@BigSwede7403 If God and heaven do exist, my money says that Torquemada is in heaven cleaning out the stables for the four horsemen of the apocalypse for all eternity. Supposedly, each is awarded according to his deeds. Torquemada was a terrible person who believed. He'll be punished in heaven. Sagan and Ghandi were good people who didn't. I think they're comfortable in hell, maybe with a thumb tack on every chair. They get nice houses but they can't sit down very easily.
@JeshikaKazeno I like to question the phrases "Fall of Man" and "Rise of Man". It seems like the rise and the fall are the same event. It is the establishment of an entity that is conscious of its actions and can be held accountable for them. Whether that accountability is to God or to society is the real question religion should be trying to address.
@searats20 It's all about what your religion is and how curious you are. I believe in God, but I'm naturally curious and have studied science for years. I've had people in my family who've known me my entire life call me an atheist when I say that evolution is the best explanation for the physical origin of modern species. People in my church give me funny looks when I dare to ask for evidence that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science gives us the how. God tells you why if you want to know
@Theroha Well, with all due respect to the sensible christians (you look to be one of them) i´d rather pack my hammer and go roast with the likes of Ghandi, Sagan and Buddah if it so happens the christian god happens to exist.
Personaly though, i think all that i leave when i die is my energy value, my building blocks and maybe a small memory for my attempts to make the world a better place than i found it. Even without thinking of a big reward in a "maybe" afterlife.
@Theroha Its okay if you believe in "god", even though I do not...your own personal beliefs are none of my business, unless of course, you make it so...but I am glad you use science to understand how...however, "god" does not tell you why; WE tell ourselves why. We are the minds of "god".
@TheWholesomeDough I agree, it's ignorance, and believing in myths slow, and many times prevent, the progress of humanity...but we can't force someone to change their views if they dont want to...so in that sense, believe in "god" if you want...but it IS sad knowing that they are happy with their "one truth" and many do not care about science, or fully appreciate the complexities of life that inspires me so much...
Looking at the conversations with this M3PanoS troll has been interesting. The number of red herrings and circular arguments he uses would be enough to make even God say, "Shut up already." The guy makes no sense. Even as a Christian, I have a hard time believing that he actually believes what he says. Anyone else feel like tracking him down and beating him with a Bible? You can borrow mine. We'll have our own Christian/Scientist crusade against stupid people.
I might also say that those with faith in a truly "large" and magnificent God have no problem with the scale of billions of years or the human body created through evolution, a wonderfully elegant, creative and adaptive process. It seems to me it is only those who want to keep their God small and limited that insist on special creation.
But the whole process of evolution -by its very nature- contradicts any intelligent design whatsoever. Down to the most basic interaction of millions and millions of small and random events. The butterfly effect suggests that anyone or anything that is capable of overseeing this should be infinitely more complex than the universe itself! Why invent such a being when the simple and elegant design explains everything quite comfortably?
But the whole process of evolution -by its very nature- contradicts any intelligent design whatsoever. Down to the most basic interaction of millions and millions of small and random events. The butterfly effect suggests that anyone or anything that is capable of overseeing this should be infinitely more complex than the universe itself! Why invent such a being when the simple and elegant design explains everything quite comfortably?
"I might also say that those with faith in a truly "large" and magnificent God have no problem with the scale of billions of years or the human body created through evolution, a wonderfully elegant, creative and adaptive process."
- ... without direction or goal. The very concept of evolution negates any intelligent force behind it. Countless upon countless random events that produce even more butterfly effects. Why invent something more complex than the universe itself?
@KPhysicsGeek The line between atheists and "those with faith in a truly "large" and magnificent God" is almost non-existent. The biggest difference, when you get right down to it, is that those with faith have a distinct name for the universe. What is prayer on that scale besides an attempt at controlling the classic "butterfly effect"? A single thought rippling through space-time triggering an event beyond all recognition. Science & faith are more beautiful together than apart.
"The biggest difference, when you get right down to it, is that those with faith have a distinct name for the universe."
No, that's the difference between pantheists and panentheists on the one hand, and atheists and all other theists on the other hand. Not between the faithful over the faithless.
The difference between the faithless and the faithful is in what more the faithful believe, despite a lack of evidence, over what the faithless believe on evidence alone.
"What is prayer on that scale besides an attempt at controlling the classic "butterfly effect"? A single thought rippling through space-time triggering an event beyond all recognition."
I think that proves my point. Prayer has no actual effects besides those that can be achieved without asking a divine power, like with meditation. Don't come at me with anything like "you can't test god". You want faith and science, don't ask for faith alone and say you have science too.
I can relate to this so much within my family. I'm an 18 year old atheist.. and my Dad is a Christian. He just can't understand or rejects my points when we debate the universe and such. He thinks since scientists can't prove there isn't a God or figure out what created the universe, there must be a God. There might be a higher power, but it certainly didn't create the universe for us! And it certainly isn't going to condemn us to hell for our "sins".. I could go on for hours lol.
Evolution is a theory, just like atomic theory, the theory of electricity and magnetism, heliocentric theory and general relativity (our theory of gravity).
The difference between a law and theory is that a law just describes observations (for instance Newton's law of gravitation just said that the force is proportional to each of the masses and inverse proportional to distance squared) while a theory describes WHY (relativity explained gravity through warping of space)
@KPhysicsGeek I'm sorry, I was talking about the theory that we evolved from pond scum, probably. Natural selection is a law. Evolution on that scale is of course not a law. I must have messed up, but I'm not going to hunt through the comments to find mine, sorry. Guess my screw-up will have to remain a theory too. XD
@DirigiblePlumCompany I believe I was referring to this, " Evolution is a theory, even if it is widely accepted, and it is my opinion that it is faulty". I think I felt you misunderstood how theory is used in science and so I gave different examples of theories. Tell me, do you accept atomic theory? If so, why?
So, this unbroken thread theory..Does this mean there's only one tree of life? Indeed, there could have been multiple trees of life. Life perished entirely mayhap at one point, then flourished again later on.. Meh, still so many unanswered questions hence the joy of science XD
@EliteZodiac92 Some Christians don't like it. I'm a Christian, and I can't stop listening to it. I believe in God, but the people I admire most are Michio Kaku and Carl Sagan. Please don't lump all Christians together. Not all people with faith are morons just as not all atheists are as annoyingly arrogant as Bill Maher. (I love Maher, but he can be rather smug.)
@Theroha The thing I hate about a vast majority of religious people, is that they have not discovered and deeply thought about what they believe in, they can be so contradictory to what their book tells them, they are forgiven no matter what they do by their "god" and its these people which run countries and cities. Its just some people need to think for themselves and not their parents or teachers tell them. If you have discovered what you believe in and that is your religion.
@Theroha Then I can respect that you have thought about your decision, and that you have seen logic and understanding in such a decision and that it will help you the most in life, and that it is what you truly need to succeed. That nothing apart from yourself is the influence on that decision, thats when I respect someone religious or spiritual. Those are the type of people who will do good things for the sake of helping, those are the people which will see the big picture of life. Live well.
@ronnysoeberg "How do you know that all I ever do is criticize religion? That's a bit of a leap, to say the least. Once a day I pop in here to reply to your inane rablings, takes about 5 minutes."
Because that's all you've done thus far; I'm not saying you go around telling people that are religious that thy're idiots (though I'm sure you think it), but that since you have this stigma against religion you never fairly evaluate but always look at it through a jaded perspective.
@M3PanoS "since you have this stigma against religion you never fairly evaluate but always look at it through a jaded perspective." I don't really care what people think. I do dislike missionaries like you popping into science vids trying to spread your creationist bullcrap, though. Now that atheism is getting some momentum, you fanatics are getting MIGHTY desperate. I can't go anywhere on the interwebs any more without stumbling into a bunch of theists going completely apeshit.
M3Panos, your arguments are becoming less and less substantial, and you refuse to answer my direct requests for any tangible evidence. I believe you are trolling me and I'm getting tired of feeding the troll.
If you have anything serious for me I'll be glad to debate you on it, but for now I think my accumulated knowledge is going to waste. Therefore I will stop contributing until there is something worth mentioning coming from the side of Creationism.
@keesengels "M3Panos, your arguments are becoming less and less substantial, and you refuse to answer my direct requests for any tangible evidence. I believe you are trolling me and I'm getting tired of feeding the troll
.
If you have anything serious for me I'll be glad to debate you on it, but for now I think my accumulated knowledge is going to waste. Therefore I will stop contributing until there is something worth mentioning coming from the side of Creationism."
@keesengels Actually, there's a couple of things I'd lack to add: You never defined what proof/evidence is; You never told me how you could trust your senses; You never told me what would convince you of God; You never accounted for immaterial realities, such as morals and logical axioms; You don't have an account of how the universe got here; You think science is the sole proprietor of truth while holding truth to be relative; and despite you thinking truth to be relative, you defend yours.
"You never accounted for immaterial realities, such as morals and logical axioms; ..."
- I did. On two separate occasions. See now why I think you're trolling? But just for you: logical axioms are there to prevent having to explain the basics again. However, in science, even these can be re-evaluated at will. The concept of the number one can be tested and retested if you wish. But the tests were conclusive, so we 'assume' that we know what 1 means, now. But only now...
"You don't have an account of how the universe got here; ..."
- That's just because I am still searching, and you've already filled the gap with 'god'. I'm less easily pacified... I mean satisfied.
"You think science is the sole proprietor of truth while holding truth to be relative; ..."
