This is hilarious. I am curious if azsuperman01 has made the irrational leap from agnosticism to atheism? In this video he has fairly clearly stated why atheism is irrational. Believers at least have rational faith, however much they dislike what our evidences are. I, of course, am speaking of the scriptures, fulfillment of prophecies and things of that sort, not the ontological, transcendental, or any other philosophic argumentation. Proof is different than persuasion.
@twistedohio33 LOL, "fulfillment of prophecies." I've read the list and they are so preposterous that you could find "fulfilled prophecies" in Harry Potter by using the same criteria. Also, there is no such thing as "rational" faith-- faith in god is the equivalent of believing that the boogie man exists despite the mountains of evidence contradicting his existence and living your life by the writings of some guy who said that the boogie man will get you if you don't do certain arbitrary things.
@RobotMonster889 "God is exempt from his own rules". Is this really any different from just saying "god is magic". Plus, it's so circular I'm dizzy. You can't use "god's rules" to prove god. Stalling tactic, indeed.
For thousands of years, countless people, with massive resources, have been trying to prove the existence of some god or other. And what has all that produced? Assertion and silly word games. That's it. The god believers are no better off than the alien abduction people.
your illustration confused me cuz it insinuates existance of something before anything exsisted so it doesnt explain first cause at all this video is just a poor example of poor apologetics i wached some of the othervideos and there much better plese watch them and forget this one
I'll humor myself, anyway and explain the facts according to science. We know the universe is finite, matter space and time. God isn't. Therefore He's the best explanation for where all this came from. Nothing, is the 2cnd best answer and only because it's the only other answer.
@lederereddy Something that doesn't exist can't be the cause of something that does. Before you can say God is the "best explanation" you FIRST need to demonstrate that a God exists -- THEN you can demonstrate that God is eternal... just asserting traits does not make God's existence anymore likely. You can't simply define a being into existence and use it to fill a gap in your knowledge then claim to have the truth.
@azsuperman01 "something that doesn't exist can't be the cause of something that does exist"
Halleluia! The first observant thing I've heard you state!!! Think about it, you just answered your own riddle. It's not that hard, azwuperman. Created things are a product of something that's not created but is creative? Those are clues! "nothing exploded into everything" according to you can't be the answer. That only leaves one logical conclusion and it's all the proof anyone needs to understand God
@lederereddy - "nothing exploded into everything" is the THEIST argument, with the addition of "because a magic invisible man told it to." The fact that you can't come up with a better explanation than "magic man done did it" is NOT proof of anything... you're gonna need to do better than that.
@azsuperman01 Is it possible that you could be this unconscious to the evidence we are looking at with our own eyes? No. I can tell by your ability to complete a sentence that your comprehension is in tact. But you're pretending you don't get it! Why? You obviously are afraid of the real answer! Why? Because you my brother are by nature an enemy of God, because of sin. Creation is here therefore God exists. There's no other explanation so quit lying to yourself. The evidence's self explanitory.
@lederereddy What evidence? You haven't provided any. The fact that the universe exists is proof that the universe exists, not proof that a magic invisible man created the universe and will torture you for eternity if you don't profess belief in a specific story before you die. The fact that you don't understand this is amazing.
@azsuperman01 What made the universe is conscious, has a will, power to exert His will, is Bigger than creation, is outside of time, space and matter and is in control of every molecule. This is the reason our knees should be knocking together in utter terror as we are asking Him what we can do about our behavior today and yesterday, eternity, etc. Waiting for Him to give you more evidence than this shows your lack of attention to what's important. That's insanely ignorant! No offense. Rethink..
@lederereddy You're making a lot of claims here, but not backing them up. So far the only "evidence" you have provided is your own self-professed ignorance, and bold assertion, neither of which are actually evidence of anything other than the truth of your earlier statement: "... stupidity is reserved for those who's pride can't allow them to admit it."
@lederereddy Yes, we understand what you believe. Now tell us why anyone should take you seriously. Threatening people with imaginary ills does not make the story more compelling, although it does make it more strange. Just telling the story over and over and over again does not make the story true.
@rrpostalagain"Now tell us why anyone should take you seriously"
No need for that! If you want to march into the afterlife and take the uncalculated risk that God doesn't exist, doesn't care about anything you or anyone else said or did, good or bad and has nothing to say or do about any of it, be my guest! It's your life, your soul and your future... No one's threatening you, not even God. Your friend, sin, and his friend, consequence that you might look out for! Later's!
@lederereddy The very point in asking you to explain why I should take you seriously is so that I can properly calculate the risk. If you can't see why a random threat about flying space monkeys is not scary until you see evidence of it, then that's your problem, not mine. There are plenty of people warning me about their version of what god wants me to do. You don't take them all seriously either. Why not?
@rrpostalagain True! There's no need to fear idols, myths and superstition but Jesus Christ is not the flying spaghetti monster. And in the right context there's no need to fear God. What I recommend is that you fear pride, lust, anger, hatred, alcohol and drug addictions, etc. All the things we use in concert to hush The Holy Spirit's conviction's toward truth. The Lord is calling you. Be proud, excited, in awe. God wants to be your friend. This world teaches us which direction to find Him in.
@rrpostalagain To my knowledge I haven't ever threatened you! Why do you feel threatened by me? Jesus is the bearer of many gifts but we are unable to reciprocate. What can we give God? In that same context, what can He take from us? Sure, He accepts gifts from us in the spirit of the act, but that's it! If we tithe, He doesn't put it in the bank. What God wants, is the same thing we want, respect for who and what we are. Try the first two commandments and you'll know why pleasing God is good.
@azsuperman01 Why do they continually do this? They say things like "something can't come out of nothing" and then immediately turn around and claim god (who came from nothing), made the universe out of nothing. It's maybe the most obviously flawed argument, yet I see it nearly every day.
@azsuperman01 You're another broken record. Well like father like son! Old lord Satan isn't known for his creativity and he passes his ignorance off to his babies and ya eat it up like candy... Try getting a clue! When truth slaps you in the face with your own words, pay attention! Your not stupid to be wrong. Everyone is wrong more often than we admit but stupidity is reserved for those who's pride can't allow them to admit it... I must admit I'm gloating over the irony but doubting you get it.
Are you serious? Most theist's recognize the fact that God as a first cause is just a simple logical explanation. That information is based on several observations about the creation and has nothing to do with the completely separate question of How did He do it. Your not even one paragraph into this video and it's obvious that you don't know what your talking about.
The real question isn't to account for "the universe" -- but to account for "existence" itself, in totality. The only way that theists manage this question is to dodge it -- by redefining the terms so that the universe is reduced to a mere portion of existence.
Well, we all understand that one part of existence can emerge from another part of existence -- so what? That still leaves unanswered the real question -- how did the whole shebang come to be -- and come to be in the form that it has?
Outstanding presentation of these concepts. They seem intuitive to an atheist, but they can be difficult to succinctly and clearly express. You do a great job here.
good vid man, you should target some better keywords as ur vids never come up for the keywords I search. Im subscribed! I reallly enjoy debating esp. the fallacious presuppositionalist claims by Van Til and Bahnsen. Those really make my skin bristle.
I think it's notable that Atheists keep coming back to listen to apologetics... you'd think if they were really SURE of their beliefs that they would have better things to do.
BUT: The truth is WAY DEEP DOWN they want to believe in God, and to know Him, because that's what they were created for - though they vehemently deny it.
hi mate, appreciate you don't like a question about 'how' to be answered by 'who'. but if we just re-phrase the initial question a bit we could ask: 'how did the universe get here' in which case 'so -and -so left it here' or ' God made it' would be a perfectly fine answer would it not? Would you agree however that space and time are 2 of the very characteristics of 'our' universe and could therefore the universe have been fashioned by a being caught in space and time or spawned by other univrs?
//If God has any effect in the real world, then that effect would be testable, and his existence could be verified// Morals arent empirically verifiable either, but most atheists believe they are real. For all the atheists who "voted up" on that comment... think about that for a moment, and be honest with yourself
By this same line of "reasoning" There is no reason to believe in anything.
Any meaning of any kind.
The universe was not created, It is an ongoing process. It is happening now.
Now, intelligence. There is no proof of any intelligence anywhere.
Science can not prove intelligence. It measures and observes natural causal effect events. "We" through science are nothing more. We imagine natural causal effect events to be intelligent.
Poor refutations IMO. The example you give has many leading and root causes including weather, rain, and then ultimately gravity which creates a chain of effect for the ripple. It makes sense to ignore the law of gravity when you are ignoring the law of motion and inertia also (which the Big Bang Theory does too). A Christian's answer: what/how - said/spoke (Gen 1:3); of what - nothing, was created (Gen 1:1); who - YHWH/Elohim (Gen1:1).
@ 3:54 "but you couldn't trace it back any farther." Neither could you so how could you say with 100% confidence that there is no God?
@ 4:38 "is it possible? Yes." That's all the theists are saying
I like your analogy but the point is something caused the rock to roll into the water could be wind could be someone pushing it. Nor does it address where the rock, wind, water ect came from. BTW could you do a video on a non theistic explanation for information such as DNA or laws of physics?
Some say "logic cannot be applied to religion" or "You can't prove the existence of God with logic". Then what does religion come from? Isn't religion or the holy bible the word of God? Then you're basically saying that you can't apply logic to God. Now tell me how does the most intelligent being on the universe not have logic??
there's no problem. read the bible. it tells you how everything was created. unlike the big ban, which is not proven and also states that something came from nothing. And you assume the big bang as fact when us theist already explain how that's not true(just like the scientist agree upon). So you went in a circle and are ignorant of what your talking about. not angry just use actual facts and not state things that already have been dis-proven.
@lifecon1 "read the bible. it tells you how everything was created. unlike the big [bang], which is not proven..."
