The host of Towards Eternity's video was respectful and stuck to the topic at hand rather than smearing his detractors. Let's do the same, everyone. Also: How Carl Sagan Beat Pseudoscience (The Sagan Method) th-cam.com/video/yUgdrno-2xY/w-d-xo.html
The first question is like saying "if a brick doesn't let you cross a river, there's no way bridges can let you cross rivers, if they're made of bricks"
Hello there! Edit: *I have written many comments, if you want to reply then fully understand my comments all to way to the final one then reply with consideration of the latest comments; thank you!* I’m just a curious, incredibly friendly, and highly rational free-thinker. Nevertheless, the creator of the car & wheel is crucial for the creation of it, that’s the whole point of the argument, you can’t expect metal components given enough time and energy to naturally form themselves into engines and leather seats, and then finely tune itself to give AC and a speedometer, etc. You *require* a creator, which in this case is a human. The universe is vastly superior, much more complex and unfathomably vast, and I fully understand the universe is different, but actually, the same reasoning can be applied - if not even better applied. Nature’s natural and universal laws have seemingly eternally existed, but that’s exactly where God makes sense: living things don’t come from non-living things naturally, the very essence of life and consciousness is a greatly profound question. Not to mention, the prophets were extremely truthful people, and truthful eyewitness accounts of miracles exist. If God’s existence is unprovable, undoubtedly our very best bet is to be, at the least, an Agnostic Theist. The Agnostic meaning = doesn’t know if God exists, and the Theist meaning = believes in God anyway. My goal is not to prove my argumentation is irrefutable, my goal is to aid rational choices and free thinking. Thank you. 🙂❤️
Oh fuckin finally! Thank you so much! You are the first person to actually correctly quote that statement. I have now found three comments where people claim it was Carl Sagan who said it and while Sagan no doubt felt the same way, it wasn’t him who said it.
All these “cannot answer” videos have one ultimate fallacy: even if I cannot provide a right answer, it does not make their false answer right by default.
i know right? when they say i need to prove that god doesn't exist, and ask me to explain myself, i say why on earth should i have to answer to someone who worships a baby killing, torturing, vain and jealous psychopath without reservation or question? how can you justify killing all the first born of Egypt? how can you justify solomon ordering the dashing of the babies against the rocks the slaughter of their me and the taking of there women? that it wasn't slavery their god doesn't like, just not his people, that in the flood they gloss over all the pregnant woman and children left to drown, i could go on but i wont. don't give me but the new testament waah. if Hitler said look boys i've changed id still say no. besides. they did not change. the entire history of religion is one of misery and horror. i think treating the religious with anything other than contempt is no different than being an apologist for the behavior of the Nazis. there is no excuse, and their history and continued behavior bear out my contempt.
@@iDontAnswerToRobots Statistics would confirm that to be science as well. If something cannot be proven, it "rejects said hypothesis to be true", it doesn't say it is "therefore false". Both faith and the scientific method only approach truth, but if it doesn't find it, then it simply is that; no answer. ACTUALLY, I would even say that any faith that keeps pushing anything and everything not proven to be "definitely a divine force" is shooting itself on the foot; faith and spiritualism cannot be explained so pushing anything as true or false does not help a religion, as it would also break the scientific method (mind you, I am agnostic, so none of this matters anyway).
1. This guy never played with Lego 2. He has no idea how science works 3. He has never made a system which was more complex as originally expected and giving unexpected results, such as programming a software…
The first argument is basically: "Letters alone are meaningless! Therefore, words, phrases and texts cannot ever be formed from letters since they don't mean anything."
"Blue paint isn't green, and yellow paint isn't green, so if you mix them the resulting paint won't be green." "Freshly cut wood is rough, and sandpaper is rough, so rubbing one with the other won't make either one smooth." "Ice is solid,. and salt is solid, so if I add salt to ice it can't become a liquid."
2:19 Another counterpoint to this argument is this: Let’s imagine I have a tiny cube. If I push it at one end, will it roll continuously? No. Now let’s imagine I have 200,000,000 of these cubes, all glued together to form a low definition, rough sphere Can it roll? Yes. How does that work? Does god decided to grant it the property of rolling after I make it?
"Man, sure glad these goalposts are on wheels. If they weren't, hoo boy, someone might discover that religion is just a tool we use to make sure the poor self-regulate their own poverty"
Maybe i shouldnt speak too harsh about this, but honestly? I think its embarassing. I think the Host was, yes, 'respectful', kinda, but also without Dignity and such. Alone the fact that he claims no one can answer this when probably everyone can answer this with above gradeschooler knowledge? Its outright embarassing. Maybe I'm too harsh, but he should have talked with people if he really wanted a viable video. But like this, he just created a Video-Title that is a Lie and build on that Foundation... Am i really too harsh?
@Khush Bakht Khan Wait, so if there had to be a creator to create the universe because nothing can come from nothing, who created the creator? Was it a giant turtle? Because I read somewhere it was a giant turtle, and that book was pretty awesome too, probably nearly as unique a fusion of prose and poetry as the Quran. Is it turtles all the way down...? 🤔
In the first question he uses an example of a black pencil being unable to draw a rainbow, but this example alone can disprove his entire position. Take if you would 7 colored pencils, no one of these can draw a rainbow themselves as they lack the other 6 colors, but by using all 7 of them you can create a rainbow because even though a 'rainbow' was not a property any of them possessed, a 'rainbow' is merely an emergent property composed of 7 colors which each of the 7 colored pencils possessed one of. The only way for his comparison to actually prove his point is if the only way for a pencil to ever be able to draw a rainbow there must be a special 'rainbow pencil' and no pencil that isn't one (even if it can do more things) can ever be part of a process that leads to a complete rainbow drawing that doesn't require a 'rainbow pencil' at some point.
I was thinking a lot more simply, I guess. I was thinking it is easy to draw a rainbow with a pencil, the same way it is easy to draw a face or a tree or an ocean(if you are artistic enough to do so in the first place.) Just because something lacks color doesn't mean you haven't drawn it.
@@rpsdata I get that, but to be fully charitable I took what he was saying to instead of being that you can't 'draw' a rainbow instead to refer to the fact that a black pencil cannot, under normal circumstances, be used to create the 7 different colors needed to make a rainbow. I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but if you're interested I'll explain why I used the example I did even though your idea also came to my mind (not that you're wrong mind you, but I just didn't think that it lined up perfectly). Now, I am sure that there are cases where you could use a black pencil to create each of the seven colors needed for a rainbow even (maybe with special paper, or surfaces, or something), but that would give him room to sorta pull back about that not being what he meant as he was merely giving this as an easier to understand example (potentially even arguing that your introduction of special circumstances if you introducing an outside element which proves his point of there being an outside element). Which is why I felt it best to address the point on the basis that he outlined, wherein a pencil can only be used to make drawings of one color and the implied requirement for a rainbow is to use all 7. Under these conditions, referencing how one could use 7 differently colored pencils that have different properties but are still pencils still follows the rules he outlined while pointing out the emergent properties as the Drew talked about, and this comparison also works since he was trying to say that atoms can't be used to create something they aren't themselves. One could say that your comparison is akin to him saying that atoms cannot make up the body of a human being (the outline/drawing of a rainbow), which isn't correct as I don't think he denied that our bodies are ultimately composed of atoms when you break it down, instead he was referring to the 'intelligence' behind a human being or any other life (in this example this is represented by the colors of a rainbow), the 7 colored pencils in this example each represent different types of atoms and it is their interaction together that allows a new drawing to be possible where none were able to originally do it, and when you realize this you see that his example required that there was a pencil that had 'rainbow' as an inherent property (in this case a higher intelligence) for 'rainbows' to ever be fully colored. By this though, it's not simply enough for a 'rainbow pencil' to exist, as it must also be impossible for normal colored pencils (atoms) to be able to ever make a fully colored rainbow as he posits it's impossible for atoms to ever make the full 'intelligence' behind animals. Granted disproving this example doesn't render his full point moot, but it does reveal that for a truly fair example of what he was referring to you have to make a far more complicated system than he realizes. Sorry that I rambled on for awhile, but I like to talk about some of these things and ultimately the point I felt should be pointed out wasn't that his metaphor was built on a faulty premise (that you cannot draw a rainbow with a black pencil), even though it was, but that his example inherently disagreed with his own argument that emergent properties don't exist, and he simply closed his mind off once it 'agreed' with him and failed to consider alternate perspectives.
The rainbow carries millions of colours. We could see 7 distinctive colours only. The boundaries are not defined and mix of various colours at various levels give different shades, just like TV where only 3 basic colours are needed to define all 16 million known colours!!
If I have a black pencil, and a piece of rainbow scratch paper, I can draw rainbows, and all kinds of colorful images! By his original analogy, that would be like if the universe *itself* contained the potential for order and structure out of chaos, needing only any random stimulus to set it off... which is probably not far off from reality. I think it's fair to say he's dead wrong. 😄
Bro, that first question is literally: I can’t live in a brick, how come I can live in a house made of a lot of bricks? Or: Milk is a liquid, Sugar is a bunch of small crystals and eggs are slimey. There’s no way they can make a cake!
Like the house thing, bro... is the exact same thing I thought to myself. If he is thinking in those metaphors he should be able to come up with the house/brick example or if he hears/reads this metaphor, accept that things can work that way.
“One cannot give what one doesn’t have to another one.” The entire field of chemistry says otherwise. Reagents have different properties than their products.
Plus: If god created everything and everyone and the creator has all the traits of what he created god also inhabits all the bad traits like racism and similar
This is actually a principle in law, ("Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet"). However, it applies pretty much only to purchases and sales that ordinary citizens make in everyday life (meaning that you cannot sell or give away what you don't own), but there are many exceptions to this rule: i.e. thieves can sell stolen movable goods on a public sale and the buyer will nonetheless become the new owner; if a person erroneously believes that they are the owner of a real estate for 10 or 20 years without any interventions by the real owner, then they will nonetheless become the owner due to their good faith (_usucapio_); brokers and other types of agents can sell other people's property etc.
hydrogen and oxygen are both very flammable. mix them together, and they become something that can put out flames. Its a great example of that in action
The best part is that his analogy doesn't even work. Atoms aren't giving us anything, we are made up of them. They combine with others to form something more complex. You can't draw a rainbow with a black pencil, but you can't draw it with a red one either. You need to combine different colors and paper. The end result has properties (colors) that the individual parts (pencils) don't have.