- No, I hold truth to be relative, and use science to come to irrefutable conclusions. Truth is an emotional word. I propose 'reality' for describing the results of science.
"... and despite you thinking truth to be relative, you defend yours."
- I defend reality, not truth. But for what it's worth: mine is backed up by evidence ;)
Now that I have answered your questions as you asked, I fully expect you to ignore mine. But be that as it may, I think I tied up my loose ends and will thus abstain from having this discussion any longer.
I do have one final reading tip for you: Matthew 7; verse 3-5.
@outlaw87100 Sorry mate, I never thought this video was all that great to begin with which is why I'm in this argument at all lol; so me arguing doesn't really matter. On the other hand, keesengels does like this video, so maybe you should try to get him to stop replying to me -he is digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole after all...
Debating this wont revolutionize the world. Its pointless because youre both going to walk away none the wiser. Just stop with this pissing contest because we are sick to death of you ppl ruining these vids with childish debates
Don't be offended when people disagree and make conversation.
The key word is "can", and so far they don't. I choose to not sit idly by and allow religion to maintain a high degree of respect it does not deserve.
Religion in the broad sense of the term, is simply another attempt at knowing the world. I am simply choose to speak out against the false claims and abuse of faith about the unknown people overwhelmingly continue to endow these ideologies with.
@DeconversionCentral I agree. You can't be close minded about someones beliefs otherwise in peoples eyes you're choosing to me ignorant. And ignorance has no room in the world today.
If we accept your statement, than we must conclude you are being closed minded to my belief.
I certainly am not closed minded, I will change my beliefs if I gain knowledge that permit such a change.
I am open to new ideas or even re-investigations of older ones which may be clarified.
Please understand this; to think someone is wrong is not closed minded, it is a disagreement. I do not have to be compassionate towards others beliefs, but I will treat them with dignity.
"Remember that religion is what brought civilization. All the first cites were centered on places of religion."
Not at all. Civilizaiton was in no way, shape, or form made by religion. Religion WAS present in almost every civilization, however that was mainly because religion was man's first attempt at explaining the universe around him.
"One, it was either god who gently led us through subtle hints to civilization, or Two, it was man's continuous ingenuity through invention of fire, the wheel, etc that brought us together."
It was neither. Humanity has always been a social animal. "Civilization" started after either certain tribes started getting together for mutual benefit, or when a certain tribe grew large enough. But humans have ALWAYS been social animals that lived in tribes.
@tskasa1 "Try the Dark Ages. Or the Middle Ages. Or hell, look how the church treated many people during the Reinnasance."
Specific cases please? Plus, I love you conveniently leave out the Byzantine Empire which never realized the setbacks of Medieval Europe despite it being wholly Christianized.
I'm just gonna say without all the evolution and conspiracy talk that this is the best science video ever made. It's calming and crazy awesome. I'm gonna see if my science teacher will play this in class one day.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
@keesengels Maybe I just jumped the gun a bit here because this video doesn't HAVE to be atheist specific -although it's painfully obvious that it is considering only an atheist would be motivated to make a video about the only thing they know to be real (the universe) in my opinion.
@M3PanoS You're saying no religious person would be compelled to make a video about the wonders of the cosmos? If that's the case, I pity ALL religious people. The intricacies and beauty of the cosmos FAR exceeds anything religion has offered. I suspect that if more people took the time to understand the cosmos, religion would take a massive hit. Just the tiny fact that everything, all plants, all animals, everything on this planet shares a common ancestor.. So simple, so wonderful.
@ronnysoeberg Who said I can't admire the universe? I can do that just fine. I just realize how stupid it is to do that when I have God that created it and FAR exceeds anything a puny human imagination can possibly ever think of. Atheists on the other hand have no choice but to revel in the universe. But here's the kicker, you guys say it all came about by chance, and you still think it's wonderful.
So you're wrong, religious people can marvel at the universe -we're just not stupid enough to.
"I just realize how stupid it is to do that when I have God that created it"
The universe wasn't created.
"But here's the kicker, you guys say it all came about by chance, and you still think it's wonderful."
You say that like it's a bad thing. The fact that it all came about by chance and means that we are incredibly lucky to exist in the first place should make you feel good about yourself and want to do better for humanity. However, you wouldn't understand.
And the universe got here how? Here comes the torrent of circular reasoning and non-answers...
"You say that like it's a bad thing. The fact that it...[blah, blah, blah]...you wouldn't understand."
You're terribly inconsistent mate; you say we were lucky when it suits you but will just as easily turn and say that we were accidents. Besides, saying we came about by chance doesn't say anything -chance is just a fancy way of saying I don't know.
Long story short? At the most basic level, it was a specific type of field called a inflaton field created by quantum fluctuations in empty space sparked the big bang and inflation.
"Here comes the torrent of circular reasoning and non-answers..."
I don't need cricular reasoning because I don't have a pre-established conclusion. Now then, what is YOUR proof that the universe was created? And how do we test its veracity?
@tskasa1 "Long story short? At the most...in empty space sparked the big bang and inflation."
And the inflation field got here how? You know what must be frustrating for you? I don't even know what you mean by inflation field, and I don't have to argue against you. All I have to do is ask you "why" until you ultimately stop explaining your explanations and then just insert God -and this isn't a "God of the Gaps" btw because I use God as the basis for all existence, not to explain existence.
"... and this isn't a "God of the Gaps" btw because I use God as the basis for all existence, not to explain existence."
I.E. you use science all the way back to a point where you can't explain it anymore (totally ignoring the fact that this point has been moved back significantly in the last few decades) and fill in the blank with 'God'.
...
By definition that IS a god of the gaps. And you need one because the simplicity of science explains away any need for a god here and now.
@tskasa1 "I don't need cricular reasoning because I don't have a pre-established conclusion. Now then, what is YOUR proof that the universe was created? And how do we test its veracity?"
Yes, you will; I'll let you know when you use it -if you decide to.
Umm all of current cosmology points us towards a beginning point of the universe, no? And how did the universe get here? Well it had to have been created, and you believe that too -you just disagree about the agent of creation -God.
"Well it had to have been created, and you believe that too -you just disagree about the agent of creation -God."
- Again, you missed the point. You speak of creation - a sentient action. There is no need for a sentient being for a creation of something out of nothing. Because if so, what created God? And if your answer resembles anything along the line of "God needed no creator", then I advise you to reflect on the absense of a reason for inserting the God-step in the process.
@M3PanoS "Well it had to have been created" Why did it have to be created? It's one of the weirdest thoughts ever, cause if the universe had to be created by a god, then god had to be created by something, and then we get into a crazy russian doll situation. Or does it just go one extra step back beyond the big bang? God was just there? Cause I'm pretty sure you could ascribe the same properties to the big bang. "just happened".. Yet we don't, we leave the question unanswered. for now.
@ronnysoeberg "It's one of the weirdest thoughts ever, cause if the universe had to be created by a god, then god had to be created by something, and then we get into a crazy russian doll situation."
No God didn't have to be created. I don't know how He truly exists, and I probably never will, but I know enough to know that He is the basis of all existence. I know the universe can't be the basis of all existence because a material being has WAAAAY too many limitations on it to be a candidate.
@M3PanoS Why would there have to be a material being that created the universe if not a god? Why can't it just be a mystery until we find out? God created man up until we figured out that hey, no, evolution created man.. Why can't the creation of the cosmos be the same thing? Why does there NEED to be a god? And why can't it be the hindu god? Seems just as plausible (or unplausible in my case).
@tskasa1 (continued) " Now then, what is YOUR proof that the universe was created? And how do we test its veracity?"
We test its veracity how we test the veracity of anything else silly -reason and evidence. And according to the evidence, that the universe had a beginning, and through reasoning, I think the best explanation for the universe being here is the classical God of theism, and the one that was revealed to us in Jesus Christ.
"you say we were lucky when it suits you but will just as easily turn and say that we were accidents."
Except no I wouldn't. The word "accident" denotes that a measure of sentience. You have to not want to do something for it to be an accident. We aren't accidents because there was no thinking involved. We are just lucky sods. and we should appreciate it.
@tskasa1 "Except no I wouldn't. The word "accident" denotes that a measure of sentience. You have to not want to do something for it to be an accident. We aren't accidents because there was no thinking involved. We are just lucky sods. and we should appreciate it."
Ok, we've appreciated the hell out of it -making friends, partying, drinking, etc. and now we're tired of it. Now what? Or so what if we got lucky? That doesn't mean I have to do anything about it, since I didn't ask to be here.
"Besides, saying we came about by chance doesn't say anything -chance is just a fancy way of saying I don't know."
Except no it isn't. Chance is a quantifiable value. It's called probability (or odds, but in this case it's probability). We can verify probability. One can even quantify it. But that is besides the point. The point is that we CAN explain (to a rather large degree as well) how most of our universe and even ourselves came to be (cont.)
@tskasa1 "Except no it isn't...We can verify probability."
Yea, except one thing. When I ask you why did we get here, if you answer with "chance," you are NOT giving me what I'm asking for -a causal reason for why the particular events that brought us about happened.
"But that is besides the point...came to be (cont.)"
Up to a point, and then everything breaks down. Naturalistic ideas can't explain the natural world itself -they explain what's within the natural world.
"When I ask you why did we get here, if you answer with "chance," you are NOT giving me what I'm asking for -a causal reason for why the particular events that brought us about happened."
- We did, the answer was: we don't know yet. But this is an answer you refuse to hear. You must have a solution, something that takes you back into your comfort zone. and as such you use 'god' as a full stop. Whatever else we don't know yet ==> God. Even though that space has been receding daily...
