Nowadays people call it Karma = No beginning and no end. Karma resulted from ignorance (in a vast meaning of it) Just a short observation: due to "a split second of ignorance" a man enters a woman, the big bang happens...and nine months later a baby is born.
Now we are almost 7 billion crowd on earth.
Big bang happens all the time everywhere.... I am not that serious :-)
Tyson is definitely an atheist and he recognizes the bible is not the word of any god but he simply tries to be an educator and get people hooked on science - the "seduction" method,unlike Dawkins who is more aggressive but at least he always says what he believes.Funny thing is Dawkins is far more famous (or infamous?!) than Neil.All that having been said this is the only "flaw" if I can call it, that I have found in Tyson.He still is a hero.
@RhosynCalypso not really a fan of the new atheists (im an atheist myself btw but more like sagan and neil degrasse tyson than the aggressive dawkins/hitchens) but dawkins is my favourite amongst the "new atheists"...selfish gene...blind watchmaker...are classic books, and Dawkins documentaries on religion and evolution are absolutely awesome! We need to bring the liberal religious people on our side and fight the fanatics.
@andyx1205 Dawkins falls under the same category as NDT and Sagan, Hitchens is a radical humanist (as he has stated in the past) and an anti-theist. I don't understand what you mean by "new" atheists. Atheists lack a belief in god(s). That's it. Their presentation of the subject is completely individual-based. One thing to consider is that Dawkins deal a lot with religious radicals, Tyson does not. Hence why their rebutals tend to differ, and why one may sound more aggressive.
Physics & Theology # Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit If triangles made a God they would give him three sides / C. de Montesquieu / If physicists made God they would give him concrete physical parameters Which parameters they can be ? We know that God is something Infinite The conception of Infinity we can find in Bible & Physics Are they different ? I think they are equal Does Physicists meet God in Infinite ? Nobody knows what Infinity is
In the beginning was the Word And the Word was written by formula: T = 0K T = 0K is an Absolute Reference frame Can the T=0K take the functions of God? Can T = 0K be an Absolute God? To answer to this question we need to ask: Which kind of particles can exist in the Absolute Reference frame: T=0K? And then " God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light" It means: The secret of God and Existence is hidden in the Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta # Israel Socratus
@Zvesda Here's the problem: If you define god as whatever you like, you can always say that he exists. Do you have any evidence or good reasons for why I should believe your claim?
"The Bible tells you how to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens go." (Insert on sacred text, and place of preferred final destination, and you have something to tell religious people in a polite way, to let them know it has nothing to do with our universe and it's actual goings on).
keeping this quote forever. this guy needs to be in politics, well...at least on a more national,nay, world stage.
I think it's about time people stop skating around the issue and just come out and say that religion is actually a load of bollocks. If what Neil deGrasse Tyson is factual then 40% of scientists in America are not playing with a full deck of cards. I always fail to see how any scientist can reconcile religion with reality. A biologist wouldn't consider a unicorn, a meteorologist the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow etc.
Neil deGrasse is genius. How elegantly he put it....for this litle old lady. He laft her with hope/delusion, that she will fly with angels for ever. For the sake of other 90% of general population...I would tell the hard, cold truth / reality
Check out the following video entitled: Fé Ciência Glauben Wissenschaft Faith Science Esmeralda Campelo Antônio Peters. With enlightening arguments and facts, speaks Pastor Antonio Peters in an interview about his book entitled “Alpha and Omega“ (English subtitels)
“The book Alpha and Omega is not based on science to explain the Bible, it is based on the Bible and uses science as a keyhole to say: "Look, the Bible already tells us this and goes even further! (Pastor Antônio, 2010)"
What I get is the mystery, rapped in the enigma, with multiple outcomes and complexities, that are, dare I say it, infinite, therefore, there are more concepts than our synaptic CNS is capable of comprehending, including the brains of Cosmologists, Clergy, and cranky atheists, and beyond any computational capability any entity using the science of energy and matter we think we know. So my friends, what is certain is not certain, ever. The journey is everything! Enjoy it! Embrace it! Love it!
@wags699 "Most scientists get caught up in the aspect of religion that tries to explain natural phenomena and supplant science"
Of course. Because that aspect of religion is trying to undermine science. Why would scientists get involved in the positive aspects of religion which promote charity and morality?
Tyson's approach may sway the more moderate of the religious population, but I see no way of ever swaying a religious fundamentalist.
@wags699 religion has had thousands of years of intolerance and persecution. but to you one atheist critisizing religion is abhorrent. THe problem with religion is while having feelings of inspiration it is also has deeper feeling of blind belief and gullibility. Religion doesnt have a monopoly on inspiration and a feeling of beauty of existence..
Its refreshing to see a non-believer who voices his belief in a way that doesn't insult another.
Both, certain religious people(who are really anti-seculars) and certain atheists (who are really anti-religious) can only voice such thoughts in aggression and insult.
Religious or not, I have high respect for this man,
There is evidence for God throughout the observable universe. Check out the anthropic principles for life on this planet. The laws for gravity and quantum physics bespeak of a law giver with personality and the ability to design. For Christians, the terrible things of the universe are explained by the fall of Adam (Genesis 3). You can disagree but it is an explanation that makes the Christian's worldview consistent.
..." Check out the anthropic principles for life on this planet. The laws for gravity and quantum physics bespeak of a law giver with personality and the ability to design. " Are you insane? Do you know what you are speaking about? For certain you DO NOT understand what the Anthropic Principle means and its consequences! All the rest that you mention is just BS... sorry! Go back to a Good school...
@corle1 What do you mean by "killed". She asked him "do you believe in God", and not "why don't you believe in God". Basically, we have no proof that the old lady believes in any God herself. Atheists have the right to ask about God, too, you know?
When people are too uneducated for metaphysical considerations, like the various infinities, they turn instead to armchair-QB the game - and ask for evidence from a playing field they've never stepping into.
@Ramshobraja actually atheist is a person who has no god or no religion. He mentioned in the video that he feels the same way with the universe as to people in their religion. This religion is called Pantheism. God as the universe. Because the universe created everything we know of now. The universe was our creator.
Pantheism isn't a religion. Pantheists are Atheists in the respect that they don't have a belief in any Deities, as in Supernatural overseers who live apart from the universe. Pantheism as you said, is that God and the Universe are the same, but is not personal, therefore doesn't really care about humans, whether they believe it is intelligent, or benign.
@Ramshobraja@Ramshobraja actually atheist is a person who has no god or no religion. He mentioned in the video that he feels the same way with the universe as to people in their religion. This religion is called Pantheism. God as the universe. Because the universe created everything we know of now. The universe was our creator.
@Ramshobraja Looking at how fantastic yet dangerious the cosmos is, I doubt there's a benevolent creator. There may be a creator, who knows. I highly doubt the God of the Bible is even capable of baking a pie lol. Just look at the crap God does in the Bible, he seems very inept.
