@GamerEnterprise Also, fix your grammar. I'm not saying this to put you down, but if you want people to view your comment as readable, even though the truth of a set of words does not depend on it's grammar, then write more clearly.
@GamerEnterprise: Although science is awesome and has made many breakthroughs, philosophy in itself, is supreme for it surpasses all empirical scientific questions and explanations. If you don't even think about the bible, yet think logically, and I say again, "if you do" then you will come to the only conclusion that science is not all that exists, and that there is something that has always been. Existence cannot come from non-existence, yet something must have always have existed.
@GamerEnterprise: First of all, you're comment is fulllll of assumptions that aren't true. Before I believed in Jesus, I always thought about life philosophically in the sense that "I found out myself" that there must be "something" eternal. Secondly, you cannot prove that everything I know came from the bible, for you cannot even prove to yourself that you exist. Everything is taken on faith if you get technical. That is why René Descartes said, "I think, threfore I am."
Very nice video. However, modern science DOES say that the universe did come from nothing. The state of nothing is UNSTABLE. The universe can come from nothing without violating the energy conservation laws. Read "The Origin of the Universe - Case Closed" for the details.
@booksofscience You're sort of right, but yes, this video is out of date. I made it well before Stephen Hawking's latest book, or the book you mention was published. The "nothing" scientists talk about in both those books is not the 'nothing' discussed by philosophers. It could be said that a quantum foam/vacuum is still 'something' in a literal sense, so the primary premise of the video holds true. I appreciate your post, thanks for watching!
@cyxgun Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@cyxgun Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
@cyxgun I like how you think; you think very logical. I am a christian myself, therefore I do beleive in God, but I'm a christian that is very open minded and I always think about things very critically and skeptically before accepting them unlike a lot of christians who accept things just based off of a desperate want for God to be real. I try my best to make God fit into the natural world we live in. I think Plato and Aristotle gave great examples of how science cannot account for everything.
@Caldari1 If I would go back in time to year 120 and destroy bible,you would not even know about this"god theory".I want to proove,that everything you know about god,all your information about this being noone have seen comes from book and you cant argue with that.Bible gave you all info about god.Information is only just as good as its source.Until you can be sure on all 100% that every single word in bible is written by "x" author (god in this case" its irrational to believe in it
@Cyxgun You say that the energy that existed in the beginning can not be created, so your saying it's always been, or did something have to create those energy forces and particles? It's logical to conclude that those particles must have come from something prior, unless you want to accept that those energy forces and particles have always been, because something has to have always been, because something cannot come from nothing. It's logical.
@Caldari1 Then we are in agreement. As I said in the video... in the beginning "Something just WAS." Which is more probable then, God or a quantum energy field? Because of what we know about complexity and probability, we have reason to believe quantum energy field "just being" is much, MUCH more likely than the theistic alternative because it is simple. The mind of God is most definitely not simple! For this reason it cannot "just be."
& then REPENT. Turn from living the way U want to 2 living God's way. His ways R best. They protect us from the consequences of our own sins. He created us & He knows exactly how we are 2 live 2 have abundant life. When U do that, with a truly contrite heart, He will welcome you into His family with open arms.
I hope you do that, cyxgun. I'm sorry that I ran on so much this morning. I hope I haven't offended U. I really do care about U & where U spend eternity. Have a wonderful weekend. :)
the free gift that He is offering because He loves you so much. The Creator of the Universe gladly gave His life for you. You'll never hear a better offer. All you have to do is RECEIVE the gift He is giving you. TRUST that Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins. Research Him. Really! Listen to the other side, truly look at the evidence that confirms the Bible. It's there and it's rock solid. He is truth and He can withstand all of your questions. And CONFESS where you've broken His laws
given everything to pay cyxgun's fine for him. God, the Judge, says, "All right, cyxgun, your fine has been paid and you are free to go." You have to decide if you want to accept that gift. Are you going to receive that freely offered gift or are you going to decide that you can pay it on your own? If you want to pay it on your own, you can't. An eternity is not enough time to repay the Holy Judge whom you have insulted over and over by breaking His laws. I hope that someday you will accept the
cuss word. You have probably lusted after someone. If you have ever hated anyone, did you know God sees that as murder of the heart and it's just as bad as killing them? Because you've done those things, just like I have, you owe a debt to God. He is like that judge sitting behind the bench in a courtroom. Justice requires that a penalty be paid for the sins that you've committed. Imagine standing before the Judge, unable to pay the fine yourself, and Jesus walks in and says, "Wait!! I have
perfect life for you, because He knew you couldn't. Then He was tortured and hung on a cross to pay the debt that you owed to God for your sins. Yes, we are all sinners. Even a smart guy like yourself. I'm sure that you, just like me, have told lies, most of us many. You have probably stolen something in your lifetime, even if it was just to download music. You have probably not always obeyed everything your parents told you to do, that's dishonoring them. You have probably used God's name as a
of evidence from you, just some mild derogatory comments about my intelligence. That's fine. I, one the other hand, know that you are made in the image of God and, as such, respect you as a fellow human being. I hope that one day you will willingly open your mind to the truth of God. He created you because He wants to have a relationship with you. He loves you. And He has done something for you that no one else ever has. He willingly left His throne in Heaven, to be born of a virgin, to live the
Well, cyxgun, here I was going 2 call you a gentlemen and say that I'd enjoyed our conversations but your last post wasn't very gentlemanly. I'm sorry that you don't believe me. I didn't cut and paste and these ideas are as much mine as yours are yours. You've been fed a line, just as I was. The only difference is that I started thinking for myself and realized that the "line" from evolutionists just doesn't make sense. You can insult my intelligence all you want. I really haven't heard a shred
been found. It takes more faith to believe in evolution then for me to believe in God. Evolutionists are believing in faith that a transitional form will be found someday. 5. Your viruses and drug resistant bacteria are mutations, which is a loss of information, not an addition which evolution needs to have. There has never been a case of additional information being added to DNA. 6. Evolution violates the 2 laws of thermodynamics.
My beliefs aren't ridiculous. I stand on rock solid evidence.
has to get out in the next 6 hours because there is an air sac at the end of that egg which holds enough air for the chick for 6 hours. How could that have ever evolved? The first egg would have had the holes to get air from but no air sac. Even if it got past that, the next egg would have an air sac with not enough air. Chickens wouldn't have survived to evolve an air sac with the exact amount of air that it needed to get out. They would have all died by then. 4. No transitional forms have ever
No, sir. All these posts demonstrate is that you've been thoroughly brainwashed. Just like I used to be. If a lie is repeated often enough people believe it. Think about it logically. 1. Life doesn't come from non-life, the law of Biogenesis. 2. DNA is information and information only comes from intelligence. 3. Have you ever noticed that at the end of the inside of an egg is an air sac? Air comes through tiny holes on the egg for the chick. Eventually the holes collapse and the chick knows it
@donawyo You call me brainwashed, yet you come here and regurgitate this nonsense? Your lack of scientific understanding is showing again. Stop getting your science information from religious websites and you won't have this problem. It's not really worth my time to address your copy and pasted 'points' as anyone who has even a minor interest in science will find them laughable.
If you can't take the time to formulate your own ideas, please refrain from posting on my channel.
@donawyo "Not a shred" huh? Did you miss the part where I explained that viral and bacterial drug resistance was evolution? You're just wasting my time because you don't appear to care what I have to say, and your comments have turned into rants. Really 9 comments long? Go to donexodous2 channel and argue with him, because he's an actual evolutionary biologist. I'm done with you spamming my channel with this bull. Blocked.
There are two types of science, origin & operational. Operational is in the present and can be repeated, origin science cannot because it happened in the past. In experiments about the past, evolutionists make many assumptions about what happened in the past because they know no one who was ever there. Creationists have the word of the only One there & evidence found confirms what the Bible says. If a person accepts that God created, they have to live under His authority & don't want 2 do that.
And, there are peer pressure reasons for why scientists are afraid 2 admit that there are supernatural explanations for what they find. They loose their jobs. They get ostracized at work. They can't publish in journals. They try 2 get the evidence out that supports the Creator and they are run out. Not because their science is bad but becz people don't want to accept what they have 2 say. There is plenty of science 2 prove a Creator but it gets shut down. God wants us 2 discover what He's done.
@donawyo "Two types of science" no, there aren't. There is only science. It values only evidence. It doesn't matter if that evidence is DNA from a living organism or bones from a long dead one, the methodology is the same. Viruses and bacteria have evolved in our lifetimes. Ever heard of "Drug resistant" strains? The only way such things happen is through evolution.
You really do have to believe truly ridiculous things to support your beliefs and these posts demonstrate that.
Cyxgun, Scientists are biased just like everyone else. Evidence doesn't come with a tag saying what it is. It all has to be interpreted. It always gets interpreted through a worldview. Most people have a vested interest in their worldview and will go to great lengths to not accept something that is right in their face if it conflicts with their worldview. People are fallible. We make mistakes. We see what we want to see. I'd rather believe the One who's proven to be infallible.
I see. Instead of there being an eternal God, energy is eternal. You aren't solving the problem either. Still, where did the energy come from? My eternal God has proven Himself by fortelling the future. One example is God telling the Babylonian exiles that Cyrus would let them return home 160 years before that very thing happened. Or telling what would happen with Jesus 700 years before it happened. What are you afraid God will ask you to give up if you believe in Him?
@donawyo The energy didn't "come from" anywhere. It is an expression of scalar field in which our universe expands. The total energy in the universe is exactly zero. You assume a lot for someone with so little understanding of science.
@cyxgun You're right I don't know much about science. I really don't have to. I know enough to know that the evidence found has to be interpreted and, because people are biased it is interpreted through their biases. I also know enough to know that the evidence found confirms what is said in the Bible. I know enough to know that the only one who knows exactly what happened at the beginning of time is God, because He was there, and everyone else is just hypothesizing. Have a good evening.
@cyxgun All of the experts are biased, yours and mine. But, no, my assumptions aren't unfounded. I'm believing the Creator of all of this. He has shown His might and power through His creation. He has shown that He knows the future, in just one of many examples, by telling us about the life of Jesus 700 years before He was born. Archeology has confirmed what the Bible says over and over. He has proven Himself. I believe Him. Everyone else is just His creation. Makes sense 2 listen 2 the Creator.
The people best equipped to know if there is or isn't a creator are the scientists that study cosmology. Top cosmologists are atheists by a margin of twenty to one. Why is this? Because the evidence indicates there is no need for a creator. You have to make a hundred unnecessary assumptions to include one in your model of the universe. You know what they say about making assumptions... You make an ass out of you and Umption.
Your response about gravity threw me - I was talking about the definition of atheism that you displayed at the beginning and end of the video. I had to pause it to read it.
