Added: 4 years ago
From: Clutchology
Views: 4,925
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (162)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • You can use quantum mechanics to confirm or deny anything, because it has no natural laws. You cannot proof anyone wrong, or right by your OWN definition of factual knowledge. So other than a great debate you are only trying to make a rose out of a stone. You are both right. now prove THAT wrong.

  • Its a common misunderstanding what god is. god is just the name we give to the cause of everything, if you agree that the universe needs a cause then you are a theist, i you want to call that cause the force thats fine but your argument is over a name and the behaviour of this force, not the existence of the force.

  • I disagree. To convolute the meaning of theism to encompass 'cause of the universe' you are bastardising the theist position. There is a vast difference between a conscious, omnipotent entity and other explanations like, say, a multiverse. Differences accounted for in language.

    And what about the position of 'I dont know?' I do not know if there is a cause or what it would be. Does this also construe theism to you?

    Yes, God is just a name. But is a name much more specific than just 'cause'.

  • Clutch

    well you disagree with the facts.

    there are many kinds of theists. desists, monotheists, polytheist, pantheists, panethesits, only a sertain interpretation of monotheism says that god is a conscious, omnipotent entity.

    A multiuniverse is not a cause its a description.

    if you say that you don't know if there is a cause then you are an agnostic

  • Actually, I am not wrong.

    A theist is someone who believes in a conscious creator god. It is but one type of religious philosophy. Pantheists, deists etc. are other types. Monotheism and polytheism are forms of theism, not separate religious philosophies.

    If you want to argue that a cause is, by definition, god, then you are free to present your case. But by simply stating so I have no reason to believe you, and I can reject it out of hand.

  • To clear up a few things:

    The actions of a multiverse are one of the theories as to the cause of the universe. It is more than simply a description.

    I would only be an agnostic if your definition of god holds. Until it does, by all other definitions I am an atheist. For further discussion, if you must label me, I will be labelled as such until a convincing argument for your definition can be given.

    Thank you.

  • yea you are wrong

    theism comes from the word theos meaning god, anyone who believes in god is a theist, pantheists believe in god so they are theists, someone on wiki agrees with me.

    here is my case evidence for god is from what he does not from what he is. what he does is the same thing as saying the cause.

    Many theists don't define what god is at all, the only definition is what he does.

    i find it funny that you are an atheist when the information you have on theism is from atheists

  • Misunderstanding? Is the bible not written clearly?

  • @fairguynova LMAO!!!

  • "Clutchology-No, merely that it is possibly scientifically valid. Abiogenesis fits the epistemological criteria to be judged as a scientific question. God does not, and as such can never be a valid scientific answer. That is what I meant by that quotation."

    1)Abiogenesis does not even work on paper or PC simulations

    2)Ok lets get this straight

    God (another life in our universe that is vastly superior to us ) can NOT exist

    And what line of reasoning are you using for this?

  • I hate using this, but you are yet again strawmanning me.

    1) That is not the point. The fact that it can be scientifically analysed is what is important. God cannot. All I can do is direct you to Dr. Szostak and his studies on the subject. He knows more than both of us.

    2) I never once argued that, so I will not defend it.

    I'm tired of trying to explain myself to you when you continue to attack points I do not adhere to. Goodbye. Come back when you can critique a position I actually hold.

  • "The burden of proof is on the one introducing the claim." as he says

    Does this also apply to the primordial soup?

    Abiogenesis.?

    The self assembly of the single cell and the DNA instructions inside that cell?

    Clutchology,

    You could not possibly believe in these 3 things if you adhere to your own philosophy as there is ZERO evidence of them.

  • When you find a clip of me telling you I know how life on earth came to be then that comment might have some relevance to this discussion.

  • Clutchology, you dont uderstand

    You don't need to tell me

    You need to PROVE these three things actually happened,

    Otherwise you are doing the same thing you condemn theists for

    exercising FAITH

  • No, you do not understand.

    If I dont tell you, your assertion that I haven't provided evidence is totally void. Find somewhere where I tell you I believe these things instead of just assuming I do, and then we can discuss whether I'm exercising faith or not.

    Otherwise, you just pulled this totally out of your ass.

  • I have much sorrow for you The true experience of God is not in your grasp! I can't sit here and describe it for you...it is just beyond all I could ever say. There is so much more to life than words, thoughts...it comes down to one's experience. And how you can go to such lengths to try and tell someone what their experience is...it is a bastardization of the human mind! I will pray for you, no matter how much you don't care. Please, go in peace! Cease this childish nonsense!

  • people actually think they are going to get famous from youtube?

    just because you are open with your obvious attempt at elitism doesnt make it ok, or make you cool. get off youtube and try taking a class in theology.

    you really are making yourself look like a fool. trying to be a professional philosopher on youtube...LOL

    at least it shows no one puts up with your BS in the real world.

