Ok, now show me the Evidence that u have that proves that God does not exist. Atheist accuse Christians of having blind faith, but it turns out thats exactly what Atheist have. You have no Evidence to support your position. You have no Evidence to support that God does not exist, so u live with a blind faith that God does not exist
Ahh, lets see here... Theres Scientific Evidence, Historical Evidence, Archaeological Evidence, 3rd party Evidence, Fulfilled Prophetic Evidence, Statistical probabilities... they're Eye Witness accounts, over 25,000 pieces of parchments & documents that show that the texts are original and never been altered. Theres Mountains and Mountains of Evidence... Continued ^
the rule that everything had to have been created is a scientific law. God exists outside of science and the law does not apply to him, he is infinite and omnipotent. the universe had to have come from something without a beginning because if God had a creator and a beginning his creator would have a creator who had a creator and so on, forever, it all had to start somewhere, and it would need to come from as force powerful enough to create life
@atticana well put...this is my problem w/ the theists....they say to the scientist, you have to PROVE how the universe started, but I don't, I can just make up some BS and say "well, god is out of this dimension so I don't have to explain it"...we should attack that line of thinking every time they try to pull that crap. I saw Dawkins do a good job with that once, when a kid from Liberty Univ tried to pull this on him he said mockingly “well, is THAT convenient”
Yes, Arguments can be defeated. In fact, all arguments are dead simple to defeat. Arguments from run-of-the-mill people are easier still. God coming from nothing might be more complex than the universe coming from nothing, but both are still impossibly unlikely. We've hardly gotten off of our tiny planet, and we still hardly know about it. Why do we then feel the need to shove issues thousands of times more complex than our comprehending ability into easily debunked logic? Stupid char limit :( .
Well, the problem here is that most theists would argue not just that God is eternal, but that He exists OUTSIDE of time. He is the Eternal Subject, but everything created is an object, whether it be one atom or the whole universe. To argue for an eternal universe is nothing new, Aristotle did it. And if that were true then clearly God could not be the Creator. I do not believe that it is true.
@atticana well put...this is my problem w/ the theists....they say to the scientist, you have to PROVE how the universe started, but I don't, I can just make up some BS and say "well, god is out of this dimension so I don't have to explain it"...we should attack that line of thinking every time they try to pull that crap. I saw Dawkins do a good job with that once, when a kid from Liberty Univ tried to pull this on him he said mockingly “well, is THAT convenient”
Dude! Your other videos are so good! Why'd you have to go and make this silly video? Read some Aquinas, dude. You really don't understand the argument.
I believe if there is a "GOD" it is a ecosystem like human body is a ecosystem made by 90% from bacteria we cannot control. Imagine ecosystem of all life on earth it is not eternal being it is the way our planet changes based on our global thinking ok so he couldn't create earth,life etc but imagine that your bacteria would create a society which devastates the whole ecosystem by mindless consumption of resources and overpopulating you would slowly die we can actually see that happening to Earth
Facts doesn't stop to exist just because u don't believe in them gravity simply is there so u can smash your mouth on the ground when you stop believing in it will and try to fly. But we have societies without this god and it looks like he doesn't exist there. Also imagine that i give you box and tell you that there is a golden ring but also not to open it will you believe me? its the same as believing in something you can never see.
God by definition is all sufficient and eternal. Use the appropriate definitions. Science has pretty much established that the universe had a beginning, and the argument goes what caused it to come into being. The sentence "what created God" is just a combination of words, like a square circle, it doesn't mean anything. It is an argument for a first cause but does not identify the cause.
@Goodlife12334567 couldnt agree with u more and this dude on here tried sayin its only what the world makes of god today no its what it say in ancient mauscript tht makes him the evil tyrant he is and i also find it soooooooooooo funny tht christianity claims paganism to be evil but its the only religion tht says u should have freedom of religion unlike christianity who believe strongly in the shackled lifestyle
@CristianKirk God isn't something. He is something and he is nothing. He is something in form of nothing.He never began. He will never end. Matter ends. Energy ends. God doesn't.
Who the f*ck does this dude think he is? I'm no believer in religion or anything, but what's much WORSE than an annoying Christian trying to save your soul is this arrogant narcissistic JERK who thinks he's so smart and so qualified to enlighten us all with his lame (and VERY typical) atheist propaganda??
Bro.... fanatical Christian or fanatical atheist, you are still serving an agenda...... you are still a SHEEP (and a particularly obnoxious one).
So if your main basis for " refuting 'god' " is the understandings provided by science, please.... please, reconsider. I am not trying to promote "god", or any religion, I am only telling you these things out of love for a brotha from anotha motha. Don't believe what is PUSHED upon you daily. Don't drink from the town fountain, don't eat from the community trough. If it's being repeatedly shoved in your face, even after refusal, and its happening to everyone else around you, its usually poison,
@nunrgtrance2 Mate, Spinney may be a Libertarian Prick, but he is at least rational. Don't tell him he is drinking from the fountain, and just following what is pushed in his face. Science is NOT oushed in anyone's face. Science is simply something waiting to be discovered. Your choice to discover it or not. He IS openminded, even if I don't agree with everything (much) that he says. Atheists invented openmindedness!
@nunrgtrance2 Openmindedness and questioning dogmatic truths was an invention of the ancient Greeks, and that rational approach led many of them to Atheism. It was rediscovered in the west starting in the Renaissance, ij the face of MASSIVE opposition from the Church. Religion thrives on closedmindendess, or faith as you call it. The Church used to execute people who tried to translate the Bible from Latin into the vernacular tongues of the land.
@nunrgtrance2 And do you know why they executed these people? Because the Church thrives on ignorance. That is why they forced men like Galileo to recant heretical teachings, taht just happened to be true. Now, the church has changed, religion has changed, some will say. Bullshit. The only reason you now hear pastors and priests and others calling upon people to be openminded is because people have fallen away from religion. They are on the back foot.
@nunrgtrance2 One thing the church has always been good at is adopting the tactics of their enemies. The Church couldn't kill Mithras worship, so they adopted it. The church couldn't kill Isis, Artemis and Aphrodite, so they turned them into Mary. The Church lost converts to Luther so they launched the counter-Reformation. And now the church has adopted the language of rationalism. They tell us to think, to be openminded, to question... bullshit! Those are our words, our ideas, our rationalism!
@nunrgtrance2 Being openminded rational, thoughtful, these things can only lead to the conclusion taht God does not exist, due to a lack of actual evidence, yes, but also due to the most basic logical conclusions. None of it makes even the slightest bit of sense. None of it. Science is a simple process. Science questions truths. If those truths have no evidnce to support them they are discarded. End of discussion. Science has no agenda. Science is neither theistic nor atheistic.
The same could also be said about the big bang theory. Beings DO "evolve", and the Universe did emanate from a central source, and is expanding. And eventually it will reach the crush point, and retract. But these simple truths are often plagued by an "idea", "from science", that removes the true meaning and benefits of understanding these mysteries, and replaces them with an "answer", which is almost always wrong. Just a cold, hollow, meaningless bit of false data.
We, as humans forming society as a whole, like to think we have 99% of everything figured out. Just because NASA gives the populace pictures of planets, stars, galaxies, blazars, quazars, space junk, etc, does not make them real. Eg.) The theory of evolution has been debunked dramatically, time and time again. I remember learning evolution in school. They called it theory, but based a shitload of other "facts" on that theory, making it "true", in the speculation of the learning mind. (cont)
Jacob, do you know a place we can talk without this character limit? This is going to make it extremely difficult to effectively communicate our points.
It is arguing what we observe in the natural world has a cause. God is not confined by the natural world as we are, He is in the supernatural therefore escaping the need for a cause. Question, how can gravity, matter, momentum, etc. bring gravity, matter, momentum, etc. into existence?
@CorrespondingReality Let's say the universe needs a cause that itself does not require a causal explanation. Why must that thing be God? Why must it be an act of an all powerful conscious being? But that's even assuming a premise I don't necessarily agree with in the first place. If we are to say that God has no cause, then why not just save a step and conclude that the universe has no cause?
@JacobSpinney Because in the natural world we see things, we observe, have a cause. However, unless we assume eternal time, which I think is ridiculous, there must be something outside the natural world to have caused something.
@CorrespondingReality Quantum physicists would probably disagree with your assertion that everything we see in the natural world has a cause. But let's just assume that you're right; that thus far from all of the things in the natural world we've investigated, they've all had a cause. It does not logically follow that everything else we have yet to investigate must therefore have a cause as well.
Why is it ridiculous to assume eternal time? You assume an eternal god, do you not?
@JacobSpinney What we know of quantum physics, yes. It is theoretically possible that it does indeed have a cause and set rules. Everything we observe on the big scale has a cause.
Yes it does logically follow. The burden of proof is that something does not have to have a cause not that everything does. If everything we observe does then it is logical to assume everything does.
It is ridiculous to say eternal time because how could an infinite amount of time have transpired till this moment?
@CorrespondingReality My current understanding is that before the big bang, the standard laws of the universe did not exist. Why then do you wish to apply current universal laws to a time before they existed?
Yes. Let's use some simple logic. The universe exists. Therefore, either the universe had a cause or simply always existed. We cannot make any more logical deductions other than that.
@CorrespondingReality If we assume the universe had a cause, it does not logically follow to leap to the conclusion that the cause must therefore be an all-powerful conscious being who created the universe specifically for a particular species that would evolve on a planet orbiting an average star among billions within an average galaxy among billions of others 13 billion years later.
@CorrespondingReality Your question about time makes no sense. Let's assume that what currently exists in the universe is what has always existed, merely in different forms at different times. What exactly is your question asking? Just because the concept of infinity is very difficult for the human mind to grasp does not mean that infinity is therefore impossible.
