I suppose this may be a late, late response to the topic that has ended, but the argument on one side is fallible due to the misconception that "Scientific" study is relevant as Science is diversified by the beliefs and ideals of the people who practice it. Any one study could be accepted as the truth based on the individual who chooses to. This means that even were there a "scientific study" proving one thing, it could be denied by the individual such as yourselves.
@Randomblade1990 You are correct to a point, but there is also a point in science where interpretation merges into fact. At that point, the only strategy remaining is to ignore the facts. I believe the scientific evidence opposing the evolution religion is overwhelming. C-14 in diamonds, no fossil transitional species, and the presently observed deterioration of DNA are facts that just can't be ignored. There are about 100 facts contradicting the evolution myth. Thanks for commenting.
I suppose this may be a late, late response to the topic that has ended, but the argument on one side is fallible due to the misconception that "Scientific" study is relevant as Science is diversified by the beliefs and ideals of the people who practice it. Any one study could be accepted as the truth based on the individual who chooses to. This means that even were there a "scientific study" proving one thing, it could be denied by the individual such as yourselves.
Your methodology is flawed theologically. You see, the Bible takes the existence of God for granted based on creation, as a complex creation requires a creator. But in practice God prefers to "hide" from scoffers. Miracles come unexpectedly and often in desperate situations. The theological problem is that God will not allow the inquirer to control the process. God is a king and he demands that we come on his terms. Therefore, the proof comes to the sincere/open-hearted. It is denied to scoffers
@taylor1hoty1 Of course, you can be sure of that. You got here by accident, no one is watching what you do so you are not accountable, and after you die there is no justice. So, just have fun and do whatever you like, and just ignore that conscience that those stupid Christians say God put there. Of course there is no God, and so of course there's no meaning in life, so now it's time to party because soon you'll be dead. Good thing you've got it figured out. Have fun!
evolution is true, creationism is wrong. If you believe anything that any religious group says, you are stupid. Their bibles, qu'rans, and torahs are all just examples of how you should lead your life put together by people thousands of years ago, the belief that they are true is false. And please, tell us what evidence their is to support Creationism.
@xIad4mIx says: "tell us what evidence their [sic] is to support Creationism." Thanks for the request. I have started with the Big Bang, an event mentioned repeatedly in the Bible. The existence of the universe requires a creator. There is a lot more. See my other comment, and let's continue. Thanks. By the way, if you think you have no religion, this is an error. Everyone has a worldview. Perhaps yours does not include a god, but you've got one!
@alyosha24601 He asked for evidence for creationism, not for disproving the big bang. And your definition of religion is wrong. Religion is not just a "worldview". A religion is a system of beliefs that must be practiced and centered around God(s) or the supernatural. Do your own research on the internet about it. GOOD research.
@ronthemoron You don't think atheists have a religion? I've got news for you, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao - those guys were the high priests of Communism! But if you don't like the word religion, let's just use "worldview". But, all humans possess a framework for interpreting reality. All of us. No exceptions. Everyone filters information through their own personal grid.
@alyosha24601 Communism isn't a religion... it's a socio-political ideology and form of government, not a theistic organization. No lets NOT use worldview because as I said, a religion isn't just a worldview! All religions are worldviews but worldviews aren't all religions.As to your last few sentences, what's your point?
@ronthemoron Of course a religion can be a worldview! And I say Communism is a non-theistic religion, or worldview, if you will. Surely you cannot claim that religious people see things through their religious filter but atheists have no filter? If you are claiming "no bias" for atheists? If so, I see evidence of humorous delusion! But, I don't believe we are that far apart, are we?
@alyosha24601 I know it does that's what I just said? Start reading more carefully, you keep misunderstanding a lot of stuff I'm saying. I can't say communism is a non-theistic religion, since religion is defined as being theistic...
Calm down there, I said I didn't see a point and now you're accusing me of making claims about atheism. Exactly what bias do you think atheists would have?
