Proving the creator exist using the law concept

[Alexmw777]

I was about to snark about grammar. But then I realized English isn't your first language. Carry on. >_>

[RockOnHellas]

*coming from

[RockOnHellas]

So everything has it's ties to a beginning, and everything that follows is the way it is because of that beginning. Why this beginning is the way it is, it maybe just is like that, no explanation needed. But to troll us "evolutionists" ( and BTW thanks for acknowledging we evolved, so there is no jesus, since the bible says we came as we are, so that is wrong, then the whole bible is wrong aswell and not only in that aspect), keep the phrase that even "evolution needs a planner", what do you say

[RockOnHellas]

...escape anyway, not physical matter, energy, not us. So you arguement doesn't make sense since we do not have the opportunity to break that natural law, only if we had it what you say about a planner and his laws would have a meaning. So there is no planner necessary as an argument at least, as the law is ALREADY ITSELF that everything by itself works fine, we don't need to follow something in order for everything to be "correct", we can't follow this law, it follows US.

[RockOnHellas]

First and foremost I know where you are coming to, but one the ingredients that enable you to go by this road of logic is not the correct one to go by it. What I mean is that if law really was in all cases what you meant, then your thoughts would at least have any value, however you have misinterpreted what is a law. Natural/physical law differs in many aspects from "penal code" or written law. The universe on itself is a "law" if you want and everything included into it follow it, they can't...

[Smokeahdabuddha]

its like everyone here doesn't know what a paradox is and how its not only mentally but physically fundamental.

[useramiterifet]

@manzed to continue as i was saying the difference is the force that is used to control the activity. while humans use police to enforce their laws nature uses forces to enforce its laws. like the electromagnet force. gravity chemical reactions these forces control the activities of nature.and we learn through scientific methods how to control our behavior to respect these laws. and breaking both the human and the laws of nature have consiquences i hope you get it through your head this time.

[cbilljones]

I have no faith, my views follow logical reasoning. You fail to understand that a scientific law requires no law giver - hence the term natural law. This all stems from your poor understanding of the English language. You need to understand that some words have more than one definition. Cant you just admit that you should have read the definition of "law" before you made your video? lol.

[useramiterifet]

@cbilljones you have no understanding of what a law is you are only talking about made up stuff and man translations stop and look at the natural premice of a law and you will see it

[csmcmillion]

Your premise that where there is a law there must be a law maker is flawed; it is non-axiomatic. Further, you go on to beg the question. Very similar to the argument from complexity.

[useramiterifet]

@csmcmillion An accusation can only make sense when you provide the evidence that supports it so provide yours.

[csmcmillion]

@useramiterifet I'm not making an accusation. You are making the original claim, so the burden is on you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

Your entire premise that a "law" must require a law maker is non-axiomatic. Have you ever taken a university level science class? You appear to be confusing scientific laws with the broader concept of laws. They are NOT the same thing.

[useramiterifet]

@csmcmillion i realize your understanding needs to be fixed cause you said my theroy was flawed now you want me to provide proof that my theory is flawed? this is your flawed doing

[csmcmillion]

@useramiterifet No. I want you to provide proof for your premise that a "law" (specifically a _scientific law_) requires a law-maker. Your argument is flawed b/c it depends on this premise.

[waterspindle]

Inventing a law or religion to reinforce prejudices might describe what you are saying. This, inevitably leads any religion or other system into various patterns of mistakes, corruption and destruction. Reality has whatever power OVER a person that a person allows. Corrupt organizations add more power OVER a person, further damaging freedom. Corruption cannot define spirituality unless you are prone to violent acts against others.

[useramiterifet]

@waterspindle So what the fuck are you saying I don't think you was referring to my video

[waterspindle]

@waterspindle business is corruption. religion is business. comparisons between religion and business is really a good one. BUT, only because both are extremely corrupted, misguided and fatally flawed tools used to oppress and manipulate people. pyramid schemes are immoral and contradictory. Pyramidal shapes can be religions, cults, governments, secret societies, business, etc. The more sick pyramids you escape from the more free you are. I don't care if business/religion=true. Both are sick.

[manzed]

One cannot describe a system in it's completeness from within a system.

What we experience as a "law" is more a set of properties shaping this universe. (plus you can't mix scientific laws with society laws)

For example if the rate of expansion in a universe is just slightly different it wouldn't be able to host life at all and nobody would be there to describe the "laws" in such a universe.

Concluding that there "must be a law giver because there is a law" is based on a wrong assumption.

[useramiterifet]

@manzed You obviously cannot understand what a law is cause all laws have the same premices wether scientific or social they limit and control boy that is hard for you to get to your head muchless the more complicated stuff.

[manzed]

@useramiterifet

Wrong! You are ignorant and dum if you mix scientific laws and court laws. Go educate youself on the matter then try to teach me something about "the more complicated stuff" (I wonder what that might be)

[useramiterifet]

@manzed i can see you fignting with your self over your misunderstanding of the premice of the making of a law which is to limit and control so if that is to hard for you then to bad you have been left behing

[manzed]

@useramiterifet

Telling me i'm "left behing" is utterly pathetic when you explain the world with 2000+ year old scripture - despite the fact that we advanced way ahead with the scientific method. You have been told several times now that there is a difference between a scientific law and court laws. If you continue to ignore this fact then I can't help you. The truth is in front of you - the provable, testable truth. Don't be afraid to look at it!