  • Ii's like pretending im a car salesman by peddling go-karts on the street corner.

    your buddy Hitchens already tried with his letter and failed miserably. The New Atheism is the laughing stock of the country right now. get over it.

    I can't believe no one gets tired of seeing youtube videos with some random person's face for its picture and some wannabe philosophical anti-god title. the secular web is a joke.

  • i cant believe someone never get tired of flaming on youtube

  • "people actually think they are going to get famous from youtube?"

    No. Which is why that entire comment just showed you to be the real joke. It's always entertaining when people have to make up a bunch of stuff to attack you.

    Makes you wonder what's gone so wrong in their life that they feel they have to harbour so much supercilious negativity.

  • I'm curious though if atheists don't believe in god then how do they explain the miracles that happen in the world. Wouldn't you admit that life is truly divine. I have nothing against atheists but there beliefs just sounds cold and mechanical. Do atheists believe there is purpose in life or do they think life is utterly pointless. I truly want to know. I want you to know I'm not trying to be smart with you I just want to understand.

  • @AliceCure

    Give me one miracle. One miracle that cannot be explained by chance. Have you seen an amputees limb grow back?

  • @D4R3W There is always a cause and effect behind everything weather we know it or not. Things don't just happen for no reason. There is no such thing as chance. Chance only exists in the mind. Please understand I'm not trying to cause conflict. I'm just stating a point. That's fine if you disagree.

  • @AliceCure

    You didn't give me that one miracle i asked for..

    If everything has a cause and effect then so must a god. Which leads to an infinite regression. You can't then add that god does not have a cause, because that goes against your first arguement that everything has a cause and effect. If god can be an exception then so can the universe.

  • @D4R3W You wanted me to name a miracle? Ok one I can think of is the healings at Lourdes, France. It doesn't just happen by chance. Why would it? Why are you turning it into an argument? I'm just making statements.

  • @AliceCure

    Dont call it an arguement, call it a brief discussion. If there is a small chance something will occur, and it occurs, it isnt a miracle by default. Is winning the lottery a miracle? No, someone has to win. The same can be said about these so proclaimed miracles. It only makes sense that out of the millions of the people who visit the Lourdes, someone will have had to talk out of there and was cured from a desease that they mightve been cured of whether or not they visited the cave.

  • Subconciously your desire is to become more than your life would call for. It is an abnormal human desire, contrary to nature. You take great offense (to the point of "superciliousness"?), which reveals it quite nicely. Not an attack, a simple realization of truth.

    This is not going to get you anywhere in the long run. I suggest establishing genuinely self-fulfilling and character building goals and striving to achieve them. You are not making your peers look good.

  • Rascal157 is an ignorant fool. >_>

  • its true, yet its his video in the first place ;)

  • LOL! you STILL respond!!

    You make me chuckle!!

    Didnt I already say, "Go do something else."?

  • He could say the same to you. ;)

  • it is backed, my last comment told you that, i guess you do not have the mental capacity to understand me...o well.

    Plus, all im saying is go do something else. You are responding to me, but its obviously getting you no where, you have simplistic atheist remarks that everyone can answer.

    Finally, i submit that the man who tells a fool he is being a fool is not the fool. yet the fool who tells a man he is a fool for telling him he is a fool, is a fool.

    that sums up you.

    Goodbye.

  • Ahh, you amuse me. You obviously don't get what we're trying to tell you at all.

  • what the deuce, simply because you use large words to sounds smart means nothing at all to me. My proof is the Bible, Genesis 1!? wth, can u make more sense?

    i simply am quoting the Bible and yu are saying i need to research it? dude i hope you realize you are completely making a fool of yourself on this waste of time known as youtube. i also said u dont have to believe what i say, just listen, now your all whining to me cuz i didnt do my research?

    i was replying to "DaRecka" btw.

  • That was not an argument. Accusing people of wasting their lives and having no substance is ironic considering that your entire argument is an unbacked claim to research and going around saying people are making fools of themselves.

    I could tell you that you're making a fool of yourself (and, to be honest, I think you are) and it would be just as effective. My point would be just as strong.

  • The point people are making is you cannot simply claim to do research to back up your views. It's vacuous. To go on a video and say "Ha ha I've done research you haven't I'm right you're wrong!" means nothing. You have to show us this research for it to mean absolutely anything at all. You don't seem to have even attempted to have done that, and your comments have all been based on misunderstandings, especially about evolution.

    Simply throwing out claims and covering your ears shows us nothing.

  • READ THIS.. ALL OF YOU.. YOU BLAME GOD YET FOR FAMINE, PAIN ETC? WELL HERE GOES! Just so you know, im not saying "believe it cuz im RITE!" Anyways,When god created the first humans and the Earth, it was perfect, no pain, hunger, etc. He also created the humans ability to choose and the devil, when the devil "got" Adam and Eve God said the world has become satan's. He really loves us. Anyways, just saying this :) i understand your claim, ithought about it. I did research though, you lack it.