@JacobSpinney I assume an eternal God but he is outside of time therefore He does not fall victim to the problem of an infinite amount of time being transpired.
@CorrespondingReality Again, you are making illogical leaps from starting premises. If we assume the universe had a cause, then it only logically follows that the first cause is something that itself did not need a first cause. It does not logically follow that the first cause must therefore be an all-loving all-powerful all-knowing conscious being who decided to create the universe merely for the purpose of playing a free will game with a particular set of earthly hominids.
...Beeeeecause as great as it is to said religious sheep, when him/her try to press his/her religions on bystanders who don't give two shits, the bystanders get pissed and annoyed :D Be happy with what you got and keep it to yourself, in your own home.
Christianity is one of the most made-up bullshit religions I know of, period. They even go a step further than religions who create their gods from the world around them.... The christian religion (and the branches of it from what it first started as to where it is now) took already existing idols from religions like Wicca and just transformed certain things into 'evil' icons to convert people. Now I'm glad people have something to believe in, that's great, but keep it to your damned self...
"'more disorder' in a system simply means that it is 'closer to equilibrium' or 'lower in energy" I don't disagree with you. The second law therefore proves that there is a universal tendancy towards decay and ultimately death. This is unequivocal proof that the universe is not eternal. The universe could not have brought itself into existence out of nothing, therefore it is completely rational to infer that universe had a creator.
Even more simple is to remove a bad question and replace it with a new question that potentially provides the answers sought by the bad question. eg: "what happened before the big bang?" = bad question "what happened AT the big bang?" =good question
Jacob, I'm an atheist and I thought this was very poorly argued. Clearly a complex system can create a less complex system, just as a less complex system can sometimes make a more complex system. There is nothing intrinsically contradictory in both possibilities existing simultaneously in the same universe. There are loads of better arguments than "who made god", and even the slowest theists don't even feel challenged by this hackneyed old question. I hope you will do better next time.
But for the former (a complex system creating a less-complex system) it is considerably more improbable for the more-complex system to form than the less-complex ex nihilo (literally from nothing, which is what "must have" existed for God to have significance).
Alternatively, for the latter God is redundant in any significant sense. Why call it "god" to begin with if it's a simple natural process?
Your points are nicely put, especially the implicit notion of a non-existent complex system producing simple matter out of nothing in an act of notable absurdity. I can counter half heartedly by suggesting that complex humans are currently experimenting with creating "pocket universes". As for the second point of course nature is replete with examples, and I doubt anyone seriously thinks that emergent phenomena are implicitly divine. I enjoyed your comment a lot.
@formless777 "the implicit notion of a non-existent complex system producing simple matter out of nothing in an act of notable absurdity" I don't think you got my point so I'll rephrase it. It is more-possible that a simple system comes out of nothing than it is that a complex system comes out of the same nothing. Hence it is absurd to claim that the complex system arose on its own to create the simple system when it is more-reasonable to assume the simple system arose on its own.
Simply...We take the theist's assumption that there had to be a "creation ex nihilo"...and turn it against them. If "Yahweh" can form out of nothing then it's more logical for "Hades" or "a nymph" (both less-complex) to form before "Yahweh". If that makes sense to you.
Of course I don't need to say that a non-existent anything making anything else is absurd. XD
Thanks for checking that I got that. I read it in the less complex and literal fashion first, then I noticed there was a more complex interpretation that was more humorous and went with that one. Again I completely agree with you, and I am glad my absurdist spin on it gave you a laugh.
@onijester56 "Of course I don't need to say that a non-existent anything making anything else is absurd." Correct, so why don't you apply that same logic to the universe?
This is a really silly objection to God's existence. The "Who designed the designer argument" is seriously flawed. Firstly, coming from the Christian perspective, we believe that God is eternal. It's interesting that if you ask the atheist, "where did the matter come from?" the answer is equivalent, matter is eternal. Aside from that, In order for an explanation to be the best, it doesn't require an explanation of the explanation. Otherwise you have an infinite regress... for everything.
The difference is that atheists have a pretty good idea of where matter came from. Considerable evidence points to the existence of other universes that periodically overlap with ours on a subatomic level, creating the situation where particles are apparently spontaneously generated out of the quantum foam of the universe. So far I haven't heard anything that makes God seem relevant or necessary to any explanation of the universe, just the reverse if anything.
@formless777 I assume your referring to virtual particles, yes? Virtual particles do not come into being uncaused out of nothing. They appear in the quantum vacuum which, as you know, is a sea of fluctuating energy. The vacuum is a 'physical reality' endowed with a structure and governed by physical laws. Out of nothing, nothing comes. That is a fundamental axiom of natural law. All the scientific evidence points to our universe as having a beginning. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
@elitegumby "we believe that God is eternal" Then why can't some form of the universe be 'eternal' as well?
"matter is eternal" Actually matter can 'create itself' from energy. E = MC^2, etc. However even if matter were eternal, matter is really simple. Hence it still becomes easier to reject the "god hypothesis" as it becomes redundant. And the reality is that energy is eternal (within statistical significance). So we have something simpler than matter, which is simpler than God. Yeah...
@onijester56 "Why can't some form of the universe be 'eternal' as well?" Erm... maybe because that completely contradicts what we know about cosmology. All scientists agree that the universe began to exist from a singularity in the finite past. Your following claim, "matter can 'create itself' from energy" is just absurd. Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics? The first law states that "in any given system neither matter nor energy can be self-created or destroyed.
@elitegumby "All scientists agree that the universe began to exist from a singularity in the finite past." False. All scientists agree that the present form of the universe began to exist from a singularity in the finite past. They have MANY hypotheses on what was before that. Yes, before this universe.
"Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics?" You forget the 'In a closed system' part. One hypothesis consists of many alternate universes that may work on the same 'system'.
@onijester56 "False. All scientists agree that the present form of the universe began to exist from a singularity in the finite past." That's a very misleading response to my point. They still concede that the universe began to exist. The only reason they would even use the term "present form" is because they're assuming (hoping) they will discover an alternative. There is currently no observable evidence to prove a multi-verse, much less that life can arise form non-life.
@elitegumby "They still concede that the universe began to exist." You don't seem to understand. They agree that THIS FORM OF THE UNIVERSE, the matter we have no, the constants we have now, the time that we have now...That began at the "Big Bang". But every scientist who knows what they are talking about admits that there was some form of the universe before the Big Bang.
I'll compare it to a number line. The Big Bang is "0". We are in the positive realm. But there WAS a "negative" realm.
@onijester56 "The Big Bang is "0". We are in the positive realm. But there WAS a "negative" realm." This is just a philosophically naive view of the word "nothing." The universe had a cause and it follows logically that this cause would be timeless, immaterial, spaceless and infinitely powerful. It also follows that this cause would be personal. The initial conditions of the universe were so finely tuned for intelligent life that if it were slightly altered, no life could exist. God exists.
["The initial conditions of the universe were so finely tuned for intelligent life that if it were slightly altered, no life could exist. God exists."]
Non sequitur + affirmation of the consequent fallacy. The universe is not fine tuned at all, we're on a rock in the middle of a mostly uninhabitable universe with a relatively short time to survive before the sun makes our planet uninhabitable, most of which is already uninhabitable to humans.
@onijester56 I think it's important that I share something with you now. The Bible reveals that man is in a state of rebellion with God. All of us fall short of his Holy standard and reject Him as ruler of our lives. The Bible calls this sin, and God's punishment for our rebellion is death and judgement (Heb 9:27, Rom 6:23). But because of His love, God sent His son, Jesus into the world to bring you the gift of forgiveness, through His atoning death on the cross. (continued)
@onijester56 But that's not all! God the Father raised Jesus to life again as the ruler of the world. Jesus Himself said, I am the resurrection and life, he whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live (John 11.25). The wonderful gift of eternal life is offered to all those who would repent and believe in His name. Just consider for a moment that your wrong onijester, and you missed out on all God has to offer you. An eternity separated from His love would be the greatest tragedy...
@sonicBlue00 "The greatest tragedy is living a lie, i.e worshipping an unsubstantiated and unnecessary god." I'll pass over your 'unsubstantiated and unnecessary comment' seeing as I've already provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. But I'm interested to know, why is this a tragedy on your world view? If naturalism is true then we're nothing more than chuncks of matter in motion, doomed to extinction. What difference does it make if I live a lie or not?
@elitegumby "The only reason they would even use the term "present form" is because they're assuming (hoping) they will discover an alternative" They don't know what was before the Big Bang. And the evidence shows that it considerably likely that the universe cycles through "Bangs" and "Crunches". They admit that we know the universe AS IT IS SINCE THE BIG BANG. Not AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE. They know its "present form".
Your ignorance isn't an argument.. I'm done with you.
@onijester56 The point I was trying to make was that by using the term "present form" of the universe, your begging the question. Namely, what empirical evidence is there to show that there is anything else? There isn't, only theories based on pure metaphysical conjecture. We know from observation that the universe is expanding. If you role back the film of history, all space time and matter retract back into the singularity. The universe had an absolute origin.
And then there is that the energy of the universe AS A COMPLETE SYSTEM (if there were no exchange between universes)...would in fact be constant.
Of course you also ignore that quantum physics does allow energy to form matter (which has the equivalent energy as the energy 'converted'). So while the first law as you state works as a generalization, it ignores the quantum level (which especially in the early universe) holds fundamental importance.
@onijester56 The logical flaw is requiring the entire universe to submit to notions of a context within an environment. "the universe came from...." , "the universe popped into....".
To call it a "COMPLETE SYSTEM" although outrageously correct and true, still violates logic by establishing a set without a context. pedantic idiot.sorry. This inferrs two sets of information. 1.) a place and time the universe was but isn't now 2.) a place and time the universe is...but wasn't before.
