Billy Preston answered this question nearly 40 years ago at G_DV54ddNHE. He also told us what would happen if we kept arguing about it at 7Xnf1myamMU.
He used too many big words in the initial explanation. When you use big words with these people they use that to their advantage to continue to argue from ignorance.
I wanna see these guys debate with a Muslim about God. They would rip that Muslim a new one. And then they would probably get death threats. That's probably why I can't find a video discussing Islam.
@firethower99 you're right. If you want to see debates with muslims, check out the TheJinnAndTonicShow channel. The speakers "against" islam tend to hide their identity on the show.
@baldurus1 infinitude cannot exist in our universe, when you move you make an infinite amount of factional movements(meaning 1/2 1/4 1/8 1/6 cutting down to infinitely halved) sections of movement, therefore movement is impossible :3
Another example of a stunning disconnect with reality by a beliver. Such perspectives leave me wondering how such a person manages to live in a rational world. Mind boggling is simply the wrong tense.
Ok. if there is no natural answer, than there must be some level of belief to think that it is true. however, what then is the problem with the belief that there is a creator... because by what i have heard you saying i see no difference between the level of belief required to claim either argument.
its a dumb argument. If you believe in god then god is something so therefore cannot come from nothing. yet dumbasses keep using this argument to try to SUPPORT a god existing. stoopid!
Of *course* he didn't hear any of the logical fallacies Martin pointed out -- that's because he kept right on talking whenever Martin pointed them out. From watching a bunch of these videos, it's easy to begin forming the Chrissy rules for debate:
1) never stop talking long enough to let the other person make a point
2) never acknowledge any points the other person makes
3) when asked a question (*especially* a "yes or no" question), ramble on to the next topic without responding
"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise." Simon Greenleaf, a Christian Apologist. No part of the Christian meets those criteria. Specifically: There is no chain of evidence (proper repository), and there are in fact reams of evidence of forgery. Read Bart Ehrman.
This is one of the few videos from the Atheist Experience which made me angry but NOT at the caller but at the two hosts! The caller gave them several perfect examples of logical fallacies and constantly talked over them, and instead of putting his ass on hold and THEN giving him a detailed description of his fallacies, they just let this guy continue to interrupt them ...
No no no no NO!!! Stupid F*#&ing idiot. Infinite regress is bullshit!
If you have an infinite set of numbers, no beginning and no end. Why would it be impossible to count from let's say the number 13342342341123234253421212334 to13342342341123234253421212335??? And don't say that there would be an infinite amount of numbers between them, i swear i will smack you in the head with a science book. Time is the movement of matter and energy, why would the movement stop in an infinite???
We will never escape this circular argument until people can get that not being able to understand something doesn't prove the existence of God and it never will.
This is a problem I have with religious moderates and apologists; they try to argue for a bullshit, abstract deity and make a giant leap to the christian god.
@SDub817 Exactly! It's just some big argument for Deism....until it totally isn't. But like atheism, I don't think that most of them even know what deism is.
wow...what a complete and perfect example of "creationist" "bobbing and weaving". Make the rules as you go,...and apply them when it is convenient to your "god" argument. The level of absolute bullshit is astounding. The default assumptions and assertions are old and tired...same old bullshit...wrapped in different packages......what a joke. People, please wake up and smell the bullshit.....
Everybody that's reading this, Think about this, If something cannot come from nothing. That means there was never the term "nothing" to begin with. That means there is no such thing as "nothing" which in science is true because if you take away all radiation and particles you get dark matter. Dark matter has always been there and quantum fluctuations from it caused the big bang producing a universe.
@coolair00 70% dark mass and 30% dark energy. I'm sure is what Lawrence Krauss (physicist), mentioned in his presentation on "something from nothing".
Argument from Ignorance: You basically told them they don't have a better explanation and so your made up answer gets to take 1st place? Sorry, that is NOT how we know something is true lol. If you used your ears even a quarter of the time you have been talking, you'd learn a lot more about why what you're saying makes no sense.
Just to let everyone know, not everyone from Edmonton (or near Edmonton, AB) is a theist. I'm not. I very much side with Hitchens, but there are to many here that are as deluded as this Parture.
I got one for the bible thumper's. If there was indeed a God, dont you think we would have found some proof he's out there by now? No proof could also mean no God's.
@Larvemannenz001 Arif Ahmed . Quentin Smith 1996 one of many of Craig's loses. This one is particularly interesting . Craig admits that his cosmological argument is not a logical argument for god creating the universe. It hasn't stopped Craig from using it it's just I haven't seen anyone throw it in his face
@Larvemannenz001 Unfortunately the 1996 Quentin Smith vs Craig debate has to read if you google it Quentin smith vs Craig 1996 the first result is the debate. Pay attention to the fifth link it's Craig's rebuttal. The debate with Arif Ahmed is a you tube video .
That depends on how you define winning and losing. An atheist argues based on what is true and what is not true, a theist argues on what allows them to preserve some shred of hope that their faith is justified. Winning in that sense depends on the values of the debater. But if you want to see him lose utterly in all senses beyond any possible chance of salvaging the argument, watch his debate with Shelly Kagan.
Even if--even IF--some being or entity or force "created" the universe and its laws (and so far I haven't seen any reason to think so), how does it follow that that "creator" ("C") now (some ~14 billion years later) still operates within the universe, occasionally suspending its own laws to grant humans' wishes?
And how does it follow that a "demigod" former inhabitant of this single planet that circles one of the 100+ sextillion stars in the known universe, happens to be C? What's the logic?
next time, just grant them that God created the universe for the sake of the argument. Then, proceed to ask them to prove that it is their God and watch them make a jackass out of themselves.
leading people to God? So if an atheists is stumped that's leads me to God? Ok, then if a phycisist is stumped that leads me to alchemy and if a child is stumped that leads me to gravity.
