there is no evidence of a god so the default position is there is not a god if you are saying that there has to be a causes for what universe or life on earth then you will have to say your god will need a cause I think its you with the paradox
there is no evidence of a god so the default position is there is not a god if you are saying that there has to be a causes for what universe or life on earth then you will have to say your god will need a cause I think its you with the pradox
I mean there are things which exist outside our own dimension. I mean christ even in our own dimension we see .005% of the visible spectrum. What my point is is that you can't have the newer (because we haven't been using it for very long with the relative time man came out of the caves) science of physics to try to explain the mysteries of the universe let alone even the untestable.
@therealpongmasters. Great point! What people need to realize is that we live in a 3d world where time and space exist. We always think something has to have a begining and an end. Not so, just because you can't wrap your mind around a concept doesn't mean you use the archaic view of religion to answer the questions or as you so eloquently put it... call it magic.
ok dude just because we do not know what came before or what started everything does not mean it can be determined that there was or is a creator. just because something is not understood doesn't mean you can call it magic.
If nothing can exist without a cause there can exist no uncaused cause.
If every thing must be designed there can be no undesigned desiner.
If every thing had to be created there can be no uncreated creater.
Most all arguments for god undo themselves with some form of this paradox. If such a god exist it does so in denial of logic itself for the very premise used to infer its existance also negates it.
@RicenCoal I know the concept of infinity is difficult; but that doesn't make it impossible... nor does it make this argument valid for that particular case...
@RicenCoal I don't want to argue but what must be understood is that God is the End All, Be All. He is God of all, He's not bound to a law or man's limited, finite logic. I don't say this to offend but we will never understand all of God because He's eternal and limitless. He transcends time and our understanding. God never created the logic you mentioned, yes it is true right up to Him because He is Creator.
@RicenCoal I understand what you're saying but what I am saying is that humans are not perfect and neither is our understanding. But I know God is real because of my life. There are some things that have happened in my life that I know was God moving. I will provide examples if you wish but it's getting pretty late so I'm going to bed :)
@godzchyld08 Your experiences are your own. I cannot base may perception of reality upon the experiences of others. I agree logic may not be perfect in discerning of truth, but what can do better? Logic has been tested in practice and its results confirm it.
The system exists because it works. If it didnt work then it wouldnt exist. Nothing will be fully understood by man, EVER! Humans wll always have distorted veiw on the universe because they are organic life.
Lots of nonsense and wise thought in this thread, but one thing kept being repeated that needs to be corrected. Life on Earth will not stop if the level of oxygen changes "even 1%" that is a silly, made up and laughable idea.
nextcrusader...i get your rational but i think ultimately it brakes down. Here is why...you say that we are so complex and intelligently put together that someone must have created us right? well that means that the 'creator' must be also complex and very intelligent to have done so. So my question is...who created the creator? You see where I'm going with this...its an endless loop of.... arguing :)
I recommend you to read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, the argument you put forward of how complex and perfect the physiology of all living things is ultimately the product of natural selection. Just take into mind our complex biological system, did not occur in a flash, it was a result of centuries of small changes through natural selection which led to our being.
There has also not been one biological feature that has been proven to be so complex that natural selection cannot create it.
im getting pretty annoyed with people acting like agnosticism is a neutral position in the whole (a)theism debate. (a)gnosticism is to do with knowledge, (a)theism is about belief. everyone on the planet is either an atheist or a theist. obviously you can also be agnostic, and should be, but when it comes to belief (a)gnosticism isnt always relevant.
I under stand what your saying but. How do u know that there need to be a cause and an effect ? We cant be 100% on that. We just dont know these big questions yet.
Well you should study harder your biology and chemistry. Agnostic is sure a fair position but it's still weak.
Saying that Darwin was agnostic is not an argument to prove that there might be a GOD. His theory make abstraction of any belief of a personal GOD or any religion (it's called SCIENCE/ objective point of view). It show there is a chance (so it's POSSIBLE) life was a random thing and started from unliving things (amino-acids). Every religions has a GOD so yes it's related! Bad arguments.
You don't know what you're talking about, if 1% of oxygen was taken out of the worlds atmosphere no life could survive. It's not about whether humans can breathe in 1% less oxygen, it's about if humans can survive if 1% were taken out of the worlds atmosphere.
what is the cause of God? if the starting particle does need a cause, then that much more does the all-complex (much more complex than us). The complicated things you talk about are less complicated than the "GOD" itself. Einstein believed in the beauty of the world, as far as we science can tell. "If something is in me which can be called religious, it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world, AS FAR AS OUR SCIENCE CAN REVEAL IT." - Albert Einstein.
@uskro Listen tool, nothing you are saying makes sense, read what you post before posting it! Also the quote you posted agrees with my argument that Einstein was a Deist. The definition of deisim is "belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation "....
@mikeysaxton I didn't have enough space to give you the full quote, sob:
"It was of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repreated. I do not believe in a personal God and never denied it but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world, AS FAR AS OUR SCIENCE CAN REVEAL IT." - Albert Einstein
If this universe was meant to be a perfect design for life then I think that its creator needs to go back to the drawing board. As a home for humanity it has a lot to be desired, as just about all of it is hostile and inhabitable. That doesn't sound too perfect to me.
You're citing the teleological argument and the cosmological argument, finally someone who knows what they're talking about. There is proof of a 'designer' or 'designers', no doubt about it the only problem is trying to work out which one is the truth. The way I thought about it was that if you look at it you'll see there is proof of a designer no doubt, and I found it highly coincidental that the 3 major religions essentially stem from the same roots. So Id put my faith in one of those for sure
Well no that's a bad argument as everybody knows humans and all life in general need something to preceed them before more life can be made thus humans or any life on this planet could never just 'be'.
@Oliiiverr I don't understand. I was talking about the little particles which collided at the begining of time and then started mutating creating life and developing later on into complex life forms. If an atom, a single, the simplest particle needs a creator, then why doesn't the allmighty, allcomplex "GOD" need one? If the Complex organism "GOD" does not need a creator, then neither does the atom. Nor do we need God to randomply collide particles. Logic.
Actually that's illogical because to the best of our knowledge atoms or particles do not create themselves, science contradicts itself in this manner. The big bang theory states in the beginning there was nothing, then particles collided and imploded. And the universe expanded from then on. But something does not come from nothing and what are we expanding into? The big bang theory has far too many holes.
And you didn't read the second part how the world was seemingly created with a design.
@Oliiiverr Which is more complex, God or anything in the nature? Undoubtedly ? then if a bug has to be created so does the creator. It can't go one way it's either both ways or none. either both have been created in which case it's a neverending circle of creator designers whatever you want to call them. Or it's just a simple cycle of one universe out of many universes. And the "nothing" is made up by isolated particles. Document first.
Before jumping to 'the designer of the designer' theory you must first realise the perfection of earth for example if the planet had 1% less oxygen it would be unable to support life. Compare it to a watch if you picked up a watch you could easily see it has a designer even assuming you had no idea what a watch was previously. It is similar if you look at earth you can see the design. Now you ask why could this 'designer' not have been isolated particles? Well it is illogical.
@Oliiiverr I thought it was about origin. I which case we need the origin of the origin of the origin. The arguement you give is far from realistic and it's the only arguement religion! clings to. The Earth is not perfect, and as we can see from polluting, the oxygen to carbon ratio is dropping and has dropped in a serious manner, that 1% being over lapped a long time ago. It is illogical to assume random action to the laws of physics because it is not magical as it is off the wand of boo-boo.
Well that topic is irrelevant, origin of the designer isn't in any relation to the designer of the earth. If you look at how the world is 'designed' it is perfect for sustaining life just like looking at a watch you can see the design of the earth. Thus what is illogical is to state random particles created this.
Don't talk about the laws of physics when your hypothesis includes random particles imploding from nothingness. That is adding random magic to physics.
Let's suppose we were created. The watch. We are a german watch. Made by a swiss watch. Then who made the swiss watch. Then Who made the maker of the swiss watch.
Particles collided randomly and imploded from the reaction. As done in the vacuum of Geneva, particles moving in void move with speeds higher than the speed of sound. Put them in opposite directions and 2 particles with the same speed would be colliding immovable with unstoppable. It's a game of waiting not a game of chance.
Again, you are talking about things irrelevant to the point. The point is not who made the designer, you could ask that question afterwards perhaps. That would still be a relavant question afterwards, however the point is, that the world, just like if you were to look at a watch is made with a design. To state particles randomly collided, to coincidentally make something as well balanced and well designed as the earth, and the universe is still expanding into nothingness. Is silly.