(cont.) Are there holes in it? Of course. But that is not saying much. There exists a hole in most scientific knowledge. Our understanding of gravity is full of holes (ESPECIALLY at the quantum level), yet we know that it exists, that it works, and under certain conditions, we can make near flawless calculations having to do with it. What matters is that there are no huge holes that break the case. Just rather small unknowns and no contradictory evidence.
@tskasa1 "Are there holes in it?...scientific knowledge. "
Holes or no holes, it doesn't matter, because scientific theories don't explain the origin of the universe; they just describe what happened. That's all the Big Bang is. If I were to ask what comes before the Big Bang, cosmologists wouldn't know what to say or they would go off into the realm of speculation to make it appear as if they have answers, but then I'd just question their answers.
Again, the answer is: we don't know yet. It doesn't get any more comfortable when you ask for it 20 times.
However, I stress the "yet". There has been a trend, you see. We have gone back from roughly 6000 years to the Planck Epoch, about 10 to the -43rd power seconds after the Big Bang. The trend is most definitely progressive, and God is being pushed back in its bow wave ;)
Let me tell you what the answer is NOT: The answer is not to be found in a naturalistic explanation. So why do you persist in looking only there? Are you afraid of something...or someone?
"The trend is most definitely progressive, and God is being pushed back in its bow wave ;)"
God hasn't been pushed back one nano-meter. The God of the Gaps has been though, only to be replaced by Science of the Gaps in many places lol.
"Let me tell you what the answer is NOT: The answer is not to be found in a naturalistic explanation."
- And yet the only alternative you provide is divine intervention. Why not quantum mechanics? Or are you afraid of something... or someone? ;)
"God hasn't been pushed back one nano-meter."
- Ehm... he has. Remember when Galilei was grounded for life for proclaiming that the standard doctrine of an Earth-centered solar system was wrong? After all, GOD made Earth the centre...
@keesengels "And yet the only alternative you provide is divine intervention. Why not quantum mechanics? Or are you afraid of something... or someone? ;)"
Because like I already said, no natural explanation, because of the very essence of what it is to be a naturalistic explanation, can adequately account for itself -NONE. You always seek to explain a natural explanation with another explanation OUTSIDE of itself. But something must exist that can explain the universe AND it's own existence.
@keesengels "- Ehm... he has. Remember when Galilei was grounded for life for proclaiming that the standard doctrine of an Earth-centered solar system was wrong? After all, GOD made Earth the centre..."
I might as well start bashing my head against the wall. How many times do I have to make the category distinction for you between God and science? Saying God made it that way and then figuring out, oh wait God made it this way instead does NOT get you to the conclusion: God does not exist.
"Saying God made it that way and then figuring out, oh wait God made it this way instead does NOT get you to the conclusion: God does not exist."
- True, but these conclusions by the people before Galilei were drawn from the same sources as you use: the Bible and tradition. However, my point has been all along that these are obviously unreliable, because every other wrong conclusion (case in point: Earth as the centre of the universe) was drawn from the same sources.
@keesengels "True, but these conclusions by the people before Galilei were drawn from the same sources as you use: the Bible and tradition."
I think you mean Galileo, but moving on, you are taking the Bible as a scientific textbook when it's not meant to be read as one. When you scrutinize something, you do so at face value. When the Bible is using metaphor, you read it metaphorically; when it speaks historically, you read it historically; you can't say it's all literal and read it as such.
@keesengels "However, my point has been all along that these are obviously unreliable, because every other wrong conclusion (case in point: Earth as the centre of the universe) was drawn from the same sources."
No, people thought that the earth was at the center of the universe because of the Aristotelian model that had percolated throughout western culture and Catholicism at that point -NOT because it was taught in the Bible.
@M3PanoS "No, people thought that the earth was at the center of the universe because of the Aristotelian model that had percolated throughout western culture and Catholicism at that point -NOT because it was taught in the Bible."
Well, the bible still says that he created the sun. Let there be light, and all that. Yet, now that we know how stars are made, doesn't it seem odd to you that he spent billions of years scraping matter together to form a sun?
"No, people thought that the earth was at the center of the universe because of the Aristotelian model that had percolated throughout western culture and Catholicism at that point -NOT because it was taught in the Bible."
- And yet any idea to the contrary was fought vehemently by the Church because it contradicted their doctrine of a universe with God's Earth in the centre. Please, do not assume my ignorance.
@keesengels "- And yet any idea to the contrary was fought vehemently by the Church because it contradicted their doctrine of a universe with God's Earth in the centre. Please, do not assume my ignorance."
Glad you mention that, I was actually hoping it would come up. All this does is show how people can read into something that was never there in the first place -and you're doing the same exact thing by saying the Bible is only literal.
@keesengels "- Again: why isn't it, which part are and which aren't, and who determines that? Also, based on what?"
Don't quote a little tidbit of my quote and leave out the rest where the question you just asked was answered. I'm getting tired of repeating myself, and you actually think you're going somewhere with this argument when you haven't said anything new for about three exchanges now...
@M3PanoS We don't know what was before the big bang. Some people say there was no before, and that boggles my mind, and most definitely your mind, so you need to find something to explain the before bit. Whereas rational people don't really need the why, we are content with the question. As I see it, putting everything you don't understand onto a god is just plain cheating. Why is "I don't know" such a bad thing? Religious people can say "gods will" to EVERYTHING. It's moronic.
@ronnysoeberg "Whereas rational people don't really need the why, we are content with the question."
Yea, but rational people also actually also seek to answer the question instead of just ignoring it.
"As I see it, putting everything you don't understand onto a god is just plain cheating. Why is "I don't know" such a bad thing? Religious people can say "gods will" to EVERYTHING. It's moronic."
I don't do that, nor do any sophisticated theists. But there are questions that do require God.
@M3PanoS Yes, curiosity drives humans. The question drives us. That's what I meant about being content with the question. We don't need the answer right now, we can wait.
No questions require god. God is only a "valid" answer to questions until someone actually figures it out. God used to be the answer to a LOT more stuff than it is now. Just swap theism for knowledge. you won't look back. Knowledge is pretty amazing, aside from the fact that it makes religious people more annoying.
@ronnysoeberg "We don't need the answer right now, we can wait."
I'm telling you, you can wait all you want but you'll never get a naturalistic answer. And we already have an answer -it's called God. This is more of an issue of whether you like the answer or not, not if the answer is valid.
"God is only a "valid" answer to questions until someone actually figures it out."
@M3PanoS I don't use god as an explanation for anything. That's why I said "valid". To me, it's as invalid as unicorns with shovels or the spaghettimonster. We will find out what started the universe, no question about that. Just like we found out how people came to be. Yet even if we figure out how the universe came to be, christian people will just put God in charge of something else.. Our souls.. Probably.. He'll still send your soul to hell if you're naughty..
@ronnysoeberg "To me, it's as invalid as unicorns...or the spaghettimonster."
There's no reason to think that these things exist because we have good reasons for why they don't -they're not even coherent concepts.
"We will find out what started the universe, no question about that."
And if that explanation is naturalistic then you'll just need to explain that explanation. A naturalistic explanation can not be the end all be all because it doesn't explain itself, but something has to
- Full stop. How... religious of you. But in truth that's not really an answer, is it? It's more of a filler. Almost as if you're using god for the gaps in your argument. Hmm... I should coin that phrase... 'god of the gaps'... hmm...
@keesengels "- Full stop. How... religious of you. But in truth that's not really an answer, is it? It's more of a filler. Almost as if you're using god for the gaps in your argument. Hmm... I should coin that phrase... 'god of the gaps'... hmm.."
Not until I coin science of the gaps. That's EXACTLY what you're doing with the origin of the universe. You're saying, "I don't know how it got there, but science will figure it out eventually." What if science never does? Which it won't... -_-
"I don't know how it got there, but science will figure it out eventually."
- Let me nuance this. We don't know how it got there, but judging by the rate of discoveries of late, science holds the best cards for doing so.
"What if science never does?"
- Then the search itself provides enough spin-off knowledge to provide us with things like the Internet, which it has before and you now happily use to try and make your point.
@keesengels "- Let me nuance this. We don't know how it got there, but judging by the rate of discoveries of late, science holds the best cards for doing so."
It doesn't matter when there are certain questions that fall outside the realm of science. If I ask you if a girl is beautiful, there is no way of you answering from a purely scientific standpoint. Science doesn't tell us what we ought to value and therefore can't tell you how to define beauty.
"It doesn't matter when there are certain questions that fall outside the realm of science."
- Here you assume again that some questions do. Why?
"If I ask you if a girl is beautiful, there is no way of you answering from a purely scientific standpoint."
- Yes, there would be. I'd sound like Sheldon, but it can in fact be done. Facial features, non-verbal signals, a waist-hip ratio of 0,7 and so on. But it can be done.
@keesengels "- Here you assume again that some questions do. Why?"
Uh, I don't assume anything -that statement was a fact.
"- Yes, there would be. I'd sound like Sheldon, but it can in fact be done. Facial features, non-verbal signals, a waist-hip ratio of 0,7 and so on. But it can be done."
You're hopeless. You realize that each time you do your little calculation, YOU are the one CHOOSING which number to pick because YOU think it has value?
"Uh, I don't assume anything -that statement was a fact."
- Proof?
"You realize that each time you do your little calculation, YOU are the one CHOOSING which number to pick because YOU think it has value?"
- And again: no, I don't. This has been found to be a fair average by examining many, MANY people in a controlled environment, thus taking away any variables. Also, I only mentioned a small amount of factors. There are, of course, many more. As you well knew.
