7 questions that'll make atheists think - ozmoroid responds
Uploader Comments (ozmoroid)
Video Responses
All Comments (428)
-
@TearsOfWar1 Its simple, a hypothesis is basically an idea or guess about an outcome of a experiment or how something works.
A theory is a set of ideas that have been proven through experiment/ research.
-
I still don't get what the difference a hypothesis and theory is... Without googling it. Boy I am not good at that science stuff :/ But I do know that a theory is more... precise per se.
-
Make a paradox video.
-
@XxAdamJxX In a blackhole time comes to a dead stop. And people like to think that everything exists because of a cause. You know, the ole' "cause and effect" theory. But here's a big problem with having a cause (by anything, including your god) of the universe: When the universe was just a singularity, time did not exist. The universe could not have had a cause because there was no time for the cause to exist in. Think about that last sentence.
-
@cm3007235 If we are made of light at our smallest level, where does that light go? It doesn't just die off. It cannot decay, because it is not matter. Without light/energy, there is no matter. Life continues on and on. For all of eternity. I don't just stop with what my mind takes in, I continue asking questions. That's where logic comes in. I begin wondering about everything. There most definitely is a God and an afterlife. It doesn't end here.
-
@cm3007235 Of course. After all, he did create the universe. So whatever created the universe must be God :)
-
@cm3007235 klj;lkj;SDLFKJA;LSKDJF;LAKSJDF
;LKAJS;LDKFJ;LKASDF -
@XxAdamJxX Ah.... so you're just defining god into existance. Essentially giving whatever started the universe the name "god".
-
@XxAdamJxX No, i'm trusting scientists because they have proven themselves reliable again and again and again. All technology came from science. Medicine. Infastructure. Physics. They base their findings on evidence and experiments which can be re-produced by anyone once they are told how. Scientific explanations make logical sense.
Religion however is based on what bronze age peasents wrote down on paper, with nothing to explain why they would be trustworthy.
-
@cm3007235 *can't
i have just thought of 7 ways, to prove the sun will "raise" tomorrow, and it dosnt rise, its a rotation efect, so, you should be really stupid, ill tell you that.
WeskerPG 2 months ago
@WeskerPG "It doesn't rise" - in the Earth's frame of reference it does rise. Please see my Relativity series and then explain my stupidity. Also, please present your best proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.
ozmoroid 2 months ago 2
@ozmoroid
the sun its not going to die, tomorrow (i wont explain this, theres not enought space...)
our planet wont stop rotating, in the next 24 hours, and theres no cosmologic threat, asteroids etc(cant explain it, not enought space)
so if the sun wont die tomorrow, and theres nothing that can avoid the earth from doing hes rotation, that we know in time its a 24 hr cicle, therefor tomorrow the sun will "raise", but i rather prefer to know that the sun will be seen, he never moved...
WeskerPG 2 months ago
@WeskerPG Please prove that our planet won't stop rotating in the next 24 hours.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid
like i said the simple answer its that the poles are still here, and cant just vanish, the elipse where the earth gravitates its still here, and since gravity still exist, the elipse still exist and theres no cosmologic threat outside the earth that we know about and can move the earth outside hes gravitatory elipse, theres nothing that can stop the earth spinning, making this a 24 hrs cicle based in our 12 months gravitation elipse, dont know the words on english, but its not hard..
WeskerPG 2 months ago
@WeskerPG It is only a fact when it is observed to happen. Before that it's a prediction based on a theory. Now it's an incredibly solid theory, I grant you. But you cannot "prove" that the sun will rise. You can only say it's consistent with everything we know about physics. In fact the way physics advances is when firmly held assumptions fail to predict experiment.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid By your reasoning before about 1900 I could have "proven" that all clocks run at the same rate (and I'd be wrong - so obviously that wasn't a proof). That is what all observation and theory up to that time said was the case. I could have "proven" that an electron cannot pass through two separate slits simultaneously (and I'd be wrong again). And on and on. I am not going to bet money that the Sun won't rise tomorrow, but I cannot "prove" it. Math has proof; physics does not.
ozmoroid 2 months ago