Another topic I would like to glean some of your ideas about is Jesus and his disciples. As historians know, Jesus was a well documented person including his disciples. We know Jesus was even on the roman census. Also, all of Jesus disciples were either killed by the sword or stone for preaching his teachings. So my question for anybody is, who would die for a lie and knew it was a lie? I think it would be hard to find 12 people in history who died for a lie and knew it was lie or is it? Thanks.
@chrisnotbad " As historians know, Jesus was a well documented person including his disciples."
Not really. I'm not familiar with any other historical text outside of the Bible that mentions "Jesus of Nazareth". There are several historical documents that refer to "Christ", and it's just ASSUMED that they're talking about Jesus, but other than that, "Jesus" is only mentioned in the Bible.
As for his disciples dying, perhaps they were sincere. Perhaps not. What's that got to do with anything?
@chrisnotbad Of course its not hard to find 12 people who died for a lie,millions have died in the name of religion/god they cant all have been right or is it a multi god created world? I cant see that being the case somehow.As for jesus where is the info for the roman census from? its not the bethlehem one is it?not heard of any other.
@chrisnotbad Also there was no Roman census at that time. That whole part of the story was constructed after the fact, to put him in the right place at the right time to tie in with older prophecy.
@chrisnotbad Regarding the flegellum, that objection was answered years ago by many, including Ken Miller in his book "Findind Darwin's God." Of course, if you and your ilk choose to remain willfully ignorant, what can be done about it? However, know that Ken Miller believes in the same God you do, whilst not rejecting correct science that is inconvenient for a particular narrow set of beliefs but still compatible with Christianity in general.
O'reilly is out of touch with the facts sure, but there are questions that cannot be answered by science i.e the bacterial flagellum. The B.F is a cell in your body that actually has a rotary engine propeller and about 18 other moving parts. That cell could not have come into existence based on the laws of evolution. Also even top leading quantum scientist don't know how the big bang really happened. God is real, and I have seen personal evidence through many signs that he exist. BTW funny vid.
@skywaspink89 There is no argument to understand for I made none. However you are obviously a dullard who probably didn't even know what a bacterial flagellum was until I made my comment about it. Of course your response is typical of people who are sorely bereft of facts and have no understanding of the science that proves intelligent design. Just remember you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Take care.
@chrisnotbad FYI, the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has been debunked many many time. I would suggest looking at the work of Ken Miller on this (easy find on YouTube) or David DeRosier, whom Behe himself references as describing the flagellum as a "motor". They've shown EXACTLY how the flagellum has evolved, which is quite ironic for advocates of ID because the flagellum is a PERFECT example of how evolution works.
Irreducible complexity is a misnomer for evolution
@Wittgensteinism Thank you for that info. Out of fairness, I would rather take some time to research those theories before I can accurately respond to what you said. I do however want to know your answer to these questions. It has been established through quantum theory that a duplicate of yourself with all your memories could be made as long as the data of each cell was reproduced. So here are my questions. If that happened why wouldn't that person be you or would it be you?
@chrisnotbad " If that happened why wouldn't that person be you or would it be you?"
Well, the answer to that question entirely hinges on what you mean by "you" in that sentence. If by "you" you mean "that particular combination of matter and energy" then yes, for you implied that everything would be duplicated, including memories. However, it would not be "you" in the sense that "you" pertains to a particular position in space. Although both are identical physically, they're seperated in space
i am sooo shocked at how much this guy, who i see on fox news all the time hasn't a clue about obvious things. why the sun goes up and down, now thats funny!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
First ask yourself: What is God? . . . I say it's love. Do you think love exists? Yes. Then, God exists. Cased closed. Everybody go back to work and pay your taxes. (suckers)
@TheCAS1983 If God = Love then i dare say there is no such thing as atheism.
Fortunately, we have a much better word for "love" than "God", and it's "love".
Here's an equivalent argument to yours:
What is God? I say God is a rat. Do you believe that a rat exists? Yes. Then, God exists. Cased closed. Everybody go back to work and find a better definition for "God" other than "something which we already know exists and have better terms for".
@Wittgensteinism It's all about perception. If you don't want to make God big in your life by calling God GOD, then don't. Live the way you please. What does it matter to everyone else. Why are you on here arguing and debating. Apparently there is a void in your life you are trying to fill. You need to fill that void with GOD. But if you don't feel like it, then don't. What's it matter to me. I believe. That's my Choice. See ya.
@Wittgensteinism thats a really good point. a i hear people saying god is love all the time. but love is a better definition, hell it IS the definition. im going to use this when discussions come up.... and i wont remember ur name to cite you... sorry bud :( , but you did good work and thats a plus :D
@2010paultron God can certainly be used however anyone wants to use it. I think this itself, (the inherent ambiguity in the term itself) shows that the word "God" is, at least socially, a very empty word. I would dare say that there is even a colloquial use of the word anymore. How people ultimately define the concept of God i think is nothing more than a reflection of their particular time and culture. It's illustrates a deep aspect of human nature, as opposed to something True about Reality.
@2010paultron ........ Here's the main point though: If someone uses the word "God" to mean "love itself" and not "an All-powerful loving Deity", then there's really no disagreement. I obviously believe love exists, so if that's how you define God then i'm not an atheist. But that other side to that is that they, by the same token, are not a theist (in the colloquial definition i gave).
So they basically have reduced God straight out of existence in order to justify that "God exists".
Let me use your same posit with different integers so I can demonstrate how what you said sounds to me:
What is delicious?. . .I say it's cake. Do you think cake exists? Yes. Then, delicious exists. Case closed. Everybody go back to work and pay your taxes. (suckers)
@Wittgensteinism oh ye gods! You kept building that song up. I kept waiting for the drums but they never came!!!! You raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly sir, well done!
I'm sure Mr Hawking would love to come on your show and explain to you the questions you have, the problem is that you have to be intelligent enough to understand his explanations, you Mr O'Reilly are not an intelligent person nor are you at all logical in your thinking. The reason people have trouble explaining things to you isn't because they don't understand them but rather because you are to loud, ignorant and stupid
@faller006 A tsunami is caused by earthquakes, which you should be educated on, but I'll explain anyways. Tectonic plates rub and collide against each other releasing amounts of energy. And even if this was evidence of a god, it's not a very pleasant one if he's starting tsunamis.
Fox News is to the United States what "Jersey Shore" is to the United States...a bizarre embarrassment that somehow, despite all reason and sense, actually becomes a hit... and you just watch in slow-motion horror as another little piece of culture dies forever.
I am now convinced that Bill O'Reilly is just being a professional troll for the money. No one who can run a television talk show is that much of a moron. He knows his very imbecilic audience is mostly Christian so he is just going with it to maintain his audience.
Correction: It is not that the moon pulls on the water that causes the tides. Rather, it is the DIFFERENTIAL in gravitaional pull over distance. Because gravity follows an inverse square law, it pulls harder on the water near it than it does the earth, and on tuw other side of the world that pull is weaker still- hence TWO tides rather than merely one.
OK so Bill ain't so bright. That is why he is on the "boob tube", he is a BOOB! And that is what the boobs that watch the tube want to see. A boob who speaks for them and their boob view of reality.
I think what this pinhead is trying to say is not how but why we got here why we are here. Of course nobody knows. Like why the moon and everything works so fine for us. But it would have to to have us so idk. But if he really doesn't know why the sun goes up and down that is hilarious.
@Trouter92 Now wait a minute there buddy, that's two different questions.