@Oliiiverr How the fuck is it irrelevant. So you are allowed to say some mambo jumbo created me and that I cannot exist unless mambo jumbo says so. And for the sake of logic which I see you find it "irrelevant" I ask who made/controles the creator you say it doesn't matter. You people are just like soldiers, you say and do what you are told. It is silly to assume void. It isn't silly to assume invisible super beings who aren't capable of creating one measling perfect universe. And why
It is irrelevant because that is not the question at hand. You are jumping from one question to the other, you do not go onto another point whilst the first is being discusssed that is why the origin of the designer is irrelevant.
I didn't say 'it doesn't matter' I said speak of one point at a time but it is completely logical to state the earth has been designed. But you can't deny the design of the earth of the basis that the designer needs an origin.
@Oliiiverr Are you a religious blindfolded narrow minded dumbass ? I went with your arguement. "Let's suppose" which is an absurd reduction logical arguement. Which you don't understand. Which means one of two things: you are under 15 or you do not read enough. You saw something on tv or yyour minister told you what to think and this is what you do. you say I'm jumping arround. Study logic, then reply to me.
@Oliiiverr and why, why would he bother. is he in a joyous mood. Does he have time to play. What does he really want with us. Are we just trials and errors. Is he an error of another faulty creator which would imply he is an error of an error of an error. Who's being silly? Me for considering a proability collision, or you for imagining creators without being created. ow, I know. he just popped up. You should also check for gold at the end of the rainbow.
Again that is off point. It is illogical to deny there is a designer on the basis of questions such as 'why did he create us?'. The point of the discussion is to decide whether or not the earth has a 'designer' and by looking at the earth reasonably yes, until there is evidence that without a designer something as well balanced a perfect supporter of life such as earth can be made. Then the most logical reason for life is that something created and designed it. To the best of our knowledge.
Where, where is the balance, where is the "well design" ?!?! Just because we do not know what is out there in the vastness of the universe. Do you have any ideea how big the probability is for a planet just like ours with the almost exact conditions of life, to exist ? If you could place a bet you would probably lose money even though you would bet on the existance of that planet. We are in no way unique, in no way designed. Just look at the evolution of the planet itself and of life on it.
The design is obvious, look at the carbon cycle, the water cycle, gravity, look at how life is made, and how food and water is available to sustain it. If you look at all that and still try and state there is no 'design', and no 'balance' then quite simply you are being irrational.
Erm, yeah but that wouldn't provide evidence you require. Until there is evidence that without a designer something as balanced as earth can be 'just made' out of nothingness it is the most logical explanation.
you just keep coming back. if there were a desinger why would we need all this. could we just exist, couldn't we just live?we need food,we need water,we are weak,we are easily killed, which creator would jeopardyze his creation on which he worked. If I were to create life I would make it independant so It would live on it's own without the needing any outside interferrance. While you need carbon oxygen food water and many other things just to live. Logically, a creation needs a workable project.
But you're asking an unanswerable question to begin with and still a question irrelevant to the point. It's not about how *you* would create it or about why we weren't created in a different way. The point is that looking at everything, it all seems to have been 'designed'. Questioning why is pointless to the issue of whether we were 'designed'. I am not coming to you from a religious point of view, it is simply logical to state that we were designed, and illogical to call it a happy coincidence
@Oliiiverr I was stating the logic choice, the logic in a "designed" creation and the lack of logic in our supposed deisgn. As for your oxigen, go on top of a 4000 metre mountain and see if you can breathe. Unless you have a lung disorder you will be able to breathe in 15% less oxygen environment. I bet you could survive in a -1%.
PERIOD! The whole concept of creator/designer was created by religion. refute religion, refute god..
A lack of logic would be if everything didn't work together and someone stated it did. If you understand how a working design works then it is logical to look at the world and conclude that it has in fact been designed.
That way of thinking is irrational. The fatal flaw of Atheism is that like a religion they are unwilling to accept ideas different from what they've grown to believe no matter how much evidence is presented.
Are you trying to piss me off?You gave two arguements:
-Everything is a watch made by the designer which I proved wrong by REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!
-Decrease the level of the oxygen by 1%.As I said before,go up on a mountain and see if you can breathe.Over 20% of humans can breathe up to -30% oxygen. I on the other hand gave you a whole range on arguements one of which you disproved by religion and not by science.A piece of advice.
Study: Logic, Biology, Physics and all religions before commenting.
You didn't prove anything wrong, I said like if you were to look at a watch's design you can easily see the design of the world. To this you have said nothing other than, 'If I were to design something I'd do it like this', but that is stupid talk because it does not counter the fact that there is seemingly a design to earth. And how earth is a perfect support for life
Those are humans with rigorous training, and we are talking about 1% less oxygen in the atmosphere, all life would die out fact
The initial arguement was that the Designer of the Designer of the Designer of the ... and that was the Reductio ad Absurdum dumbass, the Reductio ad Absurdum one of the most famous logical arguments which you called illogical.
And the initial oxygen arguement was "go to a 4000 metre altitude and you and over 90% of humans will be able to breathe", and the true fact is that only larger species than us require more oxygen, the smaller the species, the less oxygen they require. Check your facts!
Learn to read, I did not call it illogical, I said that argument is irrelevant to this argument. If I was merely using the cosmological argument in that something cannot come from nothing then yes that argument would be relevant. However the designer of the designer bears no relevance to the argument that the world appears to have been designed. Thus saying that the world doesn't have an obvious design on the basis that the designer needs a designer is illogical, not the argument itself
@Oliiiverr it bears as Reductio ad Absurdum means accepting you arguement and seeing where it leads. As it leads to an absurds situation of an infinite number of designers lacking an original design who would have to be designed, your theory is reduced to absurd and thus proven false. Logic. If you want to stick just to the situation of the horse kicking the owner without wondering why did that happen, it's your deal.
That's not seeing where that argument leads, you've completely placed that out of context. If I was simply using the cosmological argument like I stated before it would lead into that. However stated the world appears to have been designed is a matter of logic, thus it is irrelevant where the original designer came from because even if you assume he/she must have been created by something it bears no relevance to the logical fact of the earths design.
@Oliiiverr and by the way, what do you understand as "life". Recent news, life on titan. Living bacteria that feeds on hydrogen. The moon can't even support water. Yet there is life. The ecuation of life is limitless and far from depending on 1% oxygen.
Nono Oxygen remains relevant, 1% has been overlapped over a very large period of time thus life was able to adapt because we had already the means. However if 1% was suddenly removed from our atmosphere there would be no means to survive. In the same way if the earth had 1% less oxygen at the origin there would be no life on this planet.
That is by the way not the only design easily spotted, it is unrealistic to state the design of the earth is a mere coincidence.
@Oliiiverr Really. Then how did the species of the cretacic period survive the asteroid impact
the ratio suddenly tilted in the favour of CO2 and other toxic elements which held up for a decent period of time, between 10-50 years. How did they have time to adapt ? Did they sleep on it? Dinosaurs dissappeared because of the blast, after shock or hunger. While other species prevailed.
And adaptation after all is an evolutionistic, atheistic form of science.
That's a questionable theory, religious people for example would say there was no asteroid there was a great flood. Considering fossil evidence it is not unreasonable. There is no hard evidence to support that the ratio of oxygen has ever dramatically shifted, because from whichever point of view you look at it from there would be no life.
@Oliiiverr And you ignored my titan example. Titan has no oxigen. Yet life exists.
And Earth by all means is not perfect. A perfect earth would have had one species that had converged all the best characteristics in all existing species, undependant of anything. The Earth just like us depends on many things, and the "living" Earth is just as fragile as us on a macroscale, which we tend to reach and compromise. If it were the watch it would have no flaw.
Signs of life does not nessesarily mean life, scientists have not confirmed or denied this, you are trying to make it seem as though there are definate signs of life when in fact it has already been deemed unlikely.
Earth is perfect for supporting life and always has been. The deforestation and such, man-made pollution shifted this balance. Wrong, a watch is not perfect there may be scratches around the surface. From the carbon cycle, to mamallian birth, the design of earth is easily seen.
@Oliiiverr In the case which let's assume the faulty creatore, let's ignore the fact that you do not want to debate the origins of the creator. Guess what. We are god. Artificial life has been made by humans. I guess that in the near future we are going to create universes. Just like the faulty creator you hang on. And you are weakly documented on the religious issue. And I assume you are religious if you consider "the great flood". Which ends our discussion here.
I'm not saying you shouldn't debate the question of the origin of the creator I'm saying, (for the last time I might add), that it is illogical to deny that the earth hasn't been designed (when by all observation it seems to have most definately been to the best of our knowledge), on the basis of such questions such as the origin of the designer.
Thus the origin of the creator is irrelevant to the fact that the universe has seemingly been 'designed'.