Yeah, the big bang theory is unproven, unlike the bible, which has all sorts of evidence for its claims of a 6,000-10,000 year-old earth, talking snakes, enough water to cover the whole land area of the earth suspended above the atmosphere, a boat big enough to carry either two or seven of every species of animal, huge populations of Hebrew slaves in Egypt... LMFAO!
While there is evidence that the universe is expanding, the big bang is still just a theory. The big bang theory supposes that the extremely early universe originated from a singularity. That's where it ventures out of the realm of reality and off into pure fantasy. A more practical theory is that the universe is eternal, and cycles endlessly between very large and very small states.
@Guitcad1 so your life is was and always will be insignificant. That means you give everyone here permission to do whatever you we want to you based on your rules because there is no logic and there is no purpose. killing you would be like a video game because it doesn't matter. I could steal all your possessions, family, and anything else you value because you have no reason to be.
@lifecon1 OMFG! Take it easy on that poor straw man you are beating up on! Where the hell did all that come from? WTF do you know about "my rules"? Who says there is no logic? Not me. Who says there is no purpose? I just say that my purpose is determined by me, not some imaginary, homicidal, psychotic, bronze-age desert spook. And if you think that means "moral relativism" or whatever the fuck you call it, then I say try doing all the things you said and see if I "give permission".
To clarify my position, When I say "universe" I am refering to something that cannot be confined to 3d space/time. A big bang could be the beginning of all 3d reality as evidenced by its obsevable expansion. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be eternal and first cause.
Think about this: The Word= applied knowlege. Try thinking of some other over-arching terms that could substitute for applied knowlege. Then read the first 5 verses in John's gospel using those other terms. Technology is an interesting one.
I think that God is the universe. God is eternal. The universe is eternal. No big bang created this universe that we, as yet, can't even quantify or put limits on. The creation story(s) in the bible pertain to the local cluster (our solar system). The Elohim were a race (for lack of a better word) of extra-solar beings. Flesh and bone. they used unimaginable technology to engeneer these planets and put us here. Have you never thought of your body as tech? It is.
Why are you justifying this argument at all? As an atheist, you embrace that, in the end, there is nothingness and oblivion. If you are honest with your beliefs, then meaninglessness is the final end. Poe knew this. So did Nietzche and Hemingway. Why do you even try? Just trying to understand......
Wow man, I saw your Kalam destruction on KH's channel and checked this vid out. Great analysis and rebuttal of the first cause argument. Looking forward to your other videos man.
exactly if the universe needed somthing to create it otherwise it wouldn't exist god would have to have somthing create him or he wouldn't exist. If they say the universe couln't have popped into existance then how can they say god did
@helpmetony - If God has any effect in the real world, then that effect would be testable, and his existence could be verified. When someone says God's existence can't be proven, they are admitting he doesn't do anything and doesn't matter.
@helpmetony according to your arguements, if nothing can be seen, heard, touched, felt, smelled, or have its existence proven it must exist. never mind that you have no way of knowing it could be there this way, or that what is it that could have been there.
you simply assume. nice open mindedness. but you have just insulted the open minded people in the world. open minded does not equate to being delusional.
@SaintDL sorry, it's taken a while to get back to you. I want to address the open-minded statement, where you used the word delusional. I, of course, can't explain God to you. Only you and God can do that. I was where you are now for most of my life, it wasnt until I gave up some of the questions and trusted. Then, I began to get answers. Delusion is far from the equation, and I cannot take offense from your insult. It only displays frustration with the whole thing, and I completely understand.
@azsuperman01 what I mean is you can't learn God in a book, or a youtube video.
People can lead you to God, but it is up to you to make the conscious choice to invite God into your life. Of course God is supernatural! There is and have always been supernatural stuff going on all around us since the beginning of time. Effect in the 'real' world? This IS the real world, brother!
@helpmetony evidence of the supernatural pls. a long long time ago, even the tide and the wind are supernatural. simply because humans as a species could not yet explain the workings of such.
see, until now we have not yet arrested a ghost or vampire for harming human beings. we have not accepted as a fact of life that demons and ghost go out to harm people.
in fact if you live in a wartorn area, if you spot weird sounds at night, it might be an enemy soldier more then a ghost.
the idea of ghosts are just remnants of human's awareness of dangers that lurk in the dark, the evolutionary self defense mechanism left over from our days before albert einstein invented the light bulb.
but i spoke too much. like i said. define supernatural, then why you believe in it, supported by evidence.
@azsuperman01 Re: If God has any effect in the real world, then that effect would be testable, and his existence could be verified.
According to who?
You don't accept 'cause' as proof and I wouldn't argue with you for the simple reason that no one can prove the existence of God. I disagree about an admission that existence in God can't be proven.
The bible says evidence has been given to everyone and only fools reject it. Only the father grants the gift of knowing he exists to some.
Whatever something is testable that something would be subjected to scientific study.If something that is scientific study the closer it becomes scientific fact. The closer that something gets closer to scientific fact the more people believe that it comes from nature alone.EX (If true resurrection was possible by the will of people that had died. Then Jesus would not be raised to god status because everyone could do it.Therefore you could not prove God again cuz God is normal)
@arga400 -let me know eventually how that works out for you. It is one thing to be sarcastic, especially when you use it in place of knowledge. I, nor anyone else is going to convince you, I know that. It is only up to YOU what you discover using your brain, coupled with your heart.
@helpmetony actually you could convince me of anything if you had empirical evidence to support your claim of course, my heart just pumps blood is all up to my brain and my brain only accepts reality(atlest most of the time)
When you say the universe do you mean all of existance? because if we're talking about all of existance i think a how would be impossible to state because it would rely on principals that are being created in the event in question. I think to say "how" is to assume from the start of the argument that we're talking about a universe in a smaller sense and assuming that all of existence has always existed.
I agree for the most part. We don't know what happened before the big bang nor how it happened in the first place. I don't think the argument is appealing to who however, rather it 's appealing to why the universe was created which can be traced back to a who. In any case, no one knows for sure.
Well if you are a materialist you probably wouldn't since technically all that exists for a materialist is time, space, and matter which didn't exist before the big bang. However, why assume that there isn't a "before" the big bang. We shouldn't stop questioning just because it is uncertain. This is a question of philosophical importance which is why people, with their insatiable curiosity, need an answer.
unwinable arguments....you can't be more than 40 years old.....not enough time for you to have ........ there is nothing that is designed that does not have a designer..... your religion is incredible.... you "intellects" are bigger zealots than any religious person I have ever met....
You can't just assume something has been designed bcuz U can't understand how it can be otherwise! You wouldn't make a very good scientist!
And I can tell you that watching Hovind doesn't speak well of you! 6K yr earth?? Anyone who understands how we determine the age of the Earth, or anything in antiquity, know that a 6K yr old earth is absolutely absurd. Try 4.5 billion yrs.
@Cootabux if there was a big bang was there water ? if so why is this the only planet in this vast system with water.... logicaly there should be water blasted over the entire universe..... you are an ignorant religious zealot, bigot, who throws out all logic to defend your idealogy.... not very scientific.
Your rock analogy is extremely poor since there is a clear cause of the rock falling from the edge of the cliff. The cause [being a rock] is also a contingent cause. Plus the cause is IN time. Therefore your rock could not possibly be a contender for being a First Cause of any description. You are the one implying an actual infinite regress by attempting to ignore the possibility of a First Cause. This is a poor response to any Cosmological argument.
@dooyeweerd hes not making a first cause argument assclown.... there doesnt need to be a first cause necessarily and asserting that there does is fucking retarded considering that we dont know!
not actually. ud need to demonstrate that a first cause is somethign that is actually REAL before i say anythign about it. i dont claim there is a infinite regressa i simply claim that u dont know if there needs to a first cause and u also dont know if time eisted before the big bang or not. im simply pointing out ur lack of an agument not making an argment of my own im simply stating that saying things cannot happen to naturally cause the universe is ignorant.
Not at all. In philosophy it's called a reductio ad ou can reduce one argument to an absurdity and then infer something else from that. This is a very well accepted way of reasoning. So your response demonstrates some ignorance of how philosophical arguments can be formulated I'm afraid.
I do not need to demonstrate they are the only two ways. It would be your job to demonstrate there is some third way! Falsification remember not verification!!
i disagree. when u claim either there must be a first cause of u get an infinite regress, u are making a statement of fact. u are claiming a dichotomy of either this or that. the problem i have is that there could be more then just that. i dont accept ur dichotomy. also, i dont have to give a 3rd option. i dont know what a 3rd otion would be however that doesnt rule out a possible 3rd option. aslo i agree with the idea of falsification. to bad ur argument is unfalsifiable........
i meanthere is no way for me to know what really caused the universe. therfore there is no way for me to know if ur dichotomy is correct or not.
ill give u one example. what if there was a multiverse that could eist forever without goign into heat death? what if little universe broke off from this multiverse and we lived in one? so there is an eample of somehtign that science cant rule out yet at the same time doesnt fall into ur dichotomy. the 3rd way could be the way we dont know about
saying that there needs to be a first cause or else we get an infinite regression is also ignorant. if u think thats the case would u like to demonstrate the validity of ur dichotomy? would u like to demonstrate how those are the only 2 options? im waiting....
First off gargamel, upon rereading my post I see where I had a poor choice of words, so let me correct that. First cause is ONE problem that has presented itself to evolution , not THE reason. Second, your response to me betrays a lack of education on your part and your statements lack substance. Next time you want to try to call someone stupid in front of the whole world, maybe you should try not sounding like an ignorant fool doing it.
Therefore, the cause of a naturalistic universe must inherently have a supernatural cause. Then there is the statement in which you say that you do not know what caused the universe, you just know it isn't God. this is a statement that requires evidence, to which you have not shown any. As far as your statement about God needing a cause, and therefore bringing the argument back into "infinate regression" shows a presupposition that God is not supernatural.
Irrelevant. We are called to love God, not God's creator. Besides, how do we know that God isn't the super-super- natural metacause? The point here is that only in the natural do we need a first cause. Since we do not know how super-natural works fully, we cannot know if a first cause is necessary until we meet God. In the mean time, all we need know is that God is OUR cause. His cause is irrelevant and unnecessary to love Him.
