Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #81
This man makes the foolish assumption that the universe is ordered and "perfection". He never explains this claim or gives any other thought to the matter other than using it as evidence when it has not been proven. His entire argument is based on a false assumption.
-
-
The thing I never get is that most religious people seem to think that science works like their religion. In that there is a set of "definitives" that are %100 true and only exist to disprove the existence of god. They act like we see the big bang as a god and that Darwin's origin of species is our bible.
The truth is scientists simply don't know, and they strive to find out why. We know that gravity exists and it's an observable force but we have not a fucking clue why it works and why it's linked to the presence of matter.
Trying to "disprove" science is like trying to disprove mathematics, all science is, is the observation of what's there and the process of understanding it. It's not a set of ideals or belief's, we don't have faith in anything in science, that's why we look for proof of some thing's existence.
There is a very good reason, that at the bottom of his first tree diagram of evolution, Darwin put "I think". He didn't even fucking know if it was true, it was merely his conclusion drawn from the observation of real world phenomena.
Now as it stands, I'm all for everyone believing whatever the sodding hell they want, You're probably in a free country (that's you the reader) and thus who am I to say what you can and can't think? Just do me the same courtesy would you? And we can both get along just fine knowing full well that no matter what the other guy thinks you shit will be left well alone.
-
The human mind has a big flaw, which is the impossibility to take randomness into account while trying to figure something out, creating absurd connections between 'X' and 'Y', when there is none.
i.e.
Architects makes houses, so God(/s) makes big bang(/s).
For a house to exist it takes an architect, thereso, for a big bang to happen, it takes a god.
Why may I ask? What if the big bang happened by chance?
There are no sure evidence it happened in the first place, for it is a theory, so now you want to compare it to a human creation, fruit of the human intellect, which need a creator to exist?
This is a great example of absurd connection between X and Y, which to you may look logical because 'oh there is no other explaination! the events of nature are fruit of the God intellect/will/word/thought, because houses are the fruit of human intellect.'
What if there is no connection, and nature events happens at random.
This will look less likesly because 'randomness'/'it is unrelated' is not taked by our brain as a valid explaination.
Google 'texas sharpshooter fallacy' for more.
-
Neither is there evidence against it.
-
Yes, but Occam's razor says the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. Which is more likely, an invisible undetectable force that does not affect any of the dimensions we know of which contains the essence of a person, or that there's nothing.
-
That's a terrible argument though. There's lots of things there's no evidence of, but we have no reason whatsoever to believe in.
-
Religious Logic (In my opinion)
The Big Bang just occurred from nothing?
No I think it's more logical that a magical man in the sky must have done it.
I don't mean to be offensive, but justifying something coming from nothing, with the belief that an all powerful being came from nothing just doesn't make sense to me.
Either the universe was created from random events.
Or an all powerful being capable of creating the universe was created from random events.
I simply chose to believe the first option.
-
There's no evidence against Optimus Prime either.
-
They dont belong together. Religion has no facts and simply can not prove that said "god" exists, Secondly if you actually read the bible it makes absolutely no fucking sense. Whereas science has facts and makes sense.
Edited:
Some theoretical physicists believe that if there are universes other than our own, antimatter could have won the battle. This would result in that universe being comprised of antimatter. Beings in that universe would not know the difference because what we call matter would be their antimatter. Every particle has an antiparticle except for photons and they completely annihilate each other upon contact
-
and how the hell would you know if he can and did create evolution and the big bang? You dont
-
Also to all those people who think that God started the big bang, and now does nothing/not much at all, then there is no reason to believe in him, or to think anything of him as he will not reward you in any way, nor can it affect the world in any way, effectievely it has ceased to exist
Edited:
so what if it created evolution? it does nothing now, and has done nothing in the past. It has not interacted with anything to our knowledge, and if it has and we do not know of it then to us it does not exist
-
Thats because to everything else we are nothing more than a spec of dust
-
and yet, allegedly (according to islam and orthodox christianity) we are in god's image, his most prized creation, his best, his only (islam states that aliens cannot exist, and that there is no world outside of earth's (ie moon landing faked, rain comes from "trasures" in clouds), ie to traditional theistic god, there is nothing but us
-
Ofcourse not, Optimus Prime is obviously real.
And similarly, there is no evidence against me being God, Satan, Allah, Buddha, Gandhi, Genghis Khan, and George Bush all at the same time, therefore i am.
