I LOVE IT! TY! TY! TY! BAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA LMBO OOO ME OO MY! WHAT EVEN MAKES IT BETTER IS THE COMMENTS! GREEAAAATTTT WORK BUDDY! sry for all the caps Im just exited. your video cheered me up!
@JamaJuice46 Honestly, I'd rather that you go back to school and this time pay some more attention... especially on spelling, English grammar, biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, logic...
@slapinskiProductions lol. expansion? thats not a scientific term. evolution is not proven. that is why it's a theory. the big bang theory claims that it created the universe in one big bang, do you even know what the theory is....? and iron doesnt create magnetic fields dumbass stop reading comic books lol
@JamaJuice46 The earth has an iron core that creates a magnetic field!!! So clearly your the dumbass. It would seem that Kleenex got the best of you! Your part of the problem.
@JamaJuice46 I say that the level of intelligence of a commentator is best judged by his ability to spell correctly. And, evolution IS PROVED, my friend! We just don't know how it works. That is why it's a theory. Let me educate you on the meaning of the word "theory" : gravitation is also a theory. We know that it exists, but we don't know yet how it works. That's why it's a theory. If you say it's a theory because it's not proven, then I dare you to jump off your rooftop. ;-)
@neshereagle gravitation is not proven in space. don't generalize it within Earth. the theory of evolution are "educated" guesses from scientists who are biased, which is within every experiment. the only thing that is valid would be the fact that creatures are able to adapt, but its impossible to change into a totally different creature. even monkeys and humans is far-fetched.
@JamaJuice46 O.K. mate, it is clear now that you were sleeping or daydreaming during biology classes. Or worst yet, you went to one of these "schools" in Texas where they teach biology without mentioning anything about evolution (which is like teaching chemistry without mentioning the atoms, or teaching mathematics without mentioning the numbers). Your knowledge of physics is also lamentable. How do you think the planets revolve around the Sun if there's no gravitation in space?
@neshereagle first off, im not your "mate". and don't reference anything about high school education to me cause i won't accept it as legit. ask any college professor or REAL ones about the relationship between quantum-physics and gravitation in space and come back to me. stupid kid.
@JamaJuice46 If you don't want to learn anything else, at least learn how to speak and spell your own language! You imbecile with a brain of a twelve year old and a mentality of a person from the Dark Ages! You think I need to ask any one about quantum physics? I live in Geneva, Switzerland mate, and CERN is my second home! What are you blabbering about here? Throw away your computer and cell phone, dress up in a gown and go live in a desert with the goats. You christian version of a taliban!
If any of us nowadays went about telling people that we heard voices telling us to lay down laws for mankind to obey without question, the next stop would be the funny farm for a shot of largactil up the jacksie.
@pokerrob20 You're going to go with the bombardier beetle argument? Really? Even though it's been thoroughly refuted time and time again? Even though the only thing it proves is that you're either woefully misinformed about the process of evolution or are deliberately misrepresenting it to justify your superstitions? Are you sure you want to go with that?
No, it's not okay to have a religion anymore. It's poison and it needs to stop. It's like stopping a child from sucking their thumb. At some point it needs to stop for the benefit of the individual. Even if people believe in the privacy of their own homes, the religion virus will just lie dormant and reactivate later. However, I do not endorse forcing people to stop worshiping. I endorse a more rigorous education initiative that allows people to stop believing on their own with logic and reason.
@PeacefulAtheist123 ok my misspelling friend lets entertain that comment " the definiton of zombie is somebody that becomes a life after his death Jezus is a zombie" WOW so if what your saying is correct then every mythical creature that has... become a life after his death...lmao... is a zombie, ok in that case then... Vampire = Zombie, Ghost = Zombie, Mummy = Zombie and so on and so forth now u can believe what u wanna believe but just because u believe it doesn't make it true get it lol
@bigreddawg91 Look that's wrong religion has caused many wars and many lives have been lost so there should be n religion since it is just causeing pain and fear...
ok first off Jesus was not a zombie, Zombie's are resurrected humans or other living organisms that eat live fleash. Zombies cannot communicate clearly (mostly groan) and are sometimes summoned by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose. So to even equate Jesus with a zombie shows lack of respect, mocking what the other person believes. If you, yourself would not give another person the time of day for mocking what you believe then why spead it on and mock millions of people.
@nyce611 HAHAHAHAHA!!! That is by far, the funniest response I've ever gotten off my videos. Someone actually took the time to explain the difference between undead people who eat flesh, and undead people with magic powers who deserve our respect because old people said so.
@MadeUThink Wow really that's the funniest response you've ever gotten...niceee glad to entertain. My point was that when you resort to ridicule you muffle your main point which ultimately i agree with the bible is just a book with a lot of off the wall stories that back then made sense because human beings are fearful and superstitions but to change the way people think you must show them that its ok to be wrong that there not stupid just misguided
@MadeUThink "Someone actually took the time to explain the difference between undead people who eat flesh, and undead people with magic powers who deserve our respect because old people said so." Talking about putting words in my mouth, never said they deserve our respect because old people said so. However i do believe that if you want to get across a point you should show a little respect for the other persons belief or else your wasting your time unless all u wanna do is piss people off
@nyce611 The definition of "zombie" says nothing about diet or communication. It simply says that a zombie is a dead body resurrected by a supernatural force. There are fictional stories where zombies don't eat flesh and others where they communicate just fine. Based on the stories of Jesus, the definition applies. Calling Jesus a "zombie" is not about disrespect. It is an issue of terminology. Ridiculous beliefs will be ridiculed. It's what occurs when a free speech society makes improvements.
@AntiTheistAtheist i would love to know were u get your definition of zombie from cuz its not the dictionary. and yes i agree ridiculous beliefs will be ridiculed however who's to say whats ridiculous and whats normal for the most part these are subjective terms whats ridiculous might be normal to me so instead of jumping to ridicule why not actually have a civil discussion were you bring facts and logic not sideways definitions of what u believe is the case. sad thing is i'm an agnostic smh
@nyce611 zombie n. 1. originally a snake deity of or deriving from West Africa and Haiti. 2. a soulless corpse said to be revived by witchcraft. 3. a tall mixed drink consisting of several kinds of rum, liqueur, and fruit juice. (The New Oxford American Dictionary 2nd Edition)
Obviously, we would use the second definition considering witchcraft is one of the many examples of supernatural forces. Myths like the resurrection of Jesus are great in fiction, but have no place in rational discourse.
@nyce611 I don't bring *sideways definitions" into my arguments. I do have civil discussions. Alas, logic shows no mercy. If you bring a ridiculous point to the table then I will treat it with ridicule. Not you, but the point. Very lightly and playfully at first (everyone makes mistakes), but if you persist with your ridiculous ways (charlatans) then my ridicule will turn into firm derisiveness at you. You must earn my respect. You seem to act as if beliefs should get it by default. They don't.
@nyce611 You don't respect our opinion and mock us, now the shoe is on the other foot! Anybody that believes the shit that you believe in deserves to be MOCKED! You lost your humanity. And jesus is a Zombie!
@nyce611 Your knowledge of the nature of zombies is impressive, but your spelling abilities are lamentable. But that aside, tell me honestly what do you and the other millions like you think of other religions (judaism, islam, budism, hinduism etc.) ... don't you mock them? Don't you offend them deeply when you say that you are a true believer and they are wrong? There are billions of them, you know... and they also feel the same about your religion. You are nothing but hypocrites. All of you.
@MadeUThink - Yes, except not all scientist are conspiracists. Only the ones saying we were created by a big boom that happened 2 billion years ago while the it is "proven" that the Earth is much older. Even scientists are hard to believe.
actually a lot of scientists believe in God it's just that you don't hear them because they're censored and have their assets frozen by moronic atheists who can't seem to understand that their "theory" is a worthless fairy tale that has more evidence to prove it wrong than a fairy tale saying that your pecker will fall off if you scratch your armpits. Seriously, atheists? Grow a brain stem. Please.
@MadeUThink so you're saying a bang that came from an imaginary firecracker had enough energy to create billions of stars and planets and then an insignificant particle hitched a ride on the back of a asteroid, landed on earth, formed the atmosphere, swam in a pool of mud and shit for a few more million years, then that mud formed into a fish, then into reptile, then mammal? and this was by ALL CHANCE? just wondering :)
@MadeUThink watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein. you go read any middle/high school science books. and my question sounds a lot funnier than yours :)
@MadeUThink Hey, I really likes your video about 9/11, I am glad that I found someone who believes that 9/11 wasn't cause by our Government.
But, why are you bashing a religion? We know the intentions of this video. I am a Christian because I believe in doing good for others, I look forward to something after death, not just lying in a grave.. I know their is a lot that questions religion, but why do it? It's a personal choice.
And at your comment. I did read a book by scientist. The Big Bang.
@MadeUThink Oh, and I still like your video and I am going to make it the Video on my Channel.
