable. Plus it's unscientific since it's indeterministic and violates causality. I know you can't understand that but it's not my job to teach you when you refuse to learn
@NUTCASE71733 all i'm saying is that, based on deductive reasoning and causality, there must exist a Prime Mover; a First Cause
the exact nature of this Prime Mover (and what it should be called, eg Allah, Yahweh, The Tao, etc.) is obviously highly contested. But what you'll notice is that all the religions and ancient myths have many parallels, many more points of agreement vs. points of contention. Seems there is a consensus on the existence of God; most of the arguments are mere semantics
@eleutheromaniac a prime mover is against causality and proven wrong by the deterministic nature of science. I know you're trying to deceitfully say that a prime mover is the only scientific option and that's a great fallacy, but I really don't think anyone is that stupid well maybe you are but not the majority of people who watch my videos. yes myths parallel myths but that doesn't make any of them facts.
@GodKillerAtheist "a prime mover is against causality and proven wrong by the deterministic nature of science"
so to unravel your gibberish, a First Cause is against causality because of causality (which is what determinism refers to). Brilliant.
There cannot, by any logical rational, exist an effect which does not have a preceding cause. There can however exist, theoretically, an uneffected, and therefore immutable cause--First Cause, the Prime Mover, God. Call it whatever you will
@eleutheromaniac " a First Cause is against causality because of causality" DErp! learn to read bubba. Your GOD cause is against causality and since science is DETERMINISTIC your GOD cause is un-scientific.. should I say it slower so you can catch up or are you going to be dyslexic again?
" There can however exist, theoretically, an uneffected, and therefore immutable cause--First Cause, the Prime Mover, God."
Name one instance of this to prove your statement. but nice empty claim..=)
@eleutheromaniac The problem is you think you're right but you offer no proof for anything you have to say. Your main intent is to forcefully shove your opinion on to everyone else because you want some outside validation of the misinformation you've been programmed with. Arguments like everything needs a first cause except a first cause invalidate them self logically right out the door. Either youre too blind or too stupid to see this basic error maybe you just refuse to see I really don't care
@GodKillerAtheist hilarious. everything you say to me should be said to the mirror.
"everything needs a first cause except first cause" lol, priceless. is that what you think i'm saying in your demented brain? how can you so misconstrue such a basic principle? even a child knows what "first" means.
The irony is that in even in your Big Bang fairy tale of dark wizards and dark matter, there must exist a First Cause, which you call a "singularity". Yet call it "God" and you have aneurysm
@eleutheromaniac "dark matter is not a "scientific discovery", in order for it to be scientific, it must be observable and falsifiable. It is philosophy..." Right and wrong, dark matter isn't a theory(yet) it's a hypothesis, not a philosophy.
"...in your Big Bang fairy tale of dark wizards and dark matter, there must exist a First Cause, which you call a "singularity"." Indeed but science admits that it doesn't know(yet) what may have come prior to the Singularity, if anything.
@eleutheromaniac "There cannot, by any logical rational, exist an effect which does not have a preceding cause." This only holds true in the context of events that occur "WITHIN" the Universe. Cause and effect is a natural law applicable only to the known, natural Universe. If indeed there was anything before or "outside" our Universe the only reason to assume that such a law applies is to assume such a thing is a natural state. Which in turn rules out supernatural causation.
@eleutheromaniac Consequently if the state of things "outside"/prior to our Universe is indeed a natural state it holds that the other natural laws apply, including the law which states that energy cannot be created. Effectively falsifying the hypothesis of "creation". The only way to avoid this falsification is to conclude that natural laws do NOT apply to a pre-universe. This negates the requirement for a cause at all, again undermining the necessity for the god hypothesis.
@eleutheromaniac "There can however exist, theoretically, an uneffected, and therefore immutable cause..." I would expect that you have some evidence in support of this hypothesis since you're so adamantly against unfalsifiable claims. No? Perhaps you're developing a way to test your hypothesis? I'd certainly be interested.
The "existence" of just about anything can theoretically be possible. It's the probability of such a thing existing that's relevant.
@ReverendWyrm "It's the probability of such a thing existing that's relevant."
precisely. is cause without effect more or less probable than effect without a cause?
God is not "supernatural"; God IS nature. God did not exist prior to the universe; God IS the universe.
Really the question boils down to this: is consciousness localized or non-localized? If consciousness itself created reality, as it does in a dream, then what could this totality of All Things be called if not God?
@eleutheromaniac "is cause without effect more or less probable than effect without a cause?" Now you're presenting the false dichotomy. By labeling the Universe and effect you're effectively asserting that it requires a cause. One can easily say that the the energy released during the big bang event, or if you prefer the beginning of the Universe was a cause. The fact is we don't even know if the Universe IS an effect, WAS caused, or NEEDS a cause to exist.
@eleutheromaniac "God IS nature. God did not exist prior to the universe; God IS the universe." Now you're refuting yourself. First you claim that an uncaused "first cause" called god created the Universe and now you're claiming that said god IS the Universe. So are you suggesting that god caused itself?! Either god IS the Universe, subject to natural law, or god caused the Universe and is supernatural. Your proposition is so nonsensical you can't even keep it straight yourself.
@ReverendWyrm "First you claim that an uncaused "first cause" called god created the Universe" uneffected First Cause, not 'uncaused first cause', that's redundent and nonsensical.
Uneffected First Cause means that whatever God is, it always was and always will be. Immutable.
@eleutheromaniac "uneffected First Cause" Semantics. You claim that god did not exist prior to the Universe so obviously there could be nothing to "effect" said being. You're still contradicting yourself. If god did not exist prior to the Universe he is thus affected by the existence of the Universe and cannot be unaffected and immutable. He is in your position "caused" by whatever "caused" the Universe. Claiming the one caused the other and vice versa is illogical.
