Richard Feynman is a great teacher and physicist but why would his opinion on supernatural phenomenon be relevant? He is a scholar of temporal (observable) phenomenon. If we could explain God with a formula, and test it, we'd have proof some omniscient timeless being is really a temporal energy that we could define. By definition, the cosmic super being cannot be in characterized in any single frame of reference.
Personally i think that fight over if god exist or not. Is ridiculous. Atheist You cant prove without a doubt that god dosnt exist. religious people you cant prove without a doubt that a god dose exist. God and a Spirit is a philosophical question. That has been asked since man first walked the earth. So for me, someone says its there way or the high way. Are just stroking their own ego. As voltaire once said "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.".
I see that Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, and Descartes didn't make the list--probably because they vehemently believed in God. They also created the science these 'world renowned scientists' would eventually apply to their respective fields.
So much for the theory that only 'smart people' are atheist/agnostic.
@bellhog246 "Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, and Descartes"
Can you name ANY atheists from that era? Theism was the norm back then, it was all anybody knew. But even more importantly, none of these geniuses could escape their ignorance of 21st century knowledge. Even YOU know more science than them. They were ALL ignorant of evolution and quantum mechanics. The vast majority of elite MODERN scientists however are nonbelievers, in stark contrast to your group. Why? Enlightenment 2.0.
Enlightenment 2.0? What you're referring to is nothing more than an a priori commitment to naturalism. This is a contemporary construct of science--and an irrational one.
The pioneers I mentioned had no problem practicing science while believing in God because they understood there was NO real mutual exclusivity.
@bellhog246 Growing evidence of naturalism and continued lack of evidence of god where we keep thinking we'll find it is the reason for the shift in elite thinker's views.
And there is of course the ongoing problem of why god is hidden, given the theistic claim that he wants us to not only know him, but LOVE him. Why hide so well from your loved ones if that's the case? Is this your understanding of how to form loving relationships?
@JPararajasingham "Growing evidence of naturalism"? The hidden logic in this statement is simply that science is discovering more and more about the natural world. Yes, we know that, but it is quite different than (as you insinuate) more understanding = less God.
Secondly, God is more interested than spiritual transformation than mere belief. Just because you can't understand the dynamics of how to achieve more of the former than the latter doesn't somehow disprove God.
That depends on how you define "god". If god is that which will never be discoverable by human endeavour, or that which lies beyond anything we ever discover, or that which all-encompasses everything we ever discover, then it's (for all practical purposes) defined out of existence. Philosophically it cannot be ruled out, but it has that in common with an infinite number of imagined ideas.
@JPararajasingham I'm certainly not defining Him this way. But getting back to the issue....
Why the irrational a priori commitment to naturalism? Why eliminate God even before a question is asked?
I've heard it said that invoking God 'stifles the scientific persuit'. However, this only appears to be a 20th century affliction. Newton obviously didn't struggle with reconciling science with God.
"a priori commitment to naturalism" - Why is naturalism necessarily a priori? It is inferred from empiricism and experience. Why is it a commitment? One remains open-minded about non-naturalism, but simply awaits experience of this first (unlike the theist's unevidenced but absolute commitment to god).
The only "a priori commitment" I have is to Reason.
@JPararajasingham "Why is naturalism necessarily a priori? It is inferred from empiricism and experience" This is exactly my point. Your own personal expectations of what is emperically and experientially sufficient SURELY condemn God's existence since you've already committed yourself to a naturalistic worldview. Your logic is circular. Plenty of evidence exists that is sufficient for those open enough to consider it.
@bellhog246 "SURELY condemn God's existence since you've already committed yourself to a naturalistic worldview" - I have very clearly stated that it is not a "commitment" or "certain". I've said non-naturalism cannot be ruled out and one remains open to it pending reason/evidence for it. Are you trying to engage in discussion or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
"Plenty of evidence exists that is sufficient for those open enough to consider it." - Such as?
@bellhog246 Great argument. So the evidence for god, which he expects to be understood by all, is so complicated it can only be summarised in multiple volumes. Sounds very plausible. I've read plenty of apologetics. I want to know what you think is evidence for theism.
I am not compelled by what you've said to read more apologetics, since all your comments are misunderstandings which have needed correction. I'd like to hear your "plentiful evidence" please.
Science is wholly inadequate to answer questions of a metaphysical nature. Can I safely assume you believe that the number 32 can't possibly exist (because it's a mental construct?)
I'm curious to your answer to this one also since you may have skipped it...
"Why eliminate God even before a question is asked?"
Atheism is the answer to a question posed by people who consider it a sensible to ask whether a being we can't see or define, created everything perfectly in a way we can't detect, and loves us in a way we can't see either, and created a posthumous paradise we also can't detect. I simply say I doubt it without evidence. I haven't "eliminated" such an idea, I don't eliminate ANY idea, but this requires SOME evidence.
Phrases such as "can't see", "can't detect" suggest that you believe the only true mode of perception is through direct observable evidence. However, I'm sure you're aware that the scientific method is insufficient to 'prove' a number of concepts.
If God is a disembodied mind, please explain to me how you would 'detect' such a thing. Isn't it just a little unfair to God that 'proof' should be based on an unneccesarily narrow set of allowable criteria?
@bellhog246 "However, I'm sure you're aware that the scientific method is insufficient to 'prove' a number of concepts."
I don't believe science "proves" anything with certainty, it gives us levels of probability with which to base beliefs. Again, I've already said this and you're ignoring it.
@JPararajasingham "it gives us levels of probability with which to base beliefs"
This needs to be corrected to read "it gives us levels of probability with which to base beliefs *in phenomena detectable by science*.
Science is wholly inadequate to answer questions of a metaphysical nature. Can I safely assume you believe that the number 32 can't possibly exist (because it's a mental construct?)
@JPararajasingham "It depends on how is it defined. I look at plausibility: 1-7"
This is an interesting way to dodge the question, but it's clear that by asking your questions you're attempting to draw 'God' (as I defined it) out of the metaphysical and into the physical. Not sure if you were even conscious of it, but you'll note that every quesiton really boils down to one: 'Is there some physical basis?' The answer is no.
@bellhog246" you'll note that every quesiton really boils down to one: 'Is there some physical basis?'"
And you say I've dodge the question? I think you'll find my questions are trying to examine your definition of god and where you got it from. If this is not what you do when you hear extraordinary claims, then you must end up accepting some pretty strange things.
You can define X as undetectable. Then if you ask me how to detect X, I will say you cannot. But the details of X (i.e. this "disembodied mind") become important if you want to talk about this further than just a definitional undetectable X. You want to give X some characteristics from which you can draw further claims. How you arrived at those initial characteristics involves your own limited brain, limited language, limited physicality.
@bellhog246 "Phrases such as "can't see", "can't detect" suggest that you believe the only true mode of perception is through direct observable evidence."
Not really. I am happy to accept something based on plausibility i.e. reasons to infer such a hypothesis. But the more extraordinary the hypothesis, the higher the quality of reasons I would expect.
@JPararajasingham "the more extraordinary the hypothesis, the higher the quality of reasons I would expect"
And I would posit that your definition of "extraordinary" would be based on how well a claim aligns with what you observe within the physical laws of nature.
Based on our discussions I would assume that you assign more 'realism' to things that are scientifically verifiable.
My definition of extraordinary can be found in the dictionary. It's the agreed upon definition. If I claim that I drove a car today, that is an ordinary claim. If I claim god spoke to me, even you would say that is extraordinary, I should think.
"I would assume that you assign more 'realism' to things that are scientifically verifiable."
I would assign higher probability that something verified is actually true.
@JPararajasingham "the more extraordinary the hypothesis, the higher the quality of reasons I would expect"
And I would posit that your definition of "extraordinary" would be based on how well a claim aligns with what you observe within the physical laws of nature.
Based on our discussions I would assume that you assign more 'realism' to things that are scientifically verifiable.
@bellhog246 (cont) The reasons I mention evidence is based on the typical concept of god offered i.e. one that designs and interacts. These imply such an entity could be detected. But if your definition defines god out of detection, that makes the concept more suspicious. But I am willing to hear some reasons to infer such a being as plausible.
@bellhog246 "Newton obviously didn't struggle with reconciling science with God."
John Maynard Keynes opined that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." In the pre-Modern Era of Newton's lifetime, the educated embraced a world view different from that of later centuries. Distinctions between science, superstition, and pseudoscience were still being formulated, and a devoutly Christian Biblical perspective permeated Western culture. - Wiki
You make Newton sound like a primative witch. Maybe you owe it to him to allow him to speak for himself rather than be defined by a generation of one-trick-pony scientists who I'm sure are brilliant at their comparatively narrow fields of study but are either confused or offended when asked about anything outside of their life's work.
Besides, if he's only a product of his era, maybe you should question your own skepticism as being a product of yours.
@bellhog246 "Besides, if he's only a product of his era, maybe you should question your own skepticism as being a product of yours."
I do. But I am not going to ignore that Newton had less knowledge about the world than us. Reason demands that one bases one's worldview on the best current knowledge. It would be irrational to believe something wacky simply because there is a chance it may not be discovered yet. With that approach, anything would be believed.