@VeritasLuxMea100 Infinite regress is only problematic when you limit your self to a 4 dimensional reality.Theist try to say that infinite regress proves that there has to be a first cause and that cause is god but they create a problem that their own answer is a logical impassibility. An uncaused cause ( God)
@THEEVANTHETOON "Dimensions have little to do with causality, so while your answer may sound fancy, it doesn't explain anything."
Imagine for a moment that time is a circle. Can you see how the universe can be eternal in that model, while no infinite regress ever occurs? All that's required is that stuff exists and can get rearranged over time. Nothing would ever be created, except in the sense of the stuff getting rearranged.
The oscillating universe model? The problem is contracting universes are extremely unstable, and, according to the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorms, space-time cannot pass through a singularity. Furthermore, the chance of a low-entropy state existing after the Big Bang is about 10^10^123. If this low-entropy state did not occur, stable matter would never form, and there would never be enough gravity to cause the universe to contract.
@THEEVANTHETOON Quentin Smith "There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a
@THEEVANTHETOON Continued "Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions.""
@THEEVANTHETOON Such organizations of time would of course make infinite regress on causality nonsense as well. Such possibilities are entirely straight forward and logical. Sure, there's no evidence for them, but they seem infinitely more plausible than gods.
Please explain to me how you determine which hypothesis is more plausible.
Lastly, I would like to mention that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorms proves that space-time had an absolute beginning. It holds without regards to a quantum theory of gravity, and doesn't even assume that Einstein's general relativity equations are completely correct.
@THEEVANTHETOON " Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorms proves that space-time had an absolute beginning" Com on Evan PROVE. There are a plethora of theories of time which contradict this. you take after craig use one of many theories and only the ones that support your side and claim that they absolutely are true
WLC has quite a decent explanation of this here: watch?v=j_q802eboxA
Furthermore, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorm requires an absolute beginning (this includes the multiverse, assuming there is one). It hold regardless of a quantum theory of gravity, and does not even assume that Einstein's general relativity equations were correct: /watch?v=Z79FGmh50Xo&feature=g-all-u&context=G29c000fFAAAAAAAARAA
@THEEVANTHETOON "Except you can't watch it because they only have an audio-transcript. This leads me to believe that you haven't watched it, but are going off..." Come on EVAN You can watch it on youtube. They have the debate with a still picture. You've seen this before. what's the matter with you it's almost as if I'm talking to someone else. You disappear for a month then hide your activity and then come up with argument s like this
@VeritasLuxMea100 watch the Craig Arif Ahmed debate . Craig gets his ass handed to him. Quentin Smith vs Craig in 1996 where Craig admits that discussing god creating the universe to be beyond any definition of causation. But it hasn't stopped craig from still using the arguemnt
"Quentin Smith vs Craig in 1996 where Craig admits..."
Please prove this, as I'm guessing your sources are incredibly bias (most information I get about Craig's debates either comes from the debate itself, or commonsenseatheism).
"why couldn't the universe be uncaused?"
Because the universe had an absolute beginning, and unless you are willing to admit that things can pop into being out of nothing, the universe had a cause.
@THEEVANTHETOON If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@THEEVANTHETOON idea that God caused the universe is intuitively inteligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! This only shows that definitions need to be revised. .
@THEEVANTHETOON Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bounce—an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects
@emailpobox666 Watched it, I'm dismayed at how ridiculous craig sounds, it's the same tired arguments from all his debates, He even admits to his many logical fallacies!
@VeritasLuxMea100 Did you read the Quentin Smith Craig debate of 1996 . I posted some of it here yesterday. it makes for interesting reading. Theres also a video of Craig stating that he would ignore evidence against the existence of god in favor of his experience of the holy spirit ( whatever the heck that is)
Their argumen didn't make sense. They were saying "The cause isn't necessarily the Christian God". So you believe in God, just not the Christian God? They respond "Maybe someday science will come up with a natural answer", but that is logically impossible. They are saying "Maybe someday we'll figure out how nature (the universe) created the universe (nature)". This isn't an argument from ignorance, as an uncaused cause is the only logical explanation. The only question now regards its nature.
@THEEVANTHETOON an uncaused caused is the only logical explanation. What you mean it's the only answer you will accept. The only answer that is compatible with your preconceived belief in the supernatural
No. If we accept that 1) something cannot come from nothing and 2) an infinite regress is impossible, this logically requires the existence of a beginning (an uncaused cause). Any other answer either goes against our premises, or simply pushes the beginning back a step. This is not an argument from ignorance because an uncaused cause (and i'm not even asserting that this is God) is the only logical explanation.
@THEEVANTHETOON The universe did not come from nothing. Infinite regress in the frame work of time existing in one dimension but there are other theories of tie which extend time into multiple dimensions. doesn't your god push it back a step . an uncaused cause (permitted if it's a god but not a universe. Exactly how do you figure that???
Only God existed before the beginning of the universe
If only he existed then what materials did he use to create the Universe with?
Some will say God is the source of all materials but if he is 100% immaterial, that means God is made of “nothing” and out came “something”….Mmmmm Theists you have some explaining to do.
Did god create existence? If so, he did it while outside of existence, and the only thing outside of existence is nonexistence (which makes god necessarily nonexistent). If NOT, then existence is independent of god's existence (or god's nonexistence), and god did not create it...
So we are right back where we started. With no evidence for the god hypothesis, and no need for it. So why bring up this stupid "something from nothing" nonsense? No one is claiming that on either side!!
That Christian fellow really limits his horizon. 200 Years ago we could have had the same discussion about lightning. Not so such a long time ago, the idea of a round Earth sounded absurd. So what seems logical now, might actually be absurd. So stop putting a God into every hole where it seems that there has to be one.
