Uncaused cause ----> Where did the Materials of the Bigbang come from? ;-) Consciousness exists .... ;-) Proving that conciousness exist in the Universe. What we have on earth are but part of the Universe we leave in. ;-) It's rather more foolish concluding there is no God without proof.
I don't know where the materials came from. The origins of the big bang are not relevant to the fact that the theory explains, in great detail and with extraordinary explanatory power, what has happened since then. If you go back in time far enough, all evidence points to a singularity. I agree that "consciousness" exists.
Haven't you concluded that many other gods don't exist? Is is only foolish when I do it?
@TheAlphaPyro gods ability to make finger paintings has always existed and anybody who tries to argue otherwise is guilty of using reason which doesn't apply here because It would be detrimental to my obviously correct assumption.
What you are failing to grasp in this argument, is that one of the fundamnetal problems of the "Painting" always being there, is Time. The Universe can not be of an infinite duration. God however exists logically, before time, in a state of timelessness, or, according to the bible, a state of Eternallity. If God has no beginning, then He does not need to have a Cause. It is only those things that have beginnings that require Causes. God bless.
The word "duration" refers to time, or space-time, which I can accept as finite, but to then conclude that universal existence is limited to space-time is an unwarranted assumption, and one that you do not accept if you believe in a deity.
The argument in this video refers to the argument from design, not the cosmological argument, which is covered in my video "Re: Who created God".
@somecomputergeek Alright, here's the problem with your analogy, it commits a catergorical error... if the "Painter" has a "Painter" then the first "Painter" is not really a painter, he's a "Painting", that is, he's just a part of the picture. There still remains and Unpainted Painter... now where the Unpainted Painter comes from is irrelevant, we have solved the Origin of the Painting. By the way, when you talked about the painting and the painter, and the painter's painter, you made this a CA
If we can say that the painter is "unpainted", why can't we say the "painting" was? You are IGNORING the argument that necessitates a "painter" by DECLARING that God is immune to the SAME logic... "just because", apparently.
Both the CA and DA have infinite regress in common, but that doesn't mean they are the same argument. In the DA, the prerequisite is INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS. In the CA, the prerequisite is existence and energy. Big difference.
@somecomputergeek This is not a video about the Argument from Design, it deals much more with the CA. If you want this to be a vid about the Argument from Design then you need to explain why the painting isn't really a painting, its just some paint spilt on some canvas by accident. When you bring up the Painter and try to dismiss Him, you've begun to deal with the CA
You suggest that the Universe can exist without Spacetime, are you serious?
The question it brings up is one of complexity and intricacy of design - improbability of arising spontaneously. It asserts that consciousness is a prerequisite for this design. THIS is the scope of that argument. You are just IMAGINING a CA argument ON TOP OF THAT, ignoring both the argument and my refutation to it.
Yes, I'm serious. The universe is all that exists. Space-time is a sub-set of that existence.
@buktomsin No I think that's a GOOD step in the right direction. Once you've gotten to this idea of "Eternal Energy", then you must start to ask questions like, did it change? If so, then how? What made it produce the Temporal Universe? Is there a cause beyond the Energy? Or is the cause inherent in the Energy? If its inherent in the Energy, then how does it work? The answer I believe is found in the Mind of the "Eternal Energy". Once you've concluded theres a Mind, then I think you've found God
@ChristusVlCTOR Presupposition MUCH!? How does your view of it being "in the right direction", make it right? There's to much variables in this excuse of a hypothesis. FYI you're just wasting your time, these recycled arguments have been charbroiled sense IDK Epicurus...
@buktomsin You presented a "god" I said that that was a good start, but you have to logic it out... Timeless Energy cannot react to create the universe unless there is an external source, or if it, itself is has some sort of property that allows it to kickstart the universe... I propose that Mind is that property. I also think you are valid in calling it God, but only if you attribute Mind to it. God bless.
The word "created" implies a creator. Who created the creator? If you don't believe that the creator was created by a creator, then you must believe that the creator created himself. That makes no sense.
As to why the argument doesn't make sense, watch my video "It's turtles all the way down".
Most scientists believe the universe started with the Big Bang or Singularity.
Time is a measure of how long it takes to travel from Point A to Point B. At the Singularity there was only a Point A, which means that its creator existed OUTSIDE time.
Existing outside of time means there is no start date, and renders your "Who created the Creator" question irrelevant.
@philosopheDeMaelstro "But why can't something walk up hill?"If an object reaches the absolute zero of temperature (0 K = -273,15°C = −459.67 °F"
What does that have to do with the 3rd law of thermodynamics? If I recall correctly (and I do), the third law says something to the effect of every robot action must obey human orders and cause an equal or opposite reaction
Next thing you'll says is something is nonsensical JUST 'cause it makes no sense. That's just the closed-mi9ndedness I'd expect
I could go on and on about this subject, but I'm getting sick of commenting this video. I'll leave you with this; god exists, but 'he' is not a 'he' and 'he' is very different than the way we think of 'him' to be. Confusing, but true. I believe the big bang happened, it can be proven by science. But has science ever asked the question; "was it conscious?" <-- think about it. PM me if you happen to be interested
@somecomputergeek "The question 'what is consciousness' is pursued in philosophy as epistemology, and in science as cognitive science" almost all philosophy is metaphysical, and cognitive science isn't science based....its mainly psychology, philosophy, sociology and neuroscience; None of which are primarily natural science based. and to answer your question "how you know?" instead of me telling you how I recommend you spend a few weeks researching some of these topics. You will learn a lot
These 'laws' we apply to gravity, light, sound, time and space are based off of what we can prove, and the same goes for religion. Your logic for the 'disapproval of god' is centered around a question that can't be answered. It can't be answered because humans exist in the 3rd dimension, however physics proves the existence of 11 dimensions . Like I said, gravity, like and time interact with our dimension very differently than they do in the other 10 dimensions.
The idea that religion is based on the scientific method is ridiculous, and you know it.
I'm not trying to DISPROVE the existence of God. In fact, I don't think that is possible. What I am doing to showing an argument FOR God's existence to be fallacious, nothing more.
Yes, our perceptions of reality are limited. That does not mean any claim about what is "outside" our perceptions are valid.
Lol your logic fucked up. Fact: the only difference between humans and apes genetically is the fusion of 2 chromosomes in the human genome. This fusion does not happen naturally in nature, and humans are the only creatures on earth to posses this trait. Your disregarding so many other scientific variables that influence the 3rd dimension (e.g. time, space, light, sound, gravity). outside of earth non of these variables have the same characteristics they have on earth.
"This fusion does not happen naturally in nature, and humans are the only creatures on earth to posses this trait"
That's quite a claim. The human genome project is unique, and we have a much greater understanding of human chromosomes than of other species. What other species do not have have fused chromosomes, and how do you know?
"non of these variables have the same characteristics they have on earth"
Thats actually a fact. I'll message you a link when i get some time to find it. And the human genome project isn't unique, it was just like any other scientific research project. I think you mean the human genome in general...and in this case your wrong again. The human genome project started in the 1950's, and over the last 58 years, science has an understanding 5% of the mapped DNA. The other 95% is considered 'junk DNA' (because it can't be scientifically defined).
DNA was discovered in 50s, but the Human Genome Project got started in 1990. My point was that our UNDERSTANDING of the human genome, as opposed to the genome of other species, is unique. After all, it makes sense that we would try to map our own genes before other species. The question I posed could be rephrased as "What other species do you think have no traces of merged genes? Why do you think that? Has this species' genome been sequenced?
Lol no need to get defensive just because I challenged your ideals. How bout this, do some research, and come up with evidence to prove me wrong about the chromosome fusion. Also, look into the 'laws' of space, time, gravity, sound and light because you will discover that these are not finite laws at all, they are variable/dynamic.
YOU are the one making a claim about chromosome fusion. The onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claim.
We both agree that Human Chromosome #2 contains indications of chromosome fusion, do you not? If not, we can at least agree that it contains two centremeres (one inactive), and telemeres where they don't "belong", right? If we can't agree on that, then I'm not the one who needs to do some research.
Science learn that the Universe is finite. In example, there are stars that die and it is believed that our Sun will also die one day. Therefore, the best argument is that the things in the Universe have a beginning because a thing that ends must have a point where it did not exist. ;-) Therefore, there is One responsible to begin it's existence. ;-)
We consider this Concious Being God because He is the uncaused cause. Indeed, God is complex and He can only reveal Himself, as much as, the human mind can take.
Even science have a lot to learn from the Universe and there are things that no words can describe. Same also with God.
God can best explain Himself. Man can only explain base on what he/she percieves as revealed by Him. ;-)
Both the Universe and the Painting cannot exist without one that caused it to exists. ;-)
It's simply rediculous to prepose that all the complexity of the universe always existed, or that all these complex details came to being gradually over billions of years. It's much easier that the universe went from 0 to present state in 6 days and was created by an omnipotent, omniscient mind that had knowledge of all this complexity beforehand and always existed. The eye needs a designer, but intimate knowledge of the eye needs no origin.
"It's simply rediculous[sic] to prepose[sic] that all the complexity of the universe always existed"
Isn't that what you're proposing? God has to be at least as complex as the universe. After all, you claim he had knowledge of all this complexity beforehand, which means the complexity itself existed in him. Saying that the complexity got here gradually is better than saying it just popped out of nowhere or always existed, as you assert with the idea of a God.
"God has to be at least as complex as the universe. After all, you claim he had knowledge of all this complexity beforehand, which means the complexity itself existed in him.."