"If "God" is an actual entity it belongs in the realm of science "
God is the universe itself and everything in it, and so yes, observation of the universe will grant greater understanding of the exact nature of God.
But when it comes to God, it is the Mind and the Will of God which is most pertinent to Man, and that is the realm of philosophy, as are all questions of consciousness.
@eleutheromaniac "there is no 'prior' to the universe." Ah I see, there's the disconnect. Just to clarify are you presenting the idea that the Universe did not in fact begin, that is to say it has always existed?
"God is the universe itself and everything in it..," Then there is no evidence that it has any kind of "mind" or consciousness.
"when it comes to God, it is the Mind and the Will of God..." If god is the Universe there's no reason to assume it has mind or will.
@ReverendWyrm "If god is the Universe there's no reason to assume it has mind or will."
Now you're just being willfully blind. This is what i mean by the question: is consciousness localized or non-localized?
If you believe consciousness is localized, then how do you explain what occurs in a dream? Your consciousness creates the dream: the floor you walk on, the people you talk to, the body you inhabit, everything. And yet, you "yourself" are within the dream.
@ReverendWyrm There has been some scientific study into the non-locality of consciousness. The documentary "The Secret Life of Plants" for example, though unfortunately those results have yet to duplicated.
I believe the field of study is usually refered to as parapsychology.
But in my opinion, the very nature of consciousness makes it impossible to be an objective field of study: although we can make observations about consciousness, any conclusions will be subjective in nature.
@eleutheromaniac "The documentary "The Secret Life of Plants" for example, though unfortunately those results have yet to duplicated." Does that deal with the idea of plants possessing consciousness? I've read similar studies, it's even gone so far as to be the subject of an episode of Mythbusters, lol. They're results, while obviously not explicitly conclusive, echoed the results of similar research. That is to say no measurable indication that plants are aware.
@ReverendWyrm "Just to clarify are you presenting the idea that the Universe did not in fact begin, that is to say it has always existed?"
Yes. But do you define the universe as stars? As galaxies? As objects and movements? Those things have definite beginnings and endings. The universe is something greater than the sum of its parts: It is consciousness itself. What Buddha called "consciousness without end", ie Nirvana
But "consciousness without end" is also an apt description of God
@eleutheromaniac "...do you define the universe as stars? As galaxies? As objects and movements?" No. I use the common definition: "the aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space", i.e. everything that actually exists. Which of course would include any kind of god(s) should something like that be shown to actually exist.
"The universe...is consciousness itself." Consciousness as we know it is dependent on the physical. Damage the brain and you can irreparably alter consciousness.
@ReverendWyrm matter, energy and space...in other words objects and movements. lol. you just like to be disagreeable, methinks.
"Damage the brain and you can irreparably alter consciousness."
Damage the brain and you irreparably alter *perception*. Damage the eyes, the nose any of the senses and you will do the same.
If you damage a TV antena, you will lose the signal; the signal itself does not cease to exist; yet someone who did not know better may think the antena is the source.
@eleutheromaniac "matter, energy and space..." What else is there?
"...you just like to be disagreeable, methinks." On occasion. ;)
"Damage the brain and you irreparably alter *perception*." True, but this doesn't explain cases in which a person's personality has been drastically altered due to severe brain damage. Would you suggest the brain is now "picking up" a personality belonging to another person?
@eleutheromaniac "...the question boils down to this: is consciousness localized or non-localized? If consciousness itself created reality, as it does in a dream..." There's no evidence indicating that the Universe is in any way conscious let alone that said consciousness is creating anything. There's also no evidence that dreams are any kind of created reality.
@cosmosmonger WHOO dude so because religion failed to convince all people, all people are now dehumanized, desensitized, depressed, sociopaths? sounds like you're mirroring a lot of your own insecurities onto the rest of humanity with your broad and ignorant assumption of what Atheism is. Atheism is the failure of religion to provide proof and evidence for itself. Once Religion has truth there will be no Atheism.
@cosmosmonger Since when do atheist have a demon cult? Atheists don't hate or worship something they don't believe in. But thanks for getting out there and showing the Christian values of tolerance, love and peace.
@cosmosmonger oh man I was so going to agree with you because you were defining every christian and muslim on the planet to a T. I guess I should have realized the proof for your cult is to demonize all those kind people you've failed to convince logically. Ill add your comment to my list of theist failures to prove their lies
@GodKillerAtheist What boggles my mind is how no atheist ever mentions the book of Revelations. Even if you are right and the Bible is only a few thousand years old. How do you explain the exact details of what's happening in the world. Are so accurately spoken of so many years ago. The most obvious is the worlds excepting of Homosexuals. How did someone know this would happen in this century so many years ago?
@Rickenbacker53 " Even if you are right and the Bible is only a few thousand years old."
man you seriously need a history lesson. Even your own church should have this information or have you people devolved into slugs already from blinding yourself with stupidity. And to address your point the bible is most likely talking about the religions that came centuries BEFORE Christianity that accepted homosexuality. man you need some EDUCATION BAD! Your lesson for today is BIBLE IS NOT A HISTORY BOOK!
@Rickenbacker53 here is some really whack-a-mole christian nutter site I'm sure you'll have no problem agreeing with that has a time line of when the bible was created... godandscience. org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html
@karanjhalaguy16578 Atheism is my lack of belief in your cult. Atheism is proven by me not believing you because you fail to provide any proof or evidence for your empty claims. Atheism is the result of your failure. I don't believe your claims because you failed to prove them logically and profoundly with real evidence. Atheism can't be disproved because it is a lack of belief, logically you can't disprove a negative. Logic itself proves atheism.