These Clowns are SO nervous, that somebody might call and give them a challenge, and that's what happened here!! Seriously, what in the world is Martin writing down at 1:24?
Now at 1:46 Martin just can't take it anymore, so by his nonsensical belief he has to interrupt the caller to stop him from spilling more "Realism" to the world,(and himself) In a genuine atheistic lying brainwashing attempt to bury the truth...
And it's getting worse, they give us crap for saying God wasn't created
@ironman197268 An uncreated creator, is proof of something that exists without having been created. This disproves one of his precepts. The disproof for this religious nutbag's argument is in his "proof".
@VeritasLuxMea100 I think we have cross paths before. I try to make an effort advocating logic and reason over superstition. It's an uphill battle considering the Christians gettem young with the brain washing. thanks for the compliment
@SpursWins Gee, I didn't know pointing out someone's flawed logic in an honest manner constituted as being an "ass". In christian circles I've only heard it being referred to as "being possessed by satan".
He was making a jump in logic. He went from a philosophical question which physicists are currently trying to understand straight in Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour. That's like saying you don't know X therefore strawberry ice cream is the best flavour. Complete nonsense and a huge jump in logic.
If nothing exists theres no laws, nothing to state what is possible or impossible, although some things seem inconceivable to us, if no laws nor rules exist, nothing is impossible.
Nothing is impossible means two things.
1. Anything is possible.
2. Nothing is impossible (what is persisting cannot persist)
If anything is possible then something can come from nothing and although the 2nd note is a contradiction it doesn't matter cause no rules exist to say its impossible making this self-evident.
I don't understand why Christians are bringing physics and science into the discussion as proof of the biblical god. Even if I were to say that the only possible way a universe could come to exist is a god, how do you automatically get a Christian one?! Why can't he be Allah or Brahman or whatever god Hindus believed created the universe?!
@florin3k3 "I don't understand why Christians are bringing physics and science into the discussion as proof of the biblical god" Because the more knowledge mankind accumulates the more petty the more ridiculous their superstitions appear. they use twist bend mutilate science to give themselves some credibility
@florin3k3 Exactly right my man. Christians are aware their justification for belief is entirely faith based. They don't wish to see themselves as embracing superstition and ignorance on faith alone. They to cloak their belief in a thin veil of science.
@florin3k3 Hindus believe in Brahmin (Brahman) as the only reality. While I believe the universe was created by Vishnu. I'm a bit fuzzy on it since Ionely studied it for one year.
@florin3k3 "Even if I were to say that the only possible way a universe could come to exist is a god, how do you automatically get a Christian one?! Why can't he be Allah or Brahma..."
Absolutely a valid point, but let me point out that Allah IS the Christian "god." "Allah" is simply Arabic for "god" (actually "the god") and is the same alleged Abrahamic "deity" that Jews and Christians worship.
In fact, there are millions of Christians in Arabic-speaking countries, and they worship...Allah!
@evelsteev "then how do you know it's NOT Krishna, or Zeus, or Odin?" Perfectly reasonable question: if they're just saying "the god," how do we know which one?
"Allah" by itself doesn't tell us which "god" they're referring to--you're absolutely right!--but if you read their scriptures it's perfectly clear that Islam stems from the Abrahamic traditions. (Of course, it's also clear--to me--that ALL "gods" are fiction!)
You can look up Ishmael (or Islam, I suppose) on W iki and get more info.
@evelsteev " 'Of course, it's also clear--to me--that ALL "gods" are fiction?' Really? OK, prove it." Note the "to me"--I'm stating my OPINION.
My opinion (which I can't prove--you'll have to trust that I wouldn't lie about what my OPINION is) stems from my having heard a lot about entities that're somehow able to operate contrary to the laws of the universe, yet never having encountered convincing (TO ME) evidence of them. For similar reasons, I see unicorns as fiction. Your opinion may vary.
Understand? lolol I clearly DO understand the matter, thus my response with the Brownian motion.
"in different studies"? that just supports my claim that motion can occur with a causative agent. Disproving YOUR claim that you always require an external agent (like say, God)
Why are there so many willfully retarded people? I went to the website linked in the video, and saw nothing but complete and utter nonsense. These people are still spewing the same ad hoc rhetoric from decades ago regarding atheism, it literally makes me feel ill knowing after all of this time these believers have yet to make any noticeable progress over the past century.
Time is merely an aspect of existence. i.e. The universe was not created on day one, there has to be a universe and something conscious of it to perceive a day one. i.e. It's the eternal context.
These drones define god as something outside of existence and grow angry when we point that out. (Existence/Universe) - Nonexistence/god
without proof one person said the world is ROUND. no one beleived him and everyone scourned him and yet he was right. EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET THOUGHT THE WORLD WAS SQUARE BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT SEE BEYOND THE HORIZON. he had faith and knew there was something beyond the horizon and wanted to sail to the end of the earth.
there is something that exists without being created. we cannot see it or understand it because we ourselves are created and this uncreated creator is "outside" of creation and nature and science itself. we CANNOT understand a realm which is outside of our own existence!
@6:59 "You're just doling out the fallacies like a vending machine."
Great analogy.
YY4Me133 10 hours ago
5:10 - 5:23 - Troy showing no shame.
jerrypz 1 day ago
Proof of Something coming from nothing:
No evidence for cause of big bang:
=
Big bang was created by Yahweh!!!!
jerrypz 1 day ago
Wait, did he just say "that's right"? What a foolish person.
PACKyourSHITfolks420 2 days ago
This caller is so dense..."If science cant provide the answer then the god of the bible is true". Thats his argument? Really??? LOL!
Xellith 5 days ago
Asking what came before the big bang is like asking what is north from the north pole.
The big bang is nothing more than the oldest point we can trace that is it just as the north pole is to farthest point north we can trace.