This is a bad example because metals actually can't make a computer without an intelligent creator. The questioner tries to extend this point to atoms as well. In his video he said "bricks cannot form a house on their own". To refute his point is actually a bit harder and requires a bit more depth on atomic interactions to explain the phenomena.
Actually understanding atomic interactions is not necessary to demonstrate that the analogy is false. Computers are intelligently designed by humans. They belong to our natural reality; so to their tools, their materials and the procedures followed. Creator gods are supposed to reside in a supposed supernatural reality.
@@marknieuweboer8099 a theist would argue that God is the "glue" that created intelligent life which then gave way to the creation of tools from basic materials. I don't understand your claim that God can only exist in a supernatural realm and not a real realm, you can't prove that assertion. But you can prove chemistry and quantum mechanics, so it's a much stronger argument IMO.
@ NoahD: it's not my claim. Take it up with theists. Replacing tools, materials and procedures by a vague analogy like "glue" doesn't help. What does the word mean? What does it consist of? How does it work? We can answer such questions for designing computers, not for some creator god or another using "glue" to design intelligent life. Oh - and why does that "glue" not apply to using chemistry, quantum mechanics and atomic interactions? You undermine your own argument.
"Sodium and chlorine are dangerous substances" "Salt is the mixture between sodium and chlorine" "Salt isn't dangerous" "The only possibility is the flying spaghetti monster's blessing over salt"
While Einstein wasn't really religious, he did believe in Spinoza's God and also said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". So I'd be a little more careful who you quote next time.
@@byron3718 quote isn’t meant to dispute the validity of religion, the quote is to reaffirm that the more we learn, the more we begin to understand how little we know
Again talking about both man made things. Bricks and houses. What about a heart? Put all the cardiac cells together it doesn’t automatically start functioning as a heart. What is it(soul) that leaves the body when your heart or other organs can still function? What is natural death? Why can’t you collect functioning organs from people who died of other causes like accidents and make another human being? So it’s true that some kind of atoms put together may function as a unit with new characteristics, but it’s not true for complex creations like a human being or plants etc
@@abdussamee9363 1. "Put all the cardiac cells together it doesn’t automatically start functioning as a heart." It is actually possible to grow heart tissue in a petri dish that has a sychronous heartbeat, given the right conditions/outside influences. 2. "What is it(soul) that leaves the body when your heart or other organs can still function? What is natural death?" I assume what you're talking about here is death by natural causes. But that only means that the cause of death was failure some part of the body without the impact of external factors. No doctor would ever say that anyone passed away due to 'their soul leaving their body'. 3. "Why can’t you collect functioning organs from people who died of other causes like accidents and make another human being?" Have you heard of organ donation? Obviously we can't create entirely new human bodies from old organs yet (why would we want to anyway), but it's certainly already possible to replace parts of it without big complications. hope that helps :D
His pencil example is really week. He says you cant draw a rainbow with a black pencil, because it lacks colour. But a pencil also lacks the ability explain feelings of love, but a pencil can be used to write a love letter. Some things cannot be done with a black pencil, but others things can be done, even though the pencil itself cant describe love, but the pencil can in fact explain love and feelings if "it works" or interact with a human. There are things atoms can not do under any circumstances, but there are also things they can do when working together.
@@evil001987 Ah but you CAN draw a rainbow with a pencil. It wont be a rainbow with all the usual colours but its still a rainbow. Even when trying to make his point he makes the simplest mistakes. he should have said you cannot draw the colours of a rainbow with a regular pencil.
Q1 when he told about atoms and humans was kinda stupid. Imagine if a brick is one kind of an atom, you take enough bricks and other atoms and you make a house. Just like with a human
This is something to add to the first question: if you have two colours, yellow and blue, and mix them together - what happens? The mix turns green. But according to the reasoning in the video, this shouldn't happen. Yellow and blue aren't green, and therefore they cannot "give something that they aren't". But that is what happens anyway. Because the yellow and blue interact and mix together, and forms the colour green.
@@gamerbito1479 on a simple level computers function by sending electrical signals to different circuits which activates a certain function. This happens because of software which tells the physical hardware what to do and when, much like how DNA tells organic material how to function and interact.
God is also mortal, cus he gives the characteristic of mortality. He is also immortal and the same time, making him illogical. But he is also the source of all logic and therefore perfectly logical. Checks out to me.
@@matheusformanskimiguel3822 also interesting how most gods in human history are animals that are anthropomorphized, and how man was made in god’s image. When most gods are made in man’s image
@@matheusformanskimiguel3822 perversely religion works in two opposite ways here... on the one hand it tells you you are special, were specifically created by a powerful force that now wants to guide your life with arbitrary rules, on the other hand though most religions also find flaws with us and will tell you you are pathetic, bad, broken or not worth god's love. No wonder religion messes up your mind, it can't decide which lie to run with. And so every believer has to wrap their brain around contradictory base premises like that.
Being a Christian and a student with an interest in science I have struggled with the nature of the universe and creation. I came to the conclusion that humans know nothing, we observe so little of what exists and we come up with answers either in a religious sense or a scientific sense. Like the story of 3 blind men interacting with an elephant, one feels the trunk and thinks it's a snake, one the legs and thinks it's a tree, one the hair on the tail and thinks it's a bush. None of them are right but are using what they know to form a conclusion. So while you may know many religious people who think they know and understand everything, a good portion of us admit to not knowing and just turning to religion as a means to explain the unexplainable.
@MλresDλniel TV Every matter in this world is made out of atoms, even human body. You're right, tissues are made out of cells. And cells are made out of bio molecules like protein and nucleic acid. And molecules are made out of two or more atoms that bond together.
@@alvianekka80 It doesn't give me any new relevant information. If I'm curious about your new PC, i want to know CPU, videocard models. If you answer me, that your PC consists of atoms, I would think that you are strange.
I’m an atheist but don’t you think that’s just ignorance your rather not know an answer that can’t be questioned just because you may have some sense of self superiority people like that don’t sound intelligent they sound arrogant
@@KingBipo This is not about ignorance, but about blind acceptance. Although I'm ignorant on many subjects, I'm not justifying or celebrating ignorance. I would rather know than not know, e.g. what is the Christian vs the Muslim vs. the Jewish vs. the Buddhist views on questions of morality. I would rather be much more knowledgeable on Greek Mythology as well, and would be glad to have installed all of Homer's writings, the Quran, and the Kabbalah in my head. But that doesn't mean I mustn't question their views. I think the atheist approach is much more democratized and humble: there is no absolute authority, except for the scientific method of experimental validation. Every single idea, book, person can be wrong, including e.g. Newton, Einstein, or anyone else. Every answer can be falsified and questioned. On the other hand every person can, potentially, acquire the power of knowledge, try to answer.
@@TheEranTalmor well in order to be a proper debater you must know all of those things but if you do follow a religion the whole point is that you follow and acknowledge that your inferior because if there is a god simply you are you have the freedom to disobey but you wouldn’t have the right to disagree because you are corrupt so what does your opinion mean that’s the point of religion self acknowledgment that’s why I respect religion because it builds being humble unless you don’t follow properly and you have a sense of Christian superiority but just saying those aren’t real Christians
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ "I'm not here to make you happy." So you're trying to convert and educate people about your religion, but yet you have no intention of doing so to benefit them? "... If it's coming from your subjective point of view that still doesn't give you the right to force it as an absolute truth to people." Both of our views are subjective, you can't say that since you think I'm wrong then you must be right. Neither of us can say who is objectively right. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't be forcing your religion upon people in the comments section of a video about an atheist discrediting the questions a theist claimed atheists couldn't answer. I find it quite ironic how you say that I have no right to "force it as an absolute truth to people" but yet this all started because you are spamming a copy/paste response of you trying to force your religion upon people because you believe it to be true.
The dude even inadvertently admitted it in the preface to the 3rd question. "We see gaps between causes and effects"...therefore god. Literally the definition of "god of the gaps". This should be enough proof to corroborate the hypothesis that you can't argue with people like him.
I prayed to God to make me a teleiophile and look at that? I STILL love nick wilde best as his 8 year old fox cub self! In a way I follow Satanist philosophies however I'm an atheist all the way through.
"It's easy to invent hypotheses which hypothetically explain our observations but if we accepted all such hypotheses we'd not only have to accept a vast number of mutually contradictory explanations of the same observations but we'd never again pursue explanations of our world which are empirically verifiable." This.
I completely agree. Is this not where we are headed with all these ... 'truths'? .. Is this not precisely the 'job' that is being done on us to debase science .. to create a 'herd' of voters .. I think so..
