Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible.
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
there are more than 100 others that are unknown to pretty much everyone. Did you know, for example, that God: *Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf? *Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent "fiery serpents" to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
5) You are talking about enclosed systems where the ultimate closed system is the universe. It is a fact that within enclosed systems you can have localised closed systems where order increases. However, all these will eventually run down as will the whole universe. No conflict whatsoever. Your claim is like saying it is impossible for mankind to build a jet or car. Yes we can and if we don't maintain them they will fall into disrepair. God is irrelevant to this topic anyway.
@pilgrimpater What you are talking?? Do not make sense..First read some science books. Then you can argue.Dawkins does not teach science , he creates cult followers like you. Read through all my comments. I debated just guys like you here so many , You all guys wana be intellectuals,BUT YOU ARE NOT!!!!
@annamraju I was expecting a much more mature reply than that. Please either address the points i have made (assuming you are capable) or if you feel you have already made them to others, then make another video highlighting your answers and that will then allow me & others to make a response video. I'm afraid that anyone who treats science as a cult has a lot of explaining to do. I feel it is YOU who is attempting to appear intellectual and failing miserably. I look forward to your next video.
3) The cause and effect argument is totally redundant. Everything has a cause and god (or gods) cannot be an exception to this rule. IF we don't know the cause then we must never guess which is irresponsible.
4) It's not down to logic, i'm afraid but purely down to demonstrable truths. There is no evidence for any religion and this is backed up by us knowing the hostory of how each religion started (from less enlighted times).
@pilgrimpater I don't know how to answer your half knowledge statements.. 3) Cause and effect::: In fact our universe is born with out first cause. It just popped up from nothing. , Even your Dawkins and Hawkins agree on that. premise. But I don't agree along with some other reputable scientists with that premise.. Read more before you make non scientific statements. Dawkins book is not peer reviewed scientific book ., It is written for people like U!
@mrannamraju "Cause and effect::: In fact our universe is born with out first cause. "
A totally baseless assumption without a shred of proof. If there was proof you'd provide it.
"Dawkins book is not peer reviewed scientific book "
No book for the public is peer reviewed. Peer review is for other scientists.
"It is written for people like U!" NO, it's written for people like YOU who make assertions without evidence. Btw i had already formulated much of Dawkins' views 40 years before his book.
@pilgrimpater You should read more and talk less,,Seriously.Here is Stephen Hawkins says universe is born from nothing... There is no first cause!! on youtube search for "curiosity did God create the universe?"
and watch the video,, Stephen Hawking says we don't need God to start the universe ( which I personally disagree) but to dispute your belief he clearly states that Universe is born out of nothing with out first cause.
@mrannamraju "You should read more and talk less" This is the classic response i get from religious people when they are too lazy to make their own arguments. You have made a video with 5 challenges and i have responded to each of these. Surely, your task is to respond to my responses and not to fob me off with such comments. You should be able to extrapolate the main thrust of the argument from books and videos that support your cause. Btw quantum fluctations are not nothing.
@pilgrimpater Quantum fluctuation requires the existence of a system in which the uncertainty principle is applicable. As you've put it in the op, it is meaningless to speak of a time "before" the Big Bang. Quantum fluctuation explains why we thought that particles can escape from the event horizon, but I don't see how it effects the beginnings of time.
@mrannamraju Exactly. It's infinitely more logical to argue that a system at quantum level had always existed rather than an infinitely powerful, wise, all knowing entity had done so. What caused the BB? We simply do not know but that is no excuse to guess at the cause being an intelligent/intentional entity. That's pure wishful thinking. Also god(s) must have gone from a state of not willing the universe into existence to willing it. Two events seperated by time even if not time as we know it.
@pilgrimpater Do you know the ontological explanation for lowest entropy. Lower Entropy is higher the order is.
HIGHEST ORDER... OUT SIDE OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION. What ever the entity which do not follow the space time , I call it God... Do not dismiss God before you define what it is..
@mrannamraju How can you speak of entropy (& hence order) which are governed by the laws of OUR universe (i.e. "inside science") & then apply it outside of our universe or in your words "outside of science"?
How can you make any comment on what is outside space/time when no human mind can contemplate what beyond space/time entails? You just don't know but you call it god. That's fine because it is just a word yet you cannot state what it is. It neither has to be intelligent nor premeditating.
@pilgrimpater Well for your information Quantum potential waves exists out side of space time according to Heisenberg. I defined God in my previous comments under just "annamraju".Please go through it,.
@mrannamraju Quantum potential waves are hypothesised to exist & that is fine as, although quantum is very complicated to understand, we are down to physical simplicity, i.e a simplicity with no intelligence & no premeditated actions though you want to label such as god, it can't be a creator. In truth we can only speculate what goes on outside our universe. We'll never know & must always say “I don’t know” as our learning is limited to our universe. We must never guess due to wishful thinking.
@pilgrimpater Physical Simplicity?? Singularity is simplicity.?? Brilliant Einstein General field equations breakdown with anomalies at that physical simplicity. . That singularity has the lowest entropy with unimaginably highest order. The highest order has to come from out side of space-time, even scientists agree on that....This is where biology and physics differ. Biological systems evolve from simplicity BUT NOT THE CASE OF SINGULARITY...THIS IS WHERE DAWKINS IS SIMPLY WRONG.......
@mrannamraju We used to think electrons etc were the basic particles now we know of quantum level below that. That was the context in which i was using "simplicity".
"The highest order has to come from out side of space-time" so now you are assuming (that word again) that the laws of entropy were relevant before the BB. How do you know? What evidence do you have? I'll answer for you. You just do not know and cannot know. Hence, because you are a Theist you want to guess. That ain't science.
@mrannamraju “How the laws come into being existence at the moment of creation.”?
I don’t know the how and neither do you and neither does anybody.
You can say god if you like but you are merely moving the same question back by just one further step because you must then ask where the laws came from that "created" god. Good luck with that one.
@pilgrimpater LOL.. You don't know how the laws come into existence? Or your answer is the just way it is... It is classic answer from atheists. If you consider "God did it" is stupid, and in turn I say "the way it is " is also sound like the previous one . That is just for argument sake.
Again you are dismissing God, with out defining what God is... Classic Dawkins...
I did define what God is " Downward causation" Look in to my previous comments..
@mrannamraju "It is classic answer from atheists" No Atheists are HONEST because they say they don't know unlike Theists who are dishonest because they claim to know yet they can't prove why they know. If they did, they would provide evidence & not speculation. You are a prime example.
If you want to define god as downward causation then i have already said that's fine but that definition does not make god as creator nor intelligent. Btw, let's be honest, that's hardly a definition of god.
@pilgrimpater Atheists are Honest ..It is joke.... You are all CULT!!! Nothing more nothing less...
Double slit experiment is 100 years old...It is not lack of understanding.. It is flawed understanding...If you just simply look at Biological systems , your knowledge of science is completely half baked.Signature trait of Dawkin culties.
@mrannamraju Disappointing as i thougt you were above insulting slogans.
Atheists ARE Honest about their Atheism (all that unites them is a lack of belief in god due to lack of evidence). I didn't mean honest as individuals in other areas, as they come from all walks of life.
But you have a problem. You ask me how Laws came about at the instant of the BB yet you quote laws of entropy at me PRIOR to the BB. Surely you see the contradiction here. All you have done is labeled an event as God.
@pilgrimpater Atheists are dishonest about one thing certain. ,Using "Science" as a defense to dismiss God. There are no laws, before BB., just simple fact. The fact is "at the moment of creation there exists a highest order" . You can call it "Sam" or "Jack" or "Entropy" ....doesn't matter. !!!
@mrannamraju There is no correlation between Atheism & Science. Totally different aspects of human thought. You of all people should know that Science says absolutely nothing for or against god or gods. Atheism is merely the rejection of all religious claims todate due to lack of evidence.
"There are no laws, before BB." Complete & utter speculation & what is more highly improbable.
""at the moment of creation there exists a highest order" Again a totally baseless slogan & wishful thinking.
@pilgrimpater Ok we settled that matter. Atheists do not have scientific evidence back up their claim there is no God.. Now you are disputing something some scientific fact here.All SCIENTISTS AGREE UP ON ONE THING>> THERE IS HIGHEST ORDER exists at the beginning of creation. This is scientific fact. To back up and justify the this scientific fact they come up with multiverse. You need to watch Sean Carrol Videos.
@mrannamraju Spot on & i doubt whether you will ever find any Atheist who claims science can disprove god. That is not to say that Science cannot replace superstitious explanations with natural ones (as has happened so often but never the reverse). However, what the Atheist demands is evidence from the claimant.
"THERE IS HIGHEST ORDER exists at the beginning of creation." Nope. Scientists don't believe in creation. They believe in a PRECEDING EVENT & NOT a higher order.
@pilgrimpater You are little confused with science here. There exists un explainable highest order ( lowest entropy you call "Sam" .,"Jack " or I may call it God. ) at the moment of creation. At this moment scientists pulled of their ass "multiverse" so that they can avoid the term "God' It is easier to accept "God " at this moment than following their bizarre theories there on wards. Multiverse, every possibility there exists universe , you are peeing in one universe other universe .not.
@mrannamraju contd..from previous post..More bizarre theory. "Boltzman's brains" Copy of your brain floating around... If they accept multiverse they have to accept reincarnation theory ( Boltzman brain) . with out choice..Alas.. Give me God any day!!
@mrannamraju "There exists un explainable highest order" Well the there is a contradiction in just 6 words. If it's inexplicable then how can you define it? If you can't define it then you can't attribute any properties to it.
You still can't get it that you are attributing a Law of the Universe (entropy) prior to the Universe, & hence it's laws, coming into being. You are just guessing when the honest among us say "We don't know".
I haven't used multiverse in any msg. It's just a hypothesis.
@pilgrimpater Now it is common problem..among you culties twisted words. . Just argue for argument sake. SCIENTIFIC FACT: There exists lowest entropy ( It is not law- Just a fact ) at beginning of the universe. Either you know science or not... It is really silly for people using science as their defense , with.out knowing science.I am not going waste my time responding crap . Some culties are closet ignorants..
@mrannamraju I gather from your last comment that you have absolutely no answers to what i have been asking of you. Shame really as i was looking forward to your explanation for your assertions.