@onijester56 The second law of Thermodynamics shows that everything is tending towards disorder and entropy. In other words, all the energy is being burned up and the universe, excluding divine intervention, is doomed to a heat death. So much for your "energy is eternal" theory.
@elitegumby "The second law of Thermodynamics shows that everything is tending towards disorder and entropy" Entropy is 'energy loss from a system'...'disorder' in the common sense is simply the most general appearance of it. In the scientific sense, in words you would understand: 'more disorder' in a system simply means that it is 'closer to equilibrium' or 'lower in energy'.
Of course, I don't have to prove a thing. Neither does any other Christian. Either you believe or you dont. And that's a matter for your own conscience. However, your preoccupation with this does suggest you're struggling with that. Sadly, I can't help you there either. All I can do is wish you (and guy in video) the best. As for an argument for god, all I can do is point to the millions of other Christians who would also sincerely wish the same for both of you.
God is everything. Maybe, Im an idiot because I have not seen God, or maybe I am blind to Him. You make a valid point about an aspect of the argument. But I think you still have not convinced everybody.
Where was the part about god being destroyed? You offered a disputable argument against intelligent design, but nothing which disproved the existence of a god.
@JacobSpinney This argument of the "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit" from Dawkins is perhaps the saddest "argument" against the existence of God and is recognized as such by most of the philosophical community.
Here's one response by Richard Swimburne, page two, number three.
My faith that I have a Creator who brought forth the universe and cares for his creations and provides an afterlife for all who deserve to enter it will be proven when I die or I will have no existence and be unaware of any disappointment. I choose to believe.
This "Something that came from nothing" thing would also contradict against the big bang. You may not believe in that theory, but it would still argue w/ other theories about creation.
I love how people try to disprove something that takes faith to believe. Try as you will, you can never disprove a God to people that believe in faith.
@Gryndurr That's absolutely correct, but why would someone accept a claim based on faith i.e. without any evidence? "I believe that an infinitely delicious pudding pop exists at the center of the Andromeda galaxy. I have no evidence to believe that, but I accept it on faith." It just seems kind of silly.
This is a poor rebuttal, and lots of atheists use it (I used to). An explanation does not necessarily need its own explanation. If I find a set of spears in an area of land we used to think was uninhabited, it would be logical to conclude there were people there even though those people haven't themselves been explained.
The problem with God is that it has no explanatory or predictive value, not that it is unexplained or too complex (how do you measure complexity?)
you know the problem with christians isn't getting them to understand what you say, but getting them to realize how many unjustified hidden assumptions they have.
even if they see the argument is flawed, they'd go... "yeah, but god created everything, even if i can't demonstrate it".
they can't even acknowledge the possibility that they're actually wrong. but the ones that do acknowledge that posibility seem to become more and more atheistic in 2-3 years.
i hope that one day you can get past all of your arguments and ideas, and sit back and experience God and what he has for you. i hope that you one day, can have the joy that i have knowing that the God of everything sent his only son to die, so that we could live. God cannot be put in a box, and we honestly will never be able to understand 99% of the things that he does. but that my friend is the beauty of it:)
@andersonisadinosaur: Why did this all powerful God, who made all the rules, need to send his son to be tortured to death? A bit extreme no? This God of yours is one sick SOB! Also, I would like to share with you the joy of Mr Bear. I have known Mr Bear for 10 years now and he has changed my life. If only you could let Mr Bear into your heart. He loves you so much, but will shove hot pokers up your arse for all time if you reject him. Mr Bear bless you
@guerrillaroach He sent his son so that we can live eternally, with him. Yes it's extreme, but that's how imperfect we are, God couldn't be around us initially because we were so filthy and broken....that's how much He loves us. He sent his ONLY son, to die, so that we could live. Christ gave his life, it wasn't taken from him. And he conquered death 3 days later...how AWESOME is that?!!? Hahah, Mr.Bear. Funnny, I like it:)
@andersonisadinosaur: well that is just poppycock. Mr Bear is the one true lord and saviour of humanity, and if you would just accept him into your heart you would see that this Jesus dude is a fake, never existed. Just some made up guy based on the archetype of Mithras, Osiris, Krishna, etc... Whereas Mr Bear is the real deal! Don’t you wish to spend an eternity basking in his furry glow? I know I do.
@andersonisadinosaur i hope that one day you realize that you only problem was that you thought that joy can only come from religion.
i hope that one day you will realize joy is free, and as much as you'd like to know all of us are less happier than you, we may actually be more happier, even if you believe the weird things that you believe.
i hope one day you realize you don't need crap to be happy, and you can be even happier without crap.
@De4sher welllll if i'm wrong then i'm wrong. haha. and if i one day find out that god doesn't exist, i will probably change how i live a little bit. idk really, haha.
and if i find out god is real, i'm gonna stop eating babies...?
we're all moral normal, ok people anyway! nobody needs a god to be a good person... or are you saying that the only thing keeping you from killing your mother and having sex with her body is your belief that god is real?
@De4sher haha you're funny:) i don't know why you atheists get your panties in a bunch about this stuff. i believe in God. i believe he is the answer. i believe he died to save everyone sin. i believe he loves everyone, beyond their imagination and never stops forgiving and never will turn his back on you. ya, that's what i believe. and you believe he doesn't. awesome. you have that right. but one day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, that he is Christ <3
@andersonisadinosaur yea ok jackass it says right in your quote on quote holy book tht is filled with evils double standards and contradcitions tht he will give up on us nonbelievers and we will suffer for the simple fact tht we dont believe in him cus theirs not justifiable proof of his existence now let me asku this would u punish your kid by putting his hand on a hot stove? no i didnt think so u jackass come down from the trees and look at the TRUTH science!!!!!!!!!
@Cornbread395 He will NEVER give up on anyone. He is always sitting there waiting, patiently knocking for you to run home. Look, I used to be a Satanist. I totally understand where you're coming from. I get how you can hate God, it makes total sense. The world these days has turned God into something completely opposite from who He is. God doesn't punish us, we hurt ourselves. Just like the kid putting his hand on the stove burns his hand. Don't call me a jackass, it makes you sound stupid.
@andersonisadinosaur because beyond all of our arguments is simply looking at people like you who simply could be a lot better off without religion, and the frustration that we can't make you understand that we the atheists know everything about what you thing god is doing for you (since we were like you), and now that we aren't like you, we have found real peace, real love, real morality and real love of our neighbors.
but you won't get it, because you think you're special.
Where did God come from ? The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and where that might be. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.
I'm gonna go with crazykeyman in the sense that I believe that the whole concept of where the universe came from is beyond the capacites of humans to comprehend, especially when one gets into quantum phisycs and other universes, for obvious reasons.
I see some problems here. First, you start out discussing the teleological argument, but change to the cosmological argument. The second problem is that neither argument states that something complex must come from something even more complex. This means you have succumbed to a straw-man fallacy. Furthermore, neither argument states that God came from nothing, but is the first uncaused cause. Finally, the universe did begin, so we can't save a step there.
You didn't really destroy but merely pointed out the paradox. The paradox does not favor either side. On this argument Atheist 0 Creationist 0. this concept does not neatly fit into our limited brains no matter how you lay it out. Darn I was hoping you had something new, this is just so old hat.
Easy answer. God must exist outside matter time and space. God properties-omnipresent-immaterial- not confined by space. Where did God come from: answer- God would not be God if he was created. Conclusion: there is two opposing world views #1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. or # 2 nothing created the universe. Both are religious in nature.
i see where youre coming from completely. however, i do believe that god always existed and that he created everything else. the main difference between the 2 is that the universe developed over time, god did not, he was always a completed living being. things that develop over time always come from something else. therefore, the universe must have come from god because if it just always existed, it would have always existed the way we know it now, in all its complexity.
Who said that it is an infinant regression of complexities? That's an assumption of logic. Read up on Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica and Hilbert's Grand Hotel paradox.
@Tokkemon So we're allowed to use logic to prove that God must have created everything, but we're not allowed to use logic when it comes to Gods existence?
The problem with logic here is that it assumes that an infinite regression is possible, yet this has only been practiced in theoretical nature, i.e. mathematics, and never observed (or even postulated) in the physical world. You might be able to *assume* that it exists, but that's all it would be, an assumption.
@Tokkemon Then wouldn't using the logic of infinite regression as a proof of God be an assumption in itself as well? I did not put words in your mouth. I was asking a question.
Aquinas argues that the infinite regression must have a cause because such a regression cannot exist in reality. Everything must have a cause in this world. God is the ultimate cause and able to *not* have a cause *because* God n does not exist in this world. This is an explanation of why God is unseen in this world, because if God was seen, the laws of physics and all reality would completely break down because God operates on a completely different set of rules than this universe.
@Tokkemon So then why must this cause be a sentient being who is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and someone who created the entire universe for us in mind? Why can't this causeless cause simply be a blob of inanimate causelessness? You are overtly anthropomorphizing and overtly going beyond all logic by claiming that this causeless cause is the author of this book called the Bible. Such a claim has nothing to do with regression.
i dont belive in god at all but i hate it when relgious people say where did the earth come from? atoms. then they says where did those come from? Well fuck you where did god come from? its a question that can never be answer STOP ASKING IT!
How is my "spouting" incorrect, aside from my lack of intimate knowledge of the big bang? And how is it scientifically incorrect? I do read science books, that's how i disproved this other guys idea.
If I'm scientifically incorrect, by all means prove me wrong.
