@MrGunwitch Try again - I'm well acquainted with the works of Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Quentin Smith, Graham Oppy, John Hick to name a few.
You morons on youtube are quick with the insipid bon mots - the hubris in alluding you yourself as possessing the 'pre-requisite understanding of the subject matter' is incredulous. I doubt you've read one book, one single book of philosophy on this subject.
"You morons on youtube" - referring to yourself no doubt.
"I doubt you've read one book on philosophy" - A meaningless charge based on what exactly? That I ridicule WLC?! Hardly a reputable philosopher by any stretch of the imagination... Quoting the names of Christian aplogists doesn't render you any credence by the way.
I suggest you read the Abhidhamma for some insight into the meaningless drivel that you hold to be expertise...if you can understand it that is
@MrGunwitch lol, I knew you'd reply. Just can't help it - you have to have the last say and have the last dig.
It wasn't a 'charge', it was just an assumption - am I wrong?
WLC is a reputable philosopher - you just don't like him - why?
Christian apologists!? OUCH! You've just belied your ignorance - I included a raft of brilliant atheist philosophers in that list (see if you can pick them out - do a quick google search, you prodigious intellect.
@MrGunwitch Such an idiot - why are you still replying? If you recognise I listed different men of differing beliefs - which clearly you didn't: apart from Craig, I doubt you're aware of any literature on the subject - then why did you write:
Ahh you jsut make it too easy peon...I need only one:
"A member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, he is noted as one of the foremost Christian apologists"
Swinburne is one of the apologists. Stop trying to be a smart arse. Grow up and READ.
@MrGunwitch 'Such keen intellect and prose' - who the fuck are you, Shakespeare? This is youtube, not a philosophy symposium - absolute toss pot. My impression of you, the retarded youtube 'philosopher' (or 'intellect'? Yeah fuckin' right):
'Errrmmmmm, don't list ermmm, Christian apologists, errrmmm, like; - wait, like who? Oppy & Smith? Hahaha! Such a bonehead. Fuck off mate; you might be an 'intellect' to your mates down the pub, but to me you're a spanner feigning intelligence.
Me: "Quoting the names of Xmen doesn't render you any credence"
You:" Haha I tricked you with my ruse, they're not all Xmen.
Now do you see the weakness in your pitiful understanding? With this lack of analytical skill and logic how do you hope to argue philosophy? Best leave it to the more able of us...mate....
@MrGunwitch LOL fuck off mate - you're trying to caricature Plantinga / Smith - renowned philosophers - by associating them with fictitious characters? The implication being that their works and ideas are equally fictitious? Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?
There was no 'ruse' you bellend - you simply belied your ignorance by failing to spot the renowned atheists in that list - you dismissed them all as 'apologists'. Fuck off, because you're kidding no one.
Ahh once again you completely missed the point. Too many bongs after finishing work at the factory?
...you're like a punch drunk fighter; I keep knocking you to the canvas but you just keep coming back for more. Time for your corner to throw in the towel before you slip into full retard.
You haven't knocked anyone to the canvas: you have both hands on your cock, intellectually masturbating ferociously. You're all mouth, s fool. If we were face to face having a discussion you'd have been laughed out of the room - why? - because you waved off the likes of Oppy & Smith as 'insipid' apologists. You're a joke. Then you hide behind some pathetic caricature, as if my citing of these men was some sort of 'argument'.
@MrGunwitch Incidentally, who the fuck do you think you are? Are you the smartest inbred in your village? You lambaste me for 'lacking understanding' (errr, why exactly? Fuck knows); then when I list a number of authours - both atheist & theist, (because, you know, I'm not a fuckin' partisan like you) - you dismiss them ALL as apologists! You think you're 'able' at discussing philosophy? Like fuck you are - you can't even recognise THE eminent philosophers of religion. Fuck off mate.
@MrGunwitch 1) It is in British English you muppet.
2) No, it belies my vexation - here's another: you're a tosser.
3) That was implicit in your comment, otherwise you would have said: 'I don't care for those apologists, barring Oppy & Smith, of course, who are athiests'. but you didn't - why? Because you know fuck all about the literature.
4) Mate, are you kidding me? Oppy - a renowned philosopher- not good enough for you? You're a fool mate, and a dumb one at that, absolute fool.
1) Actually no, its still spelt 'author'. Reference the Oxford ENGLISH dictionary
2) No, it just speaks volumes about you.
3) Not it wasn't, although you'd need basic secondary schooling to see that
4) Oppy a renowned philospoher?! Please stop now. In fact it was your referencing of this nobody that denounced your Australian heritage...only a local would think that this was somebody worth mentioning
@MrGunwitch 1) No it isn't, 'authour' is common in British English you spastic.
2) No it shows how vexing talking to twats like you is.
3) Yes it was implicit (keeping digging that hole).
4) He is - but how the fuck would know? You thought he was a theist! hahaha. What a fuckin' retard you are. And LOL - so you denigrate him because he's AUSTRALIAN - yes that's right everybody, this spastic doesn't think Australia can produced anybody of high calibre. Fuck off mate.
@MrGunwitch I seriously can't get over 'point' 4 - it's too funny. A normal, intellectually sophisticated person would have the candour to say: 'Oppy? Never heard of him, oh, an atheist you say? I'll be sure to note him and read him at some point in the future. Thanks for the heads up.'
But no, not this spastic, his response is: 'ohhhh, no, couldn't possibly read an AUSTRALIAN [lol], especially one that works at Monash.'
@MrGunwitch I'm laughing at 'point' 4. Literally. How someone can be so fuckin' deluded and dismiss a well respected academic like Oppy is beyond me: 'ohhh, Monash, har har har, no, I don't waste my time with those peons' - fuck off mate, who the hell do you think you are?
Lets cut to the chase...in 500 words or less describe to me how asymptotic variance in Planck density would affect the Ontological argument? Cmon bigshot, lets see what you've got aside from expletives
A "mental-labor saving God"? "Acausal events capable of coming into being" without intervention? A "reorganized form of nothing"? Well, at least he bases his reasoning upon the solid bedrock of science and reason...
@Falcondick69 I don't support everything Atkins said, in fact I wasn't able to concentrate enough to know all of what he said (reading is typically a poor way to present), but is god an answer, or a label for what is not understood?
@urcorrect I think a problem a lot of people have with christianity at least when we defend it they pull a "GOD of the gaps" sort of thing, but a misconception people make seems to be thinking that GOD is somehow far far away in a distant place watching us from a distance observing, where most the bible teaches GOD works behind the scenes doing things for us in subtle ways rather than a direct in the flesh here in the flesh jesus way. GOD is the best answer for all that we know and don't know.
@Falcondick69 I don't see god as an answer though. I haven't found a good definition for what it is, and supporting arguments/evidence that I've witnessed all boiled down to fallacies and questions with incomplete or uncertain answers, or a lack of explanation altogether; "how does the universe exist", "what is the nature of morality", "why is there life", "what is consciousness", etc. And the lack of an explanation for anything is at best an argument from ignorance, providing "god of the gaps".