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
@Ramshobraja no its not. theres the problem of an uncaused beginning and then there is this problem of apparent design and the existence of consciousness that must be wrestled with before it becomes hard to so believe.
@Ramshobraja How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@Ramshobraja For me it actually gets easier . Ya know just because when you look at all these beautiful things the cosmos has to offer its hard not and its hard in my opinion to believe that they just happened randomly . But that's just my opinion . Lol . I think they picked up an anomoly on Saturn which appeared to be music . And it sounded so beautiful . Its on youtube somewhere but when I listened to it it made me think that how could something so random create such beautiful music ?
@scottweise18 Actually, the Saturnian radio waves were first divided by five so that the frequencies matched our scale of audible notes. Then the sounds were quantized into a scale, similar to an "auto-tune." So the beauty that one hears is greatly different than the actual signals. This is poor science. One can arguably take any range of wave data, enlarge or reduce its scope and "auto-tune" it to any scale. The same thing happens. Yes, I am an audio engineer.
@scottweise18 When I think of the wonders of the universe, the probability of the existence of God, quickly falls to zero. At least the concept of God most people have. I see a big disconnect between a God's who's greatest miracles were impregnating virgins, and getting drunk and destroying cities of people for petty reasons, and then watching idle as his followers commit genocide after genocide, and take thousands of years to invent toilet paper.
@scottweise18 But at the same time, I don't have an Issue with the concept of a God existing, it almost to me seems as likely as aliens existing. Its just that if there are beings, or a thing in the universe that would fit the description of a god, it would not fit the human perception, that god is like us, or that we are made in its image. If there is a Universal God, its clear it does not share our way of thinking.
@Ramshobraja Well no Tyson is not an atheist he is an agnostic and has made that clear several times that he gets annoyed when people call him an atheist when he has never said he was. Plus there are already enough good spokesman for atheists in his opinion.
Before I have ever heard of Panthiesm, it was my origin of opinion before I ever discovered the definition and identity of this belief. Which blows my mind because it the atoms, molecules and the laws of nature!! and it all makes sense. I have tried to understand christianity and most of the other ethnic and religious groups, but none of it made any sense at all. Now I know where my mind belongs. Panthiesm!!!
and who impels the great panorama of creation forward to fulfil the purposes of the order of being.
By making the world non-created and eternal, the materialists try to disprove the world's lasting need for a creator and thereby to bestow independent existence on the world. Their method, however, does not yield satisfactory results.
@Atheist603 If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter? You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?
@1tabligh dude are u reading my comments or just copying and paste some of these arguments from another website? seriously...man stop. all i'm saying is we don't know, and to speculate something that we have no understanding of is simply ridiculous. i said the creator might b possible,..it might not even b intelligent, or ominiscient, omnipotent or w/e powers you grant to ur creator. it could be another physical law with in nature. we don't know.
@Atheist603 Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature. ...
@sabemius Matter is everything. It's there and always has been. Non-"created". It just is what it is. There's no possible way in the history of the universe that human beings can discover how matter came to be. It just is. Matter is everywhere, whether it be dirt, air, water, you, an amoeba, everything. There is no starting point, it's unmeasurable, therefore it cannot have an ending point either. Matter is anything and everything that you can and cannot see.
@sabemius Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do deluded atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?
@1tabligh@KevinHarvey66@1tabligh Matter is not eternal and ever-lasting. Matter was created in the nucleosynthesis step of the big bang, through radiative processes. In fact, every day particle accelerators around the world "create" and "destroy" matter, generating exotic species of particles.
@Dpesh7 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh Because you didn't have a good science class, more or less. Very short version. We don't know anything before the Big Bang, so start there. The Big Bang was a lot of energy in a small space. Matter and energy are the same thing, e equals mc squared. So matter condensed from that initial energy. Matter is refined in the hearts of supermassive stars. Matter forms into us. If you ask what was before the Big Bang, I ask "what came before God?". That's as well as I can do within this space.
@7j8i9m If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
@1tabligh dude are u even reading my comments or ur just copying and paste some of these arguments from somewhere else? seriously all i'm saying is we don't know, and to speculate something that we have no understanding of is simply ridiculous. the first cause u arguing 4 mite not even b intelligent, or ominiscient, omnipotent, supernatural or w/e powers you grant to ur god . it could even be another physical law with in nature that we have yet to discover. so it simply no one knows, period
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
simple question for you: what is then the "cause" of what you qualify as 'primary cause" ... and then, going backwards (in a sense), what about the "causes" of each of the presumed "primary causes"?
@Atheist603 That primary cause is one who, in his essence, is free of all need, who can dispense with all the different aspects of existence, and who is able to bring forth the most wondrous phenomena and the most original manifestations. He is a creator who plans all of this and then puts it into effect, who joins all of creation to a temporal mechanism, who constantly scatters the jewel of existence over the world, ...
His mention to the Neuroscience & one's faith is very interesting. I skimmed through a book a few years back where Neuro-scientists attached those electrodes to an individual going through a meditative/spiritual state and they cataloged the areas of the brain which fires up with activity when the individual relayed a message (a simple muscle contraction of the hand) to the scientists, when he felt that he was at his highest spiritual point.
Although we cannot prove that every inconceivable god is non-real we can prove that the gods of the major religions are fake.
Each god is well described in the holy book(s) of their respective religion, and each one is inconsistent with it's own description, breaks it's own rules, and fails to be evidenced as a part of the universe we observe.
In short, if you do worship then the god you worship is a myth.
@08RyanC I like what you said, very nice. The problem is a lot of people that believe in god force their views on those who dont. But I do agree with you
@andyx1205 Substitute "Zeus" for "God". I don't "withhold judgement" on Zeus. God is evidently a man-made myth with evidence on par with (perhaps below) Zeus. There is no Zeus, there is no God.
I wonder why this woman thought having great awe and reverence for the universe would in any way lead to belief in God. My own awe and reverence for the universe leads me more to think 'Who needs God when you have this?'
If God created science, then who created God? If God is uncreated and infinite, then the Universe can also be uncreated and infinite.
The latter is actually much more probable, since it is less complex. The Universe is just a bunch of randomness and "life" as we call it is simply a by-product of the Cosmos. 99.9999999999999% of the Universe is inhabitable, and us humans, with our ethnocentric view, believe the Universe revolves around us (we once thought the sun revolves around the Earth).
I believe in God, Jesus Christ. I have read about a lot of great men but I have only read of One whose birth divided history. AD BC, I have read the Bible and have came across the story of how Jesus was nailed to a cross, killed, beated, put into a tomb which was gaurded by roman soldiers. then Jesus was raised on that sunday. and the same people who saw him die saw him living again, then went on to die for him. People God is real.