Think what you will, but in reality your definition is irrelevant. It's like saying I define music as tasting like purple. Unless I have some evidence to back it up, my claim is arbitrary. so, unless you have some evidence you have not yet presented, your "metacause" claim is irrelevant and arbitrary. If you do have evidence for your claim, I would be interested in knowing so that I may examine it myself.
@DemokritosAbdera very true. if there wasnt a metacause for god then how would it be that there would be a god instead of no god? i mean why is there a universe instead of no universe? god right? so the same must go for god aswell cuz we all know hes just so convienent to have around to make universes for us and all.
You are clearly getting very desperate now. Whereas the hypothesis of God makes sense and obeys the rule of Occam's razor all of your arguments are special pleading and fail to explain anything!
? occam's razor. i find it funny u bring that up... cuz god being an infinitely complex and infinitely old entity seem far more unlikely then a multiverse. a fully natrualistic explanation is not only more logical but in fact, does explain a lot.
on the other hand, ur god hypothesis explains.... absolutley nothing! why is there a god in the first place? why would he make a universe? what method did he use? all new questions added because of ur hypothesis. ur guilty of special pleading not me
so if there there is a universe instead of no universe becase there is a god that decided to make one, why is there a god instead of no god? are u telling me that there is a meta god that made god? because the universe is complex and u tell me that it must have been made by a god. now ur god is infinitely complex... so does that mean a god must have made him too? like i said why god instead oof no god. let me guess, cuz hes special? i know what special pleading is u obvious dont... get a clue
I would love for you to give me a lesson on logical fallacies and how God commits such things please. But of course if you do then you need to stop from saying such a being "can't be tested" since applying logic to such a being will be doing precisely the thing you say you cannot do!?!
Some claim about God DEFINITELY can be tested. And many have - the problem for you is that so far every attempt validate God-claims has come up empty.
That fact causes many believers to argue that God can't be tested scientifically. If you believe otherwise, please explain what kind of test you would accept as proof of the existence or non-existence of God.
@dooyeweerd it seems that you have a definition of god to be able to tell people to not say god cannot be tested. so please, state the definition of the god you believe in and then set out to prove it
The God described in the western philosophical literature. No private definitions here! And then one would proceed through many varying arguments to establish both the existence and character of that being. Some being: Cosmological, teleological, moral and rationality arguments.
Actually, the first cause argument is a really good one, and it is the reason why scientists have not made evolution law instead of leaving it as a theory. How God created the universe is irrelevant. This is a straw man, and I think that most of us can see that. Your lake illustration also makes no sense, nor does it have anything to do with the first cause argument. The first cause argument hinges on the concept that the result cannot be bigger than the cause.
I just started to read your comment and off the bat you said "and it is the reason why scientists have not made evolution law instead of leaving it as a theory"
So you have NO idea of what a scientific theory is and the rest of your suppositions are out of your ass. You are ill equipped for a RATIONAL thought out discussion. so please, read a little, know what the hell you're talking about and come back when you're a little more educated.
hehe, I was just about to write you a comment about this, but I then saw that you had already got one... hundred... thousand comments :D
I think you're sharp, and easy to understand, it is good. But I think you're missing the point of the arguments you're trying to refute. You cannot escape the first cause argument by metaphorizing it with natural ways, because in the very beginning (first cause), there could be no materia to act naturally. If there was, it wouldn't be the beginning.
I am surprised you didn't use the fact that this argues from the singularity theorem that as time is reversed to 0, density reaches closer and closer to infinity (as published by Penrose and Hawking in 1970). Because if you did, you could then demonstrate that this argument neglects the Plank time as demonstrated in later works by Hawking that general relativity must also include Quantum mechanics. In this case, Plank time negates any such idea of singularity.
1st of all, you misrepresent the 1st cause argument and refute a formulation of it that is not as cogent (involving the big bang, which has never been a part of the argument).
2nd, the argument does not define "God" as the 1st cause. It's the other way around. It defines the 1st cause as "God."
3rd, the first premise of the argument is not that everything needs a cause, but that every effect needs a cause other than itself. Asking who made God is invalid.
Whenever there's a debate about who or what created the universe I simply ask different questions: why do you care? Why does it matter? Can the answers actually affect us in any way?
dude im not trying to apologize for anything i was just fuckin around. to me there is more evidence for aliens than there is for god. no ones ever taken a picture of god. but theres tons of UFO pictures and videos. many hardcore skeptics are made into believers of ufos after experiencing PHYSICAL stimulus in front of many sober eyewitnesses who experience the same thing. im not saying ufo's are real, just sayin more plausible than god. why do you think otherwise just out of curiosity.
Physical stimulus...you mean like stigmata, illumination, healing...things that religious people experience all the time in front of sober eyewitnesses?
I think that its less likely because there's never any explanation behind the alien hypothesis. At least believers have The Bible, the Koran, relics, place names. Alien believers have photos which are easily doctored.
Aliens to me are a convenient way to avoid questions, but still seem hip and a-religious.
there is a cause and affect for everything....nothing can have an infinite cause and effect because then the law of cause and effect is not valid....nothing can come from nothing....i am not defending Christianity but it had to be some kind of higher power....thats why in my opinion it is easier to believe this universe came from a necessary infinite being rather than believing in an infinite cause and affect which practically contradicts itself...
nothing didn't come from nothing. Science doesn't know YET what made the bing bang bang. If you study the BB closer, you'll notice that science only starts explaining, about a trillionth of a second after the bang.
But not knowing, doesn't mean it is caused by a higher power. There was a time when people didn't understand why the moon got full and anewed, now we know it's caused by its position in relation to earth and the sun.
Anything above our dimension/state/disposition is a higher power. Any person could define it as God or a natural cause, though what is natural and what is godly? It may depend on if those higher powers are intelligent, and if they are, then what is the highest power? Is there a highest power? Is God the 10th dimension? New theories from scientists and philosophers don't discount such possibilities, they create them. Maybe the appearance of the moon is more complex, and involves the space time
fabric, dark matter or dark energy, the bending of light by the above, or interference by higher dimensional branes, or a host of quantum interferences and so on.
Interesting! But then you're stating there's smth ab our d/s/d & that's a postulate statement.
& why would that be a higher power.If you say it could be refered to as "a natural cause" it cannot be a higher power, or maybe it depends on what you call 'higher' power?
The moons appearance isn't more complex, and yes can be explained on optical, astronomical & quantum level, space/time is always a factor in this universe.
btw, dark matter cann't bend light, that's why can't find it.
I agree with most of your logic. However, people have argued that God, being infinite, does not require a cause. It is very possible that, given certain attributes, something does not require a cause. After all, the idea of causation is a product of our association with time. An action is caused because there was a before and an after, in which the action is in between. If you remove time out of the equation, there is no before and after. Therefore, if God is timeless, he requires no cause.
If the big bang was the beginning of time, then anything outside of our universe is timeless, and the concept of timeless, from our point of view, is infinite. Just because we live and think in time, doesn't mean things can exist outside of time. Time can be thought of as a 4th spacial dimension of reality, in which we are moving through the 5th dimension of branching possibilities. Confusing?
There a tons of crazy but popular theories out there. Watch10dimension
This video couldn't be further from the truth, your example of a land slide into a lake won't work. If it was going to happen without a conscious decision it would have happened in the eternal past. It has to be a conscious decision to set things in motion. The fact that you are conscious is evidence that can be observed. Your a product of something or someone conscious. Science is studying a contaminated environment in a non -steady state of increasing entropy.
Scientists agree that the universe is experiencing increasing levels of entropy. However, when you measure the temperature of the universe, you may find it to be comparatively very cold, even though there are many hotspots like stars. Just like temperature, you may find the universe to have high entropy, even though there are ordered "hotspots" like human minds. The still lake in his analogy could represent 100% order, just as the waves represent increasing entropy. The waves don' t separate
everything in it's path, hence the presence of ordered "hotspots". To my point, his analogy could work if, given that order and intelligence are related(the human mind has the lowest known level of entropy), if the still lake represents 100% order(0% entropy). The big bang fits in nicely with his analogy(0% entropy as everything is packed into infinity before the bang). Thus the universe before the bang could be thought of as intelligent and conscious. Thus, the universe before the bang could
Positing the existence of an unknown being (deity) to explain the existence of the universe is basically a non-answer.
Not only that, but a positive and coherent ontology of such a being as yet to be established.
On another note, if it is plausible to claim that a deity always existed, using Occam's Razor, we can remove the unknown parameter and claim the universe always existed under a form or another...
you mention gravity, weather, etc... all things that are driven by specific laws that the universe could otherwise not exist without. I think the argument is that information, such as laws, come from a "lawgiver". someone or something that is beyond or not bound by these very laws. first cause simply means the moment before the big bang. chance has no power unless it has a first cause.
What can cause energy to exist? Can something cause the destruction of energy? The answer is no!
But energy simply can't be an uncaused cause, because scientists know that energy appeared with the BigBang...so the uncaused cause has to be metaphysical.
Whatever caused the universe to exist can't be bond with this universe and its laws... so why is it so hard to believe in a God?
PS: if you believe the BigBang is only an intermediate event, you're simply postponing the problem of eternity!
How did the universal laws of logic come about? What is the origin of math & physics, etc.? How can something come into being from nothing, by itself? For something to create itself, it would have to "be before it was", thereby violating the most basic law of knowledge, Its totally irrational and a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Something can not "be" before it was "nonbeing".
(cont...) This is why only God who is The self existent eternal being that has the power of being/existence within Himself, dependent on nothing outside of Himself to exist and is eternal violates no formal concept of logic whatsoever! There is no need for the "who created God" argument. All arguments for ultimate authority are circular by nature. That is why you have all but instinctively stated your own premise that matter (and therefore space-time) are eternal. (cont...)