Of course Low/High entropy exist in THIS universe but you can make absolutely no assertions about entropy nor anything else prior to, or outside of, our universe.
@pilgrimpater WHAT YOU ARE ASKING??? ABSOLUTELY nothing ! You have two answers for every thing..1)There is no God with out even knowing or defining what it is 2) Every event or process for you either yet to be explained later or show me the God in white robes doing it... These are the qualities of closet ignorants..
ACT LIKE THEY KNOW SOMETHING BUT ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOMETHING !
@mrannamraju I'm afraid you have either lost it or you are responding to the wrong person.
Those are nothing like the points that i have been challenging you with. Just for your benefit in summary here they are
1) You assume the cause of the universe to be intelligent and premediated 2) You are assuming the laws (observations) of the universe to be external (and as part of the cause) to our universe. Incidentally Highest Order/lowest entropy) does NOT equate to a creative intelligence.
@mrannamraju "Highest order is created by intelligence."?
Oh really? You still peddling that assumption? When a galaxy forms from a cluster it is going from lower to higher order and no intelligence is required. Back to square one with your claim because your higher order (god) requires to be precededed by an even higher order but hey you are still guessing.
@pilgrimpater I am not going to engage ignorant non scientific discussion here any more...I don't care what you believe or not..But here are the scientific facts or consensus among scientists. Universe has unusually lowest entropy at the beginning. The only way out of this crisis they came to consensus that this universe has to be born from another universe. That is only way out for low entropy conundrum ., Nobody cares what your belief is !
@mrannamraju "I don't care what you believe or not." I don't believe anything. I am saying "i don't know". It is you who is believing, with blind faith. You quite simply can't address the points i make. You cannot make assumptions about entropy just prior to the point of the BB because the laws of entropy of this universe do not have to apply prior. Concensus among scientists? Are they all theists? I doubt it. Hawkings isn't. Even in this universe we do not always go from low to high entropy.
@pilgrimpater Next thing..Any organization requires energy, That is fact of science. Higher the organization is more energy requirement. Even social situations , the country with organization needs to spend more money to keep the organization going,. Agreed.. Energy is embedded in Chaos (say.. Wind) . So to keep the highest order you need incredible energy...There is no wind at the beginning of the universe.so Where is the energy coming from????
@mrannamraju "Higher the organization is more energy requirement." By definition your higher organisation preceded the universe also re this universe. is every higher organisation that precedes a lower organisation sentient? You cannot use countries economies as an anaology for natural occurences.
"So to keep the highest order you need incredible energy." Not necessarily a sentient energy.Why would highest sentient order plan for deterioration? Re wind. My point is that it's cause isnt sentient
@mrannamraju "Higher the organization is more energy requirement." By definition your higher organisation preceded the universe also re this universe. is every higher organisation that precedes a lower organisation sentient? You cannot use countries economies as an anaology for natural occurences.
"So to keep the highest order you need incredible energy." Not necessarily a sentient energy.Why would highest sentient order plan for deterioration? Re wind. My point is it's cause isnt sentient
@pilgrimpater Now I know who wastes my time. Closet ignorants. Acts like they know science and keep on arguing as they know it all. Twisting the words. That is classic Dawkin's cult.. You are not far from that. READ MORE ABOUT ENTROPY. FYI.Entropy also can be used in Breast cancer detection. I have Masters Degree in Physics.Read more and talk less,.Now it is time to ignore your nonsense...
@mrannamraju "Now I know who wastes my time" If that were true you wouldn't keep replying albeit often responding to the wrong question.
I never have questioned your scientific qualification and nor do i claim to match you on the academic front but i am not stupid and i can still philisophically argue that for all your knowledge pertaining to THIS universe, you cannot assume the same laws apply beyond it (we just don't know) and you cannot assume that high energy/low entropy is sentient.
@pilgrimpater I know what you are ...Philosopher who acts like, who knows everything but knows nothing. Philosophy is big waste of time which you proved it again. I debated philosophers enough . You dismiss entropy with out knowing what it is ..You dismiss God with out defining it..Classic Dawkins.. I am glad you are learning knowledge first time through science rather than self contradictory philosophy...Just last time to let you know Entropy is not law, it is measurable quantity of system.
@mrannamraju You haven't a clue as to what i am (btw i studied thermodynamics as part of a MIning Engineering course albeit many years ago). Once we go beyond the universe then we go beyond science. And if we go beyond science then we go beyond yours & everyone else's knowledge & the only thing that you or i are left with is philosophy. Sadly this spurs you into the wishful thinking syndrome of "god Dunnit". Philosophy raises the questions but can never provide answers.
@pilgrimpater You want me tell you what is your questions look like in Science.. Asking " What is color of stupidity?" and demanding for an answer.. It is grammatically right but total non sense!!
@mrannamraju "What is color of stupidity?" Paradoxically that is exactly analogous as to what you are claiming i.e. you are applying colour (not color) to stupidity. I am NOT putting forward any answers of my own. I am merely challenging your baseless assumptions. So far you have not come close to justifying those baseless claims.
@pilgrimpater It shows again ..Know it all... Colour ( British version) Color ( American English) Stop giving lectures.. You really don't understand the concept entropy...
@mrannamraju Don't worry i am not colour prejudice.
So i don't understand entropy. Maybe you could elighten me (don't bother, i know) but then maybe you could enlighten me of the laws of entropy immediately prior to the birth of universe (which admittedly i don't know). There are no peer reviewed scientific papers on entropy (or anything even) which include a supernatural sentient entity as a solution. So, you may be a scientist but your argument is pure philosophy (which you frown upon).
@pilgrimpater Repeat : You don't have clear understanding of entropy except some google info. You need to know something about Shanon entropy. By the way Shanon is guy..... You need some more..You can not absorb..Stick to Dawkins books.They are all peer reviewed...
@mrannamraju "You don't have clear understanding of entropy except some google info. "
Thermodynamics was a part of a course i did way before the internet. As well as making assumptions about what occurs beyond the universe you seem to continue the habit with assumptions about me. But you see, entropy is a topic of thermodynamics & not probabilities & variables as Shannon's Entropy would appear to be. Again, NO scientific paper has ever brought god into the equation. You are using Philosophy.
@mrannamraju "Higher the organization is more energy requirement." By definition your higher organisation preceded the universe also re this universe. is every higher organisation that precedes a lower organisation sentient? You cannot use countries economies as an anaology for natural occurences.
"So to keep the highest order you need incredible energy." Not necessarily a sentient energy.Why would highest sentient order plan for deterioration? Re wind. My point is it's cause isnt sentient
Surely with such a quantum event, then laws are bound to happen and we have the laws that we have.
If things were different we would have different laws and a different evolution of our universe.
It’s like spilling a bag of sugar infinite times. You will get infinite unique configurations for each spill but you are always bound to get a configuration for every spill. So for each universe you are bound to get a set of Laws.
@pilgrimpater Now you say there are billions and billions of universes for every possibility?? If that is case God is easiest choice..... Since I don't have Mercedez in this universe I will have Mercedez in another universe. This story you are subscribing to ..... I have peanut and I dont have peanuts in another universe. This is more bizzare and more screwed up story than story of God...
@mrannamraju I really think you have lost it or are confusing me with someone else. I have not used the multiverse to support my case. At best the multiverse is a hypothesis & i am not personally impressed by it. However, that is not to say that our universe is unique but yet again we just do not know, so why guess or use wishful thinking? "I have peanut ". Good, you deserve it.
@mrannamraju "I have not defended any religion. My point is Dawkins is extending his knowledge beyond science when he says there is no GOD! "
He is mereley stating there is no EVIDENCE for god, gods or goddesses and he is putting a high probability on there being no god as ovrer human history superstitious solutions have been replaced by natural explanations but NEVER the reverse. As you know it is impossibe to disprove a negative claim. Also exposes the evil of the god of Abrahamic faiths.
1) Not a valid question but to play along the odds, though large, are infinitely small compared to the odds of an infinitely complex creator poofing out of thin air.
Fine tune fails as an argument because even if different something else will still result albeit not us.
2) It is a posibility with exactly the same odds as any other permutation. Yet again the result will be what it is. JUst like Nos1,2,3,4,5,6 have the same probability as any other permutation in the lottery. No god needed.
you are obviously seeking attention because you are confused, it's ok just ready some of dawkins and hitchens books. do something useful and stop making yourselve look like a stupid retard.
@annamraju richard dawkins is one of the most intelligent scientists in the world. what makes you think that he doesn't know 'real science'. hell what is 'real science' to you? you are just some nobody youtuber who has nothing better to do than try and mock one of the worlds greatest scientists.
It doesnt matter if you find God, cause in the end of they day his not coming to aide us. In this age of time we should be discussing the means to suport an healthy growth of the human species, we should be redesigning our society, our structures and yet we argue about God, whats the point? Is it going to help us on constructing the fair society that all of us deserve, directly? Nietzche killed God last century with his arguments, you should read them.
@TheComunSense The more dangerous than "God" is your half knowledge. "Evolution " answers all the questions??? Even your cult leader, proponent of "evolution" Dawkins would not agree with that. Why we even bother to spend 10 billion dollar to build experimental collider if we have all the answers from 3rd grade Biology text book. I always stated Biology is superficial science which is dependent on physical laws .My purpose is those physical laws are it self shaky.
@TheComunSense The danger for human species is pseudo intellectuals like Dawkins and the brain washed people like you.! Evolution CERTAINLY WON"T ANSWER ALL THE questions. By having spirituality won't stop human progress. Stop reading Dawkins books and study real science books..If you have gripes with religion I am the wrong guy to talk with.. because I am not religious.....
@annamraju lol at you calling dawkins a pseudo intellectual. even if he's completely wrong, you cannot possibly dispute the fact that he's intellectual and intelligent.
it's intervention, not intrevention. if the universe didn't have the laws we see, we wouldn't be here to see it. i don't understand how people use this as evidence for god. don't you get it? we wouldn't exist in a universe that doesn't have the laws the way they are because life could not start. please understand this.
5. Let me guess, you are going to continue to throw out more random scientific expressions to look smart. Then you are going to continue pick out bits of science that do fit your answer. I presume that will be the "good bit". Well I wont be around for it, I have heard it before, I have have even heard better. Nonsenses all of it. And I really do hope your children`s life one day depend, on the very answers you have so arrogantly ignored by seeking "god".
