What to do today? What to do? I think I'll expose myself to some bronze age nomad, sheep hearders... and then never talk to them again! I'm such a hoot.
Just because God is bigger than your mind can comprehend, doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. He's given us plenty of clues about Himself... but not all of the answers. If He gave us all of the answers, what fun would that be? : ) If you keep looking, He will come into focus... (see Matthew 7:7-8)
Again,the comprehension thing? Just because you cant comprehend the universe or existence, doesn't poof god into existence either.And..FUN? Its supposed to be fun? Is it fun for your god to supposedly send billions of people to hell, cause they didn't "focus" in on him on time, before they died, at some arbitrary point? Finally, we are talking about a generic god, but you jump to the christian one. This shows you already have a conclusion, and you are looking to fit everything to that.
@djosephallen Dude... God loves you. Don't fight it. You don't need to be afraid that He exists. He isn't going to hurt you. Love is the key here... not "believe or burn". The "believe or burn" message is not what God is about. We have the free will to come to Him because of the love that He has for us. We love Him because He first loved us.
Dont try to emotionally appeal to me, its not gonna work. (Nice way of avoiding my points though.)
Im glad that for you your god is all about Love. Unfortunatelly your scriptures dont back you up. Im not afraid. Im not an antitheist. Im one of those atheists, that thinks that it would be awesome if a god did exist. I mean, who doesnt want to believe there is an all powerfull being looking after us?But I also value evidence and objective truth. Qualities which your idea of god lacks.
@djosephallen I have not heard of a better purpose to live for, than to love. The story of Christ is about love. In my mind it is the most compelling message. Also, because of the personal context of it's writing, it's historically authentic nature, the way that Christ soo drastically effected the world, it is one story that should not be overlooked.
@djosephallen (cont.) Don't be coerced into believing in God out of fear... do it out of love for Him. God is big enough to handle our issues. If someone committed a crime worthy of death, imagine if a righteous man volunteered to die in his place. That is how much He cares for us. That is what Jesus did for us. Forget about hell... look at love.
If a righteous man volunteered to die in his place, he would be taking the punishment. But that does NOT take away the guilty mans RESPONSIBILITY. Something which you claim Jesus did. Scapegoating someone to "cleanse" yourself of your sins, and torturing and killing him for it, is not admirable or beautiful. Its disgusting.
@djosephallen By laying His life down for us, God is showing us that only He is righteous. Therefore we need to accept His free gift. You can try to live a perfect life, and you should, but you could never live a perfect and sin-free life... Only God can do that. Since He forgives us, so we learn from Him and we can forgive others their trespasses against us. That is how we can live a fulfilling life by loving others. Having mercy, grace, and forgiveness. Jesus set an example for us.
Dude...Ive heard all this before. I know what your whitewashed version of Christianity preaches. Just do me one favor please. First prove to me that a god exists, then prove to me that its actually the Christian god...and then we can get into the issue of whether I accept your particular brand of christianity. Otherwise, refrain from commenting anymore. Ive heard all this bull before. Im not intrested in your preaching. Give me facts.
@djosephallen It seems to me that we couldn't have come from nothing. Then, when I see the beauty of a rainbow, or the smell of a fresh breeze in the springtime, or the cuteness of a furry little puppy, etc. It seems like wherever those things came from... it is a good place. Love had to have been written into our blueprints.... and since love is the greatest thing we have on this planet, then that is what we should worship.
@djosephallen (cont.) Since Jesus was the greatest example of a loving person to walk the earth, it seems like a good idea to believe that He is who He said He is. "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) " I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (John 10:11) The story makes too much sense to me to be wrong. We need to look at life with "spiritual" eyes.... Not just physical.
As I suspected, no arguments, no evidence. Just more appeal to emotion. Puppies are cute. And rainbows are beautiful. This does nothing to prove god. And stop quoting the bible. Im an Atheist. I put no stock in that book whatsoever.
@djosephallen Evidence: 1.) It makes more sense that we came from something, rather than from nothing. When is the last time you saw anything randomly pop into existence? 2.) Wherever everything came from, there needed to be an initial blueprint. There has to be a reason behind why everything exists. Even if evolution were true, it would need to have a blueprint to set it on it's course. 3.) Since we are personal, we can presume that our origin comes from a personal designer.
But God can just exist? Did he just "pop" into existence? So to you, saying...An all powerful, all knowing invisible mind, that has always existed for no reason and with no cause, is the best explanation for the universe? Id rather say, I dont know. Did we come from "nothing"? What is nothing? I dont know. But positing a god, solves nothing.
BTW Evolution IS a fact. Look it up.
Your 3rd point is laughable. I could also say...since we are physical beings, then god must be too.
@djosephallen Is there any purpose to your life? Is there any reason that you exist? Are you only on this planet to eat, have sex, and scratch yourself? Or is there something more? If there is something more, then that is spiritual. If spirituality exists, then a Great Spirit Creator must exist.
@djosephallen Are you nothing more than a blob of matter, with no purpose whatsoever? Do you have no more purpose than a rock, a stick, or a pile of fecal matter? If you believe that, then I feel sorry for you. I am here to tell you that there is more to your life than that.
Are you nothing more than a rat in a maze, where some god already knows how your life will play out, and where you are a puppet living a life which is only a test, for trying to get to some imaginary future life? If you believe that, then I feel sorry for you
God created the laws of the universe. Physical as well as spiritual. He makes Himself known through His revelations and manifestation backed up by His more sure Word of prophecy. His Word has been saying all along that we live in a finite hyperdimensional expanding universe that had a beginning with an innumerable amount of stars. Time is a relative created dimensional physical property. God is outside our spacetime continuum and we indeed have no idea what that is like.
Assertion. Assertion. Assertion. That takes care of the first 3 sentences.
Can you please point me to the passage in the bible that states :"we live in a finite hyperdimensional expanding universe that had a beginning with an innumerable amount of stars?" Ill give you one: the universe indeed had a beginning. That's not very impressive by the way, since it either did or didn't, so its a 50/50 chance. Finally, the "god is outside of time" is another "we cant comprehend" cop out.
@djose No assertions! We have history and a current world situation to prove the Bible as a more sure Word of prophecy. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter) Over a dozen times the Bible states that the Lord streches forth the heavens (expansion) and that the stars can not be numbered (Jer 33:22) the spiritual realm is hyperdimensional and beyond our sensory mechanism. We can know and understand God through His revelations and manifestations!
1.-God created the laws of the universe. (please provide evidence of this, and an explanation of the mechanisms he used to do so.)
As for your bible quotes...laughable.
-To you, in the "beginning" means "god created time"? Nice stretch.
-God created the "heavens". Research this. The Hebrews believed that there were something like 7 heavens, with god at the highest one. No reference to the space-time continuum here.
@djosephallen The evidence is in the cosmic fine-tuning of the anthropic constants on the macrocosm, and the sequential information, genetic algorithmic coding/ decoding, structure and design of the self replicating, error correcting nanotech minicomputers that we call cells on the microcosm. All this clearly testifies of an external causal intelligent agent due to the cause and effect structure, instead of random coincidence without any meaning plan or purpose to it all. Cont...
Time is a created physical dimensional property, which varies with mass, acceleration and gravity among other things. 7 Heavens is a pagan Kabbalistic myth. God is outside our space time continuum. That why He declares the end from the beginning through His more sure Word of prophecy. Totally backed up by true documented history and current world affairs.
The Bible does not mention the age of the earth. It mentions this world system. Keeping in mind that God is able to re-create.
-And the earth.(This was funny.) So now, earth means all matter in the universe? FAIL.
I could keep going, but why dont we talk about the HUGE mistakes in your bible? Like the fact that it states that god created the earth BEFORE, the Sun and stars?Something we KNOW to be false? Or that everything was created in 6 days, when we KNOW the age of the Universe is in excess of 14 billion years? Or that the earth is a flat disc, and the center of the Universe, which we know is FALSE? CONT...
Lastly, in case you don't accept any of the previous facts (age of the universe, timeline, etc)please refrain from responding, as you will intermediately show yourself to be ignorant of science, and denying of reality....and will cause me to ignore your comments.
@djosephallen Your are the one who is ignorant of true science, because of wrong assumptions based on falsefied facts, causing people to come to the wrong conclusions. Matter + enerrgy + entropy will never create and sustain life by itself. You need added information to process the energy, and information able to do work or communicate a message is habitually association with intelligence.
By the way micro evolution supports degeneration and genetic entropy and has biological boundaries!
@Ramohog It seems like you have a great grasp of science, and your evidence should earn you a Nobel prize. Funny how most of the worlds leading physicists and other scientists disagree.Of course, thats because they "falsified facts" right? Any fact that doesnt agree with your preconceived idea of your god must be false.
Here is my request: Make a video response. Please expose these scientific lies and wrong assumptions. Otherwise we can leave it here. I will no longer respond in comment form.
@djosephallen Many scientist build their models on preconceived unproven wrong assumptions. I only go with truth and facts, based on reality and sound reasoning. My conclusion is that there is intelligence behind it all, and that this intelligence makes Himself known through His revelations and His manifestations backed up by prophecy and proven accurate through documented history. Science is just playing catch-up with what God has revealed all along. I choose intelligence over randomness.