(cont...) If u then say that you will violate Newton's First Law. There is NO valid external cause for the universe apart from God. If anything exists now then something has always existed. Something is eternal or nothing could exist now. Many atheists believe that for eternity all of the universe was compacted into this infinitesimal point of singularity, with all energy and mass compressed, in a state of total organization and stability FOR ETERNITY? Then 1 day, BOOM! It blows up. (Cont..)
I think a more interesting question is what caused a universe with a weak atomic force of a specific strength that allows carbon to be formed in stars and therefore life to evolve.
This delusion is eroding due to the tranfer of knowledge and reduction of Godly ignorance. It is about time we grew out of this ridiculous superstition that has retarded every positive human endeavor since it's inception.
Except that every statistic today shows that its only theists who are reproducing. Just one of the many destructive, negative and depressing fruits of your "life is ultimately meaningless" worldview.
Science and everything about the world we live in SCREAMS at us that life can not come from non-life and information can not come from non-information. Matter+Time+Chance=Human life? That is delusional! Its as though u & I are standing on a stage together both of us assuming Reason, order, rationality & ethics are coherent & binding- BUT I stand on this stage say things that r consistent w/ my world view & were I am standing and what I believe in (as a designed creature able to comprehend God)
What u r doing is standing on that same stage but then you're saying you're just a bunch of atoms banging around & there is no ultimate reason or purpose in listening to what u say but I better listen to what you say! Its just not rational & void of meaning. Man aught to recognize God, there is no excuse for him if he does not. The reason for his failure to recognize God lies exclusively in him. It is due to his willful transgression of the very law of his being. (cont...)
First of all, science doesn't "SCREAM" anything. And just because we are not certain of something(i.e. life's beggining), doesn't mean we attribute the cause to a "god". That is the lazy way out, and leads to a continuance of ignorance.
There is NO evidence of any god, ever. How you get to that conclusion is purely a result of indoctrination and delusion.
And yet I'm the one making the case that its YOUR position that is a result of massive doses of "indoctrination and delusion".Your not dealing w/ any of the content of my posts & yet I'm the "delusional" one here? If u found a Goodyear tire on the moon but had no knowledge of what a car was u would still know that tire had a designer, information & purpose. You may not have a complete understanding of those three facts but to not acknowledge them only "leads to a continuance of YOUR ignorance".
Maybe sharps needs to look up the definition of "delusion".
The fact remains that you believe in something for which there is NO EVIDENCE, not a single bit. Most reasonable people would call that "delusional". You cling to a bronze age superstition to fill in your considerable gaps of ignorance.
I'll just let your inability to deal with the content of my posts speak for itself. Remember, your worldview teaches that you, your life and everything you say are totally meaningless and yet I'm suppose to listen to what you say??? That is a fool's paradise and you can't live consistently within your own worldview for even one day without barrowing from mine. The simple fact that you're here forming coherent sentences proves my point.
I love how you Christians attempt to make this into a debate over "world views". You think it lends weight to belief in the supernatural. Here's a secret for ya, It doesn't. All it does do is make a grown man(sometimes woman) look silly running around trying to convince people of the existence of a sky daddy.
Anybody over the age of seven with an invisible friend, has issues.
"you believe in something for which there is NO EVIDENCE"
I ran into a problem with the origin of DNA code. I was wondering if you could explain to me where coded information comes from. If it only comes from a "mind" then we have evidence for a higher intelligence. If it comes from random chance then perhaps you could share some examples of coded information arising from random natural processes.
Many people have trouble understanding where and how a replicating molecule originated. There are several vids on youtube you can access on the origins of dna, I suggest you view them.
But to make the argument of "I have a problem understanding something, so god must have done it", is ridiculous.
Theists would do themselves a great service to learn the phrase "I don't know".
So lets say you already have the right molecules. Like you take a frog and put it in a blender and whip it up to a frothy mix. Lots of good molecules in there. What are the chances and how long would it take for it to come back to life? I mean under the right conditions, of course. "I don't know" but I am willing to go out on a limb and say probably never.
First your argument is flawed. The frog you speak of is the result of millions of years of evolution. It takes large amounts of time to develope into an organism such as a frog. The remains of your blended one would be long gone.
But, given enough time and opportunity, a simpler life form might develope from the krushed kermit. The beggining of life. We still are in the infant stage of knowledge in this area. Eventually your god of this gap will be filled.
The "laws of logic" describe reality, they don't make it.
A thing is what it is and is not what it is not does not MAKE something what it is and FORCE it to be what it is not but rather simply describes what is observable reality. This is much like the idea that the "laws of physics" needed someone to CREATE these "laws". The laws of physics, again, simply describe what is observable and testable reality.
Sorry, callingheyzeus, the responses from "fanofthefollowing" are because my wife was signed in and I didn't notice. Please post responses to "fanofthefollowing" to me.
This is hilarious. I am curious if azsuperman01 has made the irrational leap from agnosticism to atheism? In this video he has fairly clearly stated why atheism is irrational. Believers at least have rational faith, however much they dislike what our evidences are. I, of course, am speaking of the scriptures, fulfillment of prophecies and things of that sort, not the ontological, transcendental, or any other philosophic argumentation. Proof is different than persuasion.
twistedohio33 2 weeks ago
@twistedohio33 LOL, "fulfillment of prophecies." I've read the list and they are so preposterous that you could find "fulfilled prophecies" in Harry Potter by using the same criteria. Also, there is no such thing as "rational" faith-- faith in god is the equivalent of believing that the boogie man exists despite the mountains of evidence contradicting his existence and living your life by the writings of some guy who said that the boogie man will get you if you don't do certain arbitrary things.
VanDammesCokeDealer 2 weeks ago
If you think asking who caused God, you are then making God to be another link. This is very logical question but also very poor refutation
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
I hate how they force their Yahweh Jehovah as the creator. How do we know that aliens created the universe?
halolIlmao0 2 months ago in playlist Poor Apologetics
@RobotMonster889 then how do you know he is untreated?
sailornaruto39 4 months ago
@RobotMonster889 "God is exempt from his own rules". Is this really any different from just saying "god is magic". Plus, it's so circular I'm dizzy. You can't use "god's rules" to prove god. Stalling tactic, indeed.
rrpostalagain 5 months ago
For thousands of years, countless people, with massive resources, have been trying to prove the existence of some god or other. And what has all that produced? Assertion and silly word games. That's it. The god believers are no better off than the alien abduction people.
stevehayes13 6 months ago
@RobotMonster889, i disagree with you ,why is he exempt from "his own rules" is god is a being and he created all things then how is he created?
tmooect 6 months ago
your illustration confused me cuz it insinuates existance of something before anything exsisted so it doesnt explain first cause at all this video is just a poor example of poor apologetics i wached some of the othervideos and there much better plese watch them and forget this one
kewl6969 8 months ago
haha great 90's style video
ratfinkabooboo18 9 months ago
I'll humor myself, anyway and explain the facts according to science. We know the universe is finite, matter space and time. God isn't. Therefore He's the best explanation for where all this came from. Nothing, is the 2cnd best answer and only because it's the only other answer.
lederereddy 10 months ago
@lederereddy Something that doesn't exist can't be the cause of something that does. Before you can say God is the "best explanation" you FIRST need to demonstrate that a God exists -- THEN you can demonstrate that God is eternal... just asserting traits does not make God's existence anymore likely. You can't simply define a being into existence and use it to fill a gap in your knowledge then claim to have the truth.
azsuperman01 10 months ago
@azsuperman01 "something that doesn't exist can't be the cause of something that does exist"
Halleluia! The first observant thing I've heard you state!!! Think about it, you just answered your own riddle. It's not that hard, azwuperman. Created things are a product of something that's not created but is creative? Those are clues! "nothing exploded into everything" according to you can't be the answer. That only leaves one logical conclusion and it's all the proof anyone needs to understand God
lederereddy 9 months ago
@lederereddy - "nothing exploded into everything" is the THEIST argument, with the addition of "because a magic invisible man told it to." The fact that you can't come up with a better explanation than "magic man done did it" is NOT proof of anything... you're gonna need to do better than that.
azsuperman01 9 months ago
@azsuperman01 Is it possible that you could be this unconscious to the evidence we are looking at with our own eyes? No. I can tell by your ability to complete a sentence that your comprehension is in tact. But you're pretending you don't get it! Why? You obviously are afraid of the real answer! Why? Because you my brother are by nature an enemy of God, because of sin. Creation is here therefore God exists. There's no other explanation so quit lying to yourself. The evidence's self explanitory.
lederereddy 9 months ago
@lederereddy What evidence? You haven't provided any. The fact that the universe exists is proof that the universe exists, not proof that a magic invisible man created the universe and will torture you for eternity if you don't profess belief in a specific story before you die. The fact that you don't understand this is amazing.
azsuperman01 9 months ago
@azsuperman01 What made the universe is conscious, has a will, power to exert His will, is Bigger than creation, is outside of time, space and matter and is in control of every molecule. This is the reason our knees should be knocking together in utter terror as we are asking Him what we can do about our behavior today and yesterday, eternity, etc. Waiting for Him to give you more evidence than this shows your lack of attention to what's important. That's insanely ignorant! No offense. Rethink..
lederereddy 9 months ago
@lederereddy You're making a lot of claims here, but not backing them up. So far the only "evidence" you have provided is your own self-professed ignorance, and bold assertion, neither of which are actually evidence of anything other than the truth of your earlier statement: "... stupidity is reserved for those who's pride can't allow them to admit it."
azsuperman01 9 months ago
@lederereddy Yes, we understand what you believe. Now tell us why anyone should take you seriously. Threatening people with imaginary ills does not make the story more compelling, although it does make it more strange. Just telling the story over and over and over again does not make the story true.