@Arnleifen 1 You are looking at me through the prism of organized religions and in particular Christianity. So you do not have patience to analyze what I defined as "God" but with out any definition you are willing to dismiss!! You are blinded by cult behavior just like religious fundamentalists! I thought you are better than that willing and open to new concepts. I was just like you ..an absolute Atheist..but...
@Arnleifen 2. But I realized discontinuous things happen all the times in the micro world. Time is an illusion.Cause and effect has no meaning.. Things pop up in existence from no where.This micro world is embedded with in the cells of our body. More I study one question popped up .What is stopping those experiences in the micro world that I can not experience in the macro world. Science has no answer for it!!
But it came to me as an enlightenment!! It is all in the mind!!
@Arnleifen 3. The mind is the key.. No known force is stopping you not to experience timeless zone , cause and effect reversal or some thing that pop in to existence. I realized . It is the mind that is the creating this block.
not laws of physics. Mind is the one putting the blocks or creating an illusion!
@Arnleifen 4 You failed at important distinction. prayer and blessing..Looks discontinuous and illogical for atheists.But in micro world this is day of life. Quantum entanglement has no connection between the two reactions. IT IS NOT GOD OF GAPS!! .. manifesting ( I call it prayer) is the core of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I will never hesitate to pray with my children for the blessings of the ultimate universe!
4. Your master degree did tell you? That it would be completely irrelevant to change any of the mentioned factors, ether the moon or elementary particles, because that would simply mean that any previous observation of anything would be wrong? Right? You probably do realise that I called you bluff even from the start, right? You may recall I called you a YouTube wannabe scientist? Right? So what now?
3. So you change the speed or mass of the moon, and it flies of, so what? So you change forces or mass within elementary particles, and the universe as we know it would not be here, so what? Do that prove anything at all? Yeah it do. It proves that you are rehashing an old creationist argument based on miss quoting a scientific expression, involving what happen if you changed any factors which we presume to be constant. That creationists arguments are about 20 years old...
2. So with a masters degree in physics, and ties to religion, you have no conflict with how the earth and the moon ended up here, right? And we can agree that a magic wizard did not wave his wand and they popped up here a few thousand years ago, right? We are talking gas clouds forming a star, and random collisions between remaining debris over billions of years, right? Well with that settled, then back to the moon.
@Arnleifen You asked me to define God.I did define it!! Now you are saying God is in my head!! Yes of course it is in my head and every body's head..!! The manifesting things is central tenet of quantum theory. I now realized you know crap about quantum physics.You should stick to bullying people who are as ignorant as you are!!! \
People with quantum physics never behave this way. By the way for your information I have Masters degree in Physics.
@annamraju 1. You got a masters degree in physics from the Pope, and I am a common farmer, interesting. You, twist, you bend and you miss quote. The moon orbits the earth, we know the mass of both, the distance between the two. The speed. Change something and you get "chaos". Same thing for everything, elementary particles too. You understand the difference in changing something in our mind consisting laws of physics as we wield them, and ACTUALLY changing the a thing like the mass of the moon?
8. So the creator is there, because you reverse building blocks of matter, and image him to be there? You probably also think there is a creator because of a "fine tuned universe". Now, read it again, and you see, it is tuned like that because our brain make it appear like that. The image of the world in your head has NOTHING to do what is out there. The UNIVERSE do not care shit about how you arrange it, but YOU need to put it in order to understand it. So again, put "god" back into your head.
@Arnleifen You have not put forward one scientific argument except some philosophical crap..Half knowledge is dangerous just like Dawkins who knows shit about physics. If you go against the fine tune argument you have to face more bizarre crap like multiverse with billions of universes and Boltzmans brains which copy of all our brains floating around. These are the consequence of going against fine tuning principle,It is all beyond your head!! I like to debate people with real knowledge.
@Arnleifen Now you don't care about science.?.Upward causation is science. That is not the order put forward by me. It is science!! IIf you don't care about it why don't you accept all the laws are made in our mind.. There are no laws at all . Just all laws including scientific laws are made by our rigid brains..I agree to that concept if you do not like the scientific arrangements!
7. The pattern you see in reversing matter`s building blocks, are there for an ENTERLY different reason than you think. You just choose to leave out the part of science that explained it. That is a far worse "bummer" than Newton did with his "divine system" of multiple planetary interactions. He saw a pattern which came clear to him, BECAUSE of the tool (gravity theory) he just created on his own. But failed to make sense of the next pattern he saw, because he LACKED the necessary tools.
6.If you are going to be scientific and define / prove something, you have to take all part of science into your equation.BUT.... you are a creationist, you do things different. You choose and pick what parts of science you want to "believe", to MAKE it fit with the answer you already think you have. That is not science, that is a imaginary assumption at best. A wild guess !! So congratulation, seeing a pattern other people have had hard work inventing tools for you to see.....
5. The most basic tool is actually naming tings even if you do not understand or see it. Because this allows us to communicate about it. When I say theory of gravity, you think about gravity, you understand it, and know it has a measurement. The gravity force is not in your head but outside. The gravity force on it`s own is just stuff pulling stuff together. Inside your brain it is a measurable force, because you have the tools invented by others humans to make sens of it.
4. What your senses detect, are inside your head. The image of the world as YOU see it, is in your brain, not out there. What is out there is absolute chaos, it is through filtering through our tools of logic that the world around us comes to order and makes sense. The pattern you think you see reversing material building blocks, (your "god"), appear as a pattern to you, simply because our tools of science allow us to see it as an pattern. Now, is "god" out there, or in your head?
3. This is as accepted in scientific communities as building blocks of matter, as knowledge about space and evolution of species. Our telescopes, our particle accelerators and science it self, are tools. Tools which extends our senses. So is the way we organise matter, the mathematics with it`s theories about physics. Einstein`s general theory of relativity is a human invented tool to make order out of chaos.This is a human way of extending their ability to recognise patterns, and make sense.
2. Tools are everything from poking in an anthill with a stick, to the hubble telescope. Primates do poke with sticks in anthills, we build the hubble telescope. If that difference in our brain`s "pattern finding" center, enables the difference in poking in an anthill, and building the hubble telescope, then why is it so dam hard for you to realise that it does actually also make up our consciousness. Surly every creature on this planet has some sort of self awareness, we are just more advanced.
@annamraju 1. "conscious",is nothing more than a increased activity in the part of the brain that control "recognition patterns". This is what mainly difference us from other animal brains. Our overwhelming "pattern recognition", enables making patterns (order) out of what seems like random chaos. Basically this is the ability to operate "tools". The definition of "tools" are far wider than hammer and nails. Tools are an extension of the human brain`s ability to interact with our surroundings.
Do you not realise the impact on future generations when you answer a question with "god"? Do you not understand the roadblock you put in their way to let them solve their future problems? You should sit down and think for a minute, not about if "god" exists or not. But is "god" a good enough answer for them to solve how to deal with natural disasters, all ranging, from volcanoes, to floods, to meteor impacts. Do you really want them to say: Here comes "god" on his cosmic bike?
@Arnleifen THIS VIDEO IS NOT MEANT FOR JUST COMMON FOLKS WANTS TO REPLACE EVERYTHING THEY DON'T KNOW WITH "GOD"!! I TOUCHED VERY ADVANCED TOPICS THAT ONLY MEANT FOR SEASONED SCIENTISTS AND OTHER LEARNED PEOPLE. Just simple mercury 's perihelion motion puts entire Newtonian Gravity in danger. It is quite idiotic not to follow newton's equations while you are building plane.
Which is perfectly explained with Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, no need for "god".
As "common" as I am, I can not define "god", but YOU said you can, so tell us:
What is the measure of "god"? What reliable constant do "god" provide to put into the equations? In what repeatable observation / experiment CAN YOU DEFINE YOUR "GOD" ? Unless YOU can tell me, put "god" back in your head. I smell cold feet
@Arnleifen The quantum entanglement at higher level pokes the holes at the fundamental laws way we understood. Non Locality is embedded in our system with out an explanation for almost 100 years. It is dead end to scientists. You got the two options 1) Replace all the laws 2) Accept quantum consciousness which is divine signature!! The same logic you put together for Mercury's motion I am pointing you there is hole in the system of laws.Only two options left with!
@Arnleifen Good!! It is not wise to dismiss "God" before you define it!! OK are you ready for the definition of God?
Wat we have is upward causation : Elementary particles and their interactions-->>Atoms--->Molecules--->Cells Including Neurons--->Brain------>Consciousness ..... This is what most scientists agree up on. Reverse the process now---which is Downward Causation... That is God!
There are questions beyond those we do know the answer to, and you seek to answer with "god". I want my children to know the answers to those questions too. (Hench the comet that did a near miss on earth). I want them to be able to know how to track the comet without seeing it (why I mentioned newton). I want them to be able to do something about it. I do NOT want them to think here comes "god" on his cosmic bike......
The core problem with settling as "god" as a factor to solve a equation, is that you add an undefinable variable, which makes you unable to solve the equation. Put "god" back into your head, and keep "god" where he belongs, do not put "god" out as a scientific answer. History is undeniable clear on this, as I told you about Newton. What if everyone settled with his "divine driven system" to the explanation of how to calculate the orbit of an object with multiple gravitational thugs?
I see no need for, or to define any "god". What YOU believe to be "god" today, will be explained as something else, by someone else, tomorrow. What if everybody believed in "god"? When I say: believe in "god", I refer to putting "god" as an answer to a scientific question. The "edge" of science is moving, has always, and will always. So why bother to use "god" to what is unexplained? It has been done billions of times, and proven wrong billions of times. What on earth makes it right this time?
Quntum Tunneling.... The main idea there is that it is said that with Quantum Tunneling effect we can reach the speeds greater than the speed of light. Particles go through the barrier and their appearance is sudden. And they are speaking that scientist managed to transfer part of Mozzart's 40th symphony at a distance 12cm with the speed more than a light speed.
@annamraju Can your "god" explain the last 10 major natural disasters on this planet, who obvious did not care much for ether atheists or religious people? There are "random" big objects out there, big enough to wipe out life as we know it on this planet. They are orbiting through our solar system, one was so close it went between our tv-satellites and the planet. If we put "god" as an answer to what we have learn about that. Our last word would be: Here comes "god" on his "divine" bike. Or....