I still don't understand why people have to challenge my religion, I know their are a lot of questions, I just like believing in helping people, their are a lot of verses in the Bible which are really good that people should here that will only make them better. It's not like my religion says, "In order to get to heaven, you must kill all who oppose me!!!"
@TennisGvy You see, you didn't take in account anything I said. Why can't you just let me believe in what I want to believe in. Did I say you need the bible to be a good person? No, I did not. I don't act good just so I can go to heaven, I act good because it is the right thing to do and because most of other people do not. Something I learned from reading the bible.
@Zethioth I reluctantly allow you to believe in what you do. I thank you for having a flashing sign that says "idiot" over your head so I don't mistakenly associate with you. The strife it causes from believing in religion (even when admittedly you don't need to) is very real and very widespread.
@TennisGvy Thank you for your lack of maturity. I now know I cannot win an argument with you, therefore, any response you state will most likely be the last of it.
Who said you have to believe in religion? Again, something you are pulling from thin air.
@Zethioth Nobody said you have to believe in religion. I didn't even say that. Wtf are you talking about? The point is that you don't have to believe in religion to be a good person (something you associate with the bible) so that makes the bible unnecessary. You are essentially agreeing with me so no there is no way you can win an argument when you are forfeiting, duh.
@MadeUThink ACTUALLY, Jama's description is so close to reality that i suspected that they were being sarcastic (pretending to be an upset christian) but really does know that the firecracker scenario is how it happened, and was describing our history in a mocking way. Jama Juice, this MUST be what you mean, correct?
@JamaJuice46 well since the whole bing bang thing seems unthinkable to you, let me ask you this : if you dont believe in evolution because you cant asnwer the questions '' what was there first? who or what made it happen? how can something comes out of nothing?'' well then ask yourself this : if god created everything, who created god?.. I mean, there must have been something before him..no? or did God...came out of nothing?
"Dear Child, You are my offspring. Nothing will ever separate you from my love. I will always comfort you. Unless you don't believe me, or you're gay, or you voted for Obama, in which case I will torture you for ever and ever in the torture chamber I made. You know I'll do it, too. I already tortured and mutilated and killed and abandoned my only REAL son. Trust me. Your loving Father, God."
if any creationist talks about the weak points of the Evolution theory, I want to hear what they think about the rest and how God follows from scientific arguments. And when I say scientific, I mean SCIENTIFIC
Newton made fundamental errors but his theory was not thrown away but modified and improved in a way to account for its discrepancies because, together with predictions contradictory to experiments, it explains a lot of observed phenomena. That life might have originated from natural processes alone has definitely enough support to be hypothesized and investigated further. The theory may not be perfect now but there is definitely enough evidence to be seriously question "God".
newton did not make fundamental errors, his theory of gravitation explained gravity at a macrsocopiv level and at low speeds, it was Einstein who worked off this theory to make formulate a new extension of it to fit the precision in calculating gravity at much smaller and faster movement of matter (special) and of a more massive in (general). So Newton wasn't flawed, just not accurate, but Newton did create the foundation for all of science to draw from, that's special (lol).
the fundamental error Newton made is his deterministic approach which has nothing to do with gravity in particular. by the way, there is no theory of gravity for miscroscopic phenomena and which has firm experimental evidence. gravity is completely negligible in the subatomic and in particular subnuclear regime. Also Einstein's theory fails at very large distances, too. There are a lot of cosmological observations which cannot be understood within general theory of relativity.
there is nothign wrong with a deterministic approach, in fact most of classical and macroscopic dynamic frameworks are deterministic, with some exceptions like the globe of indeterminancy, but that wasn't flawed per se.
Yes, Gravity has such a tiny effect on subatomic or quantum level, but it still there, and I never said Einstein's theory was precise to all points, but that is why we're making a unification of physics, as an extension of Newton's work not his failure...
I can't believe there is no problem with deterministic approach. check Bell's '64 paper and the following experiments. Basically it says that locality and reality cannot exist together which is very fundamental. this was an important part of my studies. My point is not that Newton is not a great physicist. he made mistakes like any other scientist and some of them are unfortunately crucial but he undoubtedly is a great scientist.
No, I have states already that at a macroscopic level and in classical mechanics (except in some exceptions) there is nothing wrong with determinancy, Bell's experiments were to refute Einstein's principle that determinancy played a key role in quantum mechanics not just classical mechanics. So irrelevent point, there is nothing wrong with determinancy in classical mechanics and at a macrscopic scale, you're talking about a subatomic scale.
Yes, Newton did make mistakes, for example his theory on corpuscular light, whih stated that light is a particle, which is slighlty true if ti weren't for the fact that electromagnetic radation holds wave-particle dualism.
What I'm saying is that his equations don't have mistakes, it just doesn't account for things, and an extension to his theory was made, not that his theory was flawed, in fact they still use his theories in NASA today.
dark matter and dark energy are still mysteries. even assuming Einstein solved the problem of gravity, theories for microscopic phenomena cannot be combined with gravity. I mean nobody knows a way of quantizing in curved spacetime. It is solely the mathematical elegance theories like string theory, M theory possess that makes them promising but this is obviously not a scientific argument
Dark matter and energy are mysteries, but I would wholyl disagree with membrane theory. I do agree that the TOE will solve our problems in phsyics by creating a more precise account for what is, which would just be an extension of Newton's foundations which started science in the late 1600's. I just doubt membrane theory is even correct, it's moe like theoritical nonsense than actual science, but there will be a TOE, but it was all thanks to Newton.
there is(at least indirect) evidence that no intelligent human being can ignore about evolution theory. it has significant successfull predictions. repeating myself, it is true that the theory has inadequacies but at least it falls into the category of claims that can be falsified or supported by evidence. like Newton's approach towards why things are the way they are were questioned and improved in time, evolution theory is also a theory which is worth working on. that was my point.
Abiogenesis is a logical necessity, even for Christians, unless there ar ehighly mythological Christians who interpret Genesis as a mythical sotry rather an an ethical and spiritual story. Also, how does abiogenesis lead you to question God's existance, how does evolution make you queston God's existance? Wasn't darwin the one who said:
"It is absurd to doubt that an ardent Theist can be an evolutionist as well"
the thing I am having a hard time understanding is what makes Bible different from, say, Greek mythology if you have no way falsifying or proving either of these scientifically. Similarly one can believe in the wonderland Alice traveled once. What makes Bible special? Three big belief systems originated from the same relatively small piece of land and during a relatively short interval of time, compared to all habitats and whole history of mankind, and they are strikingly similar.
What do you consider the Bible first of all? Do you consider it to be a spiritual book, or a book of science meant to be taken as science and explaining the physical Universe? If you think it's a book of science, you're incorrect, it's a spiritual book on the moral objectivity of ethics, it's philosophy not science.
Greeks were polytheists, Jews monotheists, there is a big difference, and what you're asking would be equivelant to asking why Atheism and not Deism.
anybody who has some familiarity with science will immediately notice that Bible cannot have anything to do with science. More obviously, it shouldn't be used as an ethical guide. There are verses advocating incest, raping, stoning adulterers to death, ... etc. I cannot imagine my kid reading such things on her own. Some say this is done indirectly but that is already dangerous enough. It also prohibits stealing,... but there are many other healthier ways to teach these ethics.
Yeah, no duh, the Bible is a book on spirituality and ethics, maybe people haven't been reading their bible and ratherjust making claims. I'm sorry but you're 2,000 years late on that.
Also, why shouldn't it be used as an ethical guide, that's why it was written. The verses you mention have nothing to do with Christianity, if you're referring to the Bible, read the NT and stop being ignorant.
Yes, you an falsify greek mythology through science, because greek mythology holds that nature are gods, which we have seen to be untrue, they are not gods and anthropomorphic pantheons, rather natural occurences in the Universe. The judeo/Christian God cannot be disproven scientifically because it holds that God is not part of nature, rather God created nature, which is wholly different from pantheonic religions.
I am talking about Bible as a whole together with everything mentioned about God. There are a lot of explicit descriptions, specific events pertaining to God. Just a single example: how do you explain nylon eating bacteria compatible with God having created life? Is he still going on creating new organisms?
Also, what other healthy ways to teach ethics? Oh yeah, moral relativism? Ethical egoism? Or what other atheistic irrational moralities are you speaking of? Morality is a non-existant in the naturalsit worldview.
Also, if I sound grumpy or like an asshole, please forgive me, I'm very angry at the moment, I'm not trying to be, other discussions are making me behave this way...
Egyptians, Greeks has social regulations. Babylonians had codes like "If someone hits another, he pays some gold". There was even a higher court for objections and if an enforcer had made a mistake, they could lose their jobs. These are written documents, not anthropological extrapolations. no need to say they have no idea about Jesus. There are neanderthal remains with broken but healed bones so they took care of their injured. Even chimps clean each other
coming back to nylon eating bacteria, these organisms eat a certain industrial waste which is synthetically produced for at most a century. They process it, extract energy, create excess products, get rid of it. they migrate towards food(nylon) and reproduce. That to me means that God is still working on creation.
let me point something out, I never claimed that man is immoral nor that he is by nature immoral. In fact, Christianity's principles are that God endowed morality to humanity through nature, regardless of any religious view or mindsets before it. Maybe we should read Genesis a little more like an allegorized story than a literal mythological story, you'll find what I'm talking about.