Isn't that what I said? I thought it was clear.
It's crazy to say someone could climb a mountain with gradual steps up a soft slope. Better to say they leapt to the top in a single bound like superman. Same with life
Life's too complex to just slowly evolve, so easier to believe complexity got put together in 1 second
IMO someday Scientists will make living cells from organic material and then this debate will end.
It took thousands of years to invent the cell phone. Look how complex the cell phone is.
Just be patient and Science will create life. The problem is that Science is busy inventing things that make money, like cell phones. There's no money in making single cells when we have plenty of "free" single cell creatures around.
Why do you think that the mind is not complex? Is there any observable instance of a "mind" that is not complex? Doesn't the complexity of the mind correlate with it's ability to comprehend?
Aren't you claiming that OUR minds necessitate a designer, even though they are known to be the product of sociological and biological processes?
I never said our minds needed a designer. If anything, I'd say that our brains need a designer, not our minds, but then again, I'm not making that argument.
OK, so you are saying that the mind and the brain are not the same thing? And you can have a mind without a brain? Is there any evidence to this assertion, or are you just speculating? Has there EVER, even ONCE, been an example of a "mind" without a brain?
Yes, I am saying that the mind and the brain are not the same thing. My brain is not happy or sad or proud ... *I* am. This is called dualism and there's a lot of philosophy behind it! Nobel Prize-Winning Neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles believes that minds are independent of brains and wrote a book about it, "The Self and Its Brain."
Furthermore, any argument for God's existence is an argument for dualism. If you can't entertain dualism, you cannot entertain any argument for God's existence.
If you don't don't want to believe in God, you can respond to any theistic argument with "How can a mind (like God) possibly be unembodied?" in which case you are begging the question. I have another example to show why I think minds and brains are not synonymous if you want to hear it.
Well, any argument for God is an argument for dualism. But your responded to the argument for God (and my argument for the coherency of a prime mind) by saying you haven't heard any good arguments for dualism yet.
Further, as Craig says in the video I posted, saying that an explanation is not a good explanation because it raises certain questions (i.e., who designed the designer) is fallacious.
"Well, any argument for God is an argument for dualism."
Right, an argument for dualism, so it doesn't make sense to use dualism as a premise to the argument.
It's not about "raising certain questions". It's about being consistent. The reasons for accepting an explanation can not be self-contradictory.
Would a god-like being pop into existence NOW? Why not? For the same reason a human being wouldn't. The SAME PRINCIPAL applies, but god is supposedly exempt? Why?
Which is why I said "god-like" being, meaning something which has all the attributes of god without being eternal. It wouldn't happen, right? Why not?
Saying that god "always" existed when asked why he is exempt from having a beginning is basically like saying that god is exempt because god is exempt. You might as well say that god is the answer because god is the answer.
You state that the universe necessitates an intelligent designer, because complexity can only be explained by intelligent design, and the universe is complex.
You maintained that a mind is not complex, though a brain was, in order to explain why god was not "complex" and thus exempt from this same principal.
Thus, the idea of dualism (mind and brain are not the same) is used as premise for dualism (God exists).
It wouldn't pop into being because things don't pop into being.
And if you notice, still, I did not use dualism in my argument. You don't need to presuppose dualism for an argument for God's existence, but you need to presuppose the possibility of dualism.
It's not special pleading for God to say he always existed. That's what many atheists have said about the universe for a long time. If God began to exist, he would have had to come from somewhere; if someone made God, THAT would be God.
We can both agree that the universe exists. It is less of a leap to believe that the universe always existed (which I do not accept) from what we KNOW - that the universe does exist, as we are only supposing one additional attribute - eternalness.
God, on the other hand, is the thing you are attempting to prove exists. We are assuming at least two things in this case: first, that he exists, and second, that he is eternal. You are claiming that a defined attribute is evidence of his existence.
God's existence is not an assumption; it is a conclusion based on the contingency of the universe and the objective intelligibility of the universe. It's an inescapable conclusion considering contingency and the impossibility of an infinite regress.
"There can't be an infinite regress. It has to stop somewhere."
Faeries. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thor. Magical slime. There's a million things we can postulate that we can simply DEFINE as meeting the criteria, but that DOES NOT mean that this explanation is correct.
Occam's Razor demands that we ask what the MINIMUM number of attributes something must have in order to fit, and things like sentience, omnipotence, and omniscience are simply NOT required.
Oh yes they are. This first mover had nothing before it to move it, and nothing to rely on. This first mover could not have been moved by another, so it moved ITSELF, which can only be an act of the will. And since it can have nothing to rely on, there is nothing to restrict its absolute ontological perfection or delimit its existence.
Slime couldn't be it, because that's made of matter.
Even if you buy none of that, my point about the logical coherence of the first mover still stands.
"so it moved ITSELF, which can only be an act of the will."
An act of will? You're anthropomorphizing. This is an unjustified extrapolation. Human beings, and possibly some animals, are the only thing in this universe that we know have a "will".
The only thing required is a DYNAMIC outside of KNOWN SPACE-TIME. That's it. No need for a "will". No need for "ontological perfection". You're just not being honest.
"The only thing required is a DYNAMIC outside of KNOWN SPACE-TIME."
Why use that instead of the dynamic we have that explains how a thing moves itself, which is an act of a person's WILL ... you just assume we will certainly find some other dynamic, and you put your FAITH in that. Why? Because we don' like the idea of God, so you trust he'll be explained away by some other dynamic we just conveniently haven't discovered yet.
No, because it's a simpler and more logical explanation. IE, the explanation Occams razor dictates is more reasonable.
You theists complicate the shit out of it. And, you still haven't explained why God isn't applicable to an infinite regress. If the Universe being eternal causes an infinite regress, then why does God being eternal not also cause an infinite regress?
" IE, the explanation Occams razor dictates is more reasonable. "
Occam's Razor does not dictate atheism.
Look, if an infinite regress causes problems for you, good. You can't have an infinite regress; the regress must stop somewhere. This is God. The spacetime continuum came into existence at the big bang, so the cause of the big bang must be space-less and timeLESS.
"you just assume we will certainly find some other dynamic, and you put your FAITH in that"
There are LOTS of different kinds of movement, not just ones that are the results of "will". Sonic waves are dynamic. Quantum particles are dynamic. Just about everything within space-time is dynamic. If God exists, he is "a dynamic outside of known space-time".
We are trying to REMOVE faith by defining the minimum attributes for an explanation. God has ADDITIONAL attributes that REQUIRE faith.
When I say "dynamic", I'm just talking about something which changes state - no will involved. I'm not saying anything about how, why, or what changes.
YOU have will, but you do not "originate" your own movement in same the sense of a "first mover". You need to be born, you need to consume food, and the neurons in your brain need to fire before something can happen. Without these things, you are NOT dynamic, no matter how much you "will" it.
Ok, you're talking about a change in state in the first thing, cause, mover, whatever. Do we agree it must have caused its own movement? To me this seems like will. I don't know of another example of a thing moving itself. Rocks roll downhill. Only something with will can fight gravity and go uphill. The first mover goes from unmoved, unmoving, to being a cause of movement.
"Ok, you're tlaking about a change in state in the first thing, cause mover, whatever."
No, not "whatever". A change in energy states does not necessitate a 'mover', you're anthropomorphizing in the worst way.
"To me this seems like will."
To physics it doesn't. To any sort of reasoned individual who can resist the primitive urge to anthropomorphize everything you come into contact with, it doesn't either.
"Do we agree it must have caused its own movement?"
Not exactly. What I am trying to say is that movement is inherent in its nature. The electrons in an atom move around, but they don't have "will". Rolling downhill is still movement, and it still requires an initial event.
There is nothing in the the known universe that "causes itself" to move. We are speculating about something which did not need a cause.
Having a "will" does NOT overcome this, as nothing in the universe, including things which have a "will", are without cause.
So, the only thing that makes sense is something which is dynamic BY NATURE. Electrons seemed like an appropriate analogy, but no, I'm not saying that they move without a cause.
There is nothing that causes itself to move? Did you not cause yourself to write that comment? You've said that I have a will...does that not mean that I can cause myself to do things?
Well, to say that something is dynamic by nature is saying that it is "just moving," so to speak. But we observe that EVERYTHING-- EVERYTHING -- that moves has a mover. Nothing just moves because it's just it's nature to move. Moving things are moved.
"Did you not cause yourself to write that comment?"
Semantics. We're talking about precursors to physical changes. Yes, I caused myself to move, but my thoughts are caused by electrochemical reactions in my brain. My causing myself to move is one link in a chain of causes and effects.
"EVERYTHING -- that moves has a mover"
Aren't you arguing that God is an EXCEPTION? It's not "everything", is it? You are just extrapolating unnecessary complexity by claiming the exception is a deity.
I'd say when God moved, he had a mover, but that mover was himself.
So you don't believe in free will after all...you're just one part of a chain. You didn't set any of it in motion, in effect you're just along for the ride in your life.
I believe in free will to the extent that it matters, but no, I don't believe in dualism. I think that what we call "free will" is not anything that is somehow "outside" our universe, as a "first cause" would be. Sure, I can "set things in motion", but so can a tornado. Does a tornado have free will?
OK, so you'd SAY that God moved himself, but you have to assume that God exists in the first place. You must define him, which includes things based purely on religious dogma.
"Sure, I can "set things in motion", but so can a tornado. Does a tornado have free will?"
It sure sounds like you don't believe in free will.
There is movement WITHIN a tornado, but the cause of all its movement is due to things outside of it.
