Sir, your argument lacks any sort of intelligible sense. More than likely this is the result of some mental exercise you were bouncing around that sounded better in your head than how it came out.
I mean, are you trying to suggest that there would be no consistent natural laws without a God?
@FrankLightheart Be specific as to what you think lacks intelligible sense and on what basis. There would be no existence for there to even be laws in, without God.
@1tmoch That. How can you claim laws and/or existence can't be without a god? Do you have ANYTHING to base that assertion on?
Because I can just as easily turn that around and say consistent natural laws wouldn't exist WITH a god present. Such a being would be able to break those laws at a whim, rendering natural laws useless. Only when there is no god would natural laws make any sense because it would be the only influence on existence.
@FrankLightheart Matter is contingent, and cannot be eternal, unless you want to throw the 1st and 2nd laws out the window. There is no such thing as a "natural law" that operates outside of God's control. Yes, things could flip on their head tomorrow, but God has promised to keep regularity within the universe, so that we can rely upon scientific inquiry. Random happenings of molecules clashing however do not provide an arena for science to be intelligible.
@1tmoch See, but the problem is that you're just saying that. You're simply stating that matter cannot be eternal, that God controls natural laws, that he promised to keep the universe in order, that matter can't form patterns over time. You can't prove any of it, yet you're stating it as fact. You can't do that with science and have any credibility. You need to be able to make falsifiable claims and test them for accuracy. Otherwise, you're just preaching and I'm not swayed by that.
@FrankLightheart That's all you or anyone else is doing as well. I'm not persuaded by your preaching either. Your epistemology of elevating empiricism as king is not established, and certainly not empirically so. Your whole foundation for even discussing, expecting regularity, trusting your senses, etc, cannot be trustworthy, authoritative, or justified on your worldview. This is at least a start in validating my worldview, by shaving off some of the possibilities (yours and a few others).
@1tmoch You are being completely ridiculous. You're sitting there demanding ridiculous amounts of proof for established theories such evolution and the big bang and denying or outright ignoring actual proof for no other reason than because you don't like the theories for religious reasons. All while sitting on a position that has NO proof and actually quite a bit of evidence against it.
I mean, you're allowed to believe what you want, but can't you see the hypocrisy just a little bit?
@FrankLightheart If "established" is that which is based off of fallacious claims and hypothesis only, then i guess i'm being ridiculous. I heard all the supposed "proof" that you think i'm ignoring. Actually, if i were an atheist, i would still not buy into the ridiculousness of evolution. No, wrong again. I have all the proof in the world, and none goes against God. I have over 350 videos. I cover much of this. I'm not hypocritical, i'm just right.
@1tmoch Alright then, can you give me some of your proof? Can you show me where we can find the influence of God or really any god that natural processes can't account for? Maybe you can tell me something I haven't already heard a hundred times.
@FrankLightheart "Natural processes" don't and can't account for anything. They, themselves need to be accounted for. As i said, i've got plenty of videosl. Education is a keystroke away.
@1tmoch Yes, natural processes CAN be accounted for because they follow patterns that can be discovered, studied, tested, and understood. That's the whole point. That's how we invent technologies. If the study of aerodynamics couldn't be accounted for, we wouldn't be able to build planes that travel through the sky. If there was no natural process for evolution, we wouldn't be able to produce vaccines. I don't know HOW you can assert this outrageous claim. We rely on science because it WORKS.
@FrankLightheart You are misunderstanding me. "Natural processes" are just things that happen. Certain of these processes might help explain certain other processes, but it itself needs to be accounted for. This goes back so far to the point that what....everything came from nothing, or matter being eternal? BTW, vaccines development has nothing to do with understanding the hypothesis of evolution. Giving attenuated forms of the bacteria to hopefully develop auto immunity is non sequitur.
@1tmoch Lastly, "science" doesn't "work." It is a method that scientists can use. The interpretation of certain data points can be erroneous, or accurate. Only where God is sovereignly in control and promised to maintain regularity in the universe can there be a viable platform by which to expect uniformity in nature. Inductive inference only works on my presuppositions, not one of random chance mutations and explosions. Christians laid the seed bed of modern science, and secularist took over.
@1tmoch Modern day flu shots and such are developed to try and keep up with diseases that are constantly mutating. Scientists understand that these organisms are evolving in reaction to the previous vaccines that were used. By understanding the process of evolution, they can better predict and prepare for what these diseases will do. Without our working model of how life changes, we would not be able to do that.
@FrankLightheart That bacteria becomes resistant to certain antibiotics is something that is completely understandable without any notions of Darwinian evolution in mind. All Christians believe in natural selection, but we understand there have been observed limits. The rest is a hypothesis story, irrelevant to any advance.
@1tmoch Well, that's a step in the right direction, at least. Natural selection is, after all, the corner stone of the evolutionary theory.
Let me ask you, then. Who decides what these limits are? You seem capable of excepting that a species can become tolerant to penicillin. You can agree that such a species is not the same as it once was. How much would a population of organisms have to change before they could be considered another species?
@FrankLightheart What i think is irrelevant. The question is what has been observed? And the answer is very little, so i accept very little change within a "species." The question of origins is not something empirical means can attain knowledge to. I can become tolerant of certain buggies or drugs, but that says nothing in the area of Darwinian dogma. I don't know why evolutionists have a hard time seeing that they are just ASSUMING things.
@1tmoch Oh, you want examples of OBSERVED evolution. Evolution in action.
That's easy enough. There are several examples of speciation out there. Groups of organisms that have changed enough over time that they can no longer breed with the species they derived from. Salamanders, fruit flies, mice.
Hell, breeding is a process that exploits the process of evolution, only it moves faster because instead of natural selection, we use deliberate selection. Dogs, cats, cows, corn, peas, bananas.
@FrankLightheart I'm talking about the whole story of evo-heads VS. that which has been observed. What we as a people have observed (things which you mentioned and more) i am with you on, but it is a leap in the dark to suggest extrapolation all the way backwards. The fact that certain organisms can no longer mate, just shows that the DNA is getting more corrupted and weak, saying nothing of evolution.
@1tmoch Part 2: The differences in a species or natural selection have limits and do not produce new info. It needs to have available that which it “selects.” Breeding is all that is going on here. We humans conducting the breeding of other animals makes it go quicker. Either way, i'm interested as to why you'd care to split hairs so much over something like this? Looking at it from your side of the fence it seems a great waste of time.
@1tmoch Dude, the denial is just coming off of you in waves.
You seem to accept that a species can change over time. You even accept the mechanisms that propel it. Yet you can't admit that the very things that you're accepting are, in fact, evolution. It's as if the only thing holding you back is the word itself.
Why do you feel this way? What is wrong with animals evolving? What is wrong with us being a part of it? It's not as if it changes anything. You can still believe in God, if you wish.
Before god created the universe he knew that i would be an atheist and that i will spend eternity in hell where i will be tortured relentlessly. So why create me?
@matthelion To glorify Himself in judging you. Why would that glorify Him? Not 100% sure. Ask Him when you die. Or better yet, repent and believe, be saved and then find out the answer even still.
Classes, laws, and the mind are used as nouns in English, but they are clearly (very complex) events or processes, not physical items like Hot Pockets or armadillos. Does a birthday "exist"?
"Logic is not physical, therefore logic cannot exist in a materialistic world." Being a process that occurs doesn't mean it's not physical. In fact, all matter is in constant movement. A movement of an electron, in fact, does not *exist*, but it certainly *occurs* in a materialistic world, just like a mind.
Inductive inference doesn't have to prove or be proven in order to have a... wait for it... evolutionary advantage. The universe will very likely not always maintain the patterns that we currently perceive in it, but for a certain period of time, certain tendencies (like making probabilistic predictions) made some individuals more likely to survive and reproduce. If the universe doesn't work the same way tomorrow? We'll go extinct, and some other tendency will trump that one.
Now........ Science is a general term to define a certan way of how us humans can understand the world we live today. It doesn't have a religion as you would like to link Just because people allow themselves to "unBook" themselves, and think. Believe what you want, creationist, and leave science alone. You have stagnant religion. We have science, that has grown.
@BrightStaroftheDawn "Science" is a part of a branch of philosophy: the philosophy of science. And all peoples world view is composed of religious precepts, you included. Nothing wrong with that. Also, empiricism is a fallacy by itself. You cannot "unbook" yourself. You have most of your claimed knowledge from books or those who taught from them. "Leave science alone?" That makes no sense. To inquire, investigate and discover is inherent in human nature. The bible endorses scientific inquiry.
@1tmoch Also, without the biblical worldview, you have zero basis to engage in the scientific process. In fact you'd have every reason to discount it. As for "stagnant" with regards to the bible. Ok, so what!!! I'll take that as an endorsement of the bible, for if it is true, it WOULD NOT change. The fact that fallible people change their conclusions all the time, means that they are; well fallible. That is not something to boast over. Your words condemn you and you are blocked.
@BrightStaroftheDawn I don't think you understand the definition of the word "arbitrary." We have reason to trust the historical narrative given in genesis. What is the alternative? That man ultimately came from nothing? That he ultimately came from a rock by undirected chance happenings? Your story is WAAAAY more unbelievable and "miraculous."
You failed when you likened Atheism to a world view. First of, Platonism which is entirely compatible with atheism answers your question about inductive reasoning. We assume uniformity in nature because it yields near perfect predictions. Actually a lot of this relates back to Plato. If you see a horse grow up, how did the matter know to become a horse? How does matter know where to go? So a non-uniformity in nature would disprove God?
@ExSaint1379"If you see a horse grow up, how did the matter know to become a horse? How does matter know where to go? "
All this was done through information,from an intelligent,living being.Since all information,when traced back to it's beginning,always comes from intelligence and all intelligence traced back,comes from LIFE,all life,intelligence and matter came from life,there is no other alternative.Oh,and EX-SAINT? There's no such animal.
@ExSaint1379 Please give one example of a sender,receiver system(information),that has ever been created apart from intelligent life.Also,show in the Bible where one person ,after receiving salvation,ever lost it.
@CBALLEN I don't have to. I'm merely saying that you don't know that all information is from intelligence which is by definition true, but if you insist on an example I will gladly give you one. Supernovas send an enormous amount of information out into space in all directions. The information transmitted is that they happened (and some specifics on top of that) and we easily see this information and interpret as such. No intelligence required.
@ExSaint1379 Just because something exists doesn't mean it's transmitting information,we can glean certain facts merely by the existence of something,but it takes information by intelligent living beings to convey a hypothesis about what they have gleaned.
@CBALLEN You don't see the contradiction? I asked how matter knew how to move and you said it required an intelligent being and I responded with describing movement of matter as information and you responded basically saying that's not information. If that isn't information, then neither is DNA or anything else for that matter. Information does take intelligence to interpret it. Not to create it.