  • I see absolutely no evidence of this research. Your points lack all pertinence. Simple rhetoric and vacuous assumptions.

  • Which is why all politicians shouldn't be allowed to be a member of a church or allowed to hold private property.

  • A theist calling an atheist ignorant. Ignorance in itself.

  • well put my friend, well put

  • And dont try to say 'we got ourselves into that mess'

    If you had a child, you created him/her, so you would have some bond with him/her, now say this child is playing with a lighter and lights him/herself on fire, what do you do?

    I think if you have a half intelligent mind youll see my point.

  • Lack of proof is not proof.

    While there is no proof God exists, there is no proof that he doesn't. If there was absolute proof of either, we would either all believe in God or no one would believe in God. Faith is the key. (which I know isn't scientific! :D)That's only my opinion on the matter. I enjoyed listening to post! It's rare that I come across and atheist that CALMLY discusses their beliefs and gives well thought out support to their point. *high five*

  • I understand that lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it certainly is not evidence of presence either. My position has changed on the requirement of scientific evidence since making this, but my reasoning remains the same. Without a legitimate reason to take up this 'faith', how can anyone expect me to do so?

  • Even if there is a god, and he created everything, and he has divine power, he is still a complete arsehole. Death, famine, pain, disease? we are dealing with a dark twisted individual who leaves children lying in the dirt starving and dieing.

  • Quit using the term proof, that's a mathematical term and has no relevance in a philosophical or scientific discussion. Use evidence instead.

  • Science and mathematics go hand in hand. Saying the term proof has no place in scientific discussion makes me wonder about your definition of science.

  • no, he is not searching for reasons NOT to believe, he has just not found a good reason TO believe, and neither have I. This society has lost the belief in God because this society has been trained to question, and currently the question of god is on the forefront of the youths minds.

  • So am I not allowed to disagree and state my underlying premise from which I do so? You have quite a narrow perspective there. How could I possibly make a case of disagreement unless I understood what I was disagreeing with and the reasons why people agree with it?

  • I'll send you a copy of 'A Beginners Guide to the English Language' for your birthday, and a guide on how to argue without vacuous threats.

  • wow its unbelievable how vague and uninformed and how similarly people argue about the 'theist vs atheist' debate. I guess the best thing would be to study a bit more before making simple arguments and posting a video. Perhaps look into black holes, prophecy theories, multiverse theories, string theory, entropy within universe, cosmological constants and constants within universe. Also really look into evolution, your next debate will be more informed but ok yeah thanks for posting

  • Are you under the impression that this is supposed to be some comprehensive argument covering all areas of debate? It was anything but. It was a simple outlining of my (then) position to someone who didn't understand it. That's it. Nothing profound or life changing about it. I've looked into all those things, but they were superfluous and inappropriate here, so weren't included.

    I guess the best thing for you would be to look into such things before spewing any more uninformed assumptions.

  • This was a good video. I believe in God for my own reasons, but you know what you're talking about and have very good reasons for what you believe. You aren't bashing or rash, and I respect that.

    Just one question for you. I'm unfamiliar with this wave function law. What does it claim in layman's terms, and is it actually a law (has it been proven scientifically)?

  • Brilliant explanation.

  • exactly

  • i watched ur video and i want to ask u ...what is truth?? and if truth exists then does absolute right and absolute wrong exist??

  • Wow great Vid!

    I think u hit the nail on the head there with the notion of intellectual honesty. I can not believe either because my rationale doesn't let me.

  • Good points mate, I really like how you mentioned that at no time does science claim to have the end all answer to any question, but religion does. It's the perfect point to show the flaw in theistic logic, to assert absolute knowledge in a universe were there is no true absolutes.

  • You state that you do not give too much credit to philosophical arguments.

    However, your entire argument addresses what possible things we can know and how we can know them.

    This is epistemology; the study of knowledge.

    Epistemology is an important branch of philosophy.

    Therefore, you are positing a some-what mildly and subtle philosophical argument; like it or not. :)

    Cheers.

  • I know, that was a very bad point on my part. It's what happens when you write this just coming out of the shower.

  • I once been told by someone on YT that I am fulfilled with anger Oo when I was trying to explain my believes, and didn't find anything aggressive in my message. I'm not even trying to convince anyone to my rights, but explain my actions/thoughts. Your message which I came across by accident caught my attention, good work.

  • Good stuff. Is there an atheist conspiracy on YouTube, I wonder.. Since all the atheist videos get so high ratings while all the christian videos get really low ratings.. No, it's just that the christians have no case..other than stuff like "we feeel God in our hearts!" or "we don't understand science, so God must'a dun' it", haha! They really don't make very interesting videos. 5 stars for this one, by the way. :)

  • Or the atheists just have more viewing power, so the rating and comments tend to reflect their views more than anyone else.