The "Why" question can be asked in two ways: The past tense; the cause; the scientific, "how" question e.g. "why does the earth revolve around the sun?", which is asks for a cause, and the future tense; the effect; the "religious" question which asks for what future effect e.g. "Why do we exist?"; "For what future purpose?"
In terms of these types of "Whys", i think Bill-O actually IS asking about the scientific "how"
How "Billo" even can get airtime on one of the largest networks in one of the worlds most powerful nations, that I do not understand. THINK for F*CKS SAKE!
It's simple, the process of evolution is an observed principle, it needs time to answer questions about life and the universe supporting it. To say that 'until you have enough evidence I'm keeping my faith', which science does, it has more than enough evidence to back up the theory of evolution, literally to the point of it being a fact, is in my mind ignorance of our current knowledge as living beings, you impose on scientific research and at the same time say 'well when you get it, I'll accep
The earth got here because an accretion disk of gas and dust collapsed under gravitational forces? You can't be serious, surely. Unproven and unprovable hypotheses might entertain people who think they are smart, but I still like to apply common sense to my thoughts. You think because you have observed neutrino's dis and reappearing that's a good enough explanation for the existence of the universe? Remind me again how 50 years of experimentation trying to create life from non-living matter went
@maddogwilson1 you're right, in fifty years we haven't quite managed to recreate a process which took nature billions of years with an infinite amount of space, vast quantities of matter and energy which dwarf anything we can even imagine. Yeah, how can we not have done that in fifty years. Common sense you joker.
@Andrew920917 So the most ostensibly intelligent creatures ever can't match it with unthinking elements? Way to give yourself a rap fella. Common sense will tell a normal human that anything dead/unliving doesn't come to life, regardless of time given. Common sense.
@maddogwilson1 thats a misinterpretation of what early life was. The first 'life' was simply chemical molecules which could reproduce themselves given the right resources and energy and they slowly grew increasingly complex, It wasn't a cell which just randomly appeared in the ocean and started multiplying. And I don't understand how you can think the earth forming under an accretion disk of dust and gas isn't common sense. But what would your theory be if it wasn't?
@Andrew920917 How would you explain the simultaneous "evolution" of DNA, RNA and protein into a cellular structure that requires the co-operation of all three to exist? Design abounds in literally EVERYTHING in the universe, I don't know how you can't see that. A teaspoon of DNA could hold enough information for up to 350 times the earths current population (estimated, of course), that's preposterous precision and engineering for random, pointless events to produce.
@maddogwilson1 It's perfecly natural to think that the universe is precisely adapted to fit us, rather than us being perfectly adapted to fit the universe.
@maddogwilson1 Nature is clearly not designed because there is a difference between something created by evolution and something designed. Something designed is usually designed to be perfect - a watch does what it does perfectly. Evolution makes things as easily as possible - the least amount possible for success. Often this leads to a similar outcome but evolution leads to certain flaws which design wouldn't. If we were designed, how come we are so weak to disease and suffer genetic flaws?
@maddogwilson1 think of it like this, elephants usually die through starvation as their teeth wear away. If you were designing teeth for an animal eating rough grass, you would make them either extraordinarily tough or infinitely regrowable like a sharks. You wouldn't design something to perform its function less well than it could. Evolution has lead to the teeth because the teeth wear away after the elephant has reproduced and so it's unlikely for the genetic code to be replaced.
@maddogwilson1 And the accretion disk creating earth makes perfect sense. And since we can see stars and planets being created in similar fashion in the nebulae, I don't see how you can disagree with it.
@Andrew920917 The chances of a simple protein molecule forming at random at been put at roughly 10 to the power of 113. And a cell need some 2000 proteins acting as enzymes for it to function. I'll wait while you get your calculator... I'm not satisfied that science expects me to believe someone in my family was a fish, then an amphibian, then a lizard, then a bird and so on until we arrived at our present "form". Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking could do no better than you.
@maddogwilson1 But I will have to end this conversation now. Obviously it was always going to be a nil-all draw. I will however commend you for your civility. Having dealt with many atheists over the years I find their propensity for personal insult during discussions as disconcerting to say the least. All the best.
@maddogwilson1 i think those odds are miscalculated, you forget that our oceans were full of innumerable molecule trials or occurring simultaneously over billions of years infinitely improving the chance of it happening. Plus if you don't believe me on that, the mere fact that life has formed does not negate the fact that on 10 to 113 planets with similar conditions life did not take hold. Even if chances are very small, the universe is big enough and old enough for those chances to work.
@Andrew920917 I didn't calculate those odds myself, but someone who is on your side did. Water tends to favour depolymerization, not the opposite, which is needed if molecules were to progress in complexity.
O'Reilly is a coward, he is only concerned with ratings. His star will come crashing down someday, count on it. Bill needs a new theme song, I think it should be "Dogs" by Pink Floyd off of Animals.
@javier052897 Well then you shouldn't use scientific ignorance as the justification/evidence for that belief, because sooner or later, that gap in knowledge is bound to be filled.
So as long you admit that, and don't exploit scientific ignorance to justify your belief in a God, then there's no problem.
The point of that last question was to show that you cannot use science in this way, because if you do, you're only going to disprove your own God.
Don't worry, if you are honest enough with your own reasoning, and keep asking and , again, honestly, Looking at the evidences that emerges from your inquiring reseach on this issue, that believe will eventually go away...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
let billo talk fuck he makes fun of himself just by talking we dont need your "DUH the sun doesnt come up" commentary every 3 seconds of dialogue; were not 5 years old dick head
No matter how hard you try you'll never get Bill O'Reilly to admit that he doesn't believe in God, because if he made that thought public he'd be out of a job. He'd lose the majority of his audience.
That was very well done. Great video! I hope he is not the average for science education in this country. If so we are witnessing the beginning of the end:(
God exists..and so do explanations..this kind of knowledge takes time. For ideas to evolve and to finally some day be perfected= an explanation..Haha jk I have no idea :O
@RottingCorpse100 Actually our solar system is moving through the galaxy. Our sun orbits the galactic center. And alas the entire galaxy is moving through space. But none of that is the real point. The real point is Bill O' Reilly is dumb :P
Considering Bill O'Reilly has no clue what "play us out" means and he is in the broadcast business, then I don't think he is any match for Professor Hawking.
This man is a joke. Bill seems like a smart man, even if he is a christian im almost sure even HE knows his statements on this video are a load of you know what.
@poek210 im only 28 and ive met people that sound and look smart but sometimes their behaviour is as if theyve got a dumbass switch flicked on. It just bafles me.
Hawking won't go on your show and explain this Bill, because that would be like televising a discussion between an adult and a child, where the child simply sticks his fingers in his ears and won't listen to anything the adult is saying.... in other words: a complete waste of everyone's time!
If you argue that the universe must have had a beginning then it must have had a creator.
If you argue that the universe is infinite, i.e., prior to the big bang there was just another phase in the universe (remember, before the big bang there wasn't nothing, there was a singularity), then it doesn't need a creator. Big bang part of a cycle. But christians argue an infinite universe doesn't make sense, it must has been created. So who created God then, how did he begin? Christians argue that...
@vygotsky17 ...God is infinite, always was and always will be, was never created. But by that logic, cannot the same be said about matter, about the universe. If something (God) can exist without a creator then why not say the same thing about the universe?
@walterygor O'Reilly never specifically asked how the universe came to be.
He asked why the sun comes up and goes down, why the tides go in and out, and how the earth got here. Had he asked how the universe came to be, i would've been more than happy to answer that question as well. But he didn't ask it, so i couldn't answer it, and so there's no 'side' to pick here because that issue was never raised.