I liked your point that time itself was created by the Big Bang. Presentation would be clearer if you would read aloud that so-called definition of atheism when you show it. Nice job overall.
@boblafro Interesting... I hadn't heard it put that way Bob. Do you have a recommendation for a book on the topic? I'd like to hear more about M-theory.
@cyxgun Singularity? All matter and energy in the pre-universe had somehow gathered itself into one place and was compressed into the area the size of a molecule? So when's the last time you entered a room only to discover that all the oxygen inside had unexpectedly coalesced into a single corner? The big bang theory is a patently absurd explanation for anything let alone the formation of the universe.
Your conclusion - Something from nothing is a good argument. But it is an argument in favor of atheism. However the singularity is not nothing it is everything. You really end up with something from everything, albeit everything compressed into a singularity. I think everything "conceptualized" in an eternal creative mind envoked by a decision and endless power and ability - God. I regard Time, Space, Matter, and Energy as something we need for our existence, prepared for us by God.
@Ear4Beauty that's a poetic notion Ear4, but it seems unlikely to be true.
Physics can explain the the big bang fairly well now, and no God is necessary to "set the ball rolling" as you seem to assume is necessary. Again I refer you to the concept of Occam's Razor. If no 'magic force' is required to explain a phenomenon, then you're making a bad bet to assume there is one.
@Revelation1v7 That's a cool sounding quote Rev. I'm not intimidated by God's wrath, however, any more than you would be afraid to go on Santa's Naughty List. If you care to support your side in any way that doesn't involve threats from imaginary beings or quotes from a book of fiction, I'll listen though.
Your argument is just that, an argument. What's laughable about it is that you put it forth like you're the holder of some eternal truth when you obviously don't know your ass from a donut. Your "logic" is as one dimensional as your thinking and as flawed as any creationists. You're spouting parroted drivel from the other side of the same coin. Once you realize that you don't KNOW ANYTHING then maybe you'll be able to climb out of your little box and learn something.
Rob i read it like you agree with me on most points?
Some people throughout history find it hard to believe that how we can be resurrect when we are gone and are nothing but dust, how can that ever be possible?
so the "overkill" is among many things a sign and proof that who ever could create the universe, it would be no effort to re-create a tiny speck on a speck also called humans again.
God is one, not three and there is none like him and he is not a man.
@denstorebog Actually "overkill" was a point to imperfection if all that is needed was 3 bodies for possible life(naturally speaking, magically speaking we could have two lights, a flat earth or any other imagined existence) why is there a need for the other trillions of bodies in space with possibility trillions more that are outside of our technology to detect. Point, if there was only 3 it would be impossible odds for everything to be right for life, but the odds are astronomically better.
before the beginning of the big bang, the universe volume was zero and mathematically that means there was nothing, it is based on Einseien's Theory of genetral relativity.
Perhaps you follow the new Loop Quantum Gravity theory.
Think about this, it is unlikely that the universe could without evolution but stages with one single try created a universe that is in perfect order and it has fixed rules and ask yourself this why do all stars and the planets submit/follow 100% such divine laws.
@denstorebog Because they are submissive to their master? Also you might have to ask yourself without these "divine" laws. What kind of "divine" magic would it take to hold everything together? What I'm getting at is why would there have to be any such laws if the universe was magically put into existence? Also you have to ask why are there so many trillions+ stars, moons, planets etc when all that are needed for life are three what perfect divine lawmaker would have to overkill like that?
Nah. You have concluded that God is just like the substances of energy/ matter, when in fact God is not described that way at all, before the laws of the universe, something had to create the laws of the universe for energy to be at all, yet it's not concluded that God requires the laws of nature to even exist, but energy needs the laws of nature to exist or else you don't have the universe/ energy/ mass. All you did was assume without subjective evidence, you use faith to assume God is not real
It is an interesting question whether there was "always" matter/energy, or it came at T=0. Its not enough for the total matter/energy to be constant, b/c that begs the question of where it came from, unless the total is ZERO, which it seems to be.
I found Lawerance Krauss' "Something from Nothing" video very illuminating".
I think that any time we take someone else's word for something, we are relying on "faith" in their expertise.
I came here looking for a discussion on physics, not (a)theism. I must tell you that your argument is fairly "faith-based", in that it seems to assume that at the moment of "creation" (t=0) there was matter in the universe. If there was "always" matter/energy in the universe then you have something from an unknown source. (More to follow).
@TaleSlinger Are you saying that formless energy from an unknown source is less believable than an intelligent disembodied mind that can do magic, and is also from an unknown source?
This video is a year and a half old... I've learned a lot about the science of the big bang since then and it's no longer accurate to say the energy always existed. It is still accurate to say that the net energy of the universe is constant, however, so the premise of the video holds.
As a deist, I am willing to agree that energy always existed. My issue is how and why was it able form into the many many complex varieties of matter, which in turn eventually formed into life?
Actually science does show many quantum origin theories where something can come from nothing. It is possible through quantum fluctuations and quantum tunneling. But you are absolutely right in everything you mentioned here. Especially that complexity cannot just be, I use that against theists all the time, but they won't listen.
But yes, I am an atheist who believes nothing created everything.
@HaveFaithInScience, but quantum fluctuations, quantum tunneling, virtual particles...etc, are part and parcel of the matrix which is the universe. To suggest that maybe the universe is just a "fluctuation" out of nothingness, much like sub-atomic particles can appear out of nothingness, is nonsense. The quantum vaccum out of which these particles appear and disappear is not an empty-nothingness, but really an energy rich field, goverened by physical laws within the universe.
@WSGAC You fail to realize this is the exact same vacuum we claim about from which the universe arose. A vacuum is vacuum. But our idea of a vacuum is much different than it once was thanks to quantum mechanics. Watch lectures like Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" right here on youtube. He says "Why is there something rather than nothing? Because there had to be! Whenever there is nothing you will always get something!" Quantum mechanics naturally takes nothing and makes something.
@HaveFaithInScience quantum vacuums, fluctuations, tunneling, virtual particles...etc, are part and parcel of the matrix which is the universe.To suggest that maybe the universe is just a "fluctuation" out of nothingness,much like sub-atomic particles can appear out of nothingness, is nonsense.The quantum vaccum out of which these particles appear and disappear is not an empty-nothingness, but really an energy rich field, goverened by physical laws within the universe, and part of the universe.
Why are the laws of the universe what they are, and not something else? Why is the weak force what it is, and not a little stronger or weaker? Why is gravitational force what it is and not stronger or weaker? Or how about the nuclear? If the rate of expansion of the universe, at the singularity, was a thousand million millionth less than what it was, the universe would have collapsed back on itself. Why is the rate of expansion just right, for the universe to exist? Something from nothing
@WSGAC As I posted below, check out this video for your answer: If your point was that the existence of Earth the way it is today seems unlikely, then I have a video for you to watch: /watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
@cyxgun, watched it, but it doesn't answer the questions I asked. I never even raised the question of the universe being fine tuned for life. My question was more on the line of how the universe is fine tuned for its own existence. Change any of its laws minutely, and it doesn't last very long. The presenter seems to think he gets around this by positing an infinite number of universes to explain our own. An infinite # of universes to avoid one infinite God. Occam's razor says NOT!
@WSGAC Oh, in this case you're just plain wrong. If you set all the properties of the universe completely randomly, you can still get star in 1 in 4 universes.
Stars have been demonstrated to be possible without the weak nuclear force even existing. What you've bought into is misrepresentative propaganda. Sorry.
@cyxgun, "stars have been demonstrated to be possible without the weak nuclear force even existing." 1. No this has not been demonstrated. Perhaps in computer models, but we all know how well computer models do with predicting every day events...like weather! Hypothetical IS NOT a demonstration. 2. Occam says "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." And yet you explain our universe's existence by appealing to an infinite # of hpothetical universes?..all to avoid one infinite creator.
@WSGAC >by appealing to an infinite # of universes
This is you not me. I merely use your own error in reasoning against you.
There is only ONE universe, and the odds of the laws of physics being exactly what they are are thus, 1/1. YOU are the one who hypothesized infinite universes with varying physical properties. I just showed you that even in this scenario, you're still incorrect.
@cyxgun, actually I was responding to the video you referred me to in a previous post. But if you do believe that there is only ONE universe, you have still not answered the question of why there is a universe, or why this universe exists in its present form and not another. Giving "odds" is not an answer. On top of that, your 1/1 odds is completely circular.
@cyxgun, It's simple. All the evidence points to a universe that had a beginning. The universe is growing cold, and unwinding. Things are moving farther away and moving toward absolute zero, where entropy reaches its minimum value. It started in a Bang, and is now burning out (much like the fireworks you see burst in the night sky). We see causal effects and relationships in everything inside the universe. All things have a "reason" for being that stands prior to the thing itself.
@WSGAC But there's a flaw in your reasoning, you can't be certain that what applies to the parts of a whole applies to the whole itself. You're just assuming there's a 'reason' for the universe based on induction from what you see from within it. Let me give you an example to show you why this is a fallacy: All life we see is the result of reproduction from previous life, therefore we can assume that LIFE ITSELF is only ever the result of reproduction. See why your argument fails now?
@cyxgun, The evidence points to a "beginning." The universe is behaving in a way that points to this (ie. expanding and cooling - entropy). All things within the universe show the same. My assumptions are based on the "facts" of the universe. Theories are based on facts, and the best theory for the universe's expansion and cooling is the Big Bang. All other theories (M-theory, steady state, oscilating...) don't explain the facts (see red shift). Can you show the "facts" of your assumptions?
@WSGAC Did you even read what I just posted? I didn't say there wasn't a beginning; I'm not disputing the big bang. I pointed out the flawed logic behind your claim that there must be a REASON for this beginning. This is irrelevant anyway, because even if there is a "reason" you can use your same induction that "everything has a reason for existing" to induce that everything has a NATURAL reason for existing. If your logic were sound (it's not) then so would the natural reason conclusion be.
@cyxgun, You may think it flawed logic, but then so does all of science for it seeks to find the answers to the why questions...to the "reasons" for why things are what they are, what caused them, and where they are moving. It is NOT irrelevant, and you know it. And can you give me an example of an UNNATURAL reason for the existence of something, since you wish to create this distinction? Or is this just a clever semantic game you play to avoid the obvious?
@WSGAC Exactly: there is no example of a SUPERNATURAL cause for anything. Therefore your own inductive logic can be used to show that all causes must be NATURAL rather than SUPERNATURAL.
You still haven't shown there must be a 'reason' for the universe in the first place. I already showed your logic to be unsound. Induction based on the parts of a whole do not always work for the whole. If you continue to state that a 'reason' is a necessity you're going to have to show why it is.