That's because the big bang Theory isn't really a theory, you see for something to be a theory you must have at least some proof for it, again, look it up. The big bang is no more than a very elaborate IDEA, not a theory, and the same goes for creationism. Both are accepted by faith, and neither is physically, or logically possible and there's no science involved whatsoever in either idea. So were pretty much arguing about nothing.
"evidence" being every single prehistoric ape-human they've claimed to be the missing link. Don't believe me? Look it up, they were either just regular monkeys, or a pigs tooth with a fabricated body, or a human whose teeth had been tampered with, and so on...But you were wight in stating that "we don't know", because nobody knows, because there's no PROOF, evolutionists don't have one peace of evidence that proves, or even points toward the big bang.
So there WAS something before the big bang? Didnt know that. So where did that come from?
And how come scientists Add a billion years onto the age of the earth every time they discover something really old? I remember the good old days when the earth was only 5 billion years old. My how time flies when you have to fabricate your evidence.
But unlike the big bang.....there was already vast amounts of energy TO BEGIN WITH! the big bang idea states that incalculable amounts of energy generated.....from absolutely nothing. I think that is equally as illogical as you claim a creator to be, don't you?
No where in the big bang theory does it state "something came from nothing." Nowhere. If you ask any credible scientist they will tell you the same thing. It started, according to theory, from a singularity 14billion years ago. But we don't know where it came from or what was before that. But scientists have the integrity to say when they are sure or UNsure about something. Your argument is a strawman. Read a science book once in a while before spouting something you don't know.
So there WAS something before the big bang? Didnt know that. So where did that come from?
And how come scientists Add a billion years onto the age of the earth every time they discover something really old? I remember the good old days when the earth was only 5 billion years old. My how time flies when you have to fabricate your evidence.
such energy does exist in the sun in our solar system, but it is impossible to tap, and should it ever die or whatever it would implode under its own mass and generate a black hole. Though upon the death of our sun
should it in fact explode, then yes it has potential for creating life, similar to the "Big bang".
-continued- plus where are you GETTING these astronomical amounts of helium and other gasses that compose a sun? Burning plastic does NOT emit helium, plus in order for plastic to BURN you need oxygen, it would get incredibly hot and melt, but once all of the potential energy is expended, you would have a gigantic ball of molten plastic and carbon.
According to your PCs creation idea its not the PCs that generate life but vast amounts of energy -continued-
@theatrefreak2010....i agree that the PCs would melt together, but assuming there was even enough PCs for that to happen, there would be a higher probability of this mass being sucked into a star or other solar system and being destroyed than it becoming a sun. Do you know what a sun is composed of?
There is a TREMENDOUS quantity of gasses, and pressure composing a sun. you cant make a sun out of a gigantic ball of burning plastic and whatever else is in computers -continued-
Sounds like your trying to define things to give meaning to it. Regardless of the labels we apply to it, it has little bearing on the realities of it. Perhaps out perception alone limits our understanding of certain things. Because of this, then this must be so. That is not always the case.
It would be nice to have the answers (whether God exists or not) but we shouldn't let our desire for definite answers interfere with our willingness to accept that we simply don't know yet. All we can do is continue investigating and learning. Will we ever find the answers? I'm not going to say it's impossible, as many things that have seemed impossible have not been impossible. You said it yourself, Jacob, only time will tell.
It seems unreasonable to call yourself an Atheist when, given the evidence at hand, you still can't know for sure whether or not God exists more than you can be 100% sure of anything. There is always a measure of uncertainty in any claim, especially when we're talking about God, whose existence cannot be tested at this time (which increases the measure of uncertainty exponentially). That's why I'm an Agnostic.
You and I have differing definitions of the word atheist. Theism has to do with belief. Gnosticism has to do with knowledge. I am an agnostic atheist in the sense that I cannot be certain that an all knowing all power sentient being is behind the curtain pulling the strings, but due to a lack of evidence I have the belief that there isn't; much in the same way that I cannot be certain that leprechauns don't exist, but due to a lack of evidence I don't believe they do.
Lol, fair enough. I'm just curious: for you, what would be adequate evidence to support the existence of God? What would have to happen for you to become a believer?
I cannot fathom an event that would make me believe that an all knowing all powerful all loving conscious being was the first cause of everything. It would be like asking me what it would take to make me believe that a square circle could exist in reality.
Entropy deals with complex systems. But as far as science is concerned, matter can never be created or destroyed. It can only change forms. But let's say the universe did have an absolute beginning. What evidence is there to suggest the an all powerful all knowing all loving conscious being started it all?
There isn't adequate evidence suggesting that an omnipotent being started everything. But let me ask you this: in your opinion, if scientists ever discover a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, does that completely falsify the existence of God?
There are certain claims that are simply impossible to disprove. "God" is one of them. At first, God was right up there in the clouds. Then we flew and didn't see God. Then it was thought that God must then be up in space. So we sent astronauts up there and didn't find God. In fact, the first cosmonaut is quoted as saying, "I looked and looked and looked, but I didn't see God." So now God exists in this undetectable dimension outside of reality.
If time and time and time again people claim that God is behind mystery XYZ, but then it is found that it was just another natural explanation that eluded us at the time . . . it does tend to make me think that the claim that THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT is full of hot air.
There is nothing complicated about this.God is outside the limits of space and time therefore he has no beginning or end.If he wasn't then he wouldn't be God.God cannot be quantified or measured.Science has proven the the universe came about at a certain time.Here is some food for though.God is infinite and we are finite in undestanding.Just because we can't explain everything about him doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
If god is out side of space and time then how did he reach in and start something that is in both space and time. If he is out side of it there is no way for him to interact inside of it, and if he is inside of it then there should be physical proof of him and of his origins (as explained in this video). saying that we can't find him because he is outside of space and time is self defeating.
Because he can do anything.He is suppose to be God Remember? Read properly before replying to me instead of texting crap in an attempt to sound scientific.I never said anything about finding God.This is about the idea that God was created!
If god can do anything, then why is the world the way it is. from my point of view, aids, starvation, and wars in his name just don't seem right. neither is creating eternal torture for not loving him, or being so narcissistic that he has to create people to worship him. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. at least in my mind. i don't know what you look for in a role model.
Your opinion or my opinion of God matters not.You can somehow think that you said proves there is no God but at the end of the day you will be accountable to him.You can ask him all those questions when you stand in front of him
Ok, now show me the Evidence that u have that proves that God does not exist. Atheist accuse Christians of having blind faith, but it turns out thats exactly what Atheist have. You have no Evidence to support your position. You have no Evidence to support that God does not exist, so u live with a blind faith that God does not exist
brendon080909 1 week ago
Ahh, lets see here... Theres Scientific Evidence, Historical Evidence, Archaeological Evidence, 3rd party Evidence, Fulfilled Prophetic Evidence, Statistical probabilities... they're Eye Witness accounts, over 25,000 pieces of parchments & documents that show that the texts are original and never been altered. Theres Mountains and Mountains of Evidence... Continued ^
brendon080909 1 week ago
Good point dude, saying god is above every law of sciene or motion is just a pathetic excuse to have somebody who can't be disproven
warzoneproduction 1 month ago
the rule that everything had to have been created is a scientific law. God exists outside of science and the law does not apply to him, he is infinite and omnipotent. the universe had to have come from something without a beginning because if God had a creator and a beginning his creator would have a creator who had a creator and so on, forever, it all had to start somewhere, and it would need to come from as force powerful enough to create life
1clackie 2 months ago
But what if God is the simplest thing in the universe?
theyoungmrt 2 months ago 2
@atticana well put...this is my problem w/ the theists....they say to the scientist, you have to PROVE how the universe started, but I don't, I can just make up some BS and say "well, god is out of this dimension so I don't have to explain it"...we should attack that line of thinking every time they try to pull that crap. I saw Dawkins do a good job with that once, when a kid from Liberty Univ tried to pull this on him he said mockingly “well, is THAT convenient”
Ruby1978 2 months ago
Yes, Arguments can be defeated. In fact, all arguments are dead simple to defeat. Arguments from run-of-the-mill people are easier still. God coming from nothing might be more complex than the universe coming from nothing, but both are still impossibly unlikely. We've hardly gotten off of our tiny planet, and we still hardly know about it. Why do we then feel the need to shove issues thousands of times more complex than our comprehending ability into easily debunked logic? Stupid char limit :( .
sam11182 2 months ago
Well, the problem here is that most theists would argue not just that God is eternal, but that He exists OUTSIDE of time. He is the Eternal Subject, but everything created is an object, whether it be one atom or the whole universe. To argue for an eternal universe is nothing new, Aristotle did it. And if that were true then clearly God could not be the Creator. I do not believe that it is true.
atticana 2 months ago
@atticana well put...this is my problem w/ the theists....they say to the scientist, you have to PROVE how the universe started, but I don't, I can just make up some BS and say "well, god is out of this dimension so I don't have to explain it"...we should attack that line of thinking every time they try to pull that crap. I saw Dawkins do a good job with that once, when a kid from Liberty Univ tried to pull this on him he said mockingly “well, is THAT convenient”
Ruby1978 2 months ago
@randycurry666 Ah,but energy and matter get neutralised in contact with antienergy and antimatter.
P.S. I'm an agnostic,I'm just trying to make you come up with a better way to disapprove of god's existence.
AkiZivina344 3 months ago
Dude! Your other videos are so good! Why'd you have to go and make this silly video? Read some Aquinas, dude. You really don't understand the argument.
Patience1138 3 months ago
I believe if there is a "GOD" it is a ecosystem like human body is a ecosystem made by 90% from bacteria we cannot control. Imagine ecosystem of all life on earth it is not eternal being it is the way our planet changes based on our global thinking ok so he couldn't create earth,life etc but imagine that your bacteria would create a society which devastates the whole ecosystem by mindless consumption of resources and overpopulating you would slowly die we can actually see that happening to Earth
Reaver4545 3 months ago
Facts doesn't stop to exist just because u don't believe in them gravity simply is there so u can smash your mouth on the ground when you stop believing in it will and try to fly. But we have societies without this god and it looks like he doesn't exist there. Also imagine that i give you box and tell you that there is a golden ring but also not to open it will you believe me? its the same as believing in something you can never see.