@JPararajasingham "Newton had less knowledge about the world than us"
We already covered this. What exactly do you think has been discovered that in any way detracts from the liklihood of God's existence? You're simply discrediting Newton because he wasn't a prisoner to a naturalistic worldview.
If you've read classical apologetics, you'll know that the items you cite have been summarily addressed and dealt with. I'm not going to waste more electrons by re-explaining everything.
For biological issues I recommend Johnathan Wells and Stephen Meyer; for cosmology William Lane Craig; for scriptural integrity Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel.
@bellhog246 "For biological issues I recommend Johnathan Wells and Stephen Meyer; for cosmology William Lane Craig; for scriptural integrity Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel."
For biological issues read every biology texbook written. For cosmology read every cosmology book. To see why scripture is useless read the Bible.
@bellhog246 "If you've read classical apologetics, you'll know that the items you cite have been summarily addressed and dealt with. I'm not going to waste more electrons by re-explaining everything."
If you've read classicaly apologetics, you'll know that the items I've cited have been poorly addressed. So should I too take your attitude and avoid wasting electrons? Do you see why your game is a pointless one?
Either engage properly, or don't bother commenting in the first place.
Based on our conversation I think I have a better understaning of the basic cognative process of a naturalistic worldview. One last question...
You refer to the 'multiverse' in an article you've written when describing what *may* be in 'total reality'. With 'detectability' being a major requriement for what is real, why would you mention something that (using your reasoning) has as much evidential weight as God (i.e. none)? Why do you favor the multiverse?
@bellhog246 "why would you mention something that (using your reasoning) has as much evidential weight as God (i.e. none)? Why do you favor the multiverse?"
Humans intuitively thought of the god hypothesis during an age of complete ignorance. Humans counter-intuitively thought of the multiverse hypothesis during the modern age of reason. It came about by looking at eternal inflation, microwave background and M-theory. The multiverse shows up from the Moduli Space Problem.
You're kidding right? I was expecting something better than this. I know enough about cosmology to know that this statement is pure bunk (though maybe you believe it). Inflationary models went out 20 years ago and they have nothing to do with the multiverse. CBR is evidence for the singularity (but not the multiverse). The application of string theory at this stage is purely pop-science.
The truth about the multiverse is that it is COMPLETELY UNDETECTABLE. It is purely a "nature of the gaps" theory to explain away the impossible odds by a naturally occuring athropic universe.
It is undetectable (like God), yet you attribute it to the set of 'total reality'.
Do you see the irony in this? It would seem your bias is exposed.
When Peter received the Holy Spirit and then started to speak boldly and with authority they said is this not the unlearned one.
"I have chosen the meek of this world to confound the wise".
Moses requested to see God in His full glory -- God said no one can see my face and live. So God put Moses into a crevas on a mountain and covered Moses with his hand until He passed. Moses was allowed to see the back part of God in His full Glory. After that encounter Moses knew that God was all powerful.
CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet
@terabrat Well, exactly. That is the only answer if you're a theist. Another non-sequitur, good job. Unfortunately, they understand it better than you.
''And say: All the praises and thanks be to Allah(God), Who has not begotten a son, and Who has no partner in (His) Dominion, nor He is low to have a Wali (helper, protector or supporter). And magnify Him with all the magnificence'' [The Noble Quran]
I guess the point that everyone is missing is that THERE IS NO GOD! Hard to beleive that people still beleive this horse shit today. What's your argument.. have faith?
@terabrat "The main thing I'm getting from this is that these people have no real understanding of religion."
Oh of course. God, who wants humans to believe in him, made things so intellectually complex that even the greatest minds in the world would have difficulty understanding it. Makes sense.
@terabrat "The main thing I'm getting from this is that these people have no real understanding of religion."
Which religion do these academics not understand? We have many mysteries. God is a mystery we humans created to try an answer all the other mysteries! Curious 5 year olds put an end to this 'God' question when they ask the simple question "Mommy, who made God?"
@ngipiksari CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet
They think with time a non-living thing can start to live,a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,social behaviour and technics of animals and insects are in the genes! and the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did evolve wings! and the ability to fly! throug random mutations and naturel selection,And they ignored completly this : /watch?v=PD6Ov8JHTfk,please hold down to the real science :)
How can any one fucking say Something is real from that long ago, people still don't know how the pyramids were made, so how can some one explain GOD?
7. If man within 200 years can begin an outline sketch of creating functioning androids, how could it not be possible for a long lived being to create organic androids i.e. human beings?
8. Evidence is always based upon what men are willing to agree upon. We see this all the time in the rewriting of history. Therefore, you can find evidence in anything, based upon who pays to do the research.
9. Ultimately no one can prove anything, not Christians or Darwinists.
5. The earth reflects evil as much as it does God. And if they are not willing to discuss God, they will never be willing to discuss the existence of God's enemy.
6. It would be interesting to see how these rationalistic ideologies affect their personal relationships with their closest loved ones, such as their wives and children.
2. There is no actual undeniable proof that God does NOT exist anymore than that He does.
3. Darwinism uses the power of the state to force their worldview upon others and do not respect the freedom to think for ones self any more than the Catholics of yesteryear.
4. Hitler and Stalin were devout darwinists that foisted upon mankind as much death and suffering in 50 years as the Catholic church did in 1500 years.
1. These men are some of the most renowned and bright individuals in the world in their respective fields. You don't need their approval, but you should at least consider their opinions since they are smarter than you or me.
2. The absence of proof IS the proof. We have no proof of fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, and other nonsensical creatures. Will you therefore believe in them?
3. Darwinism cannot "use power" because it is a scientific theory. DarwinISTS will often ask for separation of church and state. Governments should base their decisions on facts based on evidence, not faith. Many of the governments in the Middle East use theocratic methods of control, and I sure wouldn't want to live there.
4. Hitler and Stalin twisted truth to serve their own purposes. Many Christian churches teach that babies are not accountable for sin until they reach a certain age. It would stand to reason, according to this doctrine, that a loving parent would kill their children before they reached this age so as to ensure their entrance into heaven. Christian dogmas can be twisted just like Darwinism.
5. I am so confused by number five. To paraphrase: the earth has both evil and good in it. If atheists are unwilling to believe in God, they will also not believe in Satan. Did I get that right? If so, I agree. I don't believe in God or Satan. This isn't really an argument though, so I don't know what to do with it...
6. The only evidence I can claim is my own on this one. I have become a better person since becoming an atheist. I'm more kind, caring, and decent.
7. It's possible that HUMANS could be creating organic life in the next few hundred years. What is POSSIBLE isn't EVIDENCE though. There is no physical evidence that anything was created, and much physical evidence that evolution took place.
8. And men have falsely been agreeing that God exists for hundreds of years. Your statement about who has the money has the truth is true. That is why Christianity still exists. Christians are willing to use their money and their time to propagate the horrific falsehoods they purport, thus keeping it alive in the face of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
9. Science is willing to change as new information presents itself. Religion refuses to change. Science is based on evidence, rigorous and repeated testing, falsifiability, and curiousness about the unknown. Religion is based on no evidence, has not once had a test that could prove it's truth, is unfalsifiable, and tries to cover up the unknown with blatant lies to comfort the worried masses.
10. The Big Bang has books and studies full of evidence supporting it. Creation has no evidence supporting it, and actually quite a lot of evidence AGAINST it. Learn to think for heavens sake.
But in the end, its all subjective, on the side of naturalism and on the side of God; and it has more to do with our core philosophies. We all ask the same questions of purpose, meaning, life, death. But we all chose for ourselves which camp we will throw our lot into.
@shaynemasonvincent Yet they are subjective. And to say one has more evidence than another is dishonest, regardless of which side. If one believes this it means they likely have never looked at the other side of the argument. Because in the end, no one can prove anything.... so we just, chose based upon our limited input and hard won prejudices.
@shaynemasonvincent "And to say one has more evidence than another is dishonest, regardless of which side. If one believes this it means they likely have never looked at the other side of the argument. Because in the end, no one can prove anything.... so we just, chose based upon our limited input and hard won prejudices."
You have abandoned rational inquiry and the concept of knowledge. That your position is based on "hard won prejudice" does not reflect on others.
@shaynemasonvincent It is a simple fact that naturalism and supernaturalism are not equally rational to hold - given the absence of evidence of the supernatural. Naturalism is simply more parsimonious, and should be chosen by any rational thinker for the same reason we choose "The theory of gravity" over "The theory of gravity with gravity fairies".
@shaynemasonvincent This has nothing to do with prejudice, but that introducing entities for which there is no evidence is a process where you are making entirely unsupported claims about reality. Anything could be the case about that which you have not observed, yet religious people pick one specific claim out of an infinity of possibilities and declare that "I believe this one". This means they are infinitely likely to be wrong. Evidence improves this process.
@shaynemasonvincent Anyway, to suggest that all religions have evidence supporting their claims is silly. You are confusing hearsay and making stuff up for actual evidence.
This response appears based in a surface view of politically motivated religion rather than a personal experience of spirituality; but this is subjective and is only in the life of an individual and cannot be used for argument, with respect only to the individual.