@Falcondick69 The conclusive kind. I don't recognize "what we currently see" as evidence for god, but again, a definition is in order; and necessarily before anything can be considered as evidence for such. Without a descriptive hypothesis, what is being supported?
@Falcondick69 I'm fairly certain I understood the intent of your query, but I cannot infer specifics about a subject that has not been conceived. To show why this is problematic, let me ask you a question and see if you can answer it; What could be evidence for existence of ■?
@Falcondick69 The point is that it's an undefined variable. Whether I had said x, " ", god, ■, or (n..+1), we don't have an established definition of the subject, so it is illogical to ask what would suffice as evidence for such a thing.
@urcorrect so what your saying is that anytime someone asks for evidence of GOD it's an invalid question and should be ignored by all of us and we should just stick to the philosophy? sounds good :D
@Falcondick69 Stick to what philosophy? What I'm saying (in five different ways now) is that god should be defined before submitting or addressing evidential questions about it.
and that's all humanity wants is to be free or to discover or to at least have the most proof that God don't exist because doing that, hey we are free to do whatever we want. But honestly I can't see a sound world with out God or with at least people with the concept of God with out this would be a very destructive world not a united world as people think. Because If today we have a lot of people that have a concept of God and is the way it is, imagine a world with out them, all would be doomed.
And that would free our minds from the guilts that persuates our minds for the wrong doings that we commit every day, but the only simple thing I say is_ I don't want to wait until I die to discover that God exist, because if He does I lost twice. I lost to live a life in love and moral achievements and with no selfish interests and knowing this loving God intimately and I lost eternaly, cause if God exist and I negleted and denied to live for Him and by His standards, I'm lost 4 ever.
@AstronomyGuru84 With all do respect, for u there's many gods but not for me sorry! I trust only one God, the God of the Bible, the God that is the Existence of all things, The God that never exist He is The Existence of all things, He is before everything was created, the God that Jesus spoke and represented and was in Himself this God that I believe in. Not the god moon, nor jupter nor nothing else but the Personal God that created all these cosmical bodies and Galaxies.
@OPCN1 Do you care whether or not your beliefs are true? What you just said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There are many gods whether you want to accept it or not. Even the jealous and vindictive god of the bible acknowledges that there are other gods. How do you know your god is the right one? If you can't back up your claims with solid evidence then your claims become irrelevant. Your last sentence makes it clear you have no knowledge of natural scientific processes.
@AstronomyGuru84 By the way, I do care if my beliefs are right and true. And I'm sure they are true to me, and if science could proof anything we wouldn't still be surching to try to feel the gaps into findings where we came from, where are we going or does God exist. The question never is if other god's exist, the question alwys was if God with a big G, exist, because even all the Historians that I read about it knows that all the others gods are Mythological, and the best thing to prove that
@AstronomyGuru84 to us is men's own consciousness. When I study the Bible, I find man like Abraham, getting out of his house hold and going to a place where he never heard of just because a Voice spoke into his consciousness and suddenly this man named Abraham just live his parents house and starts to wander in the wilderness but the funny thing is, that he had the other gods in his fathers house, but why did he choose to follow this particular voice which he called Ya' weh?
@AstronomyGuru84 Now you said that even the God of the Bible said that there was other gods, but He never gave credit to them as if they were literally real gods, but just gods made by men's own will and thoughts. gods which they thought can fit better into their life's style. You know, if science was something that we could lean on as our faith and trust with all our beens, why do science keep changing their views and every day they find something else that they thought were never there?
@AstronomyGuru84 of me that only this God of the Bible could feel it, you can say that we look for the God of the Bible because is better to think like that because it brings a relief into our lives, but that's not it, I wasn't looking for this God, it just seemed like that all the other Mythological gods as Zeus, Isis and a lot more had the same hunger and need for Natural and worldly pleasures as I did, so these God could not feel the criteria as the ones which would save me from my own lust.
@AstronomyGuru84 Now I ask you the same question, do you care whether your beliefs are true? If you can prove to me that God doesn't real exist with accuracy or that you have more proof that their are other gods and that through out history men didn't make them just to fit their life style, then I would say that you are right. See, one thing that you have to understand, that I wasn't looking for a God of the Bible, because He demands to much of us, but the thing is their was an emptiness inside
@OPCN1 I can’t prove to you god doesn’t exist. I don’t have to because that’s not my claim. I don’t know if god exists or not but I still don’t believe in a god. That makes me an agnostic atheist by definition. There’s a difference between “knowing” and “believing.” Do you “know” or “believe” a god exists? If you know then that is knowledge which needs evidence. Belief is actually a far better argument. You don’t have to prove a negative you have to prove a positive.
@AstronomyGuru84 So I chosed the God of the Bible because I didn't see in Him no need for Lust to fill their spiritual or natural appetite, whatever you want to call it. So i still am sure that the God that Jesus spoke of and show through Himself is the real God.
As a great Philosopher said that if all the men in the world became blind it will never change the Glory and splendor of the sun and stars, the same way if every men stop believing in God it will never diminish His glory and Who He is.
@OPCN1 Okay.......I don’t want to take that away from you. I have no right to tell someone what to believe or what not to believe. I just wanted to understand where you were coming from. Peace be with you.
@AstronomyGuru84 Thank u man, and I didn't mean to hurt anyone either just share my thoughts. But even that I don't know u, I just want u to understand that I love u and I was a very mad man, but the way God change me I learned how to respect people's thoughts and let them know that they are important to God as you, independently if we believe in Him or not, His love will never change. God bless you and may His peace be your heart and home.
The only thing I know that is going on in the world today is the same that has been happening for centuries. Men I always have tried to disapprove the existence of God or say that there is a probability that He never exited and that everything came out of nothing and doing that and having that probability in mind, that means humanity is free from every action that he takes or commit to himself or to others and we won't have to give account to anyone but to ourselves.
"As they get older, their truest colors show, just get more and more bitter and angry."
Intelligent people can only take so much crap from disingenuous pricks like Craig. Liars have it very easy, since all they have to do is pile on the nonsense, so the other doesn't get the chance to address it all.
Let's just say there is a god that created the universe, how do we go about finding out which one it is? How do we know the gods we've thought of and worshipped on earth are the only possible ones? Is there anyway to verify this aside from people claiming to be god seeing as how many people throughout history have done so? What does the science of god look like? Furthermore what is the purpose of god's own existence aside from our own?
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I'm atheist, but I'm not buying this nothing equals nothing bullshit. The energy from the universe did not come from nothing. In fact, we ALL can agree that nothing cannot produce something (or the illusion of something). If ever a time nothing existed, there would STILL be nothing. Therefore whether you believe in God or the big bang you must believe both answers regress infinitely and are thus eternal! Peter Atkins is a fool by definition for believing anything he said makes sense...
So it is more rational to think that the chance of the universe was form and tuned by ramdom that someone(or something I do not know) created and tuned it?
Even that the first statement implies a posibilty of nearly cero
would any of you allow dr. Atkins put a bullet in your head, just expecting that your beliefs are true? I don't belive in god so I wouldn't.. but I bet this christians would..