I'm not arguing about the origin of ethics, rather the reasons for following it.
If all ethics is, is rules made by mankind, through meaningless adaptive forces of evolutionary processes, why follow it? While, ifthere is a God who endowed to you ethics through natural pemenonen not limited to evolution, then there is a reason for following regardless of its methods of origins.
also on Nylon, I don't disagree with evolution, but I think I know where you're getting at, what do you exactly imply here?
If I got you right, you say there are explanations based on natural phenomena for life, galaxies, human behavior, ... but these natural phenomena occur because some supernatural agent told nature to do so. You even say evolution does not contradict with creation. Is that what you are saying or did I get you wrong? I have to push too much my understanding of God(which I don't believe in). I don't think this is Christianity but is some other form of spiritualism.
Yes, you have it right. Though they are naturally occuring, essentially they have a purpose external to us. This is less of a scientific deduction and more of a philsoophical deduction. I also like taht you're spiritual, I have one more question for you, do you believe in free-will and body-mind dualism?
All I say about the nylon eating bacteria is that this fact supports evolution. there are other examples, too, like parasites building resistance through mutation and natural selection which force us to deal with new stronger life forms. I am saying that creation must still be going on today if it is really God behind all forms of life.
Yeah, I agree with evolution, but I like the traditional proofs like genetic similarities and homlogous structures. I'm a Panentheistic Christian, the same theological belief about God as Einstein. Einstein believed nature was part of God, but God was a distinct being. Except in ym belief, God plays a role with humanity, less deistic than Einstein's God.
Note that Einstein said the primary function of science is to find the cosmic religious feeling.
He said of the cosmic religious feeling, that it was meaningless unless it didn't produce a definate notion of God and actual Theology. Theoloy not mutual to religions as we thing of it today. I like this about Einstein because he brings the theological discussion not between Theists, but to panentheists, Deists, and in some sense spiritual Atheists like yourself.
Einstein was against free will and body-mind dualism, so what do you think?
if there is a natural explanation which does not involve anything supernatural, I prefer to avoid supernatural stuff. We are far from reaching that point but I hope we are on the right track. It is very interesting to talk to a Christian who believes in evolution. I am sorry I don't have too much idea about dualism and free will. In my opinion, we evolved, have one life here on Earth, will decompose after we are buried and that is all it is.
So you have down some basic beliefs, but do you believe that what you do here on earth is a product of YOU or are you just a pawn of nature? Is the nature that gave you this stately, but temporary, life allow you to have free will?
In other words, actions are a product of your mind, is your mind material like your body and therefore subject to natural law? Or is your mind independent of nature and allowed to have actual choice?
we are a bunch of C, N, O, H and some other atoms and so is our brain. Anything going on in our body including ideas, feelings, emotions must be able to be explained with physical laws. I don't know too much about neuroscience or psychiatry
You don't have to know too much about neuroscience (I'm not to happy about psychology, it's mainly based off assertions of human behavior, but humans behave subjectively not in an objective manner).
So in your philosophical worldview, the body and mind are one? If this is true, then all of our actions are caused by nature not by our will, so why then punish others for doing 'bad' things if nature caused the to do so?
i don't think our will and nature are independent. our wills are themselves natural events. we do whatever naturally follows from what we naturally are. all we do are natural phenomena. we have no obvious reason for adding an independent actor to describe why we act the way we act.
So you're saying that human will is caused by natural occurences, if they are, then that means nature is responsible for our actions, not necessarily us. So that means when we prosecute criminals, it was not because the criminal had the will to do the crime, rather because nature naturally made the criminal will they way he did, so he is not responsible because nature caused his will. The destruction of law and ethics has been destroyed by that just there...
i don't think our will is something supernatural. if we are trying to promote certain actions and discourage others, that is because this is what follows nature. everything going on is within one nature.
Going off this, is body and mind are one, then that means all the mind is (all of our knowledge, reasoning, and beliefs) are also a product of nature. In the sense of the human body, more to biological and evolutionary processes. Evolution accounts for your survival, and survival doesn't necssitate knowing truth, rather just survival.
If Evolution is true, and so is your philosophical belief, why should logic and reason be trusted?
Your mind, is not actual thinking, rather chemical reactions which biologically are used to survive, and doesn't necessitate that your beliefs be true or that logic and reason be trusted.
If you take body and mind as seperate, then the mind isn't limited to nature, and avoids all the problems you face. And since we know that it is utterly contradictory to deny logic and reason to be false, then why assume body-mind unity?
even logic I guess follows from evolution. We learn what makes sense based on what we experience. I think physics is something that makes us encounter what we usually encounter and challenges our logic. What Einstein meant by the word imagination is I guess opening ourselves to new experiences where the usual laws of logic are not enough.
Also, I don't think you have a proper definition of logic, logic (epistemic logic) is the analytical system of finding the valdiity of truth. It works with reason to find if a philsoohpical argument follows, if it follows the the three c's of philosophical analyses, then it's true deductively.
What I'm saying is that evolution, if the mind is material, has no reason for allowing us to reach knowledge, wether it be a posteriori knowledge like experience, or a priori.
I spent a lot of time on math, too. Most of mathematical texts use the concept of set and relies on the laws of logic. Set cannot be defined easily and there are a lot of logically subtle points in set theory. Basically math starts with undefined primitive objects and unquestioned facts just believed t be true. But these primitive concepts can be intuitively understood and the axioms are not hard to accept
Yes, mathematics is deeply rooted in logic, but it is not all together rooted in logic. Some like Bertrand Russel have tried to do this, but the fact of the matter that there exist non-logical axioms makes mathematics an independent discipline of philsoophy, though mathematics and science both are rooted in philsoophy in the first place.
axioms by nature are intuitively known and should be accepted as self evident, the thing is that you can't prove them to be self-evident...
Godel's incompleteness theorem states that one cannot produce evidence that logical or non-logical axioms are true, they just are true regardless of evidence. which might make some people who are evidentialist a bit skeptical, but the funny thing is that these skeptical people are mostly of a scientific mindset, and don't realize that science is based on axiom in epistemic logic, which cannot be proven to be true according to Godel's theorem.
No you dumbass. You obviously have no education in philosophy. If you apply extreme skepticism to evidentialism, it fails to the point where it's irrational.
In fact, all fundamental axioms cannot be proven by evidence. Look up Godel's theorem. This is why I will no longer reply to your response. No reason in wasting time with uneducated fools on youtube.
later we define new objects and state new claims. Nut this time the new objects must be unambiguously define assuming we have perfect understanding of our starting primitive notions and the new statements must be proven. The proofs rely on the truthfulness of our starting axioms, which we just accept, and also on the laws of logic. once a proof is constructed, everybody agrees whether it is legitimate of it has a logical flaw. that is amazing. Anybody agrees on this
So you're saying something is true because everyone just accepts it? That would be an argumentum ad populace, not necessarily true. Though I agree that we must accept axioms as true, you don't get the point. This view is only held because we assume our cognitive faculty is valid and able to have epsitemic knowledge between what we know and what we believe, the problem with this is that you're a naturalist, no reason for you to accept these cosnidering your philosophy.
What is wrogn with that? It is that you're using a false dillema fallacy, not A can mean more than on thing not just the opposite of A, and non B can also mean alot of things. furthermore, it at least follows the false dillema fallacy, it follows another fallacy but I can't quite put my finger on it.
So you're saying logic is observed in nature? Then my question is to you, what makes you think you can understand nature?
that is the difference between formal sciences like math or philosophy and natural sciences. The limited portion of nature around us shape our logic which may not be enough to have a good perspective on the other aspects of nature. Imagination starts with accepting that there might be a problem with even the simplest logical rules. If A implies B, then Not B implies not A. How did that simple logic arise and how are we sure that holds everywhere
The thing about natural sciences, is that they rely on the formal sciences of philosophy and math. We use philsoophy to justify our perception and ability to quantify this information to be valid, and we use math to quantify the observations we make mathematically.
Nature does not change our logic, instead our logic shapes our perception of nature. We perceieve things, and through logic we make inferences, you have a cofnused view of what logic is.
Furthermore, there are no problem with rules in logic. When Einstein spoke about imagination, he was referring to common sense, not logic. These are two different things. Logic is used to find if what you're perceiving is valid or not, common sense is what you would expect, two way different things.
Also, what you stated is not a rule of logic, I don't even know where you got this? This is classified as a logical fallacy, not logic itself...
If A implies B, then not B implies not A. if A and B are negatable statements, all i am doing is taking the contrapositive. what is wrong with that? The point is logic is our only tool to understand nature and nature is anything we might or might not attempt to understand, including logic itself. Logic is natural and it interacts with the rest of the nature or even maybe with itself.