@ExSaint1379 The thing you overlook is,everything that exists had to be designed according to information and all information comes from intelligent life,no exceptions.All existing things can be studied to see how they tick,however it doesn't tell us who designed it all in the first place,that's what I meant by my last comment.Even the simplest widget has a blue print before production can ever occur.
@CBALLEN Uh, no I would say all intelligent life comes from what you are calling information and not the other way around. You provide no evidence that information requires intelligence but merely assert it. As evidence that life arises from information I give you the whole of biology.
@ExSaint1379 Ok,let me ask you something completely different then,do you believe in right and wrong,good and evil?If so,why do you believe it first of all,and what is your standard for your belief.I'd know what right and wrong is by God's law upon my heart even if I was still an unbeliever,but since you claim He doesn't exist, what do you say,does right and wrong exist?
@ExSaint1379 I asked you first,does good and evil exist according to you,and what standard do you use if you affirm them.I will be glad to answer you,but first please participate in our discussion.
@CBALLEN People use those words to describe different things. So by some definitions I would obviously believe they do exist and by others I wouldn't. I obviously have my own beliefs about what's right and wrong, but I would bet that they differ from the ones in your heart supposed given to you by God. I would bet my right and wrong are significantly different from what you believe your God's beliefs are.
@ExSaint1379 So you believe in Good and evil and you are your own authority on what Good and Evil is?How is it that nothing more than animated meat can call anything evil or good?Was Hitler a good guy or a bad guy,and why?
@CBALLEN Good and evil are subject judgments about actions. We can call things evil because we define things as evil. Humans make judgments. I don't think crazy people can be evil, so calling Hitler evil is a little off. His actions surely culminated towards something that was wrong, but not everyone believes that. I think you don't have enough respect for so-called animated meat.
@ExSaint1379 Hitler never did all these things himself,he had thousands do his work for him.So to claim Hitler being insane and therefore,not subject to judgment is a ridiculous statement,HE PREMEDITATED THE HOLOCAUST and gained many followers that believe just like him,so yes,he was evil..
@CBALLEN So the criminally insane should be thrown in jail? If someone is crazy and other sane people decide to follow them you should blame the other sane people not the crazy person. What your arguing is akin to saying a paranoid schizophrenic should be punished as if their actions were taken by a sane person and I just can't agree with that. But even had I said he is evil, how would you have responded?
@ExSaint1379 Many people do wicked things and they aren't crazy,but it seem that everyone these days have to have something,or someone else to blame for their own thought out wickedness.Hitler,nor the other thousands that followed him were crazy,they just believed evolution,all they saw themselves doing,was ridding the world of evolved cock roaches.I would just like to know how you determine what is evil,can you call what Hitler and his men did evil,remember,they didn't believe they were evil.
@CBALLEN Hitler most certainly didn't believe in evolution. The most prominent German biologist, Ernest Hackel, believed (and convinced Hitler and henceforth the rest of Germans) of recapitulation theory which is directly counter to the biology of the 20s, 30s and 40s. You being a creationist makes sense. I think you and I determine what is evil in the exact same we. Things "feel" evil. Evil is a judgment we make against others. The Bible doesn't tell you what's evil.
@ExSaint1379 " The Bible doesn't tell you what's evil."
Are you kidding me?Maybe you need to read it before you make such an easily refuted argument,we are told what's evil all though the Bible,it's called sin.
@CBALLEN I have read it and despite you saying that sin is evil, if I point out a sin that everyone does, you will say that that is the old testament which of course means that the nature of sin changes throughout the bible and the Bible, henceforth, does not tell you what is evil. There are also things like genocide, rape and slavery which the Bible expressively condones which I would consider "evil".
@ExSaint1379 The Bible doesn't condone rape ,or genocide of humans,slavery was allowed for the Jews by God,with strict rules attached,back then slavery was more like indentured servants and was a way that God chose to save the few Gentiles that He saved,in the OT.Those who God ordered destroyed,were NEPHILIM,their DNA WAS POLLUTED,.Satan tried to prevent the Messiah from being born by contamination of the human gene pool..They also were told to kill the animals 4 the same reason, AND RAPE?LOL
@CBALLEN God ordered genocide quite a few times in the bible. Often times he told men they could take the virgins from the slaughtered people. That is rape. I don't know how you can say the bible doesn't condone rape or genocide. Even if there is a reason for genocide (like you are claiming) it's still genocide.
@ExSaint137 "Hitler most certainly didn't believe in evolution."
Are you kidding?He most certainly believed in evolution.There is no basis to believe evil exists if God doesn't.The prisons are full of people who believe that they are their own gods and that they determine right and wrong,however,God's law is written on everyone's heart,that's why they KNOW that things are good or evil,even the demons believe in God and know right from wrong, their existence in this world is to blur the line.
@CBALLEN Hitler believed in recapitulation theory which is far different than evolution by means of natural selection. You can say God's law is written in our hearts but you are trying to argue that knowing evil is evidence for God. It doesn't even point us in that direction, especially because anything that we call evil has been called good by other people so why did God create humans with vastly different ideas of what evil is.
@CBALLEN I, for one, do not believe in right and wrong or good and evil. But as far as "feeling" that things are right or wrong, even bees do that. Mother bears do that, but obviously their concept of evil can include a lot of innocent hikers who were really no threat at all. But you're better safe than sorry when you're busy surviving and reproducing- mother bears who are more socially accepting have not fared so well. This sense of right and wrong was present long before the ability to reason.
@ExSaint1379 Then there is conflicting ideas in the story of random chance flipping heads almost every time. Furthermore, even if you flipped heads 1 million times, that says nothing of the odds being more than 50% for the 1 million and first flip. You point to past future results being uniform, but what about future futures? You cannot speak to that. Induction is a fallacy and Plato was off on sooo much. I don't know what you were getting at with the horse bit.
@1tmoch You are just arguing that inductive reasoning can't give absolute answers about anything. You are correct, but an inductive truth is more likely to be true than a guess. The past is an indicator of what happens in the future, it's just not a certainty.
Excellent video! Sad to see so many atheists commenting though, who obviously did not understand what you clearly proved. But they just go on, arrogantly asserting ignorance.
"Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." Isaiah 59:1-2
2-It is true that scientific arguments BEGIN with an assumption. However: a-There is no thing as "uniformity of results" b-The idea is to support the assumption WITH experience. 2+3=5 is based of experience, not on mumbo-jumbo logic!
The mere fact that the universe displays patterns of behavior and patterns of structure and chemistry and physical existence doesn't prove any form of theism, mono or poly.
So how do you get to natural uniformity to 'therefore God'? You didn't define God, and you didn't demonstrate that God is the reason why gravity and chemistry and pain from stubbing your toe and everything else natural stays the same until something changes it, so it's nonsense to brag about how atheists might as well act as if there is no uniformity.
And atheism is not a worldview, it is only the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Anything that could constitute a worldview is separate.
1:25 What support? What authority? Examples, please. Also, this isn't a random universe. The mere fact that every time in history that an apple is dropped it falls shows patterns. For instance, if nucleic acids were suddenly not complex enough to preserve information, every prokaryote species would immediately die. If you can find an example of an apple randomly not falling when within gravitational pull, you have disproven the theory of gravity. Congrats! But you still have not proven a deity.
@deadeaded If you take a swab of your own cheek, though a cell is living... it is not self-aware.. My cheek does not recognize itself. Even when parts of the brain are affected it SHOULD based on materialism change your characteristics as a human, make you a completely new person. But instead it will likely handicap you but not make you a totally new person. The point is that when we look at the things around us we OBSERVE that things that even our own body cannot recognize itself.
@deadeaded the evidence is common sense from what we see around us. Its just like gravity... we don't have to understand gravity to know that an apple falls.
What you are saying is not proof against consciousness separate from materialism because the fact that there is a brain and that information is stored within... is not what is being argued so proof of that does not disprove anything... this is assumed.
@MrHappiness777 If consciousness is separate from the brain, but information is stored in the brain, how does the mechanism responsible for consciousness access the information? If this mechanism isn't part of the physical world, how can it interact with it? That's a logical contradiction.
@deadeaded Again we know there is a physical world... the physical world does not disprove forms of existence that go past flesh. You have also assumed that there is some law that the physical world does not incorporate this other working aspect.... obviously in this it MUST incorporate this idea because otherwise there is no consciousness. Again this is assumed.
@deadeaded Again... there is no proof that could conclude that it is physical... but because the belief system of most modern day scientists would never allow such an idea outside of materialism.. and so they must deem it... a mystery. Think about it, if anything outside of materialism is not acceptable then how on earth could you an answer a question that requires that answer?
@MrHappiness777 For many, many reasons. At death tissues start to break down, rendering such a delicate organ useless. Also, mental activity is unfathomably complex. Even if you could shock the brain in time, the probability of successfully triggering the many essential mental processes is far too small.
@MrHappiness777 During pregnancy, the body is built up in small steps; each chemical reaction being started at a time, slowly bringing the being to life. The complex reactions which make up life are layered onto each-other in gradual steps. Then, after birth, the brain creates complex neural networks in order to make sense of the world around it (parts of this are still going on in the teen years.)
It's an incredibly sophisticated, slow, and gradual process that we can't even begin to replicate
@deadeaded Right nevermind my point was that they aren't shocked into being but rather are already being and given life and grow, and so life and energy are separate. Energy is interchangeable with mass. We cannot gather life can we? And energy cannot be self-aware, just as rocks cannot be...
And you also miss my point about the death... if life is surged by energy then, immediately before death, then we should be able to continue life with the giving of more energy.
@MrHappiness777 Life is a description we give to things that satisfy a certain set of criteria, it is not a thing. It's not something that is given or taken away, it is a state of being that a body can maintain or leave. Living beings are, essentially, a set of complex chemical reactions. When some of the components necessary to sustain the reaction fail, the organism ceases to be alive.
@deadeaded you have as much proof for that statement as there is for what you were trying to prove false. And a chemical reactions is but a term you have for life. Again... let me be redundant and repeat myself... A rock cannot be self-aware... no amount of shock can put any two molecules or energy into being self-aware... your argument is that a certain arrangement of molecules are what causes self-awareness. You see the silliness of that statement?
@MrHappiness777 That isn't something that needs to be proved, it's the medical definition of life. Asking me to prove it would be like asking me to prove that paint is a fluid used to add colour to surfaces. That's just the definition.
As for how consciousness arises, no one knows. It's one of the greatest questions of philosophy, and one to which no one has yet provided a satisfactory answer. We're getting closer though.