@GodKillerAtheist So now you are calling it a cult, now that is just stupid, unless of course suicide was a part of our religion; which it is not. You still can't disprove Christianity, and you cannot prove atheism, that is just the way it is, no matter what you say, there are many who agree.
@karanjhalaguy16578 A cult is not a cult because people kill them self for their beliefs. No christians have been offing themselves for thousands of years because of their belief.
A religion is a personal belief system based on dogma a cult is a dogmatic belief you force on to others to feel like you are correct because you know deep down inside you're wrong. We wouldn't be talking if you weren't in a cult.
@karanjhalaguy16578 Atheism is proven by your failure to provide evidence for your empty claims. If you produced evidence and proof there would be no atheists.
@GodKillerAtheist YAWN! same old Answer you learned at Atheism school.. Please don't start talking about unicorns now. I'm a anti-atheist and i don't believe your claims because you failed to prove them logically and profoundly with real evidence..
@ShaneyCunn84 LoL another fly in my trap. Haha! Man you fucktards are about as smart as a rock... you do understand this video is sarcasm using the same logic as shockofgods christian video so its funny as hell when you say it has NO LOGIC because I agree haha!
@GodKillerAtheist hahaha don't add emotions while reading text, its miss leading.. I'm not angry, or hateful and i just changed my diaper.. Shock of God's a legend, a former Atheist who took the nappy (diaper) from his face and seen the truth.. I love the way you guys turn to insulting to hide your low level of intelligence..
@ShaneyCunn84 LOL every one is a former Atheist even you because there was always a time BEFORE you were coned into believing in things that lack proof and evidence. Yes SOG is a legend at failing. The Atheist community loves his intelligence lacking videos because he makes us laugh at how blindingly stupid your cult is.
BTW Love how your too stupid to realize you're hiding behind a 1 month old faceless grey troll account LOL! you don't even have the balls to make a video with a mask on!
@ShaneyCunn84 Glad to see you finally got an Icon and some background going on. Looks a bit less trolley. But I wouldn't speak until you actually make a video of your own. Lets see you put your face on a video. Make sure you list your street address and phone number and stop hiding behind your troll account... Peace..Loser!
The problem is theists don't understand basic logic. If someone makes a positive assertion they are required to provide evidence of it. Sadly Theists think that nonbelievers are required to disprove what they haven't ever proven..
@GodKillerAtheist This is why i RARELY argue with theists; a lot of them just don't wanna listen to reason....or can't. Anywaay; just wanna say i like your videos and the fact that u look like Ghost from "Modern Warfare" freaks me out.
Prove atheism is accurate and correct.... oh wait you can't because it is a faith, there is no proof of God not existing, it is even harder to justify than theism.
@Tairaa2 I study Theology and Philosophy, I know the arguments and it pisses me off when people use the flawed logic like this guy and think they're so clever. Maybe you should go back to school and study Theology and Philosophy for three years and then come back and tell me how logic works. Anyone who thinks there is no chance of a God either an overly closed mind, has not learned the sides of the arguments, or knows that really God exists but is comforted by the notion of him not.
@elirox100 You're a liar. You presented nothing but strawman arguments and arguments from authority in that above post, and the post that I originally responded to you asked for proof for a rejection of a baseless claim as being correct. This is indicative of a lack of understanding of how truth claims work, the burden or proof, and logic. Furthermore, you said that atheism is a faith. if you took 3 years of philosophy and theology you wasted your money because you still don't get it.
@elirox100 But as far as an actual reply to your strawman argument:
I never said that there is no chance of a god. Nor did OP. OP is clever because it is, for shits and giggles, turning an infamous question from an illiterate creationist around in exactly the same flawed format to ask exactly the opposite question. And on a side note, I didn't tell you how logic works I pointed out that you aren't using it.
@Tairaa2 If this is satire of the same question flipped around then fair enough, but something tells me this guy has the IQ of a potato and is asking this question sincerely. Also, atheism is definitely a faith. In the same way that it takes belief without proof to believe in God, it takes belief without proof to believe that God doesn't exist. Think about it, just because you haven't seen or believe in unicorns, it doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere, you cannot prove there isn't.
@elirox100 That's not how it works, I'm not positing knowledge when I reject theistic claims. I am simply rejecting the claims. it's the same with unicorns and leprechauns, I have never seen any indication that they exist, therefore I am able to reject the concept of them being real. I'm not claiming to know that no where at no time could there possibly be any leprechauns, but I see no reason to believe that there would be.
@Tairaa2 one problem I see when I tell theists I reject their claims is that the theist assumes I blindly reject their claims because I want to sin or do evil or just hate their incoherent god-thing. Make sure you let them know you reject their beliefs because of their failure to produce any logical facts or evidence supporting their empty claims. Its their failure that causes atheism
@GodKillerAtheist Yes indeed. It's funny how things that some people think are obvious are so unclear to others. Another problem I've observed a few times is that much of ones theological beliefs are contingent on who says what, whereas my positions are not. I don't care if R.Dawkins changes his mind, I'm not going to follow him in rejecting evolution. Lots of theists just can't relate and don't understand this.