@Arnleifen You don't have to look for divine powers to heaven but look for your pocket!! May not be coming on divine bike but here come through your Ipod. "Quantum tunneling" is like divine principle that violates the classical physics and defy the common sense!! The electron exists in ipod in two or more places at the same time like you are being in New york and Los angeles same time!!. Have you heard scientists saying "Ghost in Atom" !!
@annamraju contd..There is no difference between micro world and macro world, because macro world came from micro world. You and me made up electrons,protons, and the laws can not be different for electrons and me. It is simply you are saying two brothers live in the same roof and they don't know each other!! How long you put the question under the rug!! If you say they are different ( Micro and macro worlds) when I say god did it , both of us should be considered as idiotic !!
@annamraju contd..My point is if you say I have no answer or I say God did it . both should be considered as a valid answers.. Nothing less and nothing more from scientific point of view. IT IS NOT GAPS!! NEITHER GOD OF GAPS" This non sense is put on by Dawkins and his followers!! The only possible answers could be either completely change the fundamental laws the way we understand the nature or plug the divine consciousness!! You have these two choices NO GAPS !!!!
Science come up with an answer to a question. Religion then use that answer to say it must be like that because of "god". Science come up with another answer saying that it was not "god". Religion then use that answer to say it must be like that because of "god". Science comes up with another answer saying that it was not "god". Religion then use that answer to say it must be like that because of "god"........Still want to be a YouTube wannabe scientist? To easy...
@Arnleifen You are making philosophical argument not scientific argument.I agree Science did not come to an end but the laws that are support science may have come to an end.!!
@annamraju No, science give answers. YOU simply go to the edge of what science know, then YOU take the philosophical shortcut and claim "god" did it. Newton failed to put together the complex calculation of multiple gravitational thugs on an object, so he claimed that they must be part of a "divine" system. Then some brilliant guy 100 years later made the necessary equations, and Newtons "divine" intervention theory was disproved. No need for "god". It is that simple.
@Arnleifen Yes you are right to some extent!! Yes... I take the science to the edge!! I do not make philosophical argument at the end but make creative imagination.. This what Einstein said about imagination -"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
@annamraju In short steps. People like you have tried to "hide" "god" on the mountain no man could climb. Then in the skies because man could not fly. Then above the skies in "empty space" because no man could survive there. And now YOU try to hide him among electrons and in other dimensions. If you do not see the obvious pattern here, you will ultimately make a fool of yourself, like millions before you have. It is not a philosophical perspective, it is a historical fact.
@Arnleifen The biggest problem I have with all Atheists is you dismiss God before you define what it is. It is simply unscientific to dismiss before what you define what "God" is!! I am willing to define ..are you?
Quantum physics is not hiding you God behind electrons and it is telling you where the divine signatures are!!
It is not gaps of understanding ( double slit experiment is 100 yrs old ) and it is evident cause and effect may not be connected at all just like prayer and blessing!!
@annamraju You are a debacle to Dawkins' ariplane argument. You OBVIOUSLY didn't read it, otherwise you WOULDN"T use it to support your crap. Plus no one can understand you... What does Southpark have to do with it? Do you realise that south park makes fun of people like you? People who are blind to the evidence? People who despite being given reason and evidence just repeat their mantras? All southpark does is point out the truth of your beliefs
@yootoob69er South park is a comedy show not scientific experiment!! That is the sad state of affairs!! WHAT YOU DO NOT HAVE , there is no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO DENY GOD! In fact quantum signatures of divine are more evident than NOT! I am here to discuss with people with scientific awareness. I enjoy south park as a comedy show!!
contd..Red the post below first .. Roger Penrose,David Bohm and Amit Goswami all are scientists first gave some insight in to this phenomenon. It is quantum consciousness! The reason the Roce Roylas did not appear in my front door because of my selfishness and ego. When we think we are separate from us it creates all these divisions and rigid laws !! I call this oneness of quantum consciousness is GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Manifesting things is central tenant of quantum theory. Electrons,protons,atoms even molecules subjected to this phenomenon. Electron exists in several places same time with wave potential but you think and look for some place it manifests it self and appears for you. It is an observed created reality. Why not for macroscopic objects?? If I think or pray of Roce Roylas why it did not show up in front door!The true scientists also can not answer this question! It is puzzle!!
@annamraju Scientists can answer the question why your Roce Roylas (you Rolls Royce?) doesn't show up upon prayer, BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD! You idiot you are talking to the air and air can't make a Rolls Royce. And please get some education before you start talking about Heisenberg's principle, you're an embarrassment to chemistry.
@yootoob69er The answer you gave me shows you have no clue about science. Your understanding of science is nothing beyond high school gradeat the best!! Don't try to impress me , impress your south park buddies..
I never had problem with Dawkins if he has some gripe about organized religions.But when he extends his knowledge to unknown areas like God and divine powers , I have to refute his ignorance!!
@annamraju "But when he extends his knowledge to unknown areas like God and divine powers , I have to refute his ignorance!" <= You have yet to do that. You first have to grow the ability to make a sensible argument which, judging from your attitude and lack of ability to introspect, is not going to happen any time soon.
Materialistic scientists who believe in Newtonian way of thinking which is continuous and logical are for surprise! Divine signatures are every where in quantum world with out doubt ! It is discontinuous and defies our everyday logic. The real scientists like David Bohm, Roger Penrose understands how the quantum consciousness is basis for all !!
@annamraju "Divine signatures are every where in quantum world with out doubt !" <= The gap left by the lack of an explanation for a physical phenomenon is not a divine signature - your insistence that a god must be involved as an explanation is called wishful thinking. You have to prove positive a god is involved and you are incapable of doing that. "... defies our everyday logic." <= So does your ability to deceive yourself.
@Snorglat I did!! You did not!! I gave the definition of God!! You have no definition of God and dismisses the existence of with out knowing what it is!!! I have fulfilled the common sense logic..AGAIN WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD???
The criticism and rudeness is against the cult like behavior!How can I debate with the people who thinks entropy is trivial and quantum entanglement is no big deal just like Richard Dawkins thinks about debating earth flatters.
The real cosmologists and scientists know the real problem with entropy. At the fundamental particle levels there is no difference between yesterday and today.
So there should not be any problem as per theory unscrambled egg should turn into egg. To solve this mystery of time arrow scientists came with more bizarre theory..
Boltzman brain paradox..and reincarnation,. Concept of God no more bizarre or contradictory than these theories....
@annamraju I was going to answer each question in turn but realized that would be a waste of time because your questions are tantamount to a big argumentum ad ignorantiam and a false dichotomy fallacy. In essence you are forwarding the idea that if science cannot answer these perceived problems then, in each case, some god must have done it and to have done these things it must exist. That is simply not the case and your argument does not withstand logical scrutiny in the slightest!
@Snorglat You can win Nobel Prize if you can answer the questions!! I win million dollars before you even understand the science behind it!! Stop preaching and start talking science ..OTHER WISE SHUT UP!!
@annamraju It does not matter if I can answer the questions or not. You are still making a fallacious argument - "if science can't answer these, my god wins by default". That is argumentum ad ignorantiam and false dichotomy. Would a more reasonable man of science and clear thinking not explain why I am wrong in my objections to your overall argument? I am asking to explain why your argument is not fallacious. If you cannot I would ask you to recant the point in the name of intellectual honesty.
@Snorglat In facts I never made that claim by default God wins . One of the strongest point I am making is that "You" atheists have neither logic nor reason ,definitely not science to dismiss God!! Well It is another debate "God" exists or not!This is all beyond your head can absorb, rather watch south park.
Read all the comments! You are not the first guy singing the same song....
Great points but unfortunately you may be "casting pearls to swine"
benthemiester 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible.
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
one scientific question for you sir 1) are you for real????? XD
mixxer20 5 months ago
@MultiGreenpen My bad. I was just leaving a message for anyone to read lol.
jediknight28 5 months ago
there are more than 100 others that are unknown to pretty much everyone. Did you know, for example, that God: *Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf? *Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent "fiery serpents" to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?
jediknight28 5 months ago
is it rational that Richard Dawkins is running away from this guy and William Craig?!?
ikawpipa 6 months ago
Not so scientific. Stupid
123sambrose 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
You might want to, I don't know, maybe READ The God Delusion? He answers these specific arguments.
mvanroy 7 months ago
@mvanroy Is it your new bible ? I think so... Get education. Nothing you get from that book except half baked knowledge.
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@MultiGreenpen What is all there? In fact all is here if you go through all comments for my defense.
annamraju 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
read his book the answers are there
sonisphere098 8 months ago
5) You are talking about enclosed systems where the ultimate closed system is the universe. It is a fact that within enclosed systems you can have localised closed systems where order increases. However, all these will eventually run down as will the whole universe. No conflict whatsoever. Your claim is like saying it is impossible for mankind to build a jet or car. Yes we can and if we don't maintain them they will fall into disrepair. God is irrelevant to this topic anyway.
pilgrimpater 8 months ago 2
@pilgrimpater What you are talking?? Do not make sense..First read some science books. Then you can argue.Dawkins does not teach science , he creates cult followers like you. Read through all my comments. I debated just guys like you here so many , You all guys wana be intellectuals,BUT YOU ARE NOT!!!!
annamraju 7 months ago
@annamraju I was expecting a much more mature reply than that. Please either address the points i have made (assuming you are capable) or if you feel you have already made them to others, then make another video highlighting your answers and that will then allow me & others to make a response video. I'm afraid that anyone who treats science as a cult has a lot of explaining to do. I feel it is YOU who is attempting to appear intellectual and failing miserably. I look forward to your next video.
pilgrimpater 7 months ago
@annamraju One more thing,... I am not fan of any religion. Religion is , waste and bad , by product of consciousness..
.
mrannamraju 5 months ago
3) The cause and effect argument is totally redundant. Everything has a cause and god (or gods) cannot be an exception to this rule. IF we don't know the cause then we must never guess which is irresponsible.