@Wittgensteinism Did you not hear the first question? How the earth got here?
Then in the end he repeats the question: "There´s no explanation to how the planet got here" By the way, this video is a continuation of a previous conversation they had.
@walterygor The thing is though, O'Reilly believes in the personal God of the Jews, the god of an specific group of sheepherders from the middle east. If scientists were to concede that they can't rule out a deistic God/creator, it's still an enormous leap of of faith to say that people in western society should believe in YHWH when there are thousands of alternative gods to choose from. There is no better reason for believing in the Hebrew god than there is for believing in Zeus.
@walterygor Furthermore, when christians are asked why they don't believe in other gods they use the same argument for not believing in other gods as atheists use for not believing in any god i.e., there's no evidence for believing in zeus or thor or vishnu, etc.The evidence is just as strong for them as it is for the Jewish god.
@vygotsky17 The Scriptures are the evidence of the existence of God. The other "gods" do not have such type of evidence. Further more, only God has claimed to be the ONLY TRUE GOD. You won´t find such claim in any of those mythological gods you are referring to, because they don´t exist.
@walterygor The scriptures are not the kind of evidence that would stand up in court, an attorney would point out the fact that anybody could have written them. Does paper refuse ink? most pagan mythology has been written, at some time or another but hat does not affect their truth status. Why does being written make it more true than an oral account? Also, claiming to be the only true God doesn't make one so. I can claim to be the handsomest man in the world, and therefore I am?
@vygotsky17 Unlike mythology books, The Bible is´nt just 1 book, but a collections of many, written by different people along many centuries.They´re consistent and it´s prophecies have been fulfilled. No other book is like that. I know it´s not the kind of evidence that would stand up in court, but is good enough to base a Faith. You can claim to be the handsomest man, but that claim has been made by others. The "other gods" never denounced the existence of false gods, but God did.
@walterygor You have stated that the bible was written by not only man, but by many men, over time. But explain the logic of how that proves that it is the word of God. Any man can write something and call it scripture. As for consistency, this is from Genesis 6:19-22 YOU SHALL BRING TWO OF EVERY KIND INTO THE ARK: Genesis 7:1-5 TAKE WITH YOU SEVEN PAIRS OF ALL CLEAN ANIMALS. Textual analysis reveals many inconsistencies in the book, characteristic of human error.
@walterygor 1st theyre not consistent. 2.No profecies that dont require interpretation were fullfilled. CBA explaining what self fulfilling prophecy is.
Stephen Hawking needs JESUS. There are reports that Anton LeVey (founder of the church of satan) were absolutely horrified at the moments of his death. LeVey was heard to say that something was horribly? wrong just as he died. YOU HAVE TIME !! BUT WILL YOU SAY >> something was horribly? wrong or will you COME TO JESUS WHY THERE IS TIME ??
@dewerbylhserf Stephen Hawking is 70 now. He has lived his life suffering from an illness that should have killed him in his 20s. Let me use Christian logic for a moment. Why did God let him live so long? Why did God not interrupt his work? Why did God allow him to be shown to the world as a man afflicted so terribly and still have the grace to complete his work and be an inspiration to others? Perhaps God had that purpose for him. Perhaps the disease was his cross, one which he had to overcome.
That same tired foolishness. "I don't know the answer to a question yet so that must mean that God exists." Your not gonna convince anyone with half a thought of their own in their skull with that.
If only you could convey this information to the frustrating ignorant Bill O'Reilly without him blowing his top and screaming "cut his mic, CUT HIS MIC" when anyone proves him wrong. I suppose it is his own fault for doing it live then following up with Sting playing him out.
I believe in Christ and i believe in science. I think it's foolish to say that God doesn't exist for the simple fact that there's so much unknowns about the universe. My question is Where does gravity come from? How does it form and where did it originate?
@Sirafrican So you're saying God fills that gap for you? That "unknown"?
Just because you DON'T know something, doesn't give you grounds to say you DO know something.
What if i were to tell you where gravity came from? Would that dissolve your belief in a God?
If not, then why even ask about it? I mean, if not knowing where gravity came from proves a God, then knowing where it came from should disprove God then.
The only point here, is that it can be explained without appealing to God
@Wittgensteinism The Bible..................., and the fact that you don't know either, you just base your shit on facts, and go off that........................., making you think that you know more! lol you don't shit, and the top scientists don't know shit, and yeah i agree Bill Oreilly is a complete asshole shit talking arrogant fuck!
@Wittgensteinism The Bible..................., and the fact that you don't know either, you just base your shit on facts, and go off that........................., making you think that you know more! lol you don't shit, and the top scientists don't know shit, and yeah i agree Bill Oreilly is a complete asshole shit talking arrogant fuck!
@Sirafrican Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of the Universe, along with thermodynamics, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. We understand that Gravity is what keeps us on the Earth and it's one of the basic laws of physics. Remember, our science is fairly primitive still. Just because we don't have one unifying theory of everything yet, does that therefore mean you just say "ok well if we can't explain everything, it must be God."
@Sirafrican You said "there's more to life, and the universe as we know it."
And i'm asking how you "know" that.
For if you knew that there was more than you know, you would have to know more than you know, which creates somewhat of a paradoxical situation.
But if i take what you're saying colloquially, then why do you claim there is more to the universe than we know? What are your reasons for believing there is more to the universe?
@Wittgensteinism The reason I claim there's more to the universe than we know of is because there's just so many unknowns, so many theories, and so many questions that science can't answer. Like I said to bobivd6688, our universe consists of planets and galaxies expanding billions and trillions of light years away. We can't comprehend those type of astronomical numbers. We as a human race haven't even conducted probe exploration out of our own solar system and there's thought to be billions!
@Wittgensteinism Personally that has a lot to do with God because there are just things that mankind and science can't answer, and probably never will. For you it has nothing to do with God.I will never believe that the gift of life and humanity happened by coincidence, and I don't believe that we came from nothing. I believe for every creation there's a creator. For me that creator is Christ. I know a lot of people will disagree but everybody is entitled to their own beliefs and ideologies.
@Sirafrican "I will never believe that the gift of life and humanity happened by coincidence, and I don't believe that we came from nothing"
But you MUST believe that if you believe in God. Where did God come from? Nowhere?
Then God came from nothing. You have two choices, either existence was spontaneous or it was here forever, and this includes your God. Either way, there's absolutely no need to postulate a God no matter how much we DON'T know.
@Wittgensteinism I don't know where God came from and I can't answer that. I wish I could tell you. I'm not going to sit up here and act like I know where God came from because I honestly don't know. However I do have faith and believe that God does exist not in a physical form but in a spiritual form. Like I said everybody has there own ideologies and beliefs. If you think God isn't real then that's totally your belief. I will not impose my religion on anybody, but I will speak of it.
@Sirafrican Let me try to appeal to you in another way. Let's use your Creation/Creator example with the following analogy: Let's say there are two paintings of a human figure. The one painting was done by a human painter, and the other was done by pure natural processes; let's say this painting was made by geological processes over billions of years. Now, the question is: Which painting is more marvelous? Which is more magnificent?
Surely the natural one; human painting is cheap by comparison
@Sirafrican In other words, it cheapens our existence to be nothing more than a tinker toy that some God designed. After all, what's so special about a God creating life? A God can do literally anything that is conceivable, so life is nothing special at all!
But if life is the product of nature, just doing it's thing, then it's truly miraculous that something as wonderful as the human form could come from mother nature.