It is overwhelming because that is who pays for the research. There are alternative solutions to the the geological record (such as turbidites), petrified forests (such as mount st helens crystal lake), questionable reliability of historical dating methods, and rapid rock formation, etc.
we cannot create life, we only manipulate what already is; never the less, given enough time and information, a being could create an organic being, or in our case, a bio chemical and computerized being... battle star galactica is feasible given enough time.
I'm not sure which posts are responses to which posts, so just feel free to message my youtube account if you want to continue our discussion! I love a good debate, but I think we're spamming...
You are right as we cannot have this conversation, because the earth reflects evil as much as it does good, that is my only point. But you would have to believe that evil exists.
You should educate yourself further into the nature of Nazi philosophy and communist philosophy, these were naturalistic, darwinistic, eugenists. Eugenics was open professed by the majority of society and Hitler's final solution was nothing more than the furtherance of social darwinism as applied to anthropology.
I totally agree that Christian dogma has been twisted. The point of the reformation was to get back to the spiritual principles of biblical teaching, and to get away from politically driven control in the garb of religion. even the founding of the USA was based in freedom of conscience due to the manipulation of the church in government and finance. We have just replaced them with secularistic and capitalistic dictatorship, which is its equal opposite.
I am well educated and read, I do not consider these men smarter than me, only within their own field.
Th point of absence is in essence the reality that naturalism is still theory, no missing link exists despite argument, though micro evolution is obvious, macro does not exist in the proven record. So therefore it is a matter of faith in your sources and cannot be indisputably proven, as neither can Christianity.
Jesus, whose existence isn't even proven, did nothing of the sort for you. You weren't alive then and it is ridiculous to base salvation on the torture and murder of a man, Do your research!! oh but then maybe you would learn something, acquire knowledge, rather then just regurgitate dogmas created by idiots who had no understanding of the natural world 2000 or more years ago.
I hear what many are saying here But there are so many loop holes in some of there therys, As humans we have a natural instint to worship! We all worship somethink if that's god or science or the Self it's all worship! So we are all Religous! And as C.S Lewies said
He wouldent want to belive in a god I could understand or explan! As if we could that would make god below Man!
"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise." 1 Corinthians 3:18
@JPararajasingham Would you give your life to save someone you love from walking headlong into a pit of fire? That's what Christ did for you. I love Him for that. You revile Him. Your decision.
@tamething1 "Would you give your life to save someone you love from walking headlong into a pit of fire? That's what Christ did for you."
If I had God/Christ's power, I would prevent there from being a pit of fire in the first place. God/Christ allow a pit of fire to exist, and then "lovingly ask" for slavish worship and compulsory love to avoid it. THAT'S what Christ "did for you".
"You revile Him"
I revile anyone that thinks the story you've outlined is even vaguely moral.
Thank you so much for this video, and the others that you have done. I am recently become atheist, and I appreciate your sharing the viewpoints of the great men and women in this video. I came from a Mormon background, and was inundated with false information all my life. It caused me great distress. What a relief to know that there is no god! Atheism has brought me more peace and happiness than any religion ever did.
@Singinlikeafool If you have become an atheist because of Mormonism, then Mormonism has succeeded in its mission to lead you away from Christ. It is demonic, not Christian. Its founder Joseph Smith was demon-inspired. No wonder you hated it.
See the Fuel Project's "Know Your Enemy, part 72" here on YouTube.
True Christianity brings true inner joy. Lots of people dance happily down the street of atheism for a time, but ultimately, you'll find it a dead end.
@tamething1 Thank the heavens! If it weren't for you referring me to a poorly made video clip about things I already know, I would have been lost forever! Honestly!
All sarcasm aside, I have to agree with you. The claims of Mormonism are absurd when viewed under the light of reason. If you grew up being taught to believe in these tenets, they wouldn't seem quite so foreign. Christianity is similarly absurd, only your familiarity with it has bred in you an immunity to its asininity.
If you could find a way to level the volume of each individual clip for a future project, that would be most pleasant. Thank you for making what you have so far
wow, i scroll down and almost all the comments are a reply to 6gunwalker or just him mouthing off. Almost no point to respond to such a devout believer as nothing can be said to waiver his faith, nor can he waive the opinion of a non believer. In the end the people in the video, not to downplay anyone watching it, are much more learnth, intelligent, and insightful than one can hope to be, not to mention more accomplished. So in the end stop the trolling 6gun no one cares what you think
My UNIVERSAL THEORY OF EVERYTHING is Ultimate Reality of LIFE. Reaffirmed with Nassim Haramein’s & Garrett Lisi’s work of last few years. Crop Circle makers in high conscious of knowledge of "TREE OF LIFE". Tree of Life spoken in Bible & is all people of world who contributed knowledge & scientific research. NASSIM HARAMEIN SOLVES Einstein's Universal Cosmo CONSTANT. Youtube(dot)com/watch?v=S1JDMToJDe0
@6gunwalker ... and now i cant see how this has anything to do with god. nor can i find information and chang. nor does this sound anything more than the opinion of one scientist... have they published this finding? what were they using to determine if it could or could not evolve?
@demondim5 lol hmmm playing the old lets act unable to find the soucre game are we? lol the scientists who are and have worked on the human genome project are renowned in thier fields and some also have the nobel prize to thier names.. this brings credibility to the discovery..
@6gunwalker are you suffering under the silly notion that when you make a claim its my resposibility to support it? and that if i cant your claim somehow still hold water? source please.
@6gunwalker ...no way invalidates all the other evidence for evolution that our own non-evolutionary modification of various species at the genetic level does.
@demondim5 my sarcastic comment on evolution was obviously a quick take on the stupidity of the argument which required a pinch of salt humour.. which clearly you lack. lol i assume you support evolution, so let me ask you a question..scientists working on the human genome project discovered millions of genes in our DNA that are not found in any creature on earth. they called it "extra terrestrial genes". theyve dismissed mutation as a possibiliy but cannot bridge the gap to evoltion
@6gunwalker "these intellectuals cant accept the simplicity of it all"
What your comment also highlights is how theism is a philosophy which can always be argued both ways to suit taste. Here you are criticising how atheists make theism too complex when it's actually simple, whereas others will criticise how atheists make theism too simple when it's actually complex.
This is what happens when you have a philosophy with an absent factual basis. Anything goes really.
@JPararajasingham CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet
@JPararajasingham There is no God in the SELF. CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet
@6gunwalker "people want things to be complicated in order for them to intellectually make it valid"
Quite the opposite. Scientists recognise only too well that the laws of nature, while complicated to determine, are simplistic. So a simple explanation of how the universe came to be would be perfectly acceptable.
The problem with theism is not that it's too simple, it's that it doesn't make the slightest ounce of sense.
i have every respect for people who choose to believe in god.
I however cannot and do not.
as i respect peoples right to believe in god so they should respect my right not to believe.
there should be no argument on the issue. you either believe or you do not, trying to change what another person chooses to believe or not to believe is futile
i believe that God is a nonpersonifiable physical entity or Idea that broadcasts itself to all humans through their subconscious, therefore it is represented in different formats. Hence, the Big Bang theory and all the mathematics and physics that go along with it equates to the personifiable Christian God. But they are both the same thing. Hence, God exists by any name, regardless, ultimately.
I like this video but this doesn't change my opinion on God's existence. Maybe you can understand the world around using science. I believe God's the created of all things he made physics, and he made the big bang. Not all things in this world can be explained in science. The really fact is NO ONE alive knows if God exists. Who knows the atheist could be are right. I can't go through life thinking when I die I'll just disappear, there has to more after, otherwise my life just seems irrelevant.
You know, I am SO pleased that I've become an atheist. When I listen to all these really smart people who have contributed so much and have such an undiminished curiosity about the world, it makes me happy.
"So agnostics, who think there is much chance that there might be such entities as that there might not be such entities, fall foul of this stricture." - AC Grayling
7:57 It seems unfair to describe Dawkins, Harris etc as militant. They are indeed outspoken but it isn't a case of them inposing their will upon others (unless you believe that trying to argue agaisnt a proposal/claim is an act of aggression; which it isn't). Their arguments are a reaction to ignorance and the kind of corruption of education he just mentioned.
In the early 20th century it would have been thought absurd to think that Isreal would be reborn, much less a world focus, but look!, listen up! "The just shall live by faith"
Some of these scientists made a case for non existence of God due to existence of human suffering. Well perhaps God is a sadist or perhaps he has a reason to cause suffering? I even believe that a degree of suffering can make people stronger, and even lead to great advancements in the future.
BTW I made this point not to argue for the existence of God, but just to solely point out the flawed logic of some of these scientists.
@karolis685 The traditional hypothesis presented is that of a personal god, who is all loving and all powerful. So this what is being mainly criticised and not accepted. You could come up with infinite types of god/creator hypotheses, and each one would need to be criticised separately. Nonbelievers simply aren't accepting an idea until it is presented. How can they?
Suffering to make people stronger is an evil idea. If you can't see that then your moral compass has gone haywire.