@RespectMyHate I am not telling you that your wrong but I know someone else who can do that, his name is david blaine. You have faith in something that you dont have proof of. You cant say you know this for sure.
@boostingcav My friend you also belief in alot of things that you don't really know for sure, but you believe in them with a cretain degree of faith anyway. So when I study atoms or the solar system and see the order and design behind these system, I believe with a certain degree of faith that there is a grand designer behind the sences, I don't close my mind to God existance, Is there a God? Sure why not,
There are many Gods. Yaweah, Allah, Zeus, Poesidon, Odin, Thor, Ra, Vishunu, Shiva, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pink Unicorn, Lady of the lake, Cthulu. No one can prove that one particular God is more true than the rest other than siting faith alone.
@AltAirPilot517 1) Religious people, show us one scrap of evidence that's credible.
________
Not only one but many!
Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?
How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,' and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there's 'No God' because you have taken that stand and you have no "evidence." ...
How strange it is that you have not been everywhere to know what lies everywhere, but nonetheless you deny what exists there. Would any wise man deny the reality of what he is ignorant of?
And you deny the existence of the Creator because you cannot see him with your eyes.
So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist?
@AltAirPilot517 How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1) How can you account for Quantum Mechanics and the fact that quants can exist in more than one location at a time? You can't
3) How can you account for String Theory which pretty much rewrites science as we now it? You can't
4) How is believing in a higher creative force different from BELIEVING in a Big Bang THEORY virtually saying that we exist out of mayhem, simply by chance and enormous coincidence? Prove this theory epirically, please. You can't.
1) Quantum Mechanics literally has nothing to do with a God.
3) No it doesn't. It doesn't rewrite Science. Science is making a testable claim, then trying to confirm that claim, by testing it repeatedly, and using Empirical evidence. If you can prove an explanation, then prove it over and over again, then send it in to everyone in your field of study for them to prove it, then that's when it is a Science as in using the Scientific Method.
Neither can you prove it wasn't anything other than sheer chance, chaos and coincidence. Thus the only logical position is to suspend judgment on an intelligent designer creating it. An Intelligent Designer creating the universe is the least likely cause due to the Infinite Regression problem that arises, which cannot be countered. The only arguments against the whole "What created God, and what created that being (to infinity)?" is by using a logical fallacy called Special pleading
When you say: "How can you account for String Theory which pretty much rewrites science as we now it? You can't" I believe you do not know what you are speaking about and you do NOT understand what the String Theory entails.
@AltAirPilot517 You're a liar and liars don't tell the truth. Given more than a "scrap" you'll still run off at the mouth because that is also what liars do. Here is a list of irrefutable proofs of the Bible being the Word of God. The Bible Itself The Jews and their history. Cyrus, king of Persia The human eye DNA Isa 27:6 Job 22:14 Ivan Panin's discovery of the number 7 in Matthew The cuneiform tablets of the Sumerian Kings List in Mesopatamia ALL relevant archaeological finds confirm Bible
@AltAirPilot517 In order for that list to be confirmed, you would have to investigate the details of each to understand why they offer irrefutable proof of the Word of God's veracity.
You're not going to do that. Why? 1) Because no one is willing to be made a fool of. You WON'T DO THE HOMEWORK. 2) Because you DON'T WANT to know the truth. This brief list could have had THOUSANDS of items just as powerfully demonstrative of the truth of God's Word. Yet, atheists NEVER investigate (see 2) above).
I think we need to stop pussy-footing around the religious as though they were these fragile crybabies, and instead demand from them rational and logical input to problems that face our nation and abroad. Stop allowing this reliance on half truths, superstitions, and hayseed mentality as a means of argument. Further, we need to make the criteria for participation in such discussions intellectually and educationally based in order to promote evidence-backed submissions.
Man often overlooks his weaknesses, preoccupied as he is with his strengths. The science worshipper of the contemporary world is so proud of his knowledge as a result of the progress that has been attained in the experimental sciences that he imagines himself to have conquered and triumphantly taken possession of the world of truth. But nobody has ever been able to claim that he has attained knowledge of all the mysteries of the universe and removed all the veils from the world of nature.
@mmstroede What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
@mmstroede Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@1tabligh ok, if there was a creator what do you know about him/her/it? how did it create things? I mean where did he/she/it come from? we don't deny the creator just because we want to, but because there's any evidence of the creator. I mean we all know that matter can't be created. Also, we don't even know that the universe had a beginning. we know how we came to be human is by evolution's natural selection. I mean what good reason do you have to believe in a creator?
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. ...
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe. Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe. ...
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies. ...
@Atheist603 How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
@1tabligh well the all-knowing creator, wise and purposeful creator can easily be refuted. I mean science is not suggesting that he/she does not exist, there is simply no evidence, . I mean, evolution is a fact and could b observed. for example when virus or bacteria are able develope a protective mechanism that allow it to resist certain drugs after a while. I mean where does purposeful designer fit there? Also,90% of all species have been extinct.
@Atheist603 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
@1tabligh...there was no steps of creation. I mean we were not created. we just evolved from smaller organisms. It was random mutations that accured that some of those organism changed. I mean there was no devine plan for human creation. the problem is we think of ourselves as the top of the ladder of evolution. well it wasn't a ladder and we're equal to other animals evolutionary wise, we're just different. it took over 2 billions years for things to become this way.
@1tabligh we don't really know how life started here on earth, but we have an idea on how life can start from non-living materials. i mean at least scientist admit it when they don't know, but you religious people don't know squat, but always asserting that you know everything by just saying god or Allah, Zeus did it lol how's that different from saying that the flying spaghetting moster did it
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link." ....
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes. However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it. So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being? ....
@1tabligh ok, let me put it this way, the universe has over a 100 billion gallaxies which have each more than a 100 billions of stars like our sun and other different. we're nothing,..we're like a dust of sand in all sand beaches on earth. we're made up of the most common chemicals in the universe carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc.. so to that, what makes you think we're so special? I mean we're also part of a diversity of life on earth.
@1tabligh@1tabligh ok, let me put it this way, the universe has over a 100 billion gallaxies which have each more than a 100 billions of stars like our sun and different ones. we're nothing,..we're like a dust of sand in all beaches on earth. we're made up of the most common chemicals in the universe carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc.. so to that, what makes you think we're so special? we're also, one of the multiple diversity of life on earth. we ain't that special if you think about it.
@Atheist603 However far this infinite chain is prolonged, it will still have the attributes of neediness, dependency, and origination in time. A chain from the very nature of which autonomy and freedom from need do not arise can never put on the garment of being until it connects with one who is in his essence absolutely free of need— ...
with a being who possesses the attributes of divinity and who is only a cause and not an effect. Without the existence of such an unconditional being, the source of all causes and the foundation of all existence, the order of creation *cannot* EXIST.