It's ironic that you say 'at a random time' because if you are as you say 'looking at the facts' which science claims then you will no doubt be aware that there is a claim that time did not exist before the big bang there was apparently nothing. In fact you have no true basis for calling it a random event at all scientific study in this area is very primitive at the moment that much is obvious.
Einstein was in no way an agnostic. He was a deist brother. He believed in a god of order and harmony of nature And I also believe that that cause and effect argument is inherently flawed. Think of it by means of probability. It is far more likely that the uncaused cause was the simplest process possible i.e. the big bang. where it's only consisted of elementary energy and particles, rather than comleticating the process by throwing an infinitely complicated being such as God into the picture.
@mikeysaxton "It was of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repreated. I do not believe in a personal God and never denied it but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world, AS FAR AS OUR SCIENCE CAN REVEAL IT." - Albert Einstein. If you are not documented enough do not dare to speak.
1) Your logic definitely escapes Mr.Condell's capacity to understand;
2) You seem to be saying you believe in God (or a Supreme Being, to be politically correct) but dislike religions. Since religion has always been defined as man's attempt to "find" God, why don't you just start your own religion since all the others have obviously gotten it wrong?
1) Its pretty easy to understand. Even beyond the big bang and the creation of our universe there is still the question of what was/is... The thing is there could still be something that is, technically, a creator, but it wont be a old man in a robe with a beard. Thats what hes saying and thats the reason hes an agnostic and not a atheist anymore.
2) No, hes saying man made religion and the context of what defines a man made religion is wrong. That dosent exclude a "creator"(see 1).
1) I don't think any religions believe God is an old man in a robe. That notion is derived from the way artists used to depict Him in paintings. As a general rule, it was believed that the older one was the wiser he was, so naturally they wanted to depict Him as VERY old. Since art is the artists' impression, we are all free to pick up paint brushes and paint Him any way we choose;
2) There are literally thousands of "man-made" religions out there. So, back to my original second point: if you can't find one to suit you, you're certainly free to start another! What's one more in the larger scope of things!
2) No, you are just not seeing hes point of view. You are putting your point of view into hes world. This isnt about "choosing" a man made religion. Its just that hes view(see 1),or how I understand what hes saying.
Isnt comparable to what the traditional definition of a religion is. Just because you say that it MIGHT be some form of a "creator" at the edge of the universe, outside or similar in the unknown. Does not equal a religion.
1) There are zillions of religions with a humanoid God represented in some way, but its kinda irrelevant to my point of a possible agnostic view of not having a "human communicator" like God, or a "traditional" God as the possible "creator".
Talking about religions in plenum would mean that the, quote, "...wont be a old man in a robe with a beard" is more a phrase to communicate the point of it not being a traditional God and not meant to be taken literary.
You remind me of the old saying: ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT YOU'RE UNIQUE . . . JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!
So, if it makes you feel better to think you're the first to think or question this subject matter, go for it!
And yes, I am thinking outside the box! It's just that from my perspective, this "radically new" view is no different than a million others I've seen or read over the years.
How do you come to the conclusion that I might be, paraphrasing, "feeling better to think I am the first one that questions this subject matter.". When I am clearly just trying to communicate what I think the video poster is saying?
If you have thought that I was telling you "my" view, you are wrong.
When you think someones explanation of "a" view, is there view. I would argue you seem fairly limited in being able to view someones subject from there view with little interference from your own.
Sorry. I got confused for a moment. I forgot that you (Lobo222) were merely passionately defending a view you don't hold yourself, just like you mistakenly accused me of not being able to think outside of my own definitions when I referred to a pretty much standardized definition of religion! I should have wrote that nextcrusader's position (not Lobo222's) is no different than a million others, and thus seems to summarize a rather old "religion" in and of itself!
And if you (or nextcrusader) are going to play the religion game, you need to follow the rules, which include respecting other religions the way you expect them to respect your's!
"I mean, religion sucks ass." Valid, and well constructed, point.
"I don't even listen to anyone that wants to talk about religion cause, to me they're ignorant." Aren't they just, those 'debaters', and 'talkers', trying to form a balanced viewpoint through educating themselves on other opinions, what bigots.
And the 'Cause and Effect' point, there happen to be gas molecules, that science has discovered move without cause. Bam goes that 'fuckin' cause', then.
You would like scientific reasons to disprove deism?
The argument of suffering
The second law of thermodynamics, which is the entropy principle (complexity only increases)
Don't assume people haven't thought about these things before you say such shit about why some people are athiests. Sorry i got annoyed with you there. And no, Einstein did not believe in a consciousness out there, Spinoza's God is a metaphor for the laws of physics.
the human body is not proof in a higher power. LoL if u believe in a higher power anyways he must be some form of mother fucker because just look around the suffering isn't going to end for 1,000 years. iraq afghanistan iran n.korea darfur china human rights abuses world wide. hunger crises's, disease, death, world wide corruption. ... really... when do i fucking stop? where's your fucking god now cunt
If you're so dissatisfied with your existence, why do continue to endure it? Why not help yourself to a good dose of rat poison? Let me know if you need guidance as to where you can buy it. Or give me an address to send some to for you. I'm always available with help when it comes to exterminating pests and parasites.
everything has a cause which means EVERYTHING has o have a cause and therefore a god is not the answer to that problem
Also with the big bang Time Space came into being so before it there was no time, as cause and effect are timebased(they follow eachother) it is of no importance anymore
It's not perfect. Even the human body is flawed. Blind spots, backs not fully adapted to upright walking, vestigial organs. The burden of proof falls on people who believe on god, not on those who don't. You wouldn't call yourself an agnostic on fairies would you? And Einsteins god is a representation of the cosmos.
Oh, and how are biology and physics courses "philosophical"?
Causality is dependent on time. The origin of the universe is the origin of time therefore does not have to be governed by the physical laws that this event CREATED. The superior being statement is an infinite regress.
I kind of understand what you were trying to get at but I think you misunderstand the point of that video that patcondell made. It's not to tell people that there is no god because If there was he wouldn't be doing such bad things. If he wanted to make a video telling why biologically, physically , philosophically or psychologically he doesn't believe in god he could have done It but that's not what he wanted to do. He just wanted to connect some common sense with religion.
u don't get what hes saying. He is not comparing god with atheism. He is explaining to dumb christians that too compare god to at atheism, retarded. And atheist aren't deniyng life on other planets. But they won't say that they know that it exist without exploring it sientifically, Finding proof that points in the that direction or even proof that is does.. It's all about being able to explain your statements, and not taking everything for granted.And u my friend, think you are smarter than u r
I wonder if this guy even knows what agnosticism is. It can easily be said that nearly everyone on the planet is agnostic, all it means is that you do not have absolute certainty for your belief. So by definition it doesn't work by itself, it needs a belief to go with it. And was that an argument from authority I caught there at the end?
It is all about faith, and Jesus said "You can be saved by no other then Jesus", Acts 4:12. Please repent, and put your faith in Jesus. "It is appointed unto men, once to die, and then the judgement." Hebres 9:27. Please reconsider your position. You live on this earth for 100 years, but after that you either spend eternity in heaven or hell. Jesus said that you would be better off cutting your arm off if it caused you to sin, rather then being put in hell. I take Him at his word!
Read The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P Hall This book will reveal many hidden meanings, and sybolisms that only the initiated could understand, while the rest of the population believed literally the stories the priests told. It is the same as today.
This what is written in the bible... I happen to believe that the bible has been heavily manipulated. Between the Realm of spirit, and matter lays consciousness... Jesus, if he existed, was like the budda, he was an awakened being. He was saying no one can get to the father except through me... but what that means is 'unless he awakens'.
First Cause is Spirit... Effect is physical... I am the mediator, I am awake. This is why Jesus said know one comes to the father except through me... Jesus is an allegory for your indwelling presence. I am agnostic as well...
Talking about belief, is it your BELIEF that Jesus said this or is there enough evidence for this position that it is not a belief but a justified conclusion?
Jesus is nothing until he is proven to have existed in the first place.
That's what their argument always comes down to. Something HAD to cause everything. Everytime I hear something HAD to happen or I know THIS I roll my eyes.
By the way what people BELIEVE, whether it's Darwin, Dawkins or the Pope, has absolutely nothing to do with what is true.
Two things you should learn about before commenting.
1. Atheism
2. Evolution
Your design argument is your opinion. I do not see design.
I have created my own theory of everything... I believe in everything, and nothing at all... That pretty much covers it... Because at the end of the day, it's all belief, or disbelief.
You state something about a superior being going up to man and stopping at man, big fish eating smaller fish, etc. You really think its that linear? Does the complexity in our world have to stop at biology? Of course not. And of course there is no "Predator" running around with lasers blowing us apart, but there is bacteria and viri. With an open mind consider everything to be revolving an not so linear. I do agree that we're far from learning what got this record spinning.