4) It's not down to logic, i'm afraid but purely down to demonstrable truths. There is no evidence for any religion and this is backed up by us knowing the hostory of how each religion started (from less enlighted times).
pilgrimpater 8 months ago
@pilgrimpater I don't know how to answer your half knowledge statements.. 3) Cause and effect::: In fact our universe is born with out first cause. It just popped up from nothing. , Even your Dawkins and Hawkins agree on that. premise. But I don't agree along with some other reputable scientists with that premise.. Read more before you make non scientific statements. Dawkins book is not peer reviewed scientific book ., It is written for people like U!
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju "Cause and effect::: In fact our universe is born with out first cause. "
A totally baseless assumption without a shred of proof. If there was proof you'd provide it.
"Dawkins book is not peer reviewed scientific book "
No book for the public is peer reviewed. Peer review is for other scientists.
"It is written for people like U!" NO, it's written for people like YOU who make assertions without evidence. Btw i had already formulated much of Dawkins' views 40 years before his book.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater You should read more and talk less,,Seriously.Here is Stephen Hawkins says universe is born from nothing... There is no first cause!! on youtube search for "curiosity did God create the universe?"
and watch the video,, Stephen Hawking says we don't need God to start the universe ( which I personally disagree) but to dispute your belief he clearly states that Universe is born out of nothing with out first cause.
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju "You should read more and talk less" This is the classic response i get from religious people when they are too lazy to make their own arguments. You have made a video with 5 challenges and i have responded to each of these. Surely, your task is to respond to my responses and not to fob me off with such comments. You should be able to extrapolate the main thrust of the argument from books and videos that support your cause. Btw quantum fluctations are not nothing.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater Quantum fluctuation requires the existence of a system in which the uncertainty principle is applicable. As you've put it in the op, it is meaningless to speak of a time "before" the Big Bang. Quantum fluctuation explains why we thought that particles can escape from the event horizon, but I don't see how it effects the beginnings of time.
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju Exactly. It's infinitely more logical to argue that a system at quantum level had always existed rather than an infinitely powerful, wise, all knowing entity had done so. What caused the BB? We simply do not know but that is no excuse to guess at the cause being an intelligent/intentional entity. That's pure wishful thinking. Also god(s) must have gone from a state of not willing the universe into existence to willing it. Two events seperated by time even if not time as we know it.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater Do you know the ontological explanation for lowest entropy. Lower Entropy is higher the order is.
HIGHEST ORDER... OUT SIDE OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION. What ever the entity which do not follow the space time , I call it God... Do not dismiss God before you define what it is..
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju How can you speak of entropy (& hence order) which are governed by the laws of OUR universe (i.e. "inside science") & then apply it outside of our universe or in your words "outside of science"?
How can you make any comment on what is outside space/time when no human mind can contemplate what beyond space/time entails? You just don't know but you call it god. That's fine because it is just a word yet you cannot state what it is. It neither has to be intelligent nor premeditating.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater Well for your information Quantum potential waves exists out side of space time according to Heisenberg. I defined God in my previous comments under just "annamraju".Please go through it,.
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju Quantum potential waves are hypothesised to exist & that is fine as, although quantum is very complicated to understand, we are down to physical simplicity, i.e a simplicity with no intelligence & no premeditated actions though you want to label such as god, it can't be a creator. In truth we can only speculate what goes on outside our universe. We'll never know & must always say “I don’t know” as our learning is limited to our universe. We must never guess due to wishful thinking.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater Physical Simplicity?? Singularity is simplicity.?? Brilliant Einstein General field equations breakdown with anomalies at that physical simplicity. . That singularity has the lowest entropy with unimaginably highest order. The highest order has to come from out side of space-time, even scientists agree on that....This is where biology and physics differ. Biological systems evolve from simplicity BUT NOT THE CASE OF SINGULARITY...THIS IS WHERE DAWKINS IS SIMPLY WRONG.......
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju We used to think electrons etc were the basic particles now we know of quantum level below that. That was the context in which i was using "simplicity".
"The highest order has to come from out side of space-time" so now you are assuming (that word again) that the laws of entropy were relevant before the BB. How do you know? What evidence do you have? I'll answer for you. You just do not know and cannot know. Hence, because you are a Theist you want to guess. That ain't science.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater One fundamental question...How the laws come into being existence at the moment of creation. Where they came from?
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju “How the laws come into being existence at the moment of creation.”?
I don’t know the how and neither do you and neither does anybody.
You can say god if you like but you are merely moving the same question back by just one further step because you must then ask where the laws came from that "created" god. Good luck with that one.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater LOL.. You don't know how the laws come into existence? Or your answer is the just way it is... It is classic answer from atheists. If you consider "God did it" is stupid, and in turn I say "the way it is " is also sound like the previous one . That is just for argument sake.
Again you are dismissing God, with out defining what God is... Classic Dawkins...
I did define what God is " Downward causation" Look in to my previous comments..
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju "It is classic answer from atheists" No Atheists are HONEST because they say they don't know unlike Theists who are dishonest because they claim to know yet they can't prove why they know. If they did, they would provide evidence & not speculation. You are a prime example.
If you want to define god as downward causation then i have already said that's fine but that definition does not make god as creator nor intelligent. Btw, let's be honest, that's hardly a definition of god.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater Atheists are Honest ..It is joke.... You are all CULT!!! Nothing more nothing less...
Double slit experiment is 100 years old...It is not lack of understanding.. It is flawed understanding...If you just simply look at Biological systems , your knowledge of science is completely half baked.Signature trait of Dawkin culties.
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju Disappointing as i thougt you were above insulting slogans.
Atheists ARE Honest about their Atheism (all that unites them is a lack of belief in god due to lack of evidence). I didn't mean honest as individuals in other areas, as they come from all walks of life.
But you have a problem. You ask me how Laws came about at the instant of the BB yet you quote laws of entropy at me PRIOR to the BB. Surely you see the contradiction here. All you have done is labeled an event as God.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater Atheists are dishonest about one thing certain. ,Using "Science" as a defense to dismiss God. There are no laws, before BB., just simple fact. The fact is "at the moment of creation there exists a highest order" . You can call it "Sam" or "Jack" or "Entropy" ....doesn't matter. !!!
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju There is no correlation between Atheism & Science. Totally different aspects of human thought. You of all people should know that Science says absolutely nothing for or against god or gods. Atheism is merely the rejection of all religious claims todate due to lack of evidence.
"There are no laws, before BB." Complete & utter speculation & what is more highly improbable.
""at the moment of creation there exists a highest order" Again a totally baseless slogan & wishful thinking.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Ok we settled that matter. Atheists do not have scientific evidence back up their claim there is no God.. Now you are disputing something some scientific fact here.All SCIENTISTS AGREE UP ON ONE THING>> THERE IS HIGHEST ORDER exists at the beginning of creation. This is scientific fact. To back up and justify the this scientific fact they come up with multiverse. You need to watch Sean Carrol Videos.
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju Spot on & i doubt whether you will ever find any Atheist who claims science can disprove god. That is not to say that Science cannot replace superstitious explanations with natural ones (as has happened so often but never the reverse). However, what the Atheist demands is evidence from the claimant.
"THERE IS HIGHEST ORDER exists at the beginning of creation." Nope. Scientists don't believe in creation. They believe in a PRECEDING EVENT & NOT a higher order.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater You are little confused with science here. There exists un explainable highest order ( lowest entropy you call "Sam" .,"Jack " or I may call it God. ) at the moment of creation. At this moment scientists pulled of their ass "multiverse" so that they can avoid the term "God' It is easier to accept "God " at this moment than following their bizarre theories there on wards. Multiverse, every possibility there exists universe , you are peeing in one universe other universe .not.
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju contd..from previous post..More bizarre theory. "Boltzman's brains" Copy of your brain floating around... If they accept multiverse they have to accept reincarnation theory ( Boltzman brain) . with out choice..Alas.. Give me God any day!!
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju "There exists un explainable highest order" Well the there is a contradiction in just 6 words. If it's inexplicable then how can you define it? If you can't define it then you can't attribute any properties to it.
You still can't get it that you are attributing a Law of the Universe (entropy) prior to the Universe, & hence it's laws, coming into being. You are just guessing when the honest among us say "We don't know".
I haven't used multiverse in any msg. It's just a hypothesis.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Now it is common problem..among you culties twisted words. . Just argue for argument sake. SCIENTIFIC FACT: There exists lowest entropy ( It is not law- Just a fact ) at beginning of the universe. Either you know science or not... It is really silly for people using science as their defense , with.out knowing science.I am not going waste my time responding crap . Some culties are closet ignorants..
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju I gather from your last comment that you have absolutely no answers to what i have been asking of you. Shame really as i was looking forward to your explanation for your assertions.
Of course Low/High entropy exist in THIS universe but you can make absolutely no assertions about entropy nor anything else prior to, or outside of, our universe.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater WHAT YOU ARE ASKING??? ABSOLUTELY nothing ! You have two answers for every thing..1)There is no God with out even knowing or defining what it is 2) Every event or process for you either yet to be explained later or show me the God in white robes doing it... These are the qualities of closet ignorants..
ACT LIKE THEY KNOW SOMETHING BUT ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOMETHING !
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju I'm afraid you have either lost it or you are responding to the wrong person.
Those are nothing like the points that i have been challenging you with. Just for your benefit in summary here they are
1) You assume the cause of the universe to be intelligent and premediated 2) You are assuming the laws (observations) of the universe to be external (and as part of the cause) to our universe. Incidentally Highest Order/lowest entropy) does NOT equate to a creative intelligence.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Highest order is created by intelligence. Organized society has less entropy because it requires high intelligence..
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju "Highest order is created by intelligence."?
Oh really? You still peddling that assumption? When a galaxy forms from a cluster it is going from lower to higher order and no intelligence is required. Back to square one with your claim because your higher order (god) requires to be precededed by an even higher order but hey you are still guessing.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Not an assumption.. Anything that so organized requires not only intelligence but it requires lot of enegy.
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju "Anything that so organized requires not only intelligence but it requires lot of enegy. "
Rubbish. The wind causes a rotten branch to fall into a pond. The resulting ripples drown the pond skaters.
The wind supplied the energy (due to differential heating upwind) but no intelligence was involved at any stage.
Why do you cling to a special sentient being at the start?
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater I am not going to engage ignorant non scientific discussion here any more...I don't care what you believe or not..But here are the scientific facts or consensus among scientists. Universe has unusually lowest entropy at the beginning. The only way out of this crisis they came to consensus that this universe has to be born from another universe. That is only way out for low entropy conundrum ., Nobody cares what your belief is !