Nothing separating into opposites? That's scientifically impossible. Nothing cannot separate if there is nothing to separate. Nothing is simply nothing.
@HolyBiblehiswordonly And how many witnesses of other god have their been? And we reject all those. If i brought you 500 witnesses of "my" God, would you believe in it? Hardly counts as evidence. Science is much more stringent than court evidence which deals with small matters so only requires small evidence. You are talking about invoking a God... we need more than hearsay to believe it just as you do to believe in another God. Why is this so hard to understand for Christians?
@philosophizer149 "Atkins -> his aguments" is not a good analogy to "God -> the universe". It's not sufficient evidence to believe in a God, but rather an indication more needs to be learned to solve the problem. If God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe? Some claim God is actually more simple than the universe. It's ridiculous to conjecture the existence of something that is completely undefined other than it's "creation", which so far science has shown can exist without a creator.
@matthewdoucette Ok first off as Craig demonstrated its not the only evidence, secondly because there is much evidence to suggest the universe had a beginning and therefore needed a cause, God by definition does not. Not defined, clearly someone needs to keep up with his philosophy, try googling it, there is actually quite a bit of debate on the definition of God but He is most certainly not undefined. Science has described the universe, not explained it.
@philosophizer149 That is one of the most illogical posts I have read. First of all, nothing Craig said is evidence, as everything he says is logically flawed with premises he doesn't know to be true. Everything that began to exist begins to exist by the reformation of atoms using material and energy that already exists, so it's a reformation. The beginning of the universe was the creation of that matter and energy which is completely different than reforming it, so the analogy fails.
@philosophizer149 And no where is God defined. If so, offer me a falsifiable claim. In other words, what would there be that we would see or find if God wasn't true. Because if there's nothing we can see or find to prove his non-existence, then the claim is unfalsifiable, a catch-all. Just like Allah with Islam and other religions and their Gods. You see unfalsifiability is a weakness of an argument, its non-definition, a powerful argument is a falsifiable one that cannot be proven wrong.
The funniest arguement I have ever heard. If enough people convince themselves of something then they will debate it.
Doesn't that go for anything you twit? His biggest issue is he simply thinks he knows all the answers or he at least knows more then his opponents.
That attitude has destroyed nations. I wonder how Atkins gets out of bed in the morning without assuming there are thousands of beds around him in the same house.
This guy reminds me of cave johnson. Treating science like a physical entity that thinks a operates on its own. Well I'll burn your house down Atkins.
Atkins throws out WLC citation of the fine tuning argument of chance as being foolishness, and in the next sentence without even realizing what he said he goes on to say that his notion of the universe coming into existence by that same unquantifiable chance is simpler and more plausible.
I find it slightly absurd and somewhat telling that his argument in favor of atheism must be based on the premise that things actually aren't that complex; when prominent scientists themselves will tell you there are many things (the brain for instance) the complexity of which have not yet, and may never be fully ascertained.
“What I cannot create, I do not understand.” R. Feynman. The principle is valid- how do u explain and brush off the existence of something you don't understand.
@ShawDAMAN He's saying the beginnings are simple, just because the beginning of something is simple doesn't mean what it "turns out" over time is simple. Things are very complicated today. This is emergence, complexity from simplicity. Happens all around us all the time.
OK but as he admits it is pure speculation. "An engagingly reorganized form of nothing." You could as easily make the claim that the universe, even life have always existed and simply give the illusion of beginning. You're free to do so but it was rather specious in the context of this debate.....
"Separate nothing into equal and opposite components."
Uh. Okay. Here: and here:
Did I just create a universe? What a hack. Just like the "Warren/ Flue Debate", and the "Warren/ Matson Debate", even the greatest atheistic philosophers have nothing substantial to say, offering no refutation to logical, clearly defined premises or the conclusions of sound arguments.
"offering no refutation to logical, clearly defined premises or the conclusions of sound arguments"
You will first have to present the atheist philosopher such logical, clearly defined premises and sound arguments. Alas, Craig offers none of those. All Craig offers is white noise, fed by his "belief in the Holy Spirit", which Craig admits he will never reconsider even in the light of contrary evidence. Atkins realizes that ridicule is best way to address such inane rhetoric.
@fdasherv You can't present the grey matter of your own brain either. Does it exist? Submit to common sense or live a life of irrationality. Your choice.
@sklaft As usual, another christian who makes absolutely no sense. Demons, virgins, snakes, floods...their lives are so filled with childhood fables...they ought to read a really good book one day and they'd see how dull the bible actually is.
(18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
(19) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
(20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. read the rest
"Seperate nothing into equal opposite components ........"
------------
So they must have been components so therefor that is not nothing as we know nothing to be but something therefore there was not nothing but something .
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
i just hope that one day Dr. Atkins can reach his final truth, iI believe that in the moment he opens his mind and heart he would be able to understand the existance of God
@Mladiatheist i believe its atheists who say "i dont know how everything came to be, but i am discarding the possibility of god". it seems to me that you cant understand the existence of a creator. why not? beats me...
"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." Genesis 1:3
Not sure what Atkins is getting at, other than that the creation was fascinatingly simple. It's not evidence one way or the other. Also, the zero-energy-universe is only a possibility right now. It's not widely accepted.
maybe instead of everyone insulting scientist we could respect them and treat them with love, hoping these debates continue so we can see more of them come to Christ. when i look on these comments i do not see ANYONE behaving like Christians
@DaGavinX actually even zero is something. A thought about nothing is something. Even a void of darkness with no sound and no gravity is something. It is difficult to comprehend much less describe. The easiest way for me is thinking about before I was conceived. Then and only then I was nothing. I did not exist. but saying I gives identity I'm my state of nothingness which is once again something. Not as easy as you would like to make it
@pfnr37 I know that friend. What is your point? Is an atom a human being before conception? or do the sperm and the egg become a person when they unite? So wouldn't that mean that a person does not exist before that unison? And I was talking about my consciousness more than anything else. But still you make no sense. Read my comment more carefully this time :)
So far this is what we have. Atkins bashes others for simply saying "God did it" calling that 'a lazy man's argument'. He, up to this point, is basically saying 'God DIDN'T do it and if you don't agree then you're stupid' but has provided zero evidence to back that up. All he's done so far is make assertions and give his opinions but has not, in any way, shown evidence to back up any of those assertions or opinions. As of video 4a Atkins is getting destroyed. I hope he gets better.
@1thousandways May I elaborate? If you listened to what Dr.Atkins said, mass and energy are equivalent e.g. infinite mass = infinite energy.
His statement "the universe is essentially nothing" is referring to balance of matter vs anti matter in our universe, that is - matter of which makes up all relevant atomic structures on our planet and may others in the universe are formulated and anti matter - the "missing" mass in the universe, the prerequisite to Baryogenesis...
This is the "yin to the yang" the anti-matter is the opposite of the residual matter that is used to formulate the observable universe.
What Dr.Atkins is saying is when the matter and antimatter are brought together they begin a process called annihilation - this is where the particles "cancel out" each other and removing each others energy or mass - which effectively brings you to no energy/mass.