Reaver4545 3 months ago
God by definition is all sufficient and eternal. Use the appropriate definitions. Science has pretty much established that the universe had a beginning, and the argument goes what caused it to come into being. The sentence "what created God" is just a combination of words, like a square circle, it doesn't mean anything. It is an argument for a first cause but does not identify the cause.
DarthByss 3 months ago
I also argue that the Universe does not appear designed, but emergent, in other words it aint a finished product.
Neanderthalcouzin 3 months ago
@Goodlife12334567 couldnt agree with u more and this dude on here tried sayin its only what the world makes of god today no its what it say in ancient mauscript tht makes him the evil tyrant he is and i also find it soooooooooooo funny tht christianity claims paganism to be evil but its the only religion tht says u should have freedom of religion unlike christianity who believe strongly in the shackled lifestyle
Cornbread395 3 months ago
But what if God is the universe?
AkiZivina344 3 months ago
@AkiZivina344 Then how could something create itself?
CristianKirk 3 months ago
@CristianKirk God isn't something. He is something and he is nothing. He is something in form of nothing.He never began. He will never end. Matter ends. Energy ends. God doesn't.
AkiZivina344 3 months ago
Who the f*ck does this dude think he is? I'm no believer in religion or anything, but what's much WORSE than an annoying Christian trying to save your soul is this arrogant narcissistic JERK who thinks he's so smart and so qualified to enlighten us all with his lame (and VERY typical) atheist propaganda??
Bro.... fanatical Christian or fanatical atheist, you are still serving an agenda...... you are still a SHEEP (and a particularly obnoxious one).
Cocopium 4 months ago
So if your main basis for " refuting 'god' " is the understandings provided by science, please.... please, reconsider. I am not trying to promote "god", or any religion, I am only telling you these things out of love for a brotha from anotha motha. Don't believe what is PUSHED upon you daily. Don't drink from the town fountain, don't eat from the community trough. If it's being repeatedly shoved in your face, even after refusal, and its happening to everyone else around you, its usually poison,
nunrgtrance2 4 months ago
@nunrgtrance2 Mate, Spinney may be a Libertarian Prick, but he is at least rational. Don't tell him he is drinking from the fountain, and just following what is pushed in his face. Science is NOT oushed in anyone's face. Science is simply something waiting to be discovered. Your choice to discover it or not. He IS openminded, even if I don't agree with everything (much) that he says. Atheists invented openmindedness!
ptolemyauletesXII 3 months ago
@nunrgtrance2 Openmindedness and questioning dogmatic truths was an invention of the ancient Greeks, and that rational approach led many of them to Atheism. It was rediscovered in the west starting in the Renaissance, ij the face of MASSIVE opposition from the Church. Religion thrives on closedmindendess, or faith as you call it. The Church used to execute people who tried to translate the Bible from Latin into the vernacular tongues of the land.
ptolemyauletesXII 3 months ago
@nunrgtrance2 And do you know why they executed these people? Because the Church thrives on ignorance. That is why they forced men like Galileo to recant heretical teachings, taht just happened to be true. Now, the church has changed, religion has changed, some will say. Bullshit. The only reason you now hear pastors and priests and others calling upon people to be openminded is because people have fallen away from religion. They are on the back foot.
ptolemyauletesXII 3 months ago
@nunrgtrance2 One thing the church has always been good at is adopting the tactics of their enemies. The Church couldn't kill Mithras worship, so they adopted it. The church couldn't kill Isis, Artemis and Aphrodite, so they turned them into Mary. The Church lost converts to Luther so they launched the counter-Reformation. And now the church has adopted the language of rationalism. They tell us to think, to be openminded, to question... bullshit! Those are our words, our ideas, our rationalism!
ptolemyauletesXII 3 months ago
@nunrgtrance2 Being openminded rational, thoughtful, these things can only lead to the conclusion taht God does not exist, due to a lack of actual evidence, yes, but also due to the most basic logical conclusions. None of it makes even the slightest bit of sense. None of it. Science is a simple process. Science questions truths. If those truths have no evidnce to support them they are discarded. End of discussion. Science has no agenda. Science is neither theistic nor atheistic.
ptolemyauletesXII 3 months ago
The same could also be said about the big bang theory. Beings DO "evolve", and the Universe did emanate from a central source, and is expanding. And eventually it will reach the crush point, and retract. But these simple truths are often plagued by an "idea", "from science", that removes the true meaning and benefits of understanding these mysteries, and replaces them with an "answer", which is almost always wrong. Just a cold, hollow, meaningless bit of false data.
nunrgtrance2 4 months ago
We, as humans forming society as a whole, like to think we have 99% of everything figured out. Just because NASA gives the populace pictures of planets, stars, galaxies, blazars, quazars, space junk, etc, does not make them real. Eg.) The theory of evolution has been debunked dramatically, time and time again. I remember learning evolution in school. They called it theory, but based a shitload of other "facts" on that theory, making it "true", in the speculation of the learning mind. (cont)
nunrgtrance2 4 months ago
Maybe E-mail?
CorrespondingReality 5 months ago
Jacob, do you know a place we can talk without this character limit? This is going to make it extremely difficult to effectively communicate our points.
CorrespondingReality 5 months ago
It is arguing what we observe in the natural world has a cause. God is not confined by the natural world as we are, He is in the supernatural therefore escaping the need for a cause. Question, how can gravity, matter, momentum, etc. bring gravity, matter, momentum, etc. into existence?
CorrespondingReality 5 months ago
@CorrespondingReality Let's say the universe needs a cause that itself does not require a causal explanation. Why must that thing be God? Why must it be an act of an all powerful conscious being? But that's even assuming a premise I don't necessarily agree with in the first place. If we are to say that God has no cause, then why not just save a step and conclude that the universe has no cause?
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
@JacobSpinney Because in the natural world we see things, we observe, have a cause. However, unless we assume eternal time, which I think is ridiculous, there must be something outside the natural world to have caused something.
CorrespondingReality 5 months ago
@CorrespondingReality Quantum physicists would probably disagree with your assertion that everything we see in the natural world has a cause. But let's just assume that you're right; that thus far from all of the things in the natural world we've investigated, they've all had a cause. It does not logically follow that everything else we have yet to investigate must therefore have a cause as well.
Why is it ridiculous to assume eternal time? You assume an eternal god, do you not?
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
@JacobSpinney What we know of quantum physics, yes. It is theoretically possible that it does indeed have a cause and set rules. Everything we observe on the big scale has a cause.
Yes it does logically follow. The burden of proof is that something does not have to have a cause not that everything does. If everything we observe does then it is logical to assume everything does.
It is ridiculous to say eternal time because how could an infinite amount of time have transpired till this moment?
CorrespondingReality 5 months ago
@CorrespondingReality My current understanding is that before the big bang, the standard laws of the universe did not exist. Why then do you wish to apply current universal laws to a time before they existed?
Yes. Let's use some simple logic. The universe exists. Therefore, either the universe had a cause or simply always existed. We cannot make any more logical deductions other than that.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
@CorrespondingReality If we assume the universe had a cause, it does not logically follow to leap to the conclusion that the cause must therefore be an all-powerful conscious being who created the universe specifically for a particular species that would evolve on a planet orbiting an average star among billions within an average galaxy among billions of others 13 billion years later.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
@CorrespondingReality Your question about time makes no sense. Let's assume that what currently exists in the universe is what has always existed, merely in different forms at different times. What exactly is your question asking? Just because the concept of infinity is very difficult for the human mind to grasp does not mean that infinity is therefore impossible.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
@JacobSpinney I assume an eternal God but he is outside of time therefore He does not fall victim to the problem of an infinite amount of time being transpired.
CorrespondingReality 5 months ago
@CorrespondingReality Again, you are making illogical leaps from starting premises. If we assume the universe had a cause, then it only logically follows that the first cause is something that itself did not need a first cause. It does not logically follow that the first cause must therefore be an all-loving all-powerful all-knowing conscious being who decided to create the universe merely for the purpose of playing a free will game with a particular set of earthly hominids.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
...Beeeeecause as great as it is to said religious sheep, when him/her try to press his/her religions on bystanders who don't give two shits, the bystanders get pissed and annoyed :D Be happy with what you got and keep it to yourself, in your own home.
xxmossfacexx 6 months ago
Christianity is one of the most made-up bullshit religions I know of, period. They even go a step further than religions who create their gods from the world around them.... The christian religion (and the branches of it from what it first started as to where it is now) took already existing idols from religions like Wicca and just transformed certain things into 'evil' icons to convert people. Now I'm glad people have something to believe in, that's great, but keep it to your damned self...
xxmossfacexx 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
now you do have a good point but can you prove god does not exist? (with hard evidence)
dunhillsupramk3 6 months ago
"'more disorder' in a system simply means that it is 'closer to equilibrium' or 'lower in energy" I don't disagree with you. The second law therefore proves that there is a universal tendancy towards decay and ultimately death. This is unequivocal proof that the universe is not eternal. The universe could not have brought itself into existence out of nothing, therefore it is completely rational to infer that universe had a creator.
elitegumby 7 months ago
Even more simple is to remove a bad question and replace it with a new question that potentially provides the answers sought by the bad question. eg: "what happened before the big bang?" = bad question "what happened AT the big bang?" =good question
breaneainn 7 months ago
Jacob, I'm an atheist and I thought this was very poorly argued. Clearly a complex system can create a less complex system, just as a less complex system can sometimes make a more complex system. There is nothing intrinsically contradictory in both possibilities existing simultaneously in the same universe. There are loads of better arguments than "who made god", and even the slowest theists don't even feel challenged by this hackneyed old question. I hope you will do better next time.
formless777 7 months ago
@formless777 I agree that it is poorly argued.