@Tairaa2 It's as if Theists are so brainwashed by their cult they can't imagine that science, the complete opposite of theism couldn't have religious dogma that is blindly followed. I think it's funny every time I hear a Theist liken Science or Atheism to that of a religion. It's almost like they know somewhere in the back of their brain that religion is fundamentally wrong in every aspect. The problem is their mind is tied in knots of self contradictions they can't see
@elirox100 this video is based on the logic of a few christian apologetics. Its satire. I'm glad you think the logic is bad. Perhaps you're smarter than most the nuts in your cult
@elirox100 I appologize for my assumption. I've. Had a few conversations where I was told that the person claimed they were an atheist, agnostic, spiritual theist, deist and not a christian only to hear the same exact empty claims that fundamentalist christians state over and over even after thyve been refuted a million times. I suggest if you're a theist and not a christian to try to formulate unique arguments so us non believers can tell you apart from those mongs, sa you put it =D
@GodKillerAtheist Unfortunately they also use the sensible arguments like the cosmological and the teleological and I wont avoid using them just because they do. Their one that really annoys me is when they say the resurrection is historically proven, it just isn't! They always give these stupid arguments, people think that's all we have and the rest of us get ignored. I am somewhat deist as I don't believe in God's intervention on earth but I do believe he created the Universe
@elirox100 I don't think those arguments are sensible at all. The cosmological argument violates determinism so it's inherently unscientific. The teleological argument also states a god done it because of design. Sadly design shows proof of nature not a god because nature is deterministic. Gods would be indeterministic and there would be no design but absolute chaos.
I can probe atheism is correct in under 500 characters.
"It is correct to sustain disbelief in something until it has evidence for it has been provided."
As to the accuracy, "Only in math do we prove anything to be 100% true. I prefer keeping an open mind when it comes to things in the real world, so I wouldn't even assume our understanding of gravity is entirely accurate. However, it's the explanation most supported by evidence we currently have."
@Stairc yes, atheism can be proven in under 500char theists most common argument lately is 500char isn't enoughspace for all the proof that they have. Still they can't even list a single spec of evidence for any of their empty claims.
Hi. A little dated? I haven't seen SoG around in a while. Maybe it's just because I've been a little deeply into #OWS lately...
But, to comment on the actual video, I still wonder how SoG and his fanboiz couldn't see that the question couldn't be answered to his satisfaction by ANYONE, but ESPECIALLY theists.
nice
seanmathews009 15 hours ago
@ReverendWyrm the existence of God(s) is for the realm of philosophy. Like love, good, evil and other concepts.
It cannot (at least as yet) be objectively verified any more than existence of love can be objectively verified. It can, however, be logical deduced from what we understand about ourselves and the universe.
A mathematician might be able to create a formula proving God, but that would be as meaningless as the formulas that "prove" the big bang or the geocentric universe.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "the existence of God(s) is for the realm of philosophy. Like love, good, evil and other concepts." If "God" is an actual entity than it belongs in the realm of science. Whether something is actually extant is very different than abstracts concepts like love. Either something actually exists in reality or it does not.
"It can...be logical deduced..." There's no logical reason to assume any kind of god exists as I've already explained.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReverendWyrm you say it's 'hypothesizing' but the entire big bang theory is supported by its existence. take away dark matter and dark energy and the theory that so many scientists base all their work on falls down like a house of cards.
it's not 'hypothesizing', it's dogma.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
Comment removed
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@ReverendWyrm so in other words they are beginning with a theory and seeing if they can make the facts conform to it. working in the complete opposite direction of the scientific method. "dark matter exists...now we just have to prove it!"
ptolemy had a similiar modus operandi. it took 1400 years and the invention of the telescope to finally put his bogus theory and mathematical rhetoric to rest, I just hope we don't have to wait that long for the big bung theory to be put in the waste bin.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eleutheromaniac "so in other words they are beginning with a theory and seeing if they can make the facts conform to it." No, they are beginning with an observation in regard to gravitation and the mass of the Universe and developing a hypothesis. The idea of dark matter is far from the status of Theory in the scientific sense.
"dark matter exists...now we just have to prove it!" This isn't the opposite of the scientific method. The existence of Dark matter is the hypothesis.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
Cradle of Filth. :]
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 1 week ago
The "rejection of reality" is believing that something can come from nothing. Ironic that atheists purport that theists believe in "magic", when the very definition of magic is to create something from nothing.
If all creation came from something--which it must have since logically and scientifically it is known ex nihilo nihil fit--then a First Cause; an uncreated Prime Mover must have always existed.
The only thing which is actually debatable is the exact nature of this Prime Mover.
eleutheromaniac 3 weeks ago
@eleutheromaniac There is no prime mover because space time is a curve on itself regressing to an infinite future. No Atheists say something came from nothing. there was always time before because time is infinite. your argument is so 1910 and it's really ignorant and boring that christians haven't caught up to what Atheists and scientists actually say about our reality. Your argument of a prime mover is self defeating. Who moved the prime mover if everything needs a prime mover? very ignorant
GodKillerAtheist 2 weeks ago
@GodKillerAtheist "There is no prime mover because space time is a curve on itself regressing to an infinite future" And just like that, causality magically disappears in a puff of pseudo-scientific gibberish.
"time is infinite", on that account we are in agreement.
"christians", swing and a miss, padre. i'm not a christian. there are more flavours than chocolate and vanilla.
"Who moved the prime mover if everything needs a prime mover" I don't think you know what "prime" means.
eleutheromaniac 2 weeks ago
@eleutheromaniac "If all creation came from something...then a First Cause...must have always existed." If ALL must have a cause to exist than it logically follows that said cause must have one as well. Declaring otherwise is merely special pleading. You make the same fatal mistake as William Lane Craig by applying the known Universe's natural law of cause and effect to a pre-universe state within which those laws may not apply.
ReverendWyrm 2 weeks ago
@eleutheromaniac If however you allow for an uncaused infinity, some kind of Prime Mover or deity for instance, than it can simply be said that the energy used to form the Big Bang singularity is equally uncaused, no god(s) required. We know energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed in our Universe, it stands to reason that IF anything is eternal it must be said energy. If a god needs no cause neither does said energy.