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju "I don't care what you believe or not." I don't believe anything. I am saying "i don't know". It is you who is believing, with blind faith. You quite simply can't address the points i make. You cannot make assumptions about entropy just prior to the point of the BB because the laws of entropy of this universe do not have to apply prior. Concensus among scientists? Are they all theists? I doubt it. Hawkings isn't. Even in this universe we do not always go from low to high entropy.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Next thing..Any organization requires energy, That is fact of science. Higher the organization is more energy requirement. Even social situations , the country with organization needs to spend more money to keep the organization going,. Agreed.. Energy is embedded in Chaos (say.. Wind) . So to keep the highest order you need incredible energy...There is no wind at the beginning of the universe.so Where is the energy coming from????
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju "Higher the organization is more energy requirement." By definition your higher organisation preceded the universe also re this universe. is every higher organisation that precedes a lower organisation sentient? You cannot use countries economies as an anaology for natural occurences.
"So to keep the highest order you need incredible energy." Not necessarily a sentient energy.Why would highest sentient order plan for deterioration? Re wind. My point is that it's cause isnt sentient
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@mrannamraju "Higher the organization is more energy requirement." By definition your higher organisation preceded the universe also re this universe. is every higher organisation that precedes a lower organisation sentient? You cannot use countries economies as an anaology for natural occurences.
"So to keep the highest order you need incredible energy." Not necessarily a sentient energy.Why would highest sentient order plan for deterioration? Re wind. My point is it's cause isnt sentient
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Now I know who wastes my time. Closet ignorants. Acts like they know science and keep on arguing as they know it all. Twisting the words. That is classic Dawkin's cult.. You are not far from that. READ MORE ABOUT ENTROPY. FYI.Entropy also can be used in Breast cancer detection. I have Masters Degree in Physics.Read more and talk less,.Now it is time to ignore your nonsense...
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju "Now I know who wastes my time" If that were true you wouldn't keep replying albeit often responding to the wrong question.
I never have questioned your scientific qualification and nor do i claim to match you on the academic front but i am not stupid and i can still philisophically argue that for all your knowledge pertaining to THIS universe, you cannot assume the same laws apply beyond it (we just don't know) and you cannot assume that high energy/low entropy is sentient.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater I know what you are ...Philosopher who acts like, who knows everything but knows nothing. Philosophy is big waste of time which you proved it again. I debated philosophers enough . You dismiss entropy with out knowing what it is ..You dismiss God with out defining it..Classic Dawkins.. I am glad you are learning knowledge first time through science rather than self contradictory philosophy...Just last time to let you know Entropy is not law, it is measurable quantity of system.
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju You haven't a clue as to what i am (btw i studied thermodynamics as part of a MIning Engineering course albeit many years ago). Once we go beyond the universe then we go beyond science. And if we go beyond science then we go beyond yours & everyone else's knowledge & the only thing that you or i are left with is philosophy. Sadly this spurs you into the wishful thinking syndrome of "god Dunnit". Philosophy raises the questions but can never provide answers.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater You want me tell you what is your questions look like in Science.. Asking " What is color of stupidity?" and demanding for an answer.. It is grammatically right but total non sense!!
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju "What is color of stupidity?" Paradoxically that is exactly analogous as to what you are claiming i.e. you are applying colour (not color) to stupidity. I am NOT putting forward any answers of my own. I am merely challenging your baseless assumptions. So far you have not come close to justifying those baseless claims.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater It shows again ..Know it all... Colour ( British version) Color ( American English) Stop giving lectures.. You really don't understand the concept entropy...
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju Don't worry i am not colour prejudice.
So i don't understand entropy. Maybe you could elighten me (don't bother, i know) but then maybe you could enlighten me of the laws of entropy immediately prior to the birth of universe (which admittedly i don't know). There are no peer reviewed scientific papers on entropy (or anything even) which include a supernatural sentient entity as a solution. So, you may be a scientist but your argument is pure philosophy (which you frown upon).
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Repeat : You don't have clear understanding of entropy except some google info. You need to know something about Shanon entropy. By the way Shanon is guy..... You need some more..You can not absorb..Stick to Dawkins books.They are all peer reviewed...
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju "You don't have clear understanding of entropy except some google info. "
Thermodynamics was a part of a course i did way before the internet. As well as making assumptions about what occurs beyond the universe you seem to continue the habit with assumptions about me. But you see, entropy is a topic of thermodynamics & not probabilities & variables as Shannon's Entropy would appear to be. Again, NO scientific paper has ever brought god into the equation. You are using Philosophy.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrannamraju "Higher the organization is more energy requirement." By definition your higher organisation preceded the universe also re this universe. is every higher organisation that precedes a lower organisation sentient? You cannot use countries economies as an anaology for natural occurences.
"So to keep the highest order you need incredible energy." Not necessarily a sentient energy.Why would highest sentient order plan for deterioration? Re wind. My point is it's cause isnt sentient
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@mrannamraju “Where they came from?”
Surely with such a quantum event, then laws are bound to happen and we have the laws that we have.
If things were different we would have different laws and a different evolution of our universe.
It’s like spilling a bag of sugar infinite times. You will get infinite unique configurations for each spill but you are always bound to get a configuration for every spill. So for each universe you are bound to get a set of Laws.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
@pilgrimpater Now you say there are billions and billions of universes for every possibility?? If that is case God is easiest choice..... Since I don't have Mercedez in this universe I will have Mercedez in another universe. This story you are subscribing to ..... I have peanut and I dont have peanuts in another universe. This is more bizzare and more screwed up story than story of God...
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju I really think you have lost it or are confusing me with someone else. I have not used the multiverse to support my case. At best the multiverse is a hypothesis & i am not personally impressed by it. However, that is not to say that our universe is unique but yet again we just do not know, so why guess or use wishful thinking? "I have peanut ". Good, you deserve it.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater I have not defended any religion. My point is Dawkins is extending his knowledge beyond science when he says there is no GOD!
mrannamraju 6 months ago
@mrannamraju "I have not defended any religion. My point is Dawkins is extending his knowledge beyond science when he says there is no GOD! "
He is mereley stating there is no EVIDENCE for god, gods or goddesses and he is putting a high probability on there being no god as ovrer human history superstitious solutions have been replaced by natural explanations but NEVER the reverse. As you know it is impossibe to disprove a negative claim. Also exposes the evil of the god of Abrahamic faiths.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
1) Not a valid question but to play along the odds, though large, are infinitely small compared to the odds of an infinitely complex creator poofing out of thin air.
Fine tune fails as an argument because even if different something else will still result albeit not us.
2) It is a posibility with exactly the same odds as any other permutation. Yet again the result will be what it is. JUst like Nos1,2,3,4,5,6 have the same probability as any other permutation in the lottery. No god needed.
pilgrimpater 8 months ago
It is really sad to watch this poor man struggling (and failing) to think.
Hyperplaterine 8 months ago
It might be easier if you wrote this out instead of expecting people to try to understand you, bro.
sucktackular 8 months ago
what is your problem you need psychatric evalouation.
brasszd 9 months ago
oh god. transcribe audio, fucking lol.
bludxcuzxfam 10 months ago
you are obviously seeking attention because you are confused, it's ok just ready some of dawkins and hitchens books. do something useful and stop making yourselve look like a stupid retard.
ventura433 10 months ago 7
@ventura433 Who the FK are you?
annamraju 10 months ago
@annamraju I AM GOD READ SOME SCIENCE BOOKS OR I WILL SEND YOU TO HELL FOREVER AND THEN FOR ETERNITY!!
ventura433 10 months ago
@ventura433 6 guys like you.. Pseudo intellectuals... Before you debate any one go back and review 5 th grade science.
mrannamraju 5 months ago
Do you honestly think Richard Dawkins would bother to respond to a deluded sheep like yourself?
hulloghost 10 months ago 6
@hulloghost Only reason he will not respond is he knows shit about real science!!!
annamraju 10 months ago
@annamraju Well why would he waist his time with stupid questions like that? It's called books, you should read some.
AnImmortalEra 9 months ago
@annamraju richard dawkins is one of the most intelligent scientists in the world. what makes you think that he doesn't know 'real science'. hell what is 'real science' to you? you are just some nobody youtuber who has nothing better to do than try and mock one of the worlds greatest scientists.
dudequerky 5 months ago
@dudequerky Ok dude!! I thought Dawkins is just dude like you...
mrannamraju 5 months ago
@mrannamraju wtf? your comment makes no sense... well that's no surprise as you don't seem to have very good English speaking skills anyway.
dudequerky 5 months ago
It doesnt matter if you find God, cause in the end of they day his not coming to aide us. In this age of time we should be discussing the means to suport an healthy growth of the human species, we should be redesigning our society, our structures and yet we argue about God, whats the point? Is it going to help us on constructing the fair society that all of us deserve, directly? Nietzche killed God last century with his arguments, you should read them.
TheComunSense 1 year ago 2
@TheComunSense The more dangerous than "God" is your half knowledge. "Evolution " answers all the questions??? Even your cult leader, proponent of "evolution" Dawkins would not agree with that. Why we even bother to spend 10 billion dollar to build experimental collider if we have all the answers from 3rd grade Biology text book. I always stated Biology is superficial science which is dependent on physical laws .My purpose is those physical laws are it self shaky.
annamraju 1 year ago
@TheComunSense The danger for human species is pseudo intellectuals like Dawkins and the brain washed people like you.! Evolution CERTAINLY WON"T ANSWER ALL THE questions. By having spirituality won't stop human progress. Stop reading Dawkins books and study real science books..If you have gripes with religion I am the wrong guy to talk with.. because I am not religious.....
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju lol at you calling dawkins a pseudo intellectual. even if he's completely wrong, you cannot possibly dispute the fact that he's intellectual and intelligent.
todoz11 10 months ago
Nietzche killed God last century with his arguments, you should read them.
The comun sense is that most "religious" missed at least two centurys of human development, and yet we carry them on to the future.
TheComunSense 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheComunSense 1 year ago
You don't even have a basic grasp of how evolution works, so how can you even start to question it?