DrEelectricbio 6 days ago
i don't like that people like troy assert something can't come from nothing therefore god came from nothing and created everything.
taylan637 1 week ago
@taylan637 I believe carl sagan addressed this, quite eloquently I might add.
Xellith 5 days ago
William Lane Craig is no different from any of the other bible-thumping apologetics, he has just learned the jargon.
revjimbob 1 week ago
you dont know what square root of 2 so therefore its 1.4 cause magical unicorn told me to.
erti655 1 week ago
Billy Preston answered this question nearly 40 years ago at G_DV54ddNHE. He also told us what would happen if we kept arguing about it at 7Xnf1myamMU.
acr08807 1 week ago
Troy from Edmonton is an idiot!
CanadienAtheist 1 week ago 2
He used too many big words in the initial explanation. When you use big words with these people they use that to their advantage to continue to argue from ignorance.
JOESZAK 1 week ago
What... a.... moron...
Kawa856 1 week ago
45 theists sneezed around 1269 atheists and no one said "bless you".
MrSumbody69 1 week ago
I wanna see these guys debate with a Muslim about God. They would rip that Muslim a new one. And then they would probably get death threats. That's probably why I can't find a video discussing Islam.
firethower99 1 week ago
@firethower99 you're right. If you want to see debates with muslims, check out the TheJinnAndTonicShow channel. The speakers "against" islam tend to hide their identity on the show.
VideoGamePlayerUK 1 week ago
@VideoGamePlayerUK Alright. Thanks.
firethower99 1 week ago
Comment removed
firethower99 1 week ago
@baldurus1 infinitude cannot exist in our universe, when you move you make an infinite amount of factional movements(meaning 1/2 1/4 1/8 1/6 cutting down to infinitely halved) sections of movement, therefore movement is impossible :3
1zacster 1 week ago
@1zacster
Troll.
drche420 1 week ago
I can't explain why the light goes off in my fridge, so god did it.
I don't know where the water goes when I drain my tub, so god did it.
Troy this is what you sound like to me.
laprofessorapai 1 week ago
Another example of a stunning disconnect with reality by a beliver. Such perspectives leave me wondering how such a person manages to live in a rational world. Mind boggling is simply the wrong tense.
agroundhere 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great page for atheists... go here and see all the contradictions in the Bible and how many times it is wrong. Dare to read. Amazingbibledotorg
spiegeltn 2 weeks ago
Ok. if there is no natural answer, than there must be some level of belief to think that it is true. however, what then is the problem with the belief that there is a creator... because by what i have heard you saying i see no difference between the level of belief required to claim either argument.
sk8er4god737 3 weeks ago
Complete non-argument. Makes no sense logically, and reveals the stupidity of whoever chooses to use it...
JDillaDudas 3 weeks ago
its a dumb argument. If you believe in god then god is something so therefore cannot come from nothing. yet dumbasses keep using this argument to try to SUPPORT a god existing. stoopid!
TheDharmawheel 3 weeks ago
put the bastard on hold next time so he HAS to listen
asdfbobbyasdf 3 weeks ago
Of *course* he didn't hear any of the logical fallacies Martin pointed out -- that's because he kept right on talking whenever Martin pointed them out. From watching a bunch of these videos, it's easy to begin forming the Chrissy rules for debate:
1) never stop talking long enough to let the other person make a point
2) never acknowledge any points the other person makes
3) when asked a question (*especially* a "yes or no" question), ramble on to the next topic without responding
pseudorandomly 3 weeks ago
"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise." Simon Greenleaf, a Christian Apologist. No part of the Christian meets those criteria. Specifically: There is no chain of evidence (proper repository), and there are in fact reams of evidence of forgery. Read Bart Ehrman.
Kailoa36 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kailoa36
"No part of the Christian [bible?] meets those criteria."
(I'll assume you forgot the word bible) Ill start at the first part of your claim...
Ancient scripture isn't "apparently ancient"?
ShawnSwander 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They are just bulling him before he gets a chance to clearly make his point this is what shows it without interruption.
tinyurl . com / 83f26sm
ShawnSwander 1 month ago
This caller is adicted to a drug called, William Lane Craig. Pathetic.
Kailoa36 1 month ago
The difference between genius and stupidity is that stupidity has no limit.
MadHatter34784 1 month ago
This is one of the few videos from the Atheist Experience which made me angry but NOT at the caller but at the two hosts! The caller gave them several perfect examples of logical fallacies and constantly talked over them, and instead of putting his ass on hold and THEN giving him a detailed description of his fallacies, they just let this guy continue to interrupt them ...
Rawlsrocks 1 month ago
I think it's wonderful how the theists live in their own little "world of magic" and ignore everything around them
michaelflorida56 1 month ago
I love fallacies, they really shine light on those errors we would normally pass off as normal argumentative speech.
NairuOnLife 1 month ago
I didn't realise that people actually think like that, its completely crazy!
DTSquance 1 month ago
the uncreated creaTOR
wokkitout 1 month ago
No no no no NO!!! Stupid F*#&ing idiot. Infinite regress is bullshit!
If you have an infinite set of numbers, no beginning and no end. Why would it be impossible to count from let's say the number 13342342341123234253421212334 to13342342341123234253421212335??? And don't say that there would be an infinite amount of numbers between them, i swear i will smack you in the head with a science book. Time is the movement of matter and energy, why would the movement stop in an infinite???
baldurus1 1 month ago
@baldurus1 Sometimes I get sad, but then I stop being sad and get awesome again.
True story.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
"Something cannot come from nothing" Exactly!
Therefore a god can't exist in nothing and sure as hell can't put a Universe in nothing.
baldurus1 1 month ago
doling out the fallacies like a vending machine. lol.
youthank8 1 month ago
We will never escape this circular argument until people can get that not being able to understand something doesn't prove the existence of God and it never will.
arjabbar409 1 month ago
I find it amusing that these people use the 'nothing comes from nothing' argument to enhance their case.