@cyxgun, There is nothing in the natural realm that can answer the question of why the natural realm exists, or why it exists in its present form and not another. The natural realm cannot give answer the question of its own existence. So the answer must come from somewhere else. This points to the possibility of something, a certain something you try tooth-and-nail to avoid. To say, "There is no answer!" is sheer bones laziness, but more likely an avoidance technique to escape the answer.
@wardogmobius, the universe is contingent. Just as the "reason" for your own existence cannot be found in your person, the reason for the universe's existence cannot be found within the universe. The universe cannot answer that question. Quantumn theory and quantumn vacuums do not rid of the problem either. Krauss, Hawking...et.al, would like it to be that way, but it ain't. Sagan thought, "in the beginning, Hydrogen." Hawking thinks, "in the beginning, gravity." Yet, both are contingent.
@WSGAC Basically,"'The only thing that we know is that we know nothing" Comparing our knowledge to the vastness of the universe. It wont hurt to find for an answer in our lifetime and it wont be a wasted life.I have come to love everything in the universe because of my irrelevant existence compare to the universe. We will explore and go beyond the stars in the future,my conscious will be in future. Im an atheist and I have come to love more my environment than I could have ever done in religion.
@WSGAC To use a schoolyard expression that sums this up perfectly: SAYS YOU!
You have no basis for this claim other than your personal intuition that it is true.
For some people this is enough, but for those of us who like to base our understanding of reality on facts rather than vague notions, this argument from ignorance is a non-starter.
@cyxgun - you say, "You're just assuming there's a 'reason' for the universe based on induction from what you see from within it."
Not just from what I see in it, but what we also see occurring in the whole. Individual cells in my body have a life span. They come into being, they live a while, and then die. What each cell experiences, so the whole body also experiences. The universe is experiencing in large what each part of the universe also experiences. Show me how my argument fails.
@WSGAC That's an example that works with your logic. But I just gave you an example that does not. You might be under the assumption that the universe works like your example... but it's just that: an assumption.
"had" a beginning, "came from" nothing...spacetime is the WHERE AND WHEN. The universe is beginningless because it didn't "COME through time" "FROM a previous place". You're struggling with bad answers because your questions don't make sense. What's north of the north pole? Any number of good answers will never satisfy a bad question.
For those who believe in Evolution can somebody please tell me the percentage probability of the perfect condition(S) which made the Earth? Like one in 50 billion? Or can it even be answered?
@JAKEHARRIS281 The formation of the earth has nothing to do with evolution. If your point was that the existence of Earth the way it is today seems unlikely, then I have a video for you to watch: /watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
i really dig what ur saying . but i had to argue with u in this one . im 35 and whole my life i never believe in any religion that existed and i also didnt believe in God .
until i dream of something different,
someone tour me in my dream his in a different form . . we've traveled into many places that i cant explain what kind of places until we reach a place that there is a sunlight and so many big face statues and then i woke up .
There may or may not be a god because god is simply a concept an idea a mental exercise. No more provable than the existence of fairies. This Im sure there is not nothing and there is not something any mental expression or mathematical proof falls short of actual substance and substance has never been proven. This Im also sure of a smack on the side of your head gets your attention so the assumption can be made accurately that shit happens and there is no reason why and never will be.
Actually, I have never once heard a scientist claim that "something came from nothing." I've only heard it from the religious, in an effort to try to "prove" God. Actually, we don't know what happened at the Big Bang, or what came "before", if there was a "before". The Theists claim to know, therefore they are the ones who need to supply the proof.
Here is something that does not need anything to exist, has existed forever even if there was nothing: and is true for atheist and theists: MATHEMATICS. Beside God, is there any other thing that you can think that has the same property of math? Remember that math cannot be destroyed. Math books can be destroyed but math exists as truth
Math is not eternal any more than language is. Math is what we as humans use standardize phenomenon existing in nature that are best expressed mathematically. Math would not exist if humans weren't here to invent it... It exists only in our minds. Nature is how it is, indifferent to our concepts, mathematical or otherwise.
Something from nothing applies to God too. Either he always existed and nothing caused him to exist or he came from nothing without any cause, or according to the atheists he does not exist except in the mind of theists.
There is no doubt that the Universe it is well made. Were the laws of physics came from? From nothing without a cause? Existed forever without a cause? Exist even if there was nothing? If they came from nothing without a cause, why are they so rational to permit a Universe?
Either everything came out from nothing withoout a cause and somehow assembled itself into a functioning universe, or something must have always existed never having had anything that caused it. Way, my brain cannot absorb either something coming from nothing without a cause or something always existing without a cause and assembling itself in a Universe.
Because you cannot conceive of a third option, doesn't mean there isn't one... Both your options do not take into account the beginning of time. Time began, when it did, all the energy in the universe existed. "Always existed" is a misleading concept, because it implies infinite and immutable time, which we know from physics is not the case.
@AdolescentePunk If it had a cause, I don't know for certain what it is. We do know that time fluctuates randomly, along with space and some say these fluctuations can account for getting the ball rolling on the big bang.
It comes down to which do you believe is the more accurate answer: "I don't know." or "Magic."
either it came from nothing without a cause or it always existed without a cause. This applies to anything; including God. Coming out from nothing without a cause or having existed forever without a cause are both had to understand. Whenever in mathematic we encounter an infinity, we understand it as an impossibility. Something coming out from nothing violates the law of causality as we know as we know. it
There are several things wrong with what you're saying, first there is no 'law of causality'. You say the universe must have a cause because your common sense says it must, but common sense breaks down and becomes worse than useless on the scales of the very small or cosmically large. Secondly, you continue to ignore or misunderstand my point about time beginning. If you trace a line back to it's beginning, is the line 'caused' by the point at which it was begun? Maybe the universe is like that.
I agree that common sense as we know it breaks down at subatomic level. Example: the question "If you could see a photon, what color would it be?" is impossible. The question "If quarks exist, what is inside of them?" is equally impossible to imagine. Something existing without a cause is beyond our imagination as is something that existed forever. If the Universe is flat and infinite, it cannot have an infinite number of galaxies. Infinity = impossibility.
that's because they dont think about what they are saying. something (God for example) that has always existed could not come from anything because it has no beginning. they could have said that and stumped you but most people dont think about these things. the universe, which had a beginning, can be argued to have come from something according to what you said
ignoring the fact that the universe was created, then yes the universe could have existed forever. but the universe had a beginning. i was responding to a guy who said that god must have a beginning if he was created. the hebrew definition of their god is literally translated to "I AM". dont know why its always in all caps but the name is supposed to imply that god was never created, god just is, was, and will always be. now im not saying this is true, im just clarifying what theists believe.
Just to bolster the points in your video: What about applying relativity to our concept of existence? Doesn't an entity's perspective of nothing vs. something depend on what that entity is? For instance, if I'm a neutrino, a planet appears as almost nothing to me because I can move right through it. But if I'm a person, the planet is a very real object and obstacle to me. Taking it a step further: Suppose the current universe represents a non universe to a current non existent entity?
The Big Bang wasn't "put" anywhere - it's not an object, it's an event. The Big Bang is the colloquial way of referring to the expansion of a singularity which was the beginning of the universe as we know it.
If your question is, "Why did that singularity expand? How did the singularity get there in the first place?"
Well, then we simply don't know the answer. There is speculation based on currently known facts, but no definitive answer... yet.
What's north of the north pole? You need to realize that we know that existence exists, and we don't know that it's even possible for it to not exist - like you suggest in your question.
Your question may very well be nonsensical. If you have a hard time terminating the infinite regress without making up invisible, eternal, magical men. Just try to imagine time being circular or a transient phenomenon. Both are possible and would make your objection irrelevant.
But the universe is not drawn. Nor is it created, this is a bogus analogy.
You're applying your intuition to a problem on which it can be of no use. For many, many high end scientific concepts are intensely counter-intuitive. Think about how 'wrong' it seems that SPEED affects time and mass... yet we know it does.
Your intuition says 'if something exists, it must have come from somewhere' because that is true in limited middle sized world in which we evolved... but it's not universally so.
You can all guess...but nobody knows....the laws of physics apply throughout the universe and the answer is simple...(.nothing to do with God ..who ever he is..does anyone know?).... You just have'nt figured it out yet.... admit it..!!
You're partly right. There is no certain answer, and no one can say they know. But the scientific position is based on evidence, and therefore it's NOT a guess. Science comes to conclusions about reality based on physical evidence, and updates the models of reality that it builds as new evidence comes to light. This process is the opposite of guesswork, and it's proven itself the best method of determining reality again and again and again... Just look at all of technology. Science WORKS.
Exactly, which brings me to the conclusion that life and all things in it is designed. Why is it so hard to believe and if there are real scientist out there... so why is it we...of all beings...think with emotion as well as reasoning? Maybe the big trinity is Logic, with emotion= Reason
What? Maybe you use your emotions to think, but most of us use logic.
Life is designed? It might appear that way but no... it's not. Watch this video: /watch?v=PtEqOYkzwoE for the best response to the argument from design I've ever seen.
Oh so I have to watch some person's video to accept that I'm wrong in my thinking? I'm not even going to respond with how I feel about your nonsense.Who made you the expert in knowing what life is all about...or the person who did the vid?
You're advocating the surrender of rationality. All I'm saying is that rational thought, through science gave you ever aspect of the comfortable life you lead. You live better than a king did in the bible and you spit in the face of the very thing that gives you that cushy lifestyle.
Emotions might make you feel good, and make you want to live, and that's fine... But when you're trying to distinguish truth from fiction, emotions are WORSE THAN USELESS. Only rational thought can do that.
Yes ok Mr Spock. Forget emotion...even though there is purpose of it being there. Oh and forget the love you have for family and your children too. THats not logical either,
Did you even read what I wrote? Again, I never said to abandon emotion. It's the reason life is worth living. However you again misdirect and avoid my point... Emotion is NOT a method for discerning truth.
There is a reason con men, gamblers, trial lawyers, preachers everyone else that knows how to manipulate emotion use your feelings to their advantage. Emotions can make you stupid, they can cloud your mind and make you do things you wouldn't do if you were thinking clearly.
He did not read your comment. All your carefully worded and thought out comments fall on wolfgange63's deaf ears. It's a shame to see your hard work wasted - don't bother with these assholes.
Why is it so hard to believe life was designed? Well, because we already have an explanation for life and complexity in general. It's called the theory of evolution, with the basic mechanisms extending beyond the first cell. It's not like we can't say we know that to be true, evolutionary algorithms are being used to design all kinds of machines today(LIke jet engines and solar panels to take two examples off the top of my head). They excel at solving difficult optimization problems.
Well of course we can take a design and learn from it. We can also screw with nature and alter other life forms. However just because we are starting to understand these things doesnt mean we have the knowledge to deny the possibility that something planted the seeds and put it into play.