I believe there is something out there that we will probably never understand. But I mean it when I say we (humans) CAN'T.
Religions like to believe they have the whole universe figured out, like they were god themselves.
I also always thought there was a Jesus, but that he was just the Einstein and Darwin of his time, and not some spiritual being that he was made out to be by people who didn't know him.
Cause and effect is not evidence of purpose, as in revealing the external purpose of a creator. When you say cause, you seem to mean a creator. When I say cause, I mean the thing which came before the effect.
Positing a creator to make you feel comfortable with the way things seem, is just an opinion. Get back to us when you really have proof - not just a feeling.
i've been brought up with a atheist view & have gone over the subject of god in my mind.
i find it hard 2 take in that some people see that we r the image of god. i mean a dolphin could of had a extra brain cell than us humans. what makes us so special for him to look like us 4 all we know he / she / it could look like a moose.
another argument against god is that he causes things to happen in this world, but i think humans, natures flow & animal actions do.
Congratulations on finding ways to open your mind and I agree with your views on religion. But I tend to be of the opinion that your mind is still pretty closed. Why are you so insistent that there had to be a "first cause"? Who says so? You keep wanting to slip back to intent and goals when none are evidenced.
BTW, Darwin started a Christian and Einstein was a Pantheist. And Einstein's greatest failures came from his subjective beliefs... like his belief in a kind of non-personal God.
"God does not play dice with the universe" -- Einstein's refutation to quantum mechanics; a system we now know to be true.
Einstein called his original "Cosmological Constant" his greatest failure. It arose from not questioning the subjective idea that the universe was stagnant.
Objectively, Einstein saw that his calculations suggested the existence of black holes. But subjectively, he decided they were "too weird" to exist.
We can learn from his failures, or repeat them. Evidence is truth.
Agreed man. I think that, yes, there must have been a cause for the current universe. BUT wether you call that "god" is all up to you, but it should not be more than a name, or a personally coined expression for mentioning the nature of our universe, and the beauty of our universe.
But yes, I am pretty spiritual, but not religious at all. The fact that people are trying to get religion into public* schools is sickening on a deep level.
Why don't they just open private religious schools?
Intelligent design is the standard argument of creationists against evolution, and it's a poor one. Basically, why not think of it like this...how unlikely is it that we turned out the way we did? Probably pretty unlikely. This is supported by the fact that we know of no other planet within our reach which has similar life on it. Our development just happened, and we just evolved. By chance. That simple.
And Darwin was an atheist till the day he died, despite what Creationists might tell you.
This might seem weird to you bro, i appreciate everything you are saying, but i think you underappreciate the natural beauty of life. I'm a microbiology student, and i think that everything is so much more beautiful without god. All that complexity is much more boring if you incorporate the idea of a creator. I think his video was about how the idea of god LEADS to religion, and so to all the horrible stuff. Good vid man, let's keep this conversation going!
Let's cut the bull*&it. None of us know what happens after we die. There is no proof that a word of the bible is true. When people believe dogmatically in something for which there is little or no evidence, it shuts us off to what is really true! I was a christian for years, and miserable but afraid to admit it. Years and years of searching and I am now a happy atheist trying to convince others that they can also be free.
so while using your cause-to-effect argument to deny the non-existence of a superior being, you just stop there and don't ask yourself where that superior being came from?
your argumentation is based on determinism and you think you're backed up by einstein there. but being the most popular scientist of our time doesn't mean that everything that einstein said was true. for example, holding on to determinism which is now dead and buried in favor of quantum-theory.
Islam explains every single thing in this life....it's just only need u to read it...understand it...from its real resources...and then u can take it or leave it...it is very simple!
i agree with you with the whole perspective you have on atheism, i personally like to think of myself as humanist, there might be a god out there, and i think that we as humans should figure out our own problems, and not rely on a supernatural being to solve them for us.
First, I do not speak English I write about through an interpreter .. You are free to choose a religion that believes in them, but I would like to draw your opinion on the Islamic religion Ptaraf .. And then when you die, meaning that the one God who created us to worship
Some serious Thomas Aquinas going on up in here. It makes sense.
gumdropgirl2012 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there is no evidence of a god so the default position is there is not a god if you are saying that there has to be a causes for what universe or life on earth then you will have to say your god will need a cause I think its you with the paradox
Tony2438 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there is no evidence of a god so the default position is there is not a god if you are saying that there has to be a causes for what universe or life on earth then you will have to say your god will need a cause I think its you with the pradox
Tony2438 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in Vaine :)
gingersuger1 10 months ago
sorry when i said christ, it was suppose to be a curse word. should have said JESUS CHRIST or goddamn!! lol
cedwards600 1 year ago
I mean there are things which exist outside our own dimension. I mean christ even in our own dimension we see .005% of the visible spectrum. What my point is is that you can't have the newer (because we haven't been using it for very long with the relative time man came out of the caves) science of physics to try to explain the mysteries of the universe let alone even the untestable.
cedwards600 1 year ago
@therealpongmasters. Great point! What people need to realize is that we live in a 3d world where time and space exist. We always think something has to have a begining and an end. Not so, just because you can't wrap your mind around a concept doesn't mean you use the archaic view of religion to answer the questions or as you so eloquently put it... call it magic.
cedwards600 1 year ago
ok dude just because we do not know what came before or what started everything does not mean it can be determined that there was or is a creator. just because something is not understood doesn't mean you can call it magic.
TheRealPongMasters 1 year ago
Then again, if Ken Anderson can make the term "asshole" into a compliment, maybe it's not so bad...
dameon692002 1 year ago
Well, I was with you... up until you started calling me an "idiot" and an "asshole".
dameon692002 1 year ago
You have some points to make. and I heard them. I only wished you could have done without the four letter words.
02half1951wit02 1 year ago
If there wasn't any faith in some skyspook, there would be no religion....
bohemianwriter1 1 year ago
If nothing can exist without a cause there can exist no uncaused cause.
If every thing must be designed there can be no undesigned desiner.
If every thing had to be created there can be no uncreated creater.
Most all arguments for god undo themselves with some form of this paradox. If such a god exist it does so in denial of logic itself for the very premise used to infer its existance also negates it.
RicenCoal 1 year ago 7
@RicenCoal I know the concept of infinity is difficult; but that doesn't make it impossible... nor does it make this argument valid for that particular case...
dameon692002 1 year ago
@RicenCoal I don't want to argue but what must be understood is that God is the End All, Be All. He is God of all, He's not bound to a law or man's limited, finite logic. I don't say this to offend but we will never understand all of God because He's eternal and limitless. He transcends time and our understanding. God never created the logic you mentioned, yes it is true right up to Him because He is Creator.
godzchyld08 9 months ago
@godzchyld08 How do you know such a God exist if not by application of logic?If you forsake logic must you not also forsake truth?
RicenCoal 9 months ago
@RicenCoal I understand what you're saying but what I am saying is that humans are not perfect and neither is our understanding. But I know God is real because of my life. There are some things that have happened in my life that I know was God moving. I will provide examples if you wish but it's getting pretty late so I'm going to bed :)
godzchyld08 9 months ago
@godzchyld08 Your experiences are your own. I cannot base may perception of reality upon the experiences of others. I agree logic may not be perfect in discerning of truth, but what can do better? Logic has been tested in practice and its results confirm it.
RicenCoal 9 months ago
@RicenCoal i really want to continue this convo but this is getting long for the comments section...do you mind if we continue this in the inbox?
godzchyld08 9 months ago
The system exists because it works. If it didnt work then it wouldnt exist. Nothing will be fully understood by man, EVER! Humans wll always have distorted veiw on the universe because they are organic life.
DrDuck7700 1 year ago 5
God still loves u, u poor wretches be rubuked!!!!!!!!!!
xxlettice97xx 1 year ago
god bless atheism!!! if u believe god so its means he still loves if u are gey or what ever race or whatever he should love us init ?
sad4ewer 1 year ago
Lots of nonsense and wise thought in this thread, but one thing kept being repeated that needs to be corrected. Life on Earth will not stop if the level of oxygen changes "even 1%" that is a silly, made up and laughable idea.
Bayhuntr 1 year ago
I heard the Na'vi are superior?
bushpigification 1 year ago
lol
vivianchinnayya 1 year ago
lol
vivianchinnayya 1 year ago
Comment removed
oscarsande 1 year ago
nextcrusader...i get your rational but i think ultimately it brakes down. Here is why...you say that we are so complex and intelligently put together that someone must have created us right? well that means that the 'creator' must be also complex and very intelligent to have done so. So my question is...who created the creator? You see where I'm going with this...its an endless loop of.... arguing :)
oscarsande 1 year ago
so what is the couse of first thing? and then what is the couse of that couse? and so on
Xmuslim2010 1 year ago
I recommend you to read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, the argument you put forward of how complex and perfect the physiology of all living things is ultimately the product of natural selection. Just take into mind our complex biological system, did not occur in a flash, it was a result of centuries of small changes through natural selection which led to our being.