Yet they don't consider how 'God' created the universe, from nothing.
That makes their argument sound like this;
"Science can't explain the how it happened in practical terms, either can we, but we got magic on our side, so we win !"
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
SaintKimbo 1 month ago
This is a problem I have with religious moderates and apologists; they try to argue for a bullshit, abstract deity and make a giant leap to the christian god.
SDub817 1 month ago
@SDub817 Exactly! It's just some big argument for Deism....until it totally isn't. But like atheism, I don't think that most of them even know what deism is.
palerider1775 1 month ago
wow...what a complete and perfect example of "creationist" "bobbing and weaving". Make the rules as you go,...and apply them when it is convenient to your "god" argument. The level of absolute bullshit is astounding. The default assumptions and assertions are old and tired...same old bullshit...wrapped in different packages......what a joke. People, please wake up and smell the bullshit.....
MATZAMAN76 1 month ago
Matt would have torn this guy apart with his little finger.
Still good video though
RagdollRalph 1 month ago
The "you can't prove it's not real so it's real" argument is getting quite old :p
Gurrennakun 1 month ago 2
Everybody that's reading this, Think about this, If something cannot come from nothing. That means there was never the term "nothing" to begin with. That means there is no such thing as "nothing" which in science is true because if you take away all radiation and particles you get dark matter. Dark matter has always been there and quantum fluctuations from it caused the big bang producing a universe.
xBlackEditionx 1 month ago 10
@xBlackEditionx The "Nothing" in our universe accounts for 99% of the mass/energy of the universe :P
coolair00 1 month ago
@coolair00 70% dark mass and 30% dark energy. I'm sure is what Lawrence Krauss (physicist), mentioned in his presentation on "something from nothing".
xBlackEditionx 1 month ago
@xBlackEditionx what a perfect way to explain it with logical science i am stealing this lol
BrettBloomfield1 1 day ago
That guy must be VenomFangx's dad.
neomysterio 1 month ago
Gentlemen - it's great that you guys are doing what you're doing, and being a strong voice of reason in the US. I commend you.
robtron2 1 month ago
Dear Troy,
Argument from Ignorance: You basically told them they don't have a better explanation and so your made up answer gets to take 1st place? Sorry, that is NOT how we know something is true lol. If you used your ears even a quarter of the time you have been talking, you'd learn a lot more about why what you're saying makes no sense.
finalcloud13 1 month ago
Au Contraire my friend, US dollar does! ... The Federal Reserves creates them out of nothing! :)
nsakic 1 month ago
This caller is a joke...typical ignorant christian
Gunnz287 1 month ago
Just to let everyone know, not everyone from Edmonton (or near Edmonton, AB) is a theist. I'm not. I very much side with Hitchens, but there are to many here that are as deluded as this Parture.
GordonWolters 1 month ago
troy's lawyer could be god. ha ha.......
13aBOC 1 month ago
Troy needs help! LOL
13aBOC 1 month ago
Respect for the patience you guys always have. I was getting extremely annoyed just listening to this guy
ArbitterO5 1 month ago
I got one for the bible thumper's. If there was indeed a God, dont you think we would have found some proof he's out there by now? No proof could also mean no God's.
42lynchmob 1 month ago
I like how the guy on the phone is getting super pissed off while everyone is laughing at him. xD
DJ100101 1 month ago 21
@DJ100101 And the more he got pissed off the more i laughed, I love the entertainment these Christians give athiests.
1991stratplus 6 days ago
Is there any debate where William Lane Craig has lost?
Larvemannenz001 1 month ago
@Larvemannenz001 Arif Ahmed . Quentin Smith 1996 one of many of Craig's loses. This one is particularly interesting . Craig admits that his cosmological argument is not a logical argument for god creating the universe. It hasn't stopped Craig from using it it's just I haven't seen anyone throw it in his face
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 I'll listen to it right away.
Larvemannenz001 1 month ago
@Larvemannenz001 Unfortunately the 1996 Quentin Smith vs Craig debate has to read if you google it Quentin smith vs Craig 1996 the first result is the debate. Pay attention to the fifth link it's Craig's rebuttal. The debate with Arif Ahmed is a you tube video .
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Larvemannenz001 Has he ever won? I've never seen him do nothing more than ignoring evidence and making stuff up.
inarko 1 month ago
@Larvemannenz001
That depends on how you define winning and losing. An atheist argues based on what is true and what is not true, a theist argues on what allows them to preserve some shred of hope that their faith is justified. Winning in that sense depends on the values of the debater. But if you want to see him lose utterly in all senses beyond any possible chance of salvaging the argument, watch his debate with Shelly Kagan.
TheTexanCanadian 1 month ago
Ur argument is hypocritical if something cannot come from something and where did god come from? NOTHING ur argument works both ways
southflorida14 1 month ago
that's what atheist experience every time they talk with religious person
Th0usandMaster 1 month ago 15
@Th0usandMaster True...but thats because God isnt about religion...its about a relationship. Until they realise that, they can't win.
blipperful 1 month ago
@blipperful yeah i agree on the relationship part, social relationship.
In my country religious people believe in ghost and if you share their belief you're one of them, if you don't you're not, it's that simple.
Th0usandMaster 1 month ago
Even if--even IF--some being or entity or force "created" the universe and its laws (and so far I haven't seen any reason to think so), how does it follow that that "creator" ("C") now (some ~14 billion years later) still operates within the universe, occasionally suspending its own laws to grant humans' wishes?
And how does it follow that a "demigod" former inhabitant of this single planet that circles one of the 100+ sextillion stars in the known universe, happens to be C? What's the logic?
lease2coach1 1 month ago
next time, just grant them that God created the universe for the sake of the argument. Then, proceed to ask them to prove that it is their God and watch them make a jackass out of themselves.