@heavyrocklegend ... You are just showing off; I haven't the faintest idea what Baryogenesis is, and no, I'm not going to look it up, why should I? The statement that 'the universe is nothing' is clearly incorrect; it is science being cack-handed with language as it often is. It's the same as when scientists say "this table isn't really solid" and only recant once you've smashed their head into it a few times :-p.
@1thousandways I'm afraid I simply cannot help you if your going to be dogmatic and adamant on a evidently malleable topic - I've explained what Dr.Atkins meant in his description of the idea that the Universe is weightless and Energy void.
I am only trying to help you, I'm not arguing with you and I'm not "showing off", to be quite frank i have little to prove to you and others on this video. If you are not prepared to understand Science - it takes immediate immunity to your slander.
@heavyrocklegend ... Listen ... word play, the completely pretentious and unnecessary use of large and unusal words makes you look like a pseud. I don't understand what you are saying. There are two possible explanations for that. The first is that you are talking rubbish. The second is that I don't have the kind of education (my degree was in humanities, not science) that you have. Either way, if you cannot make yourself understood you are doing nothing other than serving your ego.
@1thousandways With respect to its total electrical charge and total energy, yes. But, don't caricature Atkin's argument. He is not claiming there is no mass in the universe.
@cashernandes1 Nicola Tesla was nice example of great scientists who was deeply Orthodox Christian. He warned humanity about horrors that nuclear energy will bring. None listened.
On and on about how much his science is better than belief..but never the actual reason
KoBred1 4 days ago
How can anyone listen to the sharp mind of Atkins,,, take anything from the garbage that comes from Craig.
hawkinscraig05 3 weeks ago
Atkins owns Craig
MrGunwitch 1 month ago
@MrGunwitch I'm just absolutely baffled how anyone can believe that.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
A pre-requisite is a basic understanding of the subject matter. Keep plugging away champ, I'm sure you'll get there
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch Try again - I'm well acquainted with the works of Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Quentin Smith, Graham Oppy, John Hick to name a few.
You morons on youtube are quick with the insipid bon mots - the hubris in alluding you yourself as possessing the 'pre-requisite understanding of the subject matter' is incredulous. I doubt you've read one book, one single book of philosophy on this subject.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
"You morons on youtube" - referring to yourself no doubt.
"I doubt you've read one book on philosophy" - A meaningless charge based on what exactly? That I ridicule WLC?! Hardly a reputable philosopher by any stretch of the imagination... Quoting the names of Christian aplogists doesn't render you any credence by the way.
I suggest you read the Abhidhamma for some insight into the meaningless drivel that you hold to be expertise...if you can understand it that is
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch lol, I knew you'd reply. Just can't help it - you have to have the last say and have the last dig.
It wasn't a 'charge', it was just an assumption - am I wrong?
WLC is a reputable philosopher - you just don't like him - why?
Christian apologists!? OUCH! You've just belied your ignorance - I included a raft of brilliant atheist philosophers in that list (see if you can pick them out - do a quick google search, you prodigious intellect.
I think you best call it a day...
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
Ahh you jsut make it too easy peon...I need only one:
Richard Swinburne, (and I quote):
"A member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, he is noted as one of the foremost Christian apologists"
Not to mention WLC, your knight in shining armour.
I think YOU best call it a day...
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch And Quentin Smith & Graham Oppy? You're a moron - go away.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
I never said they were all Christian apologists...typical oversight from a meagre intellect.
Read my post again - moron
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch Such an idiot - why are you still replying? If you recognise I listed different men of differing beliefs - which clearly you didn't: apart from Craig, I doubt you're aware of any literature on the subject - then why did you write:
Ahh you jsut make it too easy peon...I need only one:
"A member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, he is noted as one of the foremost Christian apologists"
Swinburne is one of the apologists. Stop trying to be a smart arse. Grow up and READ.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
More babble. Clearly my riposte was beyond you, as is this subject matter...go back to cleaning toilets
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch How is what I wrote 'babble'? You're a fuckn' idiot.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
Ahh obscenity, the last recourse of the indelibly stupid. Go back to shearing sheep my Australian friend
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch Ahh, a stupid cunt, the last refuge of a silly cunt trying to intellectually masturbate.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
More erudition. Such keen intellect and prose...your parents must be so proud.
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch I don't need to be erudite when dealing with a cunt.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
You give a fool enough rope and he will hang himself....I rest my case
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch 'Such keen intellect and prose' - who the fuck are you, Shakespeare? This is youtube, not a philosophy symposium - absolute toss pot. My impression of you, the retarded youtube 'philosopher' (or 'intellect'? Yeah fuckin' right):
'Errrmmmmm, don't list ermmm, Christian apologists, errrmmm, like; - wait, like who? Oppy & Smith? Hahaha! Such a bonehead. Fuck off mate; you might be an 'intellect' to your mates down the pub, but to me you're a spanner feigning intelligence.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
Ok I'll explain this simply so that you can understand:
You: " Magneto, Plantinga, Wolverine, Smith, Oppy, Hick."
Me: "Quoting the names of Xmen doesn't render you any credence"
You:" Haha I tricked you with my ruse, they're not all Xmen.
Now do you see the weakness in your pitiful understanding? With this lack of analytical skill and logic how do you hope to argue philosophy? Best leave it to the more able of us...mate....
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch LOL fuck off mate - you're trying to caricature Plantinga / Smith - renowned philosophers - by associating them with fictitious characters? The implication being that their works and ideas are equally fictitious? Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?
There was no 'ruse' you bellend - you simply belied your ignorance by failing to spot the renowned atheists in that list - you dismissed them all as 'apologists'. Fuck off, because you're kidding no one.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
Ahh once again you completely missed the point. Too many bongs after finishing work at the factory?
...you're like a punch drunk fighter; I keep knocking you to the canvas but you just keep coming back for more. Time for your corner to throw in the towel before you slip into full retard.
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch You don't have a point you spanner.
You haven't knocked anyone to the canvas: you have both hands on your cock, intellectually masturbating ferociously. You're all mouth, s fool. If we were face to face having a discussion you'd have been laughed out of the room - why? - because you waved off the likes of Oppy & Smith as 'insipid' apologists. You're a joke. Then you hide behind some pathetic caricature, as if my citing of these men was some sort of 'argument'.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch Incidentally, who the fuck do you think you are? Are you the smartest inbred in your village? You lambaste me for 'lacking understanding' (errr, why exactly? Fuck knows); then when I list a number of authours - both atheist & theist, (because, you know, I'm not a fuckin' partisan like you) - you dismiss them ALL as apologists! You think you're 'able' at discussing philosophy? Like fuck you are - you can't even recognise THE eminent philosophers of religion. Fuck off mate.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
1) Authors is not spelt 'authours'
2) Swearing profusely doesn't prove a point, it merely belies your lacklustre intellect, weak education, and no doubt non-existent social standing
3) I never said Oppy and Smith were apologists, once again, show my post to someone with basic comprehension skills for some help with this one
4) Even quoting Oppy shows you are a neophyte...Professor at Monash? Are you kidding me? Don't waste my time with this crap
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch 1) It is in British English you muppet.