Wow,,, I am impress!!! That you educated people take the time to disprove something that you call foolishness... How important must it be to you,,, to take up time to disprove it... Faith is not a science,,, Faith is believing in what you don't see so keep on trying... Good Luck because you will need it....
(2.) That would make our whole lives, families, and communities nothing more than a daydream of God. We would have never become real
But, God loved US so much that He wanted to make us real to bring us into His reality..Now that would cost Him. He would Himself, be made in the likeness of the sinful man, be brutally murdered, by mankind, and TAKE HIMSELF THE punishment that God requires for the sin of rebellion.
(1.) It didnt cost God anything to create all of the universe. He made it with His words. Nothing is either harder or easier for Him. He could have done it for His own entertainment. When the poison of rebellious sin entered His creation, He could have let everyone just die, let the sun go out, snuff out Satan and gone on with being God and still been just. It would be exactly as though nothing ever happened.. Just as though we never existed.
Well, it's nice to know you're capable of reading man-made books that were written before the discoveries of dinosaur fossils and the laws of physics. Anything else you want to recite for no reason?
The book was written before we had proof that atoms existed, but they still existed. Before we had proof that black holes existed, but they still existed.
Age has no bearing,, the sun is old and I don't hear you say, I' don't believe in the sun anymore, that is to "old"
God existes even though we don't have empirical data prove that HE does, but you contend that we have all the information that will ever be available and therefore can prove that He doesn't exist?
"God existes even though we don't have empirical data prove that HE does"
If you admit you don't have proof, why are you claiming it exists in the first place?
" but you contend that we have all the information that will ever be available"
No I didn't.
"and therefore can prove that He doesn't exist?"
You know the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody, right? Someone claims the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster, and they ask YOU to prove it doesn't exist. See how dumb you sound?
Admitting that there is no empirical proof for God is a necessity by definition. God by definition is incorporeal, but if we apply God to a philosophical scientific confirmation theory, then he does exist and there is evidence.
This is irrelevant, and would take more than 500 characters to explain, but claims for existance don't soley rely on a posteriori reasoning, you can now God exists a priori, without experience or perception. and that is locotiger's point ( I think).
@yeshua4U Proving a negative is essentially impossible. That's the reason people feel they have to prove something before believing in it. Otherwise I might as well believe a homosexual neon yellow spec of unicorn dust created the universe.
I should never be drawn into these conversations. I know better... I really don't want anyone to "perish", and I think that I can help you, if I just explain it a bit better, but I can't.
The Word of God says
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
but it also says: .....whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
"whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. "
I don't want to be rude to you, but are you incapable of grasping the notion that those who don't think the bible is any more real than Harry Potter are not going to believe they need to be saved from something?
Yeshua4U,,,,, Only those who are his children recognize God,,,,There is sheep and there is goats,,,,, seek those who want to be save and don't waste your time on goats....... because that is all you are doing...... God Bless
look, your not looking into it. if u look at it like that and with that kind of attitude, then u can make anything seem stupid. i wonder... why do you try to fight against us? wouldn't your time be better spent elsewhere? i want you to answer this. what makes you fight us rather than someone that deserves to be stopped. Think, if you were to put that clever little brain of yours to use, then what could you acomplish?
MadeUThink. Thank you for all of the videos, I have just suscribed to you and hope you upload more of them. I believed in God for years, but oddly never felt better about things, or had any inner peace from the religion. In fact, I was more stressed out about life because I kept expecting some fictional character to step in and save me, like he promised to do. So when I had a crisis of faith earlier this year, I gave up God, then started watching things like this, and finally these videos...
... made me really think about the things I had believed. Since giving up religion, my life is still not where I want it to be, but it hasn't gotten any worse either. In fact, it is pretty much the exact same. And it's funny, it's the people that claim to believe in God that hurt me and cause me the most grief in my life.
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
Agreed, but it's not anything like the mass media or government controlled commissions who continuously spam the citizens with what they want them to believe, right?
study the bible before making fun of it when ur suffering in hell i shall laugh but i wont because Then i will be perfect in heaven i fell srry for you friend
I have read the bible, I was forced to go to church by my parents. And I will not suffer in a 'hell' because there isn't one. If you truly believe it, and what it contains then give me proof of the existence of a god. I will have my heart open for a god to give me guidance if there truly was one.
my dad and mum and older brothers are atheists and i am a theist ,after 37 yrs! Was never encouraged to attend church and i go every week now (if possible) I Thank God for every day as you know our days are running fast and you may get to meet him sooner than you think.God bless ! and dont give up your God.
There is no hell, and who are you to judge others? Isn't that hypocritical? When you die, Nothing happens, You just stop living and the world goes on without you.
@slapinskiProductions It's good to see that your getting off on the right foot.
gateman42 5 months ago
Now I like how you exposed those 9/11 Truther idiots for what they are but I am going to have to disagree with you on Christianity...
ajsaccount1991 6 months ago
I LOVE IT! TY! TY! TY! BAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA LMBO OOO ME OO MY! WHAT EVEN MAKES IT BETTER IS THE COMMENTS! GREEAAAATTTT WORK BUDDY! sry for all the caps Im just exited. your video cheered me up!
livexxxtreme 7 months ago
@slapinskiProductions honestly, i rather be strong in a belief rather than be confused. good luck kid
JamaJuice46 8 months ago
@JamaJuice46 Honestly, I'd rather that you go back to school and this time pay some more attention... especially on spelling, English grammar, biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, logic...
neshereagle 4 months ago
@slapinskiProductions lol. expansion? thats not a scientific term. evolution is not proven. that is why it's a theory. the big bang theory claims that it created the universe in one big bang, do you even know what the theory is....? and iron doesnt create magnetic fields dumbass stop reading comic books lol
JamaJuice46 8 months ago
@JamaJuice46 The earth has an iron core that creates a magnetic field!!! So clearly your the dumbass. It would seem that Kleenex got the best of you! Your part of the problem.
gateman42 5 months ago
@JamaJuice46 I say that the level of intelligence of a commentator is best judged by his ability to spell correctly. And, evolution IS PROVED, my friend! We just don't know how it works. That is why it's a theory. Let me educate you on the meaning of the word "theory" : gravitation is also a theory. We know that it exists, but we don't know yet how it works. That's why it's a theory. If you say it's a theory because it's not proven, then I dare you to jump off your rooftop. ;-)
neshereagle 4 months ago
@neshereagle gravitation is not proven in space. don't generalize it within Earth. the theory of evolution are "educated" guesses from scientists who are biased, which is within every experiment. the only thing that is valid would be the fact that creatures are able to adapt, but its impossible to change into a totally different creature. even monkeys and humans is far-fetched.
JamaJuice46 3 months ago
@JamaJuice46 O.K. mate, it is clear now that you were sleeping or daydreaming during biology classes. Or worst yet, you went to one of these "schools" in Texas where they teach biology without mentioning anything about evolution (which is like teaching chemistry without mentioning the atoms, or teaching mathematics without mentioning the numbers). Your knowledge of physics is also lamentable. How do you think the planets revolve around the Sun if there's no gravitation in space?
neshereagle 3 months ago
@neshereagle first off, im not your "mate". and don't reference anything about high school education to me cause i won't accept it as legit. ask any college professor or REAL ones about the relationship between quantum-physics and gravitation in space and come back to me. stupid kid.
JamaJuice46 3 months ago
@JamaJuice46 If you don't want to learn anything else, at least learn how to speak and spell your own language! You imbecile with a brain of a twelve year old and a mentality of a person from the Dark Ages! You think I need to ask any one about quantum physics? I live in Geneva, Switzerland mate, and CERN is my second home! What are you blabbering about here? Throw away your computer and cell phone, dress up in a gown and go live in a desert with the goats. You christian version of a taliban!
neshereagle 3 months ago
@neshereagle your ignorance and trolling speaks for itself. blah.
JamaJuice46 3 months ago
ATHEISM IS A FAITH BASED BELIEFS SYSTEM
TheEots 8 months ago
Wow For you destroying Jesus rights you have a good place in hell but dont worry ill prey for you
MegaBizzar 9 months ago
If any of us nowadays went about telling people that we heard voices telling us to lay down laws for mankind to obey without question, the next stop would be the funny farm for a shot of largactil up the jacksie.