"Why not simply save a step?" ~Carl Sagen
ReverendWyrm 2 weeks ago
@ReverendWyrm the big bang theory is nonsense. you won't believe in God but you'll believe in dark matter and dark energy?
all hail our non-falsifiable dark lords!
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "all hail our non-falsifiable dark lords!"
Debasing scientific discoveries as religious worship doesn't put down science, it puts down the very idea of religion.
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
@GodKillerAtheist science vs. religion is a false dichotomy. science deals with objects, religion--and all philosophy--deals with concepts
and again, dark matter is not a "scientific discovery", in order for it to be scientific, it must be observable and falsifiable. It is philosophy, similiar to a belief in a Prime Mover. Difference is, belief in a Prime Mover has a logical coherence which dark energy and dark matter lack, and that is how one should judge the value of a philosophical belief
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac The problem is you don't understand how science works. A scientific theory sin't a philosophy we know there is more matter than should be here it's been observed sadly you know nothings know nothing about it. Anything is more valid because your prime mover is an ultimate and therefore ultimately improbable. Plus it's unscientific since it's indeterministic and violates causality. I know you can't understand that but it's not my job to teach you when you refuse to learn
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac
You have to demonstrate a god exists first before you can say god made anything.
NUTCASE71733 1 week ago
@NUTCASE71733 all i'm saying is that, based on deductive reasoning and causality, there must exist a Prime Mover; a First Cause
the exact nature of this Prime Mover (and what it should be called, eg Allah, Yahweh, The Tao, etc.) is obviously highly contested. But what you'll notice is that all the religions and ancient myths have many parallels, many more points of agreement vs. points of contention. Seems there is a consensus on the existence of God; most of the arguments are mere semantics
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac a prime mover is against causality and proven wrong by the deterministic nature of science. I know you're trying to deceitfully say that a prime mover is the only scientific option and that's a great fallacy, but I really don't think anyone is that stupid well maybe you are but not the majority of people who watch my videos. yes myths parallel myths but that doesn't make any of them facts.
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
@GodKillerAtheist "a prime mover is against causality and proven wrong by the deterministic nature of science"
so to unravel your gibberish, a First Cause is against causality because of causality (which is what determinism refers to). Brilliant.
There cannot, by any logical rational, exist an effect which does not have a preceding cause. There can however exist, theoretically, an uneffected, and therefore immutable cause--First Cause, the Prime Mover, God. Call it whatever you will
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac " a First Cause is against causality because of causality" DErp! learn to read bubba. Your GOD cause is against causality and since science is DETERMINISTIC your GOD cause is un-scientific.. should I say it slower so you can catch up or are you going to be dyslexic again?
" There can however exist, theoretically, an uneffected, and therefore immutable cause--First Cause, the Prime Mover, God."
Name one instance of this to prove your statement. but nice empty claim..=)
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac The problem is you think you're right but you offer no proof for anything you have to say. Your main intent is to forcefully shove your opinion on to everyone else because you want some outside validation of the misinformation you've been programmed with. Arguments like everything needs a first cause except a first cause invalidate them self logically right out the door. Either youre too blind or too stupid to see this basic error maybe you just refuse to see I really don't care
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
@GodKillerAtheist hilarious. everything you say to me should be said to the mirror.
"everything needs a first cause except first cause" lol, priceless. is that what you think i'm saying in your demented brain? how can you so misconstrue such a basic principle? even a child knows what "first" means.
The irony is that in even in your Big Bang fairy tale of dark wizards and dark matter, there must exist a First Cause, which you call a "singularity". Yet call it "God" and you have aneurysm
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "dark matter is not a "scientific discovery", in order for it to be scientific, it must be observable and falsifiable. It is philosophy..." Right and wrong, dark matter isn't a theory(yet) it's a hypothesis, not a philosophy.
"...in your Big Bang fairy tale of dark wizards and dark matter, there must exist a First Cause, which you call a "singularity"." Indeed but science admits that it doesn't know(yet) what may have come prior to the Singularity, if anything.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "There cannot, by any logical rational, exist an effect which does not have a preceding cause." This only holds true in the context of events that occur "WITHIN" the Universe. Cause and effect is a natural law applicable only to the known, natural Universe. If indeed there was anything before or "outside" our Universe the only reason to assume that such a law applies is to assume such a thing is a natural state. Which in turn rules out supernatural causation.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac Consequently if the state of things "outside"/prior to our Universe is indeed a natural state it holds that the other natural laws apply, including the law which states that energy cannot be created. Effectively falsifying the hypothesis of "creation". The only way to avoid this falsification is to conclude that natural laws do NOT apply to a pre-universe. This negates the requirement for a cause at all, again undermining the necessity for the god hypothesis.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "There can however exist, theoretically, an uneffected, and therefore immutable cause..." I would expect that you have some evidence in support of this hypothesis since you're so adamantly against unfalsifiable claims. No? Perhaps you're developing a way to test your hypothesis? I'd certainly be interested.
The "existence" of just about anything can theoretically be possible. It's the probability of such a thing existing that's relevant.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@ReverendWyrm "It's the probability of such a thing existing that's relevant."
precisely. is cause without effect more or less probable than effect without a cause?
God is not "supernatural"; God IS nature. God did not exist prior to the universe; God IS the universe.
Really the question boils down to this: is consciousness localized or non-localized? If consciousness itself created reality, as it does in a dream, then what could this totality of All Things be called if not God?