2) No, it belies my vexation - here's another: you're a tosser.
3) That was implicit in your comment, otherwise you would have said: 'I don't care for those apologists, barring Oppy & Smith, of course, who are athiests'. but you didn't - why? Because you know fuck all about the literature.
4) Mate, are you kidding me? Oppy - a renowned philosopher- not good enough for you? You're a fool mate, and a dumb one at that, absolute fool.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
1) Actually no, its still spelt 'author'. Reference the Oxford ENGLISH dictionary
2) No, it just speaks volumes about you.
3) Not it wasn't, although you'd need basic secondary schooling to see that
4) Oppy a renowned philospoher?! Please stop now. In fact it was your referencing of this nobody that denounced your Australian heritage...only a local would think that this was somebody worth mentioning
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch 1) No it isn't, 'authour' is common in British English you spastic.
2) No it shows how vexing talking to twats like you is.
3) Yes it was implicit (keeping digging that hole).
4) He is - but how the fuck would know? You thought he was a theist! hahaha. What a fuckin' retard you are. And LOL - so you denigrate him because he's AUSTRALIAN - yes that's right everybody, this spastic doesn't think Australia can produced anybody of high calibre. Fuck off mate.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch I seriously can't get over 'point' 4 - it's too funny. A normal, intellectually sophisticated person would have the candour to say: 'Oppy? Never heard of him, oh, an atheist you say? I'll be sure to note him and read him at some point in the future. Thanks for the heads up.'
But no, not this spastic, his response is: 'ohhhh, no, couldn't possibly read an AUSTRALIAN [lol], especially one that works at Monash.'
Haha - do one mate.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch I'm laughing at 'point' 4. Literally. How someone can be so fuckin' deluded and dismiss a well respected academic like Oppy is beyond me: 'ohhh, Monash, har har har, no, I don't waste my time with those peons' - fuck off mate, who the hell do you think you are?
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
@CharlesDilkes
Lets cut to the chase...in 500 words or less describe to me how asymptotic variance in Planck density would affect the Ontological argument? Cmon bigshot, lets see what you've got aside from expletives
MrGunwitch 1 week ago
@MrGunwitch OUCH! He's done it AGAIN - this spastic has belied his ignorance...AGAIN. Fucking hell mate, you're too much!
It has no effect because it's an ONTOLOGICAL argument, not a COSMOLOGICAL argument. LOL. Go school yourself you moron.
CharlesDilkes 1 week ago
Why does this nothing talk about nothing in a universe of nothing as if they're were truth which in his world must be nothing?
patrckhh20 2 months ago 3
*Now hungry for some PI* >:D
Swiffers 2 months ago
A "mental-labor saving God"? "Acausal events capable of coming into being" without intervention? A "reorganized form of nothing"? Well, at least he bases his reasoning upon the solid bedrock of science and reason...
cheagan 3 months ago
And his conclusion is... that nothing exists? Gee - why didn't I become an atheist before?
cheagan 3 months ago
So pretty much this guy mumbles and tries to sound smart, but in actuallity he doesn't know how to counter Craig's argument.
MysteryoftheGods 3 months ago
Akins comes across completely arrogant and condesending.
greglee20 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4
Lol. His whole arguement is I am smart you are dumb.
lantern256 3 months ago 2
Atkins: My argument diminishes the role of a creator GOD to zero.
Well after all your boast about nothing making nothing it seems like that means GOD is the best answer.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 I don't support everything Atkins said, in fact I wasn't able to concentrate enough to know all of what he said (reading is typically a poor way to present), but is god an answer, or a label for what is not understood?
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect I think a problem a lot of people have with christianity at least when we defend it they pull a "GOD of the gaps" sort of thing, but a misconception people make seems to be thinking that GOD is somehow far far away in a distant place watching us from a distance observing, where most the bible teaches GOD works behind the scenes doing things for us in subtle ways rather than a direct in the flesh here in the flesh jesus way. GOD is the best answer for all that we know and don't know.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 I don't see god as an answer though. I haven't found a good definition for what it is, and supporting arguments/evidence that I've witnessed all boiled down to fallacies and questions with incomplete or uncertain answers, or a lack of explanation altogether; "how does the universe exist", "what is the nature of morality", "why is there life", "what is consciousness", etc. And the lack of an explanation for anything is at best an argument from ignorance, providing "god of the gaps".
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect think about it, if you want evidence for GOD what kind of evidence would you really expect to see other then what we currently see?
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 The conclusive kind. I don't recognize "what we currently see" as evidence for god, but again, a definition is in order; and necessarily before anything can be considered as evidence for such. Without a descriptive hypothesis, what is being supported?
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect well wha ti mean is, would you expect to find something in your cells that said "made in heaven" or something?
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 I'm fairly certain I understood the intent of your query, but I cannot infer specifics about a subject that has not been conceived. To show why this is problematic, let me ask you a question and see if you can answer it; What could be evidence for existence of ■?
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect so your asking for evidence of a black square on the computer? or for evidence of squares?
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 The point is that it's an undefined variable. Whether I had said x, " ", god, ■, or (n..+1), we don't have an established definition of the subject, so it is illogical to ask what would suffice as evidence for such a thing.
urcorrect 3 months ago
@urcorrect so what your saying is that anytime someone asks for evidence of GOD it's an invalid question and should be ignored by all of us and we should just stick to the philosophy? sounds good :D
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 Stick to what philosophy? What I'm saying (in five different ways now) is that god should be defined before submitting or addressing evidential questions about it.
urcorrect 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@urcorrect God has already been defined.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
Ravi Zacharias at 7:55
Gods0n1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:24 makes total sense.
danielkirk1 4 months ago
Comment removed
danielkirk1 4 months ago
Higgs boson nigga!
featheon 4 months ago
Comment removed
featheon 4 months ago
"If something could happen, it can happen; someone wins the lottery." - and that's about as good as Atkins' case gets.
Taltz911 4 months ago
eugh.. what is atkins shitting on about... what's his deal? Terrible communicator!
YoussefS 4 months ago
I can't listen to Peter he puts me to sleep
wachnathan 4 months ago
There is no evidence what so ever to back Peters theory on multiple Universes
FeignofCordor 4 months ago
and that's all humanity wants is to be free or to discover or to at least have the most proof that God don't exist because doing that, hey we are free to do whatever we want. But honestly I can't see a sound world with out God or with at least people with the concept of God with out this would be a very destructive world not a united world as people think. Because If today we have a lot of people that have a concept of God and is the way it is, imagine a world with out them, all would be doomed.
OPCN1 4 months ago
And that would free our minds from the guilts that persuates our minds for the wrong doings that we commit every day, but the only simple thing I say is_ I don't want to wait until I die to discover that God exist, because if He does I lost twice. I lost to live a life in love and moral achievements and with no selfish interests and knowing this loving God intimately and I lost eternaly, cause if God exist and I negleted and denied to live for Him and by His standards, I'm lost 4 ever.
OPCN1 4 months ago
@OPCN1 Which god? There are well over 5,000 gods to choose from. If you believe in one the odds of you being right are not good.