ThomasTrue 9 months ago
I just don't believe in disrespecting what another person believes.
thisizn8 9 months ago
Ridiculous religious delusions deserve no respect. Gods are imaginary.
ndrthrdr1 10 months ago
No that's not what I'm trying to tell you
BoomerB29 10 months ago
@pokerrob20 You're going to go with the bombardier beetle argument? Really? Even though it's been thoroughly refuted time and time again? Even though the only thing it proves is that you're either woefully misinformed about the process of evolution or are deliberately misrepresenting it to justify your superstitions? Are you sure you want to go with that?
anuntakenname 11 months ago
No, it's not okay to have a religion anymore. It's poison and it needs to stop. It's like stopping a child from sucking their thumb. At some point it needs to stop for the benefit of the individual. Even if people believe in the privacy of their own homes, the religion virus will just lie dormant and reactivate later. However, I do not endorse forcing people to stop worshiping. I endorse a more rigorous education initiative that allows people to stop believing on their own with logic and reason.
trekgeek1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PeacefulAtheist123 ok my misspelling friend lets entertain that comment " the definiton of zombie is somebody that becomes a life after his death Jezus is a zombie" WOW so if what your saying is correct then every mythical creature that has... become a life after his death...lmao... is a zombie, ok in that case then... Vampire = Zombie, Ghost = Zombie, Mummy = Zombie and so on and so forth now u can believe what u wanna believe but just because u believe it doesn't make it true get it lol
nyce611 1 year ago
@bigreddawg91 Look that's wrong religion has caused many wars and many lives have been lost so there should be n religion since it is just causeing pain and fear...
musicResistances 1 year ago
ok first off Jesus was not a zombie, Zombie's are resurrected humans or other living organisms that eat live fleash. Zombies cannot communicate clearly (mostly groan) and are sometimes summoned by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose. So to even equate Jesus with a zombie shows lack of respect, mocking what the other person believes. If you, yourself would not give another person the time of day for mocking what you believe then why spead it on and mock millions of people.
nyce611 1 year ago
@nyce611 HAHAHAHAHA!!! That is by far, the funniest response I've ever gotten off my videos. Someone actually took the time to explain the difference between undead people who eat flesh, and undead people with magic powers who deserve our respect because old people said so.
MadeUThink 1 year ago 6
@MadeUThink Wow really that's the funniest response you've ever gotten...niceee glad to entertain. My point was that when you resort to ridicule you muffle your main point which ultimately i agree with the bible is just a book with a lot of off the wall stories that back then made sense because human beings are fearful and superstitions but to change the way people think you must show them that its ok to be wrong that there not stupid just misguided
nyce611 1 year ago
@MadeUThink "Someone actually took the time to explain the difference between undead people who eat flesh, and undead people with magic powers who deserve our respect because old people said so." Talking about putting words in my mouth, never said they deserve our respect because old people said so. However i do believe that if you want to get across a point you should show a little respect for the other persons belief or else your wasting your time unless all u wanna do is piss people off
nyce611 1 year ago
@nyce611 The definition of "zombie" says nothing about diet or communication. It simply says that a zombie is a dead body resurrected by a supernatural force. There are fictional stories where zombies don't eat flesh and others where they communicate just fine. Based on the stories of Jesus, the definition applies. Calling Jesus a "zombie" is not about disrespect. It is an issue of terminology. Ridiculous beliefs will be ridiculed. It's what occurs when a free speech society makes improvements.
AntiTheistAtheist 1 year ago
@AntiTheistAtheist i would love to know were u get your definition of zombie from cuz its not the dictionary. and yes i agree ridiculous beliefs will be ridiculed however who's to say whats ridiculous and whats normal for the most part these are subjective terms whats ridiculous might be normal to me so instead of jumping to ridicule why not actually have a civil discussion were you bring facts and logic not sideways definitions of what u believe is the case. sad thing is i'm an agnostic smh
nyce611 1 year ago
@nyce611 zombie n. 1. originally a snake deity of or deriving from West Africa and Haiti. 2. a soulless corpse said to be revived by witchcraft. 3. a tall mixed drink consisting of several kinds of rum, liqueur, and fruit juice. (The New Oxford American Dictionary 2nd Edition)
Obviously, we would use the second definition considering witchcraft is one of the many examples of supernatural forces. Myths like the resurrection of Jesus are great in fiction, but have no place in rational discourse.
AntiTheistAtheist 11 months ago
@nyce611 I don't bring *sideways definitions" into my arguments. I do have civil discussions. Alas, logic shows no mercy. If you bring a ridiculous point to the table then I will treat it with ridicule. Not you, but the point. Very lightly and playfully at first (everyone makes mistakes), but if you persist with your ridiculous ways (charlatans) then my ridicule will turn into firm derisiveness at you. You must earn my respect. You seem to act as if beliefs should get it by default. They don't.
AntiTheistAtheist 11 months ago
@nyce611 "to even equate Jesus with a zombie shows lack of respect, mocking what the other person believes"
My, you ARE quick, aren't you?
paulbottomley42 11 months ago
@nyce611 You don't respect our opinion and mock us, now the shoe is on the other foot! Anybody that believes the shit that you believe in deserves to be MOCKED! You lost your humanity. And jesus is a Zombie!
gateman42 5 months ago
@nyce611 Your knowledge of the nature of zombies is impressive, but your spelling abilities are lamentable. But that aside, tell me honestly what do you and the other millions like you think of other religions (judaism, islam, budism, hinduism etc.) ... don't you mock them? Don't you offend them deeply when you say that you are a true believer and they are wrong? There are billions of them, you know... and they also feel the same about your religion. You are nothing but hypocrites. All of you.
neshereagle 4 months ago
@bigreddawg91 LMAO THAT my friend is GREAT STUFF indeed
pythor2 1 year ago
see you in hell!! , oh wait, no i wont, because i wont be there
anyonebutObama2012 1 year ago
@anyonebutObama2012 and i suspect neither will he...
admiralct 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Flagged as hate speech...
dex1391 1 year ago
@MadeUThink - Yes, except not all scientist are conspiracists. Only the ones saying we were created by a big boom that happened 2 billion years ago while the it is "proven" that the Earth is much older. Even scientists are hard to believe.
Zethioth 1 year ago
actually a lot of scientists believe in God it's just that you don't hear them because they're censored and have their assets frozen by moronic atheists who can't seem to understand that their "theory" is a worthless fairy tale that has more evidence to prove it wrong than a fairy tale saying that your pecker will fall off if you scratch your armpits. Seriously, atheists? Grow a brain stem. Please.
leftbehind1018 1 year ago
@MadeUThink so you're saying a bang that came from an imaginary firecracker had enough energy to create billions of stars and planets and then an insignificant particle hitched a ride on the back of a asteroid, landed on earth, formed the atmosphere, swam in a pool of mud and shit for a few more million years, then that mud formed into a fish, then into reptile, then mammal? and this was by ALL CHANCE? just wondering :)
JamaJuice46 1 year ago
@JamaJuice46 No. I'm not saying that, and neither are scientists. Read a book.
MadeUThink 1 year ago 10
@MadeUThink watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein. you go read any middle/high school science books. and my question sounds a lot funnier than yours :)
JamaJuice46 1 year ago
@MadeUThink actually that's the clay-life theory in a nutshell. get a brain.
leftbehind1018 1 year ago
@MadeUThink Hey, I really likes your video about 9/11, I am glad that I found someone who believes that 9/11 wasn't cause by our Government.
But, why are you bashing a religion? We know the intentions of this video. I am a Christian because I believe in doing good for others, I look forward to something after death, not just lying in a grave.. I know their is a lot that questions religion, but why do it? It's a personal choice.
And at your comment. I did read a book by scientist. The Big Bang.
Zethioth 1 year ago
@MadeUThink Oh, and I still like your video and I am going to make it the Video on my Channel.
I still don't understand why people have to challenge my religion, I know their are a lot of questions, I just like believing in helping people, their are a lot of verses in the Bible which are really good that people should here that will only make them better. It's not like my religion says, "In order to get to heaven, you must kill all who oppose me!!!"
Zethioth 1 year ago
@Zethioth You don't need the bible to be a good person. And you shouldn't be persuaded to act good because of an imaginary place of damnation.
TennisGvy 1 year ago
@TennisGvy You see, you didn't take in account anything I said. Why can't you just let me believe in what I want to believe in. Did I say you need the bible to be a good person? No, I did not. I don't act good just so I can go to heaven, I act good because it is the right thing to do and because most of other people do not. Something I learned from reading the bible.
Zethioth 1 year ago
@Zethioth I reluctantly allow you to believe in what you do. I thank you for having a flashing sign that says "idiot" over your head so I don't mistakenly associate with you. The strife it causes from believing in religion (even when admittedly you don't need to) is very real and very widespread.
TennisGvy 1 year ago
@TennisGvy Thank you for your lack of maturity. I now know I cannot win an argument with you, therefore, any response you state will most likely be the last of it.
Who said you have to believe in religion? Again, something you are pulling from thin air.
Zethioth 1 year ago
@Zethioth Nobody said you have to believe in religion. I didn't even say that. Wtf are you talking about? The point is that you don't have to believe in religion to be a good person (something you associate with the bible) so that makes the bible unnecessary. You are essentially agreeing with me so no there is no way you can win an argument when you are forfeiting, duh.
TennisGvy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TennisGvy This response is to state that I am not agreeing with you.
PS - Again!! I never said you had to believe in a religion to be a good person! That is what I said in my second last post!
-"Did I say you need the bible to be a good person? No, I did not."