rrpostalagain 5 months ago
@rrpostalagain"Now tell us why anyone should take you seriously"
No need for that! If you want to march into the afterlife and take the uncalculated risk that God doesn't exist, doesn't care about anything you or anyone else said or did, good or bad and has nothing to say or do about any of it, be my guest! It's your life, your soul and your future... No one's threatening you, not even God. Your friend, sin, and his friend, consequence that you might look out for! Later's!
lederereddy 5 months ago
@lederereddy The very point in asking you to explain why I should take you seriously is so that I can properly calculate the risk. If you can't see why a random threat about flying space monkeys is not scary until you see evidence of it, then that's your problem, not mine. There are plenty of people warning me about their version of what god wants me to do. You don't take them all seriously either. Why not?
rrpostalagain 5 months ago
@rrpostalagain True! There's no need to fear idols, myths and superstition but Jesus Christ is not the flying spaghetti monster. And in the right context there's no need to fear God. What I recommend is that you fear pride, lust, anger, hatred, alcohol and drug addictions, etc. All the things we use in concert to hush The Holy Spirit's conviction's toward truth. The Lord is calling you. Be proud, excited, in awe. God wants to be your friend. This world teaches us which direction to find Him in.
lederereddy 5 months ago
@rrpostalagain To my knowledge I haven't ever threatened you! Why do you feel threatened by me? Jesus is the bearer of many gifts but we are unable to reciprocate. What can we give God? In that same context, what can He take from us? Sure, He accepts gifts from us in the spirit of the act, but that's it! If we tithe, He doesn't put it in the bank. What God wants, is the same thing we want, respect for who and what we are. Try the first two commandments and you'll know why pleasing God is good.
lederereddy 5 months ago
@azsuperman01 Why do they continually do this? They say things like "something can't come out of nothing" and then immediately turn around and claim god (who came from nothing), made the universe out of nothing. It's maybe the most obviously flawed argument, yet I see it nearly every day.
rrpostalagain 5 months ago
@azsuperman01 You're another broken record. Well like father like son! Old lord Satan isn't known for his creativity and he passes his ignorance off to his babies and ya eat it up like candy... Try getting a clue! When truth slaps you in the face with your own words, pay attention! Your not stupid to be wrong. Everyone is wrong more often than we admit but stupidity is reserved for those who's pride can't allow them to admit it... I must admit I'm gloating over the irony but doubting you get it.
lederereddy 9 months ago
Are you serious? Most theist's recognize the fact that God as a first cause is just a simple logical explanation. That information is based on several observations about the creation and has nothing to do with the completely separate question of How did He do it. Your not even one paragraph into this video and it's obvious that you don't know what your talking about.
lederereddy 10 months ago
@lederereddy One of us doesn't know what he's talking about... but it's not me.
azsuperman01 10 months ago 2
man your arguments sucked
codyaustinpemberton 11 months ago
The stuff of the universe is not the cause of its own existence, so it had to be something outside the created order; And this thing we call God.
BibleProclaimer559 11 months ago
The real question isn't to account for "the universe" -- but to account for "existence" itself, in totality. The only way that theists manage this question is to dodge it -- by redefining the terms so that the universe is reduced to a mere portion of existence.
Well, we all understand that one part of existence can emerge from another part of existence -- so what? That still leaves unanswered the real question -- how did the whole shebang come to be -- and come to be in the form that it has?
prodprod 11 months ago
Thanks azsuperman01 for giving me another idea for a video series, similar idea. Or I could just link people to this video. Either way, subbed.
NoNamesLeft0102 1 year ago
Outstanding presentation of these concepts. They seem intuitive to an atheist, but they can be difficult to succinctly and clearly express. You do a great job here.
andrewucla 1 year ago
good vid man, you should target some better keywords as ur vids never come up for the keywords I search. Im subscribed! I reallly enjoy debating esp. the fallacious presuppositionalist claims by Van Til and Bahnsen. Those really make my skin bristle.
actionjackson864 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it's notable that Atheists keep coming back to listen to apologetics... you'd think if they were really SURE of their beliefs that they would have better things to do.
BUT: The truth is WAY DEEP DOWN they want to believe in God, and to know Him, because that's what they were created for - though they vehemently deny it.
lastdaysguitar 1 year ago
hi mate, appreciate you don't like a question about 'how' to be answered by 'who'. but if we just re-phrase the initial question a bit we could ask: 'how did the universe get here' in which case 'so -and -so left it here' or ' God made it' would be a perfectly fine answer would it not? Would you agree however that space and time are 2 of the very characteristics of 'our' universe and could therefore the universe have been fashioned by a being caught in space and time or spawned by other univrs?
brightsfighter 1 year ago
@ azsuperman01 Good response, presented clearly. Well thought out. Subbed.
TooferMan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
//If God has any effect in the real world, then that effect would be testable, and his existence could be verified// Morals arent empirically verifiable either, but most atheists believe they are real. For all the atheists who "voted up" on that comment... think about that for a moment, and be honest with yourself
chriswnorris7 1 year ago
By this same line of "reasoning" There is no reason to believe in anything.
Any meaning of any kind.
The universe was not created, It is an ongoing process. It is happening now.
Now, intelligence. There is no proof of any intelligence anywhere.
Science can not prove intelligence. It measures and observes natural causal effect events. "We" through science are nothing more. We imagine natural causal effect events to be intelligent.
Twicebakedtaters 1 year ago
Poor refutations IMO. The example you give has many leading and root causes including weather, rain, and then ultimately gravity which creates a chain of effect for the ripple. It makes sense to ignore the law of gravity when you are ignoring the law of motion and inertia also (which the Big Bang Theory does too). A Christian's answer: what/how - said/spoke (Gen 1:3); of what - nothing, was created (Gen 1:1); who - YHWH/Elohim (Gen1:1).
MrRichardsees 1 year ago
@ 3:54 "but you couldn't trace it back any farther." Neither could you so how could you say with 100% confidence that there is no God?
@ 4:38 "is it possible? Yes." That's all the theists are saying
I like your analogy but the point is something caused the rock to roll into the water could be wind could be someone pushing it. Nor does it address where the rock, wind, water ect came from. BTW could you do a video on a non theistic explanation for information such as DNA or laws of physics?
kinduvabigdeal 1 year ago
Some say "logic cannot be applied to religion" or "You can't prove the existence of God with logic". Then what does religion come from? Isn't religion or the holy bible the word of God? Then you're basically saying that you can't apply logic to God. Now tell me how does the most intelligent being on the universe not have logic??
Denoomi 1 year ago
there's no problem. read the bible. it tells you how everything was created. unlike the big ban, which is not proven and also states that something came from nothing. And you assume the big bang as fact when us theist already explain how that's not true(just like the scientist agree upon). So you went in a circle and are ignorant of what your talking about. not angry just use actual facts and not state things that already have been dis-proven.
lifecon1 1 year ago
@lifecon1 "read the bible. it tells you how everything was created. unlike the big [bang], which is not proven..."
Yeah, the big bang theory is unproven, unlike the bible, which has all sorts of evidence for its claims of a 6,000-10,000 year-old earth, talking snakes, enough water to cover the whole land area of the earth suspended above the atmosphere, a boat big enough to carry either two or seven of every species of animal, huge populations of Hebrew slaves in Egypt... LMFAO!
Guitcad1 1 year ago
While there is evidence that the universe is expanding, the big bang is still just a theory. The big bang theory supposes that the extremely early universe originated from a singularity. That's where it ventures out of the realm of reality and off into pure fantasy. A more practical theory is that the universe is eternal, and cycles endlessly between very large and very small states.
VerumAdNauseam 1 year ago
If you died right now are you 100% sure you'd go to Heaven?
777AreY0uSure 1 year ago
@777AreY0uSure No, I'm 100% sure I would not. I'm 100% sure that I would simply cease to exist as a thinking being.
Guitcad1 1 year ago
@Guitcad1 so your life is was and always will be insignificant. That means you give everyone here permission to do whatever you we want to you based on your rules because there is no logic and there is no purpose. killing you would be like a video game because it doesn't matter. I could steal all your possessions, family, and anything else you value because you have no reason to be.
lifecon1 1 year ago
@lifecon1 OMFG! Take it easy on that poor straw man you are beating up on! Where the hell did all that come from? WTF do you know about "my rules"? Who says there is no logic? Not me. Who says there is no purpose? I just say that my purpose is determined by me, not some imaginary, homicidal, psychotic, bronze-age desert spook. And if you think that means "moral relativism" or whatever the fuck you call it, then I say try doing all the things you said and see if I "give permission".
Guitcad1 1 year ago
To clarify my position, When I say "universe" I am refering to something that cannot be confined to 3d space/time. A big bang could be the beginning of all 3d reality as evidenced by its obsevable expansion. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be eternal and first cause.
7greenjeans7 1 year ago
Think about this: The Word= applied knowlege. Try thinking of some other over-arching terms that could substitute for applied knowlege. Then read the first 5 verses in John's gospel using those other terms. Technology is an interesting one.
7greenjeans7 1 year ago
I think that God is the universe. God is eternal. The universe is eternal. No big bang created this universe that we, as yet, can't even quantify or put limits on. The creation story(s) in the bible pertain to the local cluster (our solar system). The Elohim were a race (for lack of a better word) of extra-solar beings. Flesh and bone. they used unimaginable technology to engeneer these planets and put us here. Have you never thought of your body as tech? It is.
7greenjeans7 1 year ago
Why are you justifying this argument at all? As an atheist, you embrace that, in the end, there is nothingness and oblivion. If you are honest with your beliefs, then meaninglessness is the final end. Poe knew this. So did Nietzche and Hemingway. Why do you even try? Just trying to understand......
Sportfish192 1 year ago
Wow man, I saw your Kalam destruction on KH's channel and checked this vid out. Great analysis and rebuttal of the first cause argument. Looking forward to your other videos man.