"- And again: no, I don't. This has been found to be a fair average by examining many, MANY people in a controlled environment, thus taking away any variables. Also, I only mentioned a small amount of factors. There are, of course, many more. As you well knew."
What's a fair average? And even so, showing that one value is commonly valued across the board was STILL not decided by science but by the aggregate of HUMAN opinion.
@keesengels "- Then the search itself provides enough spin-off knowledge to provide us with things like the Internet, which it has before and you now happily use to try and make your point."
See the previous response; you're still making the same mistake.
Again, science is a descriptive enterprise and as such cannot offer prescriptions like what we ought to value. Therefore, science is moot on questions such as: Is killing someone immoral? You can use science to measure pain thresholds and the like, but science doesn't tell us what we ought to do after we know about the pain some life form is suffering.
@M3PanoS "but science doesn't tell us what we ought to do after we know about the pain some life form is suffering." We don't need science for that. And we certainly don't need religion. Do you really think the bible came up with the whole do to others what you want others to do to you bit? The bible invented consequence? Seems very unlikely. Social beings care for each other. The 10 commandments are basically common sense based on the evolution of social groups.
@ronnysoeberg "Do you really think the bible came up with the whole do to others what you want others to do to you bit? The bible invented consequence?...Social beings care for each other."
Maybe so, maybe not, but either way it doesn't matter. What God does is legitimize the question since He grants us value. Without value, the question too is valueless. And another key problem with any moral system without God is that it isn't compulsive which is necessary for objective morality.
- That's another statement, not proof for the previous one. According to the Bible, he can. After all, he failed the first time he made man, correct? He had to rinse the Earth, even.
"God has the 3 Os -I think we've been over this already, no?"
- You proclaimed this, yes. But you failed yet again to provide evidence.
"I told you why at the fundamental level of reality there must be a personal, eternal, spaceless, timeless, 3 Os being already."
- So you believe. But what about that proof?
"Contingent beings have no say in the matter."
- According to whom? I am seeing a pattern here. God has authority, and we can't say anything about that because god has authority. It's raining because it's raining. No, sir, this requires evidence.
@keesengels "- That's another statement, not proof for the previous one. According to the Bible, he can...rinse the Earth, even."
You don't even know what the word proof means -you just spout it out whenever you're backed into a corner. Like I've said before, qualify the word, otherwise you're just equivocating the word and using an overly malleable definition to escape having to think. Until you adequately define it, there's really nothing that I can do to help you.
@M3PanoS "No. Harry Potter is a fictional character; Jesus Christ is a historical figure. "
So is King Arthur. Well, as real as Jesus anyways. Yet the stories surrounding King Arthur seem somewhat far fetched. Much like the stories surrounding jesus. You should read some of the stuff that didn't make the final edition of the bible. Jesus scared a dragon when he was a kid. Did you know that? He's practically a D&D character.
@ronnysoeberg "So is King Arthur. Well, as real as Jesus anyways. Yet the stories surrounding King Arthur seem somewhat far fetched."
They probably are. I know the historical case for Jesus' divinity pretty well though, and I think the evidence is strong enough to draw the conclusion that He was indeed who He said He is.
"Jesus scared a dragon when he was a kid. Did you know that? He's practically a D&D character."
"I know the historical case for Jesus' divinity pretty well though, and I think the evidence is strong enough to draw the conclusion that He was indeed who He said He is."
- Please, indulge us with the evidence. After all, you wouldn't want it to believe you on your pretty smile, would you?
@keesengels "- Please, indulge us with the evidence. After all, you wouldn't want it to believe you on your pretty smile, would you?"
Historians are in virtual agreement that: Jesus was crucified, that He was buried, that His disciples found His burial tomb empty, and that His disciples preached His resurrection unto death. I think the best hypothesis to explain these facts is the Resurrection itself and all other explanatory hypotheses come up short in one way or another.
@M3PanoS It's from The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. There are other books as well that were'nt included in the final draft of the bible because they were just too fucked up for anyone to take seriously. Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, describes how jesus killed kids left and right during his younger years. What finally turned him away from being a murderous little brat was a realy hefty ear-twisting session. Yup.. Google Jesus Dragon and you'll find some stuff.
@ronnysoeberg "There are other books as well that were'nt included in the final draft of the bible because they were just too fucked up for anyone to take seriously. Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, describes how jesus killed kids left and right during his younger years."
Oh, you're talking about the Gnostic Gospels. Yea, those are pretty ridiculous for the most part... ^_^
>"three thousand million years ago"
>"thousand million"
wat
KoenZyxYssel 1 day ago
@KoenZyxYssel Three thousand million is just another way to say three billion.
shurite 16 hours ago
@shurite
And it's a far better way of saying it seeing as it's understandable for just about everyone worldwide.
Quintinohthree 4 hours ago in playlist Symphony of Science
more religious debates... great.. havent seen this before..
outlaw87100 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigSwede7403 If God and heaven do exist, my money says that Torquemada is in heaven cleaning out the stables for the four horsemen of the apocalypse for all eternity. Supposedly, each is awarded according to his deeds. Torquemada was a terrible person who believed. He'll be punished in heaven. Sagan and Ghandi were good people who didn't. I think they're comfortable in hell, maybe with a thumb tack on every chair. They get nice houses but they can't sit down very easily.
Theroha 6 days ago
Comment removed
Theroha 6 days ago
@JeshikaKazeno I like to question the phrases "Fall of Man" and "Rise of Man". It seems like the rise and the fall are the same event. It is the establishment of an entity that is conscious of its actions and can be held accountable for them. Whether that accountability is to God or to society is the real question religion should be trying to address.
Theroha 1 week ago
@searats20 It's all about what your religion is and how curious you are. I believe in God, but I'm naturally curious and have studied science for years. I've had people in my family who've known me my entire life call me an atheist when I say that evolution is the best explanation for the physical origin of modern species. People in my church give me funny looks when I dare to ask for evidence that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science gives us the how. God tells you why if you want to know
Theroha 1 week ago
@Theroha Well, with all due respect to the sensible christians (you look to be one of them) i´d rather pack my hammer and go roast with the likes of Ghandi, Sagan and Buddah if it so happens the christian god happens to exist.
Personaly though, i think all that i leave when i die is my energy value, my building blocks and maybe a small memory for my attempts to make the world a better place than i found it. Even without thinking of a big reward in a "maybe" afterlife.
BigSwede7403 6 days ago
@Theroha Its okay if you believe in "god", even though I do not...your own personal beliefs are none of my business, unless of course, you make it so...but I am glad you use science to understand how...however, "god" does not tell you why; WE tell ourselves why. We are the minds of "god".
searats20 6 days ago
@searats20 It is not "OK" to believe in god. It's not "OK" to believe in anything we can't prove, it's just ignorance... willful ignorance.
TheWholesomeDough 4 days ago
@TheWholesomeDough I agree, it's ignorance, and believing in myths slow, and many times prevent, the progress of humanity...but we can't force someone to change their views if they dont want to...so in that sense, believe in "god" if you want...but it IS sad knowing that they are happy with their "one truth" and many do not care about science, or fully appreciate the complexities of life that inspires me so much...
searats20 4 days ago
@searats20 To me, just like others I'm sure, reality is thrilling!
searats20 4 days ago
Looking at the conversations with this M3PanoS troll has been interesting. The number of red herrings and circular arguments he uses would be enough to make even God say, "Shut up already." The guy makes no sense. Even as a Christian, I have a hard time believing that he actually believes what he says. Anyone else feel like tracking him down and beating him with a Bible? You can borrow mine. We'll have our own Christian/Scientist crusade against stupid people.
Theroha 1 week ago
I can't help but feel that a "Symphony of Religion" would be far more depressing.
195ashes 1 week ago 4
@195ashes Hahahhahah YES.
mudmetall 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
STOP SOPA!
If you don't... all of the awesome Symphony Of Science songs will be taken down due to all the snippets of copy written shows.
CleansWithRag 1 week ago
anyone think that some words Sagan says reminds you of Kermit the Frog - listen to the world "molecules"
quagmire7 1 week ago in playlist Symphony of Science
For those with faith, no explanation is necessary. For those without, no explanation is possible.
MRD46076 1 week ago
@MRD46076
I'd say, for those with faith, no explanation is ever good, and for those with science, no explanation is ever good enough ;)
keesengels 1 week ago in playlist Symphony of science 40
@keesengels
I might also say that those with faith in a truly "large" and magnificent God have no problem with the scale of billions of years or the human body created through evolution, a wonderfully elegant, creative and adaptive process. It seems to me it is only those who want to keep their God small and limited that insist on special creation.
KPhysicsGeek 1 week ago
@KPhysicsGeek
But the whole process of evolution -by its very nature- contradicts any intelligent design whatsoever. Down to the most basic interaction of millions and millions of small and random events. The butterfly effect suggests that anyone or anything that is capable of overseeing this should be infinitely more complex than the universe itself! Why invent such a being when the simple and elegant design explains everything quite comfortably?
keesengels 1 week ago in playlist Symphony of science
This has been flagged as spam show
@KPhysicsGeek
But the whole process of evolution -by its very nature- contradicts any intelligent design whatsoever. Down to the most basic interaction of millions and millions of small and random events. The butterfly effect suggests that anyone or anything that is capable of overseeing this should be infinitely more complex than the universe itself! Why invent such a being when the simple and elegant design explains everything quite comfortably?
keesengels 1 week ago in playlist Symphony of science
This has been flagged as spam show
@KPhysicsGeek
"I might also say that those with faith in a truly "large" and magnificent God have no problem with the scale of billions of years or the human body created through evolution, a wonderfully elegant, creative and adaptive process."