@ronthemoron Which bias? How about, that there is no God acting behind events. Everybody has biases. Everybody. If we didn't we couldn't function. The folks that say they have no biases are deceiving themselves so as to convince themselves they have the high ground. (Someone without a bias wouldn't even se themselves as in a competition; only a baby has no biases.)
@alyosha24601 How is that inherently a bias? Do you know what bias is? You better not be one of those people who still don't understand that atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive.
@ronthemoron "One of those people"? Don't be prejudiced! Are you prejudiced against people who don't know what you're talking about?
Or, more to the point, please explain why this is bad? I'm not a philosopher and I don't get it yet. "You better not be one of those people who still don't understand that atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive."
@alyosha24601 How was that prejudice? Those people exist, and I did not claim you are one.
It's "bad" because it would pretty much render this conversation completely pointless if you don't fully understand what atheism and agnosticism are. Atheism is the lack of a theistic belief. Agnosticism is the claim that humans will never have true, ultimate knowledge. I am an agnostic atheist.
@alyosha24601 It bugs me when people think the definition of atheism is claiming to know that a God doesn't exist. That can be referred to as strong atheism. It is a sort of extremist view.
@ronthemoron I see. Well, isn't it true that most people actually do define atheism in this way? And don't most people think that agnosticism refers to those that don't think you can know? I haven't lookied these up in a dictionary, but aren't those the common definitions?
@alyosha24601 From my experience I would say no. I say from my experience because I have seen no data in which to reside my confidence in. It wouldn't even matter if the majority defined it that way because the definition comes from the roots of the word. A-without, and theism-a belief in the supernatural or God(s). There is no inherent knowledge claim from that.
@alyosha24601 "And don't most people think that agnosticism refers to those that don't think you can know?"
Yes, because that's exactly what I explained it as, thinking that you cannot truly know...There are however a handful among the general agnostics that have stupidly dumbed down the word to simply "I don't know" and they think they have thwarted all positions and that they are superior.
@ronthemoron I think your term "dumbed down" is appropriate. I'm not involved in this controversy but I agree with you that it's an important difference. Just claiming "I don't know" can also imply "because I don't care to find out", whereas "I can't know" is its own philosophical position. [Did I get it right?]
@alyosha24601 Erm well my big problem with it is that people think you can only be agnostic or atheist like they are mutually exclusive, however you can be both.
@alyosha24601 I don't believe in a God because I have not been convinced by any evidence that it is true (atheism), but I do not claim to know if a God exists or doesn't exist because I think that it impossible (agnosticism). Therefore I am an agnostic atheist.
For example: If I told you I had a Ph.D in physics from Harvard, you probably wouldn't believe me unless I proved it, but you can't claim to absolutely know that I am lying.
@ronthemoron That makes perfect sense and I am pleased to have learned it. Your framework is logically consistent. How do atheists handle events that don't fit in well to a naturalistic worldview? There are many stories of miracles, ghosts, ESP, predictive dreams, mind-reading, bizarre coincidences, out-of-body experiences, expressions of unknowable knowledge, etc. How can these type events be fit in?
@alyosha24601 Well I don't believe in miracles, ghosts, ESP, out-of-body experiences or knowing unknowable knowledge. If you could prove these to exist you would be the first. Bizarre coincidences however are still coincidences, so I don't see how they wont fit in.
@ronthemoron In my lifetime I've seen one supernatural healing, and heard a few dozen stories, I've witnessed two items disappear and one appear, I've had two ESP events at a distance, seen two predictive dreams, been part of one miracle. Most of my friends have similar stories. These things just can't be that rare. It leads me to ask you this question: If you saw just one miracle, would you abandon your naturalistic worldview?
@alyosha24601 You want me to take your eyewitness accounts as proof? Don't you realize how easily the human brain is tricked? Especially when they have a bias that those things exist. Please provide proof of those being true.
" These things just can't be that rare."
I agree, that's why I said they were simple coincidences, and coincidences are not rare.
If I saw proof of a miracle actually being a miracle, then yes.