Who denies that? I have no problem with the idea that some being might have started the ball rolling... But there's no reason to believe it either...
What I DO have a big problem with is people insisting they KNOW one did and they presume to be that being's representative here on earth. Anyone that says they know what god wants need to put up or shut up. Show me some evidence or I'm going to dismiss everything you say.
Get my point straight here: Without evidence ANY CLAIM IS WORTHLESS.
You keep talking about how often I get laid... But you're arguing on the internet about god. What the two have to do with one another I can only speculate. Perhaps you're projecting?
Either way, my sex life has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my arguments. I'm not taking it 'personally'. I'm trying to make my point very clear since you seem seize upon any excuse to build a strawman. Eager to misrepresent my arguments because yours don't stack up to my actual ones?
Cause you havent been laid in awhile and God made us to get laid...get real!!! Your arguments are just that...you just want to argue instead of having a discussion
Again, you're not making any sense. You also don't appear to be aware that words like 'argument' can have more than one meaning... What you just did with argument is called equivocation. It's dishonest.
As far as 'god made us to get laid...' Well, that's an INTERESTING theology, but it's no more true than any of the other bullshit claims of christianity.
On an unrelated note, your assumptions about my sex life are just that, assumptions. What is your fascination with my sex life about?
Don't let your opinion be formed by just a few people. Some people say they know for a fact, when no one does. Religion is about faith, that some did 'get the ball rolling'. I believe, maybe you don't and thats ok. Im just saying dont base your opinion on Christianity or other religions solely on the few people who insist that they know everything, when no one really does
Anything that is not conclusive is an assumtion in it's conclusion...so I guess with the the little knowledge we do have the rest is entirely guesswork. ....until the fact is proven. Genetics and science are just at the begining we are in for a few surpises..!!
I remember that song...Something from nothing leaves nothing! Ok lets look at what the bible really said. God (Elohim in the hebrew, which is plural) created the heavens and the earth. We assume there is a barrier to our universe. If so, what is on the outside of that barrier? Could a whole universe fit inside the simplest cell? We are expermenting now with the Hadron collider to recreate the big bang. Perhaps a higher intelligence already has and what we see is the result.
There are too many things going on in nature for it all to happen so coincidentally in this place by accident or a roll of the dice and for no purpose whatsoever. That my friend is logical thinking and consideration. All of science starts with a theory to reach a conclusion. Just too many scientist are looking at things one sided. Like observing a hole in the ground with a mound of dirt and a shovel beside it. They figure out that the shovel caused it but fail to see it didnt do it by itself.
"coincidentally" what is 'coincidental' about the universe? It is how it is. If I ask you to list a thousand random numbers in a row, the odds of that specific series of numbers is astronomical. But the odds of SOME series of numbers was 1:1. It's only coincidental if it's predicted in some way before it comes to be.
About the 'theory': you misunderstand the basics of science there. THEORIES ARE the conclusions. There is no higher explanation of a phenomenon than a theory in science.
So my real point here about Elohim creating the heavens and earth is it didnt say They created all the universes. Our universe may not be the only one. Perhaps even Elohim's technology does have the power over life and death:even time itself. It is all too big for our little minds to even digest which is why our logic is limited. Sometimes we are just left with our own common sense. Yea I know science fiction. The idea of people flying in huge machines was science fiction once.
"God's Technology" WOW. You so you just make up whatever you think would be cool and believe that? That's fine if that's how you want to do it, but when you tell others about your weird notions of cosmology, you should expect to catch some ridicule. I think you might be the only person I've ever seen that actually believes god uses technology to be god.
This begs the question though: Where did god get his technology, and what created the world were god got it from?
The only person you ever seen? LOL When did you ever see me? You are not being logical. Yea of course I expect ridicule. Esp from you, It was my theory that you would and you proved me right..that was conclusion. Yes I would expect that some intelligence who made something USED some sort of Something and USED knowledge to make it IE: Technology: look it up. Who said God was someone that snapped his fingers and wahlah. Maybe you base your ideas of God by listening to fundamentalist religionist.
The bible proves itself useless as a science book in the very second sentence. The earth existed BEFORE light existed. OH WOW. Sorry but no, going to the bible for science info is like asking an auto mechanic to preform brain surgery.
There are several theories about this, but the one I'm talking about in the video is that the singularity was there as time began. There was no need for it to 'pop' into being, because there was no time when it didn't exist. This might seem unlikely, but it's certainly more likely that a single point of concentrated energy could 'just be' than that an intelligent, complex disembodied mind that can do magic 'just being'. Why is the vastly simpler of the two the one you think less likely?
Interesting. Doesn't that mean the expansion of the singularity happened in eternity past? If no time existed, then what made time start? Also, isn't believing that the singlarity was just "always there" just as irrational as believing in a God that was always there? I don't think one or the other is simpler or complex. Both are simple and/or both are complex. What's considered complex and simple is subjective. After all, how do you measure the complexity of God? Complexity of the singularity?
Time began to exist gradually, this sounds very strange, and it probably can't be visualized, but it's nonetheless what the mathematical models show. It came about through fluctuations in space, which existed only at about a plank length, much smaller than a single atom. Space and time are linked on a quantum level, as you may be aware. Very rarely, one can become the other. Space became time, and started the universe. At that same time the expansion began, for the same reason.
this is one of the silliest videos i have seen in a while.
even if there was a point of singularity, it was still a point, which means there was still a small amount of space, matter and time. you just suggested that the Universe is infinite, and we all know that time is NOT infinite.
the Universe needs an infinite Creator living outside it's boundaries.(God)
you offer no other answer... and guess what, there is none. "we don't know yet" is the last gasp of desperation from a group of people that hope there is no judgment.
But you can't explain why it's the only explanation. The answer is it's the only one that makes sense to you. Argument from ignorance, the "Last gasp of desperation" of all believers.
On your second point you're just wrong. Science knows a fair amount about the big bang, and has solid evidence for it, unlike the "Magical" beginning you insist took place. But let's assume for a second we didn't: A made up answer is better than admitting you don't know? Maybe for you, but not for science.
"even if there was a point of singularity, it was still a point, which means there was still a small amount of space, matter and time."
Are you familiar with the notion of Planck Space and Planck Time? You cannot apply your human meso-world instincts to extreme situations. In addition; time is relative, and as such cannot be treated as a quantity which is finite or infinite.
How come we all know time is NOT infinite? Did I miss a meeting? I had no idea this was supposed to be known by all...
As far as I understand it, the proponents of this kind of argument think that time is absolute and separate from space (presentism). When they talk about finite time, they mean a finite set of consecutive changes in the past. But even in that case, it's still a poor argument.
"the Universe needs an infinite Creator living outside it's boundaries."
Let's assume this to be a fact then. Or at least agreed. It is after all possible that we'll eventually prove that the universe could not have "started" on its own.
Why does this Creator need to be God? Why can't it be aliens, who are every bit as fallible and natural as we are? I suspect that some day we'll create universes of our own in the lab, will that turn us into God as well?
I don't know where the aliens came from. Perhaps their universe was created by other Aliens. As you can see, this argument spirals out of control pretty quickly. Just like "God did it". Where did God come from?
The only solution we have so far that doesn't suffer from infinite regress, is the Big Bang theory. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, and since space+time were created along with the Big Bang there may well not be a "before". After all, what's north of the North Pole?
God is not an explanation at all. "Explaining" anything via god surrendering to ignorance.
Until there is demonstrable evidence pointing to anything supernatural, it's wholly illogical to consider an untestable, unmeasurable, unknowable god, or any other supernatural 'explanation'.
@GamerEnterprise Also, fix your grammar. I'm not saying this to put you down, but if you want people to view your comment as readable, even though the truth of a set of words does not depend on it's grammar, then write more clearly.
Caldari1 1 month ago
@GamerEnterprise I really urge you to look up Aristotle's and Plato's work.
Caldari1 1 month ago
@GamerEnterprise: Although science is awesome and has made many breakthroughs, philosophy in itself, is supreme for it surpasses all empirical scientific questions and explanations. If you don't even think about the bible, yet think logically, and I say again, "if you do" then you will come to the only conclusion that science is not all that exists, and that there is something that has always been. Existence cannot come from non-existence, yet something must have always have existed.
Caldari1 1 month ago
@GamerEnterprise: First of all, you're comment is fulllll of assumptions that aren't true. Before I believed in Jesus, I always thought about life philosophically in the sense that "I found out myself" that there must be "something" eternal. Secondly, you cannot prove that everything I know came from the bible, for you cannot even prove to yourself that you exist. Everything is taken on faith if you get technical. That is why René Descartes said, "I think, threfore I am."
Caldari1 1 month ago
Very nice video. However, modern science DOES say that the universe did come from nothing. The state of nothing is UNSTABLE. The universe can come from nothing without violating the energy conservation laws. Read "The Origin of the Universe - Case Closed" for the details.
booksofscience 4 months ago
@booksofscience You're sort of right, but yes, this video is out of date. I made it well before Stephen Hawking's latest book, or the book you mention was published. The "nothing" scientists talk about in both those books is not the 'nothing' discussed by philosophers. It could be said that a quantum foam/vacuum is still 'something' in a literal sense, so the primary premise of the video holds true. I appreciate your post, thanks for watching!
cyxgun 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cyxgun Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cyxgun Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form by chance!
5tonyvvvv 4 months ago
@cyxgun I like how you think; you think very logical. I am a christian myself, therefore I do beleive in God, but I'm a christian that is very open minded and I always think about things very critically and skeptically before accepting them unlike a lot of christians who accept things just based off of a desperate want for God to be real. I try my best to make God fit into the natural world we live in. I think Plato and Aristotle gave great examples of how science cannot account for everything.
Caldari1 10 months ago
@Caldari1 If I would go back in time to year 120 and destroy bible,you would not even know about this"god theory".I want to proove,that everything you know about god,all your information about this being noone have seen comes from book and you cant argue with that.Bible gave you all info about god.Information is only just as good as its source.Until you can be sure on all 100% that every single word in bible is written by "x" author (god in this case" its irrational to believe in it
GamerEnterprise 1 month ago
@Cyxgun You say that the energy that existed in the beginning can not be created, so your saying it's always been, or did something have to create those energy forces and particles? It's logical to conclude that those particles must have come from something prior, unless you want to accept that those energy forces and particles have always been, because something has to have always been, because something cannot come from nothing. It's logical.
Caldari1 10 months ago
@Caldari1 Then we are in agreement. As I said in the video... in the beginning "Something just WAS." Which is more probable then, God or a quantum energy field? Because of what we know about complexity and probability, we have reason to believe quantum energy field "just being" is much, MUCH more likely than the theistic alternative because it is simple. The mind of God is most definitely not simple! For this reason it cannot "just be."
cyxgun 10 months ago
& then REPENT. Turn from living the way U want to 2 living God's way. His ways R best. They protect us from the consequences of our own sins. He created us & He knows exactly how we are 2 live 2 have abundant life. When U do that, with a truly contrite heart, He will welcome you into His family with open arms.