Your title should be "5 questions for a 3rd grade biology textbook".
quwert23 1 year ago
Annamraju my son, procreate, get some evolution on that genes and then tell your offspring to get in contact with our people.
ps: you should lose your right to vote
TheComunSense 1 year ago
@TheComunSense I now realized commonsense is not that common!!
annamraju 1 year ago
Ok.. I hope you all gained some respect for divine powers !!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju
it's intervention, not intrevention. if the universe didn't have the laws we see, we wouldn't be here to see it. i don't understand how people use this as evidence for god. don't you get it? we wouldn't exist in a universe that doesn't have the laws the way they are because life could not start. please understand this.
kwotch12 1 year ago
5. Let me guess, you are going to continue to throw out more random scientific expressions to look smart. Then you are going to continue pick out bits of science that do fit your answer. I presume that will be the "good bit". Well I wont be around for it, I have heard it before, I have have even heard better. Nonsenses all of it. And I really do hope your children`s life one day depend, on the very answers you have so arrogantly ignored by seeking "god".
Bye!
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen 1 You are looking at me through the prism of organized religions and in particular Christianity. So you do not have patience to analyze what I defined as "God" but with out any definition you are willing to dismiss!! You are blinded by cult behavior just like religious fundamentalists! I thought you are better than that willing and open to new concepts. I was just like you ..an absolute Atheist..but...
annamraju 1 year ago
@Arnleifen 2. But I realized discontinuous things happen all the times in the micro world. Time is an illusion.Cause and effect has no meaning.. Things pop up in existence from no where.This micro world is embedded with in the cells of our body. More I study one question popped up .What is stopping those experiences in the micro world that I can not experience in the macro world. Science has no answer for it!!
But it came to me as an enlightenment!! It is all in the mind!!
annamraju 1 year ago
@Arnleifen 3. The mind is the key.. No known force is stopping you not to experience timeless zone , cause and effect reversal or some thing that pop in to existence. I realized . It is the mind that is the creating this block.
not laws of physics. Mind is the one putting the blocks or creating an illusion!
annamraju 1 year ago
@Arnleifen 4 You failed at important distinction. prayer and blessing..Looks discontinuous and illogical for atheists.But in micro world this is day of life. Quantum entanglement has no connection between the two reactions. IT IS NOT GOD OF GAPS!! .. manifesting ( I call it prayer) is the core of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I will never hesitate to pray with my children for the blessings of the ultimate universe!
annamraju 1 year ago
4. Your master degree did tell you? That it would be completely irrelevant to change any of the mentioned factors, ether the moon or elementary particles, because that would simply mean that any previous observation of anything would be wrong? Right? You probably do realise that I called you bluff even from the start, right? You may recall I called you a YouTube wannabe scientist? Right? So what now?
Arnleifen 1 year ago
3. So you change the speed or mass of the moon, and it flies of, so what? So you change forces or mass within elementary particles, and the universe as we know it would not be here, so what? Do that prove anything at all? Yeah it do. It proves that you are rehashing an old creationist argument based on miss quoting a scientific expression, involving what happen if you changed any factors which we presume to be constant. That creationists arguments are about 20 years old...
Arnleifen 1 year ago
2. So with a masters degree in physics, and ties to religion, you have no conflict with how the earth and the moon ended up here, right? And we can agree that a magic wizard did not wave his wand and they popped up here a few thousand years ago, right? We are talking gas clouds forming a star, and random collisions between remaining debris over billions of years, right? Well with that settled, then back to the moon.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
9. @annamraju -"You need to think before hastily comment!!!"
Oh rally? Do I, or do I just think on a scale and level, you will never be able to, unless you put "god" back where he belongs? Inside your head!
As I said, a scientific debate with creationist, is just a waste of time, because you just leave out the part of science that do not fit your answer.
Have a nice day creationist, or "The entropy of ignorance" as you should be called.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen You asked me to define God.I did define it!! Now you are saying God is in my head!! Yes of course it is in my head and every body's head..!! The manifesting things is central tenet of quantum theory. I now realized you know crap about quantum physics.You should stick to bullying people who are as ignorant as you are!!! \
People with quantum physics never behave this way. By the way for your information I have Masters degree in Physics.
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju 1. You got a masters degree in physics from the Pope, and I am a common farmer, interesting. You, twist, you bend and you miss quote. The moon orbits the earth, we know the mass of both, the distance between the two. The speed. Change something and you get "chaos". Same thing for everything, elementary particles too. You understand the difference in changing something in our mind consisting laws of physics as we wield them, and ACTUALLY changing the a thing like the mass of the moon?
Arnleifen 1 year ago
8. So the creator is there, because you reverse building blocks of matter, and image him to be there? You probably also think there is a creator because of a "fine tuned universe". Now, read it again, and you see, it is tuned like that because our brain make it appear like that. The image of the world in your head has NOTHING to do what is out there. The UNIVERSE do not care shit about how you arrange it, but YOU need to put it in order to understand it. So again, put "god" back into your head.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen You have not put forward one scientific argument except some philosophical crap..Half knowledge is dangerous just like Dawkins who knows shit about physics. If you go against the fine tune argument you have to face more bizarre crap like multiverse with billions of universes and Boltzmans brains which copy of all our brains floating around. These are the consequence of going against fine tuning principle,It is all beyond your head!! I like to debate people with real knowledge.
annamraju 1 year ago
@Arnleifen Now you don't care about science.?.Upward causation is science. That is not the order put forward by me. It is science!! IIf you don't care about it why don't you accept all the laws are made in our mind.. There are no laws at all . Just all laws including scientific laws are made by our rigid brains..I agree to that concept if you do not like the scientific arrangements!
annamraju 1 year ago
7. The pattern you see in reversing matter`s building blocks, are there for an ENTERLY different reason than you think. You just choose to leave out the part of science that explained it. That is a far worse "bummer" than Newton did with his "divine system" of multiple planetary interactions. He saw a pattern which came clear to him, BECAUSE of the tool (gravity theory) he just created on his own. But failed to make sense of the next pattern he saw, because he LACKED the necessary tools.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
6.If you are going to be scientific and define / prove something, you have to take all part of science into your equation.BUT.... you are a creationist, you do things different. You choose and pick what parts of science you want to "believe", to MAKE it fit with the answer you already think you have. That is not science, that is a imaginary assumption at best. A wild guess !! So congratulation, seeing a pattern other people have had hard work inventing tools for you to see.....
Arnleifen 1 year ago
5. The most basic tool is actually naming tings even if you do not understand or see it. Because this allows us to communicate about it. When I say theory of gravity, you think about gravity, you understand it, and know it has a measurement. The gravity force is not in your head but outside. The gravity force on it`s own is just stuff pulling stuff together. Inside your brain it is a measurable force, because you have the tools invented by others humans to make sens of it.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
4. What your senses detect, are inside your head. The image of the world as YOU see it, is in your brain, not out there. What is out there is absolute chaos, it is through filtering through our tools of logic that the world around us comes to order and makes sense. The pattern you think you see reversing material building blocks, (your "god"), appear as a pattern to you, simply because our tools of science allow us to see it as an pattern. Now, is "god" out there, or in your head?
Arnleifen 1 year ago
3. This is as accepted in scientific communities as building blocks of matter, as knowledge about space and evolution of species. Our telescopes, our particle accelerators and science it self, are tools. Tools which extends our senses. So is the way we organise matter, the mathematics with it`s theories about physics. Einstein`s general theory of relativity is a human invented tool to make order out of chaos.This is a human way of extending their ability to recognise patterns, and make sense.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
2. Tools are everything from poking in an anthill with a stick, to the hubble telescope. Primates do poke with sticks in anthills, we build the hubble telescope. If that difference in our brain`s "pattern finding" center, enables the difference in poking in an anthill, and building the hubble telescope, then why is it so dam hard for you to realise that it does actually also make up our consciousness. Surly every creature on this planet has some sort of self awareness, we are just more advanced.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@annamraju 1. "conscious",is nothing more than a increased activity in the part of the brain that control "recognition patterns". This is what mainly difference us from other animal brains. Our overwhelming "pattern recognition", enables making patterns (order) out of what seems like random chaos. Basically this is the ability to operate "tools". The definition of "tools" are far wider than hammer and nails. Tools are an extension of the human brain`s ability to interact with our surroundings.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
Do you not realise the impact on future generations when you answer a question with "god"? Do you not understand the roadblock you put in their way to let them solve their future problems? You should sit down and think for a minute, not about if "god" exists or not. But is "god" a good enough answer for them to solve how to deal with natural disasters, all ranging, from volcanoes, to floods, to meteor impacts. Do you really want them to say: Here comes "god" on his cosmic bike?
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen THIS VIDEO IS NOT MEANT FOR JUST COMMON FOLKS WANTS TO REPLACE EVERYTHING THEY DON'T KNOW WITH "GOD"!! I TOUCHED VERY ADVANCED TOPICS THAT ONLY MEANT FOR SEASONED SCIENTISTS AND OTHER LEARNED PEOPLE. Just simple mercury 's perihelion motion puts entire Newtonian Gravity in danger. It is quite idiotic not to follow newton's equations while you are building plane.
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju -"mercury 's perihelion motion puts entire Newtonian Gravity in danger"
Which is perfectly explained with Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, no need for "god".
As "common" as I am, I can not define "god", but YOU said you can, so tell us:
What is the measure of "god"? What reliable constant do "god" provide to put into the equations? In what repeatable observation / experiment CAN YOU DEFINE YOUR "GOD" ? Unless YOU can tell me, put "god" back in your head. I smell cold feet
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen The quantum entanglement at higher level pokes the holes at the fundamental laws way we understood. Non Locality is embedded in our system with out an explanation for almost 100 years. It is dead end to scientists. You got the two options 1) Replace all the laws 2) Accept quantum consciousness which is divine signature!! The same logic you put together for Mercury's motion I am pointing you there is hole in the system of laws.Only two options left with!
annamraju 1 year ago
@Arnleifen Good!! It is not wise to dismiss "God" before you define it!! OK are you ready for the definition of God?
Wat we have is upward causation : Elementary particles and their interactions-->>Atoms--->Molecules--->Cells Including Neurons--->Brain------>Consciousness ..... This is what most scientists agree up on. Reverse the process now---which is Downward Causation... That is God!