- ... without direction or goal. The very concept of evolution negates any intelligent force behind it. Countless upon countless random events that produce even more butterfly effects. Why invent something more complex than the universe itself?
keesengels 1 week ago in playlist Symphony of science
@KPhysicsGeek The line between atheists and "those with faith in a truly "large" and magnificent God" is almost non-existent. The biggest difference, when you get right down to it, is that those with faith have a distinct name for the universe. What is prayer on that scale besides an attempt at controlling the classic "butterfly effect"? A single thought rippling through space-time triggering an event beyond all recognition. Science & faith are more beautiful together than apart.
Theroha 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theroha
"The biggest difference, when you get right down to it, is that those with faith have a distinct name for the universe."
No, that's the difference between pantheists and panentheists on the one hand, and atheists and all other theists on the other hand. Not between the faithful over the faithless.
The difference between the faithless and the faithful is in what more the faithful believe, despite a lack of evidence, over what the faithless believe on evidence alone.
cont...
Quintinohthree 2 days ago
@Theroha
"What is prayer on that scale besides an attempt at controlling the classic "butterfly effect"? A single thought rippling through space-time triggering an event beyond all recognition."
I think that proves my point. Prayer has no actual effects besides those that can be achieved without asking a divine power, like with meditation. Don't come at me with anything like "you can't test god". You want faith and science, don't ask for faith alone and say you have science too.
Quintinohthree 2 days ago
@keesengels curiosity has a beginning but has no end.
quzishen 1 week ago
@quzishen
Agreed. Nice quote, by the way :)
keesengels 1 week ago in playlist Symphony of science
I can relate to this so much within my family. I'm an 18 year old atheist.. and my Dad is a Christian. He just can't understand or rejects my points when we debate the universe and such. He thinks since scientists can't prove there isn't a God or figure out what created the universe, there must be a God. There might be a higher power, but it certainly didn't create the universe for us! And it certainly isn't going to condemn us to hell for our "sins".. I could go on for hours lol.
homie3626 5 days ago
@homie3626
It must be such a struggle...
keesengels 5 days ago in playlist Symphony of science
@DirigiblePlumCompany
Evolution is a theory, just like atomic theory, the theory of electricity and magnetism, heliocentric theory and general relativity (our theory of gravity).
The difference between a law and theory is that a law just describes observations (for instance Newton's law of gravitation just said that the force is proportional to each of the masses and inverse proportional to distance squared) while a theory describes WHY (relativity explained gravity through warping of space)
KPhysicsGeek 1 week ago 22
@KPhysicsGeek I'm sorry, I was talking about the theory that we evolved from pond scum, probably. Natural selection is a law. Evolution on that scale is of course not a law. I must have messed up, but I'm not going to hunt through the comments to find mine, sorry. Guess my screw-up will have to remain a theory too. XD
DirigiblePlumCompany 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DirigiblePlumCompany I believe I was referring to this, " Evolution is a theory, even if it is widely accepted, and it is my opinion that it is faulty". I think I felt you misunderstood how theory is used in science and so I gave different examples of theories. Tell me, do you accept atomic theory? If so, why?
KPhysicsGeek 1 week ago
@DirigiblePlumCompany No comment hunting required! Go to "view all comments>," hit Ctrl+F, type your name. Should take under half a minute.
sergeantkozi 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So, this unbroken thread theory..Does this mean there's only one tree of life? Indeed, there could have been multiple trees of life. Life perished entirely mayhap at one point, then flourished again later on.. Meh, still so many unanswered questions hence the joy of science XD
MrMattyvibes 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrMattyvibes 1 week ago
I love this.
LordAvoc 1 week ago 2
Sagan sounds like Kermit here :)
rstblackorchid 1 week ago 2
@rstblackorchid Haha.
Nat4Brendan 1 week ago
This is the most beautiful Symphony of science song
kkevin369 2 weeks ago 3
Lol @ having a christfag ad next to the video.
EpicHaxThriller 2 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
All praise is due to Allah, the lord of the WORLDS!
God is the Greatest! Thumbs UP!
Copy and Past this around!!
noor121212121212 2 weeks ago
why is it that there are no arguments on most christian songs on youtube..
cornmon 2 weeks ago
@cornmon Probably because atheists don't troll christian music.
Pilaf1984 2 weeks ago
@cornmon Because christian songs already prove themselves to be idiotic and laughable. They don't need trolling, They troll themselves enough.
EpicHaxThriller 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GAY
tenijosh 2 weeks ago
Sir Attenborough is a great teacher.... When he speaks you are immersed in his knowledge.... A wonderful gem to treasure!!! :)
dark4krad 2 weeks ago
Why the fuck are there dislikes on this?
WalrusBrand 2 weeks ago 2
@WalrusBrand Because Christians don't like it. rofl
EliteZodiac92 2 weeks ago
@EliteZodiac92 Some Christians don't like it. I'm a Christian, and I can't stop listening to it. I believe in God, but the people I admire most are Michio Kaku and Carl Sagan. Please don't lump all Christians together. Not all people with faith are morons just as not all atheists are as annoyingly arrogant as Bill Maher. (I love Maher, but he can be rather smug.)
Theroha 1 week ago
@Theroha The thing I hate about a vast majority of religious people, is that they have not discovered and deeply thought about what they believe in, they can be so contradictory to what their book tells them, they are forgiven no matter what they do by their "god" and its these people which run countries and cities. Its just some people need to think for themselves and not their parents or teachers tell them. If you have discovered what you believe in and that is your religion.
EliteZodiac92 6 days ago
@Theroha Then I can respect that you have thought about your decision, and that you have seen logic and understanding in such a decision and that it will help you the most in life, and that it is what you truly need to succeed. That nothing apart from yourself is the influence on that decision, thats when I respect someone religious or spiritual. Those are the type of people who will do good things for the sake of helping, those are the people which will see the big picture of life. Live well.
EliteZodiac92 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
um mundo de Documentários online :D
docshd.net
listenandmeet 2 weeks ago
Sir David Attenborough is a superb speaker. He is a natural story teller.
outlaw87100 2 weeks ago
Shut the fuck up you would-be scientists. Youtube pages ain't getting you what you want.
RbkSPFC 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Comment removed
joelz389 2 weeks ago
Auto-tune of Science FTW
animiechick16 2 weeks ago
Good work man! So awesome
leonwiki 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ronnysoeberg "How do you know that all I ever do is criticize religion? That's a bit of a leap, to say the least. Once a day I pop in here to reply to your inane rablings, takes about 5 minutes."
Because that's all you've done thus far; I'm not saying you go around telling people that are religious that thy're idiots (though I'm sure you think it), but that since you have this stigma against religion you never fairly evaluate but always look at it through a jaded perspective.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS "since you have this stigma against religion you never fairly evaluate but always look at it through a jaded perspective." I don't really care what people think. I do dislike missionaries like you popping into science vids trying to spread your creationist bullcrap, though. Now that atheism is getting some momentum, you fanatics are getting MIGHTY desperate. I can't go anywhere on the interwebs any more without stumbling into a bunch of theists going completely apeshit.
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
M3Panos, your arguments are becoming less and less substantial, and you refuse to answer my direct requests for any tangible evidence. I believe you are trolling me and I'm getting tired of feeding the troll.
If you have anything serious for me I'll be glad to debate you on it, but for now I think my accumulated knowledge is going to waste. Therefore I will stop contributing until there is something worth mentioning coming from the side of Creationism.
keesengels 3 weeks ago in playlist Symphony of science
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels "M3Panos, your arguments are becoming less and less substantial, and you refuse to answer my direct requests for any tangible evidence. I believe you are trolling me and I'm getting tired of feeding the troll
.
If you have anything serious for me I'll be glad to debate you on it, but for now I think my accumulated knowledge is going to waste. Therefore I will stop contributing until there is something worth mentioning coming from the side of Creationism."
If you feel better...
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@keesengels Actually, there's a couple of things I'd lack to add: You never defined what proof/evidence is; You never told me how you could trust your senses; You never told me what would convince you of God; You never accounted for immaterial realities, such as morals and logical axioms; You don't have an account of how the universe got here; You think science is the sole proprietor of truth while holding truth to be relative; and despite you thinking truth to be relative, you defend yours.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"You never defined what proof/evidence is; ..."
- Try a dictionary. I use those to avoid confusion over meaning.
"You never told me how you could trust your senses;..."
- I told you we have measurement equipment for that. A cm is a cm, whether or not you guessed right.
"You never told me what would convince you of God; ..."
- Irrefutable, non-bias, objective and (non-)falsifiable evidence: proof.
cont.
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels
"You never accounted for immaterial realities, such as morals and logical axioms; ..."
- I did. On two separate occasions. See now why I think you're trolling? But just for you: logical axioms are there to prevent having to explain the basics again. However, in science, even these can be re-evaluated at will. The concept of the number one can be tested and retested if you wish. But the tests were conclusive, so we 'assume' that we know what 1 means, now. But only now...
cont.
keesengels 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels
"You don't have an account of how the universe got here; ..."
- That's just because I am still searching, and you've already filled the gap with 'god'. I'm less easily pacified... I mean satisfied.
"You think science is the sole proprietor of truth while holding truth to be relative; ..."
- No, I hold truth to be relative, and use science to come to irrefutable conclusions. Truth is an emotional word. I propose 'reality' for describing the results of science.
cont.