@ronthemoron What do you want for proof? Do you want to interview someone on line? Do you want to see video evidence? God will do a miracle for you yourself once you get to the point of willingness to follow him (if you could be convinced). But somehow I just don't think that's the real problem. Face it, you don't want Jesus because you know if you get near him he's going to want you to change. That's the problem with God! He wants to run our lives!
@alyosha24601 Goodness that was a long wait for a reply. The types of "proof" you offered were all things that are highly susceptible to misinterpretation/misleading factors. What I want for proof is a scientifically backed study of the arguments that you can bring forward. Please don't start this whole fallacy-preaching thing. It is just pointless.
@ronthemoron Sorry, that's how he works. Otherwise, you can check out Peter Kreeft's 20 Reasons there is a God. It's a highly organized logical summary. But I suspect your real reasons for resisting God have nothing to do with logic. They rarely do. Most folks just don't want to submit to someone else. They want to do what THEY want. I totally understand and sympathize! This is why God has so many enemies.
@alyosha24601 Alright since you're going to start with the straw-man arguments and completely destroy any further possibility of having an intelligent conversation; I'm going to have to say goodbye to you now. So, bye.
@ronthemoron I'm sorry I do not converse according to your rules. For me, this issue cannot be contained in an intellectual or scientific box. I consider it a life and death issue. Thanks for commenting.
@ronthemoron I suppose I could, but that would be a lot to ask. I've seen a lot during the years. A better question would be to ask you if you'd submit to God were you to see proof of a miracle.
That should only take one event. My daughter's friend prayed for a guy on the street a month ago and his arm was instantly healed. (A three year injury) He just about RAN away, all the while saying "This is spooky! I just want to go home!" He couldn't escape the miracle, but still didn't want Jesus!
@alyosha24601 Even if communism was a religion, what you said basically accused me of being communist simply because I'm an atheist. Get your facts straight.
@ronthemoron No, no. I know you're not a commie. And, I'm not saying all atheists are abhorrent either, just that communists and French revolutionaries prove that not all atheists (or deists) are wonderful. Same situation with most groups. There were even a few "good" Nazis I think! One of them saved thousands of Chinese from the Japanese, for example.
Maybe the big bang was put through the bible, I accept that, but there is no evidence to support any religion. If have to have a religion, it is science. There doesn't have to be a creator, and evolution doesn't have any evidenct against, and massive amounts for it, there has never been a miracle, and any of the recent ones have been disproved. Although your comment to Ronthemoron made me laugh massively, i resist god not because i don't like the idea of bowing down to someone PTO
but because I have never heard or witnessed any evidence for God. I am joining the army, I will spend my whole life bowing down to people, it doesn't affect me. There is so much science that we have discovered in the past 200 years, that it spans millions of books, and yet religion in the last 2000 years has spanned around 10 books. If you can give me direct evidence other than "there must be a creator for a creation" then i'll accept your arguement as fair.
The very fact we are having this arguement is because of 'science' and its advances, the internet isn't a 'gift from god' its a gift from science. Open your ratings so you can see how we all feel
@xIad4mIx I believe in science 100% and would be happy to discuss creation science with you. Science actually developed out of a Christian worldview and I'm all for it. What I do not support is evolution - a quack science without foundation which merely rests upon a naturalistic worldview. Frankly, most people quickly hurl insults on my channel but won't actually discuss the science of the issues. Want to talk about DNA, reproduction, mutation rates, Lucy, ATP motors, polonium halos, or fossils?
Notice that the comment "Creationism is wrong evolution is true...creationism does not have any evidence supporting it, evolution by natural selection is a theory that has withstood over 150 years of people trying to disprove it." has no scientific content, it is merely an affirmation of faith. I dare the viewer to allow me to take them through the science behind creationism.
@ronthemoron Let's start with the Big Bang. Matter, energy, space, time, and the laws of nature cannot mathematically begin from nothing. Nothing cannot produce something. That's the second law of thermodynamics. The universe is by definition and by observation finite - it's beginning was about 15 billion years ago. Since "something" requires a cause, that cause must be a god. This is just math. Nothing cannot produce something. Any problems with this?