But for the former (a complex system creating a less-complex system) it is considerably more improbable for the more-complex system to form than the less-complex ex nihilo (literally from nothing, which is what "must have" existed for God to have significance).
Alternatively, for the latter God is redundant in any significant sense. Why call it "god" to begin with if it's a simple natural process?
Both present makes God much less likely.
onijester56 7 months ago
@onijester56
Your points are nicely put, especially the implicit notion of a non-existent complex system producing simple matter out of nothing in an act of notable absurdity. I can counter half heartedly by suggesting that complex humans are currently experimenting with creating "pocket universes". As for the second point of course nature is replete with examples, and I doubt anyone seriously thinks that emergent phenomena are implicitly divine. I enjoyed your comment a lot.
formless777 7 months ago
@formless777 "the implicit notion of a non-existent complex system producing simple matter out of nothing in an act of notable absurdity" I don't think you got my point so I'll rephrase it. It is more-possible that a simple system comes out of nothing than it is that a complex system comes out of the same nothing. Hence it is absurd to claim that the complex system arose on its own to create the simple system when it is more-reasonable to assume the simple system arose on its own.
(cont)
onijester56 7 months ago
(cont)
Simply...We take the theist's assumption that there had to be a "creation ex nihilo"...and turn it against them. If "Yahweh" can form out of nothing then it's more logical for "Hades" or "a nymph" (both less-complex) to form before "Yahweh". If that makes sense to you.
Of course I don't need to say that a non-existent anything making anything else is absurd. XD
And thanks. :)
onijester56 7 months ago
@onijester56
Thanks for checking that I got that. I read it in the less complex and literal fashion first, then I noticed there was a more complex interpretation that was more humorous and went with that one. Again I completely agree with you, and I am glad my absurdist spin on it gave you a laugh.
formless777 7 months ago
@onijester56 "Of course I don't need to say that a non-existent anything making anything else is absurd." Correct, so why don't you apply that same logic to the universe?
elitegumby 7 months ago
This is a really silly objection to God's existence. The "Who designed the designer argument" is seriously flawed. Firstly, coming from the Christian perspective, we believe that God is eternal. It's interesting that if you ask the atheist, "where did the matter come from?" the answer is equivalent, matter is eternal. Aside from that, In order for an explanation to be the best, it doesn't require an explanation of the explanation. Otherwise you have an infinite regress... for everything.
elitegumby 8 months ago
@elitegumby
The difference is that atheists have a pretty good idea of where matter came from. Considerable evidence points to the existence of other universes that periodically overlap with ours on a subatomic level, creating the situation where particles are apparently spontaneously generated out of the quantum foam of the universe. So far I haven't heard anything that makes God seem relevant or necessary to any explanation of the universe, just the reverse if anything.
formless777 7 months ago
Comment removed
elitegumby 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@formless777 I assume your referring to virtual particles, yes? Virtual particles do not come into being uncaused out of nothing. They appear in the quantum vacuum which, as you know, is a sea of fluctuating energy. The vacuum is a 'physical reality' endowed with a structure and governed by physical laws. Out of nothing, nothing comes. That is a fundamental axiom of natural law. All the scientific evidence points to our universe as having a beginning. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
elitegumby 7 months ago
@elitegumby "we believe that God is eternal" Then why can't some form of the universe be 'eternal' as well?
"matter is eternal" Actually matter can 'create itself' from energy. E = MC^2, etc. However even if matter were eternal, matter is really simple. Hence it still becomes easier to reject the "god hypothesis" as it becomes redundant. And the reality is that energy is eternal (within statistical significance). So we have something simpler than matter, which is simpler than God. Yeah...
onijester56 7 months ago
@onijester56 "Why can't some form of the universe be 'eternal' as well?" Erm... maybe because that completely contradicts what we know about cosmology. All scientists agree that the universe began to exist from a singularity in the finite past. Your following claim, "matter can 'create itself' from energy" is just absurd. Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics? The first law states that "in any given system neither matter nor energy can be self-created or destroyed.
elitegumby 7 months ago
@elitegumby "All scientists agree that the universe began to exist from a singularity in the finite past." False. All scientists agree that the present form of the universe began to exist from a singularity in the finite past. They have MANY hypotheses on what was before that. Yes, before this universe.
"Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics?" You forget the 'In a closed system' part. One hypothesis consists of many alternate universes that may work on the same 'system'.
onijester56 7 months ago
@onijester56 "False. All scientists agree that the present form of the universe began to exist from a singularity in the finite past." That's a very misleading response to my point. They still concede that the universe began to exist. The only reason they would even use the term "present form" is because they're assuming (hoping) they will discover an alternative. There is currently no observable evidence to prove a multi-verse, much less that life can arise form non-life.
elitegumby 7 months ago
@elitegumby "They still concede that the universe began to exist." You don't seem to understand. They agree that THIS FORM OF THE UNIVERSE, the matter we have no, the constants we have now, the time that we have now...That began at the "Big Bang". But every scientist who knows what they are talking about admits that there was some form of the universe before the Big Bang.
I'll compare it to a number line. The Big Bang is "0". We are in the positive realm. But there WAS a "negative" realm.
onijester56 7 months ago
@onijester56 "The Big Bang is "0". We are in the positive realm. But there WAS a "negative" realm." This is just a philosophically naive view of the word "nothing." The universe had a cause and it follows logically that this cause would be timeless, immaterial, spaceless and infinitely powerful. It also follows that this cause would be personal. The initial conditions of the universe were so finely tuned for intelligent life that if it were slightly altered, no life could exist. God exists.
elitegumby 7 months ago
@elitegumby
["The initial conditions of the universe were so finely tuned for intelligent life that if it were slightly altered, no life could exist. God exists."]
Non sequitur + affirmation of the consequent fallacy. The universe is not fine tuned at all, we're on a rock in the middle of a mostly uninhabitable universe with a relatively short time to survive before the sun makes our planet uninhabitable, most of which is already uninhabitable to humans.
sonicBlue00 6 months ago
@onijester56 I think it's important that I share something with you now. The Bible reveals that man is in a state of rebellion with God. All of us fall short of his Holy standard and reject Him as ruler of our lives. The Bible calls this sin, and God's punishment for our rebellion is death and judgement (Heb 9:27, Rom 6:23). But because of His love, God sent His son, Jesus into the world to bring you the gift of forgiveness, through His atoning death on the cross. (continued)
elitegumby 7 months ago
@onijester56 But that's not all! God the Father raised Jesus to life again as the ruler of the world. Jesus Himself said, I am the resurrection and life, he whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live (John 11.25). The wonderful gift of eternal life is offered to all those who would repent and believe in His name. Just consider for a moment that your wrong onijester, and you missed out on all God has to offer you. An eternity separated from His love would be the greatest tragedy...
elitegumby 7 months ago
@elitegumby
["An eternity separated from His love would be the greatest tragedy..."]
The greatest tragedy is living a lie, i.e worshipping an unsubstantiated and unnecessary god.
sonicBlue00 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sonicBlue00 "The greatest tragedy is living a lie, i.e worshipping an unsubstantiated and unnecessary god." I'll pass over your 'unsubstantiated and unnecessary comment' seeing as I've already provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. But I'm interested to know, why is this a tragedy on your world view? If naturalism is true then we're nothing more than chuncks of matter in motion, doomed to extinction. What difference does it make if I live a lie or not?
elitegumby 6 months ago
@elitegumby "The only reason they would even use the term "present form" is because they're assuming (hoping) they will discover an alternative" They don't know what was before the Big Bang. And the evidence shows that it considerably likely that the universe cycles through "Bangs" and "Crunches". They admit that we know the universe AS IT IS SINCE THE BIG BANG. Not AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE. They know its "present form".
Your ignorance isn't an argument.. I'm done with you.
onijester56 7 months ago
@onijester56 The point I was trying to make was that by using the term "present form" of the universe, your begging the question. Namely, what empirical evidence is there to show that there is anything else? There isn't, only theories based on pure metaphysical conjecture. We know from observation that the universe is expanding. If you role back the film of history, all space time and matter retract back into the singularity. The universe had an absolute origin.
elitegumby 7 months ago
(cont)
And then there is that the energy of the universe AS A COMPLETE SYSTEM (if there were no exchange between universes)...would in fact be constant.
Of course you also ignore that quantum physics does allow energy to form matter (which has the equivalent energy as the energy 'converted'). So while the first law as you state works as a generalization, it ignores the quantum level (which especially in the early universe) holds fundamental importance.
onijester56 7 months ago
@onijester56 The logical flaw is requiring the entire universe to submit to notions of a context within an environment. "the universe came from...." , "the universe popped into....".
To call it a "COMPLETE SYSTEM" although outrageously correct and true, still violates logic by establishing a set without a context. pedantic idiot.sorry. This inferrs two sets of information. 1.) a place and time the universe was but isn't now 2.) a place and time the universe is...but wasn't before.
breaneainn 7 months ago
@onijester56 The second law of Thermodynamics shows that everything is tending towards disorder and entropy. In other words, all the energy is being burned up and the universe, excluding divine intervention, is doomed to a heat death. So much for your "energy is eternal" theory.
elitegumby 7 months ago
@elitegumby "The second law of Thermodynamics shows that everything is tending towards disorder and entropy" Entropy is 'energy loss from a system'...'disorder' in the common sense is simply the most general appearance of it. In the scientific sense, in words you would understand: 'more disorder' in a system simply means that it is 'closer to equilibrium' or 'lower in energy'.
onijester56 7 months ago
Expected better! "Who made God?" ... a primary school question.