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "is cause without effect more or less probable than effect without a cause?" Now you're presenting the false dichotomy. By labeling the Universe and effect you're effectively asserting that it requires a cause. One can easily say that the the energy released during the big bang event, or if you prefer the beginning of the Universe was a cause. The fact is we don't even know if the Universe IS an effect, WAS caused, or NEEDS a cause to exist.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "God IS nature. God did not exist prior to the universe; God IS the universe." Now you're refuting yourself. First you claim that an uncaused "first cause" called god created the Universe and now you're claiming that said god IS the Universe. So are you suggesting that god caused itself?! Either god IS the Universe, subject to natural law, or god caused the Universe and is supernatural. Your proposition is so nonsensical you can't even keep it straight yourself.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@ReverendWyrm "First you claim that an uncaused "first cause" called god created the Universe" uneffected First Cause, not 'uncaused first cause', that's redundent and nonsensical.
Uneffected First Cause means that whatever God is, it always was and always will be. Immutable.
It can neither be created nor destroyed.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "uneffected First Cause" Semantics. You claim that god did not exist prior to the Universe so obviously there could be nothing to "effect" said being. You're still contradicting yourself. If god did not exist prior to the Universe he is thus affected by the existence of the Universe and cannot be unaffected and immutable. He is in your position "caused" by whatever "caused" the Universe. Claiming the one caused the other and vice versa is illogical.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@ReverendWyrm "prior to the Universe"
there is no 'prior' to the universe.
"If "God" is an actual entity it belongs in the realm of science "
God is the universe itself and everything in it, and so yes, observation of the universe will grant greater understanding of the exact nature of God.
But when it comes to God, it is the Mind and the Will of God which is most pertinent to Man, and that is the realm of philosophy, as are all questions of consciousness.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "there is no 'prior' to the universe." Ah I see, there's the disconnect. Just to clarify are you presenting the idea that the Universe did not in fact begin, that is to say it has always existed?
"God is the universe itself and everything in it..," Then there is no evidence that it has any kind of "mind" or consciousness.
"when it comes to God, it is the Mind and the Will of God..." If god is the Universe there's no reason to assume it has mind or will.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReverendWyrm "If god is the Universe there's no reason to assume it has mind or will."
Now you're just being willfully blind. This is what i mean by the question: is consciousness localized or non-localized?
If you believe consciousness is localized, then how do you explain what occurs in a dream? Your consciousness creates the dream: the floor you walk on, the people you talk to, the body you inhabit, everything. And yet, you "yourself" are within the dream.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@ReverendWyrm There has been some scientific study into the non-locality of consciousness. The documentary "The Secret Life of Plants" for example, though unfortunately those results have yet to duplicated.
I believe the field of study is usually refered to as parapsychology.
But in my opinion, the very nature of consciousness makes it impossible to be an objective field of study: although we can make observations about consciousness, any conclusions will be subjective in nature.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "The documentary "The Secret Life of Plants" for example, though unfortunately those results have yet to duplicated." Does that deal with the idea of plants possessing consciousness? I've read similar studies, it's even gone so far as to be the subject of an episode of Mythbusters, lol. They're results, while obviously not explicitly conclusive, echoed the results of similar research. That is to say no measurable indication that plants are aware.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@ReverendWyrm "Just to clarify are you presenting the idea that the Universe did not in fact begin, that is to say it has always existed?"
Yes. But do you define the universe as stars? As galaxies? As objects and movements? Those things have definite beginnings and endings. The universe is something greater than the sum of its parts: It is consciousness itself. What Buddha called "consciousness without end", ie Nirvana
But "consciousness without end" is also an apt description of God
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
@eleutheromaniac "...do you define the universe as stars? As galaxies? As objects and movements?" No. I use the common definition: "the aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space", i.e. everything that actually exists. Which of course would include any kind of god(s) should something like that be shown to actually exist.
"The universe...is consciousness itself." Consciousness as we know it is dependent on the physical. Damage the brain and you can irreparably alter consciousness.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@ReverendWyrm matter, energy and space...in other words objects and movements. lol. you just like to be disagreeable, methinks.
"Damage the brain and you can irreparably alter consciousness."
Damage the brain and you irreparably alter *perception*. Damage the eyes, the nose any of the senses and you will do the same.
If you damage a TV antena, you will lose the signal; the signal itself does not cease to exist; yet someone who did not know better may think the antena is the source.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eleutheromaniac "matter, energy and space..." What else is there?
"...you just like to be disagreeable, methinks." On occasion. ;)
"Damage the brain and you irreparably alter *perception*." True, but this doesn't explain cases in which a person's personality has been drastically altered due to severe brain damage. Would you suggest the brain is now "picking up" a personality belonging to another person?
ReverendWyrm 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eleutheromaniac "...the question boils down to this: is consciousness localized or non-localized? If consciousness itself created reality, as it does in a dream..." There's no evidence indicating that the Universe is in any way conscious let alone that said consciousness is creating anything. There's also no evidence that dreams are any kind of created reality.
ReverendWyrm 1 week ago
@cosmosmonger
God is imaginary as far as I can tell
mikkwik 3 weeks ago
@cosmosmonger
Fear is your only god
mikkwik 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I prefer the term Non-Religious because believers get scared of the term Atheist.
So I am Non-Religious. See how nice that sounds.
mikkwik 3 weeks ago
@cosmosmonger Was that diatribe a self portrait? Doesn't matter what you believe in, it's apparent you need some special counseling.
CerebrumPedere 1 month ago
@cosmosmonger WHOO dude so because religion failed to convince all people, all people are now dehumanized, desensitized, depressed, sociopaths? sounds like you're mirroring a lot of your own insecurities onto the rest of humanity with your broad and ignorant assumption of what Atheism is. Atheism is the failure of religion to provide proof and evidence for itself. Once Religion has truth there will be no Atheism.