Also add that we look to verify things that make sense based on pre-established facts, rather than trying to verify things that there is no real basis for in this universe. There is no verified evidence of a creator within the scientific scope, so we don’t bother dealing with those explanations because there is no reason for those explanations to be realistic. TLDR: if your explanation sounds based, we’ll choose one that doesn’t
@@zeapic8500 I think it's nurture rather than nature .. i.e. taught not genetic .. That is, the chains are given to us. Although insecurity does come from our being predated upon way back .. hence our blood-curdling feelings to a wolf howl and with our 'higher' sentience gained before we had science we concluded some pretty strange ideas as to the forces around us; wind, thunder, lightening and so on. For those with less science it would seem still to be a problem. . :-
@Khush Bakht Khan Your comment is littered with grammatical mistakes, but I'll try my best to respond to them. "Ok. Cosmos begin to exist for if it had eternal past it would never reach this point. Like if I was to type for eternity I would never get to post this comment. Empirical proof." By cosmos, I assume you mean the Universe. Your argument already has flaws in the first line of text. For one thing, there *is* a possibility that time has always existed in some form before the big bang, it's just that we currently have no way to trace it. Also, you are comparing two vary different things. You are comparing the universe, in its ever-flowing span of time, to a finished comment. The Universe is not 'finished', so your analogy is incorrect, and certainly not empirical proof. In any case, there is no proof that specifically a creator was the one to have made the Universe. "It was created by some thing creating time so there was no before this way creator would not have eternal past. At one time creator was enough to create cosmos and at one time now so it was created by something conscious. Creator is intelligent based on fine tuning of the universe. Universe runs on laws an law giver requires knowledge. Creator is one as not only there is no proof for other creator but if he was to exist it would cause question like y he did not started and why is doing nothing and so on." A lot of this is a jumbled mess that makes no real sense to me, especially the second sentence, but here you are referring to a creator as if we all know he exists already. That is false. We do not know if he exists or not, and your 'proof' has already been shown to be wrong. We only know that natural, scientific laws exist, not what it was that created them. Laws, as they are, will always be defined by those who are subjected to them, not those who create them. "It is description of Islamic God Allah. Creator that created the cosmos does not become cosmos it self. Say Allah he is one and only .the eternal and absolute. Not does he beget nor does he is begotten. And there is none like him." This is just you saying that Allah and Islam are great, and as such is irrelevant to my response. In my agnostic opinion, however, there is not any- let alone enough- proof that a God exists, let alone 'Allah' specifically. "God sent messengers to every nation to explain to them purpose of creation." Show me proof, please, anything. You won't find solid proof outside of religious texts. Why? Because they never existed. "He wanted to test humans an create his best and worst creation one that obeys him with free will and every prophet was given miracles to show to their people. Muhammad saw is last messenger of God and his miracle is Quran." Muhammad is the one and only 'prophet' of the Judean religions to be confirmed to have existed. His experiences with God, however, were seen by him and him alone, with the only references to his story being in Islamic religious texts. His story was most likely spread through word of mouth, and written down after gross misinterpretation. Even if the story he told his closest followers directly was the same one told today, there is no living evidence that what happened between himself and Gabriel was factual. "It is unique fusion prose and poetry and new literary form never heard by an arab before or after It. So they accused prophet of magic." I don't remember hearing anything about accusations of 'magic' from the story of Muhammad I know. I was certainly told that he went to Mecca, accused the people of worshipping idols of 'untrue gods', and got thrown out after. He then went to Medina, told the people of Medina his story, raised an army, and raided Mecca, destroying all of the idols in the city. Just now thinking about it, Islam was born from a considerable amount of conflict, considering it's a religion that's meant to be all about peace.
@Khush Bakht Khan My response was actually quite matter-of-fact and scientific. You have provided no proof of 'Prophethood' at all. You have only stated it, and a creator, exists. Also, I highly doubt you could show me any miracles. If you want to prove to me that you can 'give' miracles, or even want to show me one, be my guest. I don't want to leave any rational evidence unturned. Also, the Qur'an is not a miracle, it is a book written by the followers of Muhammad.
@@tchrisou812 I don't think he's anything because agnostic is believing in a god who hasn't interacted or plans to interact with the world since the beginning of time.
@@unclejoe8313 that's not what agnostic is, I don't think. And I've seen agnostic used as a modifier for atheist and theist. As well as gnostic. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god. But doesn't assert that no god exists or that gods existance is impossible. A gnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, bad asserts to know 100% that no god exists.
Metal doesn't move, but my car does... Fellas, I think my car may be powered by God? Wait, my weedwhacker is moving too... Damn, this is one hell of a spiritual experience.
I am currently setting up my [human infant] to a series of pulleys attached to a train, on a negative gradient, and already with a velocity of 10 m/s. I bet I can get this baby to move the train.
Corrected, "What is DNA and i am generally confused on how it works, so it must probably be something god made!" Similar to how the ancient people questioned "where do clouds go?", "what is this lighting?", "why am i sick? If there is no cure then god send it", "why is my cattle this angry today? It must be a sign", "how could there be this much water on this ocean, i dont understand how Earth could be sphere yet not in a constant juggle of maintaining this much water", "damn, the stars look so cool! Well, god made them juat for us to gaze on his work! What do you mean they are not actually small?", "where does the wind come from, and why does it not cooperate with my ship? Must be sign of god." Science has answers to these questions, except "where do we go after we die?"... And thats why theism is still around.
A chemical compound in basically almost any living thing except virus that use rna or other exception. Dna is chemical compound that has structure that provide shape you are familiar with. Each if the 3 strand can be decode to make protein which is what make ech living thing different.
I always love when someone starts off a conversation with "It's an established fact that...", then proceeds to say something completely unestablished and untrue as the basis for their conclusions.
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5بays the person, that can’t even get my comment right. People like that theist in the video, can’t accept any answer that doesn't includes a deity. These people love to use the _god of the gaps_ answer, which GeneticallyModifedSkeptic already pointed out. And there are dozen of theists like that out there, which tried to use these type of questions, to "destroy" science or atheism. That's a fact, and most of them can’t accept the answers either.
It’s fun that he’s arguing for Allah. I can imagine a Christian listening up to right before then and being like “this guy knows what’s up” and then he drops the “therefore Allah” 😂 😧 😂
Yeah that's the generality of these apologetic arguments. They can always be used for every different kind of god, and thus (in addition to other reasons) utterly fail.
Someone pointed out to me that religious believers reject atheistic reasonings for not believing, but put a Christian with a Muslim to argue which god/text is true, and suddenly they start using a lot of atheistic reasoning to debunk each other. "You can't use those useless I need them".
@@Onoesmahpie That which proves too much proves nothing at all. Blaise Pascal had the same problem. Even if his reasoning had been sound regarding Pascal's Wager, it could not prove the truth of Catholicism, which was his hope.
i dont support the original argument u put into quotes i just wanted to point out that the example u gave doesnt really work since a hairstylist doesnt GIVE hair, a bald hairstylist doesnt give that feature they dont have (hair) to their client. they do nothing more than what the name suggest and that is styling. this ofc unless we are talking about wigs in which case that would be correct :D
@@luanamariamusat4920 they do not have a hair style yet they are able to give a hairstyle. For example this bald hair stylist does not have a mohawk as they have no hair however they are able to give someone else a mohawk.
It's actually quite funny, the guy says - The fact you observe something does't mean you understand it Then he claims to understand how laws of nature work(will of the god), based on observing them
Not exactly, it’s more like “10 football players by themselves don’t have the skill to beat a football team, so how could 10 of them together beat a football team?” Your analogy is more like “an atom can’t come together to make a group of atoms” which isn’t really his argument
No, actually: "a team isn't a wholly different thing, distinct from its members or unexplained in terms of them". #1 is a really, really good point. His only good point, really, because even to #3 I could just respond with "they just are". Like theists imagine their gods, "He just is".
@@icygood101 #1 isnt a good point because it ignores emergent properties If nothing new could ever emerge then history, on the cosmic scale, would be a series if closing doors; all it would take is one time that a property didnt emerge across the universe and it would disappear forever.
Yet another video that should be renaimed to, "3 questions that aethiests have answered and explained countless times but my personal bias wont let me acknowledge."
@@Alucia0I saw the same person trying to disprove another comment, they said "we Muslims" and "you atheists," so I would infer that they're disagreeing with you but idk. their reply to you didn't make much sense in my opinion
"You cannot draw a rainbow with a pencil because it is black." Speaking as a Graphic Artist who as an art student in high school and college that did a lot of line work with charcoal and granite pencil: Yes. Yes, I can. Yes it won't be a myriad of different colors, but grayscale is in of itself is a color grade from dark color to lacking color--but that is in of itself color. Black is a color, it is all colors blended together (or the darkest a single color can achieve) of the color grading scales and white is the absence of color but still falls under the color grading scale as it is the lightest all colors can be. Thus making a rainbow with just a black granite pencil is of course possible simply pending how dark or light you do the shading of each bar of the rainbow.
With color science I can clearely say that the human eye respond differently to color tints. We are very sensitive to green, cyan and yellow where the last color we're sensitive to are blue and red. And from it, we can give a grayscale of the percieved luminosity of colors from a mathematical point of view. And these grayscale values put in the right order will give a realistic looking rainbow. Even if there is only grays. Yes maths, science and art are all put together. That's why I love colorimetry ! 😀 That's how we managed to make colors in computers and being able to make art from it.
Last time I had same argument with religious dude, I simply asked that "If I agree with your reasoning that it is a GOD, can you for sure prove it is that 1 god you are beliving in?". It was the end of argument.
@@TedTheAtheist So we're just going to comment on every reply that identifies the OP as a religious believer of some kind? Hardly supporting respectful dialog
Here is a thought experiment for you. What separates you from actually being conscious (what I would call having a soul), from being a biological robot who simply believes it is alive and conscious. The atoms in this situation causing “emergent properties” can not exactly explain this consciousness at least not in any scientific way. There are brainwaves we can measure but there is no way to differentiate this from a consciousness therefore there must be something else at play that science can not yet identify (or might never be able to identify) this is why I believe there is something spiritually accurate to what religion says about humans
Then you didn’t look hard enough I mean have you even read the bible in a critical thinking way. I mean if you actually read it and do research you’ll find answers just because you asked someone or googled it doesn’t mean you’ll find an answer that way. People now a days give up way to easily and I just can’t see how people can think we all used to be monkeys it just doesn’t make sense.
The funniest part about the pencil analogy is that it's actually wrong: graphene can be arranged in such a way that it shimmers with iridescence. This same principle is how a butterfly's wings are colored or the vivid colouring of many tropical bird species. The rainbow can indeed emerge from black graphite.
It’s true. Blue is a colour that is very hard for organic (carbon based) natural beings to obtain, as blue pigments are rare. Certain plants have them and only one species of butterfly does. Yet, there are many blue birds, which, take any feather of a blue bird and look at the back of it, or grind it up in a fine powder, and you will see it’s likely brown, and no longer blue. Do the same with a red cardinal feather and the powder will be red. It doesn’t have blue pigment and therefore shouldn’t have a blue colour, but they have nano sized pockets of air and keratin that lets all colours but blue pass through, reflecting and refracting blue. They are made from parts that do not contain any blue, and yet create it with the physical connection and structures of these parts
Colors are merely perceived by organic lifeforms. So what we see as black or grey, may appear many different colors and vastly different to an animal or organism with a larger range of perceivability. Its a similar analogy to dogs being able to smell more smells than humans.