@alyosha24601 1. I don't believe that the big bang theory claims it happened from nothing, rather it was a veyry small extremely dense "ball" of matter. However I may be wrong.
2. You're trying to apply laws of the universe when the universe did not exist...that's what the big bang explains.
"Since "something" requires a cause, that cause must be a god."
-What kind of logic is this? Is this some form of an argument for ignorance? You should be up to date with your common logical fallacies.
@ronthemoron "However I may be wrong" Yes, there was a ball. But that pinpoint of matter, energy, space, and time had no beginning - that's the whole point. Science and the Bible agree here. The Bible claims God created the universe, and science offers no explanation. I know it is a logical fallacy to conclude a divine cause. The point here however is that past 15 billion years, everyone is in pure faithland. This was a one-time event, not a cycle, not a multiverse, not infinite. A beginning.
@ronthemoron Doesn't it seem more plausible to put your faith in a creator (who wrote a poetic description of the inflation process in ancient times, by the way) than in something that violates the physical laws we have? If not, I'll pop over next to chemical evolution...
@alyosha24601 All the "laws" are is a set of explanations of how we percieve all things in the universe to interact. Just because we call them laws does not mean that they are ultimately correct, but until new data is put forward one must assume they are with a somewhat high degree of certainty. I still think you failed to understand that you can not apply the laws of a universe to before that universe existed.
@ronthemoron I don't know how to answer this. A scientist does not question an equation. A scientific law is absolute truth, totally inviolate. If you can't accept science as truth I can't go on. What I'm saying is that the universe had a beginning. This event was a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. A "miracle" demands a supernatural cause. The universe could not have created itself. By the way, I've observed four miracles with my own eyes. How would you evaluate such an event?
@alyosha24601 Uhh no, Just because we call something a law doesn't mean we know about everything in the universe...the great thing about science is that the theories can change with the introduction of new information. I can't accept "science" as truth because science is a system for determining truth, not a claim. I guess you will have to stop then because you're misguided on scientific claims. Please explain to me how the second law of thermodynamics is violated.
@ronthemoron I saw two items appear before my own eyes, once in 1979, once in 1986. Another was a healing. My boss had fallen off a roof and shattered his heel - powdered. After several operations and a two year limp, he was healed in an instant at a church in Toronto, CA. You'll never make me into an atheist - I've seen the violation of physical law with my own eyes. Several probables, too. Have a look - they are common enough that you could find examples as well.
Creationism is wrong evolution is true...creationism does not have any evidence supporting it, evolution by natural selection is a theory that has withstood over 150 years of people trying to disprove it.
@letmelookify says "creationism does not have any evidence supporting it," You would be amazed if you looked into the science of the issue instead of merely expressing a blind faith in the politically pressured schools. Search for "irreducible complexity", or "no transitional species", or "impossible mathematics of evolution" on your own, or I'll take you through the science, if you have the courage to question the evolution religion! Just stick to the science and you'll learn some new things!
@TrueDestined It's a commentary on banned / forbidden science and the lack of academic freedom. If you present certain facts from science in the schools, you lose your job. Betty to be beaten by a bully than by the government! Keep your kids out of state indoctrination centers TrueDestined or you'll be shocked by how they turn out.
@AletheAce I think somebody needs to go back to their mommy and learn some manners.
alyosha24601 1 month ago
I suppose this may be a late, late response to the topic that has ended, but the argument on one side is fallible due to the misconception that "Scientific" study is relevant as Science is diversified by the beliefs and ideals of the people who practice it. Any one study could be accepted as the truth based on the individual who chooses to. This means that even were there a "scientific study" proving one thing, it could be denied by the individual such as yourselves.
Randomblade1990 5 months ago
@Randomblade1990 You are correct to a point, but there is also a point in science where interpretation merges into fact. At that point, the only strategy remaining is to ignore the facts. I believe the scientific evidence opposing the evolution religion is overwhelming. C-14 in diamonds, no fossil transitional species, and the presently observed deterioration of DNA are facts that just can't be ignored. There are about 100 facts contradicting the evolution myth. Thanks for commenting.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
I suppose this may be a late, late response to the topic that has ended, but the argument on one side is fallible due to the misconception that "Scientific" study is relevant as Science is diversified by the beliefs and ideals of the people who practice it. Any one study could be accepted as the truth based on the individual who chooses to. This means that even were there a "scientific study" proving one thing, it could be denied by the individual such as yourselves.