There has also not been one biological feature that has been proven to be so complex that natural selection cannot create it.
dualrain 1 year ago
blah blah blah YES there is a GOD!!!!!!
manksta12 1 year ago
@manksta12 yeah... i know.... too bad they dont.
futureguitarleader66 1 year ago
im getting pretty annoyed with people acting like agnosticism is a neutral position in the whole (a)theism debate. (a)gnosticism is to do with knowledge, (a)theism is about belief. everyone on the planet is either an atheist or a theist. obviously you can also be agnostic, and should be, but when it comes to belief (a)gnosticism isnt always relevant.
totz2 1 year ago
I under stand what your saying but. How do u know that there need to be a cause and an effect ? We cant be 100% on that. We just dont know these big questions yet.
Generaldukov 1 year ago
Well you should study harder your biology and chemistry. Agnostic is sure a fair position but it's still weak.
Saying that Darwin was agnostic is not an argument to prove that there might be a GOD. His theory make abstraction of any belief of a personal GOD or any religion (it's called SCIENCE/ objective point of view). It show there is a chance (so it's POSSIBLE) life was a random thing and started from unliving things (amino-acids). Every religions has a GOD so yes it's related! Bad arguments.
n1ght0n3 1 year ago
go study the law of conservation of mass, then you have your answer
zivchen1985 1 year ago
You don't know what you're talking about, if 1% of oxygen was taken out of the worlds atmosphere no life could survive. It's not about whether humans can breathe in 1% less oxygen, it's about if humans can survive if 1% were taken out of the worlds atmosphere.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
what is the cause of God? if the starting particle does need a cause, then that much more does the all-complex (much more complex than us). The complicated things you talk about are less complicated than the "GOD" itself. Einstein believed in the beauty of the world, as far as we science can tell. "If something is in me which can be called religious, it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world, AS FAR AS OUR SCIENCE CAN REVEAL IT." - Albert Einstein.
uskro 1 year ago
@uskro Listen tool, nothing you are saying makes sense, read what you post before posting it! Also the quote you posted agrees with my argument that Einstein was a Deist. The definition of deisim is "belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation "....
mikeysaxton 1 year ago
@mikeysaxton I didn't have enough space to give you the full quote, sob:
"It was of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repreated. I do not believe in a personal God and never denied it but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world, AS FAR AS OUR SCIENCE CAN REVEAL IT." - Albert Einstein
His God is Science.
uskro 1 year ago
If this universe was meant to be a perfect design for life then I think that its creator needs to go back to the drawing board. As a home for humanity it has a lot to be desired, as just about all of it is hostile and inhabitable. That doesn't sound too perfect to me.
If everything that exists had to be created,
and God is exists,
then God had to be created.
Otherwise,
not everything that exists needs a creator,
or God does not exist.
Which is it?
inaicrnd 1 year ago
You're citing the teleological argument and the cosmological argument, finally someone who knows what they're talking about. There is proof of a 'designer' or 'designers', no doubt about it the only problem is trying to work out which one is the truth. The way I thought about it was that if you look at it you'll see there is proof of a designer no doubt, and I found it highly coincidental that the 3 major religions essentially stem from the same roots. So Id put my faith in one of those for sure
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr doesn't the designer need a designer. Or the designer just "is". At which point we don't need a designer. We just "are".
uskro 1 year ago
Well no that's a bad argument as everybody knows humans and all life in general need something to preceed them before more life can be made thus humans or any life on this planet could never just 'be'.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr I don't understand. I was talking about the little particles which collided at the begining of time and then started mutating creating life and developing later on into complex life forms. If an atom, a single, the simplest particle needs a creator, then why doesn't the allmighty, allcomplex "GOD" need one? If the Complex organism "GOD" does not need a creator, then neither does the atom. Nor do we need God to randomply collide particles. Logic.
uskro 1 year ago
Actually that's illogical because to the best of our knowledge atoms or particles do not create themselves, science contradicts itself in this manner. The big bang theory states in the beginning there was nothing, then particles collided and imploded. And the universe expanded from then on. But something does not come from nothing and what are we expanding into? The big bang theory has far too many holes.
And you didn't read the second part how the world was seemingly created with a design.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr Which is more complex, God or anything in the nature? Undoubtedly ? then if a bug has to be created so does the creator. It can't go one way it's either both ways or none. either both have been created in which case it's a neverending circle of creator designers whatever you want to call them. Or it's just a simple cycle of one universe out of many universes. And the "nothing" is made up by isolated particles. Document first.
uskro 1 year ago
Before jumping to 'the designer of the designer' theory you must first realise the perfection of earth for example if the planet had 1% less oxygen it would be unable to support life. Compare it to a watch if you picked up a watch you could easily see it has a designer even assuming you had no idea what a watch was previously. It is similar if you look at earth you can see the design. Now you ask why could this 'designer' not have been isolated particles? Well it is illogical.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr I thought it was about origin. I which case we need the origin of the origin of the origin. The arguement you give is far from realistic and it's the only arguement religion! clings to. The Earth is not perfect, and as we can see from polluting, the oxygen to carbon ratio is dropping and has dropped in a serious manner, that 1% being over lapped a long time ago. It is illogical to assume random action to the laws of physics because it is not magical as it is off the wand of boo-boo.
uskro 1 year ago
Well that topic is irrelevant, origin of the designer isn't in any relation to the designer of the earth. If you look at how the world is 'designed' it is perfect for sustaining life just like looking at a watch you can see the design of the earth. Thus what is illogical is to state random particles created this.
Don't talk about the laws of physics when your hypothesis includes random particles imploding from nothingness. That is adding random magic to physics.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
Let's suppose we were created. The watch. We are a german watch. Made by a swiss watch. Then who made the swiss watch. Then Who made the maker of the swiss watch.
Particles collided randomly and imploded from the reaction. As done in the vacuum of Geneva, particles moving in void move with speeds higher than the speed of sound. Put them in opposite directions and 2 particles with the same speed would be colliding immovable with unstoppable. It's a game of waiting not a game of chance.
uskro 1 year ago
Again, you are talking about things irrelevant to the point. The point is not who made the designer, you could ask that question afterwards perhaps. That would still be a relavant question afterwards, however the point is, that the world, just like if you were to look at a watch is made with a design. To state particles randomly collided, to coincidentally make something as well balanced and well designed as the earth, and the universe is still expanding into nothingness. Is silly.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr How the fuck is it irrelevant. So you are allowed to say some mambo jumbo created me and that I cannot exist unless mambo jumbo says so. And for the sake of logic which I see you find it "irrelevant" I ask who made/controles the creator you say it doesn't matter. You people are just like soldiers, you say and do what you are told. It is silly to assume void. It isn't silly to assume invisible super beings who aren't capable of creating one measling perfect universe. And why
uskro 1 year ago
It is irrelevant because that is not the question at hand. You are jumping from one question to the other, you do not go onto another point whilst the first is being discusssed that is why the origin of the designer is irrelevant.
I didn't say 'it doesn't matter' I said speak of one point at a time but it is completely logical to state the earth has been designed. But you can't deny the design of the earth of the basis that the designer needs an origin.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr Are you a religious blindfolded narrow minded dumbass ? I went with your arguement. "Let's suppose" which is an absurd reduction logical arguement. Which you don't understand. Which means one of two things: you are under 15 or you do not read enough. You saw something on tv or yyour minister told you what to think and this is what you do. you say I'm jumping arround. Study logic, then reply to me.
uskro 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr and why, why would he bother. is he in a joyous mood. Does he have time to play. What does he really want with us. Are we just trials and errors. Is he an error of another faulty creator which would imply he is an error of an error of an error. Who's being silly? Me for considering a proability collision, or you for imagining creators without being created. ow, I know. he just popped up. You should also check for gold at the end of the rainbow.
uskro 1 year ago
Again that is off point. It is illogical to deny there is a designer on the basis of questions such as 'why did he create us?'. The point of the discussion is to decide whether or not the earth has a 'designer' and by looking at the earth reasonably yes, until there is evidence that without a designer something as well balanced a perfect supporter of life such as earth can be made. Then the most logical reason for life is that something created and designed it. To the best of our knowledge.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
Where, where is the balance, where is the "well design" ?!?! Just because we do not know what is out there in the vastness of the universe. Do you have any ideea how big the probability is for a planet just like ours with the almost exact conditions of life, to exist ? If you could place a bet you would probably lose money even though you would bet on the existance of that planet. We are in no way unique, in no way designed. Just look at the evolution of the planet itself and of life on it.
uskro 1 year ago
The design is obvious, look at the carbon cycle, the water cycle, gravity, look at how life is made, and how food and water is available to sustain it. If you look at all that and still try and state there is no 'design', and no 'balance' then quite simply you are being irrational.