I looked at the second question, and the conclusion i came to with his explanation is that he's trying to say "the things that happen must have something causing them to happen", he then compared the bricks in a house to the atoms in a body, and said that an object cannot hold 2 opposite properties at once. Otherwise, he basically reiterated that atoms don't have a will to create, therefore god, while conveniently not mentioning how things can join together on the atomic level without a will behind them
Humanity inherently knows da wae, God only lets us ask if we kno -Abraham Lincoln, issuing the code of Hammurabi at the opening of the Great Pyramid gift shop
It’d be very boring as well. Imagine just choosing to believe that one person just created everything when you could instead choose to explore the mysteries of the universe and find infinite possibilities
I once saw an animation about it where Adam and Eve never eat the fruit and even leave the fucking tree to explore, have babies and all animals, tame a dinosaur and ride it until God comes down and literally yells "EAT THE FUCKING FRUIT"
That is rather the point. Religion was used to keep people dumb and obedient. Asking too many questions and changing the balance of power is not good for cult leaders.
@@Vynnter not genius...there is an actual church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the “Ramen, Brother” thing is an accepted part of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, otherwise known as Pastafarianism. Edit: removed “Invisible”, added “Pastafarianism”
@@Danlows1 Oh wow, didn't know that. I first thought this was a joke, but now that you mentioned it, i searched it up and you're right. Thanks for informing me!
I find it hilarious that people ask questions atheists can’t answer, because every answer a religious person gives has proof along the lines of “I made it up” or “I read it in a book that has absolutely zero physical evidence”
@Angel Vollant I have mo problem with them believing it because I know how having hope in the afterlife can help some people. But when they force it to children, or move this logic to science and medicine, that's when the problem begins
The thing is, when people are trying to win an argument so they don't have an existential crisis, it just makes you look dumb when they think they have the answer already, and you won't have an alternative answer even if you completely and fundamentally debunk it, so they'll have no reason to drop their confidence that they'll go to World 7 if they do what their god says
I know but people like this are probably gonna think they have no way to lose an argument if the people have proof against their case but not really any alternative proof for their own case Probably just don't even bother arguing with them unless you necessarily need to change their life and know they have some shred of intellect in those thick heads of theirs blessed with resistance+ by God
@@anomalocarislover7254 science does not explain anything, only the sequence of events that occur, and it does so thanks to the order in the universe. My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube. YOU WILL REACH THE TRUTH !
@@enesrp1712 correct science does not explain everything. But until I find substantial evidence that we were created by a God, I will stick to it. To me, the universe seems to be a random sequence of events with no intelligence behind it. Science has helped us uncover sciences history and its rules more than religion ever has. Could you provide a link to the series, I can’t find it online.
@@enesrp1712 If sacience didn't understood how stuff works, we wouldn't have modern technology. For example you can't make mashines that generate or use electricity wichout understanding how electricity works. Edit: I've noticed you spammed same comment absolutely everywhere. Really..? Do you really have nothing better to do?
@@Derg3586 hm why isn't he/she responding back, i hate when pple spam a reply everywhere just for em not to reply when someone proves to be intelligent enough to argue
@@tronche2cake science does not explain anything, only the sequence of events that occur, and it does so thanks to the order in the universe. My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube. YOU WILL REACH THE TRUTH !
@@enesrp1712 Ah yes, because "god did it" is a very good and valuable answer that provides insight into the inner workings of the universe. Don't kid yourself.
2:29 The house consists of bricks. You can live in the house. You can't live in bricks. THE QUESTION IS, who gave this property to bricks from outside? A man, and this supposedly proves that once a man created a house, then someone made a man? So you want to say that a person has the property of a room in which to live, which he transferred to the house? Does someone live in a person? Are you talking about parasites? Well, this property was given by God. Then the question is, who lives in God?
And equally, there's more than one type of atom. And they can form structures with their own unique behavior. It's also not a good argument for the existance of god, because it suggests that god (who would be the one holding the pencil) wouldn't be able to create human life from atoms.
@@CocoonpawzZ0 no, YOUR green doesn't exist. But MY green is the only real Green, and is the source of ALL greens. An ancient colour-chart assured me of this, you foolish A-greenist...
I like that this guy isn't being disrespectful, he's not being mean to anyone, and he understands that these are complex things. Most people practicing religion or not will debunk the other side in a mean or emotionally charged way, this guy just presents the information as it is.
Honestly if he had done it any other way then I would not have watched and thats probably true for a good number of people. I dont understand why people have gone from actually debating ideas/beliefs to just arguing and insulting each other. Its not necessary and often runs the entire thing.
@@lucifer3416 probably because these topics have been argued so many times by now that people just resort to diminishing character instead because it's easier.
Exocentric same with the religious ones if you are intrigued by these genuine and actual good people who don’t argue and insult I can name other channels like these
@@AliQULYEV-l4t olum video yanlis bilgilerle dolu sözler köşkü denen kanal saçma sapan bir evrim videosu yapmıştı bu seferde Evrim ağacı bunları yerden yere vurdu
In his second question he stated: A room cannot be dark and bright and a paper cannot be wet and dry at the same time What I was thinking: a certain cat can be dead and alive at the same time
But if you have a piece of paper and get one side wet then technically part of it is dry and part of it is wet. That evidence seems to be based on the sort terms we use when saying something(you got my paper wet) rather than saying a long and unnecessary numbers like (you got 3.6745% of my paper wet and 6.7492% of my paper on fire) because what is important in the moment is not how much is or isn’t wet but that part of it ended up wet anyway.
No, the mentioned cat can't be "dead and alive" at the same time. It is in a non-determined state until it is observed. When observed, it is either dead or alive. There is no hope to understand quantum mechanics as long as one considers the superposition of states as actual.
I think this statement is more of a miscommunication of "what properties are observable". Which if it sounds very vague is because it is. Is a room dark or bight if it is flooded with ultraviolet light? Can something be wet and dry at the same time or does it depend on what level of absolute humidity is in the air before you would consider something wet?
"Well science can't explain everything, so therefore god." Of course science can't explain everything, if it could then there would be no more science to do. And where's the fun in that?
Your right, not knowing what number the answer is doesn’t prove its 1 because it could be 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 and so on This means that not knowing why everything exists doesn’t prove that it’s god this only means we don’t know yet And doing science is what will eventually tell us how and why everything is here
It's an age-old truth: people are scared of the unknown. It's one of the reasons I think religion was ever invented. Biggest thing people are scared of is death - just ceasing to exist. They can't fathom what it is like; they can't comprehend the unknown. So they make up a god who can save them from it; someone who can give them all the answers.
@@theboombody Atheist: lacks belief in a god/gods Agnostic atheist: lacks belief in a god/gods but is open to the possibility that one might exist because we can't know for sure Gnostic Atheist: lacks belief in a god/gods and is certain that one does not and can not exist They're both atheists.
@@NoName-nu8wtQaqaş salam mən videonu başa düşmədime bu kanal sahibi müsəlmandı yoxsa ateist? İngiliscə bilmirəm ona görə soruşdum. Videoda nəyi anlatmaq istəyir qısaca?
@@Theotok0s yea bro i Trust you, because my magic has been detroyed by the Qur'an, i realized that Qur'an have some kind of power to burn evil things amazing book keep it up bro if you are attacked by magic try to recite some your book thing i believe it can destroy the spell, my friend has defeated me he is really pious
Purple and red aura need to be known by many people, many people only know the lime aura or the yellow aura, very very narrow thinking they have no knowledge about it 😌😌😌
"Atheists can't answer these questions" Usually when a theist posts a youtube video titled "questions atheists can't answer" the reason is because the theist has the comments section disabled.
@@TheHunkiestCandle That would be a really short segment, since the answer is "Nothing points to God except ignorance." Even if god, with a capital G did exist, it would solve nothing. In fact, it would add many problems, such as "why are you such a sadist, God?" and "How about you take some frikin responsibility?" Of course I expect some facile, self-assured, nonsensical reply like "You will learn the love of god in the end", which is just aggression
@ You realize the questions you just asked God are ANSWERED IN THE BIBLE. The story of Job has someone lose everything, and he asked God why he would do something like that, and God said that you should try being God because where you there when I created everything, etc etc. Also the thing you said about Nothing pointing to God just proves your ignorance. Evidence 1: Noah’s ark, found on earth on mount Ararat, and it’s in the same dimensions as stated in the Bible Evidence 2, all true atheists (people who actually try to prove their belief) who have tried to prove that God didn’t exist got the opposite answer, and proved that their has to be a creator (that’s why I believe the simulation theory came to existence along with the fact that we created AI) Evidence 3, every culture has a story of a great flood Evidence 4, The records of Jesus are so plentiful that the only answer is that Jesus was real Evidence 5, the fact that humans can physically see the future (premonitions, and premonitionary dreams which about 20% of the people have had atleast one, also Harriet Tubman had this ability) If you have counter arguments to any of these claims, and they aren’t the only ones then please send them, but if you can’t then I hope to see you at church.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ a fact is not opinion based. it is a FACT that nobody will bother listening to you, that WHY it's a waste of time. please stop being stupid.
@@portalingstudiosgaming7705this guy is turkish, and greek and turkey is a bit passive agressive against each other, so any time some turkish guy make a bad music/video/movie etc. They say "nice greek video" implying yhat only they could make something that horrible to mock greeks bassically
@@watto2355 Why, yes! It does. There's several examples in the Bible that support questioning answers simply handed to you until or unless you're comfortable with the person handing you answers. I'll share the shortest story for now, but I'd be happy to share more if you're curious. One of Jesus' s twelve disciples, named Thomas, was told by his fellow disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. He said he would only believe it only when Jesus himself walked up to him and showed him the nail marks through his palms and feel the hole in Jesus' hands for himself- for context, the disciples had confirmed his death. Lo and behold, Jesus shows up some time later and not only allows but encourages Thomas to see and feel the wounds for himself. Jesus then says “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:24-29) So God does not inherently object to questions and the desire to know more or to know the truth.
