A seriously wonderful discussion!! 👏👏 Your good humor and patient listening are absolutely a model for atheists worldwide who have these conversations!
The moderator is open-minded and reasonable compared to the clueless man in jacket, then the lady who I appreciate coz she rather kept quiet than show ignorance and the theologian who is hell bent to defend a non existent god
18:00 I disagree with Mark, you want to tell me someone who prays to say a cow does not know good from bad because they don't know God? We as humans know meaning, good from bad with or without God.
Secular Kenyan is continually changing positions from hard-core atheism to agnosticism depending on the circumstance. He says his default position is agnosticism (we don't know) but in the first section he stated unequivocally that he's sure the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. Not sure why Mark didn't pick this obvious inconsistency
The guy explaining the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem doesn't quite understand what it says. It doesn't explain that the universe has an absolute beginning, it explains that the expansion of the universe(inflation) had a beginning during the big bang scientifically it does(approximately 14bn years ago), spacetime is entirely different concept, space and time can be infinite in the past, i.e it has always been. He doesn't even consider the string theory model of the universe, that is an idea proposed by physicists that the dying one of one universe leads to the formation of another in a big bang, therefore it could be if they're right that our universe came out of the dying of a universe that existed before this one and that one came from the dying of another one before it, and so on so forth regressing into the past. He seems to allude that BGV proves that spacetime has a beginning, i don't want to put words in his mouth neither am I a mind reader, but it seems to me that that is what he is alluding, in which case he's wrong and the the 3 physicist that formulated the theorem don't claim that their theorem proves spacetime has a beginning, infact they've gone to great pains to refute misrepresentations by famous christian apologetics, William Lane Craig most notably who in many debates and other engagements is notorious for badly misrepresenting the theorem to push his agenda.
Just to continue on the same, he falsely equates the universe with the entirety of existence which is false. The cosmos constitutes the entirety of existence, both known and unknown while the universe is only the known, of which they are things we still don't know about the universe, we're yet to learn. Secondly, he should answer the question what a timeless, spaceless, powerful immaterial being/entity would look like conceptually because even the cosmological argument that may sound like a good argument for god really isn't, he first needs a coherent conceptualization of this entity that he believes in to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial and very powerful.
Brother, time was created by man. Until man and until man created time, time did not exist. Brother, they said their God is outside of time and space. Then apply their God into the cause.
I think the analogy of how a plane works is out of topic. you don't have to believe a plane flies, there is a tangible and irrefutable evidence that a plane flies and it obeys the rules of physics. you donthave to believe a plane flies yet all you need is to go to a airport and see them physically and most probably an engineer will be willing to tell you how it works you don't have to believe a fact because a fact is a statement that can be proven to be true or false based on objective evidence or reality. kuna pia components. theology has no facts ni believe its a theory. no tangible evidence. for me kusema mambo an plane is out of topi ju someone who actually knows will explain then utaambiwa ati soul or what proof do you have he doesn't exist. the philosophyguy on part 1 alisema ati lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, true, so in the perspective of an atheist just because they haven't proven God doesn't exist doesn't mean that there is evidence he doesn't exist Finally, the grasping of straws question, what does it matter to you, I would also project the same to them what does it matter to you theologians what atheists do remember we have the laws of the land you don't have to be a Christian to know killing is wrong the bible says in Romans 13:1-2 obey the rule of the land. unaweza kuwa hujui anything but una respect the law of the land the agnostic philosophy guy is wrong and subjective rather than objective. he should just say he is a Christian but he is not willing to choose one side.
Seeing the universe, nature or humans is not evidence. We are seeing a man speaking for a God. Because this God have never spoken for itself to man. Man wrote a book attributing to God its powers.
![LAVROV's interview with Tucker CARLSON 😁 [Parody]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mbMemqc-QEk/mqdefault.jpg)
![LAVROV's interview with Tucker CARLSON 😁 [Parody]](/img/tr.png)
It is so good discussion,enjoying it from Dar es salaam.
A humanist Freethinker in Tanzania
Asante sana kaka.
A seriously wonderful discussion!! 👏👏 Your good humor and patient listening are absolutely a model for atheists worldwide who have these conversations!
thank you and be blessed.
The moderator is open-minded and reasonable compared to the clueless man in jacket, then the lady who I appreciate coz she rather kept quiet than show ignorance and the theologian who is hell bent to defend a non existent god
It takes courage to so this. You did well @secularkenyan👏🏾👏🏾. One day our brothers will wake up
Well done Seculars Kenyan
The debater on the right he is using apologist erasure to standing facts and inserting adjusted beliefs.