ScientologyMafiaCult 8 months ago
@EpicFailSafe
Of course, I don't have to prove a thing. Neither does any other Christian. Either you believe or you dont. And that's a matter for your own conscience. However, your preoccupation with this does suggest you're struggling with that. Sadly, I can't help you there either. All I can do is wish you (and guy in video) the best. As for an argument for god, all I can do is point to the millions of other Christians who would also sincerely wish the same for both of you.
stewartx5 10 months ago
God is everything. Maybe, Im an idiot because I have not seen God, or maybe I am blind to Him. You make a valid point about an aspect of the argument. But I think you still have not convinced everybody.
UltraEpicLoser 10 months ago
Where was the part about god being destroyed? You offered a disputable argument against intelligent design, but nothing which disproved the existence of a god.
stewartx5 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JacobSpinney This argument of the "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit" from Dawkins is perhaps the saddest "argument" against the existence of God and is recognized as such by most of the philosophical community.
Here's one response by Richard Swimburne, page two, number three.
tinyurl*com/3vty3kr
CarlosMarti123 11 months ago
My faith that I have a Creator who brought forth the universe and cares for his creations and provides an afterlife for all who deserve to enter it will be proven when I die or I will have no existence and be unaware of any disappointment. I choose to believe.
hfa555 11 months ago
Ive always had problems accepting that "where does God come from".
SilverFiresLegacy 11 months ago
This "Something that came from nothing" thing would also contradict against the big bang. You may not believe in that theory, but it would still argue w/ other theories about creation.
rexplosi0n 1 year ago
@pervyconcon I love how you pick on one tiny thing I said wrong in all that I wrote, and you ignore everything else. LOL. :)
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
I love how people try to disprove something that takes faith to believe. Try as you will, you can never disprove a God to people that believe in faith.
Gryndurr 1 year ago
@Gryndurr That's absolutely correct, but why would someone accept a claim based on faith i.e. without any evidence? "I believe that an infinitely delicious pudding pop exists at the center of the Andromeda galaxy. I have no evidence to believe that, but I accept it on faith." It just seems kind of silly.
CambridgeHeights 1 year ago
This is a poor rebuttal, and lots of atheists use it (I used to). An explanation does not necessarily need its own explanation. If I find a set of spears in an area of land we used to think was uninhabited, it would be logical to conclude there were people there even though those people haven't themselves been explained.
The problem with God is that it has no explanatory or predictive value, not that it is unexplained or too complex (how do you measure complexity?)
TMOvids 1 year ago
you know the problem with christians isn't getting them to understand what you say, but getting them to realize how many unjustified hidden assumptions they have.
even if they see the argument is flawed, they'd go... "yeah, but god created everything, even if i can't demonstrate it".
they can't even acknowledge the possibility that they're actually wrong. but the ones that do acknowledge that posibility seem to become more and more atheistic in 2-3 years.
De4sher 1 year ago
Yes....I must confess...I never could accept an infinite regress.....
DeaconVerter 1 year ago
i hope that one day you can get past all of your arguments and ideas, and sit back and experience God and what he has for you. i hope that you one day, can have the joy that i have knowing that the God of everything sent his only son to die, so that we could live. God cannot be put in a box, and we honestly will never be able to understand 99% of the things that he does. but that my friend is the beauty of it:)
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur: Why did this all powerful God, who made all the rules, need to send his son to be tortured to death? A bit extreme no? This God of yours is one sick SOB! Also, I would like to share with you the joy of Mr Bear. I have known Mr Bear for 10 years now and he has changed my life. If only you could let Mr Bear into your heart. He loves you so much, but will shove hot pokers up your arse for all time if you reject him. Mr Bear bless you
guerrillaroach 1 year ago
@guerrillaroach He sent his son so that we can live eternally, with him. Yes it's extreme, but that's how imperfect we are, God couldn't be around us initially because we were so filthy and broken....that's how much He loves us. He sent his ONLY son, to die, so that we could live. Christ gave his life, it wasn't taken from him. And he conquered death 3 days later...how AWESOME is that?!!? Hahah, Mr.Bear. Funnny, I like it:)
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur: well that is just poppycock. Mr Bear is the one true lord and saviour of humanity, and if you would just accept him into your heart you would see that this Jesus dude is a fake, never existed. Just some made up guy based on the archetype of Mithras, Osiris, Krishna, etc... Whereas Mr Bear is the real deal! Don’t you wish to spend an eternity basking in his furry glow? I know I do.
guerrillaroach 1 year ago
@guerrillaroach hhaahah. love it.
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur: Well at least you have a sense of humour. Lol!
guerrillaroach 1 year ago
@guerrillaroach Hahha ya, I can't stand Christians who get all insulted by jokes:)
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur i hope that one day you realize that you only problem was that you thought that joy can only come from religion.
i hope that one day you will realize joy is free, and as much as you'd like to know all of us are less happier than you, we may actually be more happier, even if you believe the weird things that you believe.
i hope one day you realize you don't need crap to be happy, and you can be even happier without crap.
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher It's not a religion. It's a relationship with the God who created the universe:) I hate religion.
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur ok... how about if you're wrong, and there's no god fella?
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher welllll if i'm wrong then i'm wrong. haha. and if i one day find out that god doesn't exist, i will probably change how i live a little bit. idk really, haha.
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur
hmm
and if i find out god is real, i'm gonna stop eating babies...?
we're all moral normal, ok people anyway! nobody needs a god to be a good person... or are you saying that the only thing keeping you from killing your mother and having sex with her body is your belief that god is real?
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher haha you're funny:) i don't know why you atheists get your panties in a bunch about this stuff. i believe in God. i believe he is the answer. i believe he died to save everyone sin. i believe he loves everyone, beyond their imagination and never stops forgiving and never will turn his back on you. ya, that's what i believe. and you believe he doesn't. awesome. you have that right. but one day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, that he is Christ <3
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur yeah, or not. most likely not.... overwhelmingly likely not :)
De4sher 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur yeah, or not. most likely not.... overwhelmingly likely not :)
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher haha otayy:) you'll see. one day.
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur hahaha, you won't see, one day :)
De4sher 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur yea ok jackass it says right in your quote on quote holy book tht is filled with evils double standards and contradcitions tht he will give up on us nonbelievers and we will suffer for the simple fact tht we dont believe in him cus theirs not justifiable proof of his existence now let me asku this would u punish your kid by putting his hand on a hot stove? no i didnt think so u jackass come down from the trees and look at the TRUTH science!!!!!!!!!
Cornbread395 1 year ago
@Cornbread395 He will NEVER give up on anyone. He is always sitting there waiting, patiently knocking for you to run home. Look, I used to be a Satanist. I totally understand where you're coming from. I get how you can hate God, it makes total sense. The world these days has turned God into something completely opposite from who He is. God doesn't punish us, we hurt ourselves. Just like the kid putting his hand on the stove burns his hand. Don't call me a jackass, it makes you sound stupid.
andersonisadinosaur 1 year ago
@andersonisadinosaur lol u holy rollers and your pathetic views r funny
Cornbread395 11 months ago
@andersonisadinosaur because beyond all of our arguments is simply looking at people like you who simply could be a lot better off without religion, and the frustration that we can't make you understand that we the atheists know everything about what you thing god is doing for you (since we were like you), and now that we aren't like you, we have found real peace, real love, real morality and real love of our neighbors.
but you won't get it, because you think you're special.
De4sher 1 year ago
whats your problem?how about you let people live their life
MikeBA10 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where did God come from ? The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and where that might be. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.
TheGuyFromZhills 1 year ago
I'm gonna go with crazykeyman in the sense that I believe that the whole concept of where the universe came from is beyond the capacites of humans to comprehend, especially when one gets into quantum phisycs and other universes, for obvious reasons.
KingPiccolOwned 1 year ago
I see some problems here. First, you start out discussing the teleological argument, but change to the cosmological argument. The second problem is that neither argument states that something complex must come from something even more complex. This means you have succumbed to a straw-man fallacy. Furthermore, neither argument states that God came from nothing, but is the first uncaused cause. Finally, the universe did begin, so we can't save a step there.
I've run out of space :)
gmbrannan 1 year ago
You didn't really destroy but merely pointed out the paradox. The paradox does not favor either side. On this argument Atheist 0 Creationist 0. this concept does not neatly fit into our limited brains no matter how you lay it out. Darn I was hoping you had something new, this is just so old hat.
crazykeyman 1 year ago
true
sk8vcom 1 year ago
i think i'll subscribe to you man, u argument just like me when my friends want me to believe in something :D
P.S.: i'm 16 here :D
numetla 1 year ago
how can there be a "god" if he had exactly 666 views?:P
i don't believe in gods, i only like the figure of satan^^
numetla 1 year ago
Psh, good luck man. I've pondered this point frequently. What made God?... Answer: "He was always there and is eternal.." And then my head explodes.
RunawayRed 1 year ago
Easy answer. God must exist outside matter time and space. God properties-omnipresent-immaterial- not confined by space. Where did God come from: answer- God would not be God if he was created. Conclusion: there is two opposing world views #1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. or # 2 nothing created the universe. Both are religious in nature.
skrinkaman 1 year ago
If got was created he wouldn't be god therefore nothing created god. Theists believe god was created by nothing and he created the universe.
Atheists simply cut the middle-man.