Quite frankly then the "You can't prove it is false therefore it is true" argument is one of the worst arguments in history.
-
Bingo. This is what I don't get, people are happier to side with religion as an explanation than they are to just say "we don't know right now, we have a few ideas, but there is no exact answer".
-
I hate videos like these. The reason so many comments are supportive is because the OP is a pious moron who censors all atheist comments. Typical argument from ignorance.
-
-
I can't stand when videos do that shit
-
Not sure if you understand how science works.
-
Where to start. First off, is it more likely that The Big Bang just "happened" for absolutely no reason, or that a force beyond human comprehension was involved? I find it laughable that we as humans think we can just understand everything and that there is always a finite solution. I believe in intelligent design, and am somewhat deist. It seems that some atheists are too closed minded to accept any ideologies based on the belief of a higher being just as many Christians (or Muslims if you prefer) are too closed minded to accept many scientific ideologies. Have you ever sat in deep thought and really considered all of the angles and viewpoints on the creation of the universe? It seems as though people just take a view and never reconsider or even take a look at another viewpoint. It gets set in stone from the point of conception, and this is why there is such an abundance of arrogance and arguing in our day and age. I've tried to look at these things from many viewpoints, and going back to my main point, I just don't see a way that our universe wasn't conceived as a product of something greater than ourselves that we cannot comprehend. The Universe is so incredibly complex it seems a bit arrogant to me that someone could just believe this all to have just "happened".
-
We don't have the data that it happened for no data, or that we can't comprehend it.
Nobody thinks that.
Go back to science class.
Yes. That doesn't mean they're all equally supported.
What caused whatever greater that we can't comprehend?
Also, fuck off with the complexity argument. Complexity is bad. It's a sign of bad design.
-
A table isn't "created". It's assembled. There's a difference. We don't just pop tables out of thin air. And even if it is assembled, not anything that's assembled has a creator. You might say that if I see a clock on the field I would assume that someone made it. True. But why use it like that? How come this works one way but not in reverse? How come I can't say "well, lightning has no human creator. Rain has no human creator. The sun has no human creator. If you stumbled upon a rock in a field would you assume a human made that rock? Of course not."
Also, we've been proven pretty often that things on the macro level almost never equal things on the micro level. I like how he's so egotistical that he can claim making a chair and making the universe is the same thing.
-
-
What an idiot, amazing what brainwashing religion into people can do, totally ignore any form of objective reasoning. Is he seriously claiming our universe is "perfection", how deluded.
-
This is Craig's Cosmological Theorem
P: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Q: The Universe began to exist.
R: Therefore, there is a cause to the universe.
P⊃Q
Q
∴R
Essentially, this is the Theist's argument for God's existence.
But notice, couldn't all three of the above premises be true, without the requirement of God's existence?
The Atheist could argue that God is not a requirement for the above issues.
The truth is, there could be hundreds of causes to the creation of the universe. We just don't know what that cause is for certain.
In this case, the Theist is basically saying...
"We don't know, therefore, God caused the universe."
Which pretty much follows the same logical format as...
I know I am late to the party, but:
P -> Q
Q
therefore P
is converse error. P -> Q is not equivalent to Q -> P
Starting from this premise, assuming the same statements made, then the argument fails in the beginning.
Edited:
We, as humans, have never assumed we can understand everything. NP problems (in the current form) are example of non-finite solutions. Along with this, however, is the example of NFA/DFA machines and Turing solving for non-determinism to determinism. With memory in these machines, we can form finite solutions from previous infinite ones.
It just takes thought to continue from our current knowledge. Why would anyone succept themselves to ignorance of what could be by not striving for it? By declaring the aspects of our universe to be something we can't comprehend, you are foregoing the attempt to do so, likened to one just "giving up" at furthering their education. This thought that seems to have the world wrapped up in it just breeds stupidity -- it creates a barrier between the populations and what could be.
-
What is there to destroy about atheism? People simply believe do not believe in a god because no one has presented any proof to make them believe that.
-
Some day I wanna go up to a fundamentalist and promote what I believe in with the same passion they have, so they too may be met with compassion when they return to the great noodle.
-
Just so you know, it's more likely that the big bang just happened, given enough time the probability of an event occurring reaches 1, and with our current laws of physics and how well founded the big bang theory is, it's pretty much scientifically proven.