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels
"... and despite you thinking truth to be relative, you defend yours."
- I defend reality, not truth. But for what it's worth: mine is backed up by evidence ;)
Now that I have answered your questions as you asked, I fully expect you to ignore mine. But be that as it may, I think I tied up my loose ends and will thus abstain from having this discussion any longer.
I do have one final reading tip for you: Matthew 7; verse 3-5.
Fare thee well :)
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels some people just need to go away, you are one of those. You existence depreciates humanity.
Ahiatua 2 weeks ago
@Ahiatua
Thank you for your opinion. You are fully entitled to it. I hope you're happy with it.
However, don't expect me to just get up and go ;)
keesengels 2 weeks ago in playlist Symphony of science
What the hell is a wuzzy line?
ParadigmShift22 3 weeks ago
M3Panos and keesengels are RUINING these great videos.
outlaw87100 3 weeks ago
@outlaw87100 Sorry mate, I never thought this video was all that great to begin with which is why I'm in this argument at all lol; so me arguing doesn't really matter. On the other hand, keesengels does like this video, so maybe you should try to get him to stop replying to me -he is digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole after all...
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
Creationists aren't converted thru debate guy they're converted once they decide for themselves. Stop all this useless bickering
outlaw87100 3 weeks ago
Debating this wont revolutionize the world. Its pointless because youre both going to walk away none the wiser. Just stop with this pissing contest because we are sick to death of you ppl ruining these vids with childish debates
outlaw87100 3 weeks ago
@outlaw87100
I disagree. Wars start where words end. Talking about this stuff is the only way to get some sense into people without having to knock it in.
keesengels 3 weeks ago in playlist Symphony of science 4
@keesengels Hear! Hear! Words not bombs. This is the century where bad ideas go to rest.
Pilaf1984 3 weeks ago
i'm stoned and i love this.
garagoles 3 weeks ago 8
0:55 is a VERY powerful moment. Made me cry.
outlaw87100 3 weeks ago
Wait why are people arguing about religion on a video about science? RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE NOT ENEMIES, THEY CAN COEXIST PEACEFULLY!
DalekHunter1994 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from melodysheep
@DalekHunter1994 I will say.. no.. they can't.
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
@DalekHunter1994
Don't be offended when people disagree and make conversation.
The key word is "can", and so far they don't. I choose to not sit idly by and allow religion to maintain a high degree of respect it does not deserve.
Religion in the broad sense of the term, is simply another attempt at knowing the world. I am simply choose to speak out against the false claims and abuse of faith about the unknown people overwhelmingly continue to endow these ideologies with.
DeconversionCentral 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 2 weeks ago
@DeconversionCentral I agree. You can't be close minded about someones beliefs otherwise in peoples eyes you're choosing to me ignorant. And ignorance has no room in the world today.
DionSlate 2 weeks ago
@DionSlate
If we accept your statement, than we must conclude you are being closed minded to my belief.
I certainly am not closed minded, I will change my beliefs if I gain knowledge that permit such a change.
I am open to new ideas or even re-investigations of older ones which may be clarified.
Please understand this; to think someone is wrong is not closed minded, it is a disagreement. I do not have to be compassionate towards others beliefs, but I will treat them with dignity.
DeconversionCentral 2 weeks ago
@DeconversionCentral "amen" to that
soulicadus 2 weeks ago
@TehOrkyMan
"Remember that religion is what brought civilization. All the first cites were centered on places of religion."
Not at all. Civilizaiton was in no way, shape, or form made by religion. Religion WAS present in almost every civilization, however that was mainly because religion was man's first attempt at explaining the universe around him.
tskasa1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrFishman55
"One, it was either god who gently led us through subtle hints to civilization, or Two, it was man's continuous ingenuity through invention of fire, the wheel, etc that brought us together."
It was neither. Humanity has always been a social animal. "Civilization" started after either certain tribes started getting together for mutual benefit, or when a certain tribe grew large enough. But humans have ALWAYS been social animals that lived in tribes.
tskasa1 3 weeks ago
@AButzke2017
"I haven't really seen any examples of religion holding back science..."
Try the Dark Ages. Or the Middle Ages. Or hell, look how the church treated many people during the Reinnasance.
tskasa1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 "Try the Dark Ages. Or the Middle Ages. Or hell, look how the church treated many people during the Reinnasance."
Specific cases please? Plus, I love you conveniently leave out the Byzantine Empire which never realized the setbacks of Medieval Europe despite it being wholly Christianized.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
There is so much out there beyond Earth and yet some religions want to keep us grounded?
No.
FlipDarkFuture 3 weeks ago
coooooolll!!!!!
beccalicious24 4 weeks ago
I'm just gonna say without all the evolution and conspiracy talk that this is the best science video ever made. It's calming and crazy awesome. I'm gonna see if my science teacher will play this in class one day.
polaroidloric 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 1 month ago
Lol, this video says A LOT about you atheists. Damn and you guys don't worship anything? I think we have some evidence to the contrary here, haha.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS
See? This proves you haven't understood one single thing of what these songs tell you.
There is such a thing as awe and appreciation WITHOUT throwing yourself at the feet of some deity, you know ;)
keesengels 1 month ago in playlist Symphony of science
Comment removed
M3PanoS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels Maybe I just jumped the gun a bit here because this video doesn't HAVE to be atheist specific -although it's painfully obvious that it is considering only an atheist would be motivated to make a video about the only thing they know to be real (the universe) in my opinion.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS You're saying no religious person would be compelled to make a video about the wonders of the cosmos? If that's the case, I pity ALL religious people. The intricacies and beauty of the cosmos FAR exceeds anything religion has offered. I suspect that if more people took the time to understand the cosmos, religion would take a massive hit. Just the tiny fact that everything, all plants, all animals, everything on this planet shares a common ancestor.. So simple, so wonderful.
ronnysoeberg 4 weeks ago
@ronnysoeberg Who said I can't admire the universe? I can do that just fine. I just realize how stupid it is to do that when I have God that created it and FAR exceeds anything a puny human imagination can possibly ever think of. Atheists on the other hand have no choice but to revel in the universe. But here's the kicker, you guys say it all came about by chance, and you still think it's wonderful.
So you're wrong, religious people can marvel at the universe -we're just not stupid enough to.
M3PanoS 4 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"I just realize how stupid it is to do that when I have God that created it"
The universe wasn't created.
"But here's the kicker, you guys say it all came about by chance, and you still think it's wonderful."
You say that like it's a bad thing. The fact that it all came about by chance and means that we are incredibly lucky to exist in the first place should make you feel good about yourself and want to do better for humanity. However, you wouldn't understand.
tskasa1 3 weeks ago
@tskasa1 "The universe wasn't created."
And the universe got here how? Here comes the torrent of circular reasoning and non-answers...
"You say that like it's a bad thing. The fact that it...[blah, blah, blah]...you wouldn't understand."
You're terribly inconsistent mate; you say we were lucky when it suits you but will just as easily turn and say that we were accidents. Besides, saying we came about by chance doesn't say anything -chance is just a fancy way of saying I don't know.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"And the universe got here how?"
Long story short? At the most basic level, it was a specific type of field called a inflaton field created by quantum fluctuations in empty space sparked the big bang and inflation.
"Here comes the torrent of circular reasoning and non-answers..."
I don't need cricular reasoning because I don't have a pre-established conclusion. Now then, what is YOUR proof that the universe was created? And how do we test its veracity?
tskasa1 3 weeks ago
@tskasa1 "Long story short? At the most...in empty space sparked the big bang and inflation."
And the inflation field got here how? You know what must be frustrating for you? I don't even know what you mean by inflation field, and I don't have to argue against you. All I have to do is ask you "why" until you ultimately stop explaining your explanations and then just insert God -and this isn't a "God of the Gaps" btw because I use God as the basis for all existence, not to explain existence.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"... and this isn't a "God of the Gaps" btw because I use God as the basis for all existence, not to explain existence."
I.E. you use science all the way back to a point where you can't explain it anymore (totally ignoring the fact that this point has been moved back significantly in the last few decades) and fill in the blank with 'God'.
...
By definition that IS a god of the gaps. And you need one because the simplicity of science explains away any need for a god here and now.
keesengels 3 weeks ago in playlist Symphony of science
@tskasa1 "I don't need cricular reasoning because I don't have a pre-established conclusion. Now then, what is YOUR proof that the universe was created? And how do we test its veracity?"
Yes, you will; I'll let you know when you use it -if you decide to.
Umm all of current cosmology points us towards a beginning point of the universe, no? And how did the universe get here? Well it had to have been created, and you believe that too -you just disagree about the agent of creation -God.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"Well it had to have been created, and you believe that too -you just disagree about the agent of creation -God."
- Again, you missed the point. You speak of creation - a sentient action. There is no need for a sentient being for a creation of something out of nothing. Because if so, what created God? And if your answer resembles anything along the line of "God needed no creator", then I advise you to reflect on the absense of a reason for inserting the God-step in the process.
keesengels 3 weeks ago in playlist Symphony of science
@M3PanoS "Well it had to have been created" Why did it have to be created? It's one of the weirdest thoughts ever, cause if the universe had to be created by a god, then god had to be created by something, and then we get into a crazy russian doll situation. Or does it just go one extra step back beyond the big bang? God was just there? Cause I'm pretty sure you could ascribe the same properties to the big bang. "just happened".. Yet we don't, we leave the question unanswered. for now.