AstronomyGuru84 3 months ago
@AstronomyGuru84 With all do respect, for u there's many gods but not for me sorry! I trust only one God, the God of the Bible, the God that is the Existence of all things, The God that never exist He is The Existence of all things, He is before everything was created, the God that Jesus spoke and represented and was in Himself this God that I believe in. Not the god moon, nor jupter nor nothing else but the Personal God that created all these cosmical bodies and Galaxies.
OPCN1 3 months ago
@OPCN1 Do you care whether or not your beliefs are true? What you just said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There are many gods whether you want to accept it or not. Even the jealous and vindictive god of the bible acknowledges that there are other gods. How do you know your god is the right one? If you can't back up your claims with solid evidence then your claims become irrelevant. Your last sentence makes it clear you have no knowledge of natural scientific processes.
AstronomyGuru84 3 months ago
@AstronomyGuru84 By the way, I do care if my beliefs are right and true. And I'm sure they are true to me, and if science could proof anything we wouldn't still be surching to try to feel the gaps into findings where we came from, where are we going or does God exist. The question never is if other god's exist, the question alwys was if God with a big G, exist, because even all the Historians that I read about it knows that all the others gods are Mythological, and the best thing to prove that
OPCN1 3 months ago
@AstronomyGuru84 to us is men's own consciousness. When I study the Bible, I find man like Abraham, getting out of his house hold and going to a place where he never heard of just because a Voice spoke into his consciousness and suddenly this man named Abraham just live his parents house and starts to wander in the wilderness but the funny thing is, that he had the other gods in his fathers house, but why did he choose to follow this particular voice which he called Ya' weh?
OPCN1 3 months ago
@AstronomyGuru84 Now you said that even the God of the Bible said that there was other gods, but He never gave credit to them as if they were literally real gods, but just gods made by men's own will and thoughts. gods which they thought can fit better into their life's style. You know, if science was something that we could lean on as our faith and trust with all our beens, why do science keep changing their views and every day they find something else that they thought were never there?
OPCN1 3 months ago
@AstronomyGuru84 of me that only this God of the Bible could feel it, you can say that we look for the God of the Bible because is better to think like that because it brings a relief into our lives, but that's not it, I wasn't looking for this God, it just seemed like that all the other Mythological gods as Zeus, Isis and a lot more had the same hunger and need for Natural and worldly pleasures as I did, so these God could not feel the criteria as the ones which would save me from my own lust.
OPCN1 3 months ago
@AstronomyGuru84 Now I ask you the same question, do you care whether your beliefs are true? If you can prove to me that God doesn't real exist with accuracy or that you have more proof that their are other gods and that through out history men didn't make them just to fit their life style, then I would say that you are right. See, one thing that you have to understand, that I wasn't looking for a God of the Bible, because He demands to much of us, but the thing is their was an emptiness inside
OPCN1 3 months ago
@OPCN1 I can’t prove to you god doesn’t exist. I don’t have to because that’s not my claim. I don’t know if god exists or not but I still don’t believe in a god. That makes me an agnostic atheist by definition. There’s a difference between “knowing” and “believing.” Do you “know” or “believe” a god exists? If you know then that is knowledge which needs evidence. Belief is actually a far better argument. You don’t have to prove a negative you have to prove a positive.
AstronomyGuru84 3 months ago
@AstronomyGuru84 So I chosed the God of the Bible because I didn't see in Him no need for Lust to fill their spiritual or natural appetite, whatever you want to call it. So i still am sure that the God that Jesus spoke of and show through Himself is the real God.
As a great Philosopher said that if all the men in the world became blind it will never change the Glory and splendor of the sun and stars, the same way if every men stop believing in God it will never diminish His glory and Who He is.
OPCN1 3 months ago
@OPCN1 Okay.......I don’t want to take that away from you. I have no right to tell someone what to believe or what not to believe. I just wanted to understand where you were coming from. Peace be with you.
AstronomyGuru84 3 months ago
@AstronomyGuru84 Thank u man, and I didn't mean to hurt anyone either just share my thoughts. But even that I don't know u, I just want u to understand that I love u and I was a very mad man, but the way God change me I learned how to respect people's thoughts and let them know that they are important to God as you, independently if we believe in Him or not, His love will never change. God bless you and may His peace be your heart and home.
OPCN1 3 months ago
The only thing I know that is going on in the world today is the same that has been happening for centuries. Men I always have tried to disapprove the existence of God or say that there is a probability that He never exited and that everything came out of nothing and doing that and having that probability in mind, that means humanity is free from every action that he takes or commit to himself or to others and we won't have to give account to anyone but to ourselves.
OPCN1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Onesideofyams
"As they get older, their truest colors show, just get more and more bitter and angry."
Intelligent people can only take so much crap from disingenuous pricks like Craig. Liars have it very easy, since all they have to do is pile on the nonsense, so the other doesn't get the chance to address it all.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
Let's just say there is a god that created the universe, how do we go about finding out which one it is? How do we know the gods we've thought of and worshipped on earth are the only possible ones? Is there anyway to verify this aside from people claiming to be god seeing as how many people throughout history have done so? What does the science of god look like? Furthermore what is the purpose of god's own existence aside from our own?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
I'm atheist, but I'm not buying this nothing equals nothing bullshit. The energy from the universe did not come from nothing. In fact, we ALL can agree that nothing cannot produce something (or the illusion of something). If ever a time nothing existed, there would STILL be nothing. Therefore whether you believe in God or the big bang you must believe both answers regress infinitely and are thus eternal! Peter Atkins is a fool by definition for believing anything he said makes sense...
MannyXj1 5 months ago
Comment removed
MannyXj1 5 months ago
Comment removed
MannyXj1 5 months ago
I'm confused Dr. Atkins, how do your comedic insults refute the existance of God?
LBBSTOMAJCCDP 6 months ago 2
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP Don't question the unbridled sagacity of the great Peter Atkins King of all intellectual processes so is proclaimed by me.
scar504 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LBBSTOMAJCCDP
"how do your comedic insults refute the existance of God?"
The point is that Atkins doesn't have to refute anything. Craig claims there is a god, so the burden proof is on Craig and Craig alone.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
So it is more rational to think that the chance of the universe was form and tuned by ramdom that someone(or something I do not know) created and tuned it?
Even that the first statement implies a posibilty of nearly cero
SASSJMSCBC 6 months ago
would any of you allow dr. Atkins put a bullet in your head, just expecting that your beliefs are true? I don't belive in god so I wouldn't.. but I bet this christians would..
XrollhaX 6 months ago
God gives you the breath that you waste Atkins.
RelationshipWitJesus 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Something interesting happens when you meet, love and obey God... the devil becomes a huge bore.
BlowethTheCoals 6 months ago
Comment removed
BlowethTheCoals 6 months ago
Nothing separating into opposites? That's scientifically impossible. Nothing cannot separate if there is nothing to separate. Nothing is simply nothing.
WrknClssHero 6 months ago
Michael Behe is in the audience. He KNOWS he's wrong at the Discovery Instittute. And yet he still makes shit up!