RockBanned 1 year ago
exactly if the universe needed somthing to create it otherwise it wouldn't exist god would have to have somthing create him or he wouldn't exist. If they say the universe couln't have popped into existance then how can they say god did
stethespaniard2 1 year ago
there is not a human on this planet that can prove God existence to an atheist. Never has been, never will be. God is a personal choice.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony - If God has any effect in the real world, then that effect would be testable, and his existence could be verified. When someone says God's existence can't be proven, they are admitting he doesn't do anything and doesn't matter.
azsuperman01 1 year ago 15
@azsuperman01 which effect do you need tested?
atheism is closed minded-ness. Denying something's existence that you cannot prove does not exist. Think about that!
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony which effect is there? you claim of atheists being close minded. that is laughable. i am living in a flat, in an ubran area.
i dont see, hear, feel, touch, smell any...
1)homo goblins that fornicate every step they take
2)pink invisible dragons that breathe out cotton candy
3)super jewish superhero babysitter that grants wishes...
so do they exist? OF COURSE THEY DO.
SaintDL 1 year ago
@helpmetony according to your arguements, if nothing can be seen, heard, touched, felt, smelled, or have its existence proven it must exist. never mind that you have no way of knowing it could be there this way, or that what is it that could have been there.
you simply assume. nice open mindedness. but you have just insulted the open minded people in the world. open minded does not equate to being delusional.
SaintDL 1 year ago
@SaintDL sorry, it's taken a while to get back to you. I want to address the open-minded statement, where you used the word delusional. I, of course, can't explain God to you. Only you and God can do that. I was where you are now for most of my life, it wasnt until I gave up some of the questions and trusted. Then, I began to get answers. Delusion is far from the equation, and I cannot take offense from your insult. It only displays frustration with the whole thing, and I completely understand.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 what I mean is you can't learn God in a book, or a youtube video.
People can lead you to God, but it is up to you to make the conscious choice to invite God into your life. Of course God is supernatural! There is and have always been supernatural stuff going on all around us since the beginning of time. Effect in the 'real' world? This IS the real world, brother!
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony evidence of the supernatural pls. a long long time ago, even the tide and the wind are supernatural. simply because humans as a species could not yet explain the workings of such.
see, until now we have not yet arrested a ghost or vampire for harming human beings. we have not accepted as a fact of life that demons and ghost go out to harm people.
SaintDL 1 year ago
@helpmetony
in fact if you live in a wartorn area, if you spot weird sounds at night, it might be an enemy soldier more then a ghost.
the idea of ghosts are just remnants of human's awareness of dangers that lurk in the dark, the evolutionary self defense mechanism left over from our days before albert einstein invented the light bulb.
but i spoke too much. like i said. define supernatural, then why you believe in it, supported by evidence.
SaintDL 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 spoken like a true intellectual, fucking eh right
ryanireland187 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 lol I disagree completely
IoDecay 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 Re: If God has any effect in the real world, then that effect would be testable, and his existence could be verified.
According to who?
You don't accept 'cause' as proof and I wouldn't argue with you for the simple reason that no one can prove the existence of God. I disagree about an admission that existence in God can't be proven.
The bible says evidence has been given to everyone and only fools reject it. Only the father grants the gift of knowing he exists to some.
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@MrChristianBeliever So where is this evidence God has given to everyone?
supersaupe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supersaupe Re: So where is this evidence God has given to everyone?
Not such a good question.
Are you telling me that you are not capable of do the research necessary to answer this question for yourself?
You have rejected all evidence ever presented to you and I don't blame you since the evidence presented was not enough for you to believe.
I am not suggesting that you must believe the evidence provided, I am only suggesting that there is no evidence for you.
Why ask this question?
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@azsuperman01
Whatever something is testable that something would be subjected to scientific study.If something that is scientific study the closer it becomes scientific fact. The closer that something gets closer to scientific fact the more people believe that it comes from nature alone.EX (If true resurrection was possible by the will of people that had died. Then Jesus would not be raised to god status because everyone could do it.Therefore you could not prove God again cuz God is normal)
taylord109 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 do you have a video that deals with apologetics on slavery?
Drgamedood 10 months ago
@Drgamedood Not yet. The Poor Apologetic series was primarily designed to address arguments for the existence of God.
azsuperman01 10 months ago
@helpmetony you are right is impossible to prove whats not real
arga400 1 year ago
@arga400 -let me know eventually how that works out for you. It is one thing to be sarcastic, especially when you use it in place of knowledge. I, nor anyone else is going to convince you, I know that. It is only up to YOU what you discover using your brain, coupled with your heart.
helpmetony 1 year ago
@helpmetony actually you could convince me of anything if you had empirical evidence to support your claim of course, my heart just pumps blood is all up to my brain and my brain only accepts reality(atlest most of the time)
arga400 1 year ago
When you say the universe do you mean all of existance? because if we're talking about all of existance i think a how would be impossible to state because it would rely on principals that are being created in the event in question. I think to say "how" is to assume from the start of the argument that we're talking about a universe in a smaller sense and assuming that all of existence has always existed.
zach9899 1 year ago
I agree for the most part. We don't know what happened before the big bang nor how it happened in the first place. I don't think the argument is appealing to who however, rather it 's appealing to why the universe was created which can be traced back to a who. In any case, no one knows for sure.
Sean2112bd 1 year ago
Why assume there is a "before" the Big Bang?
Mike000000000000001 1 year ago
Well if you are a materialist you probably wouldn't since technically all that exists for a materialist is time, space, and matter which didn't exist before the big bang. However, why assume that there isn't a "before" the big bang. We shouldn't stop questioning just because it is uncertain. This is a question of philosophical importance which is why people, with their insatiable curiosity, need an answer.
Sean2112bd 1 year ago
unwinable arguments....you can't be more than 40 years old.....not enough time for you to have ........ there is nothing that is designed that does not have a designer..... your religion is incredible.... you "intellects" are bigger zealots than any religious person I have ever met....
cincykid32 1 year ago
cin...
Then you are blind & a fool!
You can't just assume something has been designed bcuz U can't understand how it can be otherwise! You wouldn't make a very good scientist!
And I can tell you that watching Hovind doesn't speak well of you! 6K yr earth?? Anyone who understands how we determine the age of the Earth, or anything in antiquity, know that a 6K yr old earth is absolutely absurd. Try 4.5 billion yrs.
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux if there was a big bang was there water ? if so why is this the only planet in this vast system with water.... logicaly there should be water blasted over the entire universe..... you are an ignorant religious zealot, bigot, who throws out all logic to defend your idealogy.... not very scientific.
cincykid32 1 year ago
And, pre-existing material at that.
brodudemanguy 1 year ago
Complete desperate attempt of faulty analogy!
Your analogy has material causing more material. The Big Bang is the beginning of material, space, and time all coming from a singularity.
brodudemanguy 1 year ago
Hm @ you have to establish a how before you establish a who. That's a pretty bold statement.
rizzumz 2 years ago
@gargamel6699, evolution is not just a theory it is scientific fact.
holio84 2 years ago
This is poor anti-apologetics!
Your rock analogy is extremely poor since there is a clear cause of the rock falling from the edge of the cliff. The cause [being a rock] is also a contingent cause. Plus the cause is IN time. Therefore your rock could not possibly be a contender for being a First Cause of any description. You are the one implying an actual infinite regress by attempting to ignore the possibility of a First Cause. This is a poor response to any Cosmological argument.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
@dooyeweerd hes not making a first cause argument assclown.... there doesnt need to be a first cause necessarily and asserting that there does is fucking retarded considering that we dont know!
keggerous 2 years ago
keg,
Then you would need to demonstrate how there can be an actual infinite regress. Good luck with that!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
not actually. ud need to demonstrate that a first cause is somethign that is actually REAL before i say anythign about it. i dont claim there is a infinite regressa i simply claim that u dont know if there needs to a first cause and u also dont know if time eisted before the big bang or not. im simply pointing out ur lack of an agument not making an argment of my own im simply stating that saying things cannot happen to naturally cause the universe is ignorant.
keggerous 2 years ago
Not at all. In philosophy it's called a reductio ad ou can reduce one argument to an absurdity and then infer something else from that. This is a very well accepted way of reasoning. So your response demonstrates some ignorance of how philosophical arguments can be formulated I'm afraid.
I do not need to demonstrate they are the only two ways. It would be your job to demonstrate there is some third way! Falsification remember not verification!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
i disagree. when u claim either there must be a first cause of u get an infinite regress, u are making a statement of fact. u are claiming a dichotomy of either this or that. the problem i have is that there could be more then just that. i dont accept ur dichotomy. also, i dont have to give a 3rd option. i dont know what a 3rd otion would be however that doesnt rule out a possible 3rd option. aslo i agree with the idea of falsification. to bad ur argument is unfalsifiable........
keggerous 2 years ago
i meanthere is no way for me to know what really caused the universe. therfore there is no way for me to know if ur dichotomy is correct or not.
ill give u one example. what if there was a multiverse that could eist forever without goign into heat death? what if little universe broke off from this multiverse and we lived in one? so there is an eample of somehtign that science cant rule out yet at the same time doesnt fall into ur dichotomy. the 3rd way could be the way we dont know about
keggerous 2 years ago
saying that there needs to be a first cause or else we get an infinite regression is also ignorant. if u think thats the case would u like to demonstrate the validity of ur dichotomy? would u like to demonstrate how those are the only 2 options? im waiting....
keggerous 2 years ago
First off gargamel, upon rereading my post I see where I had a poor choice of words, so let me correct that. First cause is ONE problem that has presented itself to evolution , not THE reason. Second, your response to me betrays a lack of education on your part and your statements lack substance. Next time you want to try to call someone stupid in front of the whole world, maybe you should try not sounding like an ignorant fool doing it.
willflair4tips 2 years ago
Therefore, the cause of a naturalistic universe must inherently have a supernatural cause. Then there is the statement in which you say that you do not know what caused the universe, you just know it isn't God. this is a statement that requires evidence, to which you have not shown any. As far as your statement about God needing a cause, and therefore bringing the argument back into "infinate regression" shows a presupposition that God is not supernatural.