BaileysBeads 1 year ago
i see where youre coming from completely. however, i do believe that god always existed and that he created everything else. the main difference between the 2 is that the universe developed over time, god did not, he was always a completed living being. things that develop over time always come from something else. therefore, the universe must have come from god because if it just always existed, it would have always existed the way we know it now, in all its complexity.
bcrava182 2 years ago
Who said that it is an infinant regression of complexities? That's an assumption of logic. Read up on Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica and Hilbert's Grand Hotel paradox.
Tokkemon 2 years ago
@Tokkemon So we're allowed to use logic to prove that God must have created everything, but we're not allowed to use logic when it comes to Gods existence?
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
Funny how you put words in my mouth.
The problem with logic here is that it assumes that an infinite regression is possible, yet this has only been practiced in theoretical nature, i.e. mathematics, and never observed (or even postulated) in the physical world. You might be able to *assume* that it exists, but that's all it would be, an assumption.
Tokkemon 2 years ago
@Tokkemon Then wouldn't using the logic of infinite regression as a proof of God be an assumption in itself as well? I did not put words in your mouth. I was asking a question.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
Aquinas argues that the infinite regression must have a cause because such a regression cannot exist in reality. Everything must have a cause in this world. God is the ultimate cause and able to *not* have a cause *because* God n does not exist in this world. This is an explanation of why God is unseen in this world, because if God was seen, the laws of physics and all reality would completely break down because God operates on a completely different set of rules than this universe.
Tokkemon 2 years ago
@Tokkemon So then why must this cause be a sentient being who is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and someone who created the entire universe for us in mind? Why can't this causeless cause simply be a blob of inanimate causelessness? You are overtly anthropomorphizing and overtly going beyond all logic by claiming that this causeless cause is the author of this book called the Bible. Such a claim has nothing to do with regression.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
True. And since our observation or reasoning is completely limited to *this* universe we can't know which it is; all we have is faith at that point.
Tokkemon 2 years ago
@Tokkemon Thanks for being intellectually honest.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
You're welcome. This whole discussion on YouTube could really use some intellectual honesty.
Tokkemon 2 years ago
@JacobSpinney Good point...
RunawayRed 1 year ago
i dont belive in god at all but i hate it when relgious people say where did the earth come from? atoms. then they says where did those come from? Well fuck you where did god come from? its a question that can never be answer STOP ASKING IT!
Pivotpeople1212 2 years ago
Isn't this the cosmological argument? I always thought the design argument was something like:
Premise 1: Look at how pretty the sky is!!!
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
Tyler4981 2 years ago
How is my "spouting" incorrect, aside from my lack of intimate knowledge of the big bang? And how is it scientifically incorrect? I do read science books, that's how i disproved this other guys idea.
If I'm scientifically incorrect, by all means prove me wrong.
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
That's because the big bang Theory isn't really a theory, you see for something to be a theory you must have at least some proof for it, again, look it up. The big bang is no more than a very elaborate IDEA, not a theory, and the same goes for creationism. Both are accepted by faith, and neither is physically, or logically possible and there's no science involved whatsoever in either idea. So were pretty much arguing about nothing.
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
"evidence" being every single prehistoric ape-human they've claimed to be the missing link. Don't believe me? Look it up, they were either just regular monkeys, or a pigs tooth with a fabricated body, or a human whose teeth had been tampered with, and so on...But you were wight in stating that "we don't know", because nobody knows, because there's no PROOF, evolutionists don't have one peace of evidence that proves, or even points toward the big bang.
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
phroz3n
Whats a Strawman?
So there WAS something before the big bang? Didnt know that. So where did that come from?
And how come scientists Add a billion years onto the age of the earth every time they discover something really old? I remember the good old days when the earth was only 5 billion years old. My how time flies when you have to fabricate your evidence.
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
But unlike the big bang.....there was already vast amounts of energy TO BEGIN WITH! the big bang idea states that incalculable amounts of energy generated.....from absolutely nothing. I think that is equally as illogical as you claim a creator to be, don't you?
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
rubbishmouth:
No where in the big bang theory does it state "something came from nothing." Nowhere. If you ask any credible scientist they will tell you the same thing. It started, according to theory, from a singularity 14billion years ago. But we don't know where it came from or what was before that. But scientists have the integrity to say when they are sure or UNsure about something. Your argument is a strawman. Read a science book once in a while before spouting something you don't know.
phroz3n 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
phroz3n
Whats a Strawman?
So there WAS something before the big bang? Didnt know that. So where did that come from?
And how come scientists Add a billion years onto the age of the earth every time they discover something really old? I remember the good old days when the earth was only 5 billion years old. My how time flies when you have to fabricate your evidence.
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
such energy does exist in the sun in our solar system, but it is impossible to tap, and should it ever die or whatever it would implode under its own mass and generate a black hole. Though upon the death of our sun
should it in fact explode, then yes it has potential for creating life, similar to the "Big bang".
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
Comment removed
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
-continued- plus where are you GETTING these astronomical amounts of helium and other gasses that compose a sun? Burning plastic does NOT emit helium, plus in order for plastic to BURN you need oxygen, it would get incredibly hot and melt, but once all of the potential energy is expended, you would have a gigantic ball of molten plastic and carbon.
According to your PCs creation idea its not the PCs that generate life but vast amounts of energy -continued-
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
@theatrefreak2010....i agree that the PCs would melt together, but assuming there was even enough PCs for that to happen, there would be a higher probability of this mass being sucked into a star or other solar system and being destroyed than it becoming a sun. Do you know what a sun is composed of?
There is a TREMENDOUS quantity of gasses, and pressure composing a sun. you cant make a sun out of a gigantic ball of burning plastic and whatever else is in computers -continued-
rubbishmouth 2 years ago
Sounds like your trying to define things to give meaning to it. Regardless of the labels we apply to it, it has little bearing on the realities of it. Perhaps out perception alone limits our understanding of certain things. Because of this, then this must be so. That is not always the case.
MayonR 2 years ago
It would be nice to have the answers (whether God exists or not) but we shouldn't let our desire for definite answers interfere with our willingness to accept that we simply don't know yet. All we can do is continue investigating and learning. Will we ever find the answers? I'm not going to say it's impossible, as many things that have seemed impossible have not been impossible. You said it yourself, Jacob, only time will tell.
FM897 2 years ago
It seems unreasonable to call yourself an Atheist when, given the evidence at hand, you still can't know for sure whether or not God exists more than you can be 100% sure of anything. There is always a measure of uncertainty in any claim, especially when we're talking about God, whose existence cannot be tested at this time (which increases the measure of uncertainty exponentially). That's why I'm an Agnostic.
FM897 2 years ago
You and I have differing definitions of the word atheist. Theism has to do with belief. Gnosticism has to do with knowledge. I am an agnostic atheist in the sense that I cannot be certain that an all knowing all power sentient being is behind the curtain pulling the strings, but due to a lack of evidence I have the belief that there isn't; much in the same way that I cannot be certain that leprechauns don't exist, but due to a lack of evidence I don't believe they do.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
Lol, fair enough. I'm just curious: for you, what would be adequate evidence to support the existence of God? What would have to happen for you to become a believer?
FM897 2 years ago
I cannot fathom an event that would make me believe that an all knowing all powerful all loving conscious being was the first cause of everything. It would be like asking me what it would take to make me believe that a square circle could exist in reality.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
Scientists already know that the universe hasn't always been in existence by the law of entropy.
FM897 2 years ago
Entropy deals with complex systems. But as far as science is concerned, matter can never be created or destroyed. It can only change forms. But let's say the universe did have an absolute beginning. What evidence is there to suggest the an all powerful all knowing all loving conscious being started it all?
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
There isn't adequate evidence suggesting that an omnipotent being started everything. But let me ask you this: in your opinion, if scientists ever discover a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, does that completely falsify the existence of God?
FM897 2 years ago
Define "God."
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
The omnipotent being that caused the first cause (whatever that might be) that set The Big Bang in motion.
FM897 2 years ago
There are certain claims that are simply impossible to disprove. "God" is one of them. At first, God was right up there in the clouds. Then we flew and didn't see God. Then it was thought that God must then be up in space. So we sent astronauts up there and didn't find God. In fact, the first cosmonaut is quoted as saying, "I looked and looked and looked, but I didn't see God." So now God exists in this undetectable dimension outside of reality.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
If time and time and time again people claim that God is behind mystery XYZ, but then it is found that it was just another natural explanation that eluded us at the time . . . it does tend to make me think that the claim that THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT is full of hot air.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
There is nothing complicated about this.God is outside the limits of space and time therefore he has no beginning or end.If he wasn't then he wouldn't be God.God cannot be quantified or measured.Science has proven the the universe came about at a certain time.Here is some food for though.God is infinite and we are finite in undestanding.Just because we can't explain everything about him doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Groudie101 2 years ago
If god is out side of space and time then how did he reach in and start something that is in both space and time. If he is out side of it there is no way for him to interact inside of it, and if he is inside of it then there should be physical proof of him and of his origins (as explained in this video). saying that we can't find him because he is outside of space and time is self defeating.
theatrefreak2010 2 years ago
Because he can do anything.He is suppose to be God Remember? Read properly before replying to me instead of texting crap in an attempt to sound scientific.I never said anything about finding God.This is about the idea that God was created!
Groudie101 2 years ago
If god can do anything, then why is the world the way it is. from my point of view, aids, starvation, and wars in his name just don't seem right. neither is creating eternal torture for not loving him, or being so narcissistic that he has to create people to worship him. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. at least in my mind. i don't know what you look for in a role model.
theatrefreak2010 2 years ago
Your opinion or my opinion of God matters not.You can somehow think that you said proves there is no God but at the end of the day you will be accountable to him.You can ask him all those questions when you stand in front of him
Groudie101 2 years ago