It's weird because there are actually a lot that atheist can't answer (yet) like what was before the big bang? We don't know. What was the very first living being? We have hypothesis but we don't know. Ect... But they don't ask that because they know that even though we don't know, we won't accept that the answer is god just because someone said so
@@maeko1997 i think it’s more of the fact there’s a lot of questions that no one can answer but theists just answer with what they assume to be the truth. my is a christian and we talked ab this for like 2 hours last night
@@drdougy7772 actually, just seeing that one point doesn't have a length, but a connexion between 2 points (a line) is enough to answer too. So anyone with basic logic really
To summarize, a theist goes to the cinema and watches a movie for the first time and gets stunned “oh my god! How can there be humans inside the screen? There is some sorcery and deities involved…” You proceed to explain the entire process-filming, editing, cinematography, CGI, distribution, projectors, and the economics behind it all… his response would be: “Sure, you’re explaining the steps, but take a step back and look at the bigger picture, there are humans inside the screen! How can this not be a proof for gods existence” as an ex-muslims i can assure you, muslims are on another level..
The burden of proof does not lie with people rejecting a statement, opinion or belief, it lies fully with the people pushing it and claiming its' validity.
According to my following simple and undeniable demonstration, there should be no more atheists. Because of the following two simple facts: - *from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes* - *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process* the existence of the Creator of this reality (God/Divinity) *is proved* by the existence of this reality with intelligence into it. That is why atheists renounce to elementary logic and to simple rationality intentionally when they believe that this reality has always existed without any intelligence involved. *God is not bounded by what He has created,* but atheists, in their superficiality, do not want to recognize their limitations. For example, science will never be able to really know, at least, what a photon is (the magnification process being infinite). Regarding the Creator of this reality (the nature of God etc.), our power of comprehension will always be like how much the cups can think to understand the man who made them (comparison mentioned in the Bible), but *we have Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity, to be able to see God and what He expects from us.*
The unbelievers of the truth are like those who live in "a house" (this world) but do not want both to follow the rules of the Builder/Owner (they denying Him) and to pay "the rent" (which means, in brief, to strive always only for good, for perfection, to never do evil, especially to not do evil intentionally) so that in the end, when they will face the Builder/Owner of the house (at the Judgment), they will regret their incorrect and undeserved using of the house (their earthly life).
_"In everything you do, remember your end, and you will never sin."_ Sirach 7, 36 *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
@@filmeseverin That entire argument relies on the fact that someone OWNS the "house". You still don't prove God. This is more of shunning than an argument.
I have proved the existence of God in many other posts (answers and top comments / new threads). Those interested can sort the comments to read enough from my recent and quite recent messages to see my demonstrations.
@@filmeseverin Rocks literally disprove god. Rocks have been carbon dated to more then 6000 years ago - which is when the Bible claims the universe began.
Wrong. Atoms can be seen with an electron microscope. Of course the microscope is made of atoms and it was designed and created by humans, whom, by the way, are also made of atoms. But what is "intelligence" made of and how did humans get "intelligence"? How did humans get the intellectual ability to design and build, not only a microscope but everything that humans design and build? Do atoms have "intelligence"? The natural law of cause and effect cannot be denied. The Bible states: “Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists.” (Hebrews 3:4, The Jerusalem Bible) Since any house, however simple, must have a builder, then the far more complex universe, along with the vast varieties of life on earth, must also have had a builder. And since we acknowledge the existence of humans who invented devices such as airplanes, televisions, and computers, should we not also acknowledge the existence of the One who gave humans the brain to make such things? John Polkinghorne, of the University of Cambridge, England, observed: “Theoretical physicist Paul Dirac discovered something called quantum field theory which is fundamental to our understanding of the physical world. I can’t believe Dirac’s ability to discover that theory, or Einstein’s ability to discover the general theory of relativity, is a sort of spin-off from our ancestors having to dodge saber-toothed tigers. Something much more profound, much more mysterious, is going on. . . . “When we look at the rational order and transparent beauty of the physical world, revealed through physical science, we see a world shot through with signs of mind. To a religious believer, it is the mind of the Creator that is being discerned in that way.”-Commonweal.
And technically you can, its just not easy. Because light’s color is dependent of structure, if you change the graphite’s structure or size you can change the color it reflects.
Of course you can draw a rainbow with a black pencil. Just draw a line drawing of one and providing you've seen a rainbow in real life you should at least be able to recognize it for what it's supposed to represent.
@@MegaBadgeman Shading... A varying degree of pressure from the graphite tip onto the paper. I'm no artist, but I have a friend who is a tattoo artist, and they amaze me with just their shading techniques.
What I find most interesting is that these questions are being framed by a theist as "atheist" questions, but these questions aren't unique to atheism. Christians can be scientists too, for example, and agree with your point while recognizing the fallacies of the other, notably the fallacy of composition and God of the gaps. It honestly just sounds like more of a dig at scientific method than it is about not believing in God when scientific method and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.
Question no atheist can answer, without recognizing the existence of God: *Are you and this world the result of no intelligence?* Because of the following two simple facts: *- from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes;* *- the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process,* the existence of the Creator of this reality (God/Divinity) *is proved* by the existence of this reality with intelligence into it. Many hope that this reality is the result of no intelligence, in other words that God does not exist, only to escape the responsibility for their deeds, to not be Judged after they leave this world. The problem with the deceived ones is that they do not know enough science, otherwise they would realize the fact that true/proven science is used to gain the trust and after that the fake/unproven science is used to manipulate the superficial people, to keep them away from the truth about/from God/Jesus, the most important truth.
@@filmeseverin"Question no athiest can answer, without recognizing the existence of God: Are you and the world the result of no intelligence?" As far as we can currently tell, yes. That was a question no athiest can answer answered by an athiest. "Because of the following two simple facts: -from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes" That's not a real fact "the results of a process prove the intelligence involved in that process" So all processes involve intelligence because all processes involve intelligence? This is a circular reasoning fallacy. "The existence of the Creator of this reality (God/divinity) is proved by the existence of this reality with intelligence into it" Just like with your previous statement, this is a circular reasoning fallacy.
As usual, are in denial (without counterarguments, of course) only those who are too superficial to think enough to understand *the simple fact that from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes,* the entire process until nowadays proving the existence of God because *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process* (even schoolchildren can understand that every photon, ... atom, ... cell has intelligence into it, *not to mention their functionality together).* They ignore the intelligence put from the beginning. For example, the intelligence mentioned includes the exact value of the speed of light matching the manifestation of what we call "gravity", working together since the primordial conditions to form in the end this reality, which hosts intelligent life that is able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love the Creator, especially through His human form, Jesus Christ. The deceived ones, through their denial without valid counterarguments, cannot fool the serious and honest readers of my messages.
Also, just because “I” don’t know, doesn’t mean humanity doesn’t know. Some scientific concepts are really complex and don’t translate well to laymen terms and so you really have to study something for years to fully understand it. People like simple, easy to understand answers where they don’t always exist. It’s why a lot of people turn to religion to explain things. “God did it” is an simple, easy to accept answer to complex questions.
@@balbs100 he's saying it generally.. there are questions that humanity doesn't figure out yet through research. So idk is the better answer than filling the dashes with fallacies
@@aarthiramesh4584 some things are beyond our understanding, which most theists cannot accept. They insist they know the truth and make claims without supporting them with solid evidences. Anyone can do that, even a child. I can claim God has a beak, no one can disprove nor prove it. Does that mean that's the truth? Nah. Theists really like to throw questions at atheists when they shouldn't even be doing that, they should be the one answering the questions instead. Atheism isn't a belief-system, why do we need to get interrogated?
I don't know...but God doesn't exist. Yet, i'm going to study the universe for 60-80 years only to realize that my work truly does not mean anything to me, and my life is ultimately meaningless without life after death. The memories I create, truly turn into nothing, so the sad reality is, I will focus on the natural world, not realize that me studying, analyzing and making sense out of the irrational is supernatural in itself.
Your words indicate that you did not understand the argument put forth by the Muslims, or that you claim that you did not understand it and used the straw man deception. . But I will try to understand you using one simple question: Referring to your example, does this mean that the string made the blanket by itself ? If you understand this question, your atheism is over
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5ب I'm not fully sure I understand your comment ? I'd say that yes, the string (or at least multiple strings) make up a blanket. There's no other "thing" within the blanket itself, at least nothing measurable by humans EDIT : I think I understood. If you're asking whether the blanket wove itself, then no. It was made by humans
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5بyou see, a blanket is just a simple blanket as are the strings that make it. Outside the blanket is a whole another world, with complex mechanics and structures, which have createe the blanket. And these structures and laws can indeed make theirselves what they are. But since the strings are limited to strings, they cannot theirselves form a blanket.
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5ب I love how you seem to think an atheist is going to read this and go "oh shit! you got me there!" and then suddenly start believing in YOUR SPECIFIC DEITY as if there aren't way more options to choose from.
The answer is infinity, see our universe, has a starting point under this infinite space with infinite quantum fluctuations, so this answers that we don't need a creater, because infinity can't be created or destroyed, so the possibility of why these laws exist in nature are also infinitely different in different universe (multiverse) . So the ultimate answer from which any root cause can be extracted is Infinity.
@@YourWorstNightmare8-k4i there's no workers or queen concept, look you just need to understand what is mean by actual ' nothingness' in reality ' absolute Nothing ' can't exist it always need something to fill that space, and also 'something ' doesn't mean anything in particular it means everything, and our universe is just a possibility part of that everything, I mean we exist because we can. Do you understand? 😁
@@YourWorstNightmare8-k4i I'm going to try to answer this by explaining the theory I *think* this comment is propsing. in terms of beehives (Which is what I think you're asking). I'm specifically going to focus on the third question because its easier to answer So the question is how are the laws of the universe created. Imagine theres a beehive and in this beehive there are rules. a bee questions how these rules have come into existence (because these rules are very specific and if tweaked bees could not exist in this hive) The answer would be that it is random. now imagine an infanate forest full of beehives. Each beehive has a random set of rules. even if there is only one specific set of rules that bees can survive in, because there is an infinite amount of beehives, there must be one that randomly has the specific set of rules needed for bees to survive, while other hives can't support bee life because of the rules. The hives are like universes (in the multiverse theory) and the ability to support bee life is the ability to contain matter and survive long enough for intelegent life to evolve. does that make sence?