I don't know how God is, what his intelligence is based on or how God looks like. But I know what he's not, he's not matter, and John, one of Jesus's disciples, said that he's spirit. If you say that God is glurp, then you have a different god.
my glurp example, was made to illustrate ,you have no idea what you mean when you say spirit.
Which means you have no idea what you believe in.
So here:
I have no idea what glurp means, I can just tell you its not material, I dont know what it looks like or what its based on. A friend of mine told me on good authority that god is glurp. So by your logic, I can state this with as much conviction as you do your claim, and we are on equal ground.
You don't know how "dark matter" looks like or how it is, but you believe in it's existence because there is reason to believe it. You get this information from science, so it's quite reliable, you know that from your experiences.
Can I therefore conclude that you don't know what you believe in and fairly say that it is just as reasonable to believe in glurp as in "dark matter"?
John is not just "a friend of mine", just as the scientists aren't, but that's another topic.
"Dark Matter" is actually a place holder name for a hypothesized concept of what is believed to comprise most of the mass in the universe. However, no scientist is content with saying : We dont know what dark matter is we will never know and we believe its something "immaterial" or "spiritual;" or any such nonsense. As of today it is believed to exist, but we still have a long way to to go in discovering what so called "dark matter" actually is. Cont...
We also know there is probably something there cause we can measure its effects on surrounding visible matter. To this day no measurable evidence of a god or a god's effects has been made. (Saying you "feel" him in your heart doesn't count as a scientific measurement BTW). You also however, believe that your god CANNOT be measured, we don't know and will NEVER know what "spirit" is supposed to be, or what its made of, yet we are supposed to just accept he exists. Sorry...cant do it.
If God exists then he can not be measured, he can therefore not be detected by science. If he could, he wouldn't be God, because we would then be able to understand him. There are, however, realities outside science, outside the things that can be measured, those are subjects to Philosophy. And Philosophical, there are good reasons to believe in God (no proof's, I understand). Trying to understand God by science is like dealing with "glurp".
"....he can...not be detected by science. If he could, he wouldn't be God, because we would be able to understand him."
As Ive stated, saying we cant understand god, is a contradictory statement, since it would mean that none of his attributes can be known, including the attribute of incomprehensibility.
The statement that there are realities outside science is a BARE assertion. How can you possibly know this?
If God reveals his attributes to us, his attributes can be known. Maybe his attributes can not be understood (like the trinity), but they can be known by revelation.
The statement "only the things which can be detected by our 5 senses are true" is a self defeating argument. Can this argument itself be seen, heard, tastes, measured, weigh, tested, etc.? No. Therefore, the argument is self defeating, and therefore a simple proof that there are realities outside science.
Known by revelation? Are you serious? And who decides what revelations are valid to understand god? How can we know that it is actually god revealing this to us? Sorry bud, but on my turf, revelation is NOT a valid form of knowledge. You should already know this by now....you are talking to someone, who unlike you, doesn't have to concede these platitudes about "revelation" "inspiration" or any other such nonsense.
Certainly, I can not tell you who God is. Only God can reveal himself to you. All I can do is to preach the gospel and to detect the lie and tell the truth. But conversion lies on you and God. It is you who must open the door to your heart for Jesus when he knocks on it. Even if I proof the existence of God, would you then with joy accept his existence? Search, and you shall find.
"Only what can be scientifically proven can be known to be true." Can this be scientifically proven?
@eagleeye2102 CONT.... And I never said that only things that can be detected by 5 senses are true. But if YOU propose, that there are realities that exist outside of what we can detect within our universe/reality; and furthermore, that these external realities can affect our own...(HUGE claim, by the way)...then the burden of proof is on YOU to provide support for this claim. Unless you can do this, your statement defaults back to assertion and faith.
why ? because it deals about things way too complex for a believer's brain.
you won't talk about quantum mechanics to 3rd grade children who barely learn to calculate substractions with apples and cows...
someone who is convinced that something complicated beyond belief MUST have been created by a simple naive and childish "designer" (ie a human shaped consciousness) simply lacks the cognitive prerequisites to understand this video.
i find it sad that most videos here talk about things too detailed for fundamentalists. about things they cannot grasp or inconsciously don't want to understand (i won't explain here the strong hold of religion on the brain but you see what i mean).
sometimes i just reply "GO BACK TO SCHOOL it will be easier." because you just can't sum 70 years of research and knowledge in one video.
Ummm You're presuming that God's ability to know all things is impossible, based on the finite and severly limited abilities of mortal man. In other words, your projecting your limitations and your inabilities onto God.
It would be like someone who knows nothing about computers, scoffing at the idea that there are computers that can make millions of calculations per second. Just because they can't do it, it just ain't possible.
I never presume such a thing. (Although there are substantial philosophical objections to omniscience.)
You are right in one respect.
This video tries to understand and explain god in the ONLY framework we have available to us...the human one.
If you are arguing that we cannot even understand who or what god is, you contradict yourself, since asserting that god cannot be comprehended implies none of his attributes can be known...including the attribute of incomprehensibility.
@robdmccoy you are presuming that god has the ability to know things. you are projecting your abilities onto this "god". it could be that god is more like a rock or a river and has no "thoughts" and doesn't "know" things. if your claim is that "god" has specific properties than you should first start with evidence that shows this to be true. if you are trying to convince someone like me, that evidence should be strongly related and backed by other known facts and observances.
@robdmccoy It seems to me that that is not the point. The point, I'd say, is: Why is it that creationists point to the complexity in the universe, and say that this complexity shows that it had to have been created-- by a being that would be unimaginably (in fact, infinitely) MORE complex..... but that even more complex being DIDN'T have to be created, but just always was? It is special pleading, and doesn't answer anything.
what do you mean GOD has to know? he made everything, he knows everything. he is too complex for us to understand him. he is not a ''person'', like you imagine him. he is not a mega human. he is supreme. he created time. he is in a realm without time, imagine things without time? see? god is too complex for us to understand. you fuck off and do anything you want because you think it doesn't matter. we think that everything has a purpose, has a reason. and that ultimately makes the most sense.
Most arguments like this one unfortunately start with defining something that has not and possibly cannot be defined. There is also the assumption of the limitations of human knowledge superimposed upon something which we have no criteria for understanding. If we remove all the dogmatic factors and assumptions and just stick with an honest question such as: "is there an intelligent/sentient force involved in the creation of the universe", you are left with an honest answer:
The end of this video hit it on the head for me. My number one problem with the existance of god is his supposed ability to create everything out of the void. The problem starts with people's understanding of nothing, which is to say, they do not. Nothing is nothing; literally. Considering that God has no body, and no point of reference, how could he have created anything? Or have had thoughts on anything? How does he recognize his own sapience? No touch, no sight, no sound, no experience
Im glad you enjoyed. I see what you are saying. Im actually reading a book called "nothing" form Oxford Univeristy Press, because Im racked with the same questions.
Great stuff. The Theist often urges the non theist to think outside the box. That's fine but making brash assumptions about what is actually outside the box is shocking dishonesty.
Exactly. Tha'ts what I cant get past. Lets think outside the box for a sec...... Out of all the possible explanations that one could imagine or even not imagine for the existence of our universe.....how is an all powerful, all knowing ,conscious ,disembodied mind, who has always existed for no reason and with no cause, the most reasonable, logical and probable explanation? Ahhhhhhhh?????
I liked this video. It doesn't impose any kind of belief or disbelief on you, nor does it have any logical fallacies that may misinform you. It's only assuming that God is a living being that thinks and feels. Too bad that even here there are ignorant comments :P
the universe must have had a first cause, because everything has a cause.
it couldn't have been uncaused, because nothing is uncaused.
the first cause must be uncaused, because otherwise we wouldn't exist.
this abstract, ethereal first cause is completely indistinguishable from the anthropomorphic god of religion, because it obviously cares about who we have sex with : P
@sum1unxpected "the first cause must be uncaused, because otherwise we wouldn't exist." + "because everything has a cause." = WTF?
(also, I could be wrong here but Ima throw this out anyway, someone please correct me on this)
Also doesn't the "cause" arguement only bother with things that happen? It doesn't have anything to do with a beginning state because that doesn't... happen. It's just there, waiting to cause something to happen?
@djosephallen LOL! Well, she is one of the very rare women who are incredibly beautiful AND intelligent at the same time. There are plenty of women you could call a thing (Kelly Bundy of sorts) but surely not Portman ;)
anything other than science used to prove the existence of god is humorously esoteric. If you cant use science I would settle for an explanations of the bible's countless contradictions :).
Yes, I agree as humans, we have a tough time explaining God. This account assumes God has to count, learn, remember, see, predict, track, etc. All experiences in a 3D+1T universe. Even man doesn't have to track each individual atom to know the outcome of some events. Your conclusions make too many assumptions to be taken seriously. Otherwise, nice try.