Zethioth 1 year ago
@MadeUThink ACTUALLY, Jama's description is so close to reality that i suspected that they were being sarcastic (pretending to be an upset christian) but really does know that the firecracker scenario is how it happened, and was describing our history in a mocking way. Jama Juice, this MUST be what you mean, correct?
admiralct 1 year ago
@JamaJuice46 its the same as we us humans come from a sperm and egg that is so small you sant see with a microscope
1littlelee 1 year ago
@JamaJuice46 well since the whole bing bang thing seems unthinkable to you, let me ask you this : if you dont believe in evolution because you cant asnwer the questions '' what was there first? who or what made it happen? how can something comes out of nothing?'' well then ask yourself this : if god created everything, who created god?.. I mean, there must have been something before him..no? or did God...came out of nothing?
fbaumans 1 year ago
@fbaumans well you tell me who or what is a "god"? everyone has their own definition.
JamaJuice46 1 year ago
@JamaJuice46 Don't wonder. Just go to school instead. :-)
neshereagle 4 months ago
5 stars for an excellent précis of the Christian message.
I hope you enjoy my "God's Love Letter."
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
@Imaginefree69 u must have gone to harvard
darkmeaaster 1 year ago
No matter how many times I hear it, I don't think it will ever get old.
BioFan1000xMK2 2 years ago
No it isn't what we're telling you, very vague and an appeal toridicule fallacy at least, but fair game:
"I had rather believe all the Fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a Mind. " (on Atheism)
~Francis Bacon (yeah the father of the scientific method)
I totally agree with him, but in a modern sense, I rather believe in a flying spaghetti monster than the irrational Atheistic worldview.
ogirv101 2 years ago
if any creationist talks about the weak points of the Evolution theory, I want to hear what they think about the rest and how God follows from scientific arguments. And when I say scientific, I mean SCIENTIFIC
alperduru 2 years ago
Newton made fundamental errors but his theory was not thrown away but modified and improved in a way to account for its discrepancies because, together with predictions contradictory to experiments, it explains a lot of observed phenomena. That life might have originated from natural processes alone has definitely enough support to be hypothesized and investigated further. The theory may not be perfect now but there is definitely enough evidence to be seriously question "God".
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
newton did not make fundamental errors, his theory of gravitation explained gravity at a macrsocopiv level and at low speeds, it was Einstein who worked off this theory to make formulate a new extension of it to fit the precision in calculating gravity at much smaller and faster movement of matter (special) and of a more massive in (general). So Newton wasn't flawed, just not accurate, but Newton did create the foundation for all of science to draw from, that's special (lol).
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
the fundamental error Newton made is his deterministic approach which has nothing to do with gravity in particular. by the way, there is no theory of gravity for miscroscopic phenomena and which has firm experimental evidence. gravity is completely negligible in the subatomic and in particular subnuclear regime. Also Einstein's theory fails at very large distances, too. There are a lot of cosmological observations which cannot be understood within general theory of relativity.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
there is nothign wrong with a deterministic approach, in fact most of classical and macroscopic dynamic frameworks are deterministic, with some exceptions like the globe of indeterminancy, but that wasn't flawed per se.
Yes, Gravity has such a tiny effect on subatomic or quantum level, but it still there, and I never said Einstein's theory was precise to all points, but that is why we're making a unification of physics, as an extension of Newton's work not his failure...
ogirv101 2 years ago
Comment removed
alperduru 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I can't believe there is no problem with deterministic approach. check Bell's '64 paper and the following experiments. Basically it says that locality and reality cannot exist together which is very fundamental. this was an important part of my studies. My point is not that Newton is not a great physicist. he made mistakes like any other scientist and some of them are unfortunately crucial but he undoubtedly is a great scientist.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
No, I have states already that at a macroscopic level and in classical mechanics (except in some exceptions) there is nothing wrong with determinancy, Bell's experiments were to refute Einstein's principle that determinancy played a key role in quantum mechanics not just classical mechanics. So irrelevent point, there is nothing wrong with determinancy in classical mechanics and at a macrscopic scale, you're talking about a subatomic scale.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Yes, Newton did make mistakes, for example his theory on corpuscular light, whih stated that light is a particle, which is slighlty true if ti weren't for the fact that electromagnetic radation holds wave-particle dualism.
What I'm saying is that his equations don't have mistakes, it just doesn't account for things, and an extension to his theory was made, not that his theory was flawed, in fact they still use his theories in NASA today.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
dark matter and dark energy are still mysteries. even assuming Einstein solved the problem of gravity, theories for microscopic phenomena cannot be combined with gravity. I mean nobody knows a way of quantizing in curved spacetime. It is solely the mathematical elegance theories like string theory, M theory possess that makes them promising but this is obviously not a scientific argument
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Dark matter and energy are mysteries, but I would wholyl disagree with membrane theory. I do agree that the TOE will solve our problems in phsyics by creating a more precise account for what is, which would just be an extension of Newton's foundations which started science in the late 1600's. I just doubt membrane theory is even correct, it's moe like theoritical nonsense than actual science, but there will be a TOE, but it was all thanks to Newton.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
there is(at least indirect) evidence that no intelligent human being can ignore about evolution theory. it has significant successfull predictions. repeating myself, it is true that the theory has inadequacies but at least it falls into the category of claims that can be falsified or supported by evidence. like Newton's approach towards why things are the way they are were questioned and improved in time, evolution theory is also a theory which is worth working on. that was my point.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Abiogenesis is a logical necessity, even for Christians, unless there ar ehighly mythological Christians who interpret Genesis as a mythical sotry rather an an ethical and spiritual story. Also, how does abiogenesis lead you to question God's existance, how does evolution make you queston God's existance? Wasn't darwin the one who said:
"It is absurd to doubt that an ardent Theist can be an evolutionist as well"
You can't question God scientifically...
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
the thing I am having a hard time understanding is what makes Bible different from, say, Greek mythology if you have no way falsifying or proving either of these scientifically. Similarly one can believe in the wonderland Alice traveled once. What makes Bible special? Three big belief systems originated from the same relatively small piece of land and during a relatively short interval of time, compared to all habitats and whole history of mankind, and they are strikingly similar.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
What do you consider the Bible first of all? Do you consider it to be a spiritual book, or a book of science meant to be taken as science and explaining the physical Universe? If you think it's a book of science, you're incorrect, it's a spiritual book on the moral objectivity of ethics, it's philosophy not science.
Greeks were polytheists, Jews monotheists, there is a big difference, and what you're asking would be equivelant to asking why Atheism and not Deism.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
anybody who has some familiarity with science will immediately notice that Bible cannot have anything to do with science. More obviously, it shouldn't be used as an ethical guide. There are verses advocating incest, raping, stoning adulterers to death, ... etc. I cannot imagine my kid reading such things on her own. Some say this is done indirectly but that is already dangerous enough. It also prohibits stealing,... but there are many other healthier ways to teach these ethics.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Yeah, no duh, the Bible is a book on spirituality and ethics, maybe people haven't been reading their bible and ratherjust making claims. I'm sorry but you're 2,000 years late on that.
Also, why shouldn't it be used as an ethical guide, that's why it was written. The verses you mention have nothing to do with Christianity, if you're referring to the Bible, read the NT and stop being ignorant.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I agree with that Bible imposes ethics on the followers. What I say is some of these should be censored.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Yes, you an falsify greek mythology through science, because greek mythology holds that nature are gods, which we have seen to be untrue, they are not gods and anthropomorphic pantheons, rather natural occurences in the Universe. The judeo/Christian God cannot be disproven scientifically because it holds that God is not part of nature, rather God created nature, which is wholly different from pantheonic religions.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I am talking about Bible as a whole together with everything mentioned about God. There are a lot of explicit descriptions, specific events pertaining to God. Just a single example: how do you explain nylon eating bacteria compatible with God having created life? Is he still going on creating new organisms?
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Also, what other healthy ways to teach ethics? Oh yeah, moral relativism? Ethical egoism? Or what other atheistic irrational moralities are you speaking of? Morality is a non-existant in the naturalsit worldview.
Also, if I sound grumpy or like an asshole, please forgive me, I'm very angry at the moment, I'm not trying to be, other discussions are making me behave this way...
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Egyptians, Greeks has social regulations. Babylonians had codes like "If someone hits another, he pays some gold". There was even a higher court for objections and if an enforcer had made a mistake, they could lose their jobs. These are written documents, not anthropological extrapolations. no need to say they have no idea about Jesus. There are neanderthal remains with broken but healed bones so they took care of their injured. Even chimps clean each other
alperduru 2 years ago
@ogirv101
coming back to nylon eating bacteria, these organisms eat a certain industrial waste which is synthetically produced for at most a century. They process it, extract energy, create excess products, get rid of it. they migrate towards food(nylon) and reproduce. That to me means that God is still working on creation.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
let me point something out, I never claimed that man is immoral nor that he is by nature immoral. In fact, Christianity's principles are that God endowed morality to humanity through nature, regardless of any religious view or mindsets before it. Maybe we should read Genesis a little more like an allegorized story than a literal mythological story, you'll find what I'm talking about.