I hope you do that, cyxgun. I'm sorry that I ran on so much this morning. I hope I haven't offended U. I really do care about U & where U spend eternity. Have a wonderful weekend. :)
donawyo 11 months ago
the free gift that He is offering because He loves you so much. The Creator of the Universe gladly gave His life for you. You'll never hear a better offer. All you have to do is RECEIVE the gift He is giving you. TRUST that Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins. Research Him. Really! Listen to the other side, truly look at the evidence that confirms the Bible. It's there and it's rock solid. He is truth and He can withstand all of your questions. And CONFESS where you've broken His laws
donawyo 11 months ago
given everything to pay cyxgun's fine for him. God, the Judge, says, "All right, cyxgun, your fine has been paid and you are free to go." You have to decide if you want to accept that gift. Are you going to receive that freely offered gift or are you going to decide that you can pay it on your own? If you want to pay it on your own, you can't. An eternity is not enough time to repay the Holy Judge whom you have insulted over and over by breaking His laws. I hope that someday you will accept the
donawyo 11 months ago
cuss word. You have probably lusted after someone. If you have ever hated anyone, did you know God sees that as murder of the heart and it's just as bad as killing them? Because you've done those things, just like I have, you owe a debt to God. He is like that judge sitting behind the bench in a courtroom. Justice requires that a penalty be paid for the sins that you've committed. Imagine standing before the Judge, unable to pay the fine yourself, and Jesus walks in and says, "Wait!! I have
donawyo 11 months ago
perfect life for you, because He knew you couldn't. Then He was tortured and hung on a cross to pay the debt that you owed to God for your sins. Yes, we are all sinners. Even a smart guy like yourself. I'm sure that you, just like me, have told lies, most of us many. You have probably stolen something in your lifetime, even if it was just to download music. You have probably not always obeyed everything your parents told you to do, that's dishonoring them. You have probably used God's name as a
donawyo 11 months ago
of evidence from you, just some mild derogatory comments about my intelligence. That's fine. I, one the other hand, know that you are made in the image of God and, as such, respect you as a fellow human being. I hope that one day you will willingly open your mind to the truth of God. He created you because He wants to have a relationship with you. He loves you. And He has done something for you that no one else ever has. He willingly left His throne in Heaven, to be born of a virgin, to live the
donawyo 11 months ago
Well, cyxgun, here I was going 2 call you a gentlemen and say that I'd enjoyed our conversations but your last post wasn't very gentlemanly. I'm sorry that you don't believe me. I didn't cut and paste and these ideas are as much mine as yours are yours. You've been fed a line, just as I was. The only difference is that I started thinking for myself and realized that the "line" from evolutionists just doesn't make sense. You can insult my intelligence all you want. I really haven't heard a shred
donawyo 11 months ago
been found. It takes more faith to believe in evolution then for me to believe in God. Evolutionists are believing in faith that a transitional form will be found someday. 5. Your viruses and drug resistant bacteria are mutations, which is a loss of information, not an addition which evolution needs to have. There has never been a case of additional information being added to DNA. 6. Evolution violates the 2 laws of thermodynamics.
My beliefs aren't ridiculous. I stand on rock solid evidence.
donawyo 11 months ago
has to get out in the next 6 hours because there is an air sac at the end of that egg which holds enough air for the chick for 6 hours. How could that have ever evolved? The first egg would have had the holes to get air from but no air sac. Even if it got past that, the next egg would have an air sac with not enough air. Chickens wouldn't have survived to evolve an air sac with the exact amount of air that it needed to get out. They would have all died by then. 4. No transitional forms have ever
donawyo 11 months ago
No, sir. All these posts demonstrate is that you've been thoroughly brainwashed. Just like I used to be. If a lie is repeated often enough people believe it. Think about it logically. 1. Life doesn't come from non-life, the law of Biogenesis. 2. DNA is information and information only comes from intelligence. 3. Have you ever noticed that at the end of the inside of an egg is an air sac? Air comes through tiny holes on the egg for the chick. Eventually the holes collapse and the chick knows it
donawyo 11 months ago
@donawyo You call me brainwashed, yet you come here and regurgitate this nonsense? Your lack of scientific understanding is showing again. Stop getting your science information from religious websites and you won't have this problem. It's not really worth my time to address your copy and pasted 'points' as anyone who has even a minor interest in science will find them laughable.
If you can't take the time to formulate your own ideas, please refrain from posting on my channel.
cyxgun 11 months ago
@donawyo "Not a shred" huh? Did you miss the part where I explained that viral and bacterial drug resistance was evolution? You're just wasting my time because you don't appear to care what I have to say, and your comments have turned into rants. Really 9 comments long? Go to donexodous2 channel and argue with him, because he's an actual evolutionary biologist. I'm done with you spamming my channel with this bull. Blocked.
cyxgun 11 months ago
There are two types of science, origin & operational. Operational is in the present and can be repeated, origin science cannot because it happened in the past. In experiments about the past, evolutionists make many assumptions about what happened in the past because they know no one who was ever there. Creationists have the word of the only One there & evidence found confirms what the Bible says. If a person accepts that God created, they have to live under His authority & don't want 2 do that.
donawyo 11 months ago
And, there are peer pressure reasons for why scientists are afraid 2 admit that there are supernatural explanations for what they find. They loose their jobs. They get ostracized at work. They can't publish in journals. They try 2 get the evidence out that supports the Creator and they are run out. Not because their science is bad but becz people don't want to accept what they have 2 say. There is plenty of science 2 prove a Creator but it gets shut down. God wants us 2 discover what He's done.
donawyo 11 months ago
@donawyo "Two types of science" no, there aren't. There is only science. It values only evidence. It doesn't matter if that evidence is DNA from a living organism or bones from a long dead one, the methodology is the same. Viruses and bacteria have evolved in our lifetimes. Ever heard of "Drug resistant" strains? The only way such things happen is through evolution.
You really do have to believe truly ridiculous things to support your beliefs and these posts demonstrate that.
cyxgun 11 months ago
Cyxgun, Scientists are biased just like everyone else. Evidence doesn't come with a tag saying what it is. It all has to be interpreted. It always gets interpreted through a worldview. Most people have a vested interest in their worldview and will go to great lengths to not accept something that is right in their face if it conflicts with their worldview. People are fallible. We make mistakes. We see what we want to see. I'd rather believe the One who's proven to be infallible.
donawyo 11 months ago
I see. Instead of there being an eternal God, energy is eternal. You aren't solving the problem either. Still, where did the energy come from? My eternal God has proven Himself by fortelling the future. One example is God telling the Babylonian exiles that Cyrus would let them return home 160 years before that very thing happened. Or telling what would happen with Jesus 700 years before it happened. What are you afraid God will ask you to give up if you believe in Him?
donawyo 11 months ago
@donawyo The energy didn't "come from" anywhere. It is an expression of scalar field in which our universe expands. The total energy in the universe is exactly zero. You assume a lot for someone with so little understanding of science.
cyxgun 11 months ago
@cyxgun You're right I don't know much about science. I really don't have to. I know enough to know that the evidence found has to be interpreted and, because people are biased it is interpreted through their biases. I also know enough to know that the evidence found confirms what is said in the Bible. I know enough to know that the only one who knows exactly what happened at the beginning of time is God, because He was there, and everyone else is just hypothesizing. Have a good evening.
donawyo 11 months ago
@donawyo The experts might be biased in interpreting the evidence so you'll stick with your completely unfounded assumptions? Makes perfect sense.
cyxgun 11 months ago
@cyxgun All of the experts are biased, yours and mine. But, no, my assumptions aren't unfounded. I'm believing the Creator of all of this. He has shown His might and power through His creation. He has shown that He knows the future, in just one of many examples, by telling us about the life of Jesus 700 years before He was born. Archeology has confirmed what the Bible says over and over. He has proven Himself. I believe Him. Everyone else is just His creation. Makes sense 2 listen 2 the Creator.
donawyo 11 months ago
@donawyo
The people best equipped to know if there is or isn't a creator are the scientists that study cosmology. Top cosmologists are atheists by a margin of twenty to one. Why is this? Because the evidence indicates there is no need for a creator. You have to make a hundred unnecessary assumptions to include one in your model of the universe. You know what they say about making assumptions... You make an ass out of you and Umption.
cyxgun 11 months ago
Your response about gravity threw me - I was talking about the definition of atheism that you displayed at the beginning and end of the video. I had to pause it to read it.
OnionTrollsAlliance 1 year ago
@OnionTrollsAlliance Ah, that's because was responding to the wrong post. Sorry for the confusion.
cyxgun 1 year ago
I liked your point that time itself was created by the Big Bang. Presentation would be clearer if you would read aloud that so-called definition of atheism when you show it. Nice job overall.
OnionTrollsAlliance 1 year ago
@boblafro Interesting... I hadn't heard it put that way Bob. Do you have a recommendation for a book on the topic? I'd like to hear more about M-theory.
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun Singularity? All matter and energy in the pre-universe had somehow gathered itself into one place and was compressed into the area the size of a molecule? So when's the last time you entered a room only to discover that all the oxygen inside had unexpectedly coalesced into a single corner? The big bang theory is a patently absurd explanation for anything let alone the formation of the universe.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
Epic picture at the end.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
Your conclusion - Something from nothing is a good argument. But it is an argument in favor of atheism. However the singularity is not nothing it is everything. You really end up with something from everything, albeit everything compressed into a singularity. I think everything "conceptualized" in an eternal creative mind envoked by a decision and endless power and ability - God. I regard Time, Space, Matter, and Energy as something we need for our existence, prepared for us by God.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty that's a poetic notion Ear4, but it seems unlikely to be true.
Physics can explain the the big bang fairly well now, and no God is necessary to "set the ball rolling" as you seem to assume is necessary. Again I refer you to the concept of Occam's Razor. If no 'magic force' is required to explain a phenomenon, then you're making a bad bet to assume there is one.
cyxgun 1 year ago
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Revelation1v7 1 year ago
@Revelation1v7 That's a cool sounding quote Rev. I'm not intimidated by God's wrath, however, any more than you would be afraid to go on Santa's Naughty List. If you care to support your side in any way that doesn't involve threats from imaginary beings or quotes from a book of fiction, I'll listen though.
cyxgun 1 year ago
Your argument is just that, an argument. What's laughable about it is that you put it forth like you're the holder of some eternal truth when you obviously don't know your ass from a donut. Your "logic" is as one dimensional as your thinking and as flawed as any creationists. You're spouting parroted drivel from the other side of the same coin. Once you realize that you don't KNOW ANYTHING then maybe you'll be able to climb out of your little box and learn something.
megalodon5750 1 year ago
another question, how would the singularity even grow??? what causes it to even move or spread out???