"You cannot give a feature you don't have to someone else". Counterpoint if I'm interpereting this correctly: I could hypothetically give someone a bruise and not have one myself
@@justinjakeashton but some birth defects are hereditary, not all of them, but many are caused by genes, which are passed down, generation to generation, the only reason everybody isn't born with 6 fingers is because mutations happen. Mutations are a tricky thing, they happen randomly and are quite rare, but exist because we have seen and documented people with traits that none of their parents have, the entire existence of cancer is based on a mutation in a cell going horribly wrong and causing it to start hurting the body
I think the person did not articulate himself well enough for you to understand if thats the vibe you are getting. Here is his argument in a hopefully easier to understand way. 1. If our brain is not consensus, and neither are any other part of us, where did our consensus come from. Video Response: We do not understand how the reactions occur to form consensus, you are simply saying "because we dont understand, it must be god" 2. All of our cells and organs, don't "know" or have a process for assembling themselves into a human, or any animal for that matter, nor does an atom have a way of assembling into a cell, so how does anything exist without a pre-existing body. Video Response: "I currently lack the necessary knowledge to understand the argument, or respond to it, I don't want to mis-represent atheism and thus decide not to respond. 3. Their is no explanation for how the laws of nature exists, and thus the only option is god. Video Response: We don't know the answer that question, you are doing the "because we dont understand, it must be god" thing again. So basically, no Atheists can't answer these 3 questions, but according to the video, that doesn't matter. So the title of the video should be "Atheists can't answer these questions" ... Does it really matter?
The entire crux of the argument for the source video appears to be that ALL emergent properties are God. He sticks mostly to properties of living things. However, he hints around that he is talking about everything. Taken to the logical end, hydrogen and oxygen combining to form a substance with completely different properties is also "proof of God".
I have some pretty good evidence for that first one. A red pencil cannot draw a rainbow on its own. Neither can an orange pencil, or a yellow, green, blue or purple one. But if you combine all six pencils, you can draw a rainbow. …duh.
As someone who is religious, I just wanted to say how appreciative I am of how seriously you took this video. Often times both atheists and religious people will refuse to understand the reasoning behind differing opinions, so the way you tried to understand each question fully before answering is incredible.
Other religions will automatically decay if Islam is true. then the question is islam is real religion? of course.. I do not think there is any other doctrine above times and places that can better explain the world universe. My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube.
@@pajac6809the mind of an atheist is that the universe and everything blew up into existence from nothing and by nothing, i’d say that requires much more faith ngl
"how can something give a feature it doesn't possess" my dude literally hasn't heard of sodium and chlorine, two dangerous chemicals, that come together to make mf table salt
I would have said this: Take vinegar: is vinegar explosive? No Take baking soda: is baking soda explosive? No Now put them together, what happened? It exploded. Even though neither ingredient is normally explosive
I have three questions no atheist can answer 1) what is the last digit of pi 2) how many digits are in pi if you remove every other digit 3) if a tree falls in a forest and none is around, what's the second to last digit of pi.
I can actually answer number 2, pi has an infinite number of digits, meaning 1 and 3 are impossible to answer, but 2 is possible to answer because infinity / 2 = Infinity. So the number of digits in pi if you remove every other is infinity
@@AnnoyedSonic sure thats an answer, unfortunately infinity is not a quantity, as requested in the "how many" part of the question. by definition the word infinite just means impossible to quantify. So the answer you gave to "how many digits are in pi if you remove every other digit" is basically saying you don't have an answer. also the point of this post is a meme. r/woosh
The host of Towards Eternity's video was respectful and stuck to the topic at hand rather than smearing his detractors. Let's do the same, everyone.
Also: How Carl Sagan Beat Pseudoscience (The Sagan Method)
th-cam.com/video/yUgdrno-2xY/w-d-xo.html
Ohhh I think Viced Rhino answered these questions. He has a really cool answer for the black pencil part.
Civility is how we will progress as a society
@@lekiscool yup, was a very cool video.
9 hours ago?
I think his answer to the second one was “pick an analogy.” XD
The first question is like saying "if a brick doesn't let you cross a river, there's no way bridges can let you cross rivers, if they're made of bricks"
"therefore, allah"
@@nutronstar45 ah yes
allah holds the bricks together for you
Very well said. I'm gonna use this!
Hello there!
Edit: *I have written many comments, if you want to reply then fully understand my comments all to way to the final one then reply with consideration of the latest comments; thank you!*
I’m just a curious, incredibly friendly, and highly rational free-thinker. Nevertheless, the creator of the car & wheel is crucial for the creation of it, that’s the whole point of the argument, you can’t expect metal components given enough time and energy to naturally form themselves into engines and leather seats, and then finely tune itself to give AC and a speedometer, etc. You *require* a creator, which in this case is a human. The universe is vastly superior, much more complex and unfathomably vast, and I fully understand the universe is different, but actually, the same reasoning can be applied - if not even better applied. Nature’s natural and universal laws have seemingly eternally existed, but that’s exactly where God makes sense: living things don’t come from non-living things naturally, the very essence of life and consciousness is a greatly profound question. Not to mention, the prophets were extremely truthful people, and truthful eyewitness accounts of miracles exist. If God’s existence is unprovable, undoubtedly our very best bet is to be, at the least, an Agnostic Theist. The Agnostic meaning = doesn’t know if God exists, and the Theist meaning = believes in God anyway. My goal is not to prove my argumentation is irrefutable, my goal is to aid rational choices and free thinking. Thank you. 🙂❤️
As Richard Feynman once said, "I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"
i really like that
Oh fuckin finally! Thank you so much! You are the first person to actually correctly quote that statement. I have now found three comments where people claim it was Carl Sagan who said it and while Sagan no doubt felt the same way, it wasn’t him who said it.
...You mean : "Dictatorship" ? ;)
@@jacobwatson6093 what do you even mean?! What is the question, where existence is the answer?
@@danielbristow2367Existence itself is a mystery.
All these “cannot answer” videos have one ultimate fallacy: even if I cannot provide a right answer, it does not make their false answer right by default.
Great observation.
i know right? when they say i need to prove that god doesn't exist, and ask me to explain myself, i say why on earth should i have to answer to someone who worships a baby killing, torturing, vain and jealous psychopath without reservation or question? how can you justify killing all the first born of Egypt? how can you justify solomon ordering the dashing of the babies against the rocks the slaughter of their me and the taking of there women? that it wasn't slavery their god doesn't like, just not his people, that in the flood they gloss over all the pregnant woman and children left to drown, i could go on but i wont. don't give me but the new testament waah. if Hitler said look boys i've changed id still say no. besides. they did not change. the entire history of religion is one of misery and horror. i think treating the religious with anything other than contempt is no different than being an apologist for the behavior of the Nazis. there is no excuse, and their history and continued behavior bear out my contempt.
Great vegetables.
If your worldview cannot provide the right answer (i.e., the truth), then you should find another worldview.
@@iDontAnswerToRobots
Statistics would confirm that to be science as well. If something cannot be proven, it "rejects said hypothesis to be true", it doesn't say it is "therefore false". Both faith and the scientific method only approach truth, but if it doesn't find it, then it simply is that; no answer. ACTUALLY, I would even say that any faith that keeps pushing anything and everything not proven to be "definitely a divine force" is shooting itself on the foot; faith and spiritualism cannot be explained so pushing anything as true or false does not help a religion, as it would also break the scientific method (mind you, I am agnostic, so none of this matters anyway).
1. This guy never played with Lego
2. He has no idea how science works
3. He has never made a system which was more complex as originally expected and giving unexpected results, such as programming a software…
Yup I feel bad for him he took yapology instead of science. His questions if you think for a sec r just plain stupid😂
Bro studied in madrasha. There's no science class there (correct me if I'm wrong)
@@jamesR800Yeah madrashas are basically pure doctrine, Id know because im Indonesian 😅
@@athar_adv me too
My favorite saying about stuff like this. "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."
Easy response: "I am under every obligation to attempt to make sense of the universe."
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 but not anything that you like
It's must be supported by lots of evidence
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 Easy rebuttal: "If the universe you make sense of is not the universe, you are not making sense of the universe."
@@efulmer8675 the universe would have to prove his Sense making false no?
@@nobodycares99 That could be accomplished by his sense-making predicting one thing and then the universe doing another.
The first argument is basically: "Letters alone are meaningless! Therefore, words, phrases and texts cannot ever be formed from letters since they don't mean anything."
Guess alloys are fake according to the host?
Wonder what he thinks about assembly lines
It is a pretty good analogy.
"Blue paint isn't green, and yellow paint isn't green, so if you mix them the resulting paint won't be green."
"Freshly cut wood is rough, and sandpaper is rough, so rubbing one with the other won't make either one smooth."
"Ice is solid,. and salt is solid, so if I add salt to ice it can't become a liquid."
@@wizardsuth SCIENCING!!!
"you cannot give a feature you don't have to someone else"
Me: Gives abs to my drawing
Why only abs? Get a big chest, biceps and legs.
me: makes a white oc
@@qq-lw2vp omg I love ur name lol
@Khush Bakht Khan pog champ- wait... god uses the word pog... g o d i s B r i t i s h... omg I love this irl headcannon...
@Ohio State but like...
W h a t i f i t i s ? ? ?
2:19
Another counterpoint to this argument is this:
Let’s imagine I have a tiny cube. If I push it at one end, will it roll continuously? No.
Now let’s imagine I have 200,000,000 of these cubes, all glued together to form a low definition, rough sphere
Can it roll? Yes.
How does that work? Does god decided to grant it the property of rolling after I make it?
It’s not up to code, lol.
"A human has a variety of feelings while atoms don't have any."
*An atom looks shocked and hurt, then turns away while sad violin music plays*
Thanks for the laugh xD
Of course atoms have emotions. It’s just hard to tell because their faces are so tiny.
Atoms get excited and relaxed. Those are the real terms for various states that atoms can be in.
Apologists for Islam are even worse than Christian Apologists. Is there truly anyone who believes this side show snake oil salesmans atom spiel
😆
Host: "Atheists can't answer these questions"
Atheist: "Answers question"
Host: "Aight, let me just move this goal post"
"Man, sure glad these goalposts are on wheels. If they weren't, hoo boy, someone might discover that religion is just a tool we use to make sure the poor self-regulate their own poverty"
Or either they would love to say 'You are a liar'!!!