Also intelligent design is the most retarded shit around, I'm sorry, I'll accept just about any belief on earth man but Intelligent Design just looks at science and goes "you know what fuck you, you've only done hundreds of years of experimentation and theoretical adaptation to build this scientifically proven phenomena but you're wrong and stuff, cause god did it."
I was born a catholic, baptised and went to a catholic primary school and secondary school and after being around all that religious shit all my life I realised it is all just complete nonsense, it's literally pulled from thin air and unproven.
Edited:
Praise the great lords noodley appendage.
-
God has no free will therefore not existing.
-
That's because the comments in the video are filtered. The uploader checks them all to make sure they adhere to his view.
I tried posting some comments in the most gentle way possible. Hopefully they will go through.
-
The universe exists. The end.
(User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))
-
To paraphrase David Hume.
Which is more likely, that the natural laws of the universe were suspended in your favor (i.e. a supernatural being performed a miracle), or that you're delusional?
Spoiler: The answer is you're more likely delusional than supernatural miracles occuring.
Edited:
And if the universe is ~so complex~ that it must have been created by god, then who created god?
-
Except science doesn't operate on what's more likely.
-
ENTROPY:
His understanding of entropy is godawfull.
If you leave a system by itself it will eventually reach an equilibrium. Meaning everything is the same.
-Get a cold glass in a hot room and after a while they are both the same temperature.
A better point for him would be:
Why doesnt the universe follow these laws of entropy and becomes one big lump of homogenus energy and mass.
Energy will disperse when the stars die out but why doesnt the mass, what force is holding our earth together.
The answer to this lies in stuff we dont fully understand yet, like gravitons we can for now only observe their effects (gravity).
SOUL:
I believe that when we make a computer smart enough it will become sentient. This is also how our "soul" was created in our brain. How else could you explain certain creatures not being self aware- while others are.?
Simply not enough brain capacity.
Self aware creatures are:
Most primates.
Dolphins.
They test this by placing a dot on their head and putting them in front of a mirror, and see if they try to take it off.
-
order and perfection are only part of our perception. Nature = Chaos.
-
it does not matter if god exists, because if he does, he does not change our world to our knowledge. If he does not change the world in any way within out knowledge or at all then he does not exist.
-
Cosmological argument
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. An infinite chain of causes and effects cannot occur.
3. Therefore, there had to be a necessary (not caused) being.
As you see, no proposition says that 'everything that exists a cause'. There are serious objections to the cosmological argument, but the question "then who created God?" is not one of them. Somehow people think that, as this arguments have been refuted already, on can refute them without actually knowing them. That just makes you look really stupid to people who know the real argument.
Edited:
Except it actually does. Science is not math; nothing is 100% sure since you can't just 'define' reality axiomatically.
Edited:
He actually has a point. The is a fundamental question that will always beg to be answered: Why does anything exist?
Of course, it may sound stupid to anyone who hasn't seriously thought about that question, but when one realizes that we just won't find an answer to that something about the world seems different: it will always be absurd.
The proposal of the existence of God is, indeed, a remarkable attempt of solution to this problem. Let's not forget that , by the philosophical definition of God, his existence coincides with his essence, so he literally consists in existing. So, when you would ask "Why does anything exist?" one would answer "because God created it, and he must exist by definition". But, well, this kinds of reasoning are not accepted by modern logic. The simple idea that you can predicate existence on something as a property is not accepted today, and it seems absurd when analyzed.
-
Can I just say, asking why about ANYTHING is the realm of philosophy, not science.
Frankly I don't give any fucks about God, all that matters to me is I've found a way to make myself better than both atheists and theists, Apatheism.
-
This point comes up every other tuesday.
Something can't come from nothing, therefore the universe must've been created, my specific version of god is therefore true. Who created god OH THATS AN INVALID QUESTION GOD IS MAGIC
Taking aside the obvious logical fallacy in putting something before the nothing again by inserting god, anyone who supports this, and any kind of design theory, should take the time to watch both thisand thisto see the basis of their argument dissolved.
The cosmological argument is false, and even if it had any validity, it's still an argument from ignorance and thus false from the start.
-
The Union Jack would look a shit ton better with a Hammer and Sickle in the middle of it
November 2007
6,741 Posts
incredibly logical argument based off of "WELL IF SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN IT YET IT MAY AS WELL BE THAT FLOATY GUY WE ALL BELIEVE IN"