@1tabligh we don't know if the universe had a beginning, we know that matter can't be created. it has always existed in some form. and if god created the universe and if it gave it laws, where was god getting that power from? we know that something can't come out of nothin, how did god come about? where did he go, does he still manifest? or he/she/it caused matter to start the universe then left? or..How did this being come about? and y did it decide to create this expending universe?
@1tabligh i'm just fed up with you calling us creation.. we were not created!!! we evolved, i mean stars had to die so we'd be here. without them, the earth wouldn't be here. we evolved from simple mechanism. i've said this like a million times. we have the science has explain alot of thing about this world the only world that we have evidence for. you're fantansy world, in your mind doesn't exist. if you think it does, please provide me with some emperical evidance or otherwise just shut up!
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
"we know that matter can't be created....."
Where did you pull that from?
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning. ...
The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end,...
for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is not possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed anew into matter and mass comfortable to the world of being.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can no longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge ...
body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has originated in time.
The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a proof of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion. ...
We see, then, that the natural sciences have ***expelled*** matter from the stronghold of eternity. Science not only proves the createdness of the world but also bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
@1tabligh well ok,..when did existance start? we don't know when it all started. we know that our universe expanded at the big bang, but we don't know if it had a beginning. there's this theory of multi-verses that would be soon tested by NASA. basically And if the universe came to existance by some devine God thingy, where did it come from? ur not answering my questions. lol u said that nothin' can create itself. if our universe needs a start button, so does ur freaking God thingy.
@1tabligh the multi-verse theory suggest that our universe might've came from a blackhole from another older universe. basically it's a infinity of universes. seriously, where did that creating power coming from? and where is it getting it creativity from? just answer that. You can't always assum things. Just give me some evidence, even if the world came into existance at a given time, it doesn't prove that there was a creator. because there's any evidance for him. answer my questions please.
@Atheist603 Suppose that at the war front, a column of soldiers intends to attack the enemy but none of them is ready to begin the battle by lunging into the heart of the enemy army. Whoever is given the order to do so replies: "I will not attack until so-and-so beings to fight." Every single soldier repeats the same thing; there is no one unconditionally ready to begin the attack. Under such conditions will the attack ever take place? ...
Of course not, because everyone's fighting is conditional on that of someone else. It is obvious that a whole series of conditional attacks will not take place without the fulfillment of the condition, something impossible under the circumstances, and, as a result, the attack will not take place.
If we continue the chain of cause and effect indefinitely, the existence of each link in the chain will be conditional on that of the preceding link, which, in turn, ...
will be conditional on the existence of the link preceding it. It is as if each link in the chain of causality were to proclaim loudly from the depths of its being: "I shall not don the garment of existence until that other one has set foot on the plain of being." Each link depends on a condition that has not been fulfilled, and each one is, therefore, barred from enjoying the blessing of existence. ...
@1tabligh In that case it's possible that a thing/being like that started the universe, and put togetha the laws of physics to govern the universe and then left, even stephen Hawkins agree with that . however,...that doesn't mean that thing is all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, cares about you or know who you are etc... It's like question that says, can god make a rock big enough that he can't lift?
Nowadays people call it Karma = No beginning and no end. Karma resulted from ignorance (in a vast meaning of it) Just a short observation: due to "a split second of ignorance" a man enters a woman, the big bang happens...and nine months later a baby is born.
Now we are almost 7 billion crowd on earth.
Big bang happens all the time everywhere.... I am not that serious :-)
Trodua 1 month ago
why do I see Tony Stark in him?
CommanderTyphoon555 1 month ago
Looooved his response. I've never seen him outwardly announce that he was an atheist but his reply certainly was logical and well explained.
Juniversal 1 month ago
0:16 when did Steven Hawkins have a sex change? oh its just funny clothes.
sushanalone 3 months ago
Tyson is definitely an atheist and he recognizes the bible is not the word of any god but he simply tries to be an educator and get people hooked on science - the "seduction" method,unlike Dawkins who is more aggressive but at least he always says what he believes.Funny thing is Dawkins is far more famous (or infamous?!) than Neil.All that having been said this is the only "flaw" if I can call it, that I have found in Tyson.He still is a hero.
denispkpk 3 months ago
what a classy reply, unlike Mr. Dawkins, who's replies are funny, but not classy.
schmoonzer1 4 months ago
@schmoonzer1 Dawkins' responses are classy, just not diplomatic. But both are outstanding scientists :)
RhosynCalypso 4 months ago
@RhosynCalypso not really a fan of the new atheists (im an atheist myself btw but more like sagan and neil degrasse tyson than the aggressive dawkins/hitchens) but dawkins is my favourite amongst the "new atheists"...selfish gene...blind watchmaker...are classic books, and Dawkins documentaries on religion and evolution are absolutely awesome! We need to bring the liberal religious people on our side and fight the fanatics.
andyx1205 3 months ago 3
@andyx1205 Dawkins falls under the same category as NDT and Sagan, Hitchens is a radical humanist (as he has stated in the past) and an anti-theist. I don't understand what you mean by "new" atheists. Atheists lack a belief in god(s). That's it. Their presentation of the subject is completely individual-based. One thing to consider is that Dawkins deal a lot with religious radicals, Tyson does not. Hence why their rebutals tend to differ, and why one may sound more aggressive.
LT3D 2 months ago
"The bible tells you how to go to heaven not how the heavens go"
In fact, it tells you both. But it's all rubbish.
kaminarigaston 4 months ago
When I watch Neil deGrasse Tyson, I can haz brilliant quotes.
1voice1man 4 months ago
"The bible tells you how to go to heaven not how the heavens go"
Brilliant quote
absba9 6 months ago 6
i needs facts...
jakski 6 months ago
israelsocratus 6 months ago
socratus1 6 months ago
That was about as diplomatic as it gets.
EPR89 6 months ago
God is not an entity, but a goal.
Zvesda 7 months ago
@Zvesda Here's the problem: If you define god as whatever you like, you can always say that he exists. Do you have any evidence or good reasons for why I should believe your claim?
lagerbaer 7 months ago
I believe in gods. We just haven't become them yet.
djtreefitty 7 months ago 2
"The Bible tells you how to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens go." (Insert on sacred text, and place of preferred final destination, and you have something to tell religious people in a polite way, to let them know it has nothing to do with our universe and it's actual goings on).
keeping this quote forever. this guy needs to be in politics, well...at least on a more national,nay, world stage.
teazalamode 7 months ago
@teazalamode Here's another quote for you: "People who should be in politics are not corrupt enough to get there." I hope this changes one day.
FM897 5 months ago 8
I think it's about time people stop skating around the issue and just come out and say that religion is actually a load of bollocks. If what Neil deGrasse Tyson is factual then 40% of scientists in America are not playing with a full deck of cards. I always fail to see how any scientist can reconcile religion with reality. A biologist wouldn't consider a unicorn, a meteorologist the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow etc.