Maybe i shouldnt
speak too harsh about this, but honestly?
I think its embarassing.
I think the Host was, yes, 'respectful', kinda,
but also without Dignity and such.
Alone the fact that he claims no one can answer
this when probably everyone can answer this
with above gradeschooler knowledge? Its outright
embarassing.
Maybe I'm too harsh, but he should have talked
with people if he really wanted a viable video.
But like this, he just created a Video-Title
that is a Lie and build on that Foundation...
Am i really too harsh?
@Khush Bakht Khan Thanks, I am convinced.
@Khush Bakht Khan Wait, so if there had to be a creator to create the universe because nothing can come from nothing, who created the creator? Was it a giant turtle? Because I read somewhere it was a giant turtle, and that book was pretty awesome too, probably nearly as unique a fusion of prose and poetry as the Quran. Is it turtles all the way down...? 🤔
In the first question he uses an example of a black pencil being unable to draw a rainbow, but this example alone can disprove his entire position. Take if you would 7 colored pencils, no one of these can draw a rainbow themselves as they lack the other 6 colors, but by using all 7 of them you can create a rainbow because even though a 'rainbow' was not a property any of them possessed, a 'rainbow' is merely an emergent property composed of 7 colors which each of the 7 colored pencils possessed one of. The only way for his comparison to actually prove his point is if the only way for a pencil to ever be able to draw a rainbow there must be a special 'rainbow pencil' and no pencil that isn't one (even if it can do more things) can ever be part of a process that leads to a complete rainbow drawing that doesn't require a 'rainbow pencil' at some point.
I was thinking a lot more simply, I guess. I was thinking it is easy to draw a rainbow with a pencil, the same way it is easy to draw a face or a tree or an ocean(if you are artistic enough to do so in the first place.) Just because something lacks color doesn't mean you haven't drawn it.
@@rpsdata I get that, but to be fully charitable I took what he was saying to instead of being that you can't 'draw' a rainbow instead to refer to the fact that a black pencil cannot, under normal circumstances, be used to create the 7 different colors needed to make a rainbow. I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but if you're interested I'll explain why I used the example I did even though your idea also came to my mind (not that you're wrong mind you, but I just didn't think that it lined up perfectly).
Now, I am sure that there are cases where you could use a black pencil to create each of the seven colors needed for a rainbow even (maybe with special paper, or surfaces, or something), but that would give him room to sorta pull back about that not being what he meant as he was merely giving this as an easier to understand example (potentially even arguing that your introduction of special circumstances if you introducing an outside element which proves his point of there being an outside element). Which is why I felt it best to address the point on the basis that he outlined, wherein a pencil can only be used to make drawings of one color and the implied requirement for a rainbow is to use all 7. Under these conditions, referencing how one could use 7 differently colored pencils that have different properties but are still pencils still follows the rules he outlined while pointing out the emergent properties as the Drew talked about, and this comparison also works since he was trying to say that atoms can't be used to create something they aren't themselves. One could say that your comparison is akin to him saying that atoms cannot make up the body of a human being (the outline/drawing of a rainbow), which isn't correct as I don't think he denied that our bodies are ultimately composed of atoms when you break it down, instead he was referring to the 'intelligence' behind a human being or any other life (in this example this is represented by the colors of a rainbow), the 7 colored pencils in this example each represent different types of atoms and it is their interaction together that allows a new drawing to be possible where none were able to originally do it, and when you realize this you see that his example required that there was a pencil that had 'rainbow' as an inherent property (in this case a higher intelligence) for 'rainbows' to ever be fully colored. By this though, it's not simply enough for a 'rainbow pencil' to exist, as it must also be impossible for normal colored pencils (atoms) to be able to ever make a fully colored rainbow as he posits it's impossible for atoms to ever make the full 'intelligence' behind animals. Granted disproving this example doesn't render his full point moot, but it does reveal that for a truly fair example of what he was referring to you have to make a far more complicated system than he realizes.
Sorry that I rambled on for awhile, but I like to talk about some of these things and ultimately the point I felt should be pointed out wasn't that his metaphor was built on a faulty premise (that you cannot draw a rainbow with a black pencil), even though it was, but that his example inherently disagreed with his own argument that emergent properties don't exist, and he simply closed his mind off once it 'agreed' with him and failed to consider alternate perspectives.
@@rpsdata Spot on! My immediate reaction to that awkward rainbow analogy was, yes, you can draw a representation of such a thing with a pencil.
The rainbow carries millions of colours. We could see 7 distinctive colours only. The boundaries are not defined and mix of various colours at various levels give different shades, just like TV where only 3 basic colours are needed to define all 16 million known colours!!
If I have a black pencil, and a piece of rainbow scratch paper, I can draw rainbows, and all kinds of colorful images!
By his original analogy, that would be like if the universe *itself* contained the potential for order and structure out of chaos, needing only any random stimulus to set it off... which is probably not far off from reality. I think it's fair to say he's dead wrong. 😄
You're a saint to be so patient with those questions. I eyerolled so hard my corneas highfived my brain on the way back.
Lmaoo
“Mankind is made of two kinds of people: wise people who know they're fools, and fools who think they are wise.” - Socrates.
got shakesphere over here spouting some profound wisdom
"Two continents on this planet are named after a man whose only claim to fame is that he had the courage to say "We don't know" " - Yuval Noah Harari
I like that.
Fish do a swim and horses do the runs - The Daxtinator
Wow I bet you came up with this because, well it fits perfectly with the saying dumb people say "smart people think they are fools" to appear smarter.
Bro, that first question is literally: I can’t live in a brick, how come I can live in a house made of a lot of bricks? Or: Milk is a liquid, Sugar is a bunch of small crystals and eggs are slimey. There’s no way they can make a cake!
Like the house thing, bro... is the exact same thing I thought to myself. If he is thinking in those metaphors he should be able to come up with the house/brick example or if he hears/reads this metaphor, accept that things can work that way.
Glad that this im not the only one wgo thought of this
@@redwolf4025 My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube. YOU WILL REACH THE TRUTH !
You will need a bit of flour too :)
He's a cake racist.. and also Hates HOUSES!!!!
“One cannot give what one doesn’t have to another one.”
The entire field of chemistry says otherwise. Reagents have different properties than their products.
Plus:
If god created everything and everyone and the creator has all the traits of what he created god also inhabits all the bad traits like racism and similar
In other words, "I'm so unimaginative, ignorant, and bound to my own indoctrination that I don't even know what emergent property is, therefore God."
This is actually a principle in law, ("Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet"). However, it applies pretty much only to purchases and sales that ordinary citizens make in everyday life (meaning that you cannot sell or give away what you don't own), but there are many exceptions to this rule: i.e. thieves can sell stolen movable goods on a public sale and the buyer will nonetheless become the new owner; if a person erroneously believes that they are the owner of a real estate for 10 or 20 years without any interventions by the real owner, then they will nonetheless become the owner due to their good faith (_usucapio_); brokers and other types of agents can sell other people's property etc.
hydrogen and oxygen are both very flammable. mix them together, and they become something that can put out flames.
Its a great example of that in action
The best part is that his analogy doesn't even work. Atoms aren't giving us anything, we are made up of them. They combine with others to form something more complex.
You can't draw a rainbow with a black pencil, but you can't draw it with a red one either. You need to combine different colors and paper. The end result has properties (colors) that the individual parts (pencils) don't have.
"Copper, iron and other metals in nature can't make anything on their own. So the internet in my computer must be the work of God."
This is a bad example because metals actually can't make a computer without an intelligent creator. The questioner tries to extend this point to atoms as well. In his video he said "bricks cannot form a house on their own".
To refute his point is actually a bit harder and requires a bit more depth on atomic interactions to explain the phenomena.
Actually understanding atomic interactions is not necessary to demonstrate that the analogy is false.
Computers are intelligently designed by humans. They belong to our natural reality; so to their tools, their materials and the procedures followed.
Creator gods are supposed to reside in a supposed supernatural reality.
@@marknieuweboer8099 a theist would argue that God is the "glue" that created intelligent life which then gave way to the creation of tools from basic materials. I don't understand your claim that God can only exist in a supernatural realm and not a real realm, you can't prove that assertion. But you can prove chemistry and quantum mechanics, so it's a much stronger argument IMO.
@ NoahD: it's not my claim. Take it up with theists.
Replacing tools, materials and procedures by a vague analogy like "glue" doesn't help. What does the word mean? What does it consist of? How does it work? We can answer such questions for designing computers, not for some creator god or another using "glue" to design intelligent life.
Oh - and why does that "glue" not apply to using chemistry, quantum mechanics and atomic interactions? You undermine your own argument.
Um actually, the internet is the work of the devil and the devil alone
"can your science explain why it rains." "Yes, yes it can!"
Explain to me. Why does it rain?
@@ketslaketsl3486 is it really that hard to just look it up
Sokka was always the best
@@ketslaketsl3486 water, heat and clouds.
@@ketslaketsl3486 clouds condense, water falls, water evaporates and creates clouds, cycle continues
"Sodium and chlorine are dangerous substances"
"Salt is the mixture between sodium and chlorine"
"Salt isn't dangerous"
"The only possibility is the flying spaghetti monster's blessing over salt"
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Actually consuming too much salt can be deadly and in not recommended:P
Sodium and chlorine
@@WawrzynPL So can consuming too little salt.
@@WawrzynPL sure but it isn't dangerous to the point of exploding on water, unlike sodium by itself
“As the radius of knowledge grows, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Einstein
Such a dumb quote to bring up, those were valid questions, and I as an atheist wasn't really convinced by the answers provided
@@Dante-nu5cn but neither you were convinced by the other guy's answers
@@Dante-nu5cn just out of curiosity, what did you find lacking in the answers provided in the video?
While Einstein wasn't really religious, he did believe in Spinoza's God and also said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". So I'd be a little more careful who you quote next time.
@@byron3718 quote isn’t meant to dispute the validity of religion, the quote is to reaffirm that the more we learn, the more we begin to understand how little we know
I wonder if that guy ever played with LEGO bricks.
saying that 'atoms can't see or hear so they can't make something that can' is like saying 'i cant live in a brick so I can't live in a brick house'
I think that's the easiest to understand example of how atoms work
Oh my god! That is literally the exact same thought that I had when I watched this!