The idea of a God for me cheapens the story of lif; it degrades it
@Sirafrican you dont even bothered to look into the religion you follow. Christ isnt the creator. Jesus is god the son of the trinity, god the father is the creator. What a fkin moron.
@Sirafrican I don't understand how not knowing something justifies making up a story to explain it. It's possible that God exists because there are "so much unknowns about the universe" but it's not likely. Using the same logic we can say that flying pink elephants might exist because we don't have enough information to disprove it. A theory needs to be proven before there's a need for it to be disproven.
@bobivd6688 I never classified it as a theory, it's my belief and ideology. The Universe is a cluster of galaxies and planets billions and trillions of light years away. The human brain can't even comprehend how vast that is. We haven't even traveled out of our own solar system and there's supposedly trillions more. So who's to say that there isn't earth like planets out there with pink flying elephants? Who's to say that there isn't a god that exists?
@Sirafrican Absolutely correct. The possibility for being a diety is pretty much the same as there being pink flying elephants. Which is to say - very little since there's no proof to support either. If I don't know something I try to find information about it instead of just saying I KNOW.
@Sirafrican Totally agree with what the owner of this video said. The only thing I wanted to add is that if you search it up there are many theories as to where gravity comes from.
@Justinbieber1235813 I've took physics and astronomy for 2 years and there is not one clear theory out there that can justify where gravity originates and comes from. Nobody knows. The only thing we know about gravity is that it works lol. So I suggest you read up on your arguments.
@Sirafrican gravity comes from the bending of space and time. so the larger the object the larger the bend of space which cause gravity. so don't just say god when you don't know something say i don't know. and then try to find the answer cause if you say god then why look for the real answer and it takes the fun out of space for me. you can believe in god but don't just say that to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
What the hell did this video PROVE???? Doesnt this self acclaimed expert realize that Science theories are falsifiable by premise, thats why they are theories. The entire Science community thought the universe was always here, static(not expanding) Lemaitre, (Catholic Priest) gave the Big bang theory,now acclaimed, and shows that the Bible allready gave the truth 5000 years ago, The universe had a creation event, and is spreading out. So let Science keep proving the Bible,as it has.
What this video proves, as does all scientific theories, are that the natural world can be completely accounted for without the need for a God.
If you want to talk about metaphysics, that's another issue, but as far as the physics go, there's nothing that cannot be explained A-theistically, that is to say, Without a God.
If you think there is anything in nature that requires God as an explanation, i'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
Bravo @Wittgensteinism Bravo!
miniq2004 1 day ago
The "got here" part I was laughing to death lolll. It's like a Purolator guy delivered the Earth here..what the hell "here" mean anyway? LOLL
beatboxpeej 5 days ago
Essentially, bread goes in, toast comes out. Can't explain that. Therefor, god exists.
LOL4Polio 6 days ago
I love how stupid Bill O'Reilly is. Makes me feel smart.
x6s6 1 week ago
I dont usually swear on here but O'Reilly is the biggest cunt on american tv and thats really some achievement.
TheTomtuffy 1 week ago
Another topic I would like to glean some of your ideas about is Jesus and his disciples. As historians know, Jesus was a well documented person including his disciples. We know Jesus was even on the roman census. Also, all of Jesus disciples were either killed by the sword or stone for preaching his teachings. So my question for anybody is, who would die for a lie and knew it was a lie? I think it would be hard to find 12 people in history who died for a lie and knew it was lie or is it? Thanks.
chrisnotbad 1 week ago
@chrisnotbad " As historians know, Jesus was a well documented person including his disciples."
Not really. I'm not familiar with any other historical text outside of the Bible that mentions "Jesus of Nazareth". There are several historical documents that refer to "Christ", and it's just ASSUMED that they're talking about Jesus, but other than that, "Jesus" is only mentioned in the Bible.
As for his disciples dying, perhaps they were sincere. Perhaps not. What's that got to do with anything?
Wittgensteinism 1 week ago
@chrisnotbad You wonder how superstitious ,ignorant and illiterate people can be fallible?
dawtchins 1 week ago
@chrisnotbad Of course its not hard to find 12 people who died for a lie,millions have died in the name of religion/god they cant all have been right or is it a multi god created world? I cant see that being the case somehow.As for jesus where is the info for the roman census from? its not the bethlehem one is it?not heard of any other.
TheTomtuffy 1 week ago
@chrisnotbad Also there was no Roman census at that time. That whole part of the story was constructed after the fact, to put him in the right place at the right time to tie in with older prophecy.
mryellow123 9 hours ago
@chrisnotbad Regarding the flegellum, that objection was answered years ago by many, including Ken Miller in his book "Findind Darwin's God." Of course, if you and your ilk choose to remain willfully ignorant, what can be done about it? However, know that Ken Miller believes in the same God you do, whilst not rejecting correct science that is inconvenient for a particular narrow set of beliefs but still compatible with Christianity in general.
netisforporn666 1 week ago
I apologize for calling you a dullard by the way. Name calling in a discussion is playground stuff, and we are not children. Take care.
chrisnotbad 1 week ago
I liked the framed photograph of Stain in the back ground..
MrSeaeye 1 week ago
O'reilly is out of touch with the facts sure, but there are questions that cannot be answered by science i.e the bacterial flagellum. The B.F is a cell in your body that actually has a rotary engine propeller and about 18 other moving parts. That cell could not have come into existence based on the laws of evolution. Also even top leading quantum scientist don't know how the big bang really happened. God is real, and I have seen personal evidence through many signs that he exist. BTW funny vid.
chrisnotbad 1 week ago
@chrisnotbad "The B.F is a cell in your body" You don't even understand you own argument. Just go.
skywaspink89 1 week ago
@skywaspink89 There is no argument to understand for I made none. However you are obviously a dullard who probably didn't even know what a bacterial flagellum was until I made my comment about it. Of course your response is typical of people who are sorely bereft of facts and have no understanding of the science that proves intelligent design. Just remember you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Take care.
chrisnotbad 1 week ago
@chrisnotbad FYI, the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has been debunked many many time. I would suggest looking at the work of Ken Miller on this (easy find on YouTube) or David DeRosier, whom Behe himself references as describing the flagellum as a "motor". They've shown EXACTLY how the flagellum has evolved, which is quite ironic for advocates of ID because the flagellum is a PERFECT example of how evolution works.
Irreducible complexity is a misnomer for evolution
Wittgensteinism 1 week ago
@Wittgensteinism Thank you for that info. Out of fairness, I would rather take some time to research those theories before I can accurately respond to what you said. I do however want to know your answer to these questions. It has been established through quantum theory that a duplicate of yourself with all your memories could be made as long as the data of each cell was reproduced. So here are my questions. If that happened why wouldn't that person be you or would it be you?
chrisnotbad 1 week ago
@chrisnotbad " If that happened why wouldn't that person be you or would it be you?"
Well, the answer to that question entirely hinges on what you mean by "you" in that sentence. If by "you" you mean "that particular combination of matter and energy" then yes, for you implied that everything would be duplicated, including memories. However, it would not be "you" in the sense that "you" pertains to a particular position in space. Although both are identical physically, they're seperated in space
Wittgensteinism 1 week ago
"If Mr. Hawking wants to come on." THAT'S PROFESSOR HAWKING TO YOU, YOUWASTE OF OXYGEN
pinkrabbithappiness 1 week ago 2
Hahaha hawking wins!
karlisch32 2 weeks ago
LOL
YummyDuckys 2 weeks ago
@AbbeyRoadkill1 And a very uneducated buffoon, since he doesn't seem to understand gravity
NuKaCyAnIdE 2 weeks ago
@TheCAS1983 I had a void inside me. I filled it with cake...