Zed1967 7 months ago
If scientists governed society instead of politicians the world would be a better place in my opinon .
scottweise18 8 months ago
The old lady is the one who disliked this.
crimsoncitizen 8 months ago 39
Neil deGrasse is genius. How elegantly he put it....for this litle old lady. He laft her with hope/delusion, that she will fly with angels for ever. For the sake of other 90% of general population...I would tell the hard, cold truth / reality
Aleksamson 9 months ago
This brotha was born in da Bronx... YEP YEP
freedomland11 9 months ago 9
american you are lucky to have someone genuinely worried for your science and education.
jojoinhere 10 months ago
Neil DeGrasse Tyson for President!!!!
Zag118 11 months ago 34
Check out the following video entitled: Fé Ciência Glauben Wissenschaft Faith Science Esmeralda Campelo Antônio Peters. With enlightening arguments and facts, speaks Pastor Antonio Peters in an interview about his book entitled “Alpha and Omega“ (English subtitels)
“The book Alpha and Omega is not based on science to explain the Bible, it is based on the Bible and uses science as a keyhole to say: "Look, the Bible already tells us this and goes even further! (Pastor Antônio, 2010)"
RabieFam7 11 months ago
@RabieFam7 - But that's not true. Whoever said that knows NOTHING about science or even possesses a the barest modicum of scientific literacy.
You might have well have said, "Check out this video. It's from the Lord of the Rings".
morpheusxnyc 10 months ago 4
What I get is the mystery, rapped in the enigma, with multiple outcomes and complexities, that are, dare I say it, infinite, therefore, there are more concepts than our synaptic CNS is capable of comprehending, including the brains of Cosmologists, Clergy, and cranky atheists, and beyond any computational capability any entity using the science of energy and matter we think we know. So my friends, what is certain is not certain, ever. The journey is everything! Enjoy it! Embrace it! Love it!
tonytonkin1 11 months ago
Yeah, he totally dodged the question there.
PolarBair 11 months ago
Neil to rule the world
ProgressiveMind 11 months ago
@wags699 "Most scientists get caught up in the aspect of religion that tries to explain natural phenomena and supplant science"
Of course. Because that aspect of religion is trying to undermine science. Why would scientists get involved in the positive aspects of religion which promote charity and morality?
Tyson's approach may sway the more moderate of the religious population, but I see no way of ever swaying a religious fundamentalist.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@wags699 religion has had thousands of years of intolerance and persecution. but to you one atheist critisizing religion is abhorrent. THe problem with religion is while having feelings of inspiration it is also has deeper feeling of blind belief and gullibility. Religion doesnt have a monopoly on inspiration and a feeling of beauty of existence..
Dpesh7 1 year ago 2
Its refreshing to see a non-believer who voices his belief in a way that doesn't insult another.
Both, certain religious people(who are really anti-seculars) and certain atheists (who are really anti-religious) can only voice such thoughts in aggression and insult.
Religious or not, I have high respect for this man,
tossitupman 1 year ago 8
He doesnt have to answer her he did a good job to go around the question
C0mm0nS3ns3 1 year ago
he went easy on her, had that been dawkins or hitchens it wouldve been a lot different
pistolpete667 1 year ago
the universe is my god.
TheToxicRadio 1 year ago
I was there!!!!
camaelburro3 1 year ago
Nice :) . I really like Dr. Tyson and his eloquent answers :) .
Of course, the benevolence thing doesn't apply so much to more ancient religions (Zeus and Thor were bad-ass)...
-IMP ;) :)
IceMetalPunk 1 year ago 2
What a complete coward.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
Wow. You're so ashamed, you REMOVED THE LIST that BludBaut posted!
911dispatcher 1 year ago
i feel bad for the old lady
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
Conservative christian's are the anti-exploration science.
rbolo29 1 year ago
There is evidence for God throughout the observable universe. Check out the anthropic principles for life on this planet. The laws for gravity and quantum physics bespeak of a law giver with personality and the ability to design. For Christians, the terrible things of the universe are explained by the fall of Adam (Genesis 3). You can disagree but it is an explanation that makes the Christian's worldview consistent.
faithcommunitychurch 1 year ago
@faithcommunitychurch
..." Check out the anthropic principles for life on this planet. The laws for gravity and quantum physics bespeak of a law giver with personality and the ability to design. " Are you insane? Do you know what you are speaking about? For certain you DO NOT understand what the Anthropic Principle means and its consequences! All the rest that you mention is just BS... sorry! Go back to a Good school...
sabemius 1 year ago
thank god it was tyson answering that granny and not hitchens
Dpesh7 1 year ago 3
@Dpesh7 Haha! Tyson is about as meek and mild as atheists get. Hitchens would have made her spontaneously combust!
josenros 1 year ago 3
Noam Chomsky is God.
knowthetruth1492 1 year ago
Had Tyson answered straight as he usually does, he would have killed granma there.
corle1 1 year ago 113
@corle1 llol true
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
@corle1 Atheism: The endless scouring of the universe for the ultimate cheap one-liner to rule them all.
xXFlyspeckXx 1 year ago
@corle1 Atheism: The endless scouring of the universe for the ultimate cheap one-liner to rule them all. Thankfully, Tyson isn't one of those.
xXFlyspeckXx 1 year ago
@corle1 lol true he's a nice guy
FIGHTFANNERD3 10 months ago
@corle1 hahahaha
scarfacethx 6 months ago
@corle1 because he's atheist
SanguineBullet667 6 months ago
@corle1 What do you mean by "killed". She asked him "do you believe in God", and not "why don't you believe in God". Basically, we have no proof that the old lady believes in any God herself. Atheists have the right to ask about God, too, you know?
Woolfieman 5 months ago
God this guy is brilliant
xr3n3g4d3x 1 year ago
I wish he would have just said NO.
LBTennis 1 year ago
@LBTennis Because that wasn't his answer, per se.
kylemaxwell 1 year ago
When people are too uneducated for metaphysical considerations, like the various infinities, they turn instead to armchair-QB the game - and ask for evidence from a playing field they've never stepping into.
Tyson is a good guy, btw.
shpoffo 1 year ago
@Ramshobraja actually atheist is a person who has no god or no religion. He mentioned in the video that he feels the same way with the universe as to people in their religion. This religion is called Pantheism. God as the universe. Because the universe created everything we know of now. The universe was our creator.
GoTsTiLoz 1 year ago
@GoTsTiLoz
Pantheism isn't a religion. Pantheists are Atheists in the respect that they don't have a belief in any Deities, as in Supernatural overseers who live apart from the universe. Pantheism as you said, is that God and the Universe are the same, but is not personal, therefore doesn't really care about humans, whether they believe it is intelligent, or benign.