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
God is Omniscient and ALL powerful
He is ONE and he was Complete of ALL
by definition, complexity doesn't even apply if he's already a whole
BeamSurfer 1 year ago
@robvlob
Rob i read it like you agree with me on most points?
Some people throughout history find it hard to believe that how we can be resurrect when we are gone and are nothing but dust, how can that ever be possible?
so the "overkill" is among many things a sign and proof that who ever could create the universe, it would be no effort to re-create a tiny speck on a speck also called humans again.
God is one, not three and there is none like him and he is not a man.
denstorebog 1 year ago
@denstorebog Actually "overkill" was a point to imperfection if all that is needed was 3 bodies for possible life(naturally speaking, magically speaking we could have two lights, a flat earth or any other imagined existence) why is there a need for the other trillions of bodies in space with possibility trillions more that are outside of our technology to detect. Point, if there was only 3 it would be impossible odds for everything to be right for life, but the odds are astronomically better.
robvlob 1 year ago
before the beginning of the big bang, the universe volume was zero and mathematically that means there was nothing, it is based on Einseien's Theory of genetral relativity.
Perhaps you follow the new Loop Quantum Gravity theory.
Think about this, it is unlikely that the universe could without evolution but stages with one single try created a universe that is in perfect order and it has fixed rules and ask yourself this why do all stars and the planets submit/follow 100% such divine laws.
denstorebog 1 year ago
@denstorebog Because they are submissive to their master? Also you might have to ask yourself without these "divine" laws. What kind of "divine" magic would it take to hold everything together? What I'm getting at is why would there have to be any such laws if the universe was magically put into existence? Also you have to ask why are there so many trillions+ stars, moons, planets etc when all that are needed for life are three what perfect divine lawmaker would have to overkill like that?
robvlob 1 year ago
Comment removed
denstorebog 1 year ago
Nah. You have concluded that God is just like the substances of energy/ matter, when in fact God is not described that way at all, before the laws of the universe, something had to create the laws of the universe for energy to be at all, yet it's not concluded that God requires the laws of nature to even exist, but energy needs the laws of nature to exist or else you don't have the universe/ energy/ mass. All you did was assume without subjective evidence, you use faith to assume God is not real
starsheild7 1 year ago
@starsheild7 Until it is demonstrated that anything can exist without substance, it is you who is doing all the assuming.
cyxgun 1 year ago
Sorry, earlier post truncated.
It is an interesting question whether there was "always" matter/energy, or it came at T=0. Its not enough for the total matter/energy to be constant, b/c that begs the question of where it came from, unless the total is ZERO, which it seems to be.
I found Lawerance Krauss' "Something from Nothing" video very illuminating".
I think that any time we take someone else's word for something, we are relying on "faith" in their expertise.
TaleSlinger 1 year ago
I came here looking for a discussion on physics, not (a)theism. I must tell you that your argument is fairly "faith-based", in that it seems to assume that at the moment of "creation" (t=0) there was matter in the universe. If there was "always" matter/energy in the universe then you have something from an unknown source. (More to follow).
TaleSlinger 1 year ago
@TaleSlinger Are you saying that formless energy from an unknown source is less believable than an intelligent disembodied mind that can do magic, and is also from an unknown source?
This video is a year and a half old... I've learned a lot about the science of the big bang since then and it's no longer accurate to say the energy always existed. It is still accurate to say that the net energy of the universe is constant, however, so the premise of the video holds.
cyxgun 1 year ago
As a deist, I am willing to agree that energy always existed. My issue is how and why was it able form into the many many complex varieties of matter, which in turn eventually formed into life?
metaldude82 1 year ago
Actually science does show many quantum origin theories where something can come from nothing. It is possible through quantum fluctuations and quantum tunneling. But you are absolutely right in everything you mentioned here. Especially that complexity cannot just be, I use that against theists all the time, but they won't listen.
But yes, I am an atheist who believes nothing created everything.
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
@HaveFaithInScience, but quantum fluctuations, quantum tunneling, virtual particles...etc, are part and parcel of the matrix which is the universe. To suggest that maybe the universe is just a "fluctuation" out of nothingness, much like sub-atomic particles can appear out of nothingness, is nonsense. The quantum vaccum out of which these particles appear and disappear is not an empty-nothingness, but really an energy rich field, goverened by physical laws within the universe.
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC You fail to realize this is the exact same vacuum we claim about from which the universe arose. A vacuum is vacuum. But our idea of a vacuum is much different than it once was thanks to quantum mechanics. Watch lectures like Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" right here on youtube. He says "Why is there something rather than nothing? Because there had to be! Whenever there is nothing you will always get something!" Quantum mechanics naturally takes nothing and makes something.
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HaveFaithInScience quantum vacuums, fluctuations, tunneling, virtual particles...etc, are part and parcel of the matrix which is the universe.To suggest that maybe the universe is just a "fluctuation" out of nothingness,much like sub-atomic particles can appear out of nothingness, is nonsense.The quantum vaccum out of which these particles appear and disappear is not an empty-nothingness, but really an energy rich field, goverened by physical laws within the universe, and part of the universe.
WSGAC 1 year ago
Why are the laws of the universe what they are, and not something else? Why is the weak force what it is, and not a little stronger or weaker? Why is gravitational force what it is and not stronger or weaker? Or how about the nuclear? If the rate of expansion of the universe, at the singularity, was a thousand million millionth less than what it was, the universe would have collapsed back on itself. Why is the rate of expansion just right, for the universe to exist? Something from nothing
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC As I posted below, check out this video for your answer: If your point was that the existence of Earth the way it is today seems unlikely, then I have a video for you to watch: /watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun, watched it, but it doesn't answer the questions I asked. I never even raised the question of the universe being fine tuned for life. My question was more on the line of how the universe is fine tuned for its own existence. Change any of its laws minutely, and it doesn't last very long. The presenter seems to think he gets around this by positing an infinite number of universes to explain our own. An infinite # of universes to avoid one infinite God. Occam's razor says NOT!
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC Oh, in this case you're just plain wrong. If you set all the properties of the universe completely randomly, you can still get star in 1 in 4 universes.
Stars have been demonstrated to be possible without the weak nuclear force even existing. What you've bought into is misrepresentative propaganda. Sorry.
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun, "stars have been demonstrated to be possible without the weak nuclear force even existing." 1. No this has not been demonstrated. Perhaps in computer models, but we all know how well computer models do with predicting every day events...like weather! Hypothetical IS NOT a demonstration. 2. Occam says "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." And yet you explain our universe's existence by appealing to an infinite # of hpothetical universes?..all to avoid one infinite creator.
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC >by appealing to an infinite # of universes
This is you not me. I merely use your own error in reasoning against you.
There is only ONE universe, and the odds of the laws of physics being exactly what they are are thus, 1/1. YOU are the one who hypothesized infinite universes with varying physical properties. I just showed you that even in this scenario, you're still incorrect.
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun, actually I was responding to the video you referred me to in a previous post. But if you do believe that there is only ONE universe, you have still not answered the question of why there is a universe, or why this universe exists in its present form and not another. Giving "odds" is not an answer. On top of that, your 1/1 odds is completely circular.
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC >circular
How? If there is only one universe, there is only one way it could be... and that's how it is.
As far as the "reason" for the universe, upon what do you base your assumption that one is necessary?
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun, It's simple. All the evidence points to a universe that had a beginning. The universe is growing cold, and unwinding. Things are moving farther away and moving toward absolute zero, where entropy reaches its minimum value. It started in a Bang, and is now burning out (much like the fireworks you see burst in the night sky). We see causal effects and relationships in everything inside the universe. All things have a "reason" for being that stands prior to the thing itself.
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC But there's a flaw in your reasoning, you can't be certain that what applies to the parts of a whole applies to the whole itself. You're just assuming there's a 'reason' for the universe based on induction from what you see from within it. Let me give you an example to show you why this is a fallacy: All life we see is the result of reproduction from previous life, therefore we can assume that LIFE ITSELF is only ever the result of reproduction. See why your argument fails now?
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun, The evidence points to a "beginning." The universe is behaving in a way that points to this (ie. expanding and cooling - entropy). All things within the universe show the same. My assumptions are based on the "facts" of the universe. Theories are based on facts, and the best theory for the universe's expansion and cooling is the Big Bang. All other theories (M-theory, steady state, oscilating...) don't explain the facts (see red shift). Can you show the "facts" of your assumptions?
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC Did you even read what I just posted? I didn't say there wasn't a beginning; I'm not disputing the big bang. I pointed out the flawed logic behind your claim that there must be a REASON for this beginning. This is irrelevant anyway, because even if there is a "reason" you can use your same induction that "everything has a reason for existing" to induce that everything has a NATURAL reason for existing. If your logic were sound (it's not) then so would the natural reason conclusion be.
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun, You may think it flawed logic, but then so does all of science for it seeks to find the answers to the why questions...to the "reasons" for why things are what they are, what caused them, and where they are moving. It is NOT irrelevant, and you know it. And can you give me an example of an UNNATURAL reason for the existence of something, since you wish to create this distinction? Or is this just a clever semantic game you play to avoid the obvious?
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC Exactly: there is no example of a SUPERNATURAL cause for anything. Therefore your own inductive logic can be used to show that all causes must be NATURAL rather than SUPERNATURAL.
You still haven't shown there must be a 'reason' for the universe in the first place. I already showed your logic to be unsound. Induction based on the parts of a whole do not always work for the whole. If you continue to state that a 'reason' is a necessity you're going to have to show why it is.
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun, There is nothing in the natural realm that can answer the question of why the natural realm exists, or why it exists in its present form and not another. The natural realm cannot give answer the question of its own existence. So the answer must come from somewhere else. This points to the possibility of something, a certain something you try tooth-and-nail to avoid. To say, "There is no answer!" is sheer bones laziness, but more likely an avoidance technique to escape the answer.
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC When you say the answer must come from somewhere else. what do you mean? Supernatural intervention is the answer why we are here? what?
wardogmobius 1 year ago
@wardogmobius, the universe is contingent. Just as the "reason" for your own existence cannot be found in your person, the reason for the universe's existence cannot be found within the universe. The universe cannot answer that question. Quantumn theory and quantumn vacuums do not rid of the problem either. Krauss, Hawking...et.al, would like it to be that way, but it ain't. Sagan thought, "in the beginning, Hydrogen." Hawking thinks, "in the beginning, gravity." Yet, both are contingent.