Ok so since we have a tough time explaining god.....then we shouldnt try? The ONLY way we have as humans to try to understand the concept of a god, is to put him in an epistemological framework that makes sense to us. The only available one, is the one we have in this universe. All you are saying is: We cant understand god within this framework, so any assumptions we make are useless, therefore, we cant understand god. Where does that leave us?
@djosephallen No I agree, nothing wrong with trying to understand. I was just saying this example of what God would have to do is an 'in the box' explanation. Maybe there is an 'out of the box' explanation, which to your point, we can only speculate about. But I would assume, if God does exist, he wouldn't have to do the things your described.
I think that first you should delete this video and make another one similar, saying what exactly you mean by complexibility.
Second, you forgot to mention God's onipotence: if eh can do "everything", than process all that information is simply easy as open your eyes, and it doesn't require any kind of complexibilitity to do it, um?
No...I think Ill leave the video up. If it's not to difficult for you maybe you could just open up a dictionary and read the definition of complexity(not complexibility).
And I didn't forget about omnipotence.....you are just declaring that god is omnipotent and therefore can do anything...I have to keep repeating..the point of this video: if god is omnipotent...where did his omnipotence come from? Why has a personal all powerful being always existed for no reason with no cause?
Ghahaha, you are just walking around in circles. All you do is postulate your believes and definitions. Repeating that is not an answer.
Omnipotence says something about his limitations (none in this case), it doesnt EXPLAIN how and WHY this is possible with no cause. If you believe something like that exists,you wouldnt even need science to explain the universe. You should be happy to believe that it just is the way it is.
I´m glad there are people who actually do want to know how;)
So instead of all these INSANELY complex things and MASSIVE numbers of particals ect. being designed with a purpose. It made its self randomly, for no reason out of nothing over billions and or trillions of years blindly with zero purpose just because. OH OH OH sign me up. thats so probable that must be IT
Straw man all the way. First of all there is no such argument in the video. Second, No cosmologist/physicist has ever said "it made itself randomly". Try and look into big bang cosmology and inflationary theory a bit, before making an unfounded comment like that.
@Lassassin0 (cont...) Once again, the argument is this:
However improbable you think this complex universe is, it is easier to imagine a simple beginning, that through natural processes became more and more complex, than to postulate an all knowing, all powerful conscious personal being that always existed for no reason, and with no cause.
If you don't find that problematic, then so be it. But at least try to understand what the video is trying to argue.
@Lassassin0 no it was not for no reason it was simple chemical reactions then evolution and no it was NOT random and not trillions of years dont make yourself look like a fool and evolution is a FACT no matter how life began it did EVOLVE AND IT DID COME FROM NONLIFE get the fuck over it
@Lassassin0 was that satire...if not, who said if came from nothing (describe "nothing"), who said it is random (describe "random"), and who said it was complex (explain "complex").
That comment was barely intelligible...and you are telling me that you couldn't understand the video???
I never compared myself with god sir. he video as I have tried to explain time and time again, tries to put god in a context we can understand. What you are saying is: Don't question it...you will never understand it...just believe it. FAIL.
As for evolution....you are clearly ignorant of the evidence. Evolution is a FACT. Get over it. If you won't accept that then you need mental help.
You are refuting yourself and your myths my friend!
You actually admit what this video says: the god you believe in is infinitely more complex than any scientific explanation of the universe would be. Therefore you´re infinitely contradicting yourself by saying `god just exists, no cause, no explanation", while you do require one for the universe..hahahahah!
@Pumbaelo. Let me say I am not "so sure" of anything.The vid just tries to describe properties this creator would have to posses to be a realistic explanation for the universe, and concludes it itself would have to be unimaginably complex.Seems implausible to me.
As for complexity:
1composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite
2characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.
3so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with
I guess one could summarize it a s detailed and more expansive description of the boeing 747 argument. The premise is basically to say: "You, the theist, claim this universe is much too complex to come about by chance, and therefore you posit a God. Well, here is what that god would have to look like for your hypothesis to be plausible"
Conclusion: Your god is more complex than what you venture out to explain, therefore your god is HIGHLY implausible.
Not sure if there's a single step in the argument I would agree with. I will try to be brief: What is your definition of complex and what makes you so sure that such a complex being would be implausible?
Oh, I checked out the video you sent me (DNA Enigma) - I'm not sure how to discuss it, because the author shut down comments.
My frustration at this debacle is such: Creationists continually work at poking holes. Scientists work to explain things and make advancements everyday. A creationist comes in and says, "well, can you explain this? No?Ah hah! Intelligent design."
Yet, they contribute no research to support it. Lack of support for one thing is not support for another.
@mikeytheaznking But don't you see you make a larger leap by placing an intelligence behind it than if you simply discard the flawed presumption that information has to come from intelligence? That's the whole premise of this video: that by ascribing an intelligence behind these phenomenon you create a more improbable complexity. We are moving down a path toward demonstrating how information can come about by natural methods - indeed we are very close. I see no reason to turn to gods.
@mikeytheaznking So, I'm bowing out of this conversation because it's become repetitive and gotten pointless.
I reassert that you have never presented any reason for the assumption that information must come from intelligence. I mentioned the spontaneous formation of RNA study (and can provide the pdf). That would be information from non-intelligence.
Anyway, good debating with you. If you want to continue it, PM me.
@mikeytheaznking See: Powner, Gerland, & Sutherland (2009). Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Nature (459) 239-242.
I'd also like some evidence from you: any reason why I should buy the intelligence-information argument from a source other than the Discovery Institute.
Well I'm not sure why you dislike them so much ,but I think you should really consider what they're saying.
information: knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms . The main role of DNA molecules is the storage of information.
The experiment clearly demonstrates the possibility of RNA synthesis under plausible early-Earth conditions. Apparently, you like to FAIL.
And I'll take your information/intelligence inference seriously if YOU can demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of information theory. Can you, for starters, provide a coherent definition of what "information" actually is?
Information can have many meanings, however I regret to inform you that none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the acquisition of knowledge. The study of how knowledge is acquired and what it's limitations are is epistemology.
So you've immediately demonstrated a foundational error in your understanding of the concept, before discussion has even began.
Why, in your opinion, should anyone take you seriously when you clearly don't know what you're talking about?
I simply give a definition of information relative to its nature, although it may not imply intelligence.
It is true that informations can have many meanings, but that is a pathetic excuse to try and falsify my argument. These meanings still adhere to the nature of information.
Yes it is limited to epistemology, but then if that is also true, then the argument you are now using is also a "foundational error in your understanding of the concept".
"Why should anyone take YOU seriously if your only concern is being right and not necessarily wanting to know the truth."
If you're saying that "information" cannot emerge naturally (which it can), and you don't even understand what information is (which you don't), then your contentions are based on a foundational misunderstanding, and are necessarily flawed as a result. How can you know that nature can't give rise to a thing, if you don't even understand what that thing is?
As you can probably tell, each of these requires some type of understanding or mind to fit the definition.
Nature does not have a mind, therefore nature cannot give rise to information.
Along with the second law of thermodynamics, chance chemistry, and the nature of information, it's absolutely absurd to assume that something mindless could produce information.
"Nature does not have a mind, therefore nature cannot give rise to information."
Alas, but it can and does, more than you realize. A mind is required to INTERPRET information, but nonetheless in nature it is still there, independent of any mind. For example, a particle in space contains information about it's mass, velocity, trajectory, etc; but I don't hear you arguing that an intelligent force is required to cause particles to move through space.
A particle moving is just something we consider information. In the end it's just a moving particle.
The information I mean to tell is the types of codes.
Not random facts about particles and substances. We derive information from those. But those things by themselves do not match the definition of information.
There is simply no reason to believe that modern DNA couldn't have emerged gradually from increasingly complex chains of organic molecules that eventually began to replicate. The only reason why you can justify claim 3) is because you've excluded this as a possibility for no apparent reason, and ignored vast amounts of comparable "information" in nature without explaining why; except to draw illusory distinctions between what "kind" of information you're talking about.
So, since "information" can and does exist in nature, using another example, the CMB contains information about the birth of the universe; your argument is obviously arbitrarily limited to a certain kind of information, genetic information. Why insist on this imaginary line in the sand, based on some critically flawed assumptions about the nature of information? Why can "information" exist in nature in one form, but not in another?
"That's only a property of cosmic microwave background radiation..."
...and ordered sequences of nucleotides are "only a property" of DNA. What's your point? You're drawing imaginary lines in the sand.
Any arbitrary arrangement of molecules contains information, including the small, organic building blocks of DNA. It doesn't matter if the information means anything. We see this in nature ALL THE TIME.
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms . The main role of DNA molecules is the storage of information
The interesting thing about complexity is that natural complexity needs to be well, less complex, than a supposed god who created it. Because dynamic systems, as you move up in levels of complexity - say from atoms to molecules - the complexity of the previous level gets compressed by the inherent structure of the next level. This solves the degrees of freedom problem and allows for complex life to exist from the astronomical complexity inherent in atoms, molecules, cells, and tissue.
Also, your video only tells us that evolution is the explanation for the complexity, and only turns the tables to Christians about why God is complex.