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@cosmosmonger Since when do atheist have a demon cult? Atheists don't hate or worship something they don't believe in. But thanks for getting out there and showing the Christian values of tolerance, love and peace.
CerebrumPedere 1 month ago
@cosmosmonger oh man I was so going to agree with you because you were defining every christian and muslim on the planet to a T. I guess I should have realized the proof for your cult is to demonize all those kind people you've failed to convince logically. Ill add your comment to my list of theist failures to prove their lies
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago 3
@GodKillerAtheist What boggles my mind is how no atheist ever mentions the book of Revelations. Even if you are right and the Bible is only a few thousand years old. How do you explain the exact details of what's happening in the world. Are so accurately spoken of so many years ago. The most obvious is the worlds excepting of Homosexuals. How did someone know this would happen in this century so many years ago?
Rickenbacker53 1 week ago
@Rickenbacker53 " Even if you are right and the Bible is only a few thousand years old."
man you seriously need a history lesson. Even your own church should have this information or have you people devolved into slugs already from blinding yourself with stupidity. And to address your point the bible is most likely talking about the religions that came centuries BEFORE Christianity that accepted homosexuality. man you need some EDUCATION BAD! Your lesson for today is BIBLE IS NOT A HISTORY BOOK!
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
@Rickenbacker53 here is some really whack-a-mole christian nutter site I'm sure you'll have no problem agreeing with that has a time line of when the bible was created... godandscience. org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
@Rickenbacker53 Oh and I do invoke the book of revelations often and remind Christians of their destructive apocalyptic world view
GodKillerAtheist 1 week ago
Prove atheism is correct, exactly, you can't. It works both ways.
karanjhalaguy16578 1 month ago
@karanjhalaguy16578 Atheism is my lack of belief in your cult. Atheism is proven by me not believing you because you fail to provide any proof or evidence for your empty claims. Atheism is the result of your failure. I don't believe your claims because you failed to prove them logically and profoundly with real evidence. Atheism can't be disproved because it is a lack of belief, logically you can't disprove a negative. Logic itself proves atheism.
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist So now you are calling it a cult, now that is just stupid, unless of course suicide was a part of our religion; which it is not. You still can't disprove Christianity, and you cannot prove atheism, that is just the way it is, no matter what you say, there are many who agree.
karanjhalaguy16578 1 month ago
@karanjhalaguy16578 A cult is not a cult because people kill them self for their beliefs. No christians have been offing themselves for thousands of years because of their belief.
A religion is a personal belief system based on dogma a cult is a dogmatic belief you force on to others to feel like you are correct because you know deep down inside you're wrong. We wouldn't be talking if you weren't in a cult.
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@karanjhalaguy16578 Atheism is proven by your failure to provide evidence for your empty claims. If you produced evidence and proof there would be no atheists.
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist YAWN! same old Answer you learned at Atheism school.. Please don't start talking about unicorns now. I'm a anti-atheist and i don't believe your claims because you failed to prove them logically and profoundly with real evidence..
ShaneyCunn84 1 month ago
@ShaneyCunn84 LoL another fly in my trap. Haha! Man you fucktards are about as smart as a rock... you do understand this video is sarcasm using the same logic as shockofgods christian video so its funny as hell when you say it has NO LOGIC because I agree haha!
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@ShaneyCunn84 ...beating cont.
LoL atheism school you mean where I learn from theists how they fail to produce ANY proof or evidence for their empty claims haha! Pwned!
You just sound like an angry hateful jerk angry you fail so bad. All I hear is BOO HO! Go change your diaper LOL!
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist hahaha don't add emotions while reading text, its miss leading.. I'm not angry, or hateful and i just changed my diaper.. Shock of God's a legend, a former Atheist who took the nappy (diaper) from his face and seen the truth.. I love the way you guys turn to insulting to hide your low level of intelligence..
ShaneyCunn84 1 month ago
@ShaneyCunn84 LOL every one is a former Atheist even you because there was always a time BEFORE you were coned into believing in things that lack proof and evidence. Yes SOG is a legend at failing. The Atheist community loves his intelligence lacking videos because he makes us laugh at how blindingly stupid your cult is.
BTW Love how your too stupid to realize you're hiding behind a 1 month old faceless grey troll account LOL! you don't even have the balls to make a video with a mask on!
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist I wouldn't be sad enough to make a video with a mask on, I have a job :P Troll account? Don't be paranoid..
ShaneyCunn84 1 month ago
@ShaneyCunn84 Glad to see you finally got an Icon and some background going on. Looks a bit less trolley. But I wouldn't speak until you actually make a video of your own. Lets see you put your face on a video. Make sure you list your street address and phone number and stop hiding behind your troll account... Peace..Loser!
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
There is no proof of god not existing, or the easter bunny or santa clause or the chupacabra, or the tooth fairy or the sandman or.....
dkthg 2 months ago
@dkthg Amen! =)
The problem is theists don't understand basic logic. If someone makes a positive assertion they are required to provide evidence of it. Sadly Theists think that nonbelievers are required to disprove what they haven't ever proven..
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist This is why i RARELY argue with theists; a lot of them just don't wanna listen to reason....or can't. Anywaay; just wanna say i like your videos and the fact that u look like Ghost from "Modern Warfare" freaks me out.
dkthg 2 months ago
@dkthg Ya I just pretend to argue with them. I'm really just getting a cheap laugh at their expense. Thanks for your comments. =)
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
Prove atheism is accurate and correct.... oh wait you can't because it is a faith, there is no proof of God not existing, it is even harder to justify than theism.
elirox100 2 months ago
@elirox100 LOL!
Can't tell if trolling or completely unaware of how logic works. Probably the latter though.