I'm not assuming that God exists in my argument when I say he moved himself. First mover demanded by impossibility of infinite regress. The first thing could not have been moved by anything before or after it. It moved itself. Will.
I don't believe in DUALISM, so no, I don't believe in "free will" in same sense you do. I agree with Daniel Dennet about "free will", if you wanted to look it up.
The statement "he created himself" presupposes his existence.
Even if will was necessary, the will to do what? To create this universe? Why is will necessary for that? What if god willed to make a completely different universe, but our "free will" changed it?
There must have been a first mover because of the impossibility of an infinite regress.
The first mover put another thing in motion, because he is a mover. Movers move other things.
What caused that first movement? Most movements are caused by external causes. But for this first mover, there was no external cause--he was the first mover; nothing else moved him. So he moved himself.
Maybe this has been addressed in the comments before, but I take issue w/ your statement that God is more complex that a painting/the universe. If God is a mind, he is an immaterial entity composed of no parts, contingent upon nothing. The idea of God is not so complex. Paintings, however, are composed of many parts. The ideas of a mind may be complex (like the universe and its laws) but the mind itself from which these things originate is not as complex.
Maybe I should clarify. God is usually portrayed as sentient, intelligent, and, in fact, omniscient (all-knowing). When we're talking about knowledge, we're talking about information, thus his "god brain" or spirit consciousness or whatever it is that "knows" everything must "know" (store in consciousness) every molecule in the universe, and thus his thoughts alone must be just as complex, if not more so, than the universe, as infinitely perfect cognition is as complex as the real thing.
I think when you talk about "storage" of knowledge, you're talking about God, a supernatural being, in naturalistic terms. Storage is a physical term--you store things in other physical things like drawers, boxes, or the folds of your brain tissue.
Yes, you hit the nail on the head when you said that God's "thoughts alone" must be as complex as the universe. Right; but do not confuse the ideas of a mind (very complex) with the mind from which they originate.
This is about INFORMATION, the storage "mechanism" is irrelevant, as the INFORMATION ALONE is complex, let alone how that information is processed, whether physically or "magically".
There are an infinite number of excuses that can be used to claim that god is not complex. All you have to do is claim that god is beyond all reasoning, logic, or observations we make.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has the same supposed attributes. Does that give ANY CREDENCE AT ALL to his existence?
Nice, thought-provoking video. I do take issue with some of your ideas, though. "If these things need a creator, why doesn't God?" I suppose you are trying to show problems inherent in the very idea of God. But the reason why these things demand an explanation is because they are all contingent. Contingency and the impossibility of an infinite regress logically demand an unmoved first mover. The universe itself is a bad candidate for this because it's just a collection of contingencies.
"I suppose you are trying to show problems inherent in the very idea of God."
No, I'm trying to show problems with the teleological argument.
So EVERYTHING WE SEE in this universe is contingent, but not god? Why? Because you declare him not to be contingent? Is't it possible that God created a proxy god, creating the universe through a "god" that was contingent?
As long as magic is involved with no method to test it, you could say anything created the universe and have it be just as valid.
"As long as magic is involved with no method to test it, you could say anything created the universe and have it be just as valid."
I'm not talking about magic, but logic. Occam's Razor will shave away hypotheses about pink unicorns (which are inherently self-contradictory for other reasons anyway). I'm not saying God is non-contingent because I declare him to be. The contingency of all things in the natural world and the impossibility of an infinite regress demands a non-contingent source.
The teleological argument involves declaring that the attributes of the universe REQUIRE design, but a god, which has these SAME ATTRIBUTES that require design is exempt from this, because you are DEFINING him as being exempt, and DECLARING that something that is exempt must exist.
What we observe in the universe is complexity such as life arising out of simpler precursors. Follow this trend to it's natural conclusion results in a very simple beginning, not an infinitely complex one.
" Follow this trend to it's natural conclusion results in a very simple beginning, not an infinitely complex one."
Yes, I agree. And given the complexity of the universe, the universe is not a good candidate for the simple beginning. And I think this simple explanation is a mind. Universe = complex. Think of physical constants--the fact that there are physical constants, and the number of physical constants there are.
God does not have the same attributes that require design. A mind does not have as much complexity as the universe. You are confusing the ideas of a mind with a mind itself. I am not defining him as being exempt;
I'm not attempting to disprove the existence of a god. That would be impossible.
This video doesn't address infinite regress from a physical standpoint. This video addresses the teleological argument -- the idea that there must be a creator BECAUSE OF the complexity and other attributes of the universe. The "cause and effect" thing would be the cosmological argument.
I've also made a video about the cosmological argument. It's called "Re: Who created God".
In both cases you claim to do two things that are not compatible; disprove an argument that claims to prove God, and then claim that you cannot hold this argument because to disprove God is impossible.
I'm not certain also how you argue that saying God must have a creator based on man's understanding of the universe proves anything. Its an appeal to logic, which is something you denied in a previous video was a convincing argument.
There is a difference between disproving a claim and showing an argument that allegedly proves this claim to be fallacious. It should not be difficult to distinguish the two.
You are mixing up different arguments and then claiming that I am being inconsistent. When I refuted the TAG (logic) argument, I was not "denying" logic. Quite the opposite, I was using logic to show that the argument was fallacious.
But you don't even disprove it. You provide the argument 'If this...then this'
IF all things must have a creator, THEN God must too. That's not proof, that's another supposition.
Using 'Destroyed' in your title is fallacious.
You used logic to deny that logic is necessarily infallible. As elliptical as the argument was, it did not line up with your later arguments (like the one in this video) dependent solely on logic, after you argued theists arguments based on logic were not conclusive.
The problem with the argument is that it is self-contradictory. The reason why things need a creator is because of certain ATTRIBUTES. If A (attribute), then B (An intelligent designer is needed).
The attributes that are said to require a creator are complexity, beauty, etc... However, since god has these attribute, then you MUST conclude that he needs a creator BASED ON THE ORIGINAL PREMISE.
My point was not that God needs a creator. My point was that these attributes do not necessitate one.
Actually the attributes you applied do need a creator, unless the picture sprang into being by themselves which you said in a previous message to me was not the case. All things come from other things, so to argue that the universe itself did not breaks the chain of reasoning.
You really are assuming you know everything there is to know about what God could be. That would suggest not he but you are a god.
"All things come from other things, so to argue that the universe itself did not breaks the chain of reasoning."
You are once again confusing the cosmological argument with the teleological argument. Here, I am discussing ONLY the teleological argument, which doesn't even attempt to address the issue of infinite regress. For instance, God could have made a "proxy" god to create the universe, and that god DID have a creator.
The issue is with sentience and purpose, not cause and effect.
Why is God more complex than the universe? YOU made that assumption. A simple painter can paint something more complex than the painter.....God is actually very simple - not complex as your limited human mind wants to make it seem so as to justify the complexity of the world you experience. God simply is....
If god is all-knowing, then he knows everything about the universe, every atom, every molecule, meaning that his CONSCIOUSNESS ALONE must be AT LEAST as complex as the universe.
"A simple painter can paint something more complex than the painter."
Really? Please provide an example of this.
"God is actually very simple"
The CONCEPT of god is simple, but a god is necessarily complex, just like the concept "mind" is simple, but the brain is complex.
"his CONSCIOUSNESS ALONE must be AT LEAST as complex as the universe."
ah - a concession already - good. I am willing to accept that God is as complex as the universe.
"A simple painter can paint something more complex than the painter."
Really? Please provide an example of this.
A computer can be used to generate a picture using the Mandelbrot set. Even if you argue that a person was necessary to program the computer. humans are complex, but not infinitely so as is the Mandelbrot set...
The Mandelbrot set is NOT a painting, and is actually a very simple set of equations which produces complex results through the process of iteration. The universe may also have a very simple set of equations which govern all the complexity that we see, but those equations were discovered by man, not created by him. Besides, fractals are far from being more complex than human beings.
"Comparing God to something that exists in reality such as the human brain is invalid."
I didn't mean to be unpleasant. I apologize if you got that impression.
The point is that "THIS" reality is the only reality that we KNOW exists. Speculating about the properties of some "other" reality is not evidence for that reality.
Besides, all of this is based on your idea that god is not as complex as the universe, which you've already conceded is not the case if your god is omniscient.
Well there you have it, As a scientist, I guess it just depends upon whether you keep an open mind to all answers to the questions during the quest for truth - or if you prematurely rule out a possibility based on "a lack of evidence..."
I don't "prematurely rule out" anything. However, I don't ACCEPT things which have a lack of evidence (the existence of god). I rule things out as a possibility when the evidence CONTRADICTS the claim (creationism).
Why do YOU accept things that have a "lack of evidence", as you put it?
"to dismiss the possibility of examining any further an unsubstantiated claim is short sighted."
I agree. If, however, through examining a claim further, you find that there is no evidence, do you think it is rational to reject the claim? After all, you can spend a lot of time examining claims if you don't have standards for rejecting them.
In other words, at some point, you have to say "OK, not enough evidence, I'll just move on until there IS some evidence".
OK - well "moving on until there is evidence" is different from saying, "I reject that hypothesis, and will no longer seek or entertain evidence to the contrary."
When Christ appeared to the apostles after his resurrection, Thomas said he needed evidence to believe what his eyes were showing him. Christ had him examine the wounds from crucifixion in his hands. Then Thomas believed. Christ told Thomas he had seen and as a result - had believed....