I'm not arguing about the origin of ethics, rather the reasons for following it.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@alperduru:
If all ethics is, is rules made by mankind, through meaningless adaptive forces of evolutionary processes, why follow it? While, ifthere is a God who endowed to you ethics through natural pemenonen not limited to evolution, then there is a reason for following regardless of its methods of origins.
also on Nylon, I don't disagree with evolution, but I think I know where you're getting at, what do you exactly imply here?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
If I got you right, you say there are explanations based on natural phenomena for life, galaxies, human behavior, ... but these natural phenomena occur because some supernatural agent told nature to do so. You even say evolution does not contradict with creation. Is that what you are saying or did I get you wrong? I have to push too much my understanding of God(which I don't believe in). I don't think this is Christianity but is some other form of spiritualism.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Yes, you have it right. Though they are naturally occuring, essentially they have a purpose external to us. This is less of a scientific deduction and more of a philsoophical deduction. I also like taht you're spiritual, I have one more question for you, do you believe in free-will and body-mind dualism?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
All I say about the nylon eating bacteria is that this fact supports evolution. there are other examples, too, like parasites building resistance through mutation and natural selection which force us to deal with new stronger life forms. I am saying that creation must still be going on today if it is really God behind all forms of life.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Yeah, I agree with evolution, but I like the traditional proofs like genetic similarities and homlogous structures. I'm a Panentheistic Christian, the same theological belief about God as Einstein. Einstein believed nature was part of God, but God was a distinct being. Except in ym belief, God plays a role with humanity, less deistic than Einstein's God.
Note that Einstein said the primary function of science is to find the cosmic religious feeling.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@alperduru:
He said of the cosmic religious feeling, that it was meaningless unless it didn't produce a definate notion of God and actual Theology. Theoloy not mutual to religions as we thing of it today. I like this about Einstein because he brings the theological discussion not between Theists, but to panentheists, Deists, and in some sense spiritual Atheists like yourself.
Einstein was against free will and body-mind dualism, so what do you think?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
if there is a natural explanation which does not involve anything supernatural, I prefer to avoid supernatural stuff. We are far from reaching that point but I hope we are on the right track. It is very interesting to talk to a Christian who believes in evolution. I am sorry I don't have too much idea about dualism and free will. In my opinion, we evolved, have one life here on Earth, will decompose after we are buried and that is all it is.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
So you have down some basic beliefs, but do you believe that what you do here on earth is a product of YOU or are you just a pawn of nature? Is the nature that gave you this stately, but temporary, life allow you to have free will?
In other words, actions are a product of your mind, is your mind material like your body and therefore subject to natural law? Or is your mind independent of nature and allowed to have actual choice?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
we are a bunch of C, N, O, H and some other atoms and so is our brain. Anything going on in our body including ideas, feelings, emotions must be able to be explained with physical laws. I don't know too much about neuroscience or psychiatry
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
You don't have to know too much about neuroscience (I'm not to happy about psychology, it's mainly based off assertions of human behavior, but humans behave subjectively not in an objective manner).
So in your philosophical worldview, the body and mind are one? If this is true, then all of our actions are caused by nature not by our will, so why then punish others for doing 'bad' things if nature caused the to do so?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
i don't think our will and nature are independent. our wills are themselves natural events. we do whatever naturally follows from what we naturally are. all we do are natural phenomena. we have no obvious reason for adding an independent actor to describe why we act the way we act.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
So you're saying that human will is caused by natural occurences, if they are, then that means nature is responsible for our actions, not necessarily us. So that means when we prosecute criminals, it was not because the criminal had the will to do the crime, rather because nature naturally made the criminal will they way he did, so he is not responsible because nature caused his will. The destruction of law and ethics has been destroyed by that just there...
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
i don't think our will is something supernatural. if we are trying to promote certain actions and discourage others, that is because this is what follows nature. everything going on is within one nature.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Going off this, is body and mind are one, then that means all the mind is (all of our knowledge, reasoning, and beliefs) are also a product of nature. In the sense of the human body, more to biological and evolutionary processes. Evolution accounts for your survival, and survival doesn't necssitate knowing truth, rather just survival.
If Evolution is true, and so is your philosophical belief, why should logic and reason be trusted?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Your mind, is not actual thinking, rather chemical reactions which biologically are used to survive, and doesn't necessitate that your beliefs be true or that logic and reason be trusted.
If you take body and mind as seperate, then the mind isn't limited to nature, and avoids all the problems you face. And since we know that it is utterly contradictory to deny logic and reason to be false, then why assume body-mind unity?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
even logic I guess follows from evolution. We learn what makes sense based on what we experience. I think physics is something that makes us encounter what we usually encounter and challenges our logic. What Einstein meant by the word imagination is I guess opening ourselves to new experiences where the usual laws of logic are not enough.
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Also, I don't think you have a proper definition of logic, logic (epistemic logic) is the analytical system of finding the valdiity of truth. It works with reason to find if a philsoohpical argument follows, if it follows the the three c's of philosophical analyses, then it's true deductively.
What I'm saying is that evolution, if the mind is material, has no reason for allowing us to reach knowledge, wether it be a posteriori knowledge like experience, or a priori.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
I spent a lot of time on math, too. Most of mathematical texts use the concept of set and relies on the laws of logic. Set cannot be defined easily and there are a lot of logically subtle points in set theory. Basically math starts with undefined primitive objects and unquestioned facts just believed t be true. But these primitive concepts can be intuitively understood and the axioms are not hard to accept
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Yes, mathematics is deeply rooted in logic, but it is not all together rooted in logic. Some like Bertrand Russel have tried to do this, but the fact of the matter that there exist non-logical axioms makes mathematics an independent discipline of philsoophy, though mathematics and science both are rooted in philsoophy in the first place.
axioms by nature are intuitively known and should be accepted as self evident, the thing is that you can't prove them to be self-evident...
ogirv101 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Godel's incompleteness theorem states that one cannot produce evidence that logical or non-logical axioms are true, they just are true regardless of evidence. which might make some people who are evidentialist a bit skeptical, but the funny thing is that these skeptical people are mostly of a scientific mindset, and don't realize that science is based on axiom in epistemic logic, which cannot be proven to be true according to Godel's theorem.
ogirv101 2 years ago
"people who are evidentialist"?
That's a long-winded way to say "rational."
Education dissolves religion.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
No you dumbass. You obviously have no education in philosophy. If you apply extreme skepticism to evidentialism, it fails to the point where it's irrational.
In fact, all fundamental axioms cannot be proven by evidence. Look up Godel's theorem. This is why I will no longer reply to your response. No reason in wasting time with uneducated fools on youtube.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101 then point it out for us please
darkmeaaster 1 year ago
@ogirv101 It looks like you just spent 50 minutes ass deep in a thesaurus just to write that.
TennisGvy 1 year ago
@TennisGvy:
LMAO. thanks.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101
later we define new objects and state new claims. Nut this time the new objects must be unambiguously define assuming we have perfect understanding of our starting primitive notions and the new statements must be proven. The proofs rely on the truthfulness of our starting axioms, which we just accept, and also on the laws of logic. once a proof is constructed, everybody agrees whether it is legitimate of it has a logical flaw. that is amazing. Anybody agrees on this
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
So you're saying something is true because everyone just accepts it? That would be an argumentum ad populace, not necessarily true. Though I agree that we must accept axioms as true, you don't get the point. This view is only held because we assume our cognitive faculty is valid and able to have epsitemic knowledge between what we know and what we believe, the problem with this is that you're a naturalist, no reason for you to accept these cosnidering your philosophy.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101 no. what i say is, logic can only help deduce results once it takes a starting input. that is a big problem
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
What is wrogn with that? It is that you're using a false dillema fallacy, not A can mean more than on thing not just the opposite of A, and non B can also mean alot of things. furthermore, it at least follows the false dillema fallacy, it follows another fallacy but I can't quite put my finger on it.
So you're saying logic is observed in nature? Then my question is to you, what makes you think you can understand nature?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
that is the difference between formal sciences like math or philosophy and natural sciences. The limited portion of nature around us shape our logic which may not be enough to have a good perspective on the other aspects of nature. Imagination starts with accepting that there might be a problem with even the simplest logical rules. If A implies B, then Not B implies not A. How did that simple logic arise and how are we sure that holds everywhere
alperduru 2 years ago
@alperduru:
The thing about natural sciences, is that they rely on the formal sciences of philosophy and math. We use philsoophy to justify our perception and ability to quantify this information to be valid, and we use math to quantify the observations we make mathematically.
Nature does not change our logic, instead our logic shapes our perception of nature. We perceieve things, and through logic we make inferences, you have a cofnused view of what logic is.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@alperduru:
Furthermore, there are no problem with rules in logic. When Einstein spoke about imagination, he was referring to common sense, not logic. These are two different things. Logic is used to find if what you're perceiving is valid or not, common sense is what you would expect, two way different things.