SezSays 7 months ago
@HolyBiblehiswordonly And how many witnesses of other god have their been? And we reject all those. If i brought you 500 witnesses of "my" God, would you believe in it? Hardly counts as evidence. Science is much more stringent than court evidence which deals with small matters so only requires small evidence. You are talking about invoking a God... we need more than hearsay to believe it just as you do to believe in another God. Why is this so hard to understand for Christians?
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
Why does Atkins insist that the creator must be simpler than the creation? Is he not more complicated than his arguments?
philosophizer149 7 months ago
@philosophizer149 "Atkins -> his aguments" is not a good analogy to "God -> the universe". It's not sufficient evidence to believe in a God, but rather an indication more needs to be learned to solve the problem. If God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe? Some claim God is actually more simple than the universe. It's ridiculous to conjecture the existence of something that is completely undefined other than it's "creation", which so far science has shown can exist without a creator.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette Ok first off as Craig demonstrated its not the only evidence, secondly because there is much evidence to suggest the universe had a beginning and therefore needed a cause, God by definition does not. Not defined, clearly someone needs to keep up with his philosophy, try googling it, there is actually quite a bit of debate on the definition of God but He is most certainly not undefined. Science has described the universe, not explained it.
philosophizer149 7 months ago
@philosophizer149 That is one of the most illogical posts I have read. First of all, nothing Craig said is evidence, as everything he says is logically flawed with premises he doesn't know to be true. Everything that began to exist begins to exist by the reformation of atoms using material and energy that already exists, so it's a reformation. The beginning of the universe was the creation of that matter and energy which is completely different than reforming it, so the analogy fails.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@philosophizer149 And no where is God defined. If so, offer me a falsifiable claim. In other words, what would there be that we would see or find if God wasn't true. Because if there's nothing we can see or find to prove his non-existence, then the claim is unfalsifiable, a catch-all. Just like Allah with Islam and other religions and their Gods. You see unfalsifiability is a weakness of an argument, its non-definition, a powerful argument is a falsifiable one that cannot be proven wrong.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
He looks like he doesn't believe what he's saying
ThorFan4Life 7 months ago
he makes no sense to anyone nor himself.
MrGeokal 7 months ago
7:28-7:40
The funniest arguement I have ever heard. If enough people convince themselves of something then they will debate it.
Doesn't that go for anything you twit? His biggest issue is he simply thinks he knows all the answers or he at least knows more then his opponents.
That attitude has destroyed nations. I wonder how Atkins gets out of bed in the morning without assuming there are thousands of beds around him in the same house.
"It could happen right?"
derth4 7 months ago
This guy reminds me of cave johnson. Treating science like a physical entity that thinks a operates on its own. Well I'll burn your house down Atkins.
derth4 7 months ago
An idiot insults his opponents rather then producing an actual arguement. I'm a high schooler and I could beat him.
derth4 7 months ago
@derth4 hahahahahahahaha that's hilarious!!! xD
erickinho1BRA 7 months ago
Atkins throws out WLC citation of the fine tuning argument of chance as being foolishness, and in the next sentence without even realizing what he said he goes on to say that his notion of the universe coming into existence by that same unquantifiable chance is simpler and more plausible.
benthemiester 7 months ago
Comment removed
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
I find it slightly absurd and somewhat telling that his argument in favor of atheism must be based on the premise that things actually aren't that complex; when prominent scientists themselves will tell you there are many things (the brain for instance) the complexity of which have not yet, and may never be fully ascertained.
“What I cannot create, I do not understand.” R. Feynman. The principle is valid- how do u explain and brush off the existence of something you don't understand.
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
@ShawDAMAN He's saying the beginnings are simple, just because the beginning of something is simple doesn't mean what it "turns out" over time is simple. Things are very complicated today. This is emergence, complexity from simplicity. Happens all around us all the time.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
OK but as he admits it is pure speculation. "An engagingly reorganized form of nothing." You could as easily make the claim that the universe, even life have always existed and simply give the illusion of beginning. You're free to do so but it was rather specious in the context of this debate.....
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
the universe was a thought that began and ended in the same instant.
musicoutsidethebox 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how do you define nothing
british123able 8 months ago
"Separate nothing into equal and opposite components."
Uh. Okay. Here: and here:
Did I just create a universe? What a hack. Just like the "Warren/ Flue Debate", and the "Warren/ Matson Debate", even the greatest atheistic philosophers have nothing substantial to say, offering no refutation to logical, clearly defined premises or the conclusions of sound arguments.
sklaft 8 months ago 9
@sklaft
"offering no refutation to logical, clearly defined premises or the conclusions of sound arguments"
You will first have to present the atheist philosopher such logical, clearly defined premises and sound arguments. Alas, Craig offers none of those. All Craig offers is white noise, fed by his "belief in the Holy Spirit", which Craig admits he will never reconsider even in the light of contrary evidence. Atkins realizes that ridicule is best way to address such inane rhetoric.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@sklaft Yap yap yap...so where's god in all that babble? Talk until you're blue in the face, you'll still never be able to present god. Ever.
fdasherv 3 months ago
@fdasherv You can't present the grey matter of your own brain either. Does it exist? Submit to common sense or live a life of irrationality. Your choice.
sklaft 2 months ago
@sklaft As usual, another christian who makes absolutely no sense. Demons, virgins, snakes, floods...their lives are so filled with childhood fables...they ought to read a really good book one day and they'd see how dull the bible actually is.
fdasherv 2 months ago
@fdasherv Wait, virgins, snakes, and floods are childhood fables?
Not to make fun or anything, just pointing something out.
RedversusBlueFanboy 2 months ago
@RedversusBlueFanboy
danhilz 1 month ago
@danhilz haha :D
danhilz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danhilz haha :D
danhilz 1 month ago
@fdasherv
Rom 1:18-32
(18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
(19) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
(20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. read the rest
nicolaepi 1 month ago
@nicolaepi How about taking that bible and shoving it squarely up your cunt then shit it out your ass.
fdasherv 1 month ago
I lost count of the number of personal insults.
RetSquid 8 months ago
"The universe is a confidence trick ......" So who was the trickster ?
"
sillysully81 8 months ago 19
@sillysully81 WLC reckons it was Jesus's dad.
PaulQuantumWales 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sillysully81 WLC reckons it was Jesus's dad.
PaulQuantumWales 4 months ago
"Seperate nothing into equal opposite components ........"
------------
So they must have been components so therefor that is not nothing as we know nothing to be but something therefore there was not nothing but something .
This guy is full of contradictions .........
sillysully81 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans 1:19-21
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
...I must not be here ..???
sillysully81 8 months ago
Comment removed
sillysully81 8 months ago
seperating nothing into 2 easy parts is easy
ryanairarecool 9 months ago
cosmic purpose: a reverse engineering for the quest for God. Brilliant.
HarrynJessie 9 months ago
"there is truly nothing here, just a separation into opposites"
How can you separate non-being, Atkins, you pompous dope?
X-D
Birdieupon 9 months ago
@Birdieupon 0 is nothing. 1+(-1)=0. 1 is something. That's how.