[useramiterifet]

@manzed so you keep dwelling on the same thing over and over again and you cannot see that you are the pathetic one. so let me explain it to you. A red light means stop when you stop at a red light you are being controled till the green light comes then you go. this is called controling movement of traffic. gravity also controls movement by keeping you on the earth until you board a plane or some entity that can defy gravity. the difference is the force that is used to control the action

[cbilljones]

Your video is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance; you simply don't understand the word "law". In scientific terms law means something entirely different than all the nonsense your spouting. Read the wiki on scientific law; its a good start, and remember: faith is a fault, not a virtue. You clearly are capable of knowledge, you've simply been fed/fed your self poison.

[useramiterifet]

@cbilljones If I ask you what a fallacy is you will tell me but if I ask you to explain how my video is a fallacy then you will send me to read books. So which will it be? shall you explain how my video is a fallacy or shall you explain how am fed with poison?

[cbilljones]

@useramiterifet You dont need to read books, you simply need to consult a dictionary before you base your whole argument on a fallacy: not realising there is more than one definition for a word, it this case the word law. You prove you dont understand the term you base your whole argument on. Remember, faith is a flaw, not a virtue; and the bible is nothing more than poison for your mind.

[useramiterifet]

@cbilljones well you are left behing on that argument cause you cannot understand the premice of making laws are all the same. and why are you putting faith in the argument what purpose does it serve?

[SethVEVO]

Good!!!

[CreepX]

wasting thought... you still use fossil fuel... you are primitive.

[Primz83]

Pfff!

You might aswell argue a gods existence using a banana, but who would do such a thing.

Btw: Is your computer hooked up to a car battery? I think I can hear power fluctuation.

[useramiterifet]

@Primz83 Your point made noscense

[incomprehensible14]

@useramiterifet Creation "science" is a hypocritical abomination. Matt.4: 7 "Do not put the Lord your God to the test". SCIENCE IS TESTING. John8: 31 "If ye continue in my word, ye are my disciples indeed." It's clear that anybody who leaves Christianity were never "real" disciples. If people are taking a few classes and leaving Christianity/Catholicism, the church should be greatful to science for ridding them of their false disciples, not creating a pale immitation.

[Ital21]

Title of the video should be:

"Rationalizing why the creator exists in MY mind and thus should exist in the minds of others ESPECIALLY if those others are of a mindset that is similar or inferior to mine."

[humansaretheworld]

Your creator is an idea. The reason your mind finds order in this world is because you "are" this world.  You "fit" into this world because you are this world not because someone like you made this world for you.

[useramiterifet]

@humansaretheworld what do you mean by I am the world?

[humansaretheworld]

@useramiterifet Humans just like eveythings else in the world are made of the same basic "material"

as all other things and are subject to the same forces of nature. We are as much a part of the cosmos

as a planet and are special only because we think we are. Thinking and egos are particular to us but

are no special significance to the cosmos. Egos make us think we are seperate from the world when in

fact we not more seperate than anything else.  We fit because we are the world.

[useramiterifet]

@humansaretheworld I swear that you are being delusional cause i am not this world

[useramiterifet]

Please seek the trouth! Fuck this is all your truth?

[itzahazylife]

@useramiterifet

the law giver in this case is nature..and nature is only evidence of itself. u cannot assume there is anything else other than nature. such an assumption is a blind assumption based on nothing.

[useramiterifet]

Nothing is just there. Thats your imagination.

[JackWisps]

You are confusing legal laws with scientific laws. One is made by man, one is just there. We call them laws because they exist in all cases, places, and events. ie, if an object falls towards the greatest mass (ie follows gravity) here, it will follow it near the sun. It will follow it on Jupiter. It will follow it in other galaxies. (etc).

The only way you can say the natural 'laws' of the universe are dictated is by assumption. Unless you can actually show evidence for such a being...? No?

[retroHC]

Wow! Another brain washed creationist. PLEASE DUDE: Read up on your subject before you make an idiot of your self! You are a blind lamb.Please seek the trouth!

[Wrath0fKhan]

Painful...

[dallased25]

The term "Law" as you use it is the lamens term used in everyday language and does not pertain to "scientific law" which simply describes something found in nature such as the "Law of Gravity". Not to be mean, but before you make a vid, you should try to at least have a simple grasp of these concepts. Exp. the difference in between the lamens term "Theory" and a scientific theory. The differences are vast and without understanding them, your video is pointless since you are wrong from the start.

[LordCustos3]

Your definition of "law" overlooks how some laws are proscriptive (don't drink poison because the Great Sky Daddy says not to) and some are descriptive (don't drink poison because it will kill you.)

You seem to assume that ALL laws are proscriptive. I'd say that the only laws that matter are descriptive. In fact, I'd go so far as to say any law that doesn't have a descriptive foundation is a useless law.

[useramiterifet]

Now how much more jackass can you get.

[PinkProgram]

The law concept is an emergent property of primate tribal structure.  The law does not prove a creator. A creator proves a creator. Show me your creator.

[useramiterifet]

well I did not get what you mean.

[TheRelitard]

waaahahahahaha it should be forbidde for retards to use modern communication tools.