@JPararajasingham Well I for one have personally been through a lot in life, I would dare to say far more than an average person, and I really believe this led me to be a more insightful, peaceful, accepting etc. individual, hence negative experiences can really aid in a "growth" of a person.
@JPararajasingham In addition I would like to point out the WW2. Although this was a horrific event, maybe even the most horrific since the dawn of man, yet it lead to great things - technological, medical, scientific, social and many other advancements.
@JPararajasingham Maybe your moral compass has gone haywire if you cannot comprehend that suffering is required for becoming stronger. Even if you proved God did not exist, suffering still exists, and you were unable to remove that.
@shadowsburnme "suffering is required for becoming stronger."
Human beings did not need to be designed in that way. God is a being that doesn't "need" to suffer. So evidently you would agree beings can exist in reality that do not have a need to undergo suffering.
@JPararajasingham It depends on how you define suffering. Even being born, traversing the narrow pathways of my mother's womb and coming out in blood, and being able to contract my diaphragm just in order to prevent hypoxia, is all suffering for me.
@JPararajasingham by this logic a perfect world would be all of humanity on a morphine drip because any allowance of pain emotional or physical would be evil, despite not being able to objectively determine what is evil under an atheist worldview in the first place.
@tsantini13 "by this logic a perfect world would be all of humanity on a morphine drip because any allowance of pain emotional or physical would be evil"
Humans could have whatever the characteristics God has which prevent him from going through physical suffering. Or put another way, do you think all of humanity in heaven need to be on morphine to make heaven lack suffering? Your own Christian doctrines make your argument invalid.
@JPararajasingham The idea that God doesn't suffer, or does not know suffering flies directly in the face of Christian theology, namely with the story of Jesus Christ, God's chosen son, who was tortured, suffered and died on the cross. You need to brush up on your Christian theology a little.
@tsantini13 "The idea that God doesn't suffer, or does not know suffering flies directly in the face of Christian theology, namely with the story of Jesus Christ, God's chosen son, who was tortured, suffered and died on the cross. You need to brush up on your Christian theology a little."
You need to brush up on your ability to read. I said PHYSICAL suffering. And besides, any suffering God goes through he chooses to go through. The suffering humans encounter is no chosen.
@JPararajasingham suffering is a perception of the mind. And if heaven is to be with God, eternally, then certainly one's state of mind or perception would be that of not suffering, or no longer suffering, in the same sense that suffering in a hell-state would not require biology, simply an immaterial mind. Think of being trapped in a nightmare that you can't wake up from.
"Jesus Christ, God's chosen son, who was tortured, suffered and died on the cross."
No matter how often Christians mention this, I keep feeling nausea come up every time I hear it. Whoever thinks this story of human sacrifice has any kind of beauty to it must be a sick bastard.
I find it slightly ironic that this video is a compilation of interviews with scientists, yet it lacks one of the most basic scientific principles i.e. objectivity - there are no scenes involving theist scientists.
@karolis685 I find it ironic that you failed to see the "Christian Academic" video linked at the beginning and end of the video you're commenting under.
@1bloody1 Exactly. His existence cannot be disproven. But then on whom should the burden of proof lie, the ones who claim His existence or the ones who doubt it? I think it is the first group.
I don't know about you but I like my free will. God could have created us with none, like robots, but how could we enjoy life freely. Also God wants us to do good because we want to not because were made to. What you fail to consider is that the world we live in know is not what originally was purposed and it want last forever.
Pity that you can't explain your mind's processing without using deterministic causality.
"God could have created us with none"
There are millions of actions that you have no motivation to do, and therefore don't do them. If God created you without those motivations, he could equally have created you without the motivation to ever do wrong. You need to distinguish between action and motivation when considering how our minds process decisions.
@JPararajasingham "There are millions of actions that you have no motivation to do, and therefore don't do them." Your argument is flawed because different people have different motivations and what I choose to do may not be the choice of others. God didn't create me with or without these motivations the potential is there for all kinds of motivations.
@KL8NHAJJ150N "spirit creatures with free will, some of which rebelled"
You also create an intellectually closed worldview when you claim invisible beings exist which cause good and invisible beings exist which also cause evil. There's nothing left to discuss if this is what you believe. Your worldview is foolproof.
In science you never prove anything. Everyone who says that is absolutely wrong. When you deal with a theory - a hypothesis they are mostly considered to be tentative. That means it is allowed that the experiment show that the hypotheses is incorrect. The result is that the theory is rejected and have to undergo modification. So if you're asking scientists to prove that god does or doesn't exist - you are asking them to stop believeing everything they believe in.
I adore this video, so well done and interesting! Everynow and then though I get a moment where i realise how skewed our society is, only 1 women and 1 person that isn't white? Still I guess these guys are reflecting the world of 1940's. Hopefully it'd be different if we did this video in 50 years.
How do you know you exist when you are in deep sleep?
cosmiclovebeam 5 hours ago
Richard Feynman is a great teacher and physicist but why would his opinion on supernatural phenomenon be relevant? He is a scholar of temporal (observable) phenomenon. If we could explain God with a formula, and test it, we'd have proof some omniscient timeless being is really a temporal energy that we could define. By definition, the cosmic super being cannot be in characterized in any single frame of reference.
cosmiclovebeam 5 hours ago
Personally i think that fight over if god exist or not. Is ridiculous. Atheist You cant prove without a doubt that god dosnt exist. religious people you cant prove without a doubt that a god dose exist. God and a Spirit is a philosophical question. That has been asked since man first walked the earth. So for me, someone says its there way or the high way. Are just stroking their own ego. As voltaire once said "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.".
Lone432345 2 days ago
I see that Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, and Descartes didn't make the list--probably because they vehemently believed in God. They also created the science these 'world renowned scientists' would eventually apply to their respective fields.
So much for the theory that only 'smart people' are atheist/agnostic.
bellhog246 4 days ago in playlist "Speaking About God" Series
@bellhog246 "Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, and Descartes"
Can you name ANY atheists from that era? Theism was the norm back then, it was all anybody knew. But even more importantly, none of these geniuses could escape their ignorance of 21st century knowledge. Even YOU know more science than them. They were ALL ignorant of evolution and quantum mechanics. The vast majority of elite MODERN scientists however are nonbelievers, in stark contrast to your group. Why? Enlightenment 2.0.
JPararajasingham 4 days ago
@JPararajasingham
Enlightenment 2.0? What you're referring to is nothing more than an a priori commitment to naturalism. This is a contemporary construct of science--and an irrational one.
The pioneers I mentioned had no problem practicing science while believing in God because they understood there was NO real mutual exclusivity.
bellhog246 4 days ago
@bellhog246 Growing evidence of naturalism and continued lack of evidence of god where we keep thinking we'll find it is the reason for the shift in elite thinker's views.
And there is of course the ongoing problem of why god is hidden, given the theistic claim that he wants us to not only know him, but LOVE him. Why hide so well from your loved ones if that's the case? Is this your understanding of how to form loving relationships?
JPararajasingham 4 days ago
@JPararajasingham "Growing evidence of naturalism"? The hidden logic in this statement is simply that science is discovering more and more about the natural world. Yes, we know that, but it is quite different than (as you insinuate) more understanding = less God.
Secondly, God is more interested than spiritual transformation than mere belief. Just because you can't understand the dynamics of how to achieve more of the former than the latter doesn't somehow disprove God.
bellhog246 4 days ago
@bellhog246 "more understanding = less God."
That depends on how you define "god". If god is that which will never be discoverable by human endeavour, or that which lies beyond anything we ever discover, or that which all-encompasses everything we ever discover, then it's (for all practical purposes) defined out of existence. Philosophically it cannot be ruled out, but it has that in common with an infinite number of imagined ideas.
Define "spiritual transformation".
JPararajasingham 4 days ago
@JPararajasingham I'm certainly not defining Him this way. But getting back to the issue....
Why the irrational a priori commitment to naturalism? Why eliminate God even before a question is asked?
I've heard it said that invoking God 'stifles the scientific persuit'. However, this only appears to be a 20th century affliction. Newton obviously didn't struggle with reconciling science with God.
bellhog246 4 days ago
@bellhog246
"a priori commitment to naturalism" - Why is naturalism necessarily a priori? It is inferred from empiricism and experience. Why is it a commitment? One remains open-minded about non-naturalism, but simply awaits experience of this first (unlike the theist's unevidenced but absolute commitment to god).
The only "a priori commitment" I have is to Reason.
JPararajasingham 3 days ago
@JPararajasingham "Why is naturalism necessarily a priori? It is inferred from empiricism and experience" This is exactly my point. Your own personal expectations of what is emperically and experientially sufficient SURELY condemn God's existence since you've already committed yourself to a naturalistic worldview. Your logic is circular. Plenty of evidence exists that is sufficient for those open enough to consider it.
bellhog246 3 days ago
@bellhog246 "SURELY condemn God's existence since you've already committed yourself to a naturalistic worldview" - I have very clearly stated that it is not a "commitment" or "certain". I've said non-naturalism cannot be ruled out and one remains open to it pending reason/evidence for it. Are you trying to engage in discussion or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
"Plenty of evidence exists that is sufficient for those open enough to consider it." - Such as?