Also, what you stated is not a rule of logic, I don't even know where you got this? This is classified as a logical fallacy, not logic itself...
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
If A implies B, then not B implies not A. if A and B are negatable statements, all i am doing is taking the contrapositive. what is wrong with that? The point is logic is our only tool to understand nature and nature is anything we might or might not attempt to understand, including logic itself. Logic is natural and it interacts with the rest of the nature or even maybe with itself.
alperduru 2 years ago
Yes. In different words that is what we are saying. God Bless You!
AsTheDaysOfNoahWere 2 years ago
Thanks. That's all we educated people really wanted to know.
MadeUThink 2 years ago
Wow,,, I am impress!!! That you educated people take the time to disprove something that you call foolishness... How important must it be to you,,, to take up time to disprove it... Faith is not a science,,, Faith is believing in what you don't see so keep on trying... Good Luck because you will need it....
locotiger 2 years ago
(3.) THAT COST GOD. HE HAD TO HAVE HIS ONLY SON MURDERED AND THEN TORTURED AND DROWN IN DEATH AND AGONY.
HE DID IT ON PURPOSE TO RESCUE US TO HIS PRESENCE.
BUT IT COST HIM!! WE MAY NEVER KNOW HOW MUCH.
Thank you Father for sending your Son, to take the bullet for me.
Its no wonder we loveYOU so much.
yeshua4U 2 years ago
@yeshua4U
(2.) That would make our whole lives, families, and communities nothing more than a daydream of God. We would have never become real
But, God loved US so much that He wanted to make us real to bring us into His reality..Now that would cost Him. He would Himself, be made in the likeness of the sinful man, be brutally murdered, by mankind, and TAKE HIMSELF THE punishment that God requires for the sin of rebellion.
yeshua4U 2 years ago
@yeshua4U
(1.) It didnt cost God anything to create all of the universe. He made it with His words. Nothing is either harder or easier for Him. He could have done it for His own entertainment. When the poison of rebellious sin entered His creation, He could have let everyone just die, let the sun go out, snuff out Satan and gone on with being God and still been just. It would be exactly as though nothing ever happened.. Just as though we never existed.
yeshua4U 2 years ago
Well, it's nice to know you're capable of reading man-made books that were written before the discoveries of dinosaur fossils and the laws of physics. Anything else you want to recite for no reason?
MadeUThink 2 years ago
@MadeUThink
The book was written before we had proof that atoms existed, but they still existed. Before we had proof that black holes existed, but they still existed.
Age has no bearing,, the sun is old and I don't hear you say, I' don't believe in the sun anymore, that is to "old"
God existes even though we don't have empirical data prove that HE does, but you contend that we have all the information that will ever be available and therefore can prove that He doesn't exist?
yeshua4U 2 years ago
"God existes even though we don't have empirical data prove that HE does"
If you admit you don't have proof, why are you claiming it exists in the first place?
" but you contend that we have all the information that will ever be available"
No I didn't.
"and therefore can prove that He doesn't exist?"
You know the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody, right? Someone claims the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster, and they ask YOU to prove it doesn't exist. See how dumb you sound?
MadeUThink 2 years ago
Can you see the wind? NO but you can see its effects...
GOD is LOVE,,, if you can see or feel LOVE then you seen or felt GOD ,,,,,,,,,
locotiger 2 years ago
@MadeUThink:
Admitting that there is no empirical proof for God is a necessity by definition. God by definition is incorporeal, but if we apply God to a philosophical scientific confirmation theory, then he does exist and there is evidence.
This is irrelevant, and would take more than 500 characters to explain, but claims for existance don't soley rely on a posteriori reasoning, you can now God exists a priori, without experience or perception. and that is locotiger's point ( I think).
ogirv101 2 years ago
@yeshua4U Proving a negative is essentially impossible. That's the reason people feel they have to prove something before believing in it. Otherwise I might as well believe a homosexual neon yellow spec of unicorn dust created the universe.
TennisGvy 1 year ago
@MadeUThink
I'm sorry, I should know better,
I should never be drawn into these conversations. I know better... I really don't want anyone to "perish", and I think that I can help you, if I just explain it a bit better, but I can't.
The Word of God says
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
but it also says: .....whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
yeshua4U 2 years ago
"whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. "
I don't want to be rude to you, but are you incapable of grasping the notion that those who don't think the bible is any more real than Harry Potter are not going to believe they need to be saved from something?
MadeUThink 2 years ago
Yeshua4U,,,,, Only those who are his children recognize God,,,,There is sheep and there is goats,,,,, seek those who want to be save and don't waste your time on goats....... because that is all you are doing...... God Bless
locotiger 2 years ago
@locotiger
Thank you, for your kindness. I am just being obedient to the command Jesus gave us....
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
I'm not responsible for results, only to be obedient.
He is not willing that one should perish. I don't mind looking like a fool in the eyes of some if even one is saved !
yeshua4U 2 years ago
You are doing great,,,, keep it up.... God Bless
locotiger 2 years ago
look, your not looking into it. if u look at it like that and with that kind of attitude, then u can make anything seem stupid. i wonder... why do you try to fight against us? wouldn't your time be better spent elsewhere? i want you to answer this. what makes you fight us rather than someone that deserves to be stopped. Think, if you were to put that clever little brain of yours to use, then what could you acomplish?
WillSeach 2 years ago
LOL well aren't you full of mockery and irony! Same as almost all the silly ones who decide to insult you.
LOL
Funneeey :P
Nekocyn 2 years ago
MadeUThink. Thank you for all of the videos, I have just suscribed to you and hope you upload more of them. I believed in God for years, but oddly never felt better about things, or had any inner peace from the religion. In fact, I was more stressed out about life because I kept expecting some fictional character to step in and save me, like he promised to do. So when I had a crisis of faith earlier this year, I gave up God, then started watching things like this, and finally these videos...
brch2 2 years ago
... made me really think about the things I had believed. Since giving up religion, my life is still not where I want it to be, but it hasn't gotten any worse either. In fact, it is pretty much the exact same. And it's funny, it's the people that claim to believe in God that hurt me and cause me the most grief in my life.
Keep up the work.
brch2 2 years ago
"You count it strange, so once did I. Until I knew my Savior"
agun214 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your a scumbag and you know absolutely nothing!
IL KNOCK YOU RIGHT OUT TRASHPILE!
MOTM47 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
Nice.
Bajrangwr 2 years ago
Whats the name of the song? I like the vid. Its such a shame that so many people are trained to believe this. Religion is such a powerful system.
1337cookie 2 years ago 2
"Insensatez" by Antonio Carlos Jobim
MadeUThink 2 years ago
"Religion is such a powerful system."
Agreed, but it's not anything like the mass media or government controlled commissions who continuously spam the citizens with what they want them to believe, right?
rubeeye127 2 years ago
Probably, I dont't watch television.
1337cookie 2 years ago
It's exactly the same. Hell, some religions were probably formed BY governments as a way of trying to control the masses back in the day.
brch2 2 years ago
A rose by any other name...
MadeUThink 2 years ago
I'm a Christian but the way you haven't written this makes absolutely no sense to me. You are making fun of my beliefs.
So my answer would be no, not the way it is worded here.
peanutplays 2 years ago
Can you word it to make sense, or are you just going to use different words that share the same definition?
MadeUThink 2 years ago
"different words that share the same definition?" not sure what you mean by that.
rib woman - a woman created from Adams rib
talking snake - meaning Satan
magical tree - tree of the knowledge of good and evil
peanutplays 2 years ago
LOL IT'S STILL RETARDED EITHER WAY!!!
shytophile 2 years ago 2
Agreed! Lol, Stupid christians, Myths are for kids!
Elodee123 2 years ago
Hi Elodee! You'll love my latest video "25 Questions for Bible Literalists"
MadeUThink 2 years ago
study the bible before making fun of it when ur suffering in hell i shall laugh but i wont because Then i will be perfect in heaven i fell srry for you friend
vain5 2 years ago
I have read the bible, I was forced to go to church by my parents. And I will not suffer in a 'hell' because there isn't one. If you truly believe it, and what it contains then give me proof of the existence of a god. I will have my heart open for a god to give me guidance if there truly was one.
Elodee123 2 years ago
my dad and mum and older brothers are atheists and i am a theist ,after 37 yrs! Was never encouraged to attend church and i go every week now (if possible) I Thank God for every day as you know our days are running fast and you may get to meet him sooner than you think.God bless ! and dont give up your God.
faz40 2 years ago
There is no hell, and who are you to judge others? Isn't that hypocritical? When you die, Nothing happens, You just stop living and the world goes on without you.
Elodee123 2 years ago
Sort of. It's an extension of a shirt that inspired the video. I'd credit the artist, but don't know how or who he/she is.
MadeUThink 2 years ago
I want a T-shirt of this.
Hmm.
Maybe half on the front and half on the back.
Great summary!
obsleet 2 years ago
Um, this IS a t-shirt on Cafepress.
Xurgonic 2 years ago