willflair4tips 2 years ago
@willflair4tips supernatural real must have a super-super-natural metacause.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
Irrelevant. We are called to love God, not God's creator. Besides, how do we know that God isn't the super-super- natural metacause? The point here is that only in the natural do we need a first cause. Since we do not know how super-natural works fully, we cannot know if a first cause is necessary until we meet God. In the mean time, all we need know is that God is OUR cause. His cause is irrelevant and unnecessary to love Him.
willflair4tips 2 years ago
no, i define that supernatural things demand a metacause.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
Think what you will, but in reality your definition is irrelevant. It's like saying I define music as tasting like purple. Unless I have some evidence to back it up, my claim is arbitrary. so, unless you have some evidence you have not yet presented, your "metacause" claim is irrelevant and arbitrary. If you do have evidence for your claim, I would be interested in knowing so that I may examine it myself.
willflair4tips 2 years ago
congratulations, your "god" cause is in your own words "irrelevant and arbitraty", because it fulfill your own reason to tell it is so.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
@DemokritosAbdera very true. if there wasnt a metacause for god then how would it be that there would be a god instead of no god? i mean why is there a universe instead of no universe? god right? so the same must go for god aswell cuz we all know hes just so convienent to have around to make universes for us and all.
keggerous 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
keg,
"so the same must go for god aswell"
Category error alert!!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
keg,
You are clearly getting very desperate now. Whereas the hypothesis of God makes sense and obeys the rule of Occam's razor all of your arguments are special pleading and fail to explain anything!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
? occam's razor. i find it funny u bring that up... cuz god being an infinitely complex and infinitely old entity seem far more unlikely then a multiverse. a fully natrualistic explanation is not only more logical but in fact, does explain a lot.
on the other hand, ur god hypothesis explains.... absolutley nothing! why is there a god in the first place? why would he make a universe? what method did he use? all new questions added because of ur hypothesis. ur guilty of special pleading not me
keggerous 2 years ago
keg,
"god being an infinitely complex and infinitely old"
Now you're just making up your own definition. Very cheap shot!
A multiverse would not answer the question of why something exists rather than nothing. God does.
You need to look up what special pleading is pal!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
so if there there is a universe instead of no universe becase there is a god that decided to make one, why is there a god instead of no god? are u telling me that there is a meta god that made god? because the universe is complex and u tell me that it must have been made by a god. now ur god is infinitely complex... so does that mean a god must have made him too? like i said why god instead oof no god. let me guess, cuz hes special? i know what special pleading is u obvious dont... get a clue
keggerous 2 years ago
keg,
When you've read some philosophy then, and only then, come back for a discussion. This is worse than trying to reason with a drunk undergraduate!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
hahah i dont need to read up on philosophy to spot poor arguments and logic hahaha we had a nice talk though, i enjoyed it a lot. :)
keggerous 2 years ago
@dooyeweerd - Wow, inventing an all-powerful, all-knowing, un-created creator who exists but can't be tested obeys the rule of Occam's razor?
I think you need to re-familiarize yourself with logical fallacies.
azsuperman01 2 years ago
I would love for you to give me a lesson on logical fallacies and how God commits such things please. But of course if you do then you need to stop from saying such a being "can't be tested" since applying logic to such a being will be doing precisely the thing you say you cannot do!?!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
@dooyeweerd
Some claim about God DEFINITELY can be tested. And many have - the problem for you is that so far every attempt validate God-claims has come up empty.
That fact causes many believers to argue that God can't be tested scientifically. If you believe otherwise, please explain what kind of test you would accept as proof of the existence or non-existence of God.
azsuperman01 2 years ago
@dooyeweerd it seems that you have a definition of god to be able to tell people to not say god cannot be tested. so please, state the definition of the god you believe in and then set out to prove it
SaintDL 1 year ago
@SaintDL
The God described in the western philosophical literature. No private definitions here! And then one would proceed through many varying arguments to establish both the existence and character of that being. Some being: Cosmological, teleological, moral and rationality arguments.
dooyeweerd 1 year ago
Actually, the first cause argument is a really good one, and it is the reason why scientists have not made evolution law instead of leaving it as a theory. How God created the universe is irrelevant. This is a straw man, and I think that most of us can see that. Your lake illustration also makes no sense, nor does it have anything to do with the first cause argument. The first cause argument hinges on the concept that the result cannot be bigger than the cause.
willflair4tips 2 years ago
I just started to read your comment and off the bat you said "and it is the reason why scientists have not made evolution law instead of leaving it as a theory"
So you have NO idea of what a scientific theory is and the rest of your suppositions are out of your ass. You are ill equipped for a RATIONAL thought out discussion. so please, read a little, know what the hell you're talking about and come back when you're a little more educated.
gargamel6699 2 years ago
hehe, I was just about to write you a comment about this, but I then saw that you had already got one... hundred... thousand comments :D
I think you're sharp, and easy to understand, it is good. But I think you're missing the point of the arguments you're trying to refute. You cannot escape the first cause argument by metaphorizing it with natural ways, because in the very beginning (first cause), there could be no materia to act naturally. If there was, it wouldn't be the beginning.
FryxNummer14 2 years ago
I am surprised you didn't use the fact that this argues from the singularity theorem that as time is reversed to 0, density reaches closer and closer to infinity (as published by Penrose and Hawking in 1970). Because if you did, you could then demonstrate that this argument neglects the Plank time as demonstrated in later works by Hawking that general relativity must also include Quantum mechanics. In this case, Plank time negates any such idea of singularity.
Christisms 2 years ago
I guess, I would conclude with saying that you just are not smart enough to be an atheist.
Christisms 2 years ago
Poor Criticism of Poor Apologetics.
1st of all, you misrepresent the 1st cause argument and refute a formulation of it that is not as cogent (involving the big bang, which has never been a part of the argument).
2nd, the argument does not define "God" as the 1st cause. It's the other way around. It defines the 1st cause as "God."
3rd, the first premise of the argument is not that everything needs a cause, but that every effect needs a cause other than itself. Asking who made God is invalid.
NomosCharis 2 years ago
Whenever there's a debate about who or what created the universe I simply ask different questions: why do you care? Why does it matter? Can the answers actually affect us in any way?
Redrally 2 years ago
Why am I more skeptical of aliens then God?
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
maybe because you where raised in a religiuos family? i dont know... search you feelings young skywalker....
johnnythesailorman 2 years ago
How do you know this? You naturally assume I accept the hypothesis of God because I'm speculative of aliens?
Strikes me as reaching when you have to explain away an implausibility with an equally implausible cause.
Now THATS poor apologetics.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
dude im not trying to apologize for anything i was just fuckin around. to me there is more evidence for aliens than there is for god. no ones ever taken a picture of god. but theres tons of UFO pictures and videos. many hardcore skeptics are made into believers of ufos after experiencing PHYSICAL stimulus in front of many sober eyewitnesses who experience the same thing. im not saying ufo's are real, just sayin more plausible than god. why do you think otherwise just out of curiosity.
johnnythesailorman 2 years ago
Physical stimulus...you mean like stigmata, illumination, healing...things that religious people experience all the time in front of sober eyewitnesses?
I think that its less likely because there's never any explanation behind the alien hypothesis. At least believers have The Bible, the Koran, relics, place names. Alien believers have photos which are easily doctored.
Aliens to me are a convenient way to avoid questions, but still seem hip and a-religious.
I'm just f-ing around too :/
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
there is a cause and affect for everything....nothing can have an infinite cause and effect because then the law of cause and effect is not valid....nothing can come from nothing....i am not defending Christianity but it had to be some kind of higher power....thats why in my opinion it is easier to believe this universe came from a necessary infinite being rather than believing in an infinite cause and affect which practically contradicts itself...
YaBoiRexX 2 years ago
nothing didn't come from nothing. Science doesn't know YET what made the bing bang bang. If you study the BB closer, you'll notice that science only starts explaining, about a trillionth of a second after the bang.
But not knowing, doesn't mean it is caused by a higher power. There was a time when people didn't understand why the moon got full and anewed, now we know it's caused by its position in relation to earth and the sun.
shroomungous 2 years ago
Anything above our dimension/state/disposition is a higher power. Any person could define it as God or a natural cause, though what is natural and what is godly? It may depend on if those higher powers are intelligent, and if they are, then what is the highest power? Is there a highest power? Is God the 10th dimension? New theories from scientists and philosophers don't discount such possibilities, they create them. Maybe the appearance of the moon is more complex, and involves the space time
UNIT301092203 2 years ago
fabric, dark matter or dark energy, the bending of light by the above, or interference by higher dimensional branes, or a host of quantum interferences and so on.
UNIT301092203 2 years ago
Interesting! But then you're stating there's smth ab our d/s/d & that's a postulate statement.
& why would that be a higher power.If you say it could be refered to as "a natural cause" it cannot be a higher power, or maybe it depends on what you call 'higher' power?
The moons appearance isn't more complex, and yes can be explained on optical, astronomical & quantum level, space/time is always a factor in this universe.
btw, dark matter cann't bend light, that's why can't find it.
shroomungous 2 years ago
I agree with most of your logic. However, people have argued that God, being infinite, does not require a cause. It is very possible that, given certain attributes, something does not require a cause. After all, the idea of causation is a product of our association with time. An action is caused because there was a before and an after, in which the action is in between. If you remove time out of the equation, there is no before and after. Therefore, if God is timeless, he requires no cause.
UNIT301092203 2 years ago
The bing bang is stated as the beginning of time, so there was no before. otherwis it would be infinite.
shroomungous 2 years ago
Something wrong with infinite?
If the big bang was the beginning of time, then anything outside of our universe is timeless, and the concept of timeless, from our point of view, is infinite. Just because we live and think in time, doesn't mean things can exist outside of time. Time can be thought of as a 4th spacial dimension of reality, in which we are moving through the 5th dimension of branching possibilities. Confusing?