JPararajasingham 3 days ago
@JPararajasingham "Plenty of evidence exists that is sufficient for those open enough to consider it." - Such as?"
Rather than splinter this into yet another thread, I trust you can read books on classical apologetics on your own.
bellhog246 2 days ago
@bellhog246 Great argument. So the evidence for god, which he expects to be understood by all, is so complicated it can only be summarised in multiple volumes. Sounds very plausible. I've read plenty of apologetics. I want to know what you think is evidence for theism.
I am not compelled by what you've said to read more apologetics, since all your comments are misunderstandings which have needed correction. I'd like to hear your "plentiful evidence" please.
JPararajasingham 2 days ago
@JPararajasingham
Science is wholly inadequate to answer questions of a metaphysical nature. Can I safely assume you believe that the number 32 can't possibly exist (because it's a mental construct?)
I'm curious to your answer to this one also since you may have skipped it...
bellhog246 2 days ago
@bellhog246 "you believe that the number 32 can't possibly exist"
It exists as a concept, not an entity. Do you think god exists like the number 32? Is god just a concept and not an entity?
JPararajasingham 1 day ago
@bellhog246
"Why eliminate God even before a question is asked?"
Atheism is the answer to a question posed by people who consider it a sensible to ask whether a being we can't see or define, created everything perfectly in a way we can't detect, and loves us in a way we can't see either, and created a posthumous paradise we also can't detect. I simply say I doubt it without evidence. I haven't "eliminated" such an idea, I don't eliminate ANY idea, but this requires SOME evidence.
JPararajasingham 3 days ago
@JPararajasingham
Phrases such as "can't see", "can't detect" suggest that you believe the only true mode of perception is through direct observable evidence. However, I'm sure you're aware that the scientific method is insufficient to 'prove' a number of concepts.
If God is a disembodied mind, please explain to me how you would 'detect' such a thing. Isn't it just a little unfair to God that 'proof' should be based on an unneccesarily narrow set of allowable criteria?
bellhog246 3 days ago
@bellhog246 "However, I'm sure you're aware that the scientific method is insufficient to 'prove' a number of concepts."
I don't believe science "proves" anything with certainty, it gives us levels of probability with which to base beliefs. Again, I've already said this and you're ignoring it.
JPararajasingham 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham "it gives us levels of probability with which to base beliefs"
This needs to be corrected to read "it gives us levels of probability with which to base beliefs *in phenomena detectable by science*.
Science is wholly inadequate to answer questions of a metaphysical nature. Can I safely assume you believe that the number 32 can't possibly exist (because it's a mental construct?)
bellhog246 2 days ago
@bellhog246 "If God is a disembodied mind, please explain to me how you would 'detect' such a thing"
It depends on how is it defined. I look at plausibility:
1. Where did the concept come from?
2. What was the basis for it?
3. How did we derive our concept of "mind"?
4. How did we derive our concept of "disembodiment"?
5. Can we apply our internal logic beyond the universe?
6. Is psychological perception reliable?
7. Are there conflicting descriptions which are equally unevidenced?
JPararajasingham 3 days ago
@JPararajasingham "It depends on how is it defined. I look at plausibility: 1-7"
This is an interesting way to dodge the question, but it's clear that by asking your questions you're attempting to draw 'God' (as I defined it) out of the metaphysical and into the physical. Not sure if you were even conscious of it, but you'll note that every quesiton really boils down to one: 'Is there some physical basis?' The answer is no.
That said, how do you detect God?
bellhog246 2 days ago
@bellhog246" you'll note that every quesiton really boils down to one: 'Is there some physical basis?'"
And you say I've dodge the question? I think you'll find my questions are trying to examine your definition of god and where you got it from. If this is not what you do when you hear extraordinary claims, then you must end up accepting some pretty strange things.
JPararajasingham 2 days ago
@bellhog246 "how do you detect God?"
You can define X as undetectable. Then if you ask me how to detect X, I will say you cannot. But the details of X (i.e. this "disembodied mind") become important if you want to talk about this further than just a definitional undetectable X. You want to give X some characteristics from which you can draw further claims. How you arrived at those initial characteristics involves your own limited brain, limited language, limited physicality.
JPararajasingham 2 days ago
@bellhog246 "Phrases such as "can't see", "can't detect" suggest that you believe the only true mode of perception is through direct observable evidence."
Not really. I am happy to accept something based on plausibility i.e. reasons to infer such a hypothesis. But the more extraordinary the hypothesis, the higher the quality of reasons I would expect.
JPararajasingham 3 days ago
@JPararajasingham "the more extraordinary the hypothesis, the higher the quality of reasons I would expect"
And I would posit that your definition of "extraordinary" would be based on how well a claim aligns with what you observe within the physical laws of nature.
Based on our discussions I would assume that you assign more 'realism' to things that are scientifically verifiable.
bellhog246 2 days ago
@bellhog246 "your definition of "extraordinary""
My definition of extraordinary can be found in the dictionary. It's the agreed upon definition. If I claim that I drove a car today, that is an ordinary claim. If I claim god spoke to me, even you would say that is extraordinary, I should think.
"I would assume that you assign more 'realism' to things that are scientifically verifiable."
I would assign higher probability that something verified is actually true.
JPararajasingham 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham "the more extraordinary the hypothesis, the higher the quality of reasons I would expect"
And I would posit that your definition of "extraordinary" would be based on how well a claim aligns with what you observe within the physical laws of nature.
Based on our discussions I would assume that you assign more 'realism' to things that are scientifically verifiable.
bellhog246 2 days ago
@bellhog246 (cont) The reasons I mention evidence is based on the typical concept of god offered i.e. one that designs and interacts. These imply such an entity could be detected. But if your definition defines god out of detection, that makes the concept more suspicious. But I am willing to hear some reasons to infer such a being as plausible.
JPararajasingham 3 days ago
@bellhog246 "Newton obviously didn't struggle with reconciling science with God."
John Maynard Keynes opined that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." In the pre-Modern Era of Newton's lifetime, the educated embraced a world view different from that of later centuries. Distinctions between science, superstition, and pseudoscience were still being formulated, and a devoutly Christian Biblical perspective permeated Western culture. - Wiki
JPararajasingham 3 days ago
@JPararajasingham
You make Newton sound like a primative witch. Maybe you owe it to him to allow him to speak for himself rather than be defined by a generation of one-trick-pony scientists who I'm sure are brilliant at their comparatively narrow fields of study but are either confused or offended when asked about anything outside of their life's work.
Besides, if he's only a product of his era, maybe you should question your own skepticism as being a product of yours.
bellhog246 3 days ago
@bellhog246 "Besides, if he's only a product of his era, maybe you should question your own skepticism as being a product of yours."
I do. But I am not going to ignore that Newton had less knowledge about the world than us. Reason demands that one bases one's worldview on the best current knowledge. It would be irrational to believe something wacky simply because there is a chance it may not be discovered yet. With that approach, anything would be believed.
JPararajasingham 3 days ago
@JPararajasingham "Newton had less knowledge about the world than us"
We already covered this. What exactly do you think has been discovered that in any way detracts from the liklihood of God's existence? You're simply discrediting Newton because he wasn't a prisoner to a naturalistic worldview.
bellhog246 2 days ago
@bellhog246 "What exactly do you think has been discovered that in any way detracts from the liklihood of God's existence?"
For a PERSONAL god, the following:
Scientifically: evolution (lack of design, biological imperfection), cosmology (0 energy universe), neurotheology (serotonin system), psychology (bias/predisposition of ideas), causality (determinism), psychiatry (non-chosen human behaviour).
Scripturally: Textual criticism, comparative mythology, gospel editing evidence.
JPararajasingham 2 days ago
@JPararajasingham
If you've read classical apologetics, you'll know that the items you cite have been summarily addressed and dealt with. I'm not going to waste more electrons by re-explaining everything.
For biological issues I recommend Johnathan Wells and Stephen Meyer; for cosmology William Lane Craig; for scriptural integrity Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel.
(cont.)
bellhog246 2 days ago
@bellhog246 "For biological issues I recommend Johnathan Wells and Stephen Meyer; for cosmology William Lane Craig; for scriptural integrity Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel."
For biological issues read every biology texbook written. For cosmology read every cosmology book. To see why scripture is useless read the Bible.
JPararajasingham 1 day ago
@bellhog246 "If you've read classical apologetics, you'll know that the items you cite have been summarily addressed and dealt with. I'm not going to waste more electrons by re-explaining everything."
If you've read classicaly apologetics, you'll know that the items I've cited have been poorly addressed. So should I too take your attitude and avoid wasting electrons? Do you see why your game is a pointless one?
Either engage properly, or don't bother commenting in the first place.
JPararajasingham 1 day ago
@JPararajasingham
Based on our conversation I think I have a better understaning of the basic cognative process of a naturalistic worldview. One last question...
You refer to the 'multiverse' in an article you've written when describing what *may* be in 'total reality'. With 'detectability' being a major requriement for what is real, why would you mention something that (using your reasoning) has as much evidential weight as God (i.e. none)? Why do you favor the multiverse?
bellhog246 2 days ago
@bellhog246 "why would you mention something that (using your reasoning) has as much evidential weight as God (i.e. none)? Why do you favor the multiverse?"