He told Thomas he had received the evidence and believed, and that was fine, but continued to say that those who have believed without the evidence are blessed. Not "better." Just that they receive the benefit of knowing their fate by faith, whereas the others must suffer through life, not knowing, until they get '"the evidence."
So Thomas needed EVIDENCE and Jesus SHOWED him the evidence?
OK... So where is the evidence? SHOW me.
I don't understand your point about the difference between my statement and yours. Are you saying that I am not "entertaining evidence to the contrary"? Contrary of WHAT? The idea that god doesn't exist? What evidence contradicts that?
Yes - you can read the account yourself. Thomas needed evidence. I think that account is in the Bible for a reason. There is no evidence that God exists. As long as you are willing to accept the truth when you are presented with it, I think that is the difference between a spirit that is "saved" versus one that is lost. When you are reborn in spirit, the truth will be revealed to you. If you have lead the kind of life that allows your soul to accept the truth - that is all you must do.
false flagging is absolutely not cool. flagging shouldn't be that simple anyway..so stupid.. ive never been on a server of any kind that just accepted your complaint as real. people are fucking trolls, fact of life. you give them an inch, they take a mile. just how that shit works.
This video was hit in one day with exactly 300 1 star ratings about a month and a half ago right after I called a creationist by the name of KamikazeJustice on his bullshit.
I guess I don't really care enough about it to go around asking people for votes. It's really just a nuisance, nothing more. It's not like I'm all broken up about it.
this is awesome, but at the same time, you accomplish nothing because the Ray Comfort's of the world have already destroyed logic and intellect in their faithful
I know science is not about consensus. Science is about years of research into something using the scientific method to discover the best explanation. Consensus is not fool-proof, and nobody is saying it is, but accepting the consensus of scientists when you are not a scientist in that field is hardly "naive".
The Big Bang is not "speculation", nor is it a "law". It is a theory based on observations and has predicted other observations. What is your alternate competing theory?
Before attempting to "disprove God", using this sort of sophomoric analogy of a painting that was painted (before the painting, there had been no painting, then at some point the painting was made) it is therefore essential to have some empirical "starting point". If there was in fact no big bang, your attempt fails QE/D
the proposition that solid proof of something is unlikely, or in fact impossible, is not the same as "disproving something".
Also jumping to some conclusion which includes the claim that there was at some point a "big bang" as this video does so naively, and using that as the point for the "origination" of things, would be a serious flaw, if in fact there had never been this hypothetical "beginning". You need to at least prove there was a big bang in this pseudo-analysis! (continued)
"jumping to some conclusion which includes the claim that there was at some point a "big bang" as this video does so naively"
You consider accepting the overwhelming consensus of cosmologists as being "naive"?
I didn't think I had to "prove" the big bang because so many other people have done it before me. I don't think I have to prove relativity or Newtonian mechanics. Do you think accepting them is "naive" as well?
Believing that a book written by shepherds 2000 to 6000 years ago is more credible about the birth of the universe than the same science that conceived your computer, that is a stellar example of galactic naivety my poor fellow.
Interesting. Reading Paul Davies´ The Goldilocks Enigma
Why is the Universe just right for life? These are good if your wondering keeps going. No transitional forms from ape to man? is funny anyway. Keep going!
Why do you think that the universe is just right for life? What percentage of the universe do you suppose is populated with or is even hospitable to life? .1%? .0001%? .000000000000000000000000000000000001%?
The universe hardly seems "perfect" for life. It's more accurate to say that what little life exists has evolved to be almost perfect for this universe.
you say (i know it's not your argument but that's not import in this case) that if only one little detail about the laws of the universe was different, then the universe wouldn't be the same and we probably wouldn't exist.
if we look aside from the fact that that has actually been proven wrong and that several (but not all) laws could be changed or removed entirely without us feeling a great change or any at all, there is another thing that strikes me...
so what if we didn't exist? so what if the universe didn't look as it does today? it's like people think we're SUPPOSED to exist, so there had to be a god to finetune the universe so that i could be a perfect enviroment for us to live in...
re we really that arrogant? first of, the universe do not require us to live in it, nor does it need a finetuner... the universe, and the laws of physics, do not exist for a reason... they just exists!
secondly, the universe is not a perfect enviroment for us, and if we think so it's just because we're lucky enough to live in the western world: in the rest of the world there is hunger and diseases, and we're also in about 100-200years about to experience the complete depletion of fossil fuels all becuase of the earth's insufficient ressources... that is NOT a finetuned universes...
and the tragi-comic thing is that the worse a people is living the ore religious they are, but that only proves
oh yeah, and it was a damn good one, i've just discovered you here on youtube but i've watched a couple of you videos and they're pretty good so i'm going to subscribe :)
Uncaused cause ----> Where did the Materials of the Bigbang come from? ;-) Consciousness exists .... ;-) Proving that conciousness exist in the Universe. What we have on earth are but part of the Universe we leave in. ;-) It's rather more foolish concluding there is no God without proof.
FaithRationale 3 months ago
@FaithRationale
I don't know where the materials came from. The origins of the big bang are not relevant to the fact that the theory explains, in great detail and with extraordinary explanatory power, what has happened since then. If you go back in time far enough, all evidence points to a singularity. I agree that "consciousness" exists.
Haven't you concluded that many other gods don't exist? Is is only foolish when I do it?
somecomputergeek 3 months ago
This universe is better at extinguishing life than sustaining or creating it so i propose that this universe is a god's first finger painting.
TheAlphaPyro 7 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro gods ability to make finger paintings has always existed and anybody who tries to argue otherwise is guilty of using reason which doesn't apply here because It would be detrimental to my obviously correct assumption.
TheAlphaPyro 7 months ago
then who taught god how to "paint"?
gravitoid 10 months ago
What you are failing to grasp in this argument, is that one of the fundamnetal problems of the "Painting" always being there, is Time. The Universe can not be of an infinite duration. God however exists logically, before time, in a state of timelessness, or, according to the bible, a state of Eternallity. If God has no beginning, then He does not need to have a Cause. It is only those things that have beginnings that require Causes. God bless.
ChristusVlCTOR 11 months ago
@ChristusVlCTOR
"The Universe can not be of an infinite duration"
The word "duration" refers to time, or space-time, which I can accept as finite, but to then conclude that universal existence is limited to space-time is an unwarranted assumption, and one that you do not accept if you believe in a deity.
The argument in this video refers to the argument from design, not the cosmological argument, which is covered in my video "Re: Who created God".
somecomputergeek 11 months ago
@somecomputergeek Alright, here's the problem with your analogy, it commits a catergorical error... if the "Painter" has a "Painter" then the first "Painter" is not really a painter, he's a "Painting", that is, he's just a part of the picture. There still remains and Unpainted Painter... now where the Unpainted Painter comes from is irrelevant, we have solved the Origin of the Painting. By the way, when you talked about the painting and the painter, and the painter's painter, you made this a CA
ChristusVlCTOR 11 months ago
@ChristusVlCTOR
If we can say that the painter is "unpainted", why can't we say the "painting" was? You are IGNORING the argument that necessitates a "painter" by DECLARING that God is immune to the SAME logic... "just because", apparently.
Both the CA and DA have infinite regress in common, but that doesn't mean they are the same argument. In the DA, the prerequisite is INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS. In the CA, the prerequisite is existence and energy. Big difference.
somecomputergeek 11 months ago 3
@somecomputergeek This is not a video about the Argument from Design, it deals much more with the CA. If you want this to be a vid about the Argument from Design then you need to explain why the painting isn't really a painting, its just some paint spilt on some canvas by accident. When you bring up the Painter and try to dismiss Him, you've begun to deal with the CA
You suggest that the Universe can exist without Spacetime, are you serious?
ChristusVlCTOR 11 months ago
@ChristusVlCTOR
The painting argument IS an argument from design.
The question it brings up is one of complexity and intricacy of design - improbability of arising spontaneously. It asserts that consciousness is a prerequisite for this design. THIS is the scope of that argument. You are just IMAGINING a CA argument ON TOP OF THAT, ignoring both the argument and my refutation to it.
Yes, I'm serious. The universe is all that exists. Space-time is a sub-set of that existence.
somecomputergeek 11 months ago
@ChristusVlCTOR God can also be a name for the "Eternal energy", but you don't like the sound of that right?
buktomsin 11 months ago
@buktomsin No I think that's a GOOD step in the right direction. Once you've gotten to this idea of "Eternal Energy", then you must start to ask questions like, did it change? If so, then how? What made it produce the Temporal Universe? Is there a cause beyond the Energy? Or is the cause inherent in the Energy? If its inherent in the Energy, then how does it work? The answer I believe is found in the Mind of the "Eternal Energy". Once you've concluded theres a Mind, then I think you've found God
ChristusVlCTOR 11 months ago
@ChristusVlCTOR Presupposition MUCH!? How does your view of it being "in the right direction", make it right? There's to much variables in this excuse of a hypothesis. FYI you're just wasting your time, these recycled arguments have been charbroiled sense IDK Epicurus...
buktomsin 11 months ago
@buktomsin You presented a "god" I said that that was a good start, but you have to logic it out... Timeless Energy cannot react to create the universe unless there is an external source, or if it, itself is has some sort of property that allows it to kickstart the universe... I propose that Mind is that property. I also think you are valid in calling it God, but only if you attribute Mind to it. God bless.
ChristusVlCTOR 11 months ago
@ChristusVlCTOR "Logic it out"? Send this trash to someone else, leave me alone, please do not message me back.
buktomsin 11 months ago
Tell me about demon possession then. Good game.