Randomblade1990 5 months ago
Your methodology is flawed theologically. You see, the Bible takes the existence of God for granted based on creation, as a complex creation requires a creator. But in practice God prefers to "hide" from scoffers. Miracles come unexpectedly and often in desperate situations. The theological problem is that God will not allow the inquirer to control the process. God is a king and he demands that we come on his terms. Therefore, the proof comes to the sincere/open-hearted. It is denied to scoffers
alyosha24601 5 months ago
there is no god fucking chuck noris is god
taylor1hoty1 5 months ago
@taylor1hoty1 Of course, you can be sure of that. You got here by accident, no one is watching what you do so you are not accountable, and after you die there is no justice. So, just have fun and do whatever you like, and just ignore that conscience that those stupid Christians say God put there. Of course there is no God, and so of course there's no meaning in life, so now it's time to party because soon you'll be dead. Good thing you've got it figured out. Have fun!
alyosha24601 5 months ago
WTF is this ?
BoBBaB0oN 6 months ago
@BoBBaB0oN Are you a troll? No trolls allowed here.
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 the video show troll people why am i not allow here ?
BoBBaB0oN 6 months ago
@BoBBaB0oN You can be here if you leave polite and intelligent commentary. OK, what do you think?
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 lol
BoBBaB0oN 6 months ago
evolution is true, creationism is wrong. If you believe anything that any religious group says, you are stupid. Their bibles, qu'rans, and torahs are all just examples of how you should lead your life put together by people thousands of years ago, the belief that they are true is false. And please, tell us what evidence their is to support Creationism.
xIad4mIx 6 months ago
@xIad4mIx says: "tell us what evidence their [sic] is to support Creationism." Thanks for the request. I have started with the Big Bang, an event mentioned repeatedly in the Bible. The existence of the universe requires a creator. There is a lot more. See my other comment, and let's continue. Thanks. By the way, if you think you have no religion, this is an error. Everyone has a worldview. Perhaps yours does not include a god, but you've got one!
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 He asked for evidence for creationism, not for disproving the big bang. And your definition of religion is wrong. Religion is not just a "worldview". A religion is a system of beliefs that must be practiced and centered around God(s) or the supernatural. Do your own research on the internet about it. GOOD research.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron You don't think atheists have a religion? I've got news for you, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao - those guys were the high priests of Communism! But if you don't like the word religion, let's just use "worldview". But, all humans possess a framework for interpreting reality. All of us. No exceptions. Everyone filters information through their own personal grid.
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 Communism isn't a religion... it's a socio-political ideology and form of government, not a theistic organization. No lets NOT use worldview because as I said, a religion isn't just a worldview! All religions are worldviews but worldviews aren't all religions.As to your last few sentences, what's your point?
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron Of course a religion can be a worldview! And I say Communism is a non-theistic religion, or worldview, if you will. Surely you cannot claim that religious people see things through their religious filter but atheists have no filter? If you are claiming "no bias" for atheists? If so, I see evidence of humorous delusion! But, I don't believe we are that far apart, are we?
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 I know it does that's what I just said? Start reading more carefully, you keep misunderstanding a lot of stuff I'm saying. I can't say communism is a non-theistic religion, since religion is defined as being theistic...
Calm down there, I said I didn't see a point and now you're accusing me of making claims about atheism. Exactly what bias do you think atheists would have?
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron Which bias? How about, that there is no God acting behind events. Everybody has biases. Everybody. If we didn't we couldn't function. The folks that say they have no biases are deceiving themselves so as to convince themselves they have the high ground. (Someone without a bias wouldn't even se themselves as in a competition; only a baby has no biases.)