Humans intuitively thought of the god hypothesis during an age of complete ignorance. Humans counter-intuitively thought of the multiverse hypothesis during the modern age of reason. It came about by looking at eternal inflation, microwave background and M-theory. The multiverse shows up from the Moduli Space Problem.
JPararajasingham 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham "eternal inflation, microwave background and M-theory"
You're kidding right? I was expecting something better than this. I know enough about cosmology to know that this statement is pure bunk (though maybe you believe it). Inflationary models went out 20 years ago and they have nothing to do with the multiverse. CBR is evidence for the singularity (but not the multiverse). The application of string theory at this stage is purely pop-science.
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham "eternal inflation, microwave background and M-theory"
The truth about the multiverse is that it is COMPLETELY UNDETECTABLE. It is purely a "nature of the gaps" theory to explain away the impossible odds by a naturally occuring athropic universe.
It is undetectable (like God), yet you attribute it to the set of 'total reality'.
Do you see the irony in this? It would seem your bias is exposed.
bellhog246 1 day ago
@bellhog246 people who try to put evidence behind their theistic beliefs are fighting a losing battle.
coxac1 4 days ago
When Peter received the Holy Spirit and then started to speak boldly and with authority they said is this not the unlearned one.
"I have chosen the meek of this world to confound the wise".
Moses requested to see God in His full glory -- God said no one can see my face and live. So God put Moses into a crevas on a mountain and covered Moses with his hand until He passed. Moses was allowed to see the back part of God in His full Glory. After that encounter Moses knew that God was all powerful.
wilby1414 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet
TheAlibaba40tencuop 5 days ago
@terabrat Well, exactly. That is the only answer if you're a theist. Another non-sequitur, good job. Unfortunately, they understand it better than you.
BER2ERKER 6 days ago
god is real i read a book that said he parted the sea for his ark
johnjoeover9000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
''And say: All the praises and thanks be to Allah(God), Who has not begotten a son, and Who has no partner in (His) Dominion, nor He is low to have a Wali (helper, protector or supporter). And magnify Him with all the magnificence'' [The Noble Quran]
blackforestcakes 1 week ago
I guess the point that everyone is missing is that THERE IS NO GOD! Hard to beleive that people still beleive this horse shit today. What's your argument.. have faith?
SpaceAliensAreReal 1 week ago
The main thing I'm getting from this is that these people have no real understanding of religion.
terabrat 1 week ago
@terabrat
And you have no real understanding of reality.
brajamtho757 1 week ago
@terabrat "The main thing I'm getting from this is that these people have no real understanding of religion."
Oh of course. God, who wants humans to believe in him, made things so intellectually complex that even the greatest minds in the world would have difficulty understanding it. Makes sense.
JPararajasingham 1 week ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
@terabrat "The main thing I'm getting from this is that these people have no real understanding of religion."
Which religion do these academics not understand? We have many mysteries. God is a mystery we humans created to try an answer all the other mysteries! Curious 5 year olds put an end to this 'God' question when they ask the simple question "Mommy, who made God?"
sanjivb53 1 week ago
@terabrat The main thing I'm getting is these people have no real understanding of unicorns. That's why they dismiss them!
coxac1 5 days ago
One of the best videos I've ever watched on Youtube. Thanks
ngipiksari 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ngipiksari CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet
TheAlibaba40tencuop 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They think with time a non-living thing can start to live,a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,social behaviour and technics of animals and insects are in the genes! and the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did evolve wings! and the ability to fly! throug random mutations and naturel selection,And they ignored completly this : /watch?v=PD6Ov8JHTfk,please hold down to the real science :)
YamiYami17 2 weeks ago
THE GOD DELUSION!
breenhill 2 weeks ago
How can any one fucking say Something is real from that long ago, people still don't know how the pyramids were made, so how can some one explain GOD?
mitchmando13 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@6gunwalker GOD = Mother Nature (Ive done the math they are equal, so they ARE the same)
Markle6 2 weeks ago
10. Darwinists were not at the big bang any more than I was at the creation. Therefore, chose for yourself.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
7. If man within 200 years can begin an outline sketch of creating functioning androids, how could it not be possible for a long lived being to create organic androids i.e. human beings?
8. Evidence is always based upon what men are willing to agree upon. We see this all the time in the rewriting of history. Therefore, you can find evidence in anything, based upon who pays to do the research.
9. Ultimately no one can prove anything, not Christians or Darwinists.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
5. The earth reflects evil as much as it does God. And if they are not willing to discuss God, they will never be willing to discuss the existence of God's enemy.
6. It would be interesting to see how these rationalistic ideologies affect their personal relationships with their closest loved ones, such as their wives and children.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
A few points:
1. I do not need approval from these men.
2. There is no actual undeniable proof that God does NOT exist anymore than that He does.
3. Darwinism uses the power of the state to force their worldview upon others and do not respect the freedom to think for ones self any more than the Catholics of yesteryear.
4. Hitler and Stalin were devout darwinists that foisted upon mankind as much death and suffering in 50 years as the Catholic church did in 1500 years.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
@shaynemasonvincent
1. These men are some of the most renowned and bright individuals in the world in their respective fields. You don't need their approval, but you should at least consider their opinions since they are smarter than you or me.
2. The absence of proof IS the proof. We have no proof of fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, and other nonsensical creatures. Will you therefore believe in them?
Singinlikeafool 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
3. Darwinism cannot "use power" because it is a scientific theory. DarwinISTS will often ask for separation of church and state. Governments should base their decisions on facts based on evidence, not faith. Many of the governments in the Middle East use theocratic methods of control, and I sure wouldn't want to live there.
Singinlikeafool 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
4. Hitler and Stalin twisted truth to serve their own purposes. Many Christian churches teach that babies are not accountable for sin until they reach a certain age. It would stand to reason, according to this doctrine, that a loving parent would kill their children before they reached this age so as to ensure their entrance into heaven. Christian dogmas can be twisted just like Darwinism.
Singinlikeafool 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
5. I am so confused by number five. To paraphrase: the earth has both evil and good in it. If atheists are unwilling to believe in God, they will also not believe in Satan. Did I get that right? If so, I agree. I don't believe in God or Satan. This isn't really an argument though, so I don't know what to do with it...
6. The only evidence I can claim is my own on this one. I have become a better person since becoming an atheist. I'm more kind, caring, and decent.
Singinlikeafool 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
7. It's possible that HUMANS could be creating organic life in the next few hundred years. What is POSSIBLE isn't EVIDENCE though. There is no physical evidence that anything was created, and much physical evidence that evolution took place.
Singinlikeafool 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
8. And men have falsely been agreeing that God exists for hundreds of years. Your statement about who has the money has the truth is true. That is why Christianity still exists. Christians are willing to use their money and their time to propagate the horrific falsehoods they purport, thus keeping it alive in the face of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
Singinlikeafool 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
9. Science is willing to change as new information presents itself. Religion refuses to change. Science is based on evidence, rigorous and repeated testing, falsifiability, and curiousness about the unknown. Religion is based on no evidence, has not once had a test that could prove it's truth, is unfalsifiable, and tries to cover up the unknown with blatant lies to comfort the worried masses.
Singinlikeafool 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
10. The Big Bang has books and studies full of evidence supporting it. Creation has no evidence supporting it, and actually quite a lot of evidence AGAINST it. Learn to think for heavens sake.
Singinlikeafool 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
see prior comment re: who pays for research
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
@shaynemasonvincent
But in the end, its all subjective, on the side of naturalism and on the side of God; and it has more to do with our core philosophies. We all ask the same questions of purpose, meaning, life, death. But we all chose for ourselves which camp we will throw our lot into.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
@shaynemasonvincent Yet they are subjective. And to say one has more evidence than another is dishonest, regardless of which side. If one believes this it means they likely have never looked at the other side of the argument. Because in the end, no one can prove anything.... so we just, chose based upon our limited input and hard won prejudices.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shaynemasonvincent "And to say one has more evidence than another is dishonest, regardless of which side. If one believes this it means they likely have never looked at the other side of the argument. Because in the end, no one can prove anything.... so we just, chose based upon our limited input and hard won prejudices."
You have abandoned rational inquiry and the concept of knowledge. That your position is based on "hard won prejudice" does not reflect on others.
Gnomefro 2 weeks ago
@shaynemasonvincent It is a simple fact that naturalism and supernaturalism are not equally rational to hold - given the absence of evidence of the supernatural. Naturalism is simply more parsimonious, and should be chosen by any rational thinker for the same reason we choose "The theory of gravity" over "The theory of gravity with gravity fairies".
Gnomefro 2 weeks ago
@shaynemasonvincent This has nothing to do with prejudice, but that introducing entities for which there is no evidence is a process where you are making entirely unsupported claims about reality. Anything could be the case about that which you have not observed, yet religious people pick one specific claim out of an infinity of possibilities and declare that "I believe this one". This means they are infinitely likely to be wrong. Evidence improves this process.