  • "Since all the atheist videos get so high ratings while all the christian videos get really low ratings"

    I have a more logical explanation: theists are afraid of dissent so they don't even visit a channel that has opposing views. They remain trapped in their bubble of delusion and only view theistic propaganda that feeds them what they want to hear.

  • Wow, this dude is really smart and organized. I find it funny that religious people are NEVER smart OR organized. They simply draw off of the hive mind.

  • Are you smart or organized ALL of the time?  Nice stereotype you just invented.

  • Actually, I'm neither smart or organised, and know many religious people smarter and more organised than I am.

  • I despise when I use the words never, always, all, or none. I was wrong in that. The reason I wrote it in the first place is because I like to see what the religious have to say on youtube, but my curiosity is mostly rewarded with blithering word vomit. Although I have heard some intelligent religious people, I must admit that that specific brand is secular.

    Clutchology, you ARE smart, organized, intelligent, and humble. That's more than I can say for most of the debaters on youtube!

  • nice responce/letter:)

    a few questions though, you say that the burden of prof is on the on introducing the claim... so what would it take for themto be able to convince you of a god?

    im assuming that a 'religious expireance' for example would be disregarded as a delusion, so i guess what im getting at is could ANYTHING they say/show you convince you of their god?

    keep the viedos comming!

  • Personally, I'm a starch agnostic towards god. I don't think one can honestly claim to know god, at least by the epistemological forms we have today. They're all flawed in one sense or another when relating to the question of god, and so cant give any conclusive answers.

    And that's what I'm saying. Not that there is no god, but that I see no justified reason to believe in one, and so fall under the position of atheism.

    It's an interesting question, and one I'm unfortunately unable to answer.

  • I'll take religious experience as an example. It could very well be an experience from a god, but it could also very likely, and probably more likely simply be a neurological phenomenon. The brain has to be activated even if this does come from God, and a simple application of Ockham's Razor renders the explanation of God redundant.

    Some would say that a leap of faith is required, but I have to say that I don't think that leap is ever justified with the knowledge we have today.

  • To claim that God doesn't exist is as meaningless as to claim that he does; the proposition "God exists" can neither be affirmed or negated, as existential propositions must allude to empirical verification relevant to the determination of their truth of falsity, and such a claim cannot, even in theory, be verified. Thus, the very claim itself neither has the ability to be deemed true or false! Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism are all equally meaningless

  • If you reject the concept of the null hypothesis in a/theisitic argument(clutch explains it in this video - you may have missed it or may simply be disagreeing), then your claim about having no way to deem anything true or false could be seen as a relevant response to theism and atheism - but then then that leaves the only rational default to accept a complete lack of knowledge. A position of having no a/theistic knowledge would still then be Agnosticism (a- : none. -gnosis: knowledge).

  • Philosophy is JUST sophistry?! Where did you draw that conclusion from? It is the case that those who are popularly called philosophers may partake in sophistry, but philosophy is far from sophistry, unless you also condemn your arguments within this video, which are clearly philosophical, as sophistry as well.

  • Haha! Yep, you got it!

  • I'm not sure what it is that you say I've understood... elaboration?

  • hey, i was wondering, where on the site did you post this response?

  • To the user in question through a personal message. We were going back and forth that way. No one else could see it. That's why I made it into a video, to share it with other people so that I could get a wider range of responses/critiques.

  • everything cant be explained and even science runs off unknowns. i would rather be spirtally whole than reject all possiblities of God.

  • That would be where philosophy comes in. I'm not rejecting the possibility of a god, just very sceptical of such claims. I would rather be intellectually honest than 'spiritually whole', not that I think that requires a god in the first place.

  • wooow thats a big ol' speech right there

    i share ur views on this

    RESPECT :D

  • Im really impressed... Are you really 17???

  • Yeah, but it's really not that extraordinary.

  • You dont get around with many kids your age, do you? Its not very common to see a kid like you with such oratory skills as yourself... Most kids your age (hell... most people my age) only talk about MTV Cribs or football... seeing someone your age with some good thoughts on a subject so controversial as atheism is very refreshing. Keep up the good work... and stay away from the Devils voice on Earth...aka MTV!!! :D

  • Well, in my experience, most kids my age are very capable of all the things that I do. I'm not even really anything special in my own school. Most kids just aren't as stuck up as me to go around actually proclaiming this stuff. They're more concerned with having fun, and I really cant blame them for that.

  • consider God's answer to an atheist...

    Google -- chester bedell/atheist...

    His grave still bears witness that God

    does exist...

  • What does that prove? You're cherry picking. People say things like that all the time and they never come true, suddenly one does and that's evidence?

    That's some fairly inconsistent evidence. I would have expected better from a divine being.