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 How is that inherently a bias? Do you know what bias is? You better not be one of those people who still don't understand that atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron "One of those people"? Don't be prejudiced! Are you prejudiced against people who don't know what you're talking about?
Or, more to the point, please explain why this is bad? I'm not a philosopher and I don't get it yet. "You better not be one of those people who still don't understand that atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive."
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 How was that prejudice? Those people exist, and I did not claim you are one.
It's "bad" because it would pretty much render this conversation completely pointless if you don't fully understand what atheism and agnosticism are. Atheism is the lack of a theistic belief. Agnosticism is the claim that humans will never have true, ultimate knowledge. I am an agnostic atheist.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 It bugs me when people think the definition of atheism is claiming to know that a God doesn't exist. That can be referred to as strong atheism. It is a sort of extremist view.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron I see. Well, isn't it true that most people actually do define atheism in this way? And don't most people think that agnosticism refers to those that don't think you can know? I haven't lookied these up in a dictionary, but aren't those the common definitions?
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 From my experience I would say no. I say from my experience because I have seen no data in which to reside my confidence in. It wouldn't even matter if the majority defined it that way because the definition comes from the roots of the word. A-without, and theism-a belief in the supernatural or God(s). There is no inherent knowledge claim from that.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 "And don't most people think that agnosticism refers to those that don't think you can know?"
Yes, because that's exactly what I explained it as, thinking that you cannot truly know...There are however a handful among the general agnostics that have stupidly dumbed down the word to simply "I don't know" and they think they have thwarted all positions and that they are superior.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron I think your term "dumbed down" is appropriate. I'm not involved in this controversy but I agree with you that it's an important difference. Just claiming "I don't know" can also imply "because I don't care to find out", whereas "I can't know" is its own philosophical position. [Did I get it right?]
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 Erm well my big problem with it is that people think you can only be agnostic or atheist like they are mutually exclusive, however you can be both.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron You mean, someone doesn't believe in God but he recognizes he can't prove it? Maybe you should explain to me.
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 I don't believe in a God because I have not been convinced by any evidence that it is true (atheism), but I do not claim to know if a God exists or doesn't exist because I think that it impossible (agnosticism). Therefore I am an agnostic atheist.
For example: If I told you I had a Ph.D in physics from Harvard, you probably wouldn't believe me unless I proved it, but you can't claim to absolutely know that I am lying.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron That makes perfect sense and I am pleased to have learned it. Your framework is logically consistent. How do atheists handle events that don't fit in well to a naturalistic worldview? There are many stories of miracles, ghosts, ESP, predictive dreams, mind-reading, bizarre coincidences, out-of-body experiences, expressions of unknowable knowledge, etc. How can these type events be fit in?
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 Well I don't believe in miracles, ghosts, ESP, out-of-body experiences or knowing unknowable knowledge. If you could prove these to exist you would be the first. Bizarre coincidences however are still coincidences, so I don't see how they wont fit in.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron In my lifetime I've seen one supernatural healing, and heard a few dozen stories, I've witnessed two items disappear and one appear, I've had two ESP events at a distance, seen two predictive dreams, been part of one miracle. Most of my friends have similar stories. These things just can't be that rare. It leads me to ask you this question: If you saw just one miracle, would you abandon your naturalistic worldview?
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 You want me to take your eyewitness accounts as proof? Don't you realize how easily the human brain is tricked? Especially when they have a bias that those things exist. Please provide proof of those being true.
" These things just can't be that rare."
I agree, that's why I said they were simple coincidences, and coincidences are not rare.
If I saw proof of a miracle actually being a miracle, then yes.
ronthemoron 5 months ago
@ronthemoron What do you want for proof? Do you want to interview someone on line? Do you want to see video evidence? God will do a miracle for you yourself once you get to the point of willingness to follow him (if you could be convinced). But somehow I just don't think that's the real problem. Face it, you don't want Jesus because you know if you get near him he's going to want you to change. That's the problem with God! He wants to run our lives!