MeanRoc 1 year ago
Since somecomputergeek and other atheists do not believe in a creator, they are, by logical necessity, saying the universe created itself.
That makes no sense.
Prologicful 1 year ago
@Prologicful
The word "created" implies a creator. Who created the creator? If you don't believe that the creator was created by a creator, then you must believe that the creator created himself. That makes no sense.
As to why the argument doesn't make sense, watch my video "It's turtles all the way down".
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Most scientists believe the universe started with the Big Bang or Singularity.
Time is a measure of how long it takes to travel from Point A to Point B. At the Singularity there was only a Point A, which means that its creator existed OUTSIDE time.
Existing outside of time means there is no start date, and renders your "Who created the Creator" question irrelevant.
zsj1111 1 year ago
What's the background music called, and who's the "painter"? It's sick!
Lykkemynt 1 year ago
@philosopheDeMaelstro "But why can't something walk up hill?"If an object reaches the absolute zero of temperature (0 K = -273,15°C = −459.67 °F"
What does that have to do with the 3rd law of thermodynamics? If I recall correctly (and I do), the third law says something to the effect of every robot action must obey human orders and cause an equal or opposite reaction
Next thing you'll says is something is nonsensical JUST 'cause it makes no sense. That's just the closed-mi9ndedness I'd expect
technologysucks 1 year ago
@philosopheDeMaelstro
''Furthermore its redicules to say the complexity allways existed yet was created.'
So just because something contradicts both itself and all basic logic it's 'redicules'? If that's ridiculous then what ISN'T?
"Whats so "crazy' about saying one could climb a mountain with gradual steps"
It violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics. It's only possible to walk downhill. Leaving only MY exact religion as the possible correct answer
technologysucks 1 year ago
I could go on and on about this subject, but I'm getting sick of commenting this video. I'll leave you with this; god exists, but 'he' is not a 'he' and 'he' is very different than the way we think of 'him' to be. Confusing, but true. I believe the big bang happened, it can be proven by science. But has science ever asked the question; "was it conscious?" <-- think about it. PM me if you happen to be interested
rethomas07 1 year ago
@rethomas07
The question "what is consciousness" is pursued in philosophy as epistemology, and in science as cognitive science.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@somecomputergeek "The question 'what is consciousness' is pursued in philosophy as epistemology, and in science as cognitive science" almost all philosophy is metaphysical, and cognitive science isn't science based....its mainly psychology, philosophy, sociology and neuroscience; None of which are primarily natural science based. and to answer your question "how you know?" instead of me telling you how I recommend you spend a few weeks researching some of these topics. You will learn a lot
rethomas07 1 year ago
These 'laws' we apply to gravity, light, sound, time and space are based off of what we can prove, and the same goes for religion. Your logic for the 'disapproval of god' is centered around a question that can't be answered. It can't be answered because humans exist in the 3rd dimension, however physics proves the existence of 11 dimensions . Like I said, gravity, like and time interact with our dimension very differently than they do in the other 10 dimensions.
rethomas07 1 year ago
@rethomas07
@rethomas07
The idea that religion is based on the scientific method is ridiculous, and you know it.
I'm not trying to DISPROVE the existence of God. In fact, I don't think that is possible. What I am doing to showing an argument FOR God's existence to be fallacious, nothing more.
Yes, our perceptions of reality are limited. That does not mean any claim about what is "outside" our perceptions are valid.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Lol your logic fucked up. Fact: the only difference between humans and apes genetically is the fusion of 2 chromosomes in the human genome. This fusion does not happen naturally in nature, and humans are the only creatures on earth to posses this trait. Your disregarding so many other scientific variables that influence the 3rd dimension (e.g. time, space, light, sound, gravity). outside of earth non of these variables have the same characteristics they have on earth.
rethomas07 1 year ago
@rethomas07
"This fusion does not happen naturally in nature, and humans are the only creatures on earth to posses this trait"
That's quite a claim. The human genome project is unique, and we have a much greater understanding of human chromosomes than of other species. What other species do not have have fused chromosomes, and how do you know?
"non of these variables have the same characteristics they have on earth"
I talked about laws (formulas), not variables.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Thats actually a fact. I'll message you a link when i get some time to find it. And the human genome project isn't unique, it was just like any other scientific research project. I think you mean the human genome in general...and in this case your wrong again. The human genome project started in the 1950's, and over the last 58 years, science has an understanding 5% of the mapped DNA. The other 95% is considered 'junk DNA' (because it can't be scientifically defined).
rethomas07 1 year ago
@rethomas07
DNA was discovered in 50s, but the Human Genome Project got started in 1990. My point was that our UNDERSTANDING of the human genome, as opposed to the genome of other species, is unique. After all, it makes sense that we would try to map our own genes before other species. The question I posed could be rephrased as "What other species do you think have no traces of merged genes? Why do you think that? Has this species' genome been sequenced?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Lol no need to get defensive just because I challenged your ideals. How bout this, do some research, and come up with evidence to prove me wrong about the chromosome fusion. Also, look into the 'laws' of space, time, gravity, sound and light because you will discover that these are not finite laws at all, they are variable/dynamic.
rethomas07 1 year ago
@rethomas07
YOU are the one making a claim about chromosome fusion. The onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claim.
We both agree that Human Chromosome #2 contains indications of chromosome fusion, do you not? If not, we can at least agree that it contains two centremeres (one inactive), and telemeres where they don't "belong", right? If we can't agree on that, then I'm not the one who needs to do some research.
If they varied, we wouldn't call them laws.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
I enjoyed the iron logic of this video. The ending was superb!
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
@dewinthemorning
Thank you. If you can make it through the horrible audio, you might also like my video "It's turtles all the way down".
watch?v=P6vQs4FgyD0
or "Re: Who created God (VenomFangX)", which has much better audio:
watch?v=n7Vt-TaTc5Y
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Science learn that the Universe is finite. In example, there are stars that die and it is believed that our Sun will also die one day. Therefore, the best argument is that the things in the Universe have a beginning because a thing that ends must have a point where it did not exist. ;-) Therefore, there is One responsible to begin it's existence. ;-)
FaithRationale 2 years ago
We consider this Concious Being God because He is the uncaused cause. Indeed, God is complex and He can only reveal Himself, as much as, the human mind can take.
Even science have a lot to learn from the Universe and there are things that no words can describe. Same also with God.
God can best explain Himself. Man can only explain base on what he/she percieves as revealed by Him. ;-)
Both the Universe and the Painting cannot exist without one that caused it to exists. ;-)
FaithRationale 2 years ago
It's simply rediculous to prepose that all the complexity of the universe always existed, or that all these complex details came to being gradually over billions of years. It's much easier that the universe went from 0 to present state in 6 days and was created by an omnipotent, omniscient mind that had knowledge of all this complexity beforehand and always existed. The eye needs a designer, but intimate knowledge of the eye needs no origin.
technologysucks 2 years ago
@technologysucks
"It's simply rediculous[sic] to prepose[sic] that all the complexity of the universe always existed"
Isn't that what you're proposing? God has to be at least as complex as the universe. After all, you claim he had knowledge of all this complexity beforehand, which means the complexity itself existed in him. Saying that the complexity got here gradually is better than saying it just popped out of nowhere or always existed, as you assert with the idea of a God.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"God has to be at least as complex as the universe. After all, you claim he had knowledge of all this complexity beforehand, which means the complexity itself existed in him.."
Isn't that what I said? I thought it was clear.
It's crazy to say someone could climb a mountain with gradual steps up a soft slope. Better to say they leapt to the top in a single bound like superman. Same with life
Life's too complex to just slowly evolve, so easier to believe complexity got put together in 1 second
technologysucks 2 years ago
@technologysucks
Ah. Sorry. Poe's law.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
IMO someday Scientists will make living cells from organic material and then this debate will end.
It took thousands of years to invent the cell phone. Look how complex the cell phone is.
Just be patient and Science will create life. The problem is that Science is busy inventing things that make money, like cell phones. There's no money in making single cells when we have plenty of "free" single cell creatures around.
Be patient!
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
religion (god) was created by man, universe wasnt
KevinSBG 2 years ago
William Lane Craig said it better than I :
watch?v=Qsymb6UxWM0
Jugglable 2 years ago
I just looked up the noun "mind" in Merriam Webster online: "the element...that feels, perceives, thinks," etc.
The mind is that part that feels, perceives, thinks. It is not synonymous with the feelings, perceptions, and thoughts.
Jugglable 2 years ago
Why do you think that the mind is not complex? Is there any observable instance of a "mind" that is not complex? Doesn't the complexity of the mind correlate with it's ability to comprehend?
Aren't you claiming that OUR minds necessitate a designer, even though they are known to be the product of sociological and biological processes?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
I never said our minds needed a designer. If anything, I'd say that our brains need a designer, not our minds, but then again, I'm not making that argument.
Jugglable 2 years ago
OK, so you are saying that the mind and the brain are not the same thing? And you can have a mind without a brain? Is there any evidence to this assertion, or are you just speculating? Has there EVER, even ONCE, been an example of a "mind" without a brain?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Yes, I am saying that the mind and the brain are not the same thing. My brain is not happy or sad or proud ... *I* am. This is called dualism and there's a lot of philosophy behind it! Nobel Prize-Winning Neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles believes that minds are independent of brains and wrote a book about it, "The Self and Its Brain."
Jugglable 2 years ago
Furthermore, any argument for God's existence is an argument for dualism. If you can't entertain dualism, you cannot entertain any argument for God's existence.