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC Basically,"'The only thing that we know is that we know nothing" Comparing our knowledge to the vastness of the universe. It wont hurt to find for an answer in our lifetime and it wont be a wasted life.I have come to love everything in the universe because of my irrelevant existence compare to the universe. We will explore and go beyond the stars in the future,my conscious will be in future. Im an atheist and I have come to love more my environment than I could have ever done in religion.
wardogmobius 1 year ago
@WSGAC To use a schoolyard expression that sums this up perfectly: SAYS YOU!
You have no basis for this claim other than your personal intuition that it is true.
For some people this is enough, but for those of us who like to base our understanding of reality on facts rather than vague notions, this argument from ignorance is a non-starter.
cyxgun 1 year ago
@cyxgun - you say, "You're just assuming there's a 'reason' for the universe based on induction from what you see from within it."
Not just from what I see in it, but what we also see occurring in the whole. Individual cells in my body have a life span. They come into being, they live a while, and then die. What each cell experiences, so the whole body also experiences. The universe is experiencing in large what each part of the universe also experiences. Show me how my argument fails.
WSGAC 1 year ago
@WSGAC That's an example that works with your logic. But I just gave you an example that does not. You might be under the assumption that the universe works like your example... but it's just that: an assumption.
cyxgun 1 year ago
all the energy in the universe was just compressed? And the watch just happened to be wound up tight!
WSGAC 1 year ago
"had" a beginning, "came from" nothing...spacetime is the WHERE AND WHEN. The universe is beginningless because it didn't "COME through time" "FROM a previous place". You're struggling with bad answers because your questions don't make sense. What's north of the north pole? Any number of good answers will never satisfy a bad question.
breaneainn 1 year ago
For those who believe in Evolution can somebody please tell me the percentage probability of the perfect condition(S) which made the Earth? Like one in 50 billion? Or can it even be answered?
JAKEHARRIS281 1 year ago
@JAKEHARRIS281 The formation of the earth has nothing to do with evolution. If your point was that the existence of Earth the way it is today seems unlikely, then I have a video for you to watch: /watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
cyxgun 1 year ago
i really dig what ur saying . but i had to argue with u in this one . im 35 and whole my life i never believe in any religion that existed and i also didnt believe in God .
until i dream of something different,
someone tour me in my dream his in a different form . . we've traveled into many places that i cant explain what kind of places until we reach a place that there is a sunlight and so many big face statues and then i woke up .
weedusersince91 1 year ago
There may or may not be a god because god is simply a concept an idea a mental exercise. No more provable than the existence of fairies. This Im sure there is not nothing and there is not something any mental expression or mathematical proof falls short of actual substance and substance has never been proven. This Im also sure of a smack on the side of your head gets your attention so the assumption can be made accurately that shit happens and there is no reason why and never will be.
jobedied 1 year ago
Actually, I have never once heard a scientist claim that "something came from nothing." I've only heard it from the religious, in an effort to try to "prove" God. Actually, we don't know what happened at the Big Bang, or what came "before", if there was a "before". The Theists claim to know, therefore they are the ones who need to supply the proof.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
Here is something that does not need anything to exist, has existed forever even if there was nothing: and is true for atheist and theists: MATHEMATICS. Beside God, is there any other thing that you can think that has the same property of math? Remember that math cannot be destroyed. Math books can be destroyed but math exists as truth
AdolescentePunk 2 years ago
No, because no.
Math is not eternal any more than language is. Math is what we as humans use standardize phenomenon existing in nature that are best expressed mathematically. Math would not exist if humans weren't here to invent it... It exists only in our minds. Nature is how it is, indifferent to our concepts, mathematical or otherwise.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Something from nothing applies to God too. Either he always existed and nothing caused him to exist or he came from nothing without any cause, or according to the atheists he does not exist except in the mind of theists.
There is no doubt that the Universe it is well made. Were the laws of physics came from? From nothing without a cause? Existed forever without a cause? Exist even if there was nothing? If they came from nothing without a cause, why are they so rational to permit a Universe?
AdolescentePunk 2 years ago
Either everything came out from nothing withoout a cause and somehow assembled itself into a functioning universe, or something must have always existed never having had anything that caused it. Way, my brain cannot absorb either something coming from nothing without a cause or something always existing without a cause and assembling itself in a Universe.
AdolescentePunk 2 years ago
Because you cannot conceive of a third option, doesn't mean there isn't one... Both your options do not take into account the beginning of time. Time began, when it did, all the energy in the universe existed. "Always existed" is a misleading concept, because it implies infinite and immutable time, which we know from physics is not the case.
cyxgun 2 years ago
What caused time to begin?
Time begun for no cause at all?
AdolescentePunk 2 years ago
@AdolescentePunk If it had a cause, I don't know for certain what it is. We do know that time fluctuates randomly, along with space and some say these fluctuations can account for getting the ball rolling on the big bang.
It comes down to which do you believe is the more accurate answer: "I don't know." or "Magic."
cyxgun 2 years ago
either it came from nothing without a cause or it always existed without a cause. This applies to anything; including God. Coming out from nothing without a cause or having existed forever without a cause are both had to understand. Whenever in mathematic we encounter an infinity, we understand it as an impossibility. Something coming out from nothing violates the law of causality as we know as we know. it
AdolescentePunk 2 years ago
There are several things wrong with what you're saying, first there is no 'law of causality'. You say the universe must have a cause because your common sense says it must, but common sense breaks down and becomes worse than useless on the scales of the very small or cosmically large. Secondly, you continue to ignore or misunderstand my point about time beginning. If you trace a line back to it's beginning, is the line 'caused' by the point at which it was begun? Maybe the universe is like that.
cyxgun 2 years ago
I agree that common sense as we know it breaks down at subatomic level. Example: the question "If you could see a photon, what color would it be?" is impossible. The question "If quarks exist, what is inside of them?" is equally impossible to imagine. Something existing without a cause is beyond our imagination as is something that existed forever. If the Universe is flat and infinite, it cannot have an infinite number of galaxies. Infinity = impossibility.
AdolescentePunk 2 years ago
I love how theists say atheists believe something came from nothing.
I ask them where did God come from? They answer "well God always existed". So God came from nothing?
"no God always existed"
If God always existed then he came from nothing.
".......your going to hell"
lmao
questionsamson 2 years ago
that's because they dont think about what they are saying. something (God for example) that has always existed could not come from anything because it has no beginning. they could have said that and stumped you but most people dont think about these things. the universe, which had a beginning, can be argued to have come from something according to what you said
georgebaggy 2 years ago
"Could have stumped you..." no.
If god can always exist without need for being created, so can the universe.
cyxgun 2 years ago
ignoring the fact that the universe was created, then yes the universe could have existed forever. but the universe had a beginning. i was responding to a guy who said that god must have a beginning if he was created. the hebrew definition of their god is literally translated to "I AM". dont know why its always in all caps but the name is supposed to imply that god was never created, god just is, was, and will always be. now im not saying this is true, im just clarifying what theists believe.
georgebaggy 2 years ago
and i dont really have time for a youtube debate, but i respect your opinion and thanks for the vid
georgebaggy 2 years ago
Just to bolster the points in your video: What about applying relativity to our concept of existence? Doesn't an entity's perspective of nothing vs. something depend on what that entity is? For instance, if I'm a neutrino, a planet appears as almost nothing to me because I can move right through it. But if I'm a person, the planet is a very real object and obstacle to me. Taking it a step further: Suppose the current universe represents a non universe to a current non existent entity?
strongmeasures 2 years ago
right, what put the Big Bang there to expand later in the first place?
LordWhorfinX 2 years ago
The Big Bang wasn't "put" anywhere - it's not an object, it's an event. The Big Bang is the colloquial way of referring to the expansion of a singularity which was the beginning of the universe as we know it.
If your question is, "Why did that singularity expand? How did the singularity get there in the first place?"
Well, then we simply don't know the answer. There is speculation based on currently known facts, but no definitive answer... yet.
antybu86 2 years ago
Well said Antybu86.
cyxgun 2 years ago
What's north of the north pole? You need to realize that we know that existence exists, and we don't know that it's even possible for it to not exist - like you suggest in your question.
Your question may very well be nonsensical. If you have a hard time terminating the infinite regress without making up invisible, eternal, magical men. Just try to imagine time being circular or a transient phenomenon. Both are possible and would make your objection irrelevant.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
you like drawing circles with first putting pencil to paper? Circular or not... something had to draw your circle to begin with....
LordWhorfinX 2 years ago
But the universe is not drawn. Nor is it created, this is a bogus analogy.
You're applying your intuition to a problem on which it can be of no use. For many, many high end scientific concepts are intensely counter-intuitive. Think about how 'wrong' it seems that SPEED affects time and mass... yet we know it does.
Your intuition says 'if something exists, it must have come from somewhere' because that is true in limited middle sized world in which we evolved... but it's not universally so.
cyxgun 2 years ago
You can all guess...but nobody knows....the laws of physics apply throughout the universe and the answer is simple...(.nothing to do with God ..who ever he is..does anyone know?).... You just have'nt figured it out yet.... admit it..!!
roseipk 2 years ago
You're partly right. There is no certain answer, and no one can say they know. But the scientific position is based on evidence, and therefore it's NOT a guess. Science comes to conclusions about reality based on physical evidence, and updates the models of reality that it builds as new evidence comes to light. This process is the opposite of guesswork, and it's proven itself the best method of determining reality again and again and again... Just look at all of technology. Science WORKS.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Exactly, which brings me to the conclusion that life and all things in it is designed. Why is it so hard to believe and if there are real scientist out there... so why is it we...of all beings...think with emotion as well as reasoning? Maybe the big trinity is Logic, with emotion= Reason
wolfgange63 2 years ago
What? Maybe you use your emotions to think, but most of us use logic.
Life is designed? It might appear that way but no... it's not. Watch this video: /watch?v=PtEqOYkzwoE for the best response to the argument from design I've ever seen.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Oh so I have to watch some person's video to accept that I'm wrong in my thinking? I'm not even going to respond with how I feel about your nonsense.Who made you the expert in knowing what life is all about...or the person who did the vid?
wolfgange63 2 years ago
You're advocating the surrender of rationality. All I'm saying is that rational thought, through science gave you ever aspect of the comfortable life you lead. You live better than a king did in the bible and you spit in the face of the very thing that gives you that cushy lifestyle.
Emotions might make you feel good, and make you want to live, and that's fine... But when you're trying to distinguish truth from fiction, emotions are WORSE THAN USELESS. Only rational thought can do that.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Yes ok Mr Spock. Forget emotion...even though there is purpose of it being there. Oh and forget the love you have for family and your children too. THats not logical either,
wolfgange63 2 years ago
Did you even read what I wrote? Again, I never said to abandon emotion. It's the reason life is worth living. However you again misdirect and avoid my point... Emotion is NOT a method for discerning truth.