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 Goodness that was a long wait for a reply. The types of "proof" you offered were all things that are highly susceptible to misinterpretation/misleading factors. What I want for proof is a scientifically backed study of the arguments that you can bring forward. Please don't start this whole fallacy-preaching thing. It is just pointless.
ronthemoron 5 months ago
@ronthemoron Sorry, that's how he works. Otherwise, you can check out Peter Kreeft's 20 Reasons there is a God. It's a highly organized logical summary. But I suspect your real reasons for resisting God have nothing to do with logic. They rarely do. Most folks just don't want to submit to someone else. They want to do what THEY want. I totally understand and sympathize! This is why God has so many enemies.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 Alright since you're going to start with the straw-man arguments and completely destroy any further possibility of having an intelligent conversation; I'm going to have to say goodbye to you now. So, bye.
ronthemoron 5 months ago
@ronthemoron I'm sorry I do not converse according to your rules. For me, this issue cannot be contained in an intellectual or scientific box. I consider it a life and death issue. Thanks for commenting.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 If you saw proof that all the miracles you claimed to have seen were not miracles, would you abandon your religious worldview?
ronthemoron 5 months ago
@ronthemoron I suppose I could, but that would be a lot to ask. I've seen a lot during the years. A better question would be to ask you if you'd submit to God were you to see proof of a miracle.
That should only take one event. My daughter's friend prayed for a guy on the street a month ago and his arm was instantly healed. (A three year injury) He just about RAN away, all the while saying "This is spooky! I just want to go home!" He couldn't escape the miracle, but still didn't want Jesus!
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 Even if communism was a religion, what you said basically accused me of being communist simply because I'm an atheist. Get your facts straight.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron No, no. I know you're not a commie. And, I'm not saying all atheists are abhorrent either, just that communists and French revolutionaries prove that not all atheists (or deists) are wonderful. Same situation with most groups. There were even a few "good" Nazis I think! One of them saved thousands of Chinese from the Japanese, for example.
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601
Maybe the big bang was put through the bible, I accept that, but there is no evidence to support any religion. If have to have a religion, it is science. There doesn't have to be a creator, and evolution doesn't have any evidenct against, and massive amounts for it, there has never been a miracle, and any of the recent ones have been disproved. Although your comment to Ronthemoron made me laugh massively, i resist god not because i don't like the idea of bowing down to someone PTO
xIad4mIx 4 months ago
@xIad4mIx
but because I have never heard or witnessed any evidence for God. I am joining the army, I will spend my whole life bowing down to people, it doesn't affect me. There is so much science that we have discovered in the past 200 years, that it spans millions of books, and yet religion in the last 2000 years has spanned around 10 books. If you can give me direct evidence other than "there must be a creator for a creation" then i'll accept your arguement as fair.
xIad4mIx 4 months ago
@alyosha24601
The very fact we are having this arguement is because of 'science' and its advances, the internet isn't a 'gift from god' its a gift from science. Open your ratings so you can see how we all feel
xIad4mIx 4 months ago
@xIad4mIx I believe in science 100% and would be happy to discuss creation science with you. Science actually developed out of a Christian worldview and I'm all for it. What I do not support is evolution - a quack science without foundation which merely rests upon a naturalistic worldview. Frankly, most people quickly hurl insults on my channel but won't actually discuss the science of the issues. Want to talk about DNA, reproduction, mutation rates, Lucy, ATP motors, polonium halos, or fossils?
alyosha24601 4 months ago
Notice that the comment "Creationism is wrong evolution is true...creationism does not have any evidence supporting it, evolution by natural selection is a theory that has withstood over 150 years of people trying to disprove it." has no scientific content, it is merely an affirmation of faith. I dare the viewer to allow me to take them through the science behind creationism.
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 Alright, take me through the science.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron Let's start with the Big Bang. Matter, energy, space, time, and the laws of nature cannot mathematically begin from nothing. Nothing cannot produce something. That's the second law of thermodynamics. The universe is by definition and by observation finite - it's beginning was about 15 billion years ago. Since "something" requires a cause, that cause must be a god. This is just math. Nothing cannot produce something. Any problems with this?