Though I still find problems with evolution as well.
For example: There is no geological evidence for the prebiotic soup.
"Also, your video only tells us that evolution is the explanation for the complexity, and only turns the tables to Christians about why God is complex."
That's the point. We can explain the complexity from simple beginnings(with evidence, mind you).
You however, cannot explain how an all powerful, all knowing, infinitely complex being has simply always existed, for no reason and with no cause.
PS:
Prebiotic or primeval soup has to do with Abiogenesis...NOT...Evolution. Look it up.
True that is part of Abiogenesis, though the thing is that, I think that evolution also has problems, and I think it would be better to have a video giving evidence for evolution rather than criticizing Christian doctrine.
This video doesn't criticize christian doctrine. It gives an argument for the implausibility of a god, at least in the traditional theistic sense. That's all.
@Mikey: I have no trouble understanding the concept of omniscience. Or even how a being could be Omniscient.Mike, the point is, you ask how is it possible for all this complexity to arise without a god.Yet you posit a being that is even more complex than that which we are trying to explain, AND you posit he has always existed and that's that. You must understand, how that can be confusing to say the least.
@mikeytheaznking You confound belief and explanation. These are not explanations, they are simple ways of saying he is unfathomable. Because he is unfathomable, we cannot understand him. This is not an explanation, but rather a clever way of saying nothing.
You also skirt an ad populum fallacy by saying that the belief is well believed. So was flat-earth theory 600 years ago. No matter how many believe it, theists have NEVER supplied a replicable, objective piece of evidence for god.
But in reality you do the same with nature. I'm not saying he's completely not understandable, it's just that we won't ever fully understand him. Though in modern theology now, we have different conceptions of God that are logical, I'll send you videos.
Oh pease. Not the naturalism of the gaps argument. Do this for me: Give me ONE example in all of human history where something that was though to have a natural explanation, was later found to have its explanation in god or ANY supernatural source. There is none. However there are literally millions of things once thought to be explained by god, that we now understand perfectly by natural cause.
@mikeytheaznking Second, I really would like to see these videos you mention. Feel free to PM me.
The idea that I am close minded because I won't consider a god is covered in QualiaSoup's excellent "Open-Mindedness" video. I recommend it.
You seem to say: we haven't answered everything yet, therefore we never can: enter god. I find this to be unsatisfying. I look back since Galileo and look at how much knowledge we have acquired. As science increases, gods shrink, until they explain nothing.
When you send videos that have comments disabled it really doesn't speak well. It is one thing to disable ratings for fear of down rating, but to disable comments means that the person presenting the video is afraid that people will re butt the ideas presented, and is blocking dissenting opinions in a cowardly manner. If he is afraid of offensive comments, then at least he could open comments by approval.(I'm referring to the DNA video)
mmmmmmmmmm... Natalie Portman.......
demeal 2 months ago
Isaiah 55:8-9. 1 Corintians 1:20
nappysoul 3 months ago
@nappysoul
What is your point? Just quopting scripture dont cut it. I dont know if you know this, but we atheists aren't very convinced by bible quotes.
djosephallen 3 months ago
What to do today? What to do? I think I'll expose myself to some bronze age nomad, sheep hearders... and then never talk to them again! I'm such a hoot.
wondergundy 4 months ago
Just because God is bigger than your mind can comprehend, doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. He's given us plenty of clues about Himself... but not all of the answers. If He gave us all of the answers, what fun would that be? : ) If you keep looking, He will come into focus... (see Matthew 7:7-8)
caycug1 5 months ago
@caycug1
Again,the comprehension thing? Just because you cant comprehend the universe or existence, doesn't poof god into existence either.And..FUN? Its supposed to be fun? Is it fun for your god to supposedly send billions of people to hell, cause they didn't "focus" in on him on time, before they died, at some arbitrary point? Finally, we are talking about a generic god, but you jump to the christian one. This shows you already have a conclusion, and you are looking to fit everything to that.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen Dude... God loves you. Don't fight it. You don't need to be afraid that He exists. He isn't going to hurt you. Love is the key here... not "believe or burn". The "believe or burn" message is not what God is about. We have the free will to come to Him because of the love that He has for us. We love Him because He first loved us.
caycug1 5 months ago
@caycug1
Dont try to emotionally appeal to me, its not gonna work. (Nice way of avoiding my points though.)
Im glad that for you your god is all about Love. Unfortunatelly your scriptures dont back you up. Im not afraid. Im not an antitheist. Im one of those atheists, that thinks that it would be awesome if a god did exist. I mean, who doesnt want to believe there is an all powerfull being looking after us?But I also value evidence and objective truth. Qualities which your idea of god lacks.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen I have not heard of a better purpose to live for, than to love. The story of Christ is about love. In my mind it is the most compelling message. Also, because of the personal context of it's writing, it's historically authentic nature, the way that Christ soo drastically effected the world, it is one story that should not be overlooked.
caycug1 5 months ago
@djosephallen (cont.) Don't be coerced into believing in God out of fear... do it out of love for Him. God is big enough to handle our issues. If someone committed a crime worthy of death, imagine if a righteous man volunteered to die in his place. That is how much He cares for us. That is what Jesus did for us. Forget about hell... look at love.
caycug1 5 months ago
@caycug1
If a righteous man volunteered to die in his place, he would be taking the punishment. But that does NOT take away the guilty mans RESPONSIBILITY. Something which you claim Jesus did. Scapegoating someone to "cleanse" yourself of your sins, and torturing and killing him for it, is not admirable or beautiful. Its disgusting.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen By laying His life down for us, God is showing us that only He is righteous. Therefore we need to accept His free gift. You can try to live a perfect life, and you should, but you could never live a perfect and sin-free life... Only God can do that. Since He forgives us, so we learn from Him and we can forgive others their trespasses against us. That is how we can live a fulfilling life by loving others. Having mercy, grace, and forgiveness. Jesus set an example for us.
caycug1 5 months ago
@caycug1
Dude...Ive heard all this before. I know what your whitewashed version of Christianity preaches. Just do me one favor please. First prove to me that a god exists, then prove to me that its actually the Christian god...and then we can get into the issue of whether I accept your particular brand of christianity. Otherwise, refrain from commenting anymore. Ive heard all this bull before. Im not intrested in your preaching. Give me facts.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen It seems to me that we couldn't have come from nothing. Then, when I see the beauty of a rainbow, or the smell of a fresh breeze in the springtime, or the cuteness of a furry little puppy, etc. It seems like wherever those things came from... it is a good place. Love had to have been written into our blueprints.... and since love is the greatest thing we have on this planet, then that is what we should worship.
caycug1 5 months ago
@djosephallen (cont.) Since Jesus was the greatest example of a loving person to walk the earth, it seems like a good idea to believe that He is who He said He is. "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) " I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (John 10:11) The story makes too much sense to me to be wrong. We need to look at life with "spiritual" eyes.... Not just physical.
caycug1 5 months ago
@caycug1
As I suspected, no arguments, no evidence. Just more appeal to emotion. Puppies are cute. And rainbows are beautiful. This does nothing to prove god. And stop quoting the bible. Im an Atheist. I put no stock in that book whatsoever.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen Evidence: 1.) It makes more sense that we came from something, rather than from nothing. When is the last time you saw anything randomly pop into existence? 2.) Wherever everything came from, there needed to be an initial blueprint. There has to be a reason behind why everything exists. Even if evolution were true, it would need to have a blueprint to set it on it's course. 3.) Since we are personal, we can presume that our origin comes from a personal designer.
caycug1 5 months ago
@caycug1
But God can just exist? Did he just "pop" into existence? So to you, saying...An all powerful, all knowing invisible mind, that has always existed for no reason and with no cause, is the best explanation for the universe? Id rather say, I dont know. Did we come from "nothing"? What is nothing? I dont know. But positing a god, solves nothing.
BTW Evolution IS a fact. Look it up.
Your 3rd point is laughable. I could also say...since we are physical beings, then god must be too.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen Is there any purpose to your life? Is there any reason that you exist? Are you only on this planet to eat, have sex, and scratch yourself? Or is there something more? If there is something more, then that is spiritual. If spirituality exists, then a Great Spirit Creator must exist.
caycug1 5 months ago
@caycug1
Yeah, I make my own purpose. I dont need it to be given to me.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen Are you nothing more than a blob of matter, with no purpose whatsoever? Do you have no more purpose than a rock, a stick, or a pile of fecal matter? If you believe that, then I feel sorry for you. I am here to tell you that there is more to your life than that.
caycug1 5 months ago
Are you nothing more than a rat in a maze, where some god already knows how your life will play out, and where you are a puppet living a life which is only a test, for trying to get to some imaginary future life? If you believe that, then I feel sorry for you
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen When you run out of answers, Jesus will be waiting for you with open arms.
caycug1 5 months ago
@caycug1
And when you start asking questions, reality will be waiting for you.
djosephallen 5 months ago
God created the laws of the universe. Physical as well as spiritual. He makes Himself known through His revelations and manifestation backed up by His more sure Word of prophecy. His Word has been saying all along that we live in a finite hyperdimensional expanding universe that had a beginning with an innumerable amount of stars. Time is a relative created dimensional physical property. God is outside our spacetime continuum and we indeed have no idea what that is like.