Gnomefro 2 weeks ago
@shaynemasonvincent Anyway, to suggest that all religions have evidence supporting their claims is silly. You are confusing hearsay and making stuff up for actual evidence.
Gnomefro 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
This response appears based in a surface view of politically motivated religion rather than a personal experience of spirituality; but this is subjective and is only in the life of an individual and cannot be used for argument, with respect only to the individual.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
It is overwhelming because that is who pays for the research. There are alternative solutions to the the geological record (such as turbidites), petrified forests (such as mount st helens crystal lake), questionable reliability of historical dating methods, and rapid rock formation, etc.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
we cannot create life, we only manipulate what already is; never the less, given enough time and information, a being could create an organic being, or in our case, a bio chemical and computerized being... battle star galactica is feasible given enough time.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
@shaynemasonvincent
I'm not sure which posts are responses to which posts, so just feel free to message my youtube account if you want to continue our discussion! I love a good debate, but I think we're spamming...
Singinlikeafool 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
You are right as we cannot have this conversation, because the earth reflects evil as much as it does good, that is my only point. But you would have to believe that evil exists.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
You should educate yourself further into the nature of Nazi philosophy and communist philosophy, these were naturalistic, darwinistic, eugenists. Eugenics was open professed by the majority of society and Hitler's final solution was nothing more than the furtherance of social darwinism as applied to anthropology.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
@shaynemasonvincent
I totally agree that Christian dogma has been twisted. The point of the reformation was to get back to the spiritual principles of biblical teaching, and to get away from politically driven control in the garb of religion. even the founding of the USA was based in freedom of conscience due to the manipulation of the church in government and finance. We have just replaced them with secularistic and capitalistic dictatorship, which is its equal opposite.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
@Singinlikeafool
I meant to sayDarwinist's, and I agree, in this life, metaphorically speaking, I would much rather be under the rule of Egypt than of Babylon.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Singinlikeafool
I am well educated and read, I do not consider these men smarter than me, only within their own field.
Th point of absence is in essence the reality that naturalism is still theory, no missing link exists despite argument, though micro evolution is obvious, macro does not exist in the proven record. So therefore it is a matter of faith in your sources and cannot be indisputably proven, as neither can Christianity.
shaynemasonvincent 2 weeks ago
Keep It Simple Stupid - there is NO fookin' god (except GoldOilDrugs) - masochist sheep & bloody shepherd.
JUGAopet1 2 weeks ago
Jesus, whose existence isn't even proven, did nothing of the sort for you. You weren't alive then and it is ridiculous to base salvation on the torture and murder of a man, Do your research!! oh but then maybe you would learn something, acquire knowledge, rather then just regurgitate dogmas created by idiots who had no understanding of the natural world 2000 or more years ago.
JaMaNoranda 3 weeks ago 2
Really great movie. Thanks for putting it together.
guysovereign 3 weeks ago
I hear what many are saying here But there are so many loop holes in some of there therys, As humans we have a natural instint to worship! We all worship somethink if that's god or science or the Self it's all worship! So we are all Religous! And as C.S Lewies said
He wouldent want to belive in a god I could understand or explan! As if we could that would make god below Man!
gomikeygomikey 3 weeks ago
"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise." 1 Corinthians 3:18
tamething1 3 weeks ago
@JPararajasingham Would you give your life to save someone you love from walking headlong into a pit of fire? That's what Christ did for you. I love Him for that. You revile Him. Your decision.
tamething1 3 weeks ago
@tamething1 "Would you give your life to save someone you love from walking headlong into a pit of fire? That's what Christ did for you."
If I had God/Christ's power, I would prevent there from being a pit of fire in the first place. God/Christ allow a pit of fire to exist, and then "lovingly ask" for slavish worship and compulsory love to avoid it. THAT'S what Christ "did for you".
"You revile Him"
I revile anyone that thinks the story you've outlined is even vaguely moral.
JPararajasingham 2 weeks ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham GOD = Mother Nature (Ive done the math they are equal, so they ARE the same)
Markle6 2 weeks ago
Thank you so much for this video, and the others that you have done. I am recently become atheist, and I appreciate your sharing the viewpoints of the great men and women in this video. I came from a Mormon background, and was inundated with false information all my life. It caused me great distress. What a relief to know that there is no god! Atheism has brought me more peace and happiness than any religion ever did.
Singinlikeafool 3 weeks ago 2
@Singinlikeafool If you have become an atheist because of Mormonism, then Mormonism has succeeded in its mission to lead you away from Christ. It is demonic, not Christian. Its founder Joseph Smith was demon-inspired. No wonder you hated it.
See the Fuel Project's "Know Your Enemy, part 72" here on YouTube.
True Christianity brings true inner joy. Lots of people dance happily down the street of atheism for a time, but ultimately, you'll find it a dead end.
tamething1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Singinlikeafool 3 weeks ago
@tamething1 Thank the heavens! If it weren't for you referring me to a poorly made video clip about things I already know, I would have been lost forever! Honestly!
All sarcasm aside, I have to agree with you. The claims of Mormonism are absurd when viewed under the light of reason. If you grew up being taught to believe in these tenets, they wouldn't seem quite so foreign. Christianity is similarly absurd, only your familiarity with it has bred in you an immunity to its asininity.
Singinlikeafool 3 weeks ago
If you could find a way to level the volume of each individual clip for a future project, that would be most pleasant. Thank you for making what you have so far
espivalis 3 weeks ago
wow, i scroll down and almost all the comments are a reply to 6gunwalker or just him mouthing off. Almost no point to respond to such a devout believer as nothing can be said to waiver his faith, nor can he waive the opinion of a non believer. In the end the people in the video, not to downplay anyone watching it, are much more learnth, intelligent, and insightful than one can hope to be, not to mention more accomplished. So in the end stop the trolling 6gun no one cares what you think
projektEnigma 3 weeks ago
My UNIVERSAL THEORY OF EVERYTHING is Ultimate Reality of LIFE. Reaffirmed with Nassim Haramein’s & Garrett Lisi’s work of last few years. Crop Circle makers in high conscious of knowledge of "TREE OF LIFE". Tree of Life spoken in Bible & is all people of world who contributed knowledge & scientific research. NASSIM HARAMEIN SOLVES Einstein's Universal Cosmo CONSTANT. Youtube(dot)com/watch?v=S1JDMToJDe0
Read my Theory of Everything blog:
ciscosphere(dot)wordpress(dot)com/category/uncategorized/
Cisco11211 3 weeks ago
Wow, this is truly great to watch. Thanks for this post.
mike28110 4 weeks ago
@6gunwalker ... and now i cant see how this has anything to do with god. nor can i find information and chang. nor does this sound anything more than the opinion of one scientist... have they published this finding? what were they using to determine if it could or could not evolve?
demondim5 4 weeks ago
@demondim5 lol hmmm playing the old lets act unable to find the soucre game are we? lol the scientists who are and have worked on the human genome project are renowned in thier fields and some also have the nobel prize to thier names.. this brings credibility to the discovery..
6gunwalker 4 weeks ago
@6gunwalker are you suffering under the silly notion that when you make a claim its my resposibility to support it? and that if i cant your claim somehow still hold water? source please.
demondim5 4 weeks ago
@6gunwalker ...no way invalidates all the other evidence for evolution that our own non-evolutionary modification of various species at the genetic level does.
demondim5 4 weeks ago
@demondim5 my sarcastic comment on evolution was obviously a quick take on the stupidity of the argument which required a pinch of salt humour.. which clearly you lack. lol i assume you support evolution, so let me ask you a question..scientists working on the human genome project discovered millions of genes in our DNA that are not found in any creature on earth. they called it "extra terrestrial genes". theyve dismissed mutation as a possibiliy but cannot bridge the gap to evoltion
6gunwalker 1 month ago
@6gunwalker I'm interested in the source of the "millions of genes" when the HGP says there are less than 30,000 genes in the human genome.
leighjamz 3 weeks ago
@6gunwalker "these intellectuals cant accept the simplicity of it all"
What your comment also highlights is how theism is a philosophy which can always be argued both ways to suit taste. Here you are criticising how atheists make theism too complex when it's actually simple, whereas others will criticise how atheists make theism too simple when it's actually complex.
This is what happens when you have a philosophy with an absent factual basis. Anything goes really.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet
TheAlibaba40tencuop 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham There is no God in the SELF. CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet
TheAlibaba40tencuop 5 days ago
@6gunwalker "people want things to be complicated in order for them to intellectually make it valid"
Quite the opposite. Scientists recognise only too well that the laws of nature, while complicated to determine, are simplistic. So a simple explanation of how the universe came to be would be perfectly acceptable.
The problem with theism is not that it's too simple, it's that it doesn't make the slightest ounce of sense.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago 4
very interesting video.
i have every respect for people who choose to believe in god.