NuKaCyAnIdE 2 weeks ago
WOW. Bill O'Reilly vs Stephen Hawking is the mismatch of the millennium. Hawking = genius, O'Reilly = buffoon.
AbbeyRoadkill1 2 weeks ago
... the sun doesn't even move this stupid fuck -.-
Javis586 2 weeks ago
i am sooo shocked at how much this guy, who i see on fox news all the time hasn't a clue about obvious things. why the sun goes up and down, now thats funny!
mrmaxwellgeorge 2 weeks ago
Lol hawking would slaughter him...
Cognatusinfinitum 2 weeks ago
Ignorance
foppa16 3 weeks ago
The Greeks had an almost good enough explanation for gravity. "The apple longs to be with the Earth"...
FeelingFreshSon 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
First ask yourself: What is God? . . . I say it's love. Do you think love exists? Yes. Then, God exists. Cased closed. Everybody go back to work and pay your taxes. (suckers)
TheCAS1983 3 weeks ago
@TheCAS1983 If God = Love then i dare say there is no such thing as atheism.
Fortunately, we have a much better word for "love" than "God", and it's "love".
Here's an equivalent argument to yours:
What is God? I say God is a rat. Do you believe that a rat exists? Yes. Then, God exists. Cased closed. Everybody go back to work and find a better definition for "God" other than "something which we already know exists and have better terms for".
Wittgensteinism 3 weeks ago 24
@Wittgensteinism It's all about perception. If you don't want to make God big in your life by calling God GOD, then don't. Live the way you please. What does it matter to everyone else. Why are you on here arguing and debating. Apparently there is a void in your life you are trying to fill. You need to fill that void with GOD. But if you don't feel like it, then don't. What's it matter to me. I believe. That's my Choice. See ya.
TheCAS1983 2 weeks ago
@Wittgensteinism thats a really good point. a i hear people saying god is love all the time. but love is a better definition, hell it IS the definition. im going to use this when discussions come up.... and i wont remember ur name to cite you... sorry bud :( , but you did good work and thats a plus :D
2010paultron 2 weeks ago
@2010paultron God can certainly be used however anyone wants to use it. I think this itself, (the inherent ambiguity in the term itself) shows that the word "God" is, at least socially, a very empty word. I would dare say that there is even a colloquial use of the word anymore. How people ultimately define the concept of God i think is nothing more than a reflection of their particular time and culture. It's illustrates a deep aspect of human nature, as opposed to something True about Reality.
Wittgensteinism 2 weeks ago
@2010paultron ........ Here's the main point though: If someone uses the word "God" to mean "love itself" and not "an All-powerful loving Deity", then there's really no disagreement. I obviously believe love exists, so if that's how you define God then i'm not an atheist. But that other side to that is that they, by the same token, are not a theist (in the colloquial definition i gave).
So they basically have reduced God straight out of existence in order to justify that "God exists".
Wittgensteinism 2 weeks ago
@TheCAS1983 is genocide includes in your god's love?
cronus6282 2 weeks ago
@TheCAS1983
Let me use your same posit with different integers so I can demonstrate how what you said sounds to me:
What is delicious?. . .I say it's cake. Do you think cake exists? Yes. Then, delicious exists. Case closed. Everybody go back to work and pay your taxes. (suckers)
YukonBloamie 2 weeks ago
@TheCAS1983 pop quiz if god equals love, why does he hate disbelievers?
BBallinManiac 2 weeks ago
@Wittgensteinism oh ye gods! You kept building that song up. I kept waiting for the drums but they never came!!!! You raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly sir, well done!
CrazyHorse493 3 weeks ago
Stephen Hawking: "Black holes and the big bang and our complicated maths give us some great ideas for how the universe might have started."
Bill O'Reilly: "I BELIEVE IN GOD AND YOUR THEORY SUCKS!"
Albert Einstein's dead brain in a vat is more intelligent than the likes of Bill O'Reilly.
felamaslen 3 weeks ago
I'm sure Mr Hawking would love to come on your show and explain to you the questions you have, the problem is that you have to be intelligent enough to understand his explanations, you Mr O'Reilly are not an intelligent person nor are you at all logical in your thinking. The reason people have trouble explaining things to you isn't because they don't understand them but rather because you are to loud, ignorant and stupid
ToewangJones 3 weeks ago
i think that tsunamis and tidal waves are miscomunication don't you think?
faller006 3 weeks ago
@faller006 A tsunami is caused by earthquakes, which you should be educated on, but I'll explain anyways. Tectonic plates rub and collide against each other releasing amounts of energy. And even if this was evidence of a god, it's not a very pleasant one if he's starting tsunamis.
azerskater 3 weeks ago
First video I saw of yours, definitely going to subscribe. Great video, mate.
JayMann620 3 weeks ago
Bill O'Reilly is a big, wet, flopping douche bag.
Fox News is to the United States what "Jersey Shore" is to the United States...a bizarre embarrassment that somehow, despite all reason and sense, actually becomes a hit... and you just watch in slow-motion horror as another little piece of culture dies forever.
ReclaimAmber 3 weeks ago
I am now convinced that Bill O'Reilly is just being a professional troll for the money. No one who can run a television talk show is that much of a moron. He knows his very imbecilic audience is mostly Christian so he is just going with it to maintain his audience.
SuperBspb 3 weeks ago
Correction: It is not that the moon pulls on the water that causes the tides. Rather, it is the DIFFERENTIAL in gravitaional pull over distance. Because gravity follows an inverse square law, it pulls harder on the water near it than it does the earth, and on tuw other side of the world that pull is weaker still- hence TWO tides rather than merely one.
netisforporn666 3 weeks ago
Bill sucks dick
CheJK666 3 weeks ago
OK so Bill ain't so bright. That is why he is on the "boob tube", he is a BOOB! And that is what the boobs that watch the tube want to see. A boob who speaks for them and their boob view of reality.
Slik00Silk 4 weeks ago
I think what this pinhead is trying to say is not how but why we got here why we are here. Of course nobody knows. Like why the moon and everything works so fine for us. But it would have to to have us so idk. But if he really doesn't know why the sun goes up and down that is hilarious.
Trouter92 4 weeks ago 6
@Trouter92 Now wait a minute there buddy, that's two different questions.
The "Why" question can be asked in two ways: The past tense; the cause; the scientific, "how" question e.g. "why does the earth revolve around the sun?", which is asks for a cause, and the future tense; the effect; the "religious" question which asks for what future effect e.g. "Why do we exist?"; "For what future purpose?"
In terms of these types of "Whys", i think Bill-O actually IS asking about the scientific "how"
Wittgensteinism 4 weeks ago
@Wittgensteinism Well that is hilarious like I said.