CelebrateReason 1 month ago
leading people to God? So if an atheists is stumped that's leads me to God? Ok, then if a phycisist is stumped that leads me to alchemy and if a child is stumped that leads me to gravity.
omnissience 1 month ago
This is just sad to think the the only concept can be "God" because you have no other facts or evidence.
VinceVolta 1 month ago
Can someone explain to me how an infinite regress is impossible?
VeritasLuxMea100 2 months ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 Infinite regress is only problematic when you limit your self to a 4 dimensional reality.Theist try to say that infinite regress proves that there has to be a first cause and that cause is god but they create a problem that their own answer is a logical impassibility. An uncaused cause ( God)
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"Infinite regress is only problematic when you limit your self to a 4 dimensional reality"
Dimensions have little to do with causality, so while your answer may sound fancy, it doesn't explain anything.
"a logical impassibility. An uncaused cause"
Please prove that not being caused is a logical impossibility. Furthermore, if there was no uncaused cause, this would result in logical absurdities.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON "Dimensions have little to do with causality, " Oh really when the dimension of which I speak is time. Good try there
Please prove that the universe is caused .You say your god in uncaused why couldn't the universe be uncaused?????
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON "Dimensions have little to do with causality, so while your answer may sound fancy, it doesn't explain anything."
Imagine for a moment that time is a circle. Can you see how the universe can be eternal in that model, while no infinite regress ever occurs? All that's required is that stuff exists and can get rearranged over time. Nothing would ever be created, except in the sense of the stuff getting rearranged.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro
"Imagine for a moment that time is a circle"
The oscillating universe model? The problem is contracting universes are extremely unstable, and, according to the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorms, space-time cannot pass through a singularity. Furthermore, the chance of a low-entropy state existing after the Big Bang is about 10^10^123. If this low-entropy state did not occur, stable matter would never form, and there would never be enough gravity to cause the universe to contract.
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON Sorry Evan I should have prefaced that the prior post were a quote from Dr Craig in the debate of which I spoke
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON Quentin Smith "There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON Continued "Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions.""
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Such organizations of time would of course make infinite regress on causality nonsense as well. Such possibilities are entirely straight forward and logical. Sure, there's no evidence for them, but they seem infinitely more plausible than gods.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro
"they seem infinitely more plausible than gods"
Please explain to me how you determine which hypothesis is more plausible.
Lastly, I would like to mention that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorms proves that space-time had an absolute beginning. It holds without regards to a quantum theory of gravity, and doesn't even assume that Einstein's general relativity equations are completely correct.
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON " Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorms proves that space-time had an absolute beginning" Com on Evan PROVE. There are a plethora of theories of time which contradict this. you take after craig use one of many theories and only the ones that support your side and claim that they absolutely are true
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100
WLC has quite a decent explanation of this here: watch?v=j_q802eboxA
Furthermore, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorm requires an absolute beginning (this includes the multiverse, assuming there is one). It hold regardless of a quantum theory of gravity, and does not even assume that Einstein's general relativity equations were correct: /watch?v=Z79FGmh50Xo&feature=g-all-u&context=G29c000fFAAAAAAAARAA
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Craig is far from logical. He said he would ignore evidence proving god's non existence. How disingenuous can he possible be?//
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"Craig is far from logical"
In other words, "he's wrong!". Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...
"He said he would ignore evidence proving god's non existence"
No. He constantly asks for such evidence. The problem is this evidence presented is often quite faulty.
"watch the Craig Arif Ahmed debate"
Except you can't watch it because they only have an audio-transcript. This leads me to believe that you haven't watched it, but are going off...
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON "Except you can't watch it because they only have an audio-transcript. This leads me to believe that you haven't watched it, but are going off..." Come on EVAN You can watch it on youtube. They have the debate with a still picture. You've seen this before. what's the matter with you it's almost as if I'm talking to someone else. You disappear for a month then hide your activity and then come up with argument s like this
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 watch the Craig Arif Ahmed debate . Craig gets his ass handed to him. Quentin Smith vs Craig in 1996 where Craig admits that discussing god creating the universe to be beyond any definition of causation. But it hasn't stopped craig from still using the arguemnt
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
...of what some internet blogger says.
"Quentin Smith vs Craig in 1996 where Craig admits..."
Please prove this, as I'm guessing your sources are incredibly bias (most information I get about Craig's debates either comes from the debate itself, or commonsenseatheism).
"why couldn't the universe be uncaused?"
Because the universe had an absolute beginning, and unless you are willing to admit that things can pop into being out of nothing, the universe had a cause.
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON idea that God caused the universe is intuitively inteligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! This only shows that definitions need to be revised. .
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bounce—an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Watched it, I'm dismayed at how ridiculous craig sounds, it's the same tired arguments from all his debates, He even admits to his many logical fallacies!
VeritasLuxMea100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VeritasLuxMea100 Did you read the Quentin Smith Craig debate of 1996 . I posted some of it here yesterday. it makes for interesting reading. Theres also a video of Craig stating that he would ignore evidence against the existence of god in favor of his experience of the holy spirit ( whatever the heck that is)
emailpobox666 1 month ago
Their argumen didn't make sense. They were saying "The cause isn't necessarily the Christian God". So you believe in God, just not the Christian God? They respond "Maybe someday science will come up with a natural answer", but that is logically impossible. They are saying "Maybe someday we'll figure out how nature (the universe) created the universe (nature)". This isn't an argument from ignorance, as an uncaused cause is the only logical explanation. The only question now regards its nature.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON an uncaused caused is the only logical explanation. What you mean it's the only answer you will accept. The only answer that is compatible with your preconceived belief in the supernatural
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"it's the only answer you will accept"
No. If we accept that 1) something cannot come from nothing and 2) an infinite regress is impossible, this logically requires the existence of a beginning (an uncaused cause). Any other answer either goes against our premises, or simply pushes the beginning back a step. This is not an argument from ignorance because an uncaused cause (and i'm not even asserting that this is God) is the only logical explanation.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON The universe did not come from nothing. Infinite regress in the frame work of time existing in one dimension but there are other theories of tie which extend time into multiple dimensions. doesn't your god push it back a step . an uncaused cause (permitted if it's a god but not a universe. Exactly how do you figure that???