If you don't don't want to believe in God, you can respond to any theistic argument with "How can a mind (like God) possibly be unembodied?" in which case you are begging the question. I have another example to show why I think minds and brains are not synonymous if you want to hear it.
Jugglable 2 years ago
You're right. I don't accept dualism, but yes, I'm willing to entertain the idea if there is a convincing argument for it.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Well, any argument for God is an argument for dualism. But your responded to the argument for God (and my argument for the coherency of a prime mind) by saying you haven't heard any good arguments for dualism yet.
Further, as Craig says in the video I posted, saying that an explanation is not a good explanation because it raises certain questions (i.e., who designed the designer) is fallacious.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"Well, any argument for God is an argument for dualism."
Right, an argument for dualism, so it doesn't make sense to use dualism as a premise to the argument.
It's not about "raising certain questions". It's about being consistent. The reasons for accepting an explanation can not be self-contradictory.
Would a god-like being pop into existence NOW? Why not? For the same reason a human being wouldn't. The SAME PRINCIPAL applies, but god is supposedly exempt? Why?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Because nobody thinks God "popped" into being. If God began to exist at some point, he wouldn't be God.
Jugglable 2 years ago
Which is why I said "god-like" being, meaning something which has all the attributes of god without being eternal. It wouldn't happen, right? Why not?
Saying that god "always" existed when asked why he is exempt from having a beginning is basically like saying that god is exempt because god is exempt. You might as well say that god is the answer because god is the answer.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
And, I don't think dualism is a premise of the argument.
Jugglable 2 years ago
You state that the universe necessitates an intelligent designer, because complexity can only be explained by intelligent design, and the universe is complex.
You maintained that a mind is not complex, though a brain was, in order to explain why god was not "complex" and thus exempt from this same principal.
Thus, the idea of dualism (mind and brain are not the same) is used as premise for dualism (God exists).
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
It wouldn't pop into being because things don't pop into being.
And if you notice, still, I did not use dualism in my argument. You don't need to presuppose dualism for an argument for God's existence, but you need to presuppose the possibility of dualism.
It's not special pleading for God to say he always existed. That's what many atheists have said about the universe for a long time. If God began to exist, he would have had to come from somewhere; if someone made God, THAT would be God.
Jugglable 2 years ago
We can both agree that the universe exists. It is less of a leap to believe that the universe always existed (which I do not accept) from what we KNOW - that the universe does exist, as we are only supposing one additional attribute - eternalness.
God, on the other hand, is the thing you are attempting to prove exists. We are assuming at least two things in this case: first, that he exists, and second, that he is eternal. You are claiming that a defined attribute is evidence of his existence.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
God's existence is not an assumption; it is a conclusion based on the contingency of the universe and the objective intelligibility of the universe. It's an inescapable conclusion considering contingency and the impossibility of an infinite regress.
Jugglable 2 years ago
There's still an infinite regress the only difference is that you're ignoring it.
If that's a satisfying explanation for you then you're welcome; you can't fix stupid.
Vire70 2 years ago
"There's still an infinite regress the only difference is that you're ignoring it. "
There can't be an infinite regress. It has to stop somewhere.
God.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"There can't be an infinite regress. It has to stop somewhere."
Faeries. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thor. Magical slime. There's a million things we can postulate that we can simply DEFINE as meeting the criteria, but that DOES NOT mean that this explanation is correct.
Occam's Razor demands that we ask what the MINIMUM number of attributes something must have in order to fit, and things like sentience, omnipotence, and omniscience are simply NOT required.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Oh yes they are. This first mover had nothing before it to move it, and nothing to rely on. This first mover could not have been moved by another, so it moved ITSELF, which can only be an act of the will. And since it can have nothing to rely on, there is nothing to restrict its absolute ontological perfection or delimit its existence.
Slime couldn't be it, because that's made of matter.
Even if you buy none of that, my point about the logical coherence of the first mover still stands.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"so it moved ITSELF, which can only be an act of the will."
An act of will? You're anthropomorphizing. This is an unjustified extrapolation. Human beings, and possibly some animals, are the only thing in this universe that we know have a "will".
The only thing required is a DYNAMIC outside of KNOWN SPACE-TIME. That's it. No need for a "will". No need for "ontological perfection". You're just not being honest.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Comment removed
Jugglable 2 years ago
"The only thing required is a DYNAMIC outside of KNOWN SPACE-TIME."
Why use that instead of the dynamic we have that explains how a thing moves itself, which is an act of a person's WILL ... you just assume we will certainly find some other dynamic, and you put your FAITH in that. Why? Because we don' like the idea of God, so you trust he'll be explained away by some other dynamic we just conveniently haven't discovered yet.
Jugglable 2 years ago
No, because it's a simpler and more logical explanation. IE, the explanation Occams razor dictates is more reasonable.
You theists complicate the shit out of it. And, you still haven't explained why God isn't applicable to an infinite regress. If the Universe being eternal causes an infinite regress, then why does God being eternal not also cause an infinite regress?
Vire70 2 years ago
" IE, the explanation Occams razor dictates is more reasonable. "
Occam's Razor does not dictate atheism.
Look, if an infinite regress causes problems for you, good. You can't have an infinite regress; the regress must stop somewhere. This is God. The spacetime continuum came into existence at the big bang, so the cause of the big bang must be space-less and timeLESS.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"you just assume we will certainly find some other dynamic, and you put your FAITH in that"
There are LOTS of different kinds of movement, not just ones that are the results of "will". Sonic waves are dynamic. Quantum particles are dynamic. Just about everything within space-time is dynamic. If God exists, he is "a dynamic outside of known space-time".
We are trying to REMOVE faith by defining the minimum attributes for an explanation. God has ADDITIONAL attributes that REQUIRE faith.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
The only known dynamic by which something can originate its own movement is by will.
Jugglable 2 years ago
When I say "dynamic", I'm just talking about something which changes state - no will involved. I'm not saying anything about how, why, or what changes.
YOU have will, but you do not "originate" your own movement in same the sense of a "first mover". You need to be born, you need to consume food, and the neurons in your brain need to fire before something can happen. Without these things, you are NOT dynamic, no matter how much you "will" it.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Ok, you're talking about a change in state in the first thing, cause, mover, whatever. Do we agree it must have caused its own movement? To me this seems like will. I don't know of another example of a thing moving itself. Rocks roll downhill. Only something with will can fight gravity and go uphill. The first mover goes from unmoved, unmoving, to being a cause of movement.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"Ok, you're tlaking about a change in state in the first thing, cause mover, whatever."
No, not "whatever". A change in energy states does not necessitate a 'mover', you're anthropomorphizing in the worst way.
"To me this seems like will."
To physics it doesn't. To any sort of reasoned individual who can resist the primitive urge to anthropomorphize everything you come into contact with, it doesn't either.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
"Do we agree it must have caused its own movement?"
Not exactly. What I am trying to say is that movement is inherent in its nature. The electrons in an atom move around, but they don't have "will". Rolling downhill is still movement, and it still requires an initial event.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
The electrons move, but are you suggesting that they move without a cause?
Jugglable 2 years ago
I'm saying that they don't have a WILL.
There is nothing in the the known universe that "causes itself" to move. We are speculating about something which did not need a cause.
Having a "will" does NOT overcome this, as nothing in the universe, including things which have a "will", are without cause.
So, the only thing that makes sense is something which is dynamic BY NATURE. Electrons seemed like an appropriate analogy, but no, I'm not saying that they move without a cause.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
There is nothing that causes itself to move? Did you not cause yourself to write that comment? You've said that I have a will...does that not mean that I can cause myself to do things?
Well, to say that something is dynamic by nature is saying that it is "just moving," so to speak. But we observe that EVERYTHING-- EVERYTHING -- that moves has a mover. Nothing just moves because it's just it's nature to move. Moving things are moved.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"Did you not cause yourself to write that comment?"
Semantics. We're talking about precursors to physical changes. Yes, I caused myself to move, but my thoughts are caused by electrochemical reactions in my brain. My causing myself to move is one link in a chain of causes and effects.
"EVERYTHING -- that moves has a mover"
Aren't you arguing that God is an EXCEPTION? It's not "everything", is it? You are just extrapolating unnecessary complexity by claiming the exception is a deity.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
I'd say when God moved, he had a mover, but that mover was himself.
So you don't believe in free will after all...you're just one part of a chain. You didn't set any of it in motion, in effect you're just along for the ride in your life.
Jugglable 2 years ago
I believe in free will to the extent that it matters, but no, I don't believe in dualism. I think that what we call "free will" is not anything that is somehow "outside" our universe, as a "first cause" would be. Sure, I can "set things in motion", but so can a tornado. Does a tornado have free will?
OK, so you'd SAY that God moved himself, but you have to assume that God exists in the first place. You must define him, which includes things based purely on religious dogma.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"Sure, I can "set things in motion", but so can a tornado. Does a tornado have free will?"
It sure sounds like you don't believe in free will.
There is movement WITHIN a tornado, but the cause of all its movement is due to things outside of it.
I'm not assuming that God exists in my argument when I say he moved himself. First mover demanded by impossibility of infinite regress. The first thing could not have been moved by anything before or after it. It moved itself. Will.
Jugglable 2 years ago
I don't believe in DUALISM, so no, I don't believe in "free will" in same sense you do. I agree with Daniel Dennet about "free will", if you wanted to look it up.
The statement "he created himself" presupposes his existence.
Even if will was necessary, the will to do what? To create this universe? Why is will necessary for that? What if god willed to make a completely different universe, but our "free will" changed it?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
I never said he created himself. That would be logically incoherent, because to create himself he'd have to pre-exist himself.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"I'd say when God moved, he had a mover, but that mover was himself."