  • Faith is not how I would describe it people. Its a willingness to be wrong if science or a naturalistic answer shows us otherwise. Believing in God means an unwillingness to be wrong based on one's imagination in man's child's mind, which is defended illogically. Athiests are not spiritualy dead people, we do see the universe and life with awe.

  • Well-said mate.

    We have two worlds here: the Deistic world, which is sheer philosophy, and the "we do not know" position the majority of scientists assume.

    This relegates one who says, "But I DO know" to bear the burden of evidence, just as if a biologist claimed to know how abiogenesis worked.

    Can you imagine? "I KNOW life came from nothing." "Where is your evidence, Dr. Smith?" "Well, you just have to have faith..."

    The "I do not know" position, currently, is the only honest one to hold.

  • Many theists accuse atheists of immorality and that the atheism is an excuse to behave immoraly. There a some that fit that discription, but all the atheists I know are philosophical atheists who search for ral answers to life's questions. God does not feature the basic features of a confirmable, valid answer. God is reluctantly rejected as a cause, in a cause and effect (action-reaction) universe.

  • I think it is hard for many of them to admit that atheists just do not believe in God because of the philosophical validity (or invalidity, rather) of the concept. It challenges them. It poses a problem which they have to then incorporate into their worldview. It's much easier to blow them off with a moral motive attack, meaning they dont feel like they have to deal with the arguments.

    It's the same with many atheists, accusing theists of just being afraid of death or were indoctrinated.

  • It's an absurd position that also, by necessity (unless you're silly enough to believe in creationism) makes every man, woman and child prior to God's law being given some 4500 years ago necessarily without morals.

    If early man had no morals from natural cause, how did we survive? Form societal structure? Instigate tribal punishment? And what of the early Indian civilizations? Were they utterly immoral?

    Even apes show signs of morality (see: Goodall.)

    It' just patently absurd.

  • Good thing you posted this on youtube and got some use out of it, since it probably just looked like a bunch of random words to the theist.

  • His response was the basic 'my life was bad, I found God. Faith is good. Design argument.'

    I think most of this did go over his head.

  • I just believe that there must be a Creator Who sets the laws and nature in action. And oh yes, I do find it necessary to critique science, There's a saying in the Comp. Sci. industry "You torchure the data long enough and it will confess to anything".

  • There is a major difference between a critique and blind distrust simply because it doesn't concur with religious ideas.

  • It's funny to me that people like you bash everything about science but have no problems driving a car, flying a plane, using medicine to save their children, using a computer or their cellphone.

    That's all thanks to thousands of scientists working hard to further human knowledge.

  • I don't bash science. I find that we need to critique science and accept or reject the theories. You guys are taking this way out of context, and that's usually what I get when talking to atheists. They want to believe that "there was" and I want to believe that there was, is and is to come, and His Name is Jesus. I honestly don't think we can reason because you guys simply have a closed mind that are stuck on your atheistic point of view.

  • Now if you want something to ponder, try this: life comes from existing life forms, I accept it and am at peace. I don't think an atheist is ever going to prove his case, but God's people see proof from the simplest to the most intricate aspects of life. Let me suggest love, faith and compassion as a starting point. Atheists can't explain its origin.

  • "I honestly don't think we can reason because you guys simply have a closed mind that are stuck on your atheistic point of view."

    I'm severely tempted to say something about the pot calling the kettle black, but instead I'm just going to say that so far everything that you have said and put forward as proof is simply from lack of another explanation. That's very logically incorrect.

    Then you insult and strawman atheists, followed by complaints that you're the victim of those very same actions.

  • I am not complaing about anything. My views are concrete, though I'm not a philosopher, I enjoy reasoning about origins and you don't put forth any convincing proofs either. Your views require certain things preexist, we just call it by different name and have different views about it. You call that nature, I call God. You describe the nuts and bolts of nature up to a certain point, but you refuse to accept intelligent design, something I find difficult to believe.

  • Have you seen this video? I'm not trying to put forth proofs, I'm only contesting that yours are faulty and that there is no reason to defer from the null hypothesis.

    I agree. The what does not prescribe a why. Theists use that one all the time. The 'why' requires separate reasoning, reasoning I have found severely wanting to even provide justification for a 'why' in the first place, let alone the 'why' which you propose.

    I will accept that which is reasoned, and ignore that which is not.

  • I think you find my beliefs false because my statements require faith; and so does yours. For atheism is a religion and my beliefs are not religion but a faith. The major difference is that my belief is based on truth and yours is based on hypothesis.

  • "For atheism is a religion and my beliefs are not religion but a faith."

    You just killed all hope I had of an intellectually honest discussion.

  • Clutch, I simply can't understand a view that "there just was". I don't think philosophical arguments explain the nature of existence and reality. It's true that I have an opinion that's wholy based on faith and personal experiences that there is a God Creator. But I think it takes more faith to believe that "there was" than to believe God. Science doesn't explain, remember it's an observation, a theory attempts to explain until disproven.