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"there are other theories of tie which extend time into multiple dimensions"
And the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorm holds regardless of these multi-dimensional time modals.
"doesn't your god push it back a step"
No. Pushing it back a step means you find an earlier cause, but don't answer what is the initial cause.
"it's a god but not a universe"
Because space-time (which universes consist of), had an absolute beginning.
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON As I said before it's the only explanation you will accept because it preserves your belief in Yahweh.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
I wish this rapture shit would happen and take these morons off the earth! -
Lennon4ever1 2 months ago
I can't believe how stupid this caller is.
chinopisces 2 months ago
Theists believe:
Only God existed before the beginning of the universe
If only he existed then what materials did he use to create the Universe with?
Some will say God is the source of all materials but if he is 100% immaterial, that means God is made of “nothing” and out came “something”….Mmmmm Theists you have some explaining to do.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Did god create existence? If so, he did it while outside of existence, and the only thing outside of existence is nonexistence (which makes god necessarily nonexistent). If NOT, then existence is independent of god's existence (or god's nonexistence), and god did not create it...
So we are right back where we started. With no evidence for the god hypothesis, and no need for it. So why bring up this stupid "something from nothing" nonsense? No one is claiming that on either side!!
greyeyed123 2 months ago
That Christian fellow really limits his horizon. 200 Years ago we could have had the same discussion about lightning. Not so such a long time ago, the idea of a round Earth sounded absurd. So what seems logical now, might actually be absurd. So stop putting a God into every hole where it seems that there has to be one.
Ranokian 2 months ago
These Clowns are SO nervous, that somebody might call and give them a challenge, and that's what happened here!! Seriously, what in the world is Martin writing down at 1:24?
Now at 1:46 Martin just can't take it anymore, so by his nonsensical belief he has to interrupt the caller to stop him from spilling more "Realism" to the world,(and himself) In a genuine atheistic lying brainwashing attempt to bury the truth...
And it's getting worse, they give us crap for saying God wasn't created
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 An uncreated creator, is proof of something that exists without having been created. This disproves one of his precepts. The disproof for this religious nutbag's argument is in his "proof".
johnedwards1968 2 months ago
@ironman197268 I say The universe wasn't created you say God wasn't created. the universe exists. Does your god?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Good point! Haven't we crossed paths before? I like your arguments anyway :)
VeritasLuxMea100 2 months ago
@VeritasLuxMea100 I think we have cross paths before. I try to make an effort advocating logic and reason over superstition. It's an uphill battle considering the Christians gettem young with the brain washing. thanks for the compliment
emailpobox666 2 months ago
Lol, Caller = unfortunately appears to be lost in his own BS.
LogicalStatements1 2 months ago
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
Christians...why y no come up with (hardly any) new arguments since St. Thomas Aquinas?
PowerCoefficient 2 months ago
there can only be one explanation!
Christian: Non-created biblical god who clearly hates gays
Muslim: Non-created Allah
FSM: Non-created pasta
Ancient Greeks: non-created Uranus
Aztecs: non-created Quetzacoatl
Some atheists: quantum fluctuations
bogdan1231 2 months ago
Actually, something can come from nothing in a flat universe... Lawrence Krauss anyone?
MetalMiIIs 2 months ago
@MetalMiIIs No the sum is still nothing, you just got positive and negitve stuff.
ebilly99 2 months ago
@ebilly99 Uh, what?
MetalMiIIs 2 months ago
On behalf of all canadians, I apologize for this simpleton.
rnalithe00 2 months ago 28
@rnalithe00 i wish i could apologize for all the idiotic american theists who call into the show.
autopsy87 1 month ago
@SpursWins Gee, I didn't know pointing out someone's flawed logic in an honest manner constituted as being an "ass". In christian circles I've only heard it being referred to as "being possessed by satan".
rnalithe00 2 months ago
they need matt there
coopmuch56 2 months ago
Whats the point of getting people to call ur show to and give their beliefs if u guys are just asses on the way u talk to them?
SpursWins 2 months ago
As a Canadian I would like to apologize for this Idiot.
ughzean 2 months ago
@ughzean
Thank you.
Mesdriver 2 months ago
He was making a jump in logic. He went from a philosophical question which physicists are currently trying to understand straight in Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour. That's like saying you don't know X therefore strawberry ice cream is the best flavour. Complete nonsense and a huge jump in logic.
dayati 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If nothing exists theres no laws, nothing to state what is possible or impossible, although some things seem inconceivable to us, if no laws nor rules exist, nothing is impossible.
Nothing is impossible means two things.