Is there something I'm missing?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
There must have been a first mover because of the impossibility of an infinite regress.
The first mover put another thing in motion, because he is a mover. Movers move other things.
What caused that first movement? Most movements are caused by external causes. But for this first mover, there was no external cause--he was the first mover; nothing else moved him. So he moved himself.
Jugglable 2 years ago
@Jugglable
"The only known dynamic by which something can originate its own movement is by will."
Really now? So the planets willed their movement in an elliptical orbit around the sun? Gravity wills it's ability to attract objects with less mass?
That is a completely unjustified, not to mention intellectually vacant proposition.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@Jugglable
Essentially all you've been saying this entire time is, "I don't quite understand what I"m talking about, therefore God."
You're parroting the infinite regress argument almost verbatim from Strobel and the like.
Why would God resolve an infinite regress, other than arbitrarily assigning attributes that have no justification to it, like that it was 'uncaused'?
Secondly, 'causes' are inextricably tied to space-time, you can't have a 'cause' and posit it's existence 'outside' of time
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
Maybe this has been addressed in the comments before, but I take issue w/ your statement that God is more complex that a painting/the universe. If God is a mind, he is an immaterial entity composed of no parts, contingent upon nothing. The idea of God is not so complex. Paintings, however, are composed of many parts. The ideas of a mind may be complex (like the universe and its laws) but the mind itself from which these things originate is not as complex.
Jugglable 2 years ago
Maybe I should clarify. God is usually portrayed as sentient, intelligent, and, in fact, omniscient (all-knowing). When we're talking about knowledge, we're talking about information, thus his "god brain" or spirit consciousness or whatever it is that "knows" everything must "know" (store in consciousness) every molecule in the universe, and thus his thoughts alone must be just as complex, if not more so, than the universe, as infinitely perfect cognition is as complex as the real thing.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Comment removed
Jugglable 2 years ago
I think when you talk about "storage" of knowledge, you're talking about God, a supernatural being, in naturalistic terms. Storage is a physical term--you store things in other physical things like drawers, boxes, or the folds of your brain tissue.
Yes, you hit the nail on the head when you said that God's "thoughts alone" must be as complex as the universe. Right; but do not confuse the ideas of a mind (very complex) with the mind from which they originate.
Jugglable 2 years ago
This is about INFORMATION, the storage "mechanism" is irrelevant, as the INFORMATION ALONE is complex, let alone how that information is processed, whether physically or "magically".
There are an infinite number of excuses that can be used to claim that god is not complex. All you have to do is claim that god is beyond all reasoning, logic, or observations we make.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has the same supposed attributes. Does that give ANY CREDENCE AT ALL to his existence?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Nice, thought-provoking video. I do take issue with some of your ideas, though. "If these things need a creator, why doesn't God?" I suppose you are trying to show problems inherent in the very idea of God. But the reason why these things demand an explanation is because they are all contingent. Contingency and the impossibility of an infinite regress logically demand an unmoved first mover. The universe itself is a bad candidate for this because it's just a collection of contingencies.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"I suppose you are trying to show problems inherent in the very idea of God."
No, I'm trying to show problems with the teleological argument.
So EVERYTHING WE SEE in this universe is contingent, but not god? Why? Because you declare him not to be contingent? Is't it possible that God created a proxy god, creating the universe through a "god" that was contingent?
As long as magic is involved with no method to test it, you could say anything created the universe and have it be just as valid.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"As long as magic is involved with no method to test it, you could say anything created the universe and have it be just as valid."
I'm not talking about magic, but logic. Occam's Razor will shave away hypotheses about pink unicorns (which are inherently self-contradictory for other reasons anyway). I'm not saying God is non-contingent because I declare him to be. The contingency of all things in the natural world and the impossibility of an infinite regress demands a non-contingent source.
Jugglable 2 years ago
The teleological argument involves declaring that the attributes of the universe REQUIRE design, but a god, which has these SAME ATTRIBUTES that require design is exempt from this, because you are DEFINING him as being exempt, and DECLARING that something that is exempt must exist.
What we observe in the universe is complexity such as life arising out of simpler precursors. Follow this trend to it's natural conclusion results in a very simple beginning, not an infinitely complex one.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
" Follow this trend to it's natural conclusion results in a very simple beginning, not an infinitely complex one."
Yes, I agree. And given the complexity of the universe, the universe is not a good candidate for the simple beginning. And I think this simple explanation is a mind. Universe = complex. Think of physical constants--the fact that there are physical constants, and the number of physical constants there are.
Jugglable 2 years ago
You think that a singularity and various physical constants is more complex and improbable than an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, sentient being?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"You think that a singularity and various..."
I do think a mind at the origin of it all explains it best.
Jugglable 2 years ago
God does not have the same attributes that require design. A mind does not have as much complexity as the universe. You are confusing the ideas of a mind with a mind itself. I am not defining him as being exempt;
Jugglable 2 years ago
He's not exempt from the laws of nature? He's not exempt from needing a designer?
I simply do not agree with the idea that a mind is not complex or needs an explanation, let alone a mind of infinite capabilities.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"Is't it possible that God created a proxy god, creating the universe through a "god" that was contingent?"
You could argue this...but if this is the case, God still exists. :)
Jugglable 2 years ago
But your argument that the creator of this universe MUST be "the" God falls apart.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
So your argument is that God needs a creator.
You mentioned you were familiar with infinite regress. Logically, scientifically, the First Cause cannot have a creator.
Also you haven't really disproven God, you have argued that God needs a creator. That's not the same thing.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
I'm not attempting to disprove the existence of a god. That would be impossible.
This video doesn't address infinite regress from a physical standpoint. This video addresses the teleological argument -- the idea that there must be a creator BECAUSE OF the complexity and other attributes of the universe. The "cause and effect" thing would be the cosmological argument.
I've also made a video about the cosmological argument. It's called "Re: Who created God".
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
In both cases you claim to do two things that are not compatible; disprove an argument that claims to prove God, and then claim that you cannot hold this argument because to disprove God is impossible.
I'm not certain also how you argue that saying God must have a creator based on man's understanding of the universe proves anything. Its an appeal to logic, which is something you denied in a previous video was a convincing argument.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
There is a difference between disproving a claim and showing an argument that allegedly proves this claim to be fallacious. It should not be difficult to distinguish the two.
You are mixing up different arguments and then claiming that I am being inconsistent. When I refuted the TAG (logic) argument, I was not "denying" logic. Quite the opposite, I was using logic to show that the argument was fallacious.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
But you don't even disprove it. You provide the argument 'If this...then this'
IF all things must have a creator, THEN God must too. That's not proof, that's another supposition.
Using 'Destroyed' in your title is fallacious.
You used logic to deny that logic is necessarily infallible. As elliptical as the argument was, it did not line up with your later arguments (like the one in this video) dependent solely on logic, after you argued theists arguments based on logic were not conclusive.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
The problem with the argument is that it is self-contradictory. The reason why things need a creator is because of certain ATTRIBUTES. If A (attribute), then B (An intelligent designer is needed).
The attributes that are said to require a creator are complexity, beauty, etc... However, since god has these attribute, then you MUST conclude that he needs a creator BASED ON THE ORIGINAL PREMISE.
My point was not that God needs a creator. My point was that these attributes do not necessitate one.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Actually the attributes you applied do need a creator, unless the picture sprang into being by themselves which you said in a previous message to me was not the case. All things come from other things, so to argue that the universe itself did not breaks the chain of reasoning.
You really are assuming you know everything there is to know about what God could be. That would suggest not he but you are a god.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
"All things come from other things, so to argue that the universe itself did not breaks the chain of reasoning."
You are once again confusing the cosmological argument with the teleological argument. Here, I am discussing ONLY the teleological argument, which doesn't even attempt to address the issue of infinite regress. For instance, God could have made a "proxy" god to create the universe, and that god DID have a creator.
The issue is with sentience and purpose, not cause and effect.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
True; ignoring the other argument this one is sound.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
omgg your all so stupid!!!!! god was aways there because hes god DUH god means eternal so eat my catholic shit
lucasbartlett 2 years ago
You.... just ruined..... your argument.... Telling people to eat your sh*t doesn't prove your point, you know...
ZetaNeubourn 2 years ago
Great video dude. You brought up some great, thought provoking points.
I can't wait to use this in an agrument against one of my Christian friends =D
bonez289 2 years ago
Why is God more complex than the universe? YOU made that assumption. A simple painter can paint something more complex than the painter.....God is actually very simple - not complex as your limited human mind wants to make it seem so as to justify the complexity of the world you experience. God simply is....
marklross2 2 years ago
"Why is God more complex than the universe?"
If god is all-knowing, then he knows everything about the universe, every atom, every molecule, meaning that his CONSCIOUSNESS ALONE must be AT LEAST as complex as the universe.
"A simple painter can paint something more complex than the painter."
Really? Please provide an example of this.
"God is actually very simple"
The CONCEPT of god is simple, but a god is necessarily complex, just like the concept "mind" is simple, but the brain is complex.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
"his CONSCIOUSNESS ALONE must be AT LEAST as complex as the universe."
ah - a concession already - good. I am willing to accept that God is as complex as the universe.
"A simple painter can paint something more complex than the painter."
Really? Please provide an example of this.
A computer can be used to generate a picture using the Mandelbrot set. Even if you argue that a person was necessary to program the computer. humans are complex, but not infinitely so as is the Mandelbrot set...
marklross2 2 years ago
"just like the concept "mind" is simple, but the brain is complex."