You need to think before hastily comment!!!
annamraju 1 year ago
There are questions beyond those we do know the answer to, and you seek to answer with "god". I want my children to know the answers to those questions too. (Hench the comet that did a near miss on earth). I want them to be able to know how to track the comet without seeing it (why I mentioned newton). I want them to be able to do something about it. I do NOT want them to think here comes "god" on his cosmic bike......
Arnleifen 1 year ago
The core problem with settling as "god" as a factor to solve a equation, is that you add an undefinable variable, which makes you unable to solve the equation. Put "god" back into your head, and keep "god" where he belongs, do not put "god" out as a scientific answer. History is undeniable clear on this, as I told you about Newton. What if everyone settled with his "divine driven system" to the explanation of how to calculate the orbit of an object with multiple gravitational thugs?
Arnleifen 1 year ago
I see no need for, or to define any "god". What YOU believe to be "god" today, will be explained as something else, by someone else, tomorrow. What if everybody believed in "god"? When I say: believe in "god", I refer to putting "god" as an answer to a scientific question. The "edge" of science is moving, has always, and will always. So why bother to use "god" to what is unexplained? It has been done billions of times, and proven wrong billions of times. What on earth makes it right this time?
Arnleifen 1 year ago
Quntum Tunneling.... The main idea there is that it is said that with Quantum Tunneling effect we can reach the speeds greater than the speed of light. Particles go through the barrier and their appearance is sudden. And they are speaking that scientist managed to transfer part of Mozzart's 40th symphony at a distance 12cm with the speed more than a light speed.
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju Nothing can go faster than light!I It is the mystery in distance!!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju Can your "god" explain the last 10 major natural disasters on this planet, who obvious did not care much for ether atheists or religious people? There are "random" big objects out there, big enough to wipe out life as we know it on this planet. They are orbiting through our solar system, one was so close it went between our tv-satellites and the planet. If we put "god" as an answer to what we have learn about that. Our last word would be: Here comes "god" on his "divine" bike. Or....
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen You don't have to look for divine powers to heaven but look for your pocket!! May not be coming on divine bike but here come through your Ipod. "Quantum tunneling" is like divine principle that violates the classical physics and defy the common sense!! The electron exists in ipod in two or more places at the same time like you are being in New york and Los angeles same time!!. Have you heard scientists saying "Ghost in Atom" !!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju contd..There is no difference between micro world and macro world, because macro world came from micro world. You and me made up electrons,protons, and the laws can not be different for electrons and me. It is simply you are saying two brothers live in the same roof and they don't know each other!! How long you put the question under the rug!! If you say they are different ( Micro and macro worlds) when I say god did it , both of us should be considered as idiotic !!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju contd..My point is if you say I have no answer or I say God did it . both should be considered as a valid answers.. Nothing less and nothing more from scientific point of view. IT IS NOT GAPS!! NEITHER GOD OF GAPS" This non sense is put on by Dawkins and his followers!! The only possible answers could be either completely change the fundamental laws the way we understand the nature or plug the divine consciousness!! You have these two choices NO GAPS !!!!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju How it works:
Science come up with an answer to a question. Religion then use that answer to say it must be like that because of "god". Science come up with another answer saying that it was not "god". Religion then use that answer to say it must be like that because of "god". Science comes up with another answer saying that it was not "god". Religion then use that answer to say it must be like that because of "god"........Still want to be a YouTube wannabe scientist? To easy...
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen You are making philosophical argument not scientific argument.I agree Science did not come to an end but the laws that are support science may have come to an end.!!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju No, science give answers. YOU simply go to the edge of what science know, then YOU take the philosophical shortcut and claim "god" did it. Newton failed to put together the complex calculation of multiple gravitational thugs on an object, so he claimed that they must be part of a "divine" system. Then some brilliant guy 100 years later made the necessary equations, and Newtons "divine" intervention theory was disproved. No need for "god". It is that simple.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen Yes you are right to some extent!! Yes... I take the science to the edge!! I do not make philosophical argument at the end but make creative imagination.. This what Einstein said about imagination -"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju In short steps. People like you have tried to "hide" "god" on the mountain no man could climb. Then in the skies because man could not fly. Then above the skies in "empty space" because no man could survive there. And now YOU try to hide him among electrons and in other dimensions. If you do not see the obvious pattern here, you will ultimately make a fool of yourself, like millions before you have. It is not a philosophical perspective, it is a historical fact.
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen The biggest problem I have with all Atheists is you dismiss God before you define what it is. It is simply unscientific to dismiss before what you define what "God" is!! I am willing to define ..are you?
Quantum physics is not hiding you God behind electrons and it is telling you where the divine signatures are!!
It is not gaps of understanding ( double slit experiment is 100 yrs old ) and it is evident cause and effect may not be connected at all just like prayer and blessing!!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju You are a debacle to Dawkins' ariplane argument. You OBVIOUSLY didn't read it, otherwise you WOULDN"T use it to support your crap. Plus no one can understand you... What does Southpark have to do with it? Do you realise that south park makes fun of people like you? People who are blind to the evidence? People who despite being given reason and evidence just repeat their mantras? All southpark does is point out the truth of your beliefs
yootoob69er 1 year ago
@yootoob69er South park is a comedy show not scientific experiment!! That is the sad state of affairs!! WHAT YOU DO NOT HAVE , there is no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO DENY GOD! In fact quantum signatures of divine are more evident than NOT! I am here to discuss with people with scientific awareness. I enjoy south park as a comedy show!!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju "there is no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO DENY GOD" wow. clearly there is no point arguing with someone as ignorant as you.
ShaolinViolin 1 year ago
So im gonna sit back in my chair with a crappy webcam with my fat ass hanging out and expect people to give crap about what i have to say?
MrKevMan 1 year ago
contd..Red the post below first .. Roger Penrose,David Bohm and Amit Goswami all are scientists first gave some insight in to this phenomenon. It is quantum consciousness! The reason the Roce Roylas did not appear in my front door because of my selfishness and ego. When we think we are separate from us it creates all these divisions and rigid laws !! I call this oneness of quantum consciousness is GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
annamraju 1 year ago
Manifesting things is central tenant of quantum theory. Electrons,protons,atoms even molecules subjected to this phenomenon. Electron exists in several places same time with wave potential but you think and look for some place it manifests it self and appears for you. It is an observed created reality. Why not for macroscopic objects?? If I think or pray of Roce Roylas why it did not show up in front door!The true scientists also can not answer this question! It is puzzle!!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju Scientists can answer the question why your Roce Roylas (you Rolls Royce?) doesn't show up upon prayer, BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD! You idiot you are talking to the air and air can't make a Rolls Royce. And please get some education before you start talking about Heisenberg's principle, you're an embarrassment to chemistry.
yootoob69er 1 year ago
@yootoob69er The answer you gave me shows you have no clue about science. Your understanding of science is nothing beyond high school gradeat the best!! Don't try to impress me , impress your south park buddies..
annamraju 1 year ago
I never had problem with Dawkins if he has some gripe about organized religions.But when he extends his knowledge to unknown areas like God and divine powers , I have to refute his ignorance!!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju "But when he extends his knowledge to unknown areas like God and divine powers , I have to refute his ignorance!" <= You have yet to do that. You first have to grow the ability to make a sensible argument which, judging from your attitude and lack of ability to introspect, is not going to happen any time soon.
Snorglat 1 year ago
@Snorglat That is what 7 minute video with 5 questions!! You still refuse to believe anything non Newtonian exists at all!!
annamraju 1 year ago
Materialistic scientists who believe in Newtonian way of thinking which is continuous and logical are for surprise! Divine signatures are every where in quantum world with out doubt ! It is discontinuous and defies our everyday logic. The real scientists like David Bohm, Roger Penrose understands how the quantum consciousness is basis for all !!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju "Divine signatures are every where in quantum world with out doubt !" <= The gap left by the lack of an explanation for a physical phenomenon is not a divine signature - your insistence that a god must be involved as an explanation is called wishful thinking. You have to prove positive a god is involved and you are incapable of doing that. "... defies our everyday logic." <= So does your ability to deceive yourself.
Snorglat 1 year ago
@Snorglat I did!! You did not!! I gave the definition of God!! You have no definition of God and dismisses the existence of with out knowing what it is!!! I have fulfilled the common sense logic..AGAIN WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD???
annamraju 1 year ago
The criticism and rudeness is against the cult like behavior!How can I debate with the people who thinks entropy is trivial and quantum entanglement is no big deal just like Richard Dawkins thinks about debating earth flatters.
annamraju 1 year ago
The real cosmologists and scientists know the real problem with entropy. At the fundamental particle levels there is no difference between yesterday and today.
So there should not be any problem as per theory unscrambled egg should turn into egg. To solve this mystery of time arrow scientists came with more bizarre theory..
Boltzman brain paradox..and reincarnation,. Concept of God no more bizarre or contradictory than these theories....
annamraju 1 year ago
I wish I could understand you through that accent
MeteorArmageddon 1 year ago
@annamraju I was going to answer each question in turn but realized that would be a waste of time because your questions are tantamount to a big argumentum ad ignorantiam and a false dichotomy fallacy. In essence you are forwarding the idea that if science cannot answer these perceived problems then, in each case, some god must have done it and to have done these things it must exist. That is simply not the case and your argument does not withstand logical scrutiny in the slightest!
Snorglat 1 year ago
@Snorglat You can win Nobel Prize if you can answer the questions!! I win million dollars before you even understand the science behind it!! Stop preaching and start talking science ..OTHER WISE SHUT UP!!
annamraju 1 year ago
@annamraju It does not matter if I can answer the questions or not. You are still making a fallacious argument - "if science can't answer these, my god wins by default". That is argumentum ad ignorantiam and false dichotomy. Would a more reasonable man of science and clear thinking not explain why I am wrong in my objections to your overall argument? I am asking to explain why your argument is not fallacious. If you cannot I would ask you to recant the point in the name of intellectual honesty.
Snorglat 1 year ago
@Snorglat In facts I never made that claim by default God wins . One of the strongest point I am making is that "You" atheists have neither logic nor reason ,definitely not science to dismiss God!! Well It is another debate "God" exists or not!This is all beyond your head can absorb, rather watch south park.
Read all the comments! You are not the first guy singing the same song....
annamraju 1 year ago