There is a reason con men, gamblers, trial lawyers, preachers everyone else that knows how to manipulate emotion use your feelings to their advantage. Emotions can make you stupid, they can cloud your mind and make you do things you wouldn't do if you were thinking clearly.
cyxgun 2 years ago
He did not read your comment. All your carefully worded and thought out comments fall on wolfgange63's deaf ears. It's a shame to see your hard work wasted - don't bother with these assholes.
hpholland 2 years ago
Why is it so hard to believe life was designed? Well, because we already have an explanation for life and complexity in general. It's called the theory of evolution, with the basic mechanisms extending beyond the first cell. It's not like we can't say we know that to be true, evolutionary algorithms are being used to design all kinds of machines today(LIke jet engines and solar panels to take two examples off the top of my head). They excel at solving difficult optimization problems.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
Well of course we can take a design and learn from it. We can also screw with nature and alter other life forms. However just because we are starting to understand these things doesnt mean we have the knowledge to deny the possibility that something planted the seeds and put it into play.
wolfgange63 2 years ago
Who denies that? I have no problem with the idea that some being might have started the ball rolling... But there's no reason to believe it either...
What I DO have a big problem with is people insisting they KNOW one did and they presume to be that being's representative here on earth. Anyone that says they know what god wants need to put up or shut up. Show me some evidence or I'm going to dismiss everything you say.
Get my point straight here: Without evidence ANY CLAIM IS WORTHLESS.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Wow!! You are really taking this personal. Relax man...again...maybe you need to get laid!
wolfgange63 2 years ago
You keep talking about how often I get laid... But you're arguing on the internet about god. What the two have to do with one another I can only speculate. Perhaps you're projecting?
Either way, my sex life has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my arguments. I'm not taking it 'personally'. I'm trying to make my point very clear since you seem seize upon any excuse to build a strawman. Eager to misrepresent my arguments because yours don't stack up to my actual ones?
cyxgun 2 years ago
Cause you havent been laid in awhile and God made us to get laid...get real!!! Your arguments are just that...you just want to argue instead of having a discussion
wolfgange63 2 years ago
Again, you're not making any sense. You also don't appear to be aware that words like 'argument' can have more than one meaning... What you just did with argument is called equivocation. It's dishonest.
As far as 'god made us to get laid...' Well, that's an INTERESTING theology, but it's no more true than any of the other bullshit claims of christianity.
On an unrelated note, your assumptions about my sex life are just that, assumptions. What is your fascination with my sex life about?
cyxgun 2 years ago
haha agreed
bluetooth198 2 years ago
Don't let your opinion be formed by just a few people. Some people say they know for a fact, when no one does. Religion is about faith, that some did 'get the ball rolling'. I believe, maybe you don't and thats ok. Im just saying dont base your opinion on Christianity or other religions solely on the few people who insist that they know everything, when no one really does
bluetooth198 2 years ago
Anything that is not conclusive is an assumtion in it's conclusion...so I guess with the the little knowledge we do have the rest is entirely guesswork. ....until the fact is proven. Genetics and science are just at the begining we are in for a few surpises..!!
roseipk 2 years ago
I remember that song...Something from nothing leaves nothing! Ok lets look at what the bible really said. God (Elohim in the hebrew, which is plural) created the heavens and the earth. We assume there is a barrier to our universe. If so, what is on the outside of that barrier? Could a whole universe fit inside the simplest cell? We are expermenting now with the Hadron collider to recreate the big bang. Perhaps a higher intelligence already has and what we see is the result.
wolfgange63 2 years ago
There are too many things going on in nature for it all to happen so coincidentally in this place by accident or a roll of the dice and for no purpose whatsoever. That my friend is logical thinking and consideration. All of science starts with a theory to reach a conclusion. Just too many scientist are looking at things one sided. Like observing a hole in the ground with a mound of dirt and a shovel beside it. They figure out that the shovel caused it but fail to see it didnt do it by itself.
wolfgange63 2 years ago
"coincidentally" what is 'coincidental' about the universe? It is how it is. If I ask you to list a thousand random numbers in a row, the odds of that specific series of numbers is astronomical. But the odds of SOME series of numbers was 1:1. It's only coincidental if it's predicted in some way before it comes to be.
About the 'theory': you misunderstand the basics of science there. THEORIES ARE the conclusions. There is no higher explanation of a phenomenon than a theory in science.
cyxgun 2 years ago
So my real point here about Elohim creating the heavens and earth is it didnt say They created all the universes. Our universe may not be the only one. Perhaps even Elohim's technology does have the power over life and death:even time itself. It is all too big for our little minds to even digest which is why our logic is limited. Sometimes we are just left with our own common sense. Yea I know science fiction. The idea of people flying in huge machines was science fiction once.
wolfgange63 2 years ago
"God's Technology" WOW. You so you just make up whatever you think would be cool and believe that? That's fine if that's how you want to do it, but when you tell others about your weird notions of cosmology, you should expect to catch some ridicule. I think you might be the only person I've ever seen that actually believes god uses technology to be god.
This begs the question though: Where did god get his technology, and what created the world were god got it from?
cyxgun 2 years ago
The only person you ever seen? LOL When did you ever see me? You are not being logical. Yea of course I expect ridicule. Esp from you, It was my theory that you would and you proved me right..that was conclusion. Yes I would expect that some intelligence who made something USED some sort of Something and USED knowledge to make it IE: Technology: look it up. Who said God was someone that snapped his fingers and wahlah. Maybe you base your ideas of God by listening to fundamentalist religionist.
wolfgange63 2 years ago
The bible proves itself useless as a science book in the very second sentence. The earth existed BEFORE light existed. OH WOW. Sorry but no, going to the bible for science info is like asking an auto mechanic to preform brain surgery.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Where did the singularity come from? It just popped into existence?
Plissken07 2 years ago
There are several theories about this, but the one I'm talking about in the video is that the singularity was there as time began. There was no need for it to 'pop' into being, because there was no time when it didn't exist. This might seem unlikely, but it's certainly more likely that a single point of concentrated energy could 'just be' than that an intelligent, complex disembodied mind that can do magic 'just being'. Why is the vastly simpler of the two the one you think less likely?
cyxgun 2 years ago
Interesting. Doesn't that mean the expansion of the singularity happened in eternity past? If no time existed, then what made time start? Also, isn't believing that the singlarity was just "always there" just as irrational as believing in a God that was always there? I don't think one or the other is simpler or complex. Both are simple and/or both are complex. What's considered complex and simple is subjective. After all, how do you measure the complexity of God? Complexity of the singularity?
Plissken07 2 years ago
Time began to exist gradually, this sounds very strange, and it probably can't be visualized, but it's nonetheless what the mathematical models show. It came about through fluctuations in space, which existed only at about a plank length, much smaller than a single atom. Space and time are linked on a quantum level, as you may be aware. Very rarely, one can become the other. Space became time, and started the universe. At that same time the expansion began, for the same reason.
cyxgun 2 years ago
this is one of the silliest videos i have seen in a while.
even if there was a point of singularity, it was still a point, which means there was still a small amount of space, matter and time. you just suggested that the Universe is infinite, and we all know that time is NOT infinite.
the Universe needs an infinite Creator living outside it's boundaries.(God)
you know, i know it.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I suggested no such thing. The notion that anything MUST be infinite for the universe to exist at all is illogical.
cyxgun 2 years ago
no, it's the only explanation.
you offer no other answer... and guess what, there is none. "we don't know yet" is the last gasp of desperation from a group of people that hope there is no judgment.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
But you can't explain why it's the only explanation. The answer is it's the only one that makes sense to you. Argument from ignorance, the "Last gasp of desperation" of all believers.
On your second point you're just wrong. Science knows a fair amount about the big bang, and has solid evidence for it, unlike the "Magical" beginning you insist took place. But let's assume for a second we didn't: A made up answer is better than admitting you don't know? Maybe for you, but not for science.
cyxgun 2 years ago
who said i don't believe in the Big Bang? of course i do.. and God ignited it... there must be intent.
you have more holes than you think, but if that's what you want to believe, so be it.
hope the best.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
"there must be intent."
This is where we disagree. Your assertion that this is so does not make it so. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
cyxgun 2 years ago
"even if there was a point of singularity, it was still a point, which means there was still a small amount of space, matter and time."
Are you familiar with the notion of Planck Space and Planck Time? You cannot apply your human meso-world instincts to extreme situations. In addition; time is relative, and as such cannot be treated as a quantity which is finite or infinite.
How come we all know time is NOT infinite? Did I miss a meeting? I had no idea this was supposed to be known by all...
DavidMTRutten 2 years ago
As far as I understand it, the proponents of this kind of argument think that time is absolute and separate from space (presentism). When they talk about finite time, they mean a finite set of consecutive changes in the past. But even in that case, it's still a poor argument.
gigi4123 2 years ago
By "Proponents of this kind of argument" you mean cosmologists?
cyxgun 2 years ago
No, I meant apologists, like William Lane Craig. His Kalam argument is probably the most used on the internet by creationists.
gigi4123 2 years ago
Ah I see, I failed to read the comment you were replying to... Teach me to answer comments when I first wake up I guess! Sorry!
cyxgun 2 years ago
No problem :)
gigi4123 2 years ago
"the Universe needs an infinite Creator living outside it's boundaries."
Let's assume this to be a fact then. Or at least agreed. It is after all possible that we'll eventually prove that the universe could not have "started" on its own.
Why does this Creator need to be God? Why can't it be aliens, who are every bit as fallible and natural as we are? I suspect that some day we'll create universes of our own in the lab, will that turn us into God as well?
DavidMTRutten 2 years ago
right, but we are talking about ORIGINS. where did the aliens come from? are they "infinite"?
that's the whole point.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
I don't know where the aliens came from. Perhaps their universe was created by other Aliens. As you can see, this argument spirals out of control pretty quickly. Just like "God did it". Where did God come from?
The only solution we have so far that doesn't suffer from infinite regress, is the Big Bang theory. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, and since space+time were created along with the Big Bang there may well not be a "before". After all, what's north of the North Pole?
DavidMTRutten 2 years ago
why can't an infinite God be the best explanation? if God is "God", then wouldn't that make Him all powerful and infinite?
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
God is not an explanation at all. "Explaining" anything via god surrendering to ignorance.
Until there is demonstrable evidence pointing to anything supernatural, it's wholly illogical to consider an untestable, unmeasurable, unknowable god, or any other supernatural 'explanation'.
cyxgun 2 years ago
first off, you are assuming that for something to be "real", it must be "seen" by Science.
do you realize how fallacious that sounds?
Christians have the answer while Atheists have none.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
When something is undetectable, unmeasurable, and totally untestable, it is by definition INDISTINGUISHABLE from nonexistent.