@deadeaded No, its nothing like saying prove paint is liquid... Just because there are chemical reactions does not explain self-awareness. Again, shocking things will never make them self-aware. Energy, thoughtless nothing, inanimate objects, none of it can ever no matter the amount of time begin to start thinking. No matter how you arrange them. A body can be arranged and moving on its own from energy or reactions... look at robots... but they cannot be self-aware...
@deadeaded In other words, chemical reactions are when some molecules react and cause something further to change, physical changes... but no matter what amount of those happen, how can they collectively be self-aware of themselves as a whole? Nothing in your explanations makes sense of this. Because it is common sense that thoughtless matter cannot make itself thoughtful. Moving energy signals doesnt make one interpret it. A chemical is but a chemical it doesnt disprove or prove anything.
@MrHappiness777 When you're dealing with things as complicated and mysterious as consciousness, you cannot trust "common sense". Common sense stops working very early in a journey through scientific knowledge. You cannot trust our minds, which evolved to understand "easy" phenomena, to be able to correctly interpret such complex phenomena. You need evidence.
@deadeaded Is gravity not complicated and mysterious? We still know that it happens. You are making many assumptions... you assume we evolved from single-celled organisms... you assume that humans always jump to "easy" phenomena... and you assume that this needs more evidence.
Excellent argument. The logical end of Athiesm is a version of hindhuism that believes that nothing is real...all is an illusion. If our thoughts and sense of reality is purely the product of material evolution, then we can not know that anything is real. Our brains could be projecting a fantasy world to us that is not reality. Watch the movie called "inception". It is closer to the logicl end of athiesm than anything I have ever seen.
@VeryImagesozo I saw it. Good film, but it had some flaws. I was caught up in the fact that to me, dreams don't seem longer than the reality taken in dreaming them, but they seem super short. There were some other errors which i can't remember, but it was still interesting and entertaining.
@VeryImagesozo You're saying that atheism = solipsism. That if we are the product of natural forces, we cannot 'know' that anything is real, our own mind could be making it up. The first flaw here is that you're referring to 'know' as being absolutely 100% certain. We can't be 100% certain that anything exists, but we can be as certain as it's possible to be. It makes no sense to link this to atheism, because you haven't demonstrated that God is the reason why we can 'know' anything exists.
@Aleex490 No...I am saying that naturalism's logical conclusion is solipsism. In other words, if there is nothing outside of ourselves that created us with a built in ability to preceive the outside universe around us, then the only source we have of knowing reality is not an outside source, but rather ourselves alone. We are not reliable sources of reality to ourselves . if our brains are the product of naturalism or Darwinian evolution. I cannot come to any other conclusion.
@VeryImagesozo Uhh, Religion doesn't solve that problem in the least. Regardless of anything, you only have your own senses to go on. If our senses weren't reliable, Darwinian evolution would not selected them to survive, so in fact our senses should be reliable according to Darwinian evolution. And not only that but it you assume evolution happens then you are assuming an outside world.
*sigh* What you're talking about is a collection of very common philosophical questions. They have nothing to do with god... It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the universe shows some sort of physical consistency without having to believe in a god.
Oh, and I just though you should know that we can, in fact, figure out what people are thinking by looking at what's going on in the brain. FMRIs and the like have steadily been providing more and more evidence for the brain=mind hypothesis.
@1tmoch oh is it? So when researchers can correctly identify what object a person is thinking of (from a list) based on brain activity, it's just a coincidence? When parts of the brain are disabled by transcranial magnetic stimulation, it's just luck? "Emotiv Systems" is just a big hoax?
Pray tell, what is the brain for, if not thought? And if our consciousness is really something separate from our physical body, how is it communicating with our physical selves?
@deadeaded I'm not saying that there is not a mind body connection, one influencing the other and so forth. That of course is real and the relationship. I am merely saying that they are not the same or identical. See my 5 part series on the soul. I think you'll find it interesting.
Evolution isn't an arbitrary claim, it is backed up by modern genetic sequencing techniques as well as the fossil record? Heliocentricity isn't an arbitrary claim it is backed up by telescopes. You need look no further than the bible to find all the arbitrary claims you could wish for.
@PintOThat Neither genetics nor fossils could even possibly provide proof for that science fiction hypothesis. Why did you even bring up heliocentricity?
Yes they do. It is quite simple really. Since we can view an organisms gene structure we can see that we share genes with plants, jellyfish, dolphins etc. the closer relative the organism is to us the more genes will be found to be identical. Fossils appear in layers in the earth's crust with the older organisms at the bottom and recent ones at the top. to disprove evolution you would have to find a bear buried alongside a velociraptor for instance. The bible believed in geocentricity.
@PintOThat Dude, the fossil layers are all rearranged all over the world. There is no consistency. Get up to date. "Higher life forms" are found below "lower life forms." Also, similarities only prove that they are similar in some fashion, not that they evolved. That is an assumption, which has no place in the OBSERVABLE scientific method.
I’m sorry but I do know quite a bit about this. You just said there is no consistency, but then you said that more complex animals are buried beneath the less complex ones, complex here can also be seen to mean older. If higher life forms are buried beneath the lesser ones then that means the first animals to become extinct were complex and slowly became less and less so as each species died out. I implore you to look this up! This is a major blunder...
@PintOThat This is no blunder. They are NOT consistent, and there are PARTS of the world where fossils that were "supposed" to appear fairly recently by evolutionary standards are found way beneath the supposed ancient ancient ancestors. It's all a big joke, a fairy tale for grown ups.
... You are starting to come across as if you don’t know anything about what you decry.
OK by your standards genetic similarity is just similarity. I’d like to know then how is it that a whale has genes for making hind legs, as well as a useless bone that used to be a hind leg and why do chickens have the genes for making teeth?
@PintOThat #1 Even if you proved evolution, you would not disprove God.
#2 Even if you proved old earth, you would not prove evolution (only that the earth is old).
#3 Survival of the fittest only proves that the strongest or luckiest survive,
#4 Similar design only proves that there are similarities.
I cry out for separation of church and state. We are producing a massive throng of indoctrinated blind faith’ers not taught to think critically. In the science fiction classroom= brain off.
@1tmoch #5 Supposed transitions are defined by who and what authority, and this still is an assumption one is a transition of the next. This says nothing of whether the organism had kids and what it looked like.
#6 Similar homologous structure (form) only proves similar function and common designer. (what about the same structure of eyes on an octopus and that of a human, did they then therefore come from one another)?
@1tmoch #7 Similar genetic structure says nothing of a “common ancestor,” rather that many components are similar (proteins, blood, skin, bone, hair, etc). The percentages are not even that close when non coded DNA is considered. 95% similarity is huge. In 1% there are roughly 48 million nucleotides. A difference of 3 is fatal. I guess now the jellyfish and the snow cone are relatives since they are both 99% water.
@1tmoch #8 The fact that certain organisms can no longer mate, just shows that the DNA is getting more corrupted and weak, saying nothing of evolution. The differences in a species or natural selection (aka: breeding) have limits and do not produce new info. It needs to have available that which it “selects.”
And it just gets worse and worse and worse for evolutionists with their assumptions, frauds, and anti-scientific application. I think i'll turn this and other info into another video.
@1tmoch Hi again, OK maybe not a blunder, apologies, don’t know where you got that info from or its credibility but I would argue that the vast majority follow my pattern with a ‘few’ anomalies, still has credibility.
@1tmoch #1 I never said it would disprove God. What it does disprove is any Theist God that has a creation story. This doesn’t apply to a Deist God for obvious reasons.
#2 Geology and radiation half-life DO prove old Earth. Evolution takes a very long time, whilst not proving evolution, evolution does fit with the time frame. Also 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. The Woolly Mammoth did not die out ‘8000?’ years ago.
@1tmoch #3 Sure, only the strongest survive because they have the right traits for it. You forget that they then go on to pass on these favourable genes/traits, altering the species.
#4 I assume you mean genetic similarity. Yes similarity does prove similarity... Why are they similar? That is the question that evolution answers rather well.
#5 I’m sorry, I don’t know what you’re getting at with this one?
@1tmoch #6 Once again, yes similarity does prove similarity it does not prove that there was a designer though (your arbitrary claim, perhaps). Actually your point lends more weight to evolution. Common function = common need for that function. If two species had a common need they will develop a common function to fulfil that need. This is Evolution.
@1tmoch #7 Sure, blood, bone, skin, Chicken teeth? Whale legs? Jellyfish thing is just fatuous as water isn’t an organism, I thought we were talking about DNA.
#8 If an organism can no longer mate then it is either a sterile hybrid or a new species. Your arbitrary claim is to assume that DNA is weaker for having changed. Silly.
@1tmoch If Evolution is applied un-scientifically why is it that the huge majority that apply it are scientists? Insults aren’t really needed unless you think you can’t make a valid argument without them. If you do make a video I do hope that you take an objective view and will let me comment on it?
@PintOThat That's cool. I insult simply because it boggles my mind how stupid it is. The more i study it, the more i see this (been at it for 8 years now). And you didn't clear up anything, rather just re-stated your opinion. As for a majority, who cares. A majority of scientists believed in innumerable wrong things throughout history. Many evolutionary scientists even admit that they hold to it for other philosophical reasons and that it is severely lacking, if not bunk altogether. Anyway...
@1tmoch I answered your questions as fully as i was able thanks. I don't know where you get your facts from but 95% of biologists do not believe in a personal god. What i did was re-state my facts, because you seemed to ignore lots of them.
I've still not heard any valid explanation as to why whales have the genes for making legs and chickens the genes for making teeth?
Also when science has got it wrong it is science that corrects itself, its what it means to be scientific.
@PintOThat Who cares what a majority of biologists IN THIS AGE conclude. I don't appeal to ad populum arguments (as a majority of the world thinks evolution is hog wash). You gave zero facts, but only assertions. Some birds have teeth and whales have bones that have been mistaken for legs, which are actually anchor points for delivering baby whales. That is sad that you bring the whale example up.
The majority of all biologists i.e. experts in their field, don’t subscribe to any faith, a biologist knows more about biology than 100 billion laymen any day. So yes, ad populum isn’t particularly important but my point was regarding the level of intelligence of these people not their number.
@PintOThat Yes, but it doesn't require a phd to sniff out philosophy from that which is true science. It doesn't even have scientific credentials as a hypothesis. Also, the "pro's" in every category have been shown to be in error throughout history on so many things it is not even funny. We'll put it this way, i am in the medical profession, and many "therapies" i will never use myself, and i don't trust some of my colleagues as far as i can throw them. Some biologists don't believe in evolution
Hi there. I'm not an atheist myself but I have to say that your argument isn't making any sense. It doesn't seem to follow that uniformity and probability require a deity. Could you explain further please? I would really love to see how this argument really works but at the moment I just can't connect the dots and that may be some fault on my part, so could you enlighten me please? :)
@Sophiethefembot The method by which the atheist operates in this world is with the presupposition that no God is controlling all things. This is why they speak of a random chance mutative universe. With this in mind, you cannot expect uniformity in nature and thus do away with the whole scientific enterprise, b/c the scientific process assumes the future experiments will in some way be like the past or no progress would ever be. Probability is just a way of smuggling uniformity back in.