Erm, yeah but that wouldn't provide evidence you require. Until there is evidence that without a designer something as balanced as earth can be 'just made' out of nothingness it is the most logical explanation.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
you just keep coming back. if there were a desinger why would we need all this. could we just exist, couldn't we just live?we need food,we need water,we are weak,we are easily killed, which creator would jeopardyze his creation on which he worked. If I were to create life I would make it independant so It would live on it's own without the needing any outside interferrance. While you need carbon oxygen food water and many other things just to live. Logically, a creation needs a workable project.
uskro 1 year ago
But you're asking an unanswerable question to begin with and still a question irrelevant to the point. It's not about how *you* would create it or about why we weren't created in a different way. The point is that looking at everything, it all seems to have been 'designed'. Questioning why is pointless to the issue of whether we were 'designed'. I am not coming to you from a religious point of view, it is simply logical to state that we were designed, and illogical to call it a happy coincidence
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr I was stating the logic choice, the logic in a "designed" creation and the lack of logic in our supposed deisgn. As for your oxigen, go on top of a 4000 metre mountain and see if you can breathe. Unless you have a lung disorder you will be able to breathe in 15% less oxygen environment. I bet you could survive in a -1%.
PERIOD! The whole concept of creator/designer was created by religion. refute religion, refute god..
uskro 1 year ago
A lack of logic would be if everything didn't work together and someone stated it did. If you understand how a working design works then it is logical to look at the world and conclude that it has in fact been designed.
That way of thinking is irrational. The fatal flaw of Atheism is that like a religion they are unwilling to accept ideas different from what they've grown to believe no matter how much evidence is presented.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
Are you trying to piss me off?You gave two arguements:
-Everything is a watch made by the designer which I proved wrong by REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!
-Decrease the level of the oxygen by 1%.As I said before,go up on a mountain and see if you can breathe.Over 20% of humans can breathe up to -30% oxygen. I on the other hand gave you a whole range on arguements one of which you disproved by religion and not by science.A piece of advice.
Study: Logic, Biology, Physics and all religions before commenting.
uskro 1 year ago
You didn't prove anything wrong, I said like if you were to look at a watch's design you can easily see the design of the world. To this you have said nothing other than, 'If I were to design something I'd do it like this', but that is stupid talk because it does not counter the fact that there is seemingly a design to earth. And how earth is a perfect support for life
Those are humans with rigorous training, and we are talking about 1% less oxygen in the atmosphere, all life would die out fact
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
The initial arguement was that the Designer of the Designer of the Designer of the ... and that was the Reductio ad Absurdum dumbass, the Reductio ad Absurdum one of the most famous logical arguments which you called illogical.
And the initial oxygen arguement was "go to a 4000 metre altitude and you and over 90% of humans will be able to breathe", and the true fact is that only larger species than us require more oxygen, the smaller the species, the less oxygen they require. Check your facts!
uskro 1 year ago
Learn to read, I did not call it illogical, I said that argument is irrelevant to this argument. If I was merely using the cosmological argument in that something cannot come from nothing then yes that argument would be relevant. However the designer of the designer bears no relevance to the argument that the world appears to have been designed. Thus saying that the world doesn't have an obvious design on the basis that the designer needs a designer is illogical, not the argument itself
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr it bears as Reductio ad Absurdum means accepting you arguement and seeing where it leads. As it leads to an absurds situation of an infinite number of designers lacking an original design who would have to be designed, your theory is reduced to absurd and thus proven false. Logic. If you want to stick just to the situation of the horse kicking the owner without wondering why did that happen, it's your deal.
uskro 1 year ago
That's not seeing where that argument leads, you've completely placed that out of context. If I was simply using the cosmological argument like I stated before it would lead into that. However stated the world appears to have been designed is a matter of logic, thus it is irrelevant where the original designer came from because even if you assume he/she must have been created by something it bears no relevance to the logical fact of the earths design.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr and by the way, what do you understand as "life". Recent news, life on titan. Living bacteria that feeds on hydrogen. The moon can't even support water. Yet there is life. The ecuation of life is limitless and far from depending on 1% oxygen.
uskro 1 year ago
Nono Oxygen remains relevant, 1% has been overlapped over a very large period of time thus life was able to adapt because we had already the means. However if 1% was suddenly removed from our atmosphere there would be no means to survive. In the same way if the earth had 1% less oxygen at the origin there would be no life on this planet.
That is by the way not the only design easily spotted, it is unrealistic to state the design of the earth is a mere coincidence.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr Really. Then how did the species of the cretacic period survive the asteroid impact
the ratio suddenly tilted in the favour of CO2 and other toxic elements which held up for a decent period of time, between 10-50 years. How did they have time to adapt ? Did they sleep on it? Dinosaurs dissappeared because of the blast, after shock or hunger. While other species prevailed.
And adaptation after all is an evolutionistic, atheistic form of science.
uskro 1 year ago
That's a questionable theory, religious people for example would say there was no asteroid there was a great flood. Considering fossil evidence it is not unreasonable. There is no hard evidence to support that the ratio of oxygen has ever dramatically shifted, because from whichever point of view you look at it from there would be no life.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr And you ignored my titan example. Titan has no oxigen. Yet life exists.
And Earth by all means is not perfect. A perfect earth would have had one species that had converged all the best characteristics in all existing species, undependant of anything. The Earth just like us depends on many things, and the "living" Earth is just as fragile as us on a macroscale, which we tend to reach and compromise. If it were the watch it would have no flaw.
uskro 1 year ago
Signs of life does not nessesarily mean life, scientists have not confirmed or denied this, you are trying to make it seem as though there are definate signs of life when in fact it has already been deemed unlikely.
Earth is perfect for supporting life and always has been. The deforestation and such, man-made pollution shifted this balance. Wrong, a watch is not perfect there may be scratches around the surface. From the carbon cycle, to mamallian birth, the design of earth is easily seen.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr In the case which let's assume the faulty creatore, let's ignore the fact that you do not want to debate the origins of the creator. Guess what. We are god. Artificial life has been made by humans. I guess that in the near future we are going to create universes. Just like the faulty creator you hang on. And you are weakly documented on the religious issue. And I assume you are religious if you consider "the great flood". Which ends our discussion here.
uskro 1 year ago
I'm not saying you shouldn't debate the question of the origin of the creator I'm saying, (for the last time I might add), that it is illogical to deny that the earth hasn't been designed (when by all observation it seems to have most definately been to the best of our knowledge), on the basis of such questions such as the origin of the designer.
Thus the origin of the creator is irrelevant to the fact that the universe has seemingly been 'designed'.
Oliiiverr 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr my last comment. This is to the best of YOUR knowledge.
uskro 1 year ago
@Oliiiverr look at the facts it was a random event that randomly occured with radom matter at a random time...
rainybritania097 8 months ago
It's ironic that you say 'at a random time' because if you are as you say 'looking at the facts' which science claims then you will no doubt be aware that there is a claim that time did not exist before the big bang there was apparently nothing. In fact you have no true basis for calling it a random event at all scientific study in this area is very primitive at the moment that much is obvious.
Oliiiverr 8 months ago
Einstein was in no way an agnostic. He was a deist brother. He believed in a god of order and harmony of nature And I also believe that that cause and effect argument is inherently flawed. Think of it by means of probability. It is far more likely that the uncaused cause was the simplest process possible i.e. the big bang. where it's only consisted of elementary energy and particles, rather than comleticating the process by throwing an infinitely complicated being such as God into the picture.
mikeysaxton 1 year ago
@mikeysaxton "It was of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repreated. I do not believe in a personal God and never denied it but expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world, AS FAR AS OUR SCIENCE CAN REVEAL IT." - Albert Einstein. If you are not documented enough do not dare to speak.
uskro 1 year ago
It doesnt go up to men, it goes to the worms that lie dormant inside us, waiting for us to die so they can eat us.
tulapi123 1 year ago
aren't you special.. there can always be coincidence, not everything is made by some1 or from some source of life or intelligence. learn more
ultraudv 1 year ago
Are we a superior being and how is that measured?
afroschlan 1 year ago
Deism is not really a religion. So I don't think that Pat will have many problems with you dude.
ThompsonCh84 1 year ago
maybe consiousness is the cause and we are the effect just throwing the idea out there!peace and love
fivedinners 2 years ago
Very good video.