DanielxMorningstar 1 year ago
Tyson is clearly an atheist. It gets hard to believe in a creator when you look at the cosmos.
Ramshobraja 1 year ago 95
@Ramshobraja @Ramshobraja actually atheist is a person who has no god or no religion. He mentioned in the video that he feels the same way with the universe as to people in their religion. This religion is called Pantheism. God as the universe. Because the universe created everything we know of now. The universe was our creator.
GoTsTiLoz 1 year ago
@Ramshobraja i think its even harder to believe in a creator when he doesn't exist ;)
musicowned 1 year ago
@Ramshobraja Looking at how fantastic yet dangerious the cosmos is, I doubt there's a benevolent creator. There may be a creator, who knows. I highly doubt the God of the Bible is even capable of baking a pie lol. Just look at the crap God does in the Bible, he seems very inept.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago 3
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y if there is a god he is more malevolent.
Dpesh7 1 year ago
@Ramshobraja no its not. theres the problem of an uncaused beginning and then there is this problem of apparent design and the existence of consciousness that must be wrestled with before it becomes hard to so believe.
Dathinkingman 11 months ago
@Ramshobraja How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 9 months ago in playlist SCIENCE
@Ramshobraja For me it actually gets easier . Ya know just because when you look at all these beautiful things the cosmos has to offer its hard not and its hard in my opinion to believe that they just happened randomly . But that's just my opinion . Lol . I think they picked up an anomoly on Saturn which appeared to be music . And it sounded so beautiful . Its on youtube somewhere but when I listened to it it made me think that how could something so random create such beautiful music ?
scottweise18 8 months ago
@scottweise18 Actually, the Saturnian radio waves were first divided by five so that the frequencies matched our scale of audible notes. Then the sounds were quantized into a scale, similar to an "auto-tune." So the beauty that one hears is greatly different than the actual signals. This is poor science. One can arguably take any range of wave data, enlarge or reduce its scope and "auto-tune" it to any scale. The same thing happens. Yes, I am an audio engineer.
twistedH3L1X 7 months ago
@scottweise18 When I think of the wonders of the universe, the probability of the existence of God, quickly falls to zero. At least the concept of God most people have. I see a big disconnect between a God's who's greatest miracles were impregnating virgins, and getting drunk and destroying cities of people for petty reasons, and then watching idle as his followers commit genocide after genocide, and take thousands of years to invent toilet paper.
GhostInTheShell29 7 months ago
@scottweise18 But at the same time, I don't have an Issue with the concept of a God existing, it almost to me seems as likely as aliens existing. Its just that if there are beings, or a thing in the universe that would fit the description of a god, it would not fit the human perception, that god is like us, or that we are made in its image. If there is a Universal God, its clear it does not share our way of thinking.
GhostInTheShell29 7 months ago
@Ramshobraja Actually Tyson describes himself as a passionate agnostic.
IXSuperRadGamerXI 6 months ago 2
@Ramshobraja i think hes agnostic
zenoparodie 4 months ago
@Ramshobraja Well no Tyson is not an atheist he is an agnostic and has made that clear several times that he gets annoyed when people call him an atheist when he has never said he was. Plus there are already enough good spokesman for atheists in his opinion.
BlackMagister 4 months ago
Before I have ever heard of Panthiesm, it was my origin of opinion before I ever discovered the definition and identity of this belief. Which blows my mind because it the atoms, molecules and the laws of nature!! and it all makes sense. I have tried to understand christianity and most of the other ethnic and religious groups, but none of it made any sense at all. Now I know where my mind belongs. Panthiesm!!!
GoTsTiLoz 1 year ago
and who impels the great panorama of creation forward to fulfil the purposes of the order of being.
By making the world non-created and eternal, the materialists try to disprove the world's lasting need for a creator and thereby to bestow independent existence on the world. Their method, however, does not yield satisfactory results.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh where did that creator come from ? and if he's eternal then it's ok to say that the universe is eternal
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter? You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh dude are u reading my comments or just copying and paste some of these arguments from another website? seriously...man stop. all i'm saying is we don't know, and to speculate something that we have no understanding of is simply ridiculous. i said the creator might b possible,..it might not even b intelligent, or ominiscient, omnipotent or w/e powers you grant to ur creator. it could be another physical law with in nature. we don't know.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
How can you affirm: "matter is non-created, has no beginning or end.." ?!!!!
NO beginning or End??? Please !
sabemius 1 year ago
@sabemius Matter is everything. It's there and always has been. Non-"created". It just is what it is. There's no possible way in the history of the universe that human beings can discover how matter came to be. It just is. Matter is everywhere, whether it be dirt, air, water, you, an amoeba, everything. There is no starting point, it's unmeasurable, therefore it cannot have an ending point either. Matter is anything and everything that you can and cannot see.
KevinHarvey66 1 year ago
@sabemius Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do deluded atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
We're working on it. It's still more logical to say "We don't know yet" than "God did it"
DR000 1 year ago
@1tabligh @KevinHarvey66 @1tabligh Matter is not eternal and ever-lasting. Matter was created in the nucleosynthesis step of the big bang, through radiative processes. In fact, every day particle accelerators around the world "create" and "destroy" matter, generating exotic species of particles.
p2pnoob 1 year ago
@1tabligh what deepak chopra drivel
Dpesh7 1 year ago
@Dpesh7 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 10 months ago
@1tabligh Because you didn't have a good science class, more or less. Very short version. We don't know anything before the Big Bang, so start there. The Big Bang was a lot of energy in a small space. Matter and energy are the same thing, e equals mc squared. So matter condensed from that initial energy. Matter is refined in the hearts of supermassive stars. Matter forms into us. If you ask what was before the Big Bang, I ask "what came before God?". That's as well as I can do within this space.
7j8i9m 7 months ago
@7j8i9m If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh dude are u even reading my comments or ur just copying and paste some of these arguments from somewhere else? seriously all i'm saying is we don't know, and to speculate something that we have no understanding of is simply ridiculous. the first cause u arguing 4 mite not even b intelligent, or ominiscient, omnipotent, supernatural or w/e powers you grant to ur god . it could even be another physical law with in nature that we have yet to discover. so it simply no one knows, period
Atheist603 1 year ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
simple question for you: what is then the "cause" of what you qualify as 'primary cause" ... and then, going backwards (in a sense), what about the "causes" of each of the presumed "primary causes"?
sabemius 1 year ago
@Atheist603 That primary cause is one who, in his essence, is free of all need, who can dispense with all the different aspects of existence, and who is able to bring forth the most wondrous phenomena and the most original manifestations. He is a creator who plans all of this and then puts it into effect, who joins all of creation to a temporal mechanism, who constantly scatters the jewel of existence over the world, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh and if you think that the universe was created and you or me in mind of the creator you really are delusional lol
Atheist603 1 year ago
@1tabligh
This one is from al-islam org/godattributes/chain htm
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
His mention to the Neuroscience & one's faith is very interesting. I skimmed through a book a few years back where Neuro-scientists attached those electrodes to an individual going through a meditative/spiritual state and they cataloged the areas of the brain which fires up with activity when the individual relayed a message (a simple muscle contraction of the hand) to the scientists, when he felt that he was at his highest spiritual point.