@1tmoch We are VERY finite creatures and could never speak even close to authoritatively on any of these subjects in a world that is operated apart from God. The reason people assume so is because they ACTUALLY do live in God's universe and have been made to know these basic things. It goes deeper, but i don't feel like getting into it in the comment section. Watch part 2 of that video and check out Greg Bahnsen on these subjects. He explains it it great detail. Atheism is soooo freaking stupid.
I couldn't finish the video cos it wouldn't load, but so far I do not actually see you're proof of god. I agree, things such as logical absolutes and thermodynamics exist as things not dependent upon minds and matter. So what? I don't actually get your argument, please explain.
Atheis is basicly against the concept of the Creator, but at the same time it denies the existance of it, so from atheist point of you your being against a concept which doesnt exist, seems like waste of time.
I don't understand one point. If inductive science requires a God to keep the laws of nature regular (in order to keep the axiom of induction reasonable) , why isn't it just as reasonable to say that there is a God who has kept the laws of nature constant up until this moment, and tomorrow He will change everything? How can we make the leap from acknowledging the weakness of inductive science to making claims about the nature of God?
I am not making claims about God BECAUSE of the weakness of induction applied to scientific endeavor. God won't change His mind and say screw all regularity. Even if He did, that would just mean shit is hitting the fan, thats all. The bible reveals a God of order, and logic (the divine Logos) and that He is the one that sustains the universe so that we can test it and take dominion over the earth. Whether it is induction or deduction, the atheist cannot consistently appeal to anything.
I don't understand why you say the scientist cannot use induction in his appeals; as far as I can tell that is all he uses in his appeals. The scientist does not make claims of absolute truths, at best he says , "this idea that I am presenting seems to be not wrong yet as far as we can tell." Science doesn't prove things true, it just tests to see if they are wrong.
So again, I'm still not sure if I understand: What is the proof that God is a God of order and logic?
This an issue of first principles. I'm not saying that an atheist cannot use induction, but that he cannot do so consistently in accords to his philosophy. Which is it, a designed universe or one from random chance? There is no aim without an aimer, and chance gives no reason to believe the future will be like the past. If i flip a coin 50 times and get heads every time, i'd have no reason to believe i have better odds than a 50/50 on the 51st flip. God is the impossibility of the contrary.
Aim is only apparent through hindsight. It looks like a straight line because that is the only way we can see it. But that is not the case, or not necessarily the case. The universe could be aimed, and everything that has happened so far could have happened because it was pointed in that direction, but it is also possible that no god pointed us in this direction, and that life happened because molecules started sticking to each other in a funny way in a puddle ages ago.
The rules operate on their own. The way we understand these rules is through science. These rules do not require the inclusion of a deity to work. I would like to apply occams razor now, but I'm pretty sure you could swat that away. You seem good at that sort of thing. Instead I will just say easy answers are less of a headache, and so long as they work they may as well be right.
@Mugulord Well, occam's razor is relative to who is speaking, i.e. who thinks it is the simplest explanation, and so, essentially pointless to appeal to. I say that according to occam's it is the simplest and consequently the ONLY explanation that accounts for reality. You talked about molecules "sticking." Molecules wouldn't even BE unless there were God, and they wouldn't DO anything unless there were. There is no information without a mind behind it.
@adamimos (sorry it took so long to respond) I agree that 'chance' gives us no reason to believe the future will be like the past. Furthermore, it is a misrepresentation of the scientific method to assert that science makes such a claim. Instead, science only uses the conception of the continuity and uniformity of the laws of nature in an economic (in the way that Ernst Mach used the word) sense - that is, because it is useful, not because it is true. Science makes no claims of truth, only of
Science seeks to explain the consistency we observe. "Why does it always hurt when I stub my toe? Why does and marker always fall? Why does theobservable universe have consistant physical qualities?"
Science seeks to answer questions.
God does not prevent the physical univrse from descending into chaos, the laws of physics (known or as yet unknown) do.
The "laws of physics" are just ideas in some scientists mind, not an actual thing. It is a descriptive pronouncement. Seeing that it is nothing, it has no power to do anything. An atheist experiencing regularity is miraculous without God. In fact, the first time he experienced something (something outside his normal experience) it would be considered a miracle as well.
I make straw man arguments too, 1tmoch. You create your opponent and you whack it about and you stand victorious.
I'll rise up to the challenge as an atheist. I wish I had a transcript of everything you said mind you, my head was spinning by the end of the video.
Alright, first things first, arbitrariness, and inconsistency. Religion, and the people in it's embrace, and atheism, and it's people are equally guilty of this sin.
I've heard plenty of arbitrary and inconsistent arguments on both sides. By your logic, both sides would then be lacking in credibility. Lets leave this topic aside then, because given the values presented, I think both sides are only as good as the people arguing them, not the actual meat and potatoes of either side.
True, people are inconsistent on both sides of the fence and would therefore lack credibility. However, the Christian worldview is not contingent upon the individual Christian to interpret any way he or she wants. Hermeneutics applied to scripture equal exegesis. Now, atheistic principles (though there are different denominations of atheists), follow a pretty fundamental creed if you will. Perhaps not as lengthy as the Christian creed, but never the less. Which view comports with reality?
Well, if I were to test which side comports with reality, say by praying for events to happen 50 times, and then letting them happen on their own 50 times, I think they would be about the same, and as I increase the sample size, it becomes even more likely that the sample will be the same. I think you would probably reply that there is more to reality than the tangible, and I would reply there is only the testable. I don't have to hold radio waves in my hand to believe in them.
Also, when you say "Hermeneutics applied to scripture equal exegesis" you are saying that interpretation of the bible equals an interpretation. Doesn't that say nothing? I'm just going by the definitions of these words that I found myself, so please enlighten me if I'm off. There is a fundamental creed to atheism, which is bent to each atheists needs philosophically. To be atheist means you don't believe in gods. Christians are atheists, unless they believe in every pantheon that has...
ever existed as well. But I go one god further, I am completely atheist. I do not disallow the existence of something we would call a god, but I have seen no evidence of an of the gods presented by an earthly religion. If evidence is provided, I'll will no longer be an atheist. I do not need to prove your gods don't exist, you need to prove they do remember. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
If someone claims that a unicorn exists, I have every right to demand evidence. If none can be provided then the claim is false. If you claim that a supreme being exists that answers our prayers, then I demand you show me the evidence that prayer is answered.
Oh hey, context makes a difference, had to re-read the conversation. Ok, when I say that the argument is only as good as the people arguing, I don't mean that there is 100% room for interpretation of both sides, life isn't like that. But at the same time, there is no single right way to read a book like the bible. I have had people tell me that the quotes of Jesus saying "I am not come to bring peace but to bring a sword" are actually a really nice way of saying...
"I am going to make a lot of people disagree with each other" but I can't see that. He said I am not here to bring peace, he compared himself to one of the first true weapons, a device who's only purpose is to kill other human beings. If he said almost any other weapon that existed during his day, he would have left himself an out. Spears, bows, clubs, and almost any other weapon used to be farming or hunting implements or trade tools. A swords only job is to kill people.
Seriously....stop splitting hairs. Focus on proving faith rather than disproving non-belief. If I drop a marker 40 times, me telling you the marker will drop a 41st time is fortified by the laws of gravity. Jesus being nailed to the cross is fortified by word of mouth. Could be from a mouth that fears eternal punishment and accepts subconscious programming or could be from an ex-heroin junkie who had his soul saved at the cost of losing his marbles.
My "faith" is the impossibility of the contrary. My "faith" makes scientific inquiry something worth engaging in and learning from. Whose ultimate foundation makes rationality reasonable, mine or yours? Hint: if you are an atheist, it cannot possibly be yours. Faith does not pick up where reason goes no further, rather faith is an order to use reason. Without faith, you cant reason at all, because either youll have faith in God who gives reason, or have faith in reason as your ultimate (god).
Sir, your argument lacks any sort of intelligible sense. More than likely this is the result of some mental exercise you were bouncing around that sounded better in your head than how it came out.
I mean, are you trying to suggest that there would be no consistent natural laws without a God?
FrankLightheart 4 months ago
@FrankLightheart Be specific as to what you think lacks intelligible sense and on what basis. There would be no existence for there to even be laws in, without God.
1tmoch 4 months ago
@1tmoch That. How can you claim laws and/or existence can't be without a god? Do you have ANYTHING to base that assertion on?
Because I can just as easily turn that around and say consistent natural laws wouldn't exist WITH a god present. Such a being would be able to break those laws at a whim, rendering natural laws useless. Only when there is no god would natural laws make any sense because it would be the only influence on existence.
FrankLightheart 4 months ago
@FrankLightheart Matter is contingent, and cannot be eternal, unless you want to throw the 1st and 2nd laws out the window. There is no such thing as a "natural law" that operates outside of God's control. Yes, things could flip on their head tomorrow, but God has promised to keep regularity within the universe, so that we can rely upon scientific inquiry. Random happenings of molecules clashing however do not provide an arena for science to be intelligible.
1tmoch 4 months ago
@1tmoch See, but the problem is that you're just saying that. You're simply stating that matter cannot be eternal, that God controls natural laws, that he promised to keep the universe in order, that matter can't form patterns over time. You can't prove any of it, yet you're stating it as fact. You can't do that with science and have any credibility. You need to be able to make falsifiable claims and test them for accuracy. Otherwise, you're just preaching and I'm not swayed by that.
FrankLightheart 3 months ago
@FrankLightheart That's all you or anyone else is doing as well. I'm not persuaded by your preaching either. Your epistemology of elevating empiricism as king is not established, and certainly not empirically so. Your whole foundation for even discussing, expecting regularity, trusting your senses, etc, cannot be trustworthy, authoritative, or justified on your worldview. This is at least a start in validating my worldview, by shaving off some of the possibilities (yours and a few others).
1tmoch 3 months ago
@1tmoch You are being completely ridiculous. You're sitting there demanding ridiculous amounts of proof for established theories such evolution and the big bang and denying or outright ignoring actual proof for no other reason than because you don't like the theories for religious reasons. All while sitting on a position that has NO proof and actually quite a bit of evidence against it.
I mean, you're allowed to believe what you want, but can't you see the hypocrisy just a little bit?