Law12389 2 years ago
Two points:
1) Your logic definitely escapes Mr.Condell's capacity to understand;
2) You seem to be saying you believe in God (or a Supreme Being, to be politically correct) but dislike religions. Since religion has always been defined as man's attempt to "find" God, why don't you just start your own religion since all the others have obviously gotten it wrong?
WorthySir 2 years ago
@WorthySir
1) Its pretty easy to understand. Even beyond the big bang and the creation of our universe there is still the question of what was/is... The thing is there could still be something that is, technically, a creator, but it wont be a old man in a robe with a beard. Thats what hes saying and thats the reason hes an agnostic and not a atheist anymore.
2) No, hes saying man made religion and the context of what defines a man made religion is wrong. That dosent exclude a "creator"(see 1).
Lobos222 2 years ago
1) I don't think any religions believe God is an old man in a robe. That notion is derived from the way artists used to depict Him in paintings. As a general rule, it was believed that the older one was the wiser he was, so naturally they wanted to depict Him as VERY old. Since art is the artists' impression, we are all free to pick up paint brushes and paint Him any way we choose;
WorthySir 2 years ago
2) There are literally thousands of "man-made" religions out there. So, back to my original second point: if you can't find one to suit you, you're certainly free to start another! What's one more in the larger scope of things!
WorthySir 2 years ago
Re:WorthySir
2) No, you are just not seeing hes point of view. You are putting your point of view into hes world. This isnt about "choosing" a man made religion. Its just that hes view(see 1),or how I understand what hes saying.
Isnt comparable to what the traditional definition of a religion is. Just because you say that it MIGHT be some form of a "creator" at the edge of the universe, outside or similar in the unknown. Does not equal a religion.
Think outside of your own definitions.
Lobos222 2 years ago
Re:WorthySir
1) There are zillions of religions with a humanoid God represented in some way, but its kinda irrelevant to my point of a possible agnostic view of not having a "human communicator" like God, or a "traditional" God as the possible "creator".
Talking about religions in plenum would mean that the, quote, "...wont be a old man in a robe with a beard" is more a phrase to communicate the point of it not being a traditional God and not meant to be taken literary.
Lobos222 2 years ago
You remind me of the old saying: ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT YOU'RE UNIQUE . . . JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!
So, if it makes you feel better to think you're the first to think or question this subject matter, go for it!
And yes, I am thinking outside the box! It's just that from my perspective, this "radically new" view is no different than a million others I've seen or read over the years.
Sorry for being brutally honest.
WorthySir 2 years ago
How do you come to the conclusion that I might be, paraphrasing, "feeling better to think I am the first one that questions this subject matter.". When I am clearly just trying to communicate what I think the video poster is saying?
If you have thought that I was telling you "my" view, you are wrong.
When you think someones explanation of "a" view, is there view. I would argue you seem fairly limited in being able to view someones subject from there view with little interference from your own.
Lobos222 2 years ago
Sorry. I got confused for a moment. I forgot that you (Lobo222) were merely passionately defending a view you don't hold yourself, just like you mistakenly accused me of not being able to think outside of my own definitions when I referred to a pretty much standardized definition of religion! I should have wrote that nextcrusader's position (not Lobo222's) is no different than a million others, and thus seems to summarize a rather old "religion" in and of itself!
WorthySir 2 years ago
And if you (or nextcrusader) are going to play the religion game, you need to follow the rules, which include respecting other religions the way you expect them to respect your's!
WorthySir 2 years ago
... And there's nothing new about a religion denying being a religion!
WorthySir 2 years ago
cracker
mobby32 2 years ago
"I mean, religion sucks ass." Valid, and well constructed, point.
"I don't even listen to anyone that wants to talk about religion cause, to me they're ignorant." Aren't they just, those 'debaters', and 'talkers', trying to form a balanced viewpoint through educating themselves on other opinions, what bigots.
And the 'Cause and Effect' point, there happen to be gas molecules, that science has discovered move without cause. Bam goes that 'fuckin' cause', then.
Rest was good, though.
Vituperated 2 years ago
You would like scientific reasons to disprove deism?
The argument of suffering
The second law of thermodynamics, which is the entropy principle (complexity only increases)
Don't assume people haven't thought about these things before you say such shit about why some people are athiests. Sorry i got annoyed with you there. And no, Einstein did not believe in a consciousness out there, Spinoza's God is a metaphor for the laws of physics.
Also, the world isn't perfect, its terrible.
Chewy427 2 years ago
YOU do not know! Your conceit makes it impossible for you to admit that someone else might.
cletusnze 2 years ago
siamesemilkman 2 years ago
If you're so dissatisfied with your existence, why do continue to endure it? Why not help yourself to a good dose of rat poison? Let me know if you need guidance as to where you can buy it. Or give me an address to send some to for you. I'm always available with help when it comes to exterminating pests and parasites.
cletusnze 2 years ago
Jeez, again the cosmological argument mingled with the argument from ignorance which both has been rebutted in the past again and again ad nauseam.
"I don't know how this works, so X did it. And there must anyway be a first cause".
No kid, you are wrong. You obviously don't understand the basics of science and logic.
NeedsEvidence 2 years ago
the origin of the word god is paganism
hebrewmatrix 2 years ago
This bloke appears to have his brain removed and crap replaced, not an insult, appears to be fact, from the shit coming out of his mouth.
lynus111 2 years ago
lmfao
siamesemilkman 2 years ago
What a dolt!
cletusnze 2 years ago
I meant YOU, dolt!
cletusnze 2 years ago
Nice Philosophy, however what if this "cause" at the beginning can die? Then maybe their was a "God" but he/she/it no longer exists as a being.
gb696 2 years ago
Good point! Two thumbs up!
991med 2 years ago
everything has a cause which means EVERYTHING has o have a cause and therefore a god is not the answer to that problem
Also with the big bang Time Space came into being so before it there was no time, as cause and effect are timebased(they follow eachother) it is of no importance anymore
Toudiyama 2 years ago
It's not perfect. Even the human body is flawed. Blind spots, backs not fully adapted to upright walking, vestigial organs. The burden of proof falls on people who believe on god, not on those who don't. You wouldn't call yourself an agnostic on fairies would you? And Einsteins god is a representation of the cosmos.
Oh, and how are biology and physics courses "philosophical"?
snomann92 2 years ago
Causality is dependent on time. The origin of the universe is the origin of time therefore does not have to be governed by the physical laws that this event CREATED. The superior being statement is an infinite regress.
snomann92 2 years ago
What rubbish! Causality produced Time itself - and Space. Who taught you physics? Go get your money back from him/her!
cletusnze 2 years ago
PWNED
siamesemilkman 2 years ago
Meaning what, dolt?
cletusnze 2 years ago
I kind of understand what you were trying to get at but I think you misunderstand the point of that video that patcondell made. It's not to tell people that there is no god because If there was he wouldn't be doing such bad things. If he wanted to make a video telling why biologically, physically , philosophically or psychologically he doesn't believe in god he could have done It but that's not what he wanted to do. He just wanted to connect some common sense with religion.
Tharka123 2 years ago
Burden to proof there is a god is on those who claim he is exist.
IsraeliXdude 2 years ago 6
Wet Fart Video
kingkongpingpongdong 2 years ago
Blasphemy is a religious word isnt it? Im pretty sure it is!
Andylocksigma 2 years ago 4
Last time I checked, Yes it is.
TonyBalony2468 2 years ago
your not very good at forming your thoughts (yea i forgot the word i'm a huge hypocrite) but you have a good point
smiker176 2 years ago
u don't get what hes saying. He is not comparing god with atheism. He is explaining to dumb christians that too compare god to at atheism, retarded. And atheist aren't deniyng life on other planets. But they won't say that they know that it exist without exploring it sientifically, Finding proof that points in the that direction or even proof that is does.. It's all about being able to explain your statements, and not taking everything for granted.And u my friend, think you are smarter than u r
Snipro1 2 years ago 2
bullshit theories.
amet1980 2 years ago
I wonder if this guy even knows what agnosticism is. It can easily be said that nearly everyone on the planet is agnostic, all it means is that you do not have absolute certainty for your belief. So by definition it doesn't work by itself, it needs a belief to go with it. And was that an argument from authority I caught there at the end?
HappyPariah 2 years ago
It is all about faith, and Jesus said "You can be saved by no other then Jesus", Acts 4:12. Please repent, and put your faith in Jesus. "It is appointed unto men, once to die, and then the judgement." Hebres 9:27. Please reconsider your position. You live on this earth for 100 years, but after that you either spend eternity in heaven or hell. Jesus said that you would be better off cutting your arm off if it caused you to sin, rather then being put in hell. I take Him at his word!