  • "There just was" is a major oversimplification and misrepresentation of the naturalistic view of the world.

  • 'I simply can't understand a view that "there just was".'

    Why can't you? It's your view too after all.

    Your god is eternal. Atheists just cut him out of the loop and assume nature is eternal, because we have never seen anything indicating one exists.

    Its false to say it takes more faith to disbelieve god. You believe in two entities to explain reality, one of which you have no evidence for. The alternative view only has the single belief that reality is real - which you also must hold.

  • My "there just was view" is based on an Infinite, No-Beginning, Never-Ending Superior God. You said it right, He is Eternal.

    It takes way more faith, to say, "Nature is eternal", my point being that there is no evidence. Order does not precede disorder, but disorder precedes order. It's impossible to imagine that this great organization, not to mention it's complexity and fine tuning that everything is.

  • My views take faith, yours take false faith. I see a model that backs my faith (such as the family unit,feelings,morals, etc), but you can't point to anything, for nature is not conscious and animals are just that.

    Nice talking to you.

  • Sorry for the mix up,

    I meant to say :

    Disorder does not come before order, but order itself comes before disorder. In other words, our world is being "de-volutioned" and it's being disorganized, i.e. slowing of Earth's giration, dying of our sun, etc.

  • I wouldn't bother with compgrad1. He has already demonstrated a lack of understanding of atheism, a lack of understanding at this video, and an intellectual dishonesty based on asserting his claims without considering alternate possibilities.

    All of that is quite clearly summed up in the way he asserted a rhetoric in his last comment and then prematurely ended the dialogue ("Nice talking to you.") before a reply could be made.

  • As for science, science is just an observation of the way that God's laws and matter function and exist. You can't make it an argument about how you must be given a reasonable proof that God exists. Science prooves there's a God,because science confirms His laws. Peace out man.

  • How do we know they're his laws?

  • As a Christian, I believe the world was made by God. So if the world was made by God, the laws in it are His, for how can someone else dictate what goes on in someone else's property.

  • So, science doesn't prove God's laws unless you already believe in God, then.

  • Well, have you broken any physical laws yet?

    Have you walked on water, defied gravity,etc.

    Get it, so that's why we Christians believe that Atheists have no reason to be atheists because if the laws are in place and they are given by God, then Atheists are living within the laws, but pretending that God is not there. I hope that helps, man. I imagine it must be terrible to be an atheist, and having nowhere to turn to. Good night, man.

  • So, we know God created the natural laws because God created the natural laws.

    Theists are in deep trouble if people like you are going to defend religion.

    Nice try though. Well, not really...

  • compgrad1, did you even look at the paragraph about the wave function law? That deals exactly with the existence of the laws you are talking about. Also, check out my God vs Science video if you are going to continue to assert something like that as 'proof'.

    "pretending that God is not there"

    Are you actually going to deny the existence of opposing ideas?! Do you have any idea how that makes you appear?

    "I imagine it must be terrible to be an atheist"

    Why? And of what pertinence is that?

  • Clutch, who made the laws? That's my whole point. You can't say that they just existed. There must have been intelligent design. I said people live within boundaries of God's engineered laws without realizing HE exists. I'm not saying your reasoning doesn't exist, it's just that it doesn't hold water.

    I think atheists are like that because they don't want to be liable for their actions(sins).

    Science is always corrected. We certainly don't see a college science book from the 50's do we?

  • You obviously have a very biased and unfair view of atheists. Ad hominem.

    Why does there have to be a 'who' that made the laws? Tell me that. You cant say that there just was. Science is in the process of explaining exactly how these laws came into being naturalistically. We cant trust science now? You're making a baseless claim simply because you cannot contemplate a naturalistic explanation. It's a classic God of the gaps.

  • Well, not exactly. I used one argument from which there are many. And plus, I'm not defending God, He actually defends me. And I'm not the one going to be in trouble, for if you're right that God doesn't exist, we both will lie on "mother earth" forever. But if I'm right, than I'll be in Heaven, and you'll be in a very bad and hot place.

  • Argumentum ad baculum.

    Pascal's Wager = bad reasoning.

  • There is a third possibility, compgrad1. What happens if theism is correct but you picked the wrong one?

    The scientific process provides a clear way of choosing between competing hypotheses (even if we can't implement that comparison at the current time), but there is no objective way to select the "right" theistic belief until after the fact.

  • Compgrad1, your reasoning of "living within the laws" is very amusing.

    You're introducing an unexplainable, ineffable, unverifiable entity to explain phenomena that can more easily have a purely physical explanation.

    Or do you reject the (admittedly arbitrary, but highly successful) principle of Occam's Razor?

  • You're right, I don't understand where you're coming from. You don't make any point, you're are circular reasoning without any

    God does exist, computer science can be used to understand. It gives proof that there is a Creator. In a sense, like a programmer writes code, we have a God who made matter and laws(physics as well as moral). For you cannot break any law without a consequence. Get the point, it's flawless and that couldn't come from "nothing".