Comparing God to an organic system such as the human brain is invalid...
marklross2 2 years ago
The Mandelbrot set is NOT a painting, and is actually a very simple set of equations which produces complex results through the process of iteration. The universe may also have a very simple set of equations which govern all the complexity that we see, but those equations were discovered by man, not created by him. Besides, fractals are far from being more complex than human beings.
"Comparing God to something that exists in reality such as the human brain is invalid."
There, fixed it for you.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Wow - you're unpleasant....why is that?
"Comparing God to something that exists in THIS reality such as the human brain is invalid."
There - corrected your fix...
marklross2 2 years ago
I didn't mean to be unpleasant. I apologize if you got that impression.
The point is that "THIS" reality is the only reality that we KNOW exists. Speculating about the properties of some "other" reality is not evidence for that reality.
Besides, all of this is based on your idea that god is not as complex as the universe, which you've already conceded is not the case if your god is omniscient.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Well there you have it, As a scientist, I guess it just depends upon whether you keep an open mind to all answers to the questions during the quest for truth - or if you prematurely rule out a possibility based on "a lack of evidence..."
marklross2 2 years ago
I don't "prematurely rule out" anything. However, I don't ACCEPT things which have a lack of evidence (the existence of god). I rule things out as a possibility when the evidence CONTRADICTS the claim (creationism).
Why do YOU accept things that have a "lack of evidence", as you put it?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
I am not a creationist. i think that to dismiss the possibility of examining any further an unsubstantiated claim is short sighted...
marklross2 2 years ago
"to dismiss the possibility of examining any further an unsubstantiated claim is short sighted."
I agree. If, however, through examining a claim further, you find that there is no evidence, do you think it is rational to reject the claim? After all, you can spend a lot of time examining claims if you don't have standards for rejecting them.
In other words, at some point, you have to say "OK, not enough evidence, I'll just move on until there IS some evidence".
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
OK - well "moving on until there is evidence" is different from saying, "I reject that hypothesis, and will no longer seek or entertain evidence to the contrary."
When Christ appeared to the apostles after his resurrection, Thomas said he needed evidence to believe what his eyes were showing him. Christ had him examine the wounds from crucifixion in his hands. Then Thomas believed. Christ told Thomas he had seen and as a result - had believed....
marklross2 2 years ago
He told Thomas he had received the evidence and believed, and that was fine, but continued to say that those who have believed without the evidence are blessed. Not "better." Just that they receive the benefit of knowing their fate by faith, whereas the others must suffer through life, not knowing, until they get '"the evidence."
peace...
marklross2 2 years ago
So Thomas needed EVIDENCE and Jesus SHOWED him the evidence?
OK... So where is the evidence? SHOW me.
I don't understand your point about the difference between my statement and yours. Are you saying that I am not "entertaining evidence to the contrary"? Contrary of WHAT? The idea that god doesn't exist? What evidence contradicts that?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Yes - you can read the account yourself. Thomas needed evidence. I think that account is in the Bible for a reason. There is no evidence that God exists. As long as you are willing to accept the truth when you are presented with it, I think that is the difference between a spirit that is "saved" versus one that is lost. When you are reborn in spirit, the truth will be revealed to you. If you have lead the kind of life that allows your soul to accept the truth - that is all you must do.
marklross2 2 years ago
"There is no evidence that God exists"
Yes, exactly. I'm glad we agree. YOU believe something without evidence and I do not. It's actually very simple.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Yes - ultimately, faith is not a complicated matter...
marklross2 2 years ago
false flagging is absolutely not cool. flagging shouldn't be that simple anyway..so stupid.. ive never been on a server of any kind that just accepted your complaint as real. people are fucking trolls, fact of life. you give them an inch, they take a mile. just how that shit works.
ultimategoobah 2 years ago
Why is the voting so low? I guess religious fanatics were here and low-rated it.
Jabalayaa 2 years ago
This video was hit in one day with exactly 300 1 star ratings about a month and a half ago right after I called a creationist by the name of KamikazeJustice on his bullshit.
In other words, I was vote-botted by an idiot.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
What about getting votes? There are enough atheists in the world.
Jabalayaa 2 years ago
I guess I don't really care enough about it to go around asking people for votes. It's really just a nuisance, nothing more. It's not like I'm all broken up about it.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
this is awesome, but at the same time, you accomplish nothing because the Ray Comfort's of the world have already destroyed logic and intellect in their faithful
charr05 2 years ago
A very good point made by somecomputergeek.
I saw much worse on youtube not being censored by Christians.
Proof that Christians don't like a good, honest, logical discussion about anything outside of their dogmas.
If it wasn't for science we would still be herding sheep and fearing thunder while being brainwashed by "prophets".
MMMisterDNA 2 years ago
what the fuck? -.-' why is "This video may not be suitable for minors. "
oh it must be because u explain where babies come from.. thats a no no :O
XD
CCBDN 2 years ago
Dishonest Christians...need I say more
Mattrix0 2 years ago 3
haha i love that last bit by Dawkins.
anananwar 2 years ago
Maybe painting needs a painter, but this guy needs a brain ...
me000654 2 years ago
huh? By "this guy" you mean me? Why is that?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
>You consider accepting the overwhelming consensus of cosmologists as being "naive"?
Actually, science is not about consensus.
If you want to talk about the "consensus of global warming", or the "Consensus of the earth being the center of the universe"
Or adhere to your "consensus of the big bang", that's fine too. Just so you know, scientific method is not about consensus.
There is no "LAW OF THE BIG BANG" . It's just speculation.
WOTWEET 2 years ago
I know science is not about consensus. Science is about years of research into something using the scientific method to discover the best explanation. Consensus is not fool-proof, and nobody is saying it is, but accepting the consensus of scientists when you are not a scientist in that field is hardly "naive".
The Big Bang is not "speculation", nor is it a "law". It is a theory based on observations and has predicted other observations. What is your alternate competing theory?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
(continued)
Before attempting to "disprove God", using this sort of sophomoric analogy of a painting that was painted (before the painting, there had been no painting, then at some point the painting was made) it is therefore essential to have some empirical "starting point". If there was in fact no big bang, your attempt fails QE/D
WOTWEET 2 years ago
the proposition that solid proof of something is unlikely, or in fact impossible, is not the same as "disproving something".
Also jumping to some conclusion which includes the claim that there was at some point a "big bang" as this video does so naively, and using that as the point for the "origination" of things, would be a serious flaw, if in fact there had never been this hypothetical "beginning". You need to at least prove there was a big bang in this pseudo-analysis! (continued)
WOTWEET 2 years ago
"jumping to some conclusion which includes the claim that there was at some point a "big bang" as this video does so naively"
You consider accepting the overwhelming consensus of cosmologists as being "naive"?
I didn't think I had to "prove" the big bang because so many other people have done it before me. I don't think I have to prove relativity or Newtonian mechanics. Do you think accepting them is "naive" as well?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
To: Wotweet
Believing that a book written by shepherds 2000 to 6000 years ago is more credible about the birth of the universe than the same science that conceived your computer, that is a stellar example of galactic naivety my poor fellow.
MMMisterDNA 2 years ago 3
Interesting. Reading Paul Davies´ The Goldilocks Enigma
Why is the Universe just right for life? These are good if your wondering keeps going. No transitional forms from ape to man? is funny anyway. Keep going!
ILEKKIK 3 years ago
Why do you think that the universe is just right for life? What percentage of the universe do you suppose is populated with or is even hospitable to life? .1%? .0001%? .000000000000000000000000000000000001%?
The universe hardly seems "perfect" for life. It's more accurate to say that what little life exists has evolved to be almost perfect for this universe.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
yyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeppppppp!
best argument refuted, owned, pwned, debunked.
awesome video man.
jrev37 3 years ago 3
Vote bots are a real showing of how effective you are. :)
Keep it up, Geekman! Subbed!
RabidPetRock 3 years ago 2
one thing i always think about:
you say (i know it's not your argument but that's not import in this case) that if only one little detail about the laws of the universe was different, then the universe wouldn't be the same and we probably wouldn't exist.
if we look aside from the fact that that has actually been proven wrong and that several (but not all) laws could be changed or removed entirely without us feeling a great change or any at all, there is another thing that strikes me...
micp4130 3 years ago
so what if we didn't exist? so what if the universe didn't look as it does today? it's like people think we're SUPPOSED to exist, so there had to be a god to finetune the universe so that i could be a perfect enviroment for us to live in...
re we really that arrogant? first of, the universe do not require us to live in it, nor does it need a finetuner... the universe, and the laws of physics, do not exist for a reason... they just exists!
micp4130 3 years ago
secondly, the universe is not a perfect enviroment for us, and if we think so it's just because we're lucky enough to live in the western world: in the rest of the world there is hunger and diseases, and we're also in about 100-200years about to experience the complete depletion of fossil fuels all becuase of the earth's insufficient ressources... that is NOT a finetuned universes...
and the tragi-comic thing is that the worse a people is living the ore religious they are, but that only proves
micp4130 3 years ago
that there are no atheists in foxholes... which, however isn't an argument against atheists but an argument against foxholes...
micp4130 3 years ago
That's not a bad refutation to the argument, but I accepted that these premises were valid for the sake of argument. Did you watch the entire video?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
oh yeah, and it was a damn good one, i've just discovered you here on youtube but i've watched a couple of you videos and they're pretty good so i'm going to subscribe :)
micp4130 3 years ago