1. Anything is possible.
2. Nothing is impossible (what is persisting cannot persist)
If anything is possible then something can come from nothing and although the 2nd note is a contradiction it doesn't matter cause no rules exist to say its impossible making this self-evident.
deanmullen10 2 months ago
Comment removed
deanmullen10 2 months ago
Unfortunately ignorance is bliss....callers are dim witted, with absolutly no points
krystpeoples 2 months ago
I don't understand why Christians are bringing physics and science into the discussion as proof of the biblical god. Even if I were to say that the only possible way a universe could come to exist is a god, how do you automatically get a Christian one?! Why can't he be Allah or Brahman or whatever god Hindus believed created the universe?!
florin3k3 2 months ago 13
@florin3k3 "I don't understand why Christians are bringing physics and science into the discussion as proof of the biblical god" Because the more knowledge mankind accumulates the more petty the more ridiculous their superstitions appear. they use twist bend mutilate science to give themselves some credibility
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@florin3k3 Exactly right my man. Christians are aware their justification for belief is entirely faith based. They don't wish to see themselves as embracing superstition and ignorance on faith alone. They to cloak their belief in a thin veil of science.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@florin3k3 Hindus believe in Brahmin (Brahman) as the only reality. While I believe the universe was created by Vishnu. I'm a bit fuzzy on it since Ionely studied it for one year.
1Lanavis1 1 month ago
@florin3k3 "Even if I were to say that the only possible way a universe could come to exist is a god, how do you automatically get a Christian one?! Why can't he be Allah or Brahma..."
Absolutely a valid point, but let me point out that Allah IS the Christian "god." "Allah" is simply Arabic for "god" (actually "the god") and is the same alleged Abrahamic "deity" that Jews and Christians worship.
In fact, there are millions of Christians in Arabic-speaking countries, and they worship...Allah!
lease2coach1 1 month ago
@lease2coach1 then how do you know it's NOT Krishna, or Zeus, or Odin?
evelsteev 1 month ago
@evelsteev "then how do you know it's NOT Krishna, or Zeus, or Odin?" Perfectly reasonable question: if they're just saying "the god," how do we know which one?
"Allah" by itself doesn't tell us which "god" they're referring to--you're absolutely right!--but if you read their scriptures it's perfectly clear that Islam stems from the Abrahamic traditions. (Of course, it's also clear--to me--that ALL "gods" are fiction!)
You can look up Ishmael (or Islam, I suppose) on W iki and get more info.
lease2coach1 1 month ago
@lease2coach1 "Of course, it's also clear--to me--that ALL "gods" are fiction?" Really? OK, prove it.
evelsteev 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evelsteev " 'Of course, it's also clear--to me--that ALL "gods" are fiction?' Really? OK, prove it." Note the "to me"--I'm stating my OPINION.
My opinion (which I can't prove--you'll have to trust that I wouldn't lie about what my OPINION is) stems from my having heard a lot about entities that're somehow able to operate contrary to the laws of the universe, yet never having encountered convincing (TO ME) evidence of them. For similar reasons, I see unicorns as fiction. Your opinion may vary.
lease2coach1 1 month ago
@evelsteev You claim that a god is real? then it is up to you to prove it
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 who said I claimed is real? I don't believe in unproven claims.
evelsteev 1 month ago
@evelsteev Sorry The comment was meant for lease2coach1
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 no worries, but I agree with you! lol
evelsteev 1 month ago
Why the hell didn't they hang up on this ignorant jerkoff after one minute? It's obvious that he is intentionally talking over them. Screw him.
skywize 2 months ago
sometimes, don't you just want to give theists a good slapping?
raverdeath100 2 months ago
God does exist
Caybeb 2 months ago
@Caybeb Cunt.
grayziehobbes 2 months ago
Nothing can be put into motion with out being put into motion by a being all ready in motion! It's so simple
Caybeb 2 months ago
@Caybeb
so how do you explain Brownian motion?
transtlantic 2 months ago
@transtlantic
Caybeb is right, you are wrong.
Mesdriver 2 months ago
@Mesdriver
really? so care to explain Brownian motion?
just fuck off you ignorant cRetard
transtlantic 2 months ago
@transtlantic
I do not feel the need to explain anything to a moron that is not able to understand the matter.
Brownian motion is explained in different studies, look them up.
Religious dummys always refer to a thing THEY do not understand to prove the existance of god.
Since they hardly understand anything, not too difficult to do.R
Religious bonehead.
Mesdriver 2 months ago
@Mesdriver
Understand? lolol I clearly DO understand the matter, thus my response with the Brownian motion.
"in different studies"? that just supports my claim that motion can occur with a causative agent. Disproving YOUR claim that you always require an external agent (like say, God)
god? you dumbshit...i am an atheist. try again.
transtlantic 2 months ago
Why are there so many willfully retarded people? I went to the website linked in the video, and saw nothing but complete and utter nonsense. These people are still spewing the same ad hoc rhetoric from decades ago regarding atheism, it literally makes me feel ill knowing after all of this time these believers have yet to make any noticeable progress over the past century.
PieDizzle 3 months ago
Time is merely an aspect of existence. i.e. The universe was not created on day one, there has to be a universe and something conscious of it to perceive a day one. i.e. It's the eternal context.
These drones define god as something outside of existence and grow angry when we point that out. (Existence/Universe) - Nonexistence/god
Ataensic 3 months ago
without proof one person said the world is ROUND. no one beleived him and everyone scourned him and yet he was right. EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET THOUGHT THE WORLD WAS SQUARE BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT SEE BEYOND THE HORIZON. he had faith and knew there was something beyond the horizon and wanted to sail to the end of the earth.
pugolka 3 months ago
@pugolka Except for the part where greek mathematicians had proven, by measurement that the world was round.
You've committed an argument from ignorance. Congrats.
meaninter03 3 months ago
@pugolka It was not faith that told anyone the world was round, it was evidence.
The flat earth theorists went with a false assumption until evidence demonstrated a flat earth was incorrect.
I wish you were taught scientific method and logic in school
drfoxcourt 3 months ago
there is something that exists without being created. we cannot see it or understand it because we ourselves are created and this uncreated creator is "outside" of creation and nature and science itself. we CANNOT understand a realm which is outside of our own existence!
pugolka 3 months ago
@pugolka If it's outside space time, then how do you know it exists, and what form it takes?
Oh, right. People have told you that some ancient text is the truth.
meaninter03 3 months ago