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
@ronnysoeberg "It's one of the weirdest thoughts ever, cause if the universe had to be created by a god, then god had to be created by something, and then we get into a crazy russian doll situation."
No God didn't have to be created. I don't know how He truly exists, and I probably never will, but I know enough to know that He is the basis of all existence. I know the universe can't be the basis of all existence because a material being has WAAAAY too many limitations on it to be a candidate.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS Why would there have to be a material being that created the universe if not a god? Why can't it just be a mystery until we find out? God created man up until we figured out that hey, no, evolution created man.. Why can't the creation of the cosmos be the same thing? Why does there NEED to be a god? And why can't it be the hindu god? Seems just as plausible (or unplausible in my case).
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
@tskasa1 (continued) " Now then, what is YOUR proof that the universe was created? And how do we test its veracity?"
We test its veracity how we test the veracity of anything else silly -reason and evidence. And according to the evidence, that the universe had a beginning, and through reasoning, I think the best explanation for the universe being here is the classical God of theism, and the one that was revealed to us in Jesus Christ.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS
"you say we were lucky when it suits you but will just as easily turn and say that we were accidents."
Except no I wouldn't. The word "accident" denotes that a measure of sentience. You have to not want to do something for it to be an accident. We aren't accidents because there was no thinking involved. We are just lucky sods. and we should appreciate it.
tskasa1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 "Except no I wouldn't. The word "accident" denotes that a measure of sentience. You have to not want to do something for it to be an accident. We aren't accidents because there was no thinking involved. We are just lucky sods. and we should appreciate it."
Ok, we've appreciated the hell out of it -making friends, partying, drinking, etc. and now we're tired of it. Now what? Or so what if we got lucky? That doesn't mean I have to do anything about it, since I didn't ask to be here.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"Besides, saying we came about by chance doesn't say anything -chance is just a fancy way of saying I don't know."
Except no it isn't. Chance is a quantifiable value. It's called probability (or odds, but in this case it's probability). We can verify probability. One can even quantify it. But that is besides the point. The point is that we CAN explain (to a rather large degree as well) how most of our universe and even ourselves came to be (cont.)
tskasa1 3 weeks ago
@tskasa1 "Except no it isn't...We can verify probability."
Yea, except one thing. When I ask you why did we get here, if you answer with "chance," you are NOT giving me what I'm asking for -a causal reason for why the particular events that brought us about happened.
"But that is besides the point...came to be (cont.)"
Up to a point, and then everything breaks down. Naturalistic ideas can't explain the natural world itself -they explain what's within the natural world.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"When I ask you why did we get here, if you answer with "chance," you are NOT giving me what I'm asking for -a causal reason for why the particular events that brought us about happened."
- We did, the answer was: we don't know yet. But this is an answer you refuse to hear. You must have a solution, something that takes you back into your comfort zone. and as such you use 'god' as a full stop. Whatever else we don't know yet ==> God. Even though that space has been receding daily...
keesengels 3 weeks ago in playlist Symphony of science
@M3PanoS
(cont.) Are there holes in it? Of course. But that is not saying much. There exists a hole in most scientific knowledge. Our understanding of gravity is full of holes (ESPECIALLY at the quantum level), yet we know that it exists, that it works, and under certain conditions, we can make near flawless calculations having to do with it. What matters is that there are no huge holes that break the case. Just rather small unknowns and no contradictory evidence.
tskasa1 3 weeks ago
@tskasa1 "Are there holes in it?...scientific knowledge. "
Holes or no holes, it doesn't matter, because scientific theories don't explain the origin of the universe; they just describe what happened. That's all the Big Bang is. If I were to ask what comes before the Big Bang, cosmologists wouldn't know what to say or they would go off into the realm of speculation to make it appear as if they have answers, but then I'd just question their answers.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
Again, the answer is: we don't know yet. It doesn't get any more comfortable when you ask for it 20 times.
However, I stress the "yet". There has been a trend, you see. We have gone back from roughly 6000 years to the Planck Epoch, about 10 to the -43rd power seconds after the Big Bang. The trend is most definitely progressive, and God is being pushed back in its bow wave ;)
keesengels 3 weeks ago in playlist Symphony of science
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels "Again, the...for it 20 times."
Let me tell you what the answer is NOT: The answer is not to be found in a naturalistic explanation. So why do you persist in looking only there? Are you afraid of something...or someone?
"The trend is most definitely progressive, and God is being pushed back in its bow wave ;)"
God hasn't been pushed back one nano-meter. The God of the Gaps has been though, only to be replaced by Science of the Gaps in many places lol.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"Let me tell you what the answer is NOT: The answer is not to be found in a naturalistic explanation."
- And yet the only alternative you provide is divine intervention. Why not quantum mechanics? Or are you afraid of something... or someone? ;)
"God hasn't been pushed back one nano-meter."
- Ehm... he has. Remember when Galilei was grounded for life for proclaiming that the standard doctrine of an Earth-centered solar system was wrong? After all, GOD made Earth the centre...
keesengels 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels "And yet the only alternative you provide is divine intervention. Why not quantum mechanics? Or are you afraid of something... or someone? ;)"
Because like I already said, no natural explanation, because of the very essence of what it is to be a naturalistic explanation, can adequately account for itself -NONE. You always seek to explain a natural explanation with another explanation OUTSIDE of itself. But something must exist that can explain the universe AND it's own existence.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "- Ehm... he has. Remember when Galilei was grounded for life for proclaiming that the standard doctrine of an Earth-centered solar system was wrong? After all, GOD made Earth the centre..."
I might as well start bashing my head against the wall. How many times do I have to make the category distinction for you between God and science? Saying God made it that way and then figuring out, oh wait God made it this way instead does NOT get you to the conclusion: God does not exist.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS
"Saying God made it that way and then figuring out, oh wait God made it this way instead does NOT get you to the conclusion: God does not exist."
- True, but these conclusions by the people before Galilei were drawn from the same sources as you use: the Bible and tradition. However, my point has been all along that these are obviously unreliable, because every other wrong conclusion (case in point: Earth as the centre of the universe) was drawn from the same sources.
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "True, but these conclusions by the people before Galilei were drawn from the same sources as you use: the Bible and tradition."
I think you mean Galileo, but moving on, you are taking the Bible as a scientific textbook when it's not meant to be read as one. When you scrutinize something, you do so at face value. When the Bible is using metaphor, you read it metaphorically; when it speaks historically, you read it historically; you can't say it's all literal and read it as such.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS
"I think you mean Galileo, but moving on, ..."
- His name was Galileo Galilei. Try flaming again, you failed this time ;)
"... you are taking the Bible as a scientific textbook when it's not meant to be read as one."
- Ah, the crux of your argument. Three questions:
* Where does it say so?
* Which parts are true, which are metaphorical?
* Who decides which part are and which parts are not?
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "However, my point has been all along that these are obviously unreliable, because every other wrong conclusion (case in point: Earth as the centre of the universe) was drawn from the same sources."
No, people thought that the earth was at the center of the universe because of the Aristotelian model that had percolated throughout western culture and Catholicism at that point -NOT because it was taught in the Bible.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS "No, people thought that the earth was at the center of the universe because of the Aristotelian model that had percolated throughout western culture and Catholicism at that point -NOT because it was taught in the Bible."
Well, the bible still says that he created the sun. Let there be light, and all that. Yet, now that we know how stars are made, doesn't it seem odd to you that he spent billions of years scraping matter together to form a sun?
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS
"No, people thought that the earth was at the center of the universe because of the Aristotelian model that had percolated throughout western culture and Catholicism at that point -NOT because it was taught in the Bible."
- And yet any idea to the contrary was fought vehemently by the Church because it contradicted their doctrine of a universe with God's Earth in the centre. Please, do not assume my ignorance.
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "- And yet any idea to the contrary was fought vehemently by the Church because it contradicted their doctrine of a universe with God's Earth in the centre. Please, do not assume my ignorance."
Glad you mention that, I was actually hoping it would come up. All this does is show how people can read into something that was never there in the first place -and you're doing the same exact thing by saying the Bible is only literal.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"-and you're doing the same exact thing by saying the Bible is only literal."
- Again: why isn't it, which part are and which aren't, and who determines that? Also, based on what?
keesengels 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels "- Again: why isn't it, which part are and which aren't, and who determines that? Also, based on what?"
Don't quote a little tidbit of my quote and leave out the rest where the question you just asked was answered. I'm getting tired of repeating myself, and you actually think you're going somewhere with this argument when you haven't said anything new for about three exchanges now...
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS We don't know what was before the big bang. Some people say there was no before, and that boggles my mind, and most definitely your mind, so you need to find something to explain the before bit. Whereas rational people don't really need the why, we are content with the question. As I see it, putting everything you don't understand onto a god is just plain cheating. Why is "I don't know" such a bad thing? Religious people can say "gods will" to EVERYTHING. It's moronic.
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
@ronnysoeberg "Whereas rational people don't really need the why, we are content with the question."
Yea, but rational people also actually also seek to answer the question instead of just ignoring it.
"As I see it, putting everything you don't understand onto a god is just plain cheating. Why is "I don't know" such a bad thing? Religious people can say "gods will" to EVERYTHING. It's moronic."
I don't do that, nor do any sophisticated theists. But there are questions that do require God.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS Yes, curiosity drives humans. The question drives us. That's what I meant about being content with the question. We don't need the answer right now, we can wait.
No questions require god. God is only a "valid" answer to questions until someone actually figures it out. God used to be the answer to a LOT more stuff than it is now. Just swap theism for knowledge. you won't look back. Knowledge is pretty amazing, aside from the fact that it makes religious people more annoying.