  • bravo! right now i'm memorizing that shit...i am going to sound smart as hell tomorrow!

    excellent video, and super idea to write it out so we could follow along with your reading. thank you!

  • Well said, and well spoken. :-)

  • Good points. You should speak publicly like all of the fanatics shoving the bible down our throats. Thank you for that.

  • nice video good clarity of thought lucid and informed.

  • Nice vid, good reasoning.

  • i like your T-shirt where can i get one of thoz

  • I had it custom made.

  • Thanks for actually using your brain. I'm religious, and I hear very little non-religious people that sound intelligent when they explain themselves.

    Thanks for the insight.

    Check "Slazeroth on Religion" if you would like to hear mine.

  • thank you.

  • philosophy is the only way we can answer this question

  • It depends on how the notion of God is being asserted. This video is addressed to theists who give God scientific status.

    Check my latest video for something that echoes a similar sentiment to the one you just gave.

  • love the vid. and where did u get that shirt. i wanna strut in pride

  • ...sorry, last entry (don't you love the 500 word count!?)..

    Science and Christianity are not necessarily at opposite ends of the spectrum then. We can apply science (law) to the observed changes in people of this day, when they 'claim' to become saved.

    I simply have to tell you Clutch, that the only way you will ever likely agree with a Christian, is to go through the same thing.

    Just by your video post, I see you are a confident man, and this may explain your strong stand.

  • For the record, I've never claimed science and religion to be in conflict, only arguably literalism and the scepticism/faith difference.

    If what you say is true, then there really isn't a debate is there? I'm not going to tell you "There is no God" because I don't assert that, and all you can do is hope that one day I understand, because telling me to believe or trying to reason it [devoid of experience] won't work with a sceptic. Therefore, I really have no problem with your views.

  • I like your thoughts here Clutch. It is obvious to all that you are intelligent.

    As you grow older and experience the 'wheel of life' more often, you may come to be more open to Christ, because it may become an issue like the song says, "What's it all about Alfie?" (Bert Bacarack).

    More things happen over our lifetimes - more sin, more suffering, more wondering why I am actually alive.

    I hope you find Christ as I did one day. Then, I assure you, it will be a life worth living! God Bless you!

  • So your saying the reason he doesn't believe in god is because he's young? What about all the old atheists that are out there? Whats wrong with them that they have grown old and not found god? Also, what do you mean by "I assure you, it will be a life worth living!". So a life without god is not worth living? Should he just kill himself then?

  • No that's not what is being said.If you have never tasted life actually knowing God then "taste and see that the Lord is good."

  • Thats a nice saying but I could just as easily say "taste and see that atheism is good" right back to you and we're at a stalemate. If you tried to convince me then all you would do is quote bible passages. If i tried to convince you, I would just use logic and evidence but unlike religious people, if i don't know something then i say i don't know. I don't know what happens when we die, but I do know that you don't know either. So why not admit it?

  • You are right about the quote but because it is from the bible doe's not make it false.I thought you Atheist were try everything kinda people I was.What makes you think I did not use logic in my "believing".You don't know me well enough to make that call, so why not admit it?

  • Well its hard to say you use logic when you believe something that has no evidence. It hasn't come up with evidence in 2000 years. Logic would tell you that it must not be true if there is no proof of it. Faith and logic are not friends. If not then explain your logic in believing that the bible is true and that there is a god. Also, please explain how you know what happens when we die? Prove me wrong with your fantastic logic.

  • yeah lifegiver you tell them where its at! I used to debate christians but now I just make fun of them because i tired of debating (got older, its not my job) stuff like that. Thanks for sticking up for the good guys.

  • so tell me hcprophetictim (interesting name) what the hell does it mean? anyway you say "taste and see the lord is good" well I think the lord is a fool and so are people that follow him (though I admit I have some friends and family that to) and I truly pity these people who are so systematically indoctrinated into this nonsense that they cant see in front of them, and I pity you for being one of them so I am not going to insult you like I was planning. Good luck.

  • Another who assumes to much.Tell me then my friend,since you obviously know more about what I believe than myself, what do I believe?

  • obviously you are some sort of god believer. Unless you just go around giving people pep talks about how good the lord is without believing in god, which is really weird concept, why dont you spill more religious talk and tell me all about your evil ways.

  • i strongly suggest this book for all you interested in the religion topic. even if you don't care for it, it can still give you a source with which to debate upon. no knowledge is wasted of course. the name of the book is "Goggling God". it's the best book i've ever read in my opinion. i hope you find it as interesting as i have if you choose to take the time to read it.

  • Nicely put. I fully concur.

  • Clutch,

    The Bible says, God will make foolish the wisdom of the wise.