Ramohog 5 months ago
@Ramohog
Assertion. Assertion. Assertion. That takes care of the first 3 sentences.
Can you please point me to the passage in the bible that states :"we live in a finite hyperdimensional expanding universe that had a beginning with an innumerable amount of stars?" Ill give you one: the universe indeed had a beginning. That's not very impressive by the way, since it either did or didn't, so its a 50/50 chance. Finally, the "god is outside of time" is another "we cant comprehend" cop out.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djose No assertions! We have history and a current world situation to prove the Bible as a more sure Word of prophecy. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter) Over a dozen times the Bible states that the Lord streches forth the heavens (expansion) and that the stars can not be numbered (Jer 33:22) the spiritual realm is hyperdimensional and beyond our sensory mechanism. We can know and understand God through His revelations and manifestations!
Ramohog 5 months ago
@Ramohog
Yes....assertions. Ill just take the first one:
1.-God created the laws of the universe. (please provide evidence of this, and an explanation of the mechanisms he used to do so.)
As for your bible quotes...laughable.
-To you, in the "beginning" means "god created time"? Nice stretch.
-God created the "heavens". Research this. The Hebrews believed that there were something like 7 heavens, with god at the highest one. No reference to the space-time continuum here.
CONT....
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen The evidence is in the cosmic fine-tuning of the anthropic constants on the macrocosm, and the sequential information, genetic algorithmic coding/ decoding, structure and design of the self replicating, error correcting nanotech minicomputers that we call cells on the microcosm. All this clearly testifies of an external causal intelligent agent due to the cause and effect structure, instead of random coincidence without any meaning plan or purpose to it all. Cont...
Ramohog 5 months ago
Time is a created physical dimensional property, which varies with mass, acceleration and gravity among other things. 7 Heavens is a pagan Kabbalistic myth. God is outside our space time continuum. That why He declares the end from the beginning through His more sure Word of prophecy. Totally backed up by true documented history and current world affairs.
The Bible does not mention the age of the earth. It mentions this world system. Keeping in mind that God is able to re-create.
Ramohog 5 months ago
@Ramohog
-And the earth.(This was funny.) So now, earth means all matter in the universe? FAIL.
I could keep going, but why dont we talk about the HUGE mistakes in your bible? Like the fact that it states that god created the earth BEFORE, the Sun and stars?Something we KNOW to be false? Or that everything was created in 6 days, when we KNOW the age of the Universe is in excess of 14 billion years? Or that the earth is a flat disc, and the center of the Universe, which we know is FALSE? CONT...
djosephallen 5 months ago
@Ramohog
CONT...
Lastly, in case you don't accept any of the previous facts (age of the universe, timeline, etc)please refrain from responding, as you will intermediately show yourself to be ignorant of science, and denying of reality....and will cause me to ignore your comments.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen Your are the one who is ignorant of true science, because of wrong assumptions based on falsefied facts, causing people to come to the wrong conclusions. Matter + enerrgy + entropy will never create and sustain life by itself. You need added information to process the energy, and information able to do work or communicate a message is habitually association with intelligence.
By the way micro evolution supports degeneration and genetic entropy and has biological boundaries!
Ramohog 5 months ago
@Ramohog It seems like you have a great grasp of science, and your evidence should earn you a Nobel prize. Funny how most of the worlds leading physicists and other scientists disagree.Of course, thats because they "falsified facts" right? Any fact that doesnt agree with your preconceived idea of your god must be false.
Here is my request: Make a video response. Please expose these scientific lies and wrong assumptions. Otherwise we can leave it here. I will no longer respond in comment form.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen Many scientist build their models on preconceived unproven wrong assumptions. I only go with truth and facts, based on reality and sound reasoning. My conclusion is that there is intelligence behind it all, and that this intelligence makes Himself known through His revelations and His manifestations backed up by prophecy and proven accurate through documented history. Science is just playing catch-up with what God has revealed all along. I choose intelligence over randomness.
Ramohog 5 months ago
"God is spirit" (John 4:24a)
His intelligence is not based on complexity.
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102
And can you please tell us...what IS Spirit?
Dont tell me what its not, ie: "not material"
Please provide a positive cogent description of what spirit is.
Otherwise I could just say:
God is glurp. His intelligence is not based on complexity.
Same difference.
djosephallen 6 months ago
@djosephallen
I don't know how God is, what his intelligence is based on or how God looks like. But I know what he's not, he's not matter, and John, one of Jesus's disciples, said that he's spirit. If you say that God is glurp, then you have a different god.
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102
Way to completely miss the point.
my glurp example, was made to illustrate ,you have no idea what you mean when you say spirit.
Which means you have no idea what you believe in.
So here:
I have no idea what glurp means, I can just tell you its not material, I dont know what it looks like or what its based on. A friend of mine told me on good authority that god is glurp. So by your logic, I can state this with as much conviction as you do your claim, and we are on equal ground.
djosephallen 6 months ago
@djosephallen
You don't know how "dark matter" looks like or how it is, but you believe in it's existence because there is reason to believe it. You get this information from science, so it's quite reliable, you know that from your experiences.
Can I therefore conclude that you don't know what you believe in and fairly say that it is just as reasonable to believe in glurp as in "dark matter"?
John is not just "a friend of mine", just as the scientists aren't, but that's another topic.
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102
Uuumm. NO.
"Dark Matter" is actually a place holder name for a hypothesized concept of what is believed to comprise most of the mass in the universe. However, no scientist is content with saying : We dont know what dark matter is we will never know and we believe its something "immaterial" or "spiritual;" or any such nonsense. As of today it is believed to exist, but we still have a long way to to go in discovering what so called "dark matter" actually is. Cont...
djosephallen 6 months ago
@eagleeye
We also know there is probably something there cause we can measure its effects on surrounding visible matter. To this day no measurable evidence of a god or a god's effects has been made. (Saying you "feel" him in your heart doesn't count as a scientific measurement BTW). You also however, believe that your god CANNOT be measured, we don't know and will NEVER know what "spirit" is supposed to be, or what its made of, yet we are supposed to just accept he exists. Sorry...cant do it.
djosephallen 6 months ago
@djosephallen
If God exists then he can not be measured, he can therefore not be detected by science. If he could, he wouldn't be God, because we would then be able to understand him. There are, however, realities outside science, outside the things that can be measured, those are subjects to Philosophy. And Philosophical, there are good reasons to believe in God (no proof's, I understand). Trying to understand God by science is like dealing with "glurp".
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@eagleeye2102
You just conceded the most important point:
"....he can...not be detected by science. If he could, he wouldn't be God, because we would be able to understand him."
As Ive stated, saying we cant understand god, is a contradictory statement, since it would mean that none of his attributes can be known, including the attribute of incomprehensibility.
The statement that there are realities outside science is a BARE assertion. How can you possibly know this?
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen
If God reveals his attributes to us, his attributes can be known. Maybe his attributes can not be understood (like the trinity), but they can be known by revelation.
The statement "only the things which can be detected by our 5 senses are true" is a self defeating argument. Can this argument itself be seen, heard, tastes, measured, weigh, tested, etc.? No. Therefore, the argument is self defeating, and therefore a simple proof that there are realities outside science.
eagleeye2102 5 months ago
@eagleeye2102
Known by revelation? Are you serious? And who decides what revelations are valid to understand god? How can we know that it is actually god revealing this to us? Sorry bud, but on my turf, revelation is NOT a valid form of knowledge. You should already know this by now....you are talking to someone, who unlike you, doesn't have to concede these platitudes about "revelation" "inspiration" or any other such nonsense.
djosephallen 5 months ago
@djosephallen
Certainly, I can not tell you who God is. Only God can reveal himself to you. All I can do is to preach the gospel and to detect the lie and tell the truth. But conversion lies on you and God. It is you who must open the door to your heart for Jesus when he knocks on it. Even if I proof the existence of God, would you then with joy accept his existence? Search, and you shall find.
"Only what can be scientifically proven can be known to be true." Can this be scientifically proven?
eagleeye2102 5 months ago
@eagleeye2102 CONT.... And I never said that only things that can be detected by 5 senses are true. But if YOU propose, that there are realities that exist outside of what we can detect within our universe/reality; and furthermore, that these external realities can affect our own...(HUGE claim, by the way)...then the burden of proof is on YOU to provide support for this claim. Unless you can do this, your statement defaults back to assertion and faith.
djosephallen 5 months ago
this video FAILS.
why ? because it deals about things way too complex for a believer's brain.
you won't talk about quantum mechanics to 3rd grade children who barely learn to calculate substractions with apples and cows...
someone who is convinced that something complicated beyond belief MUST have been created by a simple naive and childish "designer" (ie a human shaped consciousness) simply lacks the cognitive prerequisites to understand this video.
zecle 6 months ago
@zecle
OK I removed my previous comment since I read yours again and I realized I completley misuderstood.