FrankLightheart 3 months ago
@FrankLightheart If "established" is that which is based off of fallacious claims and hypothesis only, then i guess i'm being ridiculous. I heard all the supposed "proof" that you think i'm ignoring. Actually, if i were an atheist, i would still not buy into the ridiculousness of evolution. No, wrong again. I have all the proof in the world, and none goes against God. I have over 350 videos. I cover much of this. I'm not hypocritical, i'm just right.
1tmoch 3 months ago
@1tmoch Alright then, can you give me some of your proof? Can you show me where we can find the influence of God or really any god that natural processes can't account for? Maybe you can tell me something I haven't already heard a hundred times.
FrankLightheart 3 months ago
@FrankLightheart "Natural processes" don't and can't account for anything. They, themselves need to be accounted for. As i said, i've got plenty of videosl. Education is a keystroke away.
1tmoch 3 months ago
@1tmoch Yes, natural processes CAN be accounted for because they follow patterns that can be discovered, studied, tested, and understood. That's the whole point. That's how we invent technologies. If the study of aerodynamics couldn't be accounted for, we wouldn't be able to build planes that travel through the sky. If there was no natural process for evolution, we wouldn't be able to produce vaccines. I don't know HOW you can assert this outrageous claim. We rely on science because it WORKS.
FrankLightheart 3 months ago
@FrankLightheart You are misunderstanding me. "Natural processes" are just things that happen. Certain of these processes might help explain certain other processes, but it itself needs to be accounted for. This goes back so far to the point that what....everything came from nothing, or matter being eternal? BTW, vaccines development has nothing to do with understanding the hypothesis of evolution. Giving attenuated forms of the bacteria to hopefully develop auto immunity is non sequitur.
1tmoch 3 months ago
@1tmoch Lastly, "science" doesn't "work." It is a method that scientists can use. The interpretation of certain data points can be erroneous, or accurate. Only where God is sovereignly in control and promised to maintain regularity in the universe can there be a viable platform by which to expect uniformity in nature. Inductive inference only works on my presuppositions, not one of random chance mutations and explosions. Christians laid the seed bed of modern science, and secularist took over.
1tmoch 3 months ago
@1tmoch Modern day flu shots and such are developed to try and keep up with diseases that are constantly mutating. Scientists understand that these organisms are evolving in reaction to the previous vaccines that were used. By understanding the process of evolution, they can better predict and prepare for what these diseases will do. Without our working model of how life changes, we would not be able to do that.
FrankLightheart 3 months ago
@FrankLightheart That bacteria becomes resistant to certain antibiotics is something that is completely understandable without any notions of Darwinian evolution in mind. All Christians believe in natural selection, but we understand there have been observed limits. The rest is a hypothesis story, irrelevant to any advance.
1tmoch 3 months ago
@1tmoch Well, that's a step in the right direction, at least. Natural selection is, after all, the corner stone of the evolutionary theory.
Let me ask you, then. Who decides what these limits are? You seem capable of excepting that a species can become tolerant to penicillin. You can agree that such a species is not the same as it once was. How much would a population of organisms have to change before they could be considered another species?
FrankLightheart 3 months ago
@FrankLightheart What i think is irrelevant. The question is what has been observed? And the answer is very little, so i accept very little change within a "species." The question of origins is not something empirical means can attain knowledge to. I can become tolerant of certain buggies or drugs, but that says nothing in the area of Darwinian dogma. I don't know why evolutionists have a hard time seeing that they are just ASSUMING things.
1tmoch 3 months ago
@1tmoch Oh, you want examples of OBSERVED evolution. Evolution in action.
That's easy enough. There are several examples of speciation out there. Groups of organisms that have changed enough over time that they can no longer breed with the species they derived from. Salamanders, fruit flies, mice.
Hell, breeding is a process that exploits the process of evolution, only it moves faster because instead of natural selection, we use deliberate selection. Dogs, cats, cows, corn, peas, bananas.
FrankLightheart 3 months ago
@FrankLightheart I'm talking about the whole story of evo-heads VS. that which has been observed. What we as a people have observed (things which you mentioned and more) i am with you on, but it is a leap in the dark to suggest extrapolation all the way backwards. The fact that certain organisms can no longer mate, just shows that the DNA is getting more corrupted and weak, saying nothing of evolution.
1tmoch 3 months ago
@1tmoch Part 2: The differences in a species or natural selection have limits and do not produce new info. It needs to have available that which it “selects.” Breeding is all that is going on here. We humans conducting the breeding of other animals makes it go quicker. Either way, i'm interested as to why you'd care to split hairs so much over something like this? Looking at it from your side of the fence it seems a great waste of time.
1tmoch 3 months ago
@1tmoch Dude, the denial is just coming off of you in waves.
You seem to accept that a species can change over time. You even accept the mechanisms that propel it. Yet you can't admit that the very things that you're accepting are, in fact, evolution. It's as if the only thing holding you back is the word itself.
Why do you feel this way? What is wrong with animals evolving? What is wrong with us being a part of it? It's not as if it changes anything. You can still believe in God, if you wish.
FrankLightheart 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tmoch "The differences in a species or natural selection have limits and do not produce new info"
So the DIFFERENCE in a species does not produce new info?
What exactly do you mean by ' new info' ?
thomaseshuis 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Before god created the universe he knew that i would be an atheist and that i will spend eternity in hell where i will be tortured relentlessly. So why create me?
matthelion 4 months ago
@matthelion To glorify Himself in judging you. Why would that glorify Him? Not 100% sure. Ask Him when you die. Or better yet, repent and believe, be saved and then find out the answer even still.
1tmoch 4 months ago
@1tmoch What crime deserves eternal punishment?
matthelion 4 months ago
Classes, laws, and the mind are used as nouns in English, but they are clearly (very complex) events or processes, not physical items like Hot Pockets or armadillos. Does a birthday "exist"?
"Logic is not physical, therefore logic cannot exist in a materialistic world." Being a process that occurs doesn't mean it's not physical. In fact, all matter is in constant movement. A movement of an electron, in fact, does not *exist*, but it certainly *occurs* in a materialistic world, just like a mind.
badmuthahubbard 5 months ago
Inductive inference doesn't have to prove or be proven in order to have a... wait for it... evolutionary advantage. The universe will very likely not always maintain the patterns that we currently perceive in it, but for a certain period of time, certain tendencies (like making probabilistic predictions) made some individuals more likely to survive and reproduce. If the universe doesn't work the same way tomorrow? We'll go extinct, and some other tendency will trump that one.
badmuthahubbard 5 months ago
BrightStaroftheDawn 7 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn "Science" is a part of a branch of philosophy: the philosophy of science. And all peoples world view is composed of religious precepts, you included. Nothing wrong with that. Also, empiricism is a fallacy by itself. You cannot "unbook" yourself. You have most of your claimed knowledge from books or those who taught from them. "Leave science alone?" That makes no sense. To inquire, investigate and discover is inherent in human nature. The bible endorses scientific inquiry.
1tmoch 7 months ago
@1tmoch Also, without the biblical worldview, you have zero basis to engage in the scientific process. In fact you'd have every reason to discount it. As for "stagnant" with regards to the bible. Ok, so what!!! I'll take that as an endorsement of the bible, for if it is true, it WOULD NOT change. The fact that fallible people change their conclusions all the time, means that they are; well fallible. That is not something to boast over. Your words condemn you and you are blocked.
1tmoch 7 months ago
Arbitrary claim?
......like uh, say uhhm.......
Talking Snakes in Fruit trees,
and humans made from dust
Women made out of their ribs
Oh, this book you can trust!!
For it is made by an Omnipotent, Jealous, Mighty God
Who ressurects you when you're dead
Underneath the Hallowed Sod.
BrightStaroftheDawn 7 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn I don't think you understand the definition of the word "arbitrary." We have reason to trust the historical narrative given in genesis. What is the alternative? That man ultimately came from nothing? That he ultimately came from a rock by undirected chance happenings? Your story is WAAAAY more unbelievable and "miraculous."
1tmoch 7 months ago
You failed when you likened Atheism to a world view. First of, Platonism which is entirely compatible with atheism answers your question about inductive reasoning. We assume uniformity in nature because it yields near perfect predictions. Actually a lot of this relates back to Plato. If you see a horse grow up, how did the matter know to become a horse? How does matter know where to go? So a non-uniformity in nature would disprove God?
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
@ExSaint1379"If you see a horse grow up, how did the matter know to become a horse? How does matter know where to go? "
All this was done through information,from an intelligent,living being.Since all information,when traced back to it's beginning,always comes from intelligence and all intelligence traced back,comes from LIFE,all life,intelligence and matter came from life,there is no other alternative.Oh,and EX-SAINT? There's no such animal.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
@CBALLEN No information does not always come from intelligence. Prove that it does. There's no such animal as a Horse?
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Please give one example of a sender,receiver system(information),that has ever been created apart from intelligent life.Also,show in the Bible where one person ,after receiving salvation,ever lost it.
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN I don't have to. I'm merely saying that you don't know that all information is from intelligence which is by definition true, but if you insist on an example I will gladly give you one. Supernovas send an enormous amount of information out into space in all directions. The information transmitted is that they happened (and some specifics on top of that) and we easily see this information and interpret as such. No intelligence required.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Just because something exists doesn't mean it's transmitting information,we can glean certain facts merely by the existence of something,but it takes information by intelligent living beings to convey a hypothesis about what they have gleaned.
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN You don't see the contradiction? I asked how matter knew how to move and you said it required an intelligent being and I responded with describing movement of matter as information and you responded basically saying that's not information. If that isn't information, then neither is DNA or anything else for that matter. Information does take intelligence to interpret it. Not to create it.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 The thing you overlook is,everything that exists had to be designed according to information and all information comes from intelligent life,no exceptions.All existing things can be studied to see how they tick,however it doesn't tell us who designed it all in the first place,that's what I meant by my last comment.Even the simplest widget has a blue print before production can ever occur.
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN Uh, no I would say all intelligent life comes from what you are calling information and not the other way around. You provide no evidence that information requires intelligence but merely assert it. As evidence that life arises from information I give you the whole of biology.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
Comment removed
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Ok,let me ask you something completely different then,do you believe in right and wrong,good and evil?If so,why do you believe it first of all,and what is your standard for your belief.I'd know what right and wrong is by God's law upon my heart even if I was still an unbeliever,but since you claim He doesn't exist, what do you say,does right and wrong exist?
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN Why would God's law solve the problem what's right or wrong? What about God's word makes something right and not wrong?
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 I asked you first,does good and evil exist according to you,and what standard do you use if you affirm them.I will be glad to answer you,but first please participate in our discussion.