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 1. I don't believe that the big bang theory claims it happened from nothing, rather it was a veyry small extremely dense "ball" of matter. However I may be wrong.
2. You're trying to apply laws of the universe when the universe did not exist...that's what the big bang explains.
"Since "something" requires a cause, that cause must be a god."
-What kind of logic is this? Is this some form of an argument for ignorance? You should be up to date with your common logical fallacies.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron "However I may be wrong" Yes, there was a ball. But that pinpoint of matter, energy, space, and time had no beginning - that's the whole point. Science and the Bible agree here. The Bible claims God created the universe, and science offers no explanation. I know it is a logical fallacy to conclude a divine cause. The point here however is that past 15 billion years, everyone is in pure faithland. This was a one-time event, not a cycle, not a multiverse, not infinite. A beginning.
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@ronthemoron Doesn't it seem more plausible to put your faith in a creator (who wrote a poetic description of the inflation process in ancient times, by the way) than in something that violates the physical laws we have? If not, I'll pop over next to chemical evolution...
alyosha24601 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alyosha24601 "Yes, there was a ball. But that pinpoint of matter, energy, space, and time had no beginning - that's the whole point."
Who claimed that?
"The Bible claims God created the universe, and science offers no explanation."
What? So no explanation means that there was no beginning?
You're trying to use the laws of physics as a test to prove the probability of it being true, yet you forget your God violates the laws of physics.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 All the "laws" are is a set of explanations of how we percieve all things in the universe to interact. Just because we call them laws does not mean that they are ultimately correct, but until new data is put forward one must assume they are with a somewhat high degree of certainty. I still think you failed to understand that you can not apply the laws of a universe to before that universe existed.
You might want to watch this:
/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron I don't know how to answer this. A scientist does not question an equation. A scientific law is absolute truth, totally inviolate. If you can't accept science as truth I can't go on. What I'm saying is that the universe had a beginning. This event was a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. A "miracle" demands a supernatural cause. The universe could not have created itself. By the way, I've observed four miracles with my own eyes. How would you evaluate such an event?
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 Uhh no, Just because we call something a law doesn't mean we know about everything in the universe...the great thing about science is that the theories can change with the introduction of new information. I can't accept "science" as truth because science is a system for determining truth, not a claim. I guess you will have to stop then because you're misguided on scientific claims. Please explain to me how the second law of thermodynamics is violated.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 "The universe could not have created itself."
........did you even attempt to watch that video from earlier?
"By the way, I've observed four miracles with my own eyes. How would you evaluate such an event?"
Initially, as you just mistaking coincidence for a miracle. It would be better if you could explain what you considered to be miracles.
ronthemoron 6 months ago
@ronthemoron I saw two items appear before my own eyes, once in 1979, once in 1986. Another was a healing. My boss had fallen off a roof and shattered his heel - powdered. After several operations and a two year limp, he was healed in an instant at a church in Toronto, CA. You'll never make me into an atheist - I've seen the violation of physical law with my own eyes. Several probables, too. Have a look - they are common enough that you could find examples as well.
alyosha24601 6 months ago
Creationism is wrong evolution is true...creationism does not have any evidence supporting it, evolution by natural selection is a theory that has withstood over 150 years of people trying to disprove it.
letmelookify 6 months ago
@letmelookify says "creationism does not have any evidence supporting it," You would be amazed if you looked into the science of the issue instead of merely expressing a blind faith in the politically pressured schools. Search for "irreducible complexity", or "no transitional species", or "impossible mathematics of evolution" on your own, or I'll take you through the science, if you have the courage to question the evolution religion! Just stick to the science and you'll learn some new things!
alyosha24601 6 months ago
what the fuck is this?!!!?
TrueDestined 6 months ago
@TrueDestined It's a commentary on banned / forbidden science and the lack of academic freedom. If you present certain facts from science in the schools, you lose your job. Betty to be beaten by a bully than by the government! Keep your kids out of state indoctrination centers TrueDestined or you'll be shocked by how they turn out.
alyosha24601 6 months ago