I see now that what you are saying is that theists that claim complexity need be designed cant grasp this video.
If thats the case then too bad for them. I disagree, and I think they can, they just might not want to.
djosephallen 6 months ago
@djosephallen
i didn't see your previous comment so no offense.
i find it sad that most videos here talk about things too detailed for fundamentalists. about things they cannot grasp or inconsciously don't want to understand (i won't explain here the strong hold of religion on the brain but you see what i mean).
sometimes i just reply "GO BACK TO SCHOOL it will be easier." because you just can't sum 70 years of research and knowledge in one video.
zecle 6 months ago
Ummm You're presuming that God's ability to know all things is impossible, based on the finite and severly limited abilities of mortal man. In other words, your projecting your limitations and your inabilities onto God.
It would be like someone who knows nothing about computers, scoffing at the idea that there are computers that can make millions of calculations per second. Just because they can't do it, it just ain't possible.
Silly argument.
robdmccoy 8 months ago
@robdmccoy
I never presume such a thing. (Although there are substantial philosophical objections to omniscience.)
You are right in one respect.
This video tries to understand and explain god in the ONLY framework we have available to us...the human one.
If you are arguing that we cannot even understand who or what god is, you contradict yourself, since asserting that god cannot be comprehended implies none of his attributes can be known...including the attribute of incomprehensibility.
djosephallen 8 months ago
@robdmccoy you are presuming that god has the ability to know things. you are projecting your abilities onto this "god". it could be that god is more like a rock or a river and has no "thoughts" and doesn't "know" things. if your claim is that "god" has specific properties than you should first start with evidence that shows this to be true. if you are trying to convince someone like me, that evidence should be strongly related and backed by other known facts and observances.
greycloud24 7 months ago
@robdmccoy It seems to me that that is not the point. The point, I'd say, is: Why is it that creationists point to the complexity in the universe, and say that this complexity shows that it had to have been created-- by a being that would be unimaginably (in fact, infinitely) MORE complex..... but that even more complex being DIDN'T have to be created, but just always was? It is special pleading, and doesn't answer anything.
likeAgopher 7 months ago
what do you mean GOD has to know? he made everything, he knows everything. he is too complex for us to understand him. he is not a ''person'', like you imagine him. he is not a mega human. he is supreme. he created time. he is in a realm without time, imagine things without time? see? god is too complex for us to understand. you fuck off and do anything you want because you think it doesn't matter. we think that everything has a purpose, has a reason. and that ultimately makes the most sense.
ikhezu 1 year ago
You know, I never thought of it - God disproved by the virtue of omniscience vs. Heisenberg principle.
Science wins!
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503
NIce way of summarizing it.
djosephallen 1 year ago
he got his ideas from eternal existance
tcatn0c 1 year ago
my brain just exploded
BronxMonroe 1 year ago
@BronxMonroe
Good....I think?
djosephallen 1 year ago
I strongly have to agree on the subject of Ms. Portman beautiful design!Hmm,yummy! XD
TylerMcManus1 1 year ago
so if God really can do/know all this...that makes for a pretty awesome God...
bananaflava 1 year ago
@bananaflava
Or maybe....just maybe..... he doesn't exist.
djosephallen 1 year ago
Most arguments like this one unfortunately start with defining something that has not and possibly cannot be defined. There is also the assumption of the limitations of human knowledge superimposed upon something which we have no criteria for understanding. If we remove all the dogmatic factors and assumptions and just stick with an honest question such as: "is there an intelligent/sentient force involved in the creation of the universe", you are left with an honest answer:
"I do not know".
chocomalk 1 year ago
@chocomalk
I agree with you in part, and this is why I call myself an "Agnostic Atheist"
Can I KNOW whether this god exists? NO
Do I believe he does? NO.
However, this god has at least in part been defined as:
The omnipotent. omniscient, omnipresent disembodied mind, who created the universe, and who has always existed for no reason and with no cause.
(CONT...)
djosephallen 1 year ago
@chocomalk
I take issue with is this:
"There is also the assumption of the limitations of human knowledge superimposed upon something which we have no criteria for understanding"
What other criteria except human knowledge could we possibly have?
This video tries to understand god with the only tools available: Human reason, logic, and evidence.
Otherwise we are left with: Dont try to understand, its beyond your capacity.
Where does that leave us?
djosephallen 1 year ago
The end of this video hit it on the head for me. My number one problem with the existance of god is his supposed ability to create everything out of the void. The problem starts with people's understanding of nothing, which is to say, they do not. Nothing is nothing; literally. Considering that God has no body, and no point of reference, how could he have created anything? Or have had thoughts on anything? How does he recognize his own sapience? No touch, no sight, no sound, no experience
jippzmcghee 1 year ago
@jippzmcghee
Im glad you enjoyed. I see what you are saying. Im actually reading a book called "nothing" form Oxford Univeristy Press, because Im racked with the same questions.
Thanks for your comment.
djosephallen 1 year ago
Great stuff. The Theist often urges the non theist to think outside the box. That's fine but making brash assumptions about what is actually outside the box is shocking dishonesty.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater
Exactly. Tha'ts what I cant get past. Lets think outside the box for a sec...... Out of all the possible explanations that one could imagine or even not imagine for the existence of our universe.....how is an all powerful, all knowing ,conscious ,disembodied mind, who has always existed for no reason and with no cause, the most reasonable, logical and probable explanation? Ahhhhhhhh?????
Thanks for your comment.
djosephallen 1 year ago
I liked this video. It doesn't impose any kind of belief or disbelief on you, nor does it have any logical fallacies that may misinform you. It's only assuming that God is a living being that thinks and feels. Too bad that even here there are ignorant comments :P
darkdjordje 1 year ago
the universe must have had a first cause, because everything has a cause.
it couldn't have been uncaused, because nothing is uncaused.
the first cause must be uncaused, because otherwise we wouldn't exist.
this abstract, ethereal first cause is completely indistinguishable from the anthropomorphic god of religion, because it obviously cares about who we have sex with : P
sum1unxpected 1 year ago
@sum1unxpected
Almost had me going :) ...thanks for your comment.
djosephallen 1 year ago
@sum1unxpected "the first cause must be uncaused, because otherwise we wouldn't exist." + "because everything has a cause." = WTF?
(also, I could be wrong here but Ima throw this out anyway, someone please correct me on this)
Also doesn't the "cause" arguement only bother with things that happen? It doesn't have anything to do with a beginning state because that doesn't... happen. It's just there, waiting to cause something to happen?
blazearmoru 1 year ago
Beautifully designed THINGS like Natalie Portman???
yegorletoff 1 year ago
@yegorletoff
Dont be nit picky. You know full well what is meant, and the point that is trying to be made.
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen I understand, but it sounded almost like blasphemy, man ;)
I like the video though :)
yegorletoff 1 year ago
@yegorletoff
Got alittle crush on Ms Portman do we? Dont worry, Im sure you have a shot :)
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen LOL! Well, she is one of the very rare women who are incredibly beautiful AND intelligent at the same time. There are plenty of women you could call a thing (Kelly Bundy of sorts) but surely not Portman ;)
yegorletoff 1 year ago
anything other than science used to prove the existence of god is humorously esoteric. If you cant use science I would settle for an explanations of the bible's countless contradictions :).
jerkyfish16 1 year ago
Yes, I agree as humans, we have a tough time explaining God. This account assumes God has to count, learn, remember, see, predict, track, etc. All experiences in a 3D+1T universe. Even man doesn't have to track each individual atom to know the outcome of some events. Your conclusions make too many assumptions to be taken seriously. Otherwise, nice try.
mescience 1 year ago
@mescience
Ok so since we have a tough time explaining god.....then we shouldnt try? The ONLY way we have as humans to try to understand the concept of a god, is to put him in an epistemological framework that makes sense to us. The only available one, is the one we have in this universe. All you are saying is: We cant understand god within this framework, so any assumptions we make are useless, therefore, we cant understand god. Where does that leave us?
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen No I agree, nothing wrong with trying to understand. I was just saying this example of what God would have to do is an 'in the box' explanation. Maybe there is an 'out of the box' explanation, which to your point, we can only speculate about. But I would assume, if God does exist, he wouldn't have to do the things your described.
mescience 1 year ago
I think that first you should delete this video and make another one similar, saying what exactly you mean by complexibility.
Second, you forgot to mention God's onipotence: if eh can do "everything", than process all that information is simply easy as open your eyes, and it doesn't require any kind of complexibilitity to do it, um?
marteco 1 year ago
@marteco
No...I think Ill leave the video up. If it's not to difficult for you maybe you could just open up a dictionary and read the definition of complexity(not complexibility).
And I didn't forget about omnipotence.....you are just declaring that god is omnipotent and therefore can do anything...I have to keep repeating..the point of this video: if god is omnipotent...where did his omnipotence come from? Why has a personal all powerful being always existed for no reason with no cause?
djosephallen 1 year ago
@marteco
Ghahaha, you are just walking around in circles. All you do is postulate your believes and definitions. Repeating that is not an answer.