Maskedhaven 1 year ago
Although we cannot prove that every inconceivable god is non-real we can prove that the gods of the major religions are fake.
Each god is well described in the holy book(s) of their respective religion, and each one is inconsistent with it's own description, breaks it's own rules, and fails to be evidenced as a part of the universe we observe.
In short, if you do worship then the god you worship is a myth.
PlayT0E 1 year ago
@08RyanC I like what you said, very nice. The problem is a lot of people that believe in god force their views on those who dont. But I do agree with you
boostingcav 1 year ago
Why is atheism the rational position to take?
1) There is no scientific evidence proving that God exists.
2) There is no scientific evidence proving that God does not exist.
3 Therefore, the answer to "Does God exist" is "we don't know"
4) On matters of "we don't know," one must "withhold judgement"
5) If one withholds judgement on God, one does not believe in God
6) Thus, there is no rational reason to believe in God.
Atheism - lack of belief in God
andyx1205 1 year ago
@andyx1205 Substitute "Zeus" for "God". I don't "withhold judgement" on Zeus. God is evidently a man-made myth with evidence on par with (perhaps below) Zeus. There is no Zeus, there is no God.
javb222 1 year ago
I wonder why this woman thought having great awe and reverence for the universe would in any way lead to belief in God. My own awe and reverence for the universe leads me more to think 'Who needs God when you have this?'
sam51092 1 year ago
That's me behind the lady =D
thewarrior195 1 year ago
If God created science, then who created God? If God is uncreated and infinite, then the Universe can also be uncreated and infinite.
The latter is actually much more probable, since it is less complex. The Universe is just a bunch of randomness and "life" as we call it is simply a by-product of the Cosmos. 99.9999999999999% of the Universe is inhabitable, and us humans, with our ethnocentric view, believe the Universe revolves around us (we once thought the sun revolves around the Earth).
andyx1205 1 year ago
God didn't create man.
Man created God.
andyx1205 1 year ago
I believe in God, Jesus Christ. I have read about a lot of great men but I have only read of One whose birth divided history. AD BC, I have read the Bible and have came across the story of how Jesus was nailed to a cross, killed, beated, put into a tomb which was gaurded by roman soldiers. then Jesus was raised on that sunday. and the same people who saw him die saw him living again, then went on to die for him. People God is real.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate lol
Kamatzu 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate "People God is real" ~ said "RespectMyHate"...
nice ! :)
RationalFuture 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate I am not telling you that your wrong but I know someone else who can do that, his name is david blaine. You have faith in something that you dont have proof of. You cant say you know this for sure.
boostingcav 1 year ago
@boostingcav My friend you also belief in alot of things that you don't really know for sure, but you believe in them with a cretain degree of faith anyway. So when I study atoms or the solar system and see the order and design behind these system, I believe with a certain degree of faith that there is a grand designer behind the sences, I don't close my mind to God existance, Is there a God? Sure why not,
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate I'm not going to say your wrong about if there is a god or not. Ill just end this.
boostingcav 1 year ago
@boostingcav Good Idea, But when I comes to God I'd rather be safe then sorry.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
There are many Gods. Yaweah, Allah, Zeus, Poesidon, Odin, Thor, Ra, Vishunu, Shiva, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pink Unicorn, Lady of the lake, Cthulu. No one can prove that one particular God is more true than the rest other than siting faith alone.
sihsobhk 1 year ago 4
1) Religious people, show us one scrap of evidence that's credible.
2) You can't.
3) I don't feel bad about making that last statement. Prove me wrong and I'll shut up.
4) You can't!
AltAirPilot517 1 year ago 36
@AltAirPilot517 1) Religious people, show us one scrap of evidence that's credible.
________
Not only one but many!
Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?
How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,' and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there's 'No God' because you have taken that stand and you have no "evidence." ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
Now tell me, have you ever been everywhere?
How strange it is that you have not been everywhere to know what lies everywhere, but nonetheless you deny what exists there. Would any wise man deny the reality of what he is ignorant of?
And you deny the existence of the Creator because you cannot see him with your eyes.
So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist?
So how do you know what is there?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@AltAirPilot517 How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@AltAirPilot517
1) How can you account for Quantum Mechanics and the fact that quants can exist in more than one location at a time? You can't
3) How can you account for String Theory which pretty much rewrites science as we now it? You can't
4) How is believing in a higher creative force different from BELIEVING in a Big Bang THEORY virtually saying that we exist out of mayhem, simply by chance and enormous coincidence? Prove this theory epirically, please. You can't.
SLAVO1207 1 year ago
@SLAVO1207
1) Quantum Mechanics literally has nothing to do with a God.
3) No it doesn't. It doesn't rewrite Science. Science is making a testable claim, then trying to confirm that claim, by testing it repeatedly, and using Empirical evidence. If you can prove an explanation, then prove it over and over again, then send it in to everyone in your field of study for them to prove it, then that's when it is a Science as in using the Scientific Method.
DanielxMorningstar 1 year ago
@SLAVO1207
Neither can you prove it wasn't anything other than sheer chance, chaos and coincidence. Thus the only logical position is to suspend judgment on an intelligent designer creating it. An Intelligent Designer creating the universe is the least likely cause due to the Infinite Regression problem that arises, which cannot be countered. The only arguments against the whole "What created God, and what created that being (to infinity)?" is by using a logical fallacy called Special pleading
DanielxMorningstar 1 year ago
@SLAVO1207
When you say: "How can you account for String Theory which pretty much rewrites science as we now it? You can't" I believe you do not know what you are speaking about and you do NOT understand what the String Theory entails.
sabemius 1 year ago
BludBaut 1 year ago
@AltAirPilot517 In order for that list to be confirmed, you would have to investigate the details of each to understand why they offer irrefutable proof of the Word of God's veracity.
You're not going to do that. Why? 1) Because no one is willing to be made a fool of. You WON'T DO THE HOMEWORK. 2) Because you DON'T WANT to know the truth. This brief list could have had THOUSANDS of items just as powerfully demonstrative of the truth of God's Word. Yet, atheists NEVER investigate (see 2) above).