There a tons of crazy but popular theories out there. Watch10dimension
UNIT301092203 2 years ago
No not confusing at all, i've been aware of the multiple dimensions theory even before i read about it.
I do not believe the universe to be finite, so there nothing wrong with infinite. But that's what the BB theory says.
btw: where can i find this Watch10dimension, can you pm me a link?
shroomungous 2 years ago
Strange vid. You firstly promote atheist leanings then reach totally agnostic conclusions.
sweetness2follow 2 years ago
This video couldn't be further from the truth, your example of a land slide into a lake won't work. If it was going to happen without a conscious decision it would have happened in the eternal past. It has to be a conscious decision to set things in motion. The fact that you are conscious is evidence that can be observed. Your a product of something or someone conscious. Science is studying a contaminated environment in a non -steady state of increasing entropy.
rook1123 2 years ago
Scientists agree that the universe is experiencing increasing levels of entropy. However, when you measure the temperature of the universe, you may find it to be comparatively very cold, even though there are many hotspots like stars. Just like temperature, you may find the universe to have high entropy, even though there are ordered "hotspots" like human minds. The still lake in his analogy could represent 100% order, just as the waves represent increasing entropy. The waves don' t separate
UNIT301092203 2 years ago
everything in it's path, hence the presence of ordered "hotspots". To my point, his analogy could work if, given that order and intelligence are related(the human mind has the lowest known level of entropy), if the still lake represents 100% order(0% entropy). The big bang fits in nicely with his analogy(0% entropy as everything is packed into infinity before the bang). Thus the universe before the bang could be thought of as intelligent and conscious. Thus, the universe before the bang could
UNIT301092203 2 years ago
have the same properties as god, and all that we know is pieces of "gods" exploded body.
UNIT301092203 2 years ago
Why are you stating that "who" and "how" are essential questions in first cause? You accept first cause as self evident or you don't.
peppilepiu 2 years ago
great vid
kharrod1 2 years ago
Positing the existence of an unknown being (deity) to explain the existence of the universe is basically a non-answer.
Not only that, but a positive and coherent ontology of such a being as yet to be established.
On another note, if it is plausible to claim that a deity always existed, using Occam's Razor, we can remove the unknown parameter and claim the universe always existed under a form or another...
wynd2007 2 years ago
you mention gravity, weather, etc... all things that are driven by specific laws that the universe could otherwise not exist without. I think the argument is that information, such as laws, come from a "lawgiver". someone or something that is beyond or not bound by these very laws. first cause simply means the moment before the big bang. chance has no power unless it has a first cause.
paradoxchaos26 2 years ago
What can cause energy to exist? Can something cause the destruction of energy? The answer is no!
But energy simply can't be an uncaused cause, because scientists know that energy appeared with the BigBang...so the uncaused cause has to be metaphysical.
Whatever caused the universe to exist can't be bond with this universe and its laws... so why is it so hard to believe in a God?
PS: if you believe the BigBang is only an intermediate event, you're simply postponing the problem of eternity!
OnePacifier 2 years ago
How did the universal laws of logic come about? What is the origin of math & physics, etc.? How can something come into being from nothing, by itself? For something to create itself, it would have to "be before it was", thereby violating the most basic law of knowledge, Its totally irrational and a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Something can not "be" before it was "nonbeing".
4570sharps 2 years ago
(cont...) This is why only God who is The self existent eternal being that has the power of being/existence within Himself, dependent on nothing outside of Himself to exist and is eternal violates no formal concept of logic whatsoever! There is no need for the "who created God" argument. All arguments for ultimate authority are circular by nature. That is why you have all but instinctively stated your own premise that matter (and therefore space-time) are eternal. (cont...)
4570sharps 2 years ago
(cont...) If u then say that you will violate Newton's First Law. There is NO valid external cause for the universe apart from God. If anything exists now then something has always existed. Something is eternal or nothing could exist now. Many atheists believe that for eternity all of the universe was compacted into this infinitesimal point of singularity, with all energy and mass compressed, in a state of total organization and stability FOR ETERNITY? Then 1 day, BOOM! It blows up. (Cont..)
4570sharps 2 years ago
Now, what happened to the law of inertia? Things that are at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by what? An outside force.
4570sharps 2 years ago
I think a more interesting question is what caused a universe with a weak atomic force of a specific strength that allows carbon to be formed in stars and therefore life to evolve.
rhm01 2 years ago
Christianity is nearing an end.
This delusion is eroding due to the tranfer of knowledge and reduction of Godly ignorance. It is about time we grew out of this ridiculous superstition that has retarded every positive human endeavor since it's inception.
I for one say GOOD RIDDANCE!
judoyodan 2 years ago
Except that every statistic today shows that its only theists who are reproducing. Just one of the many destructive, negative and depressing fruits of your "life is ultimately meaningless" worldview.
4570sharps 2 years ago
Except that every statistic today says that Christianity is in severe decline, and the fastest rising "religious" affiliation is atheism.
Looks like the children of the faithful are shedding their delusional herritage.
judoyodan 2 years ago
Science and everything about the world we live in SCREAMS at us that life can not come from non-life and information can not come from non-information. Matter+Time+Chance=Human life? That is delusional! Its as though u & I are standing on a stage together both of us assuming Reason, order, rationality & ethics are coherent & binding- BUT I stand on this stage say things that r consistent w/ my world view & were I am standing and what I believe in (as a designed creature able to comprehend God)
4570sharps 2 years ago
What u r doing is standing on that same stage but then you're saying you're just a bunch of atoms banging around & there is no ultimate reason or purpose in listening to what u say but I better listen to what you say! Its just not rational & void of meaning. Man aught to recognize God, there is no excuse for him if he does not. The reason for his failure to recognize God lies exclusively in him. It is due to his willful transgression of the very law of his being. (cont...)
4570sharps 2 years ago
Man's self awareness always presupposes awareness of God. Life can not come from non-life.
4570sharps 2 years ago
First of all, science doesn't "SCREAM" anything. And just because we are not certain of something(i.e. life's beggining), doesn't mean we attribute the cause to a "god". That is the lazy way out, and leads to a continuance of ignorance.
There is NO evidence of any god, ever. How you get to that conclusion is purely a result of indoctrination and delusion.
judoyodan 2 years ago
And yet I'm the one making the case that its YOUR position that is a result of massive doses of "indoctrination and delusion".Your not dealing w/ any of the content of my posts & yet I'm the "delusional" one here? If u found a Goodyear tire on the moon but had no knowledge of what a car was u would still know that tire had a designer, information & purpose. You may not have a complete understanding of those three facts but to not acknowledge them only "leads to a continuance of YOUR ignorance".
4570sharps 2 years ago
Maybe sharps needs to look up the definition of "delusion".
The fact remains that you believe in something for which there is NO EVIDENCE, not a single bit. Most reasonable people would call that "delusional". You cling to a bronze age superstition to fill in your considerable gaps of ignorance.
Educate, and free your mind.
judoyodan 2 years ago
I'll just let your inability to deal with the content of my posts speak for itself. Remember, your worldview teaches that you, your life and everything you say are totally meaningless and yet I'm suppose to listen to what you say??? That is a fool's paradise and you can't live consistently within your own worldview for even one day without barrowing from mine. The simple fact that you're here forming coherent sentences proves my point.
4570sharps 2 years ago
I love how you Christians attempt to make this into a debate over "world views". You think it lends weight to belief in the supernatural. Here's a secret for ya, It doesn't. All it does do is make a grown man(sometimes woman) look silly running around trying to convince people of the existence of a sky daddy.
Anybody over the age of seven with an invisible friend, has issues.
judoyodan 2 years ago
"you believe in something for which there is NO EVIDENCE"
I ran into a problem with the origin of DNA code. I was wondering if you could explain to me where coded information comes from. If it only comes from a "mind" then we have evidence for a higher intelligence. If it comes from random chance then perhaps you could share some examples of coded information arising from random natural processes.
callingheyzeus 2 years ago
Many people have trouble understanding where and how a replicating molecule originated. There are several vids on youtube you can access on the origins of dna, I suggest you view them.
But to make the argument of "I have a problem understanding something, so god must have done it", is ridiculous.
Theists would do themselves a great service to learn the phrase "I don't know".
judoyodan 2 years ago
So lets say you already have the right molecules. Like you take a frog and put it in a blender and whip it up to a frothy mix. Lots of good molecules in there. What are the chances and how long would it take for it to come back to life? I mean under the right conditions, of course. "I don't know" but I am willing to go out on a limb and say probably never.
callingheyzeus 2 years ago
You would be wrong.
First your argument is flawed. The frog you speak of is the result of millions of years of evolution. It takes large amounts of time to develope into an organism such as a frog. The remains of your blended one would be long gone.
But, given enough time and opportunity, a simpler life form might develope from the krushed kermit. The beggining of life. We still are in the infant stage of knowledge in this area. Eventually your god of this gap will be filled.
judoyodan 2 years ago
"I have a problem understanding God, so something else must have done it", is just as ridiculous.
Lack of evidence is not conclusive evidence. An example of the rules of logic. So where do the rules of logic come from?
callingheyzeus 2 years ago
I have no problem understanding "God" and where he came from. I assume you are talking about the christian god.
He is simply a bronze age creation of desert tribesmen that gained notoriety out of neccesity of a ruler.
And yes, lack of evidence is evidence of lack.
judoyodan 2 years ago
The "laws of logic" describe reality, they don't make it.
A thing is what it is and is not what it is not does not MAKE something what it is and FORCE it to be what it is not but rather simply describes what is observable reality. This is much like the idea that the "laws of physics" needed someone to CREATE these "laws". The laws of physics, again, simply describe what is observable and testable reality.
fanofthefollowing 2 years ago
Sorry, callingheyzeus, the responses from "fanofthefollowing" are because my wife was signed in and I didn't notice. Please post responses to "fanofthefollowing" to me.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
The FROG wouldn't climb out of the blender, but bacteria and fungus would certainly grow out of the blended frog.
Bad example.
Godshoulddie