Trouter92 4 weeks ago
How "Billo" even can get airtime on one of the largest networks in one of the worlds most powerful nations, that I do not understand. THINK for F*CKS SAKE!
eddsson 1 month ago
@eddsson because of the fact that more than half of Americans are fat and/or dumb? lol
KuhoinX 4 weeks ago
It's simple, the process of evolution is an observed principle, it needs time to answer questions about life and the universe supporting it. To say that 'until you have enough evidence I'm keeping my faith', which science does, it has more than enough evidence to back up the theory of evolution, literally to the point of it being a fact, is in my mind ignorance of our current knowledge as living beings, you impose on scientific research and at the same time say 'well when you get it, I'll accep
WaleedDaGreat 1 month ago
The earth got here because an accretion disk of gas and dust collapsed under gravitational forces? You can't be serious, surely. Unproven and unprovable hypotheses might entertain people who think they are smart, but I still like to apply common sense to my thoughts. You think because you have observed neutrino's dis and reappearing that's a good enough explanation for the existence of the universe? Remind me again how 50 years of experimentation trying to create life from non-living matter went
maddogwilson1 1 month ago
@maddogwilson1 you're right, in fifty years we haven't quite managed to recreate a process which took nature billions of years with an infinite amount of space, vast quantities of matter and energy which dwarf anything we can even imagine. Yeah, how can we not have done that in fifty years. Common sense you joker.
Andrew920917 1 month ago
@Andrew920917 So the most ostensibly intelligent creatures ever can't match it with unthinking elements? Way to give yourself a rap fella. Common sense will tell a normal human that anything dead/unliving doesn't come to life, regardless of time given. Common sense.
maddogwilson1 1 month ago
Comment removed
Andrew920917 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maddogwilson1 thats a misinterpretation of what early life was. The first 'life' was simply chemical molecules which could reproduce themselves given the right resources and energy and they slowly grew increasingly complex, It wasn't a cell which just randomly appeared in the ocean and started multiplying. And I don't understand how you can think the earth forming under an accretion disk of dust and gas isn't common sense. But what would your theory be if it wasn't?
Andrew920917 1 month ago
@Andrew920917 How would you explain the simultaneous "evolution" of DNA, RNA and protein into a cellular structure that requires the co-operation of all three to exist? Design abounds in literally EVERYTHING in the universe, I don't know how you can't see that. A teaspoon of DNA could hold enough information for up to 350 times the earths current population (estimated, of course), that's preposterous precision and engineering for random, pointless events to produce.
maddogwilson1 1 month ago
@maddogwilson1 It's perfecly natural to think that the universe is precisely adapted to fit us, rather than us being perfectly adapted to fit the universe.
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@maddogwilson1 Nature is clearly not designed because there is a difference between something created by evolution and something designed. Something designed is usually designed to be perfect - a watch does what it does perfectly. Evolution makes things as easily as possible - the least amount possible for success. Often this leads to a similar outcome but evolution leads to certain flaws which design wouldn't. If we were designed, how come we are so weak to disease and suffer genetic flaws?
Andrew920917 1 month ago
@maddogwilson1 think of it like this, elephants usually die through starvation as their teeth wear away. If you were designing teeth for an animal eating rough grass, you would make them either extraordinarily tough or infinitely regrowable like a sharks. You wouldn't design something to perform its function less well than it could. Evolution has lead to the teeth because the teeth wear away after the elephant has reproduced and so it's unlikely for the genetic code to be replaced.
Andrew920917 1 month ago
@maddogwilson1 And the accretion disk creating earth makes perfect sense. And since we can see stars and planets being created in similar fashion in the nebulae, I don't see how you can disagree with it.
Andrew920917 1 month ago
@Andrew920917 The chances of a simple protein molecule forming at random at been put at roughly 10 to the power of 113. And a cell need some 2000 proteins acting as enzymes for it to function. I'll wait while you get your calculator... I'm not satisfied that science expects me to believe someone in my family was a fish, then an amphibian, then a lizard, then a bird and so on until we arrived at our present "form". Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking could do no better than you.
maddogwilson1 1 month ago
@maddogwilson1 But I will have to end this conversation now. Obviously it was always going to be a nil-all draw. I will however commend you for your civility. Having dealt with many atheists over the years I find their propensity for personal insult during discussions as disconcerting to say the least. All the best.
maddogwilson1 1 month ago
@maddogwilson1 You too, its rather embarrassing to have those idiots on my side but oh well. Best wishes
Andrew920917 1 month ago
Comment removed
Andrew920917 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maddogwilson1 i think those odds are miscalculated, you forget that our oceans were full of innumerable molecule trials or occurring simultaneously over billions of years infinitely improving the chance of it happening. Plus if you don't believe me on that, the mere fact that life has formed does not negate the fact that on 10 to 113 planets with similar conditions life did not take hold. Even if chances are very small, the universe is big enough and old enough for those chances to work.
Andrew920917 1 month ago
@Andrew920917 I didn't calculate those odds myself, but someone who is on your side did. Water tends to favour depolymerization, not the opposite, which is needed if molecules were to progress in complexity.
maddogwilson1 1 month ago
It SPINS! haha made me laugh.
ashtray45 1 month ago
watching bill o'reilly try to debunk stephen hawking is like watching a 3 year old try to beat up an mma fighter.
nickrulez809765 1 month ago
O'Reilly is a coward, he is only concerned with ratings. His star will come crashing down someday, count on it. Bill needs a new theme song, I think it should be "Dogs" by Pink Floyd off of Animals.
RedLeprachaun 1 month ago
billo... can you not see YOU ARE A MONKEY!
drasteek 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuck no I still believe in god
javier052897 1 month ago
@javier052897 Well then you shouldn't use scientific ignorance as the justification/evidence for that belief, because sooner or later, that gap in knowledge is bound to be filled.
So as long you admit that, and don't exploit scientific ignorance to justify your belief in a God, then there's no problem.
The point of that last question was to show that you cannot use science in this way, because if you do, you're only going to disprove your own God.
So do you believe because you have Faith?
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago 4
@javier052897
Don't worry, if you are honest enough with your own reasoning, and keep asking and , again, honestly, Looking at the evidences that emerges from your inquiring reseach on this issue, that believe will eventually go away...
Cacacos 1 month ago
what an idiot.
jordanosborn0 1 month ago
Thank you for giving joy to my life, Bill.
kibo3232 1 month ago
lol awesome video
RIMA142142 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
let billo talk fuck he makes fun of himself just by talking we dont need your "DUH the sun doesnt come up" commentary every 3 seconds of dialogue; were not 5 years old dick head
cksmooth 1 month ago
@cksmooth Smooth
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago 13
@Wittgensteinism :P
cksmooth 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism Don't listen to that guy, I loved the comments, they made the video haha.
HighflyXx 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism <3
asar123321 1 month ago
or are the stars just pin holes in the curtain of night?
MrMonkeyInk 1 month ago
ha, this is such bullshit, you atheists are retarded
MrDrummerPenguin 1 month ago
@MrDrummerPenguin yeah an invisible magic presence maked much more sense huh?
dmayfield2 1 month ago
@MrDrummerPenguin How so?
Solitaire8888 1 month ago
No matter how hard you try you'll never get Bill O'Reilly to admit that he doesn't believe in God, because if he made that thought public he'd be out of a job. He'd lose the majority of his audience.
JofOblie 1 month ago
That was very well done. Great video! I hope he is not the average for science education in this country. If so we are witnessing the beginning of the end:(
trent9222 1 month ago 13
@trent9222 don't keep your hopes up.. have you seen the tea party?
some1udontknow84 1 month ago
this man is so ignorant, it makes you want to weep
FlyYouFoolz 1 month ago
What the FUCK did I just say? Haha I re-read my last comment and it didn't make sense to me anymore hahaha. Fail
CRITIKCK 1 month ago
God exists..and so do explanations..this kind of knowledge takes time. For ideas to evolve and to finally some day be perfected= an explanation..Haha jk I have no idea :O
CRITIKCK 1 month ago
The Sun deosn't move EVER we move around the sun. Apperantly Bill didn't get the message back in the 18th century
RottingCorpse100 1 month ago
@RottingCorpse100 more like the -3rd century lol, he's a little bit late XD
ClinicallyObeseMule 1 month ago
@RottingCorpse100 Actually our solar system is moving through the galaxy. Our sun orbits the galactic center. And alas the entire galaxy is moving through space. But none of that is the real point. The real point is Bill O' Reilly is dumb :P
CFrostyTheSnowman 1 month ago
How is someone so uneducated such a popular figure in America?
inchypi 1 month ago
@inchypi America is quite uneducated
RottingCorpse100 1 month ago
Neither of them are philosophers.