BludBaut 1 year ago
I think we need to stop pussy-footing around the religious as though they were these fragile crybabies, and instead demand from them rational and logical input to problems that face our nation and abroad. Stop allowing this reliance on half truths, superstitions, and hayseed mentality as a means of argument. Further, we need to make the criteria for participation in such discussions intellectually and educationally based in order to promote evidence-backed submissions.
mmstroede 1 year ago 29
Man often overlooks his weaknesses, preoccupied as he is with his strengths. The science worshipper of the contemporary world is so proud of his knowledge as a result of the progress that has been attained in the experimental sciences that he imagines himself to have conquered and triumphantly taken possession of the world of truth. But nobody has ever been able to claim that he has attained knowledge of all the mysteries of the universe and removed all the veils from the world of nature.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@mmstroede What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@mmstroede Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh ok, if there was a creator what do you know about him/her/it? how did it create things? I mean where did he/she/it come from? we don't deny the creator just because we want to, but because there's any evidence of the creator. I mean we all know that matter can't be created. Also, we don't even know that the universe had a beginning. we know how we came to be human is by evolution's natural selection. I mean what good reason do you have to believe in a creator?
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 I mean where did he/she/it come from?
_______
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe. Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Also posted on:
v=Hhzgg59bVLU
v=R20x42p8iCU
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh ok,..what other world are there do we know of? besides the material world, and what evidence do you have for the other world?
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh well the all-knowing creator, wise and purposeful creator can easily be refuted. I mean science is not suggesting that he/she does not exist, there is simply no evidence, . I mean, evolution is a fact and could b observed. for example when virus or bacteria are able develope a protective mechanism that allow it to resist certain drugs after a while. I mean where does purposeful designer fit there? Also,90% of all species have been extinct.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of mindless matter?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh...there was no steps of creation. I mean we were not created. we just evolved from smaller organisms. It was random mutations that accured that some of those organism changed. I mean there was no devine plan for human creation. the problem is we think of ourselves as the top of the ladder of evolution. well it wasn't a ladder and we're equal to other animals evolutionary wise, we're just different. it took over 2 billions years for things to become this way.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 we just evolved from smaller organisms.
_______
And where did they come from?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh we don't really know how life started here on earth, but we have an idea on how life can start from non-living materials. i mean at least scientist admit it when they don't know, but you religious people don't know squat, but always asserting that you know everything by just saying god or Allah, Zeus did it lol how's that different from saying that the flying spaghetting moster did it
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 we don't really know
________
Then what you think you got the brain for?
The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link." ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes. However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it. So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being? ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
@Atheist603 The existence of each part of the chain manifests inadequacy, impotence, and origination in time; whence did its existence arise?
How can great and complex beings emerge from infinite joinings of nonbeing?
Does life gush forth from the union of the numerous factors that bring about death?
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh ok, let me put it this way, the universe has over a 100 billion gallaxies which have each more than a 100 billions of stars like our sun and other different. we're nothing,..we're like a dust of sand in all sand beaches on earth. we're made up of the most common chemicals in the universe carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc.. so to that, what makes you think we're so special? I mean we're also part of a diversity of life on earth.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@1tabligh @1tabligh ok, let me put it this way, the universe has over a 100 billion gallaxies which have each more than a 100 billions of stars like our sun and different ones. we're nothing,..we're like a dust of sand in all beaches on earth. we're made up of the most common chemicals in the universe carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc.. so to that, what makes you think we're so special? we're also, one of the multiple diversity of life on earth. we ain't that special if you think about it.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 However far this infinite chain is prolonged, it will still have the attributes of neediness, dependency, and origination in time. A chain from the very nature of which autonomy and freedom from need do not arise can never put on the garment of being until it connects with one who is in his essence absolutely free of need— ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
with a being who possesses the attributes of divinity and who is only a cause and not an effect. Without the existence of such an unconditional being, the source of all causes and the foundation of all existence, the order of creation *cannot* EXIST.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh we don't know if the universe had a beginning, we know that matter can't be created. it has always existed in some form. and if god created the universe and if it gave it laws, where was god getting that power from? we know that something can't come out of nothin, how did god come about? where did he go, does he still manifest? or he/she/it caused matter to start the universe then left? or..How did this being come about? and y did it decide to create this expending universe?
Atheist603 1 year ago
@1tabligh i'm just fed up with you calling us creation.. we were not created!!! we evolved, i mean stars had to die so we'd be here. without them, the earth wouldn't be here. we evolved from simple mechanism. i've said this like a million times. we have the science has explain alot of thing about this world the only world that we have evidence for. you're fantansy world, in your mind doesn't exist. if you think it does, please provide me with some emperical evidance or otherwise just shut up!
Atheist603 1 year ago
"shut up!"
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
"we know that matter can't be created....."
Where did you pull that from?
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end,...
1tabligh 1 year ago
for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is not possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed anew into matter and mass comfortable to the world of being.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can no longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has originated in time.
The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a proof of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@Atheist603 Shut up
________
We see, then, that the natural sciences have ***expelled*** matter from the stronghold of eternity. Science not only proves the createdness of the world but also bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
How is that for YOUR "Shut up"?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh well ok,..when did existance start? we don't know when it all started. we know that our universe expanded at the big bang, but we don't know if it had a beginning. there's this theory of multi-verses that would be soon tested by NASA. basically And if the universe came to existance by some devine God thingy, where did it come from? ur not answering my questions. lol u said that nothin' can create itself. if our universe needs a start button, so does ur freaking God thingy.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@1tabligh the multi-verse theory suggest that our universe might've came from a blackhole from another older universe. basically it's a infinity of universes. seriously, where did that creating power coming from? and where is it getting it creativity from? just answer that. You can't always assum things. Just give me some evidence, even if the world came into existance at a given time, it doesn't prove that there was a creator. because there's any evidance for him. answer my questions please.
Atheist603 1 year ago
@Atheist603 Suppose that at the war front, a column of soldiers intends to attack the enemy but none of them is ready to begin the battle by lunging into the heart of the enemy army. Whoever is given the order to do so replies: "I will not attack until so-and-so beings to fight." Every single soldier repeats the same thing; there is no one unconditionally ready to begin the attack. Under such conditions will the attack ever take place? ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
Of course not, because everyone's fighting is conditional on that of someone else. It is obvious that a whole series of conditional attacks will not take place without the fulfillment of the condition, something impossible under the circumstances, and, as a result, the attack will not take place.
If we continue the chain of cause and effect indefinitely, the existence of each link in the chain will be conditional on that of the preceding link, which, in turn, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
will be conditional on the existence of the link preceding it. It is as if each link in the chain of causality were to proclaim loudly from the depths of its being: "I shall not don the garment of existence until that other one has set foot on the plain of being." Each link depends on a condition that has not been fulfilled, and each one is, therefore, barred from enjoying the blessing of existence. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh In that case it's possible that a thing/being like that started the universe, and put togetha the laws of physics to govern the universe and then left, even stephen Hawkins agree with that . however,...that doesn't mean that thing is all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, cares about you or know who you are etc... It's like question that says, can god make a rock big enough that he can't lift?
Atheist603 1 year ago