HarrynJessie 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarrynJessie
"0 is nothing. 1+(-1)=0. 1 is something. That's how."
LOL, right, from 0 you get something more AND something LESS THAN nothing?
Birdieupon 9 months ago
i just hope that one day Dr. Atkins can reach his final truth, iI believe that in the moment he opens his mind and heart he would be able to understand the existance of God
befreebyyourthoughts 9 months ago
3:07: "Another potent argument..."
...where was the first "potent" argument?
pcgamerjoe 9 months ago
I am so sick and tired of theists saying science is nonsense just because they can't understand it....
If your to stupid to get it keep that to yourself
Mladiatheist 10 months ago
@Mladiatheist not sure where u got "theists saying science is nonsense" from but ok....
ninetails009 10 months ago
@ninetails009 just see the highest rated comment....
Mladiatheist 10 months ago
@Mladiatheist i believe its atheists who say "i dont know how everything came to be, but i am discarding the possibility of god". it seems to me that you cant understand the existence of a creator. why not? beats me...
lowercase18 9 months ago
@lowercase18 what a straw-man we don't discard the possibility we say it is unlikely and irrational....
how are you theists able to do such mental gymnastics?
Mladiatheist 9 months ago
"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." Genesis 1:3
Not sure what Atkins is getting at, other than that the creation was fascinatingly simple. It's not evidence one way or the other. Also, the zero-energy-universe is only a possibility right now. It's not widely accepted.
JWHurwitz 10 months ago
I don't understand his statement about the energy of the universe summing to nothing. Energy is a scalar quantity and you can't have negative energy.
AMKalmar 10 months ago
@AMKalmar Potential energies are negative with respect to most commonly used reference points.
wownov83 10 months ago
maybe instead of everyone insulting scientist we could respect them and treat them with love, hoping these debates continue so we can see more of them come to Christ. when i look on these comments i do not see ANYONE behaving like Christians
masternate61 10 months ago
"All God would have to do is separate nothing into equal and opposite components"
Maybe I am missing something. It is very possible I am, but what Atkins is saying in this video sounds like a complete load of gibberish to me.
ukchristian28 11 months ago
Atkins talks and I hear "blah, blah, blah".
cashernandes1 11 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
This is supposed to resemble observation from the scientific method?.... Bwaaahahahaha!!!!
lederereddy 11 months ago
This is supposed to resemble observation from the scientific method?.... Bwaaahahahaha!!!!
lederereddy 11 months ago
Anyone else notice Ravi Zacharias around 7:50?
KainL33 1 year ago
@KainL33 I have :)
afortaleza 11 months ago
lol for the first half.
Basically his argument says: "It just happened"
TheSuttonator 1 year ago
@DaGavinX actually even zero is something. A thought about nothing is something. Even a void of darkness with no sound and no gravity is something. It is difficult to comprehend much less describe. The easiest way for me is thinking about before I was conceived. Then and only then I was nothing. I did not exist. but saying I gives identity I'm my state of nothingness which is once again something. Not as easy as you would like to make it
nattyd50 1 year ago
@nattyd50 Actually the atoms that were used during your conception existed before you were conceived
pfnr37 10 months ago
@pfnr37 I know that friend. What is your point? Is an atom a human being before conception? or do the sperm and the egg become a person when they unite? So wouldn't that mean that a person does not exist before that unison? And I was talking about my consciousness more than anything else. But still you make no sense. Read my comment more carefully this time :)
nattyd50 10 months ago
Atkins is making such a bad case, I liked Hitchens vs WLC better.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
Really? I think this argument may make an atheist doubt what they believe. He's not helping his cause.
LuvSpunkRansom 1 year ago
So far this is what we have. Atkins bashes others for simply saying "God did it" calling that 'a lazy man's argument'. He, up to this point, is basically saying 'God DIDN'T do it and if you don't agree then you're stupid' but has provided zero evidence to back that up. All he's done so far is make assertions and give his opinions but has not, in any way, shown evidence to back up any of those assertions or opinions. As of video 4a Atkins is getting destroyed. I hope he gets better.
Equestions 1 year ago
@Equestions,
I completely agree with you in all the aspects you've mentioned. The sad reality is Atkins is getting destroyed by himself.
flotopo 1 year ago
There are way better and more sound arguments than this for Atheism. This guy should not be in the ring with Craig.
KDInfinity21 1 year ago
"The universe is nothing" ... Only science can come up with nonsense like this.
1thousandways 1 year ago 33
@1thousandways exactly. A glibly meaningless statement.
tommyjeanC 1 year ago
@1thousandways May I elaborate? If you listened to what Dr.Atkins said, mass and energy are equivalent e.g. infinite mass = infinite energy.
His statement "the universe is essentially nothing" is referring to balance of matter vs anti matter in our universe, that is - matter of which makes up all relevant atomic structures on our planet and may others in the universe are formulated and anti matter - the "missing" mass in the universe, the prerequisite to Baryogenesis...
Continued...
heavyrocklegend 1 year ago
This is the "yin to the yang" the anti-matter is the opposite of the residual matter that is used to formulate the observable universe.
What Dr.Atkins is saying is when the matter and antimatter are brought together they begin a process called annihilation - this is where the particles "cancel out" each other and removing each others energy or mass - which effectively brings you to no energy/mass.
e.g. the singularity
e.g. Nothing
heavyrocklegend 1 year ago
@heavyrocklegend ... You are just showing off; I haven't the faintest idea what Baryogenesis is, and no, I'm not going to look it up, why should I? The statement that 'the universe is nothing' is clearly incorrect; it is science being cack-handed with language as it often is. It's the same as when scientists say "this table isn't really solid" and only recant once you've smashed their head into it a few times :-p.
1thousandways 1 year ago
@1thousandways I'm afraid I simply cannot help you if your going to be dogmatic and adamant on a evidently malleable topic - I've explained what Dr.Atkins meant in his description of the idea that the Universe is weightless and Energy void.
I am only trying to help you, I'm not arguing with you and I'm not "showing off", to be quite frank i have little to prove to you and others on this video. If you are not prepared to understand Science - it takes immediate immunity to your slander.
heavyrocklegend 1 year ago
@heavyrocklegend ... Listen ... word play, the completely pretentious and unnecessary use of large and unusal words makes you look like a pseud. I don't understand what you are saying. There are two possible explanations for that. The first is that you are talking rubbish. The second is that I don't have the kind of education (my degree was in humanities, not science) that you have. Either way, if you cannot make yourself understood you are doing nothing other than serving your ego.
1thousandways 1 year ago
@1thousandways With respect to its total electrical charge and total energy, yes. But, don't caricature Atkin's argument. He is not claiming there is no mass in the universe.
robtul12 1 year ago
@1thousandways Only lame scienTISTS can come up with nonsense like this! There are still pretty good scientists out there making good use of science.
cashernandes1 11 months ago
@cashernandes1 Nicola Tesla was nice example of great scientists who was deeply Orthodox Christian. He warned humanity about horrors that nuclear energy will bring. None listened.
Htogrom 10 months ago