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN People use those words to describe different things. So by some definitions I would obviously believe they do exist and by others I wouldn't. I obviously have my own beliefs about what's right and wrong, but I would bet that they differ from the ones in your heart supposed given to you by God. I would bet my right and wrong are significantly different from what you believe your God's beliefs are.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 So you believe in Good and evil and you are your own authority on what Good and Evil is?How is it that nothing more than animated meat can call anything evil or good?Was Hitler a good guy or a bad guy,and why?
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN Good and evil are subject judgments about actions. We can call things evil because we define things as evil. Humans make judgments. I don't think crazy people can be evil, so calling Hitler evil is a little off. His actions surely culminated towards something that was wrong, but not everyone believes that. I think you don't have enough respect for so-called animated meat.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Hitler never did all these things himself,he had thousands do his work for him.So to claim Hitler being insane and therefore,not subject to judgment is a ridiculous statement,HE PREMEDITATED THE HOLOCAUST and gained many followers that believe just like him,so yes,he was evil..
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN So the criminally insane should be thrown in jail? If someone is crazy and other sane people decide to follow them you should blame the other sane people not the crazy person. What your arguing is akin to saying a paranoid schizophrenic should be punished as if their actions were taken by a sane person and I just can't agree with that. But even had I said he is evil, how would you have responded?
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Many people do wicked things and they aren't crazy,but it seem that everyone these days have to have something,or someone else to blame for their own thought out wickedness.Hitler,nor the other thousands that followed him were crazy,they just believed evolution,all they saw themselves doing,was ridding the world of evolved cock roaches.I would just like to know how you determine what is evil,can you call what Hitler and his men did evil,remember,they didn't believe they were evil.
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN Hitler most certainly didn't believe in evolution. The most prominent German biologist, Ernest Hackel, believed (and convinced Hitler and henceforth the rest of Germans) of recapitulation theory which is directly counter to the biology of the 20s, 30s and 40s. You being a creationist makes sense. I think you and I determine what is evil in the exact same we. Things "feel" evil. Evil is a judgment we make against others. The Bible doesn't tell you what's evil.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 " The Bible doesn't tell you what's evil."
Are you kidding me?Maybe you need to read it before you make such an easily refuted argument,we are told what's evil all though the Bible,it's called sin.
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN I have read it and despite you saying that sin is evil, if I point out a sin that everyone does, you will say that that is the old testament which of course means that the nature of sin changes throughout the bible and the Bible, henceforth, does not tell you what is evil. There are also things like genocide, rape and slavery which the Bible expressively condones which I would consider "evil".
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 The Bible doesn't condone rape ,or genocide of humans,slavery was allowed for the Jews by God,with strict rules attached,back then slavery was more like indentured servants and was a way that God chose to save the few Gentiles that He saved,in the OT.Those who God ordered destroyed,were NEPHILIM,their DNA WAS POLLUTED,.Satan tried to prevent the Messiah from being born by contamination of the human gene pool..They also were told to kill the animals 4 the same reason, AND RAPE?LOL
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN God ordered genocide quite a few times in the bible. Often times he told men they could take the virgins from the slaughtered people. That is rape. I don't know how you can say the bible doesn't condone rape or genocide. Even if there is a reason for genocide (like you are claiming) it's still genocide.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint137 "Hitler most certainly didn't believe in evolution."
Are you kidding?He most certainly believed in evolution.There is no basis to believe evil exists if God doesn't.The prisons are full of people who believe that they are their own gods and that they determine right and wrong,however,God's law is written on everyone's heart,that's why they KNOW that things are good or evil,even the demons believe in God and know right from wrong, their existence in this world is to blur the line.
CBALLEN 6 months ago
@CBALLEN Hitler believed in recapitulation theory which is far different than evolution by means of natural selection. You can say God's law is written in our hearts but you are trying to argue that knowing evil is evidence for God. It doesn't even point us in that direction, especially because anything that we call evil has been called good by other people so why did God create humans with vastly different ideas of what evil is.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@CBALLEN I, for one, do not believe in right and wrong or good and evil. But as far as "feeling" that things are right or wrong, even bees do that. Mother bears do that, but obviously their concept of evil can include a lot of innocent hikers who were really no threat at all. But you're better safe than sorry when you're busy surviving and reproducing- mother bears who are more socially accepting have not fared so well. This sense of right and wrong was present long before the ability to reason.
badmuthahubbard 5 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Then there is conflicting ideas in the story of random chance flipping heads almost every time. Furthermore, even if you flipped heads 1 million times, that says nothing of the odds being more than 50% for the 1 million and first flip. You point to past future results being uniform, but what about future futures? You cannot speak to that. Induction is a fallacy and Plato was off on sooo much. I don't know what you were getting at with the horse bit.
1tmoch 6 months ago
@1tmoch You are just arguing that inductive reasoning can't give absolute answers about anything. You are correct, but an inductive truth is more likely to be true than a guess. The past is an indicator of what happens in the future, it's just not a certainty.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
Keep your personal religious views to yourself and don't spew upon others what they "should" believe. Religion is a personal thing, right?
Oyhus 7 months ago
@Oyhus Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?
1tmoch 7 months ago
Excellent video! Sad to see so many atheists commenting though, who obviously did not understand what you clearly proved. But they just go on, arrogantly asserting ignorance.
"Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." Isaiah 59:1-2
Enoch2 7 months ago
GO TO GODISIMAGINARY(.)com
landewebshow 7 months ago
@1moch
Let me ask you these questions:
1-why Islam and old greek religions are NOT true?
2-It is true that scientific arguments BEGIN with an assumption. However: a-There is no thing as "uniformity of results" b-The idea is to support the assumption WITH experience. 2+3=5 is based of experience, not on mumbo-jumbo logic!
hedleypanama 7 months ago
The mere fact that the universe displays patterns of behavior and patterns of structure and chemistry and physical existence doesn't prove any form of theism, mono or poly.
Rainbowpikmin93 7 months ago
greatvid
urantiruslan 7 months ago
Good video.
WorshipInTruth 7 months ago
So how do you get to natural uniformity to 'therefore God'? You didn't define God, and you didn't demonstrate that God is the reason why gravity and chemistry and pain from stubbing your toe and everything else natural stays the same until something changes it, so it's nonsense to brag about how atheists might as well act as if there is no uniformity.
And atheism is not a worldview, it is only the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Anything that could constitute a worldview is separate.
Aleex490 7 months ago
Overly and unnecessarily complex
beatles61 7 months ago
I like this. Very well said.
XCHAPYEG 7 months ago
1:25 What support? What authority? Examples, please. Also, this isn't a random universe. The mere fact that every time in history that an apple is dropped it falls shows patterns. For instance, if nucleic acids were suddenly not complex enough to preserve information, every prokaryote species would immediately die. If you can find an example of an apple randomly not falling when within gravitational pull, you have disproven the theory of gravity. Congrats! But you still have not proven a deity.
Andy32268 8 months ago
@deadeaded If you take a swab of your own cheek, though a cell is living... it is not self-aware.. My cheek does not recognize itself. Even when parts of the brain are affected it SHOULD based on materialism change your characteristics as a human, make you a completely new person. But instead it will likely handicap you but not make you a totally new person. The point is that when we look at the things around us we OBSERVE that things that even our own body cannot recognize itself.
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@MrHappiness777 You're entirely missing the point... What you're saying doesn't follow at all. It's a complete non-sequitur.
Interestingly though, there is a part of your brain that, if destroyed, makes you incapable of recognizing faces.
Also interesting is the fact that babies don't recognize themselves in a mirror until they reach a certain age.
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded the evidence is common sense from what we see around us. Its just like gravity... we don't have to understand gravity to know that an apple falls.
What you are saying is not proof against consciousness separate from materialism because the fact that there is a brain and that information is stored within... is not what is being argued so proof of that does not disprove anything... this is assumed.
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@MrHappiness777 If consciousness is separate from the brain, but information is stored in the brain, how does the mechanism responsible for consciousness access the information? If this mechanism isn't part of the physical world, how can it interact with it? That's a logical contradiction.
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded How can a reaction make choice?
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@deadeaded Again we know there is a physical world... the physical world does not disprove forms of existence that go past flesh. You have also assumed that there is some law that the physical world does not incorporate this other working aspect.... obviously in this it MUST incorporate this idea because otherwise there is no consciousness. Again this is assumed.
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@deadeaded Again... there is no proof that could conclude that it is physical... but because the belief system of most modern day scientists would never allow such an idea outside of materialism.. and so they must deem it... a mystery. Think about it, if anything outside of materialism is not acceptable then how on earth could you an answer a question that requires that answer?
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@deadeaded How could it be? If it is just up to a brain, how come we can't shock a dead man into existence?
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@MrHappiness777 For many, many reasons. At death tissues start to break down, rendering such a delicate organ useless. Also, mental activity is unfathomably complex. Even if you could shock the brain in time, the probability of successfully triggering the many essential mental processes is far too small.
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded How come a womb can shock into place then eh?
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@MrHappiness777 During pregnancy, the body is built up in small steps; each chemical reaction being started at a time, slowly bringing the being to life. The complex reactions which make up life are layered onto each-other in gradual steps. Then, after birth, the brain creates complex neural networks in order to make sense of the world around it (parts of this are still going on in the teen years.)
It's an incredibly sophisticated, slow, and gradual process that we can't even begin to replicate
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded Right nevermind my point was that they aren't shocked into being but rather are already being and given life and grow, and so life and energy are separate. Energy is interchangeable with mass. We cannot gather life can we? And energy cannot be self-aware, just as rocks cannot be...
And you also miss my point about the death... if life is surged by energy then, immediately before death, then we should be able to continue life with the giving of more energy.
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@MrHappiness777 Life is a description we give to things that satisfy a certain set of criteria, it is not a thing. It's not something that is given or taken away, it is a state of being that a body can maintain or leave. Living beings are, essentially, a set of complex chemical reactions. When some of the components necessary to sustain the reaction fail, the organism ceases to be alive.
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded you have as much proof for that statement as there is for what you were trying to prove false. And a chemical reactions is but a term you have for life. Again... let me be redundant and repeat myself... A rock cannot be self-aware... no amount of shock can put any two molecules or energy into being self-aware... your argument is that a certain arrangement of molecules are what causes self-awareness. You see the silliness of that statement?
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@MrHappiness777 That isn't something that needs to be proved, it's the medical definition of life. Asking me to prove it would be like asking me to prove that paint is a fluid used to add colour to surfaces. That's just the definition.
As for how consciousness arises, no one knows. It's one of the greatest questions of philosophy, and one to which no one has yet provided a satisfactory answer. We're getting closer though.