They are not laugh with you...they are laughing at you.
18:00 I disagree with Mark, you want to tell me someone who prays to say a cow does not know good from bad because they don't know God? We as humans know meaning, good from bad with or without God.
Secular Kenyan is continually changing positions from hard-core atheism to agnosticism depending on the circumstance. He says his default position is agnosticism (we don't know) but in the first section he stated unequivocally that he's sure the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. Not sure why Mark didn't pick this obvious inconsistency
They can’t comprehend an internal universe but can comprehend an imaginary internal being
Nice
Mark is dismantling his own premise. The lady was a waste of time 😂!
The guy explaining the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem doesn't quite understand what it says. It doesn't explain that the universe has an absolute beginning, it explains that the expansion of the universe(inflation) had a beginning during the big bang scientifically it does(approximately 14bn years ago), spacetime is entirely different concept, space and time can be infinite in the past, i.e it has always been. He doesn't even consider the string theory model of the universe, that is an idea proposed by physicists that the dying one of one universe leads to the formation of another in a big bang, therefore it could be if they're right that our universe came out of the dying of a universe that existed before this one and that one came from the dying of another one before it, and so on so forth regressing into the past. He seems to allude that BGV proves that spacetime has a beginning, i don't want to put words in his mouth neither am I a mind reader, but it seems to me that that is what he is alluding, in which case he's wrong and the the 3 physicist that formulated the theorem don't claim that their theorem proves spacetime has a beginning, infact they've gone to great pains to refute misrepresentations by famous christian apologetics, William Lane Craig most notably who in many debates and other engagements is notorious for badly misrepresenting the theorem to push his agenda.
Just to continue on the same, he falsely equates the universe with the entirety of existence which is false. The cosmos constitutes the entirety of existence, both known and unknown while the universe is only the known, of which they are things we still don't know about the universe, we're yet to learn. Secondly, he should answer the question what a timeless, spaceless, powerful immaterial being/entity would look like conceptually because even the cosmological argument that may sound like a good argument for god really isn't, he first needs a coherent conceptualization of this entity that he believes in to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial and very powerful.
Brother, time was created by man. Until man and until man created time, time did not exist. Brother, they said their God is outside of time and space. Then apply their God into the cause.
I think the analogy of how a plane works is out of topic. you don't have to believe a plane flies, there is a tangible and irrefutable evidence that a plane flies and it obeys the rules of physics. you donthave to believe a plane flies yet all you need is to go to a airport and see them physically and most probably an engineer will be willing to tell you how it works you don't have to believe a fact because a fact is
a statement that can be proven to be true or false based on objective evidence or reality. kuna pia components. theology has no facts ni believe its a theory. no tangible evidence. for me kusema mambo an plane is out of topi ju someone who actually knows will explain then utaambiwa ati soul or what proof do you have he doesn't exist. the philosophyguy on part 1 alisema ati lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, true, so in the perspective of an atheist just because they haven't proven God doesn't exist doesn't mean that there is evidence he doesn't exist
Finally, the grasping of straws question, what does it matter to you, I would also project the same to them what does it matter to you theologians what atheists do remember we have the laws of the land you don't have to be a Christian to know killing is wrong the bible says in Romans 13:1-2 obey the rule of the land. unaweza kuwa hujui anything but una respect the law of the land
the agnostic philosophy guy is wrong and subjective rather than objective. he should just say he is a Christian but he is not willing to choose one side.
"Quantum is immaterial" not true, sub-atomic and quantum elements are the smallest units of matter. Quantum flactuations are very much material.
Seeing the universe, nature or humans is not evidence. We are seeing a man speaking for a God. Because this God have never spoken for itself to man. Man wrote a book attributing to God its powers.
9:25 this lady is so lame...sorry I dont mean to disrespect her. I think she fears hell more than she fears to think 😢
25:20 this mzee on the other hand should just go farm. His arguements are quite silly; again for lack of better words. 🙈
Again, each debater making false assertion with no evidence and no challenge to many of it.
Theist think evolution has a plan or shld i say a an end goal which it doesn’t 😂 we will continue to evolve until humans stop existing
This mzee makes baseless arguments. I understand why you couldn't have an objective discussion with him.
Hahaha... I agree with you. Always asking "do you know how it works?" Then we know... b***sh*t arguement