Jimbothenoob 1 month ago
Considering Bill O'Reilly has no clue what "play us out" means and he is in the broadcast business, then I don't think he is any match for Professor Hawking.
whitepowderbob 1 month ago
This man is a joke. Bill seems like a smart man, even if he is a christian im almost sure even HE knows his statements on this video are a load of you know what.
poek210 1 month ago
@poek210 im only 28 and ive met people that sound and look smart but sometimes their behaviour is as if theyve got a dumbass switch flicked on. It just bafles me.
VarykGerai 1 month ago
O'reillys such a fucking idiot I can't even believe it. So many things wrong with just this video
chileo1 1 month ago
Hawking won't go on your show and explain this Bill, because that would be like televising a discussion between an adult and a child, where the child simply sticks his fingers in his ears and won't listen to anything the adult is saying.... in other words: a complete waste of everyone's time!
KamasutraButterfly 1 month ago
You're ready to receive him? No you're not. You're whole system in based on the denial of scientifical evidence, also known as "faith".
0122460166 1 month ago
If you argue that the universe must have had a beginning then it must have had a creator.
If you argue that the universe is infinite, i.e., prior to the big bang there was just another phase in the universe (remember, before the big bang there wasn't nothing, there was a singularity), then it doesn't need a creator. Big bang part of a cycle. But christians argue an infinite universe doesn't make sense, it must has been created. So who created God then, how did he begin? Christians argue that...
vygotsky17 1 month ago
@vygotsky17 ...God is infinite, always was and always will be, was never created. But by that logic, cannot the same be said about matter, about the universe. If something (God) can exist without a creator then why not say the same thing about the universe?
vygotsky17 1 month ago
This video DOES NOT explain how the universe came to be. I´m siding with O´Reilly on this one.
walterygor 1 month ago
@walterygor O'Reilly never specifically asked how the universe came to be.
He asked why the sun comes up and goes down, why the tides go in and out, and how the earth got here. Had he asked how the universe came to be, i would've been more than happy to answer that question as well. But he didn't ask it, so i couldn't answer it, and so there's no 'side' to pick here because that issue was never raised.
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism Did you not hear the first question? How the earth got here?
Then in the end he repeats the question: "There´s no explanation to how the planet got here" By the way, this video is a continuation of a previous conversation they had.
walterygor 1 month ago
@walterygor "Did you not hear the first question? How the earth got here?"
Did you not hear the first answer: By natural processes i.e. gravity acting on gas clouds?
Please point out where you heard O'Reilly ask about how the universe came to be.
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@walterygor The thing is though, O'Reilly believes in the personal God of the Jews, the god of an specific group of sheepherders from the middle east. If scientists were to concede that they can't rule out a deistic God/creator, it's still an enormous leap of of faith to say that people in western society should believe in YHWH when there are thousands of alternative gods to choose from. There is no better reason for believing in the Hebrew god than there is for believing in Zeus.
vygotsky17 1 month ago
@walterygor Furthermore, when christians are asked why they don't believe in other gods they use the same argument for not believing in other gods as atheists use for not believing in any god i.e., there's no evidence for believing in zeus or thor or vishnu, etc.The evidence is just as strong for them as it is for the Jewish god.
vygotsky17 1 month ago
@vygotsky17 The Scriptures are the evidence of the existence of God. The other "gods" do not have such type of evidence. Further more, only God has claimed to be the ONLY TRUE GOD. You won´t find such claim in any of those mythological gods you are referring to, because they don´t exist.
walterygor 1 month ago
I don't think you've actually read the works of those books
Christ724 1 month ago
@walterygor The scriptures are not the kind of evidence that would stand up in court, an attorney would point out the fact that anybody could have written them. Does paper refuse ink? most pagan mythology has been written, at some time or another but hat does not affect their truth status. Why does being written make it more true than an oral account? Also, claiming to be the only true God doesn't make one so. I can claim to be the handsomest man in the world, and therefore I am?
vygotsky17 1 month ago
@vygotsky17 Unlike mythology books, The Bible is´nt just 1 book, but a collections of many, written by different people along many centuries.They´re consistent and it´s prophecies have been fulfilled. No other book is like that. I know it´s not the kind of evidence that would stand up in court, but is good enough to base a Faith. You can claim to be the handsomest man, but that claim has been made by others. The "other gods" never denounced the existence of false gods, but God did.
walterygor 1 month ago
@walterygor You have stated that the bible was written by not only man, but by many men, over time. But explain the logic of how that proves that it is the word of God. Any man can write something and call it scripture. As for consistency, this is from Genesis 6:19-22 YOU SHALL BRING TWO OF EVERY KIND INTO THE ARK: Genesis 7:1-5 TAKE WITH YOU SEVEN PAIRS OF ALL CLEAN ANIMALS. Textual analysis reveals many inconsistencies in the book, characteristic of human error.
vygotsky17 1 month ago
@walterygor 1st theyre not consistent. 2.No profecies that dont require interpretation were fullfilled. CBA explaining what self fulfilling prophecy is.
VarykGerai 1 month ago
Stephen Hawking needs JESUS. There are reports that Anton LeVey (founder of the church of satan) were absolutely horrified at the moments of his death. LeVey was heard to say that something was horribly? wrong just as he died. YOU HAVE TIME !! BUT WILL YOU SAY >> something was horribly? wrong or will you COME TO JESUS WHY THERE IS TIME ??
dewerbylhserf 1 month ago
@dewerbylhserf Stephen Hawking is 70 now. He has lived his life suffering from an illness that should have killed him in his 20s. Let me use Christian logic for a moment. Why did God let him live so long? Why did God not interrupt his work? Why did God allow him to be shown to the world as a man afflicted so terribly and still have the grace to complete his work and be an inspiration to others? Perhaps God had that purpose for him. Perhaps the disease was his cross, one which he had to overcome.
vygotsky17 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there is such a clear scientific explanation why the tide comes in and out I want to choke him to death
RangerDangerK 1 month ago
That same tired foolishness. "I don't know the answer to a question yet so that must mean that God exists." Your not gonna convince anyone with half a thought of their own in their skull with that.
tiberias111 1 month ago
I don;t understand how something works therefore it MUST be God doing it? Now if only I could answer how God came about...
dedokta 1 month ago
/Aliens/
DanioOoX 1 month ago 4
I love the soundtrack so much - MIND BLOWN!!
sasukeshippuden 1 month ago
If only you could convey this information to the frustrating ignorant Bill O'Reilly without him blowing his top and screaming "cut his mic, CUT HIS MIC" when anyone proves him wrong. I suppose it is his own fault for doing it live then following up with Sting playing him out.
TotesThomDunn 1 month ago
O'Reilly is such a great commedian, I just wonder if he writes his jokes on his own or if he's hired a team of writers for that task...
tmafkap 1 month ago
Oh and um, before I forget, what was in motion for all of eternity?
jonathanfater 1 month ago
I believe in Christ and i believe in science. I think it's foolish to say that God doesn't exist for the simple fact that there's so much unknowns about the universe. My question is Where does gravity come from? How does it form and where did it originate?