Omnipotence says something about his limitations (none in this case), it doesnt EXPLAIN how and WHY this is possible with no cause. If you believe something like that exists,you wouldnt even need science to explain the universe. You should be happy to believe that it just is the way it is.
I´m glad there are people who actually do want to know how;)
ispaniola 1 year ago
@marteco You are retarded.
nickrd182 1 year ago
@nickrd182 ummmmmmmmm no.
marteco 1 year ago
@nickrd182 ummmmmmmmm no. (and this is an ad hominem)
marteco 1 year ago
Proof . . . . ALL GODS ARE MAN MADE!
ktorch 1 year ago
So instead of all these INSANELY complex things and MASSIVE numbers of particals ect. being designed with a purpose. It made its self randomly, for no reason out of nothing over billions and or trillions of years blindly with zero purpose just because. OH OH OH sign me up. thats so probable that must be IT
Lassassin0 2 years ago
@Lassassin:
Straw man all the way. First of all there is no such argument in the video. Second, No cosmologist/physicist has ever said "it made itself randomly". Try and look into big bang cosmology and inflationary theory a bit, before making an unfounded comment like that.
djosephallen 2 years ago
@Lassassin0 (cont...) Once again, the argument is this:
However improbable you think this complex universe is, it is easier to imagine a simple beginning, that through natural processes became more and more complex, than to postulate an all knowing, all powerful conscious personal being that always existed for no reason, and with no cause.
If you don't find that problematic, then so be it. But at least try to understand what the video is trying to argue.
djosephallen 2 years ago
@Lassassin0 no it was not for no reason it was simple chemical reactions then evolution and no it was NOT random and not trillions of years dont make yourself look like a fool and evolution is a FACT no matter how life began it did EVOLVE AND IT DID COME FROM NONLIFE get the fuck over it
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 just like flies spawn from raw meat
Lassassin0 1 year ago
@Lassassin0 yeh when flies lay there eggs in it dumbass
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@Lassassin0
" It made its self randomly, for no reason out of nothing over billions and or trillions of years blindly with zero purpose just because"
Well done, you made yourself look like an utterly ignorant childish creationist!
Instead of trying to argue your ignorant views (or lies..)here, let´s take your ridiculous description of the universe..
Would it not be still less complex than god
So if you need a "purpose" and a cause for such a universe, you would definitely need some for god ;)
perfectdonk 1 year ago
@Lassassin0 ohhh... does it really hurt you to believe you were born without a purpose?... well i've got some bad news for you...
kyon10 1 year ago
@Lassassin0 was that satire...if not, who said if came from nothing (describe "nothing"), who said it is random (describe "random"), and who said it was complex (explain "complex").
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@Lassassin0 Funny you could say the same thing about your deity.
Of course you know you're lying and you know thats not what anyone believes.
GallusSapien 1 year ago
Comment removed
sashavboyd 7 months ago
*
Firstly you have to understand the complexity of your mind and ideas because it's very difficult to understand what you want to say.
And Explain Who GOD is?
No please!!! Do you want to compare with GOD?
If you are GOD you will maybe be a CREATOR.
But this is not true you are only a simply Human Being not a chimpanzee as the evolutionism supports.
Millions and millions and SUPPOSED millions of years.
NO This is INCORRECT, nobody has the exact time of the beginning, It's only BELIEFS.
*
bravasobob 2 years ago 6
That comment was barely intelligible...and you are telling me that you couldn't understand the video???
I never compared myself with god sir. he video as I have tried to explain time and time again, tries to put god in a context we can understand. What you are saying is: Don't question it...you will never understand it...just believe it. FAIL.
As for evolution....you are clearly ignorant of the evidence. Evolution is a FACT. Get over it. If you won't accept that then you need mental help.
djosephallen 2 years ago
Veo que eres de Peru. Tal ves quieras intentar tus comentarios en espanol...porque no entiendo bien tu ingles.
djosephallen 2 years ago
@bravasobob
Hahaha
You are refuting yourself and your myths my friend!
You actually admit what this video says: the god you believe in is infinitely more complex than any scientific explanation of the universe would be. Therefore you´re infinitely contradicting yourself by saying `god just exists, no cause, no explanation", while you do require one for the universe..hahahahah!
Selfpownage!
ispaniola 1 year ago
@Pumbaelo. Let me say I am not "so sure" of anything.The vid just tries to describe properties this creator would have to posses to be a realistic explanation for the universe, and concludes it itself would have to be unimaginably complex.Seems implausible to me.
As for complexity:
1composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite
2characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.
3so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with
djosephallen 2 years ago
Was there an argument here?
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
:)
I guess one could summarize it a s detailed and more expansive description of the boeing 747 argument. The premise is basically to say: "You, the theist, claim this universe is much too complex to come about by chance, and therefore you posit a God. Well, here is what that god would have to look like for your hypothesis to be plausible"
Conclusion: Your god is more complex than what you venture out to explain, therefore your god is HIGHLY implausible.
That would pretty much be the argument.
djosephallen 2 years ago
Not sure if there's a single step in the argument I would agree with. I will try to be brief: What is your definition of complex and what makes you so sure that such a complex being would be implausible?
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
Oh, I checked out the video you sent me (DNA Enigma) - I'm not sure how to discuss it, because the author shut down comments.
My frustration at this debacle is such: Creationists continually work at poking holes. Scientists work to explain things and make advancements everyday. A creationist comes in and says, "well, can you explain this? No?Ah hah! Intelligent design."
Yet, they contribute no research to support it. Lack of support for one thing is not support for another.
landfillpoet 2 years ago
That's a common critique of what we say, but instead, let me explain.
The reason why we say this is not because we can't explain it, but instead because of what we know.
We know that information is made by intelligent beings.
DNA is genetic information, or genetic code, and that is its definition.
To suppose that an unintelligent force made such a complex structure is astounding to me.
But if we put an intelligence behind it, then why not?
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking But don't you see you make a larger leap by placing an intelligence behind it than if you simply discard the flawed presumption that information has to come from intelligence? That's the whole premise of this video: that by ascribing an intelligence behind these phenomenon you create a more improbable complexity. We are moving down a path toward demonstrating how information can come about by natural methods - indeed we are very close. I see no reason to turn to gods.
landfillpoet 2 years ago
But as I said, that isn't in the nature of DNA.
Nature can't make words if there isn't an alphabet or language.
Nature is mindless, and that conflicts the natural existence of DNA in itself.
It's a large fallacy to think that information can be made by non-intelligence, that's absurd.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking So, I'm bowing out of this conversation because it's become repetitive and gotten pointless.
I reassert that you have never presented any reason for the assumption that information must come from intelligence. I mentioned the spontaneous formation of RNA study (and can provide the pdf). That would be information from non-intelligence.
Anyway, good debating with you. If you want to continue it, PM me.
landfillpoet 2 years ago
Then please give me one example of a non- intelligent force creating information.
But be sure not to include
Mitosis
Meiosis
Mutations
Adaptations
Sexual Reproduction
Because they are originally from DNA instructed processes.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking See: Powner, Gerland, & Sutherland (2009). Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Nature (459) 239-242.
I'd also like some evidence from you: any reason why I should buy the intelligence-information argument from a source other than the Discovery Institute.
landfillpoet 2 years ago
This was RNA made in possible conditions.
Again, this was made by scientist, not nature.
Well I'm not sure why you dislike them so much ,but I think you should really consider what they're saying.
information: knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms . The main role of DNA molecules is the storage of information.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking
"Again, this was made by scientist, not nature."
The experiment clearly demonstrates the possibility of RNA synthesis under plausible early-Earth conditions. Apparently, you like to FAIL.
And I'll take your information/intelligence inference seriously if YOU can demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of information theory. Can you, for starters, provide a coherent definition of what "information" actually is?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
information: knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
Actually, there is no geological evidence for the primordial soup.
Anyways, the scientist designed these conditions. I doubt RNA could go very far without proteins either.
Then you would have to have the correct RNA to form cells.
Problematically, life still hasn't been made out of non-living materials.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking
Information can have many meanings, however I regret to inform you that none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the acquisition of knowledge. The study of how knowledge is acquired and what it's limitations are is epistemology.
So you've immediately demonstrated a foundational error in your understanding of the concept, before discussion has even began.
Why, in your opinion, should anyone take you seriously when you clearly don't know what you're talking about?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
I simply give a definition of information relative to its nature, although it may not imply intelligence.
It is true that informations can have many meanings, but that is a pathetic excuse to try and falsify my argument. These meanings still adhere to the nature of information.
Yes it is limited to epistemology, but then if that is also true, then the argument you are now using is also a "foundational error in your understanding of the concept".
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
It's a simply search as well to look up the definition of "information"
Why should anyone take YOU seriously if your only concern is being right and not necessarily wanting to know the truth.
You're comment could be summed up in 1 sentence.
" You're stupid and don't know about information, so I won't talk to you or take you seriously."
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking
"Why should anyone take YOU seriously if your only concern is being right and not necessarily wanting to know the truth."