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded No, its nothing like saying prove paint is liquid... Just because there are chemical reactions does not explain self-awareness. Again, shocking things will never make them self-aware. Energy, thoughtless nothing, inanimate objects, none of it can ever no matter the amount of time begin to start thinking. No matter how you arrange them. A body can be arranged and moving on its own from energy or reactions... look at robots... but they cannot be self-aware...
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@deadeaded In other words, chemical reactions are when some molecules react and cause something further to change, physical changes... but no matter what amount of those happen, how can they collectively be self-aware of themselves as a whole? Nothing in your explanations makes sense of this. Because it is common sense that thoughtless matter cannot make itself thoughtful. Moving energy signals doesnt make one interpret it. A chemical is but a chemical it doesnt disprove or prove anything.
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
@MrHappiness777 When you're dealing with things as complicated and mysterious as consciousness, you cannot trust "common sense". Common sense stops working very early in a journey through scientific knowledge. You cannot trust our minds, which evolved to understand "easy" phenomena, to be able to correctly interpret such complex phenomena. You need evidence.
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded Is gravity not complicated and mysterious? We still know that it happens. You are making many assumptions... you assume we evolved from single-celled organisms... you assume that humans always jump to "easy" phenomena... and you assume that this needs more evidence.
MrHappiness777 1 year ago
Excellent argument. The logical end of Athiesm is a version of hindhuism that believes that nothing is real...all is an illusion. If our thoughts and sense of reality is purely the product of material evolution, then we can not know that anything is real. Our brains could be projecting a fantasy world to us that is not reality. Watch the movie called "inception". It is closer to the logicl end of athiesm than anything I have ever seen.
VeryImagesozo 1 year ago
@VeryImagesozo I saw it. Good film, but it had some flaws. I was caught up in the fact that to me, dreams don't seem longer than the reality taken in dreaming them, but they seem super short. There were some other errors which i can't remember, but it was still interesting and entertaining.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch the video is excellent, perfect and true. Very good brother thank God you are on youtube.
shockofgod 7 months ago
@shockofgod Rich, I ask again, what debate room are you talking about?
Lanthiriel 7 months ago
@VeryImagesozo You're saying that atheism = solipsism. That if we are the product of natural forces, we cannot 'know' that anything is real, our own mind could be making it up. The first flaw here is that you're referring to 'know' as being absolutely 100% certain. We can't be 100% certain that anything exists, but we can be as certain as it's possible to be. It makes no sense to link this to atheism, because you haven't demonstrated that God is the reason why we can 'know' anything exists.
Aleex490 7 months ago
@Aleex490 No...I am saying that naturalism's logical conclusion is solipsism. In other words, if there is nothing outside of ourselves that created us with a built in ability to preceive the outside universe around us, then the only source we have of knowing reality is not an outside source, but rather ourselves alone. We are not reliable sources of reality to ourselves . if our brains are the product of naturalism or Darwinian evolution. I cannot come to any other conclusion.
VeryImagesozo 7 months ago
@VeryImagesozo Uhh, Religion doesn't solve that problem in the least. Regardless of anything, you only have your own senses to go on. If our senses weren't reliable, Darwinian evolution would not selected them to survive, so in fact our senses should be reliable according to Darwinian evolution. And not only that but it you assume evolution happens then you are assuming an outside world.
ExSaint1379 7 months ago
*sigh* What you're talking about is a collection of very common philosophical questions. They have nothing to do with god... It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the universe shows some sort of physical consistency without having to believe in a god.
Oh, and I just though you should know that we can, in fact, figure out what people are thinking by looking at what's going on in the brain. FMRIs and the like have steadily been providing more and more evidence for the brain=mind hypothesis.
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded Wrong on the FMRI's. It is funny that you even mentioned that.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch oh is it? So when researchers can correctly identify what object a person is thinking of (from a list) based on brain activity, it's just a coincidence? When parts of the brain are disabled by transcranial magnetic stimulation, it's just luck? "Emotiv Systems" is just a big hoax?
Pray tell, what is the brain for, if not thought? And if our consciousness is really something separate from our physical body, how is it communicating with our physical selves?
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded I'm not saying that there is not a mind body connection, one influencing the other and so forth. That of course is real and the relationship. I am merely saying that they are not the same or identical. See my 5 part series on the soul. I think you'll find it interesting.
1tmoch 1 year ago
Comment removed
PintOThat 1 year ago
Evolution isn't an arbitrary claim, it is backed up by modern genetic sequencing techniques as well as the fossil record? Heliocentricity isn't an arbitrary claim it is backed up by telescopes. You need look no further than the bible to find all the arbitrary claims you could wish for.
PintOThat 1 year ago
@PintOThat Neither genetics nor fossils could even possibly provide proof for that science fiction hypothesis. Why did you even bring up heliocentricity?
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
Yes they do. It is quite simple really. Since we can view an organisms gene structure we can see that we share genes with plants, jellyfish, dolphins etc. the closer relative the organism is to us the more genes will be found to be identical. Fossils appear in layers in the earth's crust with the older organisms at the bottom and recent ones at the top. to disprove evolution you would have to find a bear buried alongside a velociraptor for instance. The bible believed in geocentricity.
PintOThat 1 year ago
@PintOThat Dude, the fossil layers are all rearranged all over the world. There is no consistency. Get up to date. "Higher life forms" are found below "lower life forms." Also, similarities only prove that they are similar in some fashion, not that they evolved. That is an assumption, which has no place in the OBSERVABLE scientific method.
1tmoch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tmoch
#1
I’m sorry but I do know quite a bit about this. You just said there is no consistency, but then you said that more complex animals are buried beneath the less complex ones, complex here can also be seen to mean older. If higher life forms are buried beneath the lesser ones then that means the first animals to become extinct were complex and slowly became less and less so as each species died out. I implore you to look this up! This is a major blunder...
PintOThat 1 year ago
@PintOThat This is no blunder. They are NOT consistent, and there are PARTS of the world where fossils that were "supposed" to appear fairly recently by evolutionary standards are found way beneath the supposed ancient ancient ancestors. It's all a big joke, a fairy tale for grown ups.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
#2
... You are starting to come across as if you don’t know anything about what you decry.
OK by your standards genetic similarity is just similarity. I’d like to know then how is it that a whale has genes for making hind legs, as well as a useless bone that used to be a hind leg and why do chickens have the genes for making teeth?
PintOThat 1 year ago
@PintOThat #1 Even if you proved evolution, you would not disprove God.
#2 Even if you proved old earth, you would not prove evolution (only that the earth is old).
#3 Survival of the fittest only proves that the strongest or luckiest survive,
#4 Similar design only proves that there are similarities.
I cry out for separation of church and state. We are producing a massive throng of indoctrinated blind faith’ers not taught to think critically. In the science fiction classroom= brain off.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch #5 Supposed transitions are defined by who and what authority, and this still is an assumption one is a transition of the next. This says nothing of whether the organism had kids and what it looked like.
#6 Similar homologous structure (form) only proves similar function and common designer. (what about the same structure of eyes on an octopus and that of a human, did they then therefore come from one another)?
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch #7 Similar genetic structure says nothing of a “common ancestor,” rather that many components are similar (proteins, blood, skin, bone, hair, etc). The percentages are not even that close when non coded DNA is considered. 95% similarity is huge. In 1% there are roughly 48 million nucleotides. A difference of 3 is fatal. I guess now the jellyfish and the snow cone are relatives since they are both 99% water.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch #8 The fact that certain organisms can no longer mate, just shows that the DNA is getting more corrupted and weak, saying nothing of evolution. The differences in a species or natural selection (aka: breeding) have limits and do not produce new info. It needs to have available that which it “selects.”
And it just gets worse and worse and worse for evolutionists with their assumptions, frauds, and anti-scientific application. I think i'll turn this and other info into another video.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch Hi again, OK maybe not a blunder, apologies, don’t know where you got that info from or its credibility but I would argue that the vast majority follow my pattern with a ‘few’ anomalies, still has credibility.
PintOThat 1 year ago
@1tmoch #1 I never said it would disprove God. What it does disprove is any Theist God that has a creation story. This doesn’t apply to a Deist God for obvious reasons.
#2 Geology and radiation half-life DO prove old Earth. Evolution takes a very long time, whilst not proving evolution, evolution does fit with the time frame. Also 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. The Woolly Mammoth did not die out ‘8000?’ years ago.
PintOThat 1 year ago
@1tmoch #3 Sure, only the strongest survive because they have the right traits for it. You forget that they then go on to pass on these favourable genes/traits, altering the species.
#4 I assume you mean genetic similarity. Yes similarity does prove similarity... Why are they similar? That is the question that evolution answers rather well.
#5 I’m sorry, I don’t know what you’re getting at with this one?
PintOThat 1 year ago
@1tmoch #6 Once again, yes similarity does prove similarity it does not prove that there was a designer though (your arbitrary claim, perhaps). Actually your point lends more weight to evolution. Common function = common need for that function. If two species had a common need they will develop a common function to fulfil that need. This is Evolution.
PintOThat 1 year ago
@1tmoch #7 Sure, blood, bone, skin, Chicken teeth? Whale legs? Jellyfish thing is just fatuous as water isn’t an organism, I thought we were talking about DNA.
#8 If an organism can no longer mate then it is either a sterile hybrid or a new species. Your arbitrary claim is to assume that DNA is weaker for having changed. Silly.
PintOThat 1 year ago
@1tmoch If Evolution is applied un-scientifically why is it that the huge majority that apply it are scientists? Insults aren’t really needed unless you think you can’t make a valid argument without them. If you do make a video I do hope that you take an objective view and will let me comment on it?
PintOThat 1 year ago
@PintOThat That's cool. I insult simply because it boggles my mind how stupid it is. The more i study it, the more i see this (been at it for 8 years now). And you didn't clear up anything, rather just re-stated your opinion. As for a majority, who cares. A majority of scientists believed in innumerable wrong things throughout history. Many evolutionary scientists even admit that they hold to it for other philosophical reasons and that it is severely lacking, if not bunk altogether. Anyway...
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch I answered your questions as fully as i was able thanks. I don't know where you get your facts from but 95% of biologists do not believe in a personal god. What i did was re-state my facts, because you seemed to ignore lots of them.
I've still not heard any valid explanation as to why whales have the genes for making legs and chickens the genes for making teeth?
Also when science has got it wrong it is science that corrects itself, its what it means to be scientific.
PintOThat 1 year ago
@PintOThat Who cares what a majority of biologists IN THIS AGE conclude. I don't appeal to ad populum arguments (as a majority of the world thinks evolution is hog wash). You gave zero facts, but only assertions. Some birds have teeth and whales have bones that have been mistaken for legs, which are actually anchor points for delivering baby whales. That is sad that you bring the whale example up.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
#2
The majority of all biologists i.e. experts in their field, don’t subscribe to any faith, a biologist knows more about biology than 100 billion laymen any day. So yes, ad populum isn’t particularly important but my point was regarding the level of intelligence of these people not their number.