    Over the years, the Bible was put to the test, and it's claims were challenged again and again. The Bible passed those tests.

    The only true way to make a claim against the Bible, is for you to study it very hard, listen to experts, and get the 'other argument'.

    Not to say you haven't done this, but history tells us that the critics of the Bible, are often the ones who do not understand it, or willing to try to. Have you?

  • I didn't say anything about the Bible, but being raised in a Christin environment for 17 years and taught Christianity from a Christian perspective I have a fairly good idea of how Christians interpret it.

    However, everything you said/claimed is a common self defense mechanism put forward by advocates of every holy book, and by atheists. I could ask you the very same question from my angle, so I fail to see the pertinence of that statement.

  • Clutch,

    With no disrespect to your age, the only reason I mention the fact that I am older than you, is that I have lived to he point where I became saved at at 46. Before this, I was not interested in Christianity, or interested in any religions for that matter.

    I have to tell you that the 'experience' surpasses all understanding. It does not become an issue of 'what makes sense', but rather an issue of 'what did I just experience?'. A pastor at Mars Hill Church (Mark Driscoll) in Seattle....

  • Look at the Laws of thermodynamics. Keep in mind that these laws were made by science therefore science must follow them well when you look into these laws they tell you that you can create matter from nothing. Therefore there must be a being or deity that can defy these laws.

  • Ahh, but quantum physics doesnt say that at all. In quantum physics you can get something from nothing, uncaused, randomly.

    That has good science behind it. A deity? No. Just like the example you gave, it's simply a lack of having another explanation. Nothing you have said points to a deity, you have merely used the notion to fill a gap in your knowledge.

  • MAN YOU POWN FACE. You are my hero :D and yes heres another thing you can consider. if God is all knowing and powerful and omnipotent, why would he create us KNOWNING that most of us would not follow him. And for those that dont theres hell. so he places some of us on this earth for a sick joke..nice. also his free will dosnt make sense because it is like saying here choose your own path in life while having a gun to your head, i.e, choose heaven or suffer. DOSNT MAKE SENSE.

  • I know exactly where you are coming from. Almost every person on earth that thinks for thier self is subjected to contemplate this very topic. From a birds eye view gaping holes are very evident in christian logic. But isnt that what its about. Investigating what you do not know. If God were real why and how could he cram all of his knowlege into a book. This is where prophetic reasoning and revelation come into play. Talk to God,cry out for answers:you will get them. Be a true invevestigator.

  • yep, the point is use the skeptical inquiry. It is the only way,how we may pursue these kind of questions.

    And we must know that humans as species have just begun their journey on earth. and there are a lot to figure out.

  • Clutchology, as a Christian I have to admit that was a very good video and sincere(No joke) I wish I could give you the evidence that I have to support my God's existence but mine is personal type testimony and will not clutter up your space with it.I may not agree with you but I respect your reasoning being a former non-believer myself.

  • In other words, it's anecdotal. In other words, it's not evidence.

  • Yes, but you should credit his honesty in admitting that his reasons are personal and not objective/absolute/self evident etc. reasons that we should all accept.

  • Mumblesftw:

    It's evidence to me being a rational person not raised in the dogma of religion.Although to me they are absolute being the one that the evidence was presented too.Thx for the kind words Clutchology.

  • Second, there's a short book about Richard Dawkins and his arguments called The Dawkins Letters (it even has a pink unicorn on the front!) I don't know if you've taken a look at it, but if you're truly interested in exploring God and his supposed existence, it's a great little book. It explores every argument made in Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and actually makes decent comments on them. If nothing else it will give you another perspective to explore.

  • Yeah, I've heard of that book. It's supposedly very good. I've been meaning to get a hold of it for some time.

    Not that I thought Dawkins' book was that great to begin with though.

  • First, I'd like to say that I don't really care what God looks like. The reason us theists envision God as having a human appearance is because a book that we believe to be full of truth (the Bible) says that man was created in his image. So if we have evolved from some hideous ugly creature, so be it, it doesn't change who God is to me.

  • I'm no longer going to bother refuting you theists until you show an understanding as to what this video was saying. So far, none of you have done that.

    PS, the next comment bomber is going to be blocked.

  • I watched your video. Am I correct in saying that bascially your thesis was, "the burden of proof rests upon the one who makes the claim."???

  • as a Christian I happen to think other Christians need to think about what brought them to this point before they "GO OFF" on Clutchology(& others).He is making a valid point and unless we(Christians)can give him an answer other than the Bible tells me so.

  • I did not come to knowledge of God by reading the word for I was a Atheist/Agnostic and saw religion as worthless.God produced evidence of His existence to me(freaky I know) and now I believe.

  • Until that type of knowledge is there for Them than the "Pink unicorn" in their eyes is just as valid and rightfully so.Remember the Bible says "For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power".

  • How dud he produce his evidence. did he shove his invisble dick ur cunt like he did to mary?