If you're saying that "information" cannot emerge naturally (which it can), and you don't even understand what information is (which you don't), then your contentions are based on a foundational misunderstanding, and are necessarily flawed as a result. How can you know that nature can't give rise to a thing, if you don't even understand what that thing is?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
Then would you mind giving me an example where it does arise naturally?
Simply saying it can proves nothing.
You're basically saying "It can, so you're wrong"
Not very convincing....
Nature doesn't have a mind, it can't form anything we can logically call information.
Spontaneously forming RNA doesn't contain information.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
I'll give you every definition of information.
You're saying that I don't understand what information is ,and I'm saying that you're wrong, this isn't getting anywhere, so let's lay out the facts.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
Information:
1) a message received and understood
2) knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
3) data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
etc.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
As you can probably tell, each of these requires some type of understanding or mind to fit the definition.
Nature does not have a mind, therefore nature cannot give rise to information.
Along with the second law of thermodynamics, chance chemistry, and the nature of information, it's absolutely absurd to assume that something mindless could produce information.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
So you would contest that gene-duplications and frameshift mutations do not occur?
Or would you conject that those mutations producing new information are the work of an intelligence that is anything but malevolent???
3rd question: where do you buy your crack?
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking
"Nature does not have a mind, therefore nature cannot give rise to information."
Alas, but it can and does, more than you realize. A mind is required to INTERPRET information, but nonetheless in nature it is still there, independent of any mind. For example, a particle in space contains information about it's mass, velocity, trajectory, etc; but I don't hear you arguing that an intelligent force is required to cause particles to move through space.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
A mind is REQUIRED to
1) Interpret information
2) Transfer information
3) Produce information
A particle moving is just something we consider information. In the end it's just a moving particle.
The information I mean to tell is the types of codes.
Not random facts about particles and substances. We derive information from those. But those things by themselves do not match the definition of information.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking
There is simply no reason to believe that modern DNA couldn't have emerged gradually from increasingly complex chains of organic molecules that eventually began to replicate. The only reason why you can justify claim 3) is because you've excluded this as a possibility for no apparent reason, and ignored vast amounts of comparable "information" in nature without explaining why; except to draw illusory distinctions between what "kind" of information you're talking about.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
THERE ARE PLENTY OF REASONS WHY.
I will send you a message.
But beyond that. Putting letters together randomly does not make words if their is no language!
Nature doesn't adhere to any language, so how does random combinations of nucleotides possibly code for the correct proteins?
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking
So, since "information" can and does exist in nature, using another example, the CMB contains information about the birth of the universe; your argument is obviously arbitrarily limited to a certain kind of information, genetic information. Why insist on this imaginary line in the sand, based on some critically flawed assumptions about the nature of information? Why can "information" exist in nature in one form, but not in another?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
Although I do imply DNA, I don't mean to exclude information in general.
That's only a property of cosmic microwave background radiation, it's not necessarily information.
I'm saying that nature can't make information, but we can.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking
"That's only a property of cosmic microwave background radiation..."
...and ordered sequences of nucleotides are "only a property" of DNA. What's your point? You're drawing imaginary lines in the sand.
Any arbitrary arrangement of molecules contains information, including the small, organic building blocks of DNA. It doesn't matter if the information means anything. We see this in nature ALL THE TIME.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
But those sequences actually code for something, they can't be put together randomly to make information.
Things made randomly are not considered information.
Nature doesn't have an alphabet to assort its letters.
The only thing we see in nature IS PATTERNS.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms . The main role of DNA molecules is the storage of information
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
Also, spontaneously forming RNA doesn't contain information and is easily broken down by the environment.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
And mentioning epistemology is semantical at most.
Most of the words you're using find their bases in epistemology, so let's just use that as a standard.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
And again nature, is mindless and doesn't have an instructor in your view.
Therefore nature cannot produce information because nature cannot acquire knowledge.
DNA is information
Therefore, nature cannot logically produce DNA
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
Sorry, but I'm afraid I accidentally deleted your message while I was trying to organize my inbox.
Could you please send it again? Sorry for the inconvenience.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
The interesting thing about complexity is that natural complexity needs to be well, less complex, than a supposed god who created it. Because dynamic systems, as you move up in levels of complexity - say from atoms to molecules - the complexity of the previous level gets compressed by the inherent structure of the next level. This solves the degrees of freedom problem and allows for complex life to exist from the astronomical complexity inherent in atoms, molecules, cells, and tissue.
landfillpoet 2 years ago
Also, your video only tells us that evolution is the explanation for the complexity, and only turns the tables to Christians about why God is complex.
Though I still find problems with evolution as well.
For example: There is no geological evidence for the prebiotic soup.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikey
"Also, your video only tells us that evolution is the explanation for the complexity, and only turns the tables to Christians about why God is complex."
That's the point. We can explain the complexity from simple beginnings(with evidence, mind you).
You however, cannot explain how an all powerful, all knowing, infinitely complex being has simply always existed, for no reason and with no cause.
PS:
Prebiotic or primeval soup has to do with Abiogenesis...NOT...Evolution. Look it up.
djosephallen 2 years ago
True that is part of Abiogenesis, though the thing is that, I think that evolution also has problems, and I think it would be better to have a video giving evidence for evolution rather than criticizing Christian doctrine.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
This video doesn't criticize christian doctrine. It gives an argument for the implausibility of a god, at least in the traditional theistic sense. That's all.
djosephallen 2 years ago
Traditional theistic sense?
As I've said before, your closing your mind to human standards.
If God is indeed omniscient, it would be hard for us to imagine, but it makes it no less implausible.
That's like saying, because string theory is hard to understand, it's implausible.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@Mikey: I have no trouble understanding the concept of omniscience. Or even how a being could be Omniscient.Mike, the point is, you ask how is it possible for all this complexity to arise without a god.Yet you posit a being that is even more complex than that which we are trying to explain, AND you posit he has always existed and that's that. You must understand, how that can be confusing to say the least.
djosephallen 2 years ago
"confusing to say the least."
To me it's not really confusing, I think you just make it confusing, because you're really only measuring him on limited levels.
Also we look at the nature of information.
Software- intelligence.
DNA to...
That's my line of reasoning.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
PS: String theory is just in its infancy, and will not be accepted unless it can provide EVIDENCE and empirical testing for what it proposes.
djosephallen 2 years ago
Let me send you 2 videos on that topic.
One from an atheist
And on from a Christian.
Also, I'm not saying it's proven, but I'm saying it's an explanation none-the less.
We'll just have to wait for the LHC.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
"You however, cannot explain how an all powerful, all knowing, infinitely complex being has simply always existed, for no reason and with no cause."
Well yes we can give a possible and well believed one.
Since we say that he existed before time, that means he has always existed.
Since he exist without matter, then he is immaterial.
I'll send you videos on that.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking You confound belief and explanation. These are not explanations, they are simple ways of saying he is unfathomable. Because he is unfathomable, we cannot understand him. This is not an explanation, but rather a clever way of saying nothing.
You also skirt an ad populum fallacy by saying that the belief is well believed. So was flat-earth theory 600 years ago. No matter how many believe it, theists have NEVER supplied a replicable, objective piece of evidence for god.
landfillpoet 2 years ago
This is a common accusation of "God of the Gaps"
But in reality you do the same with nature. I'm not saying he's completely not understandable, it's just that we won't ever fully understand him. Though in modern theology now, we have different conceptions of God that are logical, I'll send you videos.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
Oh pease. Not the naturalism of the gaps argument. Do this for me: Give me ONE example in all of human history where something that was though to have a natural explanation, was later found to have its explanation in god or ANY supernatural source. There is none. However there are literally millions of things once thought to be explained by god, that we now understand perfectly by natural cause.
djosephallen 2 years ago
Spontaneous generation?
I'm sure people could use God as an excuse, that I have no doubt about, but on a different level God can be used as a logical explanation as well.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
"No matter how many believe it, theists have NEVER supplied a replicable, objective piece of evidence for god."
I'm not sure that's quite true either. I will send you videos on the issue.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
@mikeytheaznking Second, I really would like to see these videos you mention. Feel free to PM me.
The idea that I am close minded because I won't consider a god is covered in QualiaSoup's excellent "Open-Mindedness" video. I recommend it.
You seem to say: we haven't answered everything yet, therefore we never can: enter god. I find this to be unsatisfying. I look back since Galileo and look at how much knowledge we have acquired. As science increases, gods shrink, until they explain nothing.
landfillpoet 2 years ago
"You seem to say: we haven't answered everything yet, therefore we never can: enter god"
I'm not saying that, I'm just saying there are limits to what we can and cannot answer.
God may shrink in your view, but facts and truths are not a show of hands or opinions.
Science has its limits on what in answers, that's all I'm saying.
I'll send you another video on that.
mikeytheaznking 2 years ago
Mikey just one note:
When you send videos that have comments disabled it really doesn't speak well. It is one thing to disable ratings for fear of down rating, but to disable comments means that the person presenting the video is afraid that people will re butt the ideas presented, and is blocking dissenting opinions in a cowardly manner. If he is afraid of offensive comments, then at least he could open comments by approval.(I'm referring to the DNA video)
djosephallen 2 years ago