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Sirafrican So you're saying God fills that gap for you? That "unknown"?
Just because you DON'T know something, doesn't give you grounds to say you DO know something.
What if i were to tell you where gravity came from? Would that dissolve your belief in a God?
If not, then why even ask about it? I mean, if not knowing where gravity came from proves a God, then knowing where it came from should disprove God then.
The only point here, is that it can be explained without appealing to God
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago 14
@Wittgensteinism Yes God fills that "unknown" Gap for me. My belief! You still didn't answer my question...
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism The Bible..................., and the fact that you don't know either, you just base your shit on facts, and go off that........................., making you think that you know more! lol you don't shit, and the top scientists don't know shit, and yeah i agree Bill Oreilly is a complete asshole shit talking arrogant fuck!
Duffa04 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wittgensteinism The Bible..................., and the fact that you don't know either, you just base your shit on facts, and go off that........................., making you think that you know more! lol you don't shit, and the top scientists don't know shit, and yeah i agree Bill Oreilly is a complete asshole shit talking arrogant fuck!
Duffa04 1 month ago
@Sirafrican Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of the Universe, along with thermodynamics, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. We understand that Gravity is what keeps us on the Earth and it's one of the basic laws of physics. Remember, our science is fairly primitive still. Just because we don't have one unifying theory of everything yet, does that therefore mean you just say "ok well if we can't explain everything, it must be God."
SuperHarvestMan 1 month ago
@SuperHarvestMan All I'm saying is that there's more to life, and the universe as we know it.
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Sirafrican okay.. but how do you know?
Or rather, what's your reason for supposing that?
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism How do I know what? Your question isn't to clear.
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Sirafrican You said "there's more to life, and the universe as we know it."
And i'm asking how you "know" that.
For if you knew that there was more than you know, you would have to know more than you know, which creates somewhat of a paradoxical situation.
But if i take what you're saying colloquially, then why do you claim there is more to the universe than we know? What are your reasons for believing there is more to the universe?
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism The reason I claim there's more to the universe than we know of is because there's just so many unknowns, so many theories, and so many questions that science can't answer. Like I said to bobivd6688, our universe consists of planets and galaxies expanding billions and trillions of light years away. We can't comprehend those type of astronomical numbers. We as a human race haven't even conducted probe exploration out of our own solar system and there's thought to be billions!
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Sirafrican okay... so there are unknowns.
What does any of that have to do with God?
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism Personally that has a lot to do with God because there are just things that mankind and science can't answer, and probably never will. For you it has nothing to do with God.I will never believe that the gift of life and humanity happened by coincidence, and I don't believe that we came from nothing. I believe for every creation there's a creator. For me that creator is Christ. I know a lot of people will disagree but everybody is entitled to their own beliefs and ideologies.
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Sirafrican "I will never believe that the gift of life and humanity happened by coincidence, and I don't believe that we came from nothing"
But you MUST believe that if you believe in God. Where did God come from? Nowhere?
Then God came from nothing. You have two choices, either existence was spontaneous or it was here forever, and this includes your God. Either way, there's absolutely no need to postulate a God no matter how much we DON'T know.
It's called an argument from ignorance
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
Comment removed
Sirafrican 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wittgensteinism I don't know where God came from and I can't answer that. I wish I could tell you. I'm not going to sit up here and act like I know where God came from because I honestly don't know. However I do have faith and believe that God does exist not in a physical form but in a spiritual form. Like I said everybody has there own ideologies and beliefs. If you think God isn't real then that's totally your belief. I will not impose my religion on anybody, but I will speak of it.
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Sirafrican Let me try to appeal to you in another way. Let's use your Creation/Creator example with the following analogy: Let's say there are two paintings of a human figure. The one painting was done by a human painter, and the other was done by pure natural processes; let's say this painting was made by geological processes over billions of years. Now, the question is: Which painting is more marvelous? Which is more magnificent?
Surely the natural one; human painting is cheap by comparison
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Sirafrican In other words, it cheapens our existence to be nothing more than a tinker toy that some God designed. After all, what's so special about a God creating life? A God can do literally anything that is conceivable, so life is nothing special at all!
But if life is the product of nature, just doing it's thing, then it's truly miraculous that something as wonderful as the human form could come from mother nature.
The idea of a God for me cheapens the story of lif; it degrades it
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago
@Sirafrican you dont even bothered to look into the religion you follow. Christ isnt the creator. Jesus is god the son of the trinity, god the father is the creator. What a fkin moron.
VarykGerai 1 month ago
@Sirafrican I don't understand how not knowing something justifies making up a story to explain it. It's possible that God exists because there are "so much unknowns about the universe" but it's not likely. Using the same logic we can say that flying pink elephants might exist because we don't have enough information to disprove it. A theory needs to be proven before there's a need for it to be disproven.
bobivd6688 1 month ago
@bobivd6688 I never classified it as a theory, it's my belief and ideology. The Universe is a cluster of galaxies and planets billions and trillions of light years away. The human brain can't even comprehend how vast that is. We haven't even traveled out of our own solar system and there's supposedly trillions more. So who's to say that there isn't earth like planets out there with pink flying elephants? Who's to say that there isn't a god that exists?
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Sirafrican Absolutely correct. The possibility for being a diety is pretty much the same as there being pink flying elephants. Which is to say - very little since there's no proof to support either. If I don't know something I try to find information about it instead of just saying I KNOW.
bobivd6688 1 month ago
@bobivd6688 Exactly!
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Sirafrican Totally agree with what the owner of this video said. The only thing I wanted to add is that if you search it up there are many theories as to where gravity comes from.
aDislikeBot 1 month ago
@Sirafrican We do know where gravity came from 0.0 read up dude.
Justinbieber1235813 1 month ago
@Justinbieber1235813 I've took physics and astronomy for 2 years and there is not one clear theory out there that can justify where gravity originates and comes from. Nobody knows. The only thing we know about gravity is that it works lol. So I suggest you read up on your arguments.
Sirafrican 1 month ago
@Sirafrican and how it works, at least up to a point :)
andreirocks1992 1 month ago
@Sirafrican gravity comes from the bending of space and time. so the larger the object the larger the bend of space which cause gravity. so don't just say god when you don't know something say i don't know. and then try to find the answer cause if you say god then why look for the real answer and it takes the fun out of space for me. you can believe in god but don't just say that to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
warstater15 1 month ago
This gave me cancer.
planet1000 1 month ago
wow. what a fucking retard. i really feel like punching him right in face.
bludclone 1 month ago
What the hell did this video PROVE???? Doesnt this self acclaimed expert realize that Science theories are falsifiable by premise, thats why they are theories. The entire Science community thought the universe was always here, static(not expanding) Lemaitre, (Catholic Priest) gave the Big bang theory,now acclaimed, and shows that the Bible allready gave the truth 5000 years ago, The universe had a creation event, and is spreading out. So let Science keep proving the Bible,as it has.
Neodoxian 1 month ago
@Neodoxian "falsifiable by premise"???
Care to clarify that?
What this video proves, as does all scientific theories, are that the natural world can be completely accounted for without the need for a God.
If you want to talk about metaphysics, that's another issue, but as far as the physics go, there's nothing that cannot be explained A-theistically, that is to say, Without a God.
If you think there is anything in nature that requires God as an explanation, i'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
Wittgensteinism 1 month ago