MrJeffrey316 2 years ago
sayang banget loh ganteng2 tapi kafir
orangNTB 2 years ago
Read The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P Hall This book will reveal many hidden meanings, and sybolisms that only the initiated could understand, while the rest of the population believed literally the stories the priests told. It is the same as today.
skkaskey 2 years ago
This what is written in the bible... I happen to believe that the bible has been heavily manipulated. Between the Realm of spirit, and matter lays consciousness... Jesus, if he existed, was like the budda, he was an awakened being. He was saying no one can get to the father except through me... but what that means is 'unless he awakens'.
skkaskey 2 years ago
Look at what you said.
"Jesus, if he existed... He was saying no one can get to the father except through me"
How can he say anything if he didn't exist? How do you know this is not one of the parts of the bible that has been manipulated?
Beliefs are meaningless, in my opinion. Unless there is enough reason to accept one. I do not see any reason to believe any religion.
locouru 2 years ago
Cause and Effect is the equation...
First Cause is Spirit... Effect is physical... I am the mediator, I am awake. This is why Jesus said know one comes to the father except through me... Jesus is an allegory for your indwelling presence. I am agnostic as well...
skkaskey 2 years ago
Talking about belief, is it your BELIEF that Jesus said this or is there enough evidence for this position that it is not a belief but a justified conclusion?
Jesus is nothing until he is proven to have existed in the first place.
locouru 2 years ago
That's what their argument always comes down to. Something HAD to cause everything. Everytime I hear something HAD to happen or I know THIS I roll my eyes.
By the way what people BELIEVE, whether it's Darwin, Dawkins or the Pope, has absolutely nothing to do with what is true.
Two things you should learn about before commenting.
1. Atheism
2. Evolution
Your design argument is your opinion. I do not see design.
locouru 2 years ago
I have created my own theory of everything... I believe in everything, and nothing at all... That pretty much covers it... Because at the end of the day, it's all belief, or disbelief.
skkaskey 2 years ago
At position 1:33
You state something about a superior being going up to man and stopping at man, big fish eating smaller fish, etc. You really think its that linear? Does the complexity in our world have to stop at biology? Of course not. And of course there is no "Predator" running around with lasers blowing us apart, but there is bacteria and viri. With an open mind consider everything to be revolving an not so linear. I do agree that we're far from learning what got this record spinning.
ghostee 2 years ago
you are right
you can't explain biology with atheism. as a self proclaimed former atheist you should know what atheism is.
"....everything in your molecular structure is the most complicated ever" "...maybe on earth, all we know is earth."
Your idea of perfect is completely subjective.
Just because YOU don't understand science doesn't make it wrong or as fallible as you claim.
so what if einstein was an agnostic? what einstin believed was more of a personification of nature that he called god
TSIEHTA101 2 years ago
i think you're an agnostic
lilprincekilla 2 years ago
Pat's videos are good, but I like this video.
I believe there is something out there that we will probably never understand. But I mean it when I say we (humans) CAN'T.
Religions like to believe they have the whole universe figured out, like they were god themselves.
I also always thought there was a Jesus, but that he was just the Einstein and Darwin of his time, and not some spiritual being that he was made out to be by people who didn't know him.
SmashBroDx 2 years ago
Cause and effect is not evidence of purpose, as in revealing the external purpose of a creator. When you say cause, you seem to mean a creator. When I say cause, I mean the thing which came before the effect.
Positing a creator to make you feel comfortable with the way things seem, is just an opinion. Get back to us when you really have proof - not just a feeling.
Noisegator 2 years ago
i've been brought up with a atheist view & have gone over the subject of god in my mind.
i find it hard 2 take in that some people see that we r the image of god. i mean a dolphin could of had a extra brain cell than us humans. what makes us so special for him to look like us 4 all we know he / she / it could look like a moose.
another argument against god is that he causes things to happen in this world, but i think humans, natures flow & animal actions do.
YellingYaz 2 years ago
marry me!
fiskenen 3 years ago
peace and blessings brothers and sisters.
would you make me happy and watch my video on this topic.
pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase.
sofianbelhedi 3 years ago
Congratulations on finding ways to open your mind and I agree with your views on religion. But I tend to be of the opinion that your mind is still pretty closed. Why are you so insistent that there had to be a "first cause"? Who says so? You keep wanting to slip back to intent and goals when none are evidenced.
BTW, Darwin started a Christian and Einstein was a Pantheist. And Einstein's greatest failures came from his subjective beliefs... like his belief in a kind of non-personal God.
Beastt17 3 years ago
"God does not play dice with the universe" -- Einstein's refutation to quantum mechanics; a system we now know to be true.
Einstein called his original "Cosmological Constant" his greatest failure. It arose from not questioning the subjective idea that the universe was stagnant.
Objectively, Einstein saw that his calculations suggested the existence of black holes. But subjectively, he decided they were "too weird" to exist.
We can learn from his failures, or repeat them. Evidence is truth.
Beastt17 3 years ago
Agreed man. I think that, yes, there must have been a cause for the current universe. BUT wether you call that "god" is all up to you, but it should not be more than a name, or a personally coined expression for mentioning the nature of our universe, and the beauty of our universe.
But yes, I am pretty spiritual, but not religious at all. The fact that people are trying to get religion into public* schools is sickening on a deep level.
Why don't they just open private religious schools?
Cr4zyM1k3 3 years ago
good video response, i keep it agnostic all the time... cheers!
sethiroph08 3 years ago
i'm with you there
jfmamjjasond123 3 years ago
Intelligent design is the standard argument of creationists against evolution, and it's a poor one. Basically, why not think of it like this...how unlikely is it that we turned out the way we did? Probably pretty unlikely. This is supported by the fact that we know of no other planet within our reach which has similar life on it. Our development just happened, and we just evolved. By chance. That simple.
And Darwin was an atheist till the day he died, despite what Creationists might tell you.
ruud76 3 years ago
THIS VIDEO IS SOME STUPID ASS SHIT SON
iflyboats 3 years ago
This might seem weird to you bro, i appreciate everything you are saying, but i think you underappreciate the natural beauty of life. I'm a microbiology student, and i think that everything is so much more beautiful without god. All that complexity is much more boring if you incorporate the idea of a creator. I think his video was about how the idea of god LEADS to religion, and so to all the horrible stuff. Good vid man, let's keep this conversation going!
Beorn86 3 years ago
@ 2:20 Anthropic principle. Not the best argument there.
BirdValiant 3 years ago
Let's cut the bull*&it. None of us know what happens after we die. There is no proof that a word of the bible is true. When people believe dogmatically in something for which there is little or no evidence, it shuts us off to what is really true! I was a christian for years, and miserable but afraid to admit it. Years and years of searching and I am now a happy atheist trying to convince others that they can also be free.
pammer12345 3 years ago
so while using your cause-to-effect argument to deny the non-existence of a superior being, you just stop there and don't ask yourself where that superior being came from?
your argumentation is based on determinism and you think you're backed up by einstein there. but being the most popular scientist of our time doesn't mean that everything that einstein said was true. for example, holding on to determinism which is now dead and buried in favor of quantum-theory.
pwuertz 3 years ago
Islam explains every single thing in this life....it's just only need u to read it...understand it...from its real resources...and then u can take it or leave it...it is very simple!
phwaleed 3 years ago
don't think atheists hate god.
if they saw god face2face they'd say: "wow, i owe u an apology, i didn't think u were real".
most of them hate DOGMA.
of course they shouldn't hate, but i can understand how rational ppl can hate irrational ppl.
atheists r ok because they don't persecute other ppl 4their beliefs.
if zealots wouldn't try to ENFORCE their beliefs onto others, atheist wouldn't scream "fuck god" 2prove them wrong.
ironic that believers r sometimes the very cause of blasphemy :))
lake7less 3 years ago
i agree with you with the whole perspective you have on atheism, i personally like to think of myself as humanist, there might be a god out there, and i think that we as humans should figure out our own problems, and not rely on a supernatural being to solve them for us.
hooligantifa 3 years ago
Just to comment what you say from 02:00 to 02:25 circa.
Have you ever seen a hole that didn't fit the puddle that lived in it?
LiYuenKam 3 years ago
illogical catfish
feeblezak 3 years ago
First, I do not speak English I write about through an interpreter .. You are free to choose a religion that believes in them, but I would like to draw your opinion on the Islamic religion Ptaraf .. And then when you die, meaning that the one God who created us to worship
noorqatar1300 3 years ago
There is NO god.
All gods in the history of thinking mankind have been imaginary - man-made concepts.
Islam is potentially the most evil belief system ever invented. See today's global news - any day you like.
Time to accept reality.
draagon66 3 years ago
I bet a bear could eat you.
Slobbert 3 years ago