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
@ronnysoeberg "We don't need the answer right now, we can wait."
I'm telling you, you can wait all you want but you'll never get a naturalistic answer. And we already have an answer -it's called God. This is more of an issue of whether you like the answer or not, not if the answer is valid.
"God is only a "valid" answer to questions until someone actually figures it out."
You're manufacturing a "God of the Gaps" ... -_-
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS I don't use god as an explanation for anything. That's why I said "valid". To me, it's as invalid as unicorns with shovels or the spaghettimonster. We will find out what started the universe, no question about that. Just like we found out how people came to be. Yet even if we figure out how the universe came to be, christian people will just put God in charge of something else.. Our souls.. Probably.. He'll still send your soul to hell if you're naughty..
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ronnysoeberg "To me, it's as invalid as unicorns...or the spaghettimonster."
There's no reason to think that these things exist because we have good reasons for why they don't -they're not even coherent concepts.
"We will find out what started the universe, no question about that."
And if that explanation is naturalistic then you'll just need to explain that explanation. A naturalistic explanation can not be the end all be all because it doesn't explain itself, but something has to
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"And we already have an answer -it's called God."
- Full stop. How... religious of you. But in truth that's not really an answer, is it? It's more of a filler. Almost as if you're using god for the gaps in your argument. Hmm... I should coin that phrase... 'god of the gaps'... hmm...
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "- Full stop. How... religious of you. But in truth that's not really an answer, is it? It's more of a filler. Almost as if you're using god for the gaps in your argument. Hmm... I should coin that phrase... 'god of the gaps'... hmm.."
Not until I coin science of the gaps. That's EXACTLY what you're doing with the origin of the universe. You're saying, "I don't know how it got there, but science will figure it out eventually." What if science never does? Which it won't... -_-
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"I don't know how it got there, but science will figure it out eventually."
- Let me nuance this. We don't know how it got there, but judging by the rate of discoveries of late, science holds the best cards for doing so.
"What if science never does?"
- Then the search itself provides enough spin-off knowledge to provide us with things like the Internet, which it has before and you now happily use to try and make your point.
"Which it won't..."
- Bold statement. Evidence?
keesengels 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels "- Let me nuance this. We don't know how it got there, but judging by the rate of discoveries of late, science holds the best cards for doing so."
It doesn't matter when there are certain questions that fall outside the realm of science. If I ask you if a girl is beautiful, there is no way of you answering from a purely scientific standpoint. Science doesn't tell us what we ought to value and therefore can't tell you how to define beauty.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"It doesn't matter when there are certain questions that fall outside the realm of science."
- Here you assume again that some questions do. Why?
"If I ask you if a girl is beautiful, there is no way of you answering from a purely scientific standpoint."
- Yes, there would be. I'd sound like Sheldon, but it can in fact be done. Facial features, non-verbal signals, a waist-hip ratio of 0,7 and so on. But it can be done.
keesengels 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels "- Here you assume again that some questions do. Why?"
Uh, I don't assume anything -that statement was a fact.
"- Yes, there would be. I'd sound like Sheldon, but it can in fact be done. Facial features, non-verbal signals, a waist-hip ratio of 0,7 and so on. But it can be done."
You're hopeless. You realize that each time you do your little calculation, YOU are the one CHOOSING which number to pick because YOU think it has value?
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"Uh, I don't assume anything -that statement was a fact."
- Proof?
"You realize that each time you do your little calculation, YOU are the one CHOOSING which number to pick because YOU think it has value?"
- And again: no, I don't. This has been found to be a fair average by examining many, MANY people in a controlled environment, thus taking away any variables. Also, I only mentioned a small amount of factors. There are, of course, many more. As you well knew.
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "- Proof?"
Qualify the word proof.
"- And again: no, I don't. This has been found to be a fair average by examining many, MANY people in a controlled environment, thus taking away any variables. Also, I only mentioned a small amount of factors. There are, of course, many more. As you well knew."
What's a fair average? And even so, showing that one value is commonly valued across the board was STILL not decided by science but by the aggregate of HUMAN opinion.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "- Then the search itself provides enough spin-off knowledge to provide us with things like the Internet, which it has before and you now happily use to try and make your point."
See the previous response; you're still making the same mistake.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "- Bold statement. Evidence?"
Again, science is a descriptive enterprise and as such cannot offer prescriptions like what we ought to value. Therefore, science is moot on questions such as: Is killing someone immoral? You can use science to measure pain thresholds and the like, but science doesn't tell us what we ought to do after we know about the pain some life form is suffering.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS "but science doesn't tell us what we ought to do after we know about the pain some life form is suffering." We don't need science for that. And we certainly don't need religion. Do you really think the bible came up with the whole do to others what you want others to do to you bit? The bible invented consequence? Seems very unlikely. Social beings care for each other. The 10 commandments are basically common sense based on the evolution of social groups.
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ronnysoeberg "Do you really think the bible came up with the whole do to others what you want others to do to you bit? The bible invented consequence?...Social beings care for each other."
Maybe so, maybe not, but either way it doesn't matter. What God does is legitimize the question since He grants us value. Without value, the question too is valueless. And another key problem with any moral system without God is that it isn't compulsive which is necessary for objective morality.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"What God does is legitimize the question since He grants us value."
- You skipped the part where you prove to us that he in fact does.
"God is a legitimate authority"
- You need to back that up before you can use that as an argument.
"This is because God, being the author of everything, ..."
- You skipped the part where you prove this.
"... understands everything as it truly exists and therefore has a binding word on all matters."
- Authority is not taken, it is given...
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "- You skipped the part where you prove to us that he in fact does."
God cannot fail.
"- You need to back that up before you can use that as an argument."
God has the 3 Os -I think we've been over this already, no?
"- You skipped the part where you prove this."
I told you why at the fundamental level of reality there must be a personal, eternal, spaceless, timeless, 3 Os being already.
"- Authority is not taken, it is given..."
Contingent beings have no say in the matter.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"God cannot fail."
- That's another statement, not proof for the previous one. According to the Bible, he can. After all, he failed the first time he made man, correct? He had to rinse the Earth, even.
"God has the 3 Os -I think we've been over this already, no?"
- You proclaimed this, yes. But you failed yet again to provide evidence.
cont.
keesengels 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels
"I told you why at the fundamental level of reality there must be a personal, eternal, spaceless, timeless, 3 Os being already."
- So you believe. But what about that proof?
"Contingent beings have no say in the matter."
- According to whom? I am seeing a pattern here. God has authority, and we can't say anything about that because god has authority. It's raining because it's raining. No, sir, this requires evidence.
keesengels 3 weeks ago
@keesengels "- That's another statement, not proof for the previous one. According to the Bible, he can...rinse the Earth, even."
You don't even know what the word proof means -you just spout it out whenever you're backed into a corner. Like I've said before, qualify the word, otherwise you're just equivocating the word and using an overly malleable definition to escape having to think. Until you adequately define it, there's really nothing that I can do to help you.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS "And "spiritual" is more akin to religious than atheist -the terms are largely (keyword: largely) interchangeable."
My sentiments exactly. Believing in harry potter and jesus=Same thing.
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
@ronnysoeberg "My sentiments exactly. Believing in harry potter and jesus=Same thing."
No. Harry Potter is a fictional character; Jesus Christ is a historical figure.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS "No. Harry Potter is a fictional character; Jesus Christ is a historical figure. "
So is King Arthur. Well, as real as Jesus anyways. Yet the stories surrounding King Arthur seem somewhat far fetched. Much like the stories surrounding jesus. You should read some of the stuff that didn't make the final edition of the bible. Jesus scared a dragon when he was a kid. Did you know that? He's practically a D&D character.
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
@ronnysoeberg "So is King Arthur. Well, as real as Jesus anyways. Yet the stories surrounding King Arthur seem somewhat far fetched."
They probably are. I know the historical case for Jesus' divinity pretty well though, and I think the evidence is strong enough to draw the conclusion that He was indeed who He said He is.
"Jesus scared a dragon when he was a kid. Did you know that? He's practically a D&D character."
Never heard of that; where'd you get it from?
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS
"I know the historical case for Jesus' divinity pretty well though, and I think the evidence is strong enough to draw the conclusion that He was indeed who He said He is."
- Please, indulge us with the evidence. After all, you wouldn't want it to believe you on your pretty smile, would you?
keesengels 3 weeks ago in playlist Symphony of science
This has been flagged as spam show
@keesengels "- Please, indulge us with the evidence. After all, you wouldn't want it to believe you on your pretty smile, would you?"
Historians are in virtual agreement that: Jesus was crucified, that He was buried, that His disciples found His burial tomb empty, and that His disciples preached His resurrection unto death. I think the best hypothesis to explain these facts is the Resurrection itself and all other explanatory hypotheses come up short in one way or another.
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago
@M3PanoS It's from The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. There are other books as well that were'nt included in the final draft of the bible because they were just too fucked up for anyone to take seriously. Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, describes how jesus killed kids left and right during his younger years. What finally turned him away from being a murderous little brat was a realy hefty ear-twisting session. Yup.. Google Jesus Dragon and you'll find some stuff.
ronnysoeberg 3 weeks ago
@ronnysoeberg "There are other books as well that were'nt included in the final draft of the bible because they were just too fucked up for anyone to take seriously. Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, describes how jesus killed kids left and right during his younger years."
Oh, you're talking about the Gnostic Gospels. Yea, those are pretty ridiculous for the most part... ^_^
M3PanoS 3 weeks ago