PintOThat 1 year ago
@PintOThat Yes, but it doesn't require a phd to sniff out philosophy from that which is true science. It doesn't even have scientific credentials as a hypothesis. Also, the "pro's" in every category have been shown to be in error throughout history on so many things it is not even funny. We'll put it this way, i am in the medical profession, and many "therapies" i will never use myself, and i don't trust some of my colleagues as far as i can throw them. Some biologists don't believe in evolution
1tmoch 1 year ago
Hi there. I'm not an atheist myself but I have to say that your argument isn't making any sense. It doesn't seem to follow that uniformity and probability require a deity. Could you explain further please? I would really love to see how this argument really works but at the moment I just can't connect the dots and that may be some fault on my part, so could you enlighten me please? :)
Sophiethefembot 1 year ago
@Sophiethefembot The method by which the atheist operates in this world is with the presupposition that no God is controlling all things. This is why they speak of a random chance mutative universe. With this in mind, you cannot expect uniformity in nature and thus do away with the whole scientific enterprise, b/c the scientific process assumes the future experiments will in some way be like the past or no progress would ever be. Probability is just a way of smuggling uniformity back in.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch We are VERY finite creatures and could never speak even close to authoritatively on any of these subjects in a world that is operated apart from God. The reason people assume so is because they ACTUALLY do live in God's universe and have been made to know these basic things. It goes deeper, but i don't feel like getting into it in the comment section. Watch part 2 of that video and check out Greg Bahnsen on these subjects. He explains it it great detail. Atheism is soooo freaking stupid.
1tmoch 1 year ago
Reasons not to beleive in any god:
1. Lack of any empirical evidence
2. If a god created the universe, what created god
3. Most gods who have been worshipped are dismissed as myths, and most current gods are no more provable than those.
4. All-powerful beings are a logical fallacy, "Could God create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?"
spottywolf 1 year ago
Comment removed
adamimos 1 year ago
nice hat bro
joesilver72 1 year ago
I couldn't finish the video cos it wouldn't load, but so far I do not actually see you're proof of god. I agree, things such as logical absolutes and thermodynamics exist as things not dependent upon minds and matter. So what? I don't actually get your argument, please explain.
logicalmind4 1 year ago
Atheis is basicly against the concept of the Creator, but at the same time it denies the existance of it, so from atheist point of you your being against a concept which doesnt exist, seems like waste of time.
MultiPropagandaPanda 1 year ago
I don't understand one point. If inductive science requires a God to keep the laws of nature regular (in order to keep the axiom of induction reasonable) , why isn't it just as reasonable to say that there is a God who has kept the laws of nature constant up until this moment, and tomorrow He will change everything? How can we make the leap from acknowledging the weakness of inductive science to making claims about the nature of God?
adamimos 1 year ago
I am not making claims about God BECAUSE of the weakness of induction applied to scientific endeavor. God won't change His mind and say screw all regularity. Even if He did, that would just mean shit is hitting the fan, thats all. The bible reveals a God of order, and logic (the divine Logos) and that He is the one that sustains the universe so that we can test it and take dominion over the earth. Whether it is induction or deduction, the atheist cannot consistently appeal to anything.
1tmoch 1 year ago
I don't understand why you say the scientist cannot use induction in his appeals; as far as I can tell that is all he uses in his appeals. The scientist does not make claims of absolute truths, at best he says , "this idea that I am presenting seems to be not wrong yet as far as we can tell." Science doesn't prove things true, it just tests to see if they are wrong.
So again, I'm still not sure if I understand: What is the proof that God is a God of order and logic?
adamimos 1 year ago
This an issue of first principles. I'm not saying that an atheist cannot use induction, but that he cannot do so consistently in accords to his philosophy. Which is it, a designed universe or one from random chance? There is no aim without an aimer, and chance gives no reason to believe the future will be like the past. If i flip a coin 50 times and get heads every time, i'd have no reason to believe i have better odds than a 50/50 on the 51st flip. God is the impossibility of the contrary.
1tmoch 1 year ago
@1tmoch
Aim is only apparent through hindsight. It looks like a straight line because that is the only way we can see it. But that is not the case, or not necessarily the case. The universe could be aimed, and everything that has happened so far could have happened because it was pointed in that direction, but it is also possible that no god pointed us in this direction, and that life happened because molecules started sticking to each other in a funny way in a puddle ages ago.
Mugulord 1 year ago
@Mugulord
The rules operate on their own. The way we understand these rules is through science. These rules do not require the inclusion of a deity to work. I would like to apply occams razor now, but I'm pretty sure you could swat that away. You seem good at that sort of thing. Instead I will just say easy answers are less of a headache, and so long as they work they may as well be right.
Mugulord 1 year ago
@Mugulord Well, occam's razor is relative to who is speaking, i.e. who thinks it is the simplest explanation, and so, essentially pointless to appeal to. I say that according to occam's it is the simplest and consequently the ONLY explanation that accounts for reality. You talked about molecules "sticking." Molecules wouldn't even BE unless there were God, and they wouldn't DO anything unless there were. There is no information without a mind behind it.
1tmoch 1 year ago
Comment removed
adamimos 1 year ago
@adamimos economies of thought and knowledge.
adamimos 1 year ago
@adamimos (sorry it took so long to respond) I agree that 'chance' gives us no reason to believe the future will be like the past. Furthermore, it is a misrepresentation of the scientific method to assert that science makes such a claim. Instead, science only uses the conception of the continuity and uniformity of the laws of nature in an economic (in the way that Ernst Mach used the word) sense - that is, because it is useful, not because it is true. Science makes no claims of truth, only of
adamimos 1 year ago
This 'critique' is badly floored.
Science seeks to explain the consistency we observe. "Why does it always hurt when I stub my toe? Why does and marker always fall? Why does theobservable universe have consistant physical qualities?"
Science seeks to answer questions.
God does not prevent the physical univrse from descending into chaos, the laws of physics (known or as yet unknown) do.
Bkkhngr81 1 year ago
The "laws of physics" are just ideas in some scientists mind, not an actual thing. It is a descriptive pronouncement. Seeing that it is nothing, it has no power to do anything. An atheist experiencing regularity is miraculous without God. In fact, the first time he experienced something (something outside his normal experience) it would be considered a miracle as well.
1tmoch 1 year ago
Looks like I have no idea how to use youtubes comments.
Mugulord 2 years ago
I make straw man arguments too, 1tmoch. You create your opponent and you whack it about and you stand victorious.
I'll rise up to the challenge as an atheist. I wish I had a transcript of everything you said mind you, my head was spinning by the end of the video.
Alright, first things first, arbitrariness, and inconsistency. Religion, and the people in it's embrace, and atheism, and it's people are equally guilty of this sin.
Mugulord 2 years ago
I've heard plenty of arbitrary and inconsistent arguments on both sides. By your logic, both sides would then be lacking in credibility. Lets leave this topic aside then, because given the values presented, I think both sides are only as good as the people arguing them, not the actual meat and potatoes of either side.
Mugulord 2 years ago
True, people are inconsistent on both sides of the fence and would therefore lack credibility. However, the Christian worldview is not contingent upon the individual Christian to interpret any way he or she wants. Hermeneutics applied to scripture equal exegesis. Now, atheistic principles (though there are different denominations of atheists), follow a pretty fundamental creed if you will. Perhaps not as lengthy as the Christian creed, but never the less. Which view comports with reality?
1tmoch 1 year ago
Well, if I were to test which side comports with reality, say by praying for events to happen 50 times, and then letting them happen on their own 50 times, I think they would be about the same, and as I increase the sample size, it becomes even more likely that the sample will be the same. I think you would probably reply that there is more to reality than the tangible, and I would reply there is only the testable. I don't have to hold radio waves in my hand to believe in them.
Mugulord 1 year ago
Also, when you say "Hermeneutics applied to scripture equal exegesis" you are saying that interpretation of the bible equals an interpretation. Doesn't that say nothing? I'm just going by the definitions of these words that I found myself, so please enlighten me if I'm off. There is a fundamental creed to atheism, which is bent to each atheists needs philosophically. To be atheist means you don't believe in gods. Christians are atheists, unless they believe in every pantheon that has...
Mugulord 1 year ago
ever existed as well. But I go one god further, I am completely atheist. I do not disallow the existence of something we would call a god, but I have seen no evidence of an of the gods presented by an earthly religion. If evidence is provided, I'll will no longer be an atheist. I do not need to prove your gods don't exist, you need to prove they do remember. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Mugulord 1 year ago
If someone claims that a unicorn exists, I have every right to demand evidence. If none can be provided then the claim is false. If you claim that a supreme being exists that answers our prayers, then I demand you show me the evidence that prayer is answered.
Mugulord 1 year ago
Oh hey, context makes a difference, had to re-read the conversation. Ok, when I say that the argument is only as good as the people arguing, I don't mean that there is 100% room for interpretation of both sides, life isn't like that. But at the same time, there is no single right way to read a book like the bible. I have had people tell me that the quotes of Jesus saying "I am not come to bring peace but to bring a sword" are actually a really nice way of saying...
Mugulord 1 year ago
"I am going to make a lot of people disagree with each other" but I can't see that. He said I am not here to bring peace, he compared himself to one of the first true weapons, a device who's only purpose is to kill other human beings. If he said almost any other weapon that existed during his day, he would have left himself an out. Spears, bows, clubs, and almost any other weapon used to be farming or hunting implements or trade tools. A swords only job is to kill people.
Mugulord 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mugulord 2 years ago
Seriously....stop splitting hairs. Focus on proving faith rather than disproving non-belief. If I drop a marker 40 times, me telling you the marker will drop a 41st time is fortified by the laws of gravity. Jesus being nailed to the cross is fortified by word of mouth. Could be from a mouth that fears eternal punishment and accepts subconscious programming or could be from an ex-heroin junkie who had his soul saved at the cost of losing his marbles.
ScrollAndKeyBeatz 2 years ago
My "faith" is the impossibility of the contrary. My "faith" makes scientific inquiry something worth engaging in and learning from. Whose ultimate foundation makes rationality reasonable, mine or yours? Hint: if you are an atheist, it cannot possibly be yours. Faith does not pick up where reason goes no further, rather faith is an order to use reason. Without faith, you cant reason at all, because either youll have faith in God who gives reason, or have faith in reason as your ultimate (god).
1tmoch 2 years ago
@1tmoch So in so many words... Please, explain where reason indicates life was created by one omnipotent entity.
ScrollAndKeyBeatz 2 years ago