I however cannot and do not.
as i respect peoples right to believe in god so they should respect my right not to believe.
there should be no argument on the issue. you either believe or you do not, trying to change what another person chooses to believe or not to believe is futile
chemicalBR0 1 month ago
i believe that God is a nonpersonifiable physical entity or Idea that broadcasts itself to all humans through their subconscious, therefore it is represented in different formats. Hence, the Big Bang theory and all the mathematics and physics that go along with it equates to the personifiable Christian God. But they are both the same thing. Hence, God exists by any name, regardless, ultimately.
OfficialXJHall 1 month ago
"Professing THEMSELVES to be wise, THEY became FOOLS." Romans 1:22
bornagain001 1 month ago
I like this video but this doesn't change my opinion on God's existence. Maybe you can understand the world around using science. I believe God's the created of all things he made physics, and he made the big bang. Not all things in this world can be explained in science. The really fact is NO ONE alive knows if God exists. Who knows the atheist could be are right. I can't go through life thinking when I die I'll just disappear, there has to more after, otherwise my life just seems irrelevant.
besties4ever18 1 month ago
You know, I am SO pleased that I've become an atheist. When I listen to all these really smart people who have contributed so much and have such an undiminished curiosity about the world, it makes me happy.
ritchloui 1 month ago in playlist "Speaking About God" Series
This is such an excellent video. I so enjoyed watching it. Thank you so much!
hmala 1 month ago
"So agnostics, who think there is much chance that there might be such entities as that there might not be such entities, fall foul of this stricture." - AC Grayling
baikinmon 1 month ago
claim: Christ was the divine interface between man and God
evidence: Shroud of Turin
tsantini13 1 month ago
How incredibly arrogant to assume one speaks on behalf of God, whatever that is.
MrXephyr 1 month ago
7:57 It seems unfair to describe Dawkins, Harris etc as militant. They are indeed outspoken but it isn't a case of them inposing their will upon others (unless you believe that trying to argue agaisnt a proposal/claim is an act of aggression; which it isn't). Their arguments are a reaction to ignorance and the kind of corruption of education he just mentioned.
195ashes 1 month ago
In the early 20th century it would have been thought absurd to think that Isreal would be reborn, much less a world focus, but look!, listen up! "The just shall live by faith"
Bamboothought 1 month ago
God is real. It may be alien. Can it be killed? Get to work, kids.
amitus8 1 month ago
Some of these scientists made a case for non existence of God due to existence of human suffering. Well perhaps God is a sadist or perhaps he has a reason to cause suffering? I even believe that a degree of suffering can make people stronger, and even lead to great advancements in the future.
BTW I made this point not to argue for the existence of God, but just to solely point out the flawed logic of some of these scientists.
karolis685 1 month ago
@karolis685 The traditional hypothesis presented is that of a personal god, who is all loving and all powerful. So this what is being mainly criticised and not accepted. You could come up with infinite types of god/creator hypotheses, and each one would need to be criticised separately. Nonbelievers simply aren't accepting an idea until it is presented. How can they?
Suffering to make people stronger is an evil idea. If you can't see that then your moral compass has gone haywire.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
@JPararajasingham Well I for one have personally been through a lot in life, I would dare to say far more than an average person, and I really believe this led me to be a more insightful, peaceful, accepting etc. individual, hence negative experiences can really aid in a "growth" of a person.
karolis685 1 month ago
@JPararajasingham In addition I would like to point out the WW2. Although this was a horrific event, maybe even the most horrific since the dawn of man, yet it lead to great things - technological, medical, scientific, social and many other advancements.
karolis685 1 month ago
@JPararajasingham Maybe your moral compass has gone haywire if you cannot comprehend that suffering is required for becoming stronger. Even if you proved God did not exist, suffering still exists, and you were unable to remove that.
shadowsburnme 1 month ago
@shadowsburnme "suffering is required for becoming stronger."
Human beings did not need to be designed in that way. God is a being that doesn't "need" to suffer. So evidently you would agree beings can exist in reality that do not have a need to undergo suffering.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
@JPararajasingham It depends on how you define suffering. Even being born, traversing the narrow pathways of my mother's womb and coming out in blood, and being able to contract my diaphragm just in order to prevent hypoxia, is all suffering for me.
shadowsburnme 1 month ago
@JPararajasingham by this logic a perfect world would be all of humanity on a morphine drip because any allowance of pain emotional or physical would be evil, despite not being able to objectively determine what is evil under an atheist worldview in the first place.
tsantini13 1 month ago
@tsantini13 "by this logic a perfect world would be all of humanity on a morphine drip because any allowance of pain emotional or physical would be evil"
Humans could have whatever the characteristics God has which prevent him from going through physical suffering. Or put another way, do you think all of humanity in heaven need to be on morphine to make heaven lack suffering? Your own Christian doctrines make your argument invalid.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
@JPararajasingham The idea that God doesn't suffer, or does not know suffering flies directly in the face of Christian theology, namely with the story of Jesus Christ, God's chosen son, who was tortured, suffered and died on the cross. You need to brush up on your Christian theology a little.
tsantini13 1 month ago
@tsantini13 "The idea that God doesn't suffer, or does not know suffering flies directly in the face of Christian theology, namely with the story of Jesus Christ, God's chosen son, who was tortured, suffered and died on the cross. You need to brush up on your Christian theology a little."
You need to brush up on your ability to read. I said PHYSICAL suffering. And besides, any suffering God goes through he chooses to go through. The suffering humans encounter is no chosen.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
@tsantini13 And how does physical suffering not occur in heaven?
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
@JPararajasingham suffering is a perception of the mind. And if heaven is to be with God, eternally, then certainly one's state of mind or perception would be that of not suffering, or no longer suffering, in the same sense that suffering in a hell-state would not require biology, simply an immaterial mind. Think of being trapped in a nightmare that you can't wake up from.
tsantini13 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tsantini13
"Jesus Christ, God's chosen son, who was tortured, suffered and died on the cross."
No matter how often Christians mention this, I keep feeling nausea come up every time I hear it. Whoever thinks this story of human sacrifice has any kind of beauty to it must be a sick bastard.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@karolis685
How much suffering should I inflict? I'd like to make people stronger.
MrXephyr 1 month ago in playlist DOCOS
@MrXephyr Suffering is omnipotent, you cant escape it.
shadowsburnme 1 month ago
@shadowsburnme
I feel fine, thanks for asking.
MrXephyr 1 month ago
I find it slightly ironic that this video is a compilation of interviews with scientists, yet it lacks one of the most basic scientific principles i.e. objectivity - there are no scenes involving theist scientists.
karolis685 1 month ago
@karolis685 I find it ironic that you failed to see the "Christian Academic" video linked at the beginning and end of the video you're commenting under.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
@JPararajasingham I'm sorry I missed that, I tend to turn off the annotations prior to watching youtube videos :) Thanks for pointing it out!
karolis685 1 month ago
@karolis685 Involving theist's wouldn't make it more objective. Look up the definition.
195ashes 1 month ago
I can just hear some frenzied Christian screaming at his computer screen, "I DON'T CARE IF YOU HAVE A MILLION SCIENTISTS, JESUS IS LORD!"
Naked4Jesus 1 month ago
@1bloody1 Exactly. His existence cannot be disproven. But then on whom should the burden of proof lie, the ones who claim His existence or the ones who doubt it? I think it is the first group.
yamenhawit 1 month ago
I don't know about you but I like my free will. God could have created us with none, like robots, but how could we enjoy life freely. Also God wants us to do good because we want to not because were made to. What you fail to consider is that the world we live in know is not what originally was purposed and it want last forever.
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 month ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N "I like my free will"
Pity that you can't explain your mind's processing without using deterministic causality.
"God could have created us with none"
There are millions of actions that you have no motivation to do, and therefore don't do them. If God created you without those motivations, he could equally have created you without the motivation to ever do wrong. You need to distinguish between action and motivation when considering how our minds process decisions.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham "There are millions of actions that you have no motivation to do, and therefore don't do them." Your argument is flawed because different people have different motivations and what I choose to do may not be the choice of others. God didn't create me with or without these motivations the potential is there for all kinds of motivations.
KL8NHAJJ150N 1 month ago
@KL8NHAJJ150N "spirit creatures with free will, some of which rebelled"
You also create an intellectually closed worldview when you claim invisible beings exist which cause good and invisible beings exist which also cause evil. There's nothing left to discuss if this is what you believe. Your worldview is foolproof.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago
I think Bertrand Russell was wrong about "there can't be a practical reason to believe". I think our DNA tricked us into belief.
Jeffersonwazright 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
ahoy there outlander tally ho !!!
oldenglishpipesmoker 1 month ago
In science you never prove anything. Everyone who says that is absolutely wrong. When you deal with a theory - a hypothesis they are mostly considered to be tentative. That means it is allowed that the experiment show that the hypotheses is incorrect. The result is that the theory is rejected and have to undergo modification. So if you're asking scientists to prove that god does or doesn't exist - you are asking them to stop believeing everything they believe in.
Rifeus 1 month ago
I adore this video, so well done and interesting! Everynow and then though I get a moment where i realise how skewed our society is, only 1 women and 1 person that isn't white? Still I guess these guys are reflecting the world of 1940's. Hopefully it'd be different if we did this video in 50 years.
Ps David Attenborough is awesome!
iloveroman2 1 month ago