Tairaa2 1 month ago
@Tairaa2 I study Theology and Philosophy, I know the arguments and it pisses me off when people use the flawed logic like this guy and think they're so clever. Maybe you should go back to school and study Theology and Philosophy for three years and then come back and tell me how logic works. Anyone who thinks there is no chance of a God either an overly closed mind, has not learned the sides of the arguments, or knows that really God exists but is comforted by the notion of him not.
elirox100 1 month ago
@elirox100 You're a liar. You presented nothing but strawman arguments and arguments from authority in that above post, and the post that I originally responded to you asked for proof for a rejection of a baseless claim as being correct. This is indicative of a lack of understanding of how truth claims work, the burden or proof, and logic. Furthermore, you said that atheism is a faith. if you took 3 years of philosophy and theology you wasted your money because you still don't get it.
Tairaa2 1 month ago
@elirox100 But as far as an actual reply to your strawman argument:
I never said that there is no chance of a god. Nor did OP. OP is clever because it is, for shits and giggles, turning an infamous question from an illiterate creationist around in exactly the same flawed format to ask exactly the opposite question. And on a side note, I didn't tell you how logic works I pointed out that you aren't using it.
Tairaa2 1 month ago
@Tairaa2 If this is satire of the same question flipped around then fair enough, but something tells me this guy has the IQ of a potato and is asking this question sincerely. Also, atheism is definitely a faith. In the same way that it takes belief without proof to believe in God, it takes belief without proof to believe that God doesn't exist. Think about it, just because you haven't seen or believe in unicorns, it doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere, you cannot prove there isn't.
elirox100 1 month ago
@elirox100 That's not how it works, I'm not positing knowledge when I reject theistic claims. I am simply rejecting the claims. it's the same with unicorns and leprechauns, I have never seen any indication that they exist, therefore I am able to reject the concept of them being real. I'm not claiming to know that no where at no time could there possibly be any leprechauns, but I see no reason to believe that there would be.
Tairaa2 1 month ago
@Tairaa2 one problem I see when I tell theists I reject their claims is that the theist assumes I blindly reject their claims because I want to sin or do evil or just hate their incoherent god-thing. Make sure you let them know you reject their beliefs because of their failure to produce any logical facts or evidence supporting their empty claims. Its their failure that causes atheism
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist Yes indeed. It's funny how things that some people think are obvious are so unclear to others. Another problem I've observed a few times is that much of ones theological beliefs are contingent on who says what, whereas my positions are not. I don't care if R.Dawkins changes his mind, I'm not going to follow him in rejecting evolution. Lots of theists just can't relate and don't understand this.
Tairaa2 1 month ago
@Tairaa2 It's as if Theists are so brainwashed by their cult they can't imagine that science, the complete opposite of theism couldn't have religious dogma that is blindly followed. I think it's funny every time I hear a Theist liken Science or Atheism to that of a religion. It's almost like they know somewhere in the back of their brain that religion is fundamentally wrong in every aspect. The problem is their mind is tied in knots of self contradictions they can't see
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@elirox100 this video is based on the logic of a few christian apologetics. Its satire. I'm glad you think the logic is bad. Perhaps you're smarter than most the nuts in your cult
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist I'm not a Christian. I hate when people assume I'm one of those mongs just because I'm a theist.
elirox100 1 month ago
@elirox100 I appologize for my assumption. I've. Had a few conversations where I was told that the person claimed they were an atheist, agnostic, spiritual theist, deist and not a christian only to hear the same exact empty claims that fundamentalist christians state over and over even after thyve been refuted a million times. I suggest if you're a theist and not a christian to try to formulate unique arguments so us non believers can tell you apart from those mongs, sa you put it =D
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist Does God exist?
IsaacP150 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist Unfortunately they also use the sensible arguments like the cosmological and the teleological and I wont avoid using them just because they do. Their one that really annoys me is when they say the resurrection is historically proven, it just isn't! They always give these stupid arguments, people think that's all we have and the rest of us get ignored. I am somewhat deist as I don't believe in God's intervention on earth but I do believe he created the Universe
elirox100 1 month ago
@elirox100 I don't think those arguments are sensible at all. The cosmological argument violates determinism so it's inherently unscientific. The teleological argument also states a god done it because of design. Sadly design shows proof of nature not a god because nature is deterministic. Gods would be indeterministic and there would be no design but absolute chaos.
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
Poser.
October31st1517 3 months ago
@October31st1517 who am I posing to be mr troll? say something productive and on topic or your comment is getting deleted and you're getting blocked
GodKillerAtheist 3 months ago
I can probe atheism is correct in under 500 characters.
"It is correct to sustain disbelief in something until it has evidence for it has been provided."
As to the accuracy, "Only in math do we prove anything to be 100% true. I prefer keeping an open mind when it comes to things in the real world, so I wouldn't even assume our understanding of gravity is entirely accurate. However, it's the explanation most supported by evidence we currently have."
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc yes, atheism can be proven in under 500char theists most common argument lately is 500char isn't enoughspace for all the proof that they have. Still they can't even list a single spec of evidence for any of their empty claims.
GodKillerAtheist 3 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist lol. sad but often true.
Stairc 3 months ago
dead of dead t shirt!!!!
74gore 4 months ago
Hi. A little dated? I haven't seen SoG around in a while. Maybe it's just because I've been a little deeply into #OWS lately...
But, to comment on the actual video, I still wonder how SoG and his fanboiz couldn't see that the question couldn't be answered to his satisfaction by ANYONE, but ESPECIALLY theists.
renegade4dio 4 months ago
@renegade4dio I still see people asking me to prove atheism is accurate and correct. I plan on sending them here =)
GodKillerAtheist 4 months ago