Again talking about both man made things. Bricks and houses. What about a heart? Put all the cardiac cells together it doesn’t automatically start functioning as a heart. What is it(soul) that leaves the body when your heart or other organs can still function? What is natural death? Why can’t you collect functioning organs from people who died of other causes like accidents and make another human being? So it’s true that some kind of atoms put together may function as a unit with new characteristics, but it’s not true for complex creations like a human being or plants etc
@@abdussamee9363
1. "Put all the cardiac cells together it doesn’t automatically start functioning as a heart." It is actually possible to grow heart tissue in a petri dish that has a sychronous heartbeat, given the right conditions/outside influences.
2. "What is it(soul) that leaves the body when your heart or other organs can still function? What is natural death?" I assume what you're talking about here is death by natural causes. But that only means that the cause of death was failure some part of the body without the impact of external factors. No doctor would ever say that anyone passed away due to 'their soul leaving their body'.
3. "Why can’t you collect functioning organs from people who died of other causes like accidents and make another human being?" Have you heard of organ donation? Obviously we can't create entirely new human bodies from old organs yet (why would we want to anyway), but it's certainly already possible to replace parts of it without big complications.
hope that helps :D
It’s like computers. Electricity and the metals and plastics that they’re made of aren’t smart, but arrange parts in a certain way and boom, computer
“You cannot live in a brick, so it cannot make a house”
His pencil example is really week. He says you cant draw a rainbow with a black pencil, because it lacks colour.
But a pencil also lacks the ability explain feelings of love, but a pencil can be used to write a love letter. Some things cannot be done with a black pencil, but others things can be done, even though the pencil itself cant describe love, but the pencil can in fact explain love and feelings if "it works" or interact with a human.
There are things atoms can not do under any circumstances, but there are also things they can do when working together.
@@evil001987 Ah but you CAN draw a rainbow with a pencil. It wont be a rainbow with all the usual colours but its still a rainbow. Even when trying to make his point he makes the simplest mistakes. he should have said you cannot draw the colours of a rainbow with a regular pencil.
@@ASavageEye well you can make colors as well if you arrange graphine flakes properly.
Q1 when he told about atoms and humans was kinda stupid. Imagine if a brick is one kind of an atom, you take enough bricks and other atoms and you make a house. Just like with a human
@@skyrask1948 Ok so thats cool to know, thanks, I had no clue. You see this is why science is amazing and religion is a fekin joke.
This is something to add to the first question: if you have two colours, yellow and blue, and mix them together - what happens? The mix turns green. But according to the reasoning in the video, this shouldn't happen. Yellow and blue aren't green, and therefore they cannot "give something that they aren't". But that is what happens anyway. Because the yellow and blue interact and mix together, and forms the colour green.
Great example! He clearly missed his science classes.
Hydrogen is flammable, oxygen is caustic.
Their mixture (H2O) is extinguisher...
also, how do computers work?
@@gamerbito1479 in my experience, badly, and only when they feel like...
@@gamerbito1479 on a simple level computers function by sending electrical signals to different circuits which activates a certain function. This happens because of software which tells the physical hardware what to do and when, much like how DNA tells organic material how to function and interact.
not the sözler köşkü dawg 💀
puhahahahahaha
Bruhhhh
nice greek muslim channel
hahahaha
közler söjkü kknk
"You cannot give a feature you don't have, to someone else."
God is evil, gotcha.
damn gottem. didn't even think of this lol
Damn, You're right lol. I always forget how in all of their arguments God is always the exception to all the rules they create to explain things.
I think he would respond something like,
"Blah blah special pleading, god can do anything, blah blah"
God is also mortal, cus he gives the characteristic of mortality. He is also immortal and the same time, making him illogical. But he is also the source of all logic and therefore perfectly logical.
Checks out to me.
That's why the monotheist had to invent a devil at some point.
Watching someone so fundamentally misunderstand science is so SO fascinating to me.
Are you talking about the guy who made the video or the guy who they are reacting to?
@@jessegrepper4676 take a wild guess
@@jessegrepper4676 yes
@@blueredbrickvery
@@jessegrepper4676 Okay
I would much rather be stuck in a loop questioning everything rather than pretend to have answers to make myself feel better
Well religion makes you feel the most important in the universe
@@matheusformanskimiguel3822 also interesting how most gods in human history are animals that are anthropomorphized, and how man was made in god’s image. When most gods are made in man’s image
if you don't know what a can of beer is good for then you deserve your loop.
@@matheusformanskimiguel3822 perversely religion works in two opposite ways here... on the one hand it tells you you are special, were specifically created by a powerful force that now wants to guide your life with arbitrary rules, on the other hand though most religions also find flaws with us and will tell you you are pathetic, bad, broken or not worth god's love.
No wonder religion messes up your mind, it can't decide which lie to run with. And so every believer has to wrap their brain around contradictory base premises like that.
@@iwilldi That's nowhere near what OP meant and you know it.
Evrim Ağacı vs Sözler köşkü vol2 (English version)
harbi
Türkçe bir şekilde dinleme şansımız yok mu bu videoyu
@@erenbey-o8r yok
Bestami abimize yine sokmuşlar 😢😢
@@erenbey-o8rboşuna ingilizce öğrenmiyoruz
The main difference boils down to science being cool with "I don't know" as an answer.
It's also ok with, "we were wrong."
As Neil Tyson says(talking about UFO's) I don't know what that is, period. PERIOD!!!
Being a Christian and a student with an interest in science I have struggled with the nature of the universe and creation. I came to the conclusion that humans know nothing, we observe so little of what exists and we come up with answers either in a religious sense or a scientific sense. Like the story of 3 blind men interacting with an elephant, one feels the trunk and thinks it's a snake, one the legs and thinks it's a tree, one the hair on the tail and thinks it's a bush. None of them are right but are using what they know to form a conclusion. So while you may know many religious people who think they know and understand everything, a good portion of us admit to not knowing and just turning to religion as a means to explain the unexplainable.
I remember a lot of my childhood days getting shouted at if I answered with 'I don't know' to a question I didn't know the answer to.
Or "I don't know yet".
"Simple water"?
Boy, semen is way complicated than you think.
Clearly they missed the basic lesson about mitosis and meiosis cell division, chromosomes, RNA and DNA replication, etc in high school.
simple water lmao
@MλresDλniel TV Every matter in this world is made out of atoms, even human body.
You're right, tissues are made out of cells. And cells are made out of bio molecules like protein and nucleic acid. And molecules are made out of two or more atoms that bond together.
@@alvianekka80 It doesn't give me any new relevant information. If I'm curious about your new PC, i want to know CPU, videocard models. If you answer me, that your PC consists of atoms, I would think that you are strange.
@@ДімаКрасько-с7м Bruh, we're talking about Genesis Science here, not daily ignorant and blissful life.
"I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned" - Richard Feynman
Y e s
I’m an atheist but don’t you think that’s just ignorance your rather not know an answer that can’t be questioned just because you may have some sense of self superiority people like that don’t sound intelligent they sound arrogant
@@KingBipo This is not about ignorance, but about blind acceptance. Although I'm ignorant on many subjects, I'm not justifying or celebrating ignorance. I would rather know than not know, e.g. what is the Christian vs the Muslim vs. the Jewish vs. the Buddhist views on questions of morality. I would rather be much more knowledgeable on Greek Mythology as well, and would be glad to have installed all of Homer's writings, the Quran, and the Kabbalah in my head. But that doesn't mean I mustn't question their views.
I think the atheist approach is much more democratized and humble: there is no absolute authority, except for the scientific method of experimental validation. Every single idea, book, person can be wrong, including e.g. Newton, Einstein, or anyone else. Every answer can be falsified and questioned. On the other hand every person can, potentially, acquire the power of knowledge, try to answer.
@@TheEranTalmor well in order to be a proper debater you must know all of those things but if you do follow a religion the whole point is that you follow and acknowledge that your inferior because if there is a god simply you are you have the freedom to disobey but you wouldn’t have the right to disagree because you are corrupt so what does your opinion mean that’s the point of religion self acknowledgment that’s why I respect religion because it builds being humble unless you don’t follow properly and you have a sense of Christian superiority but just saying those aren’t real Christians
Good point
Batısal anlamda ilk evrim ağacı denemesi
aynen
sokmuş çıkarmış
NDNDDLŞSLDMDFNFNKDKZ
Yok, devrim agacindan once vsauce vardi.
Evrim ağacı bilime odaklanıyor bu adam felsefeye ve bilim-tanrı tartışmaları yapıyor
“One can’t give what they don’t have to another.”
Debt
Lmao
You have no right to be this funny, take my like.
69th like
That's actually genius bro, I wish I had thought about that.
That doesn’t address the point he’s raising though lol
"A single person can't lift a 500kg weight. Therefore, 20 people can't possibly lift a 500kg weight either if not using God's strength"
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ dude, stop responding with this to everyone's comment. It's spam.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ that doesn't give you the right to spam it on every comment.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ "I'm not here to make you happy." So you're trying to convert and educate people about your religion, but yet you have no intention of doing so to benefit them?
"... If it's coming from your subjective point of view that still doesn't give you the right to force it as an absolute truth to people." Both of our views are subjective, you can't say that since you think I'm wrong then you must be right. Neither of us can say who is objectively right. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't be forcing your religion upon people in the comments section of a video about an atheist discrediting the questions a theist claimed atheists couldn't answer. I find it quite ironic how you say that I have no right to "force it as an absolute truth to people" but yet this all started because you are spamming a copy/paste response of you trying to force your religion upon people because you believe it to be true.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ do you know what a period is? I feel like that would help me understand what on earth you are trying to say.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ why wont people believe that im a god? they suddenly want proof. i shouldnt have to prove it. what happend to faith?
religion is bs.
Basically all his points boil down to the classic: “I don’t understand, therefore God!”
I think therefore... I am... Lol
The dude even inadvertently admitted it in the preface to the 3rd question. "We see gaps between causes and effects"...therefore god. Literally the definition of "god of the gaps". This should be enough proof to corroborate the hypothesis that you can't argue with people like him.
I prayed to God to make me a teleiophile and look at that? I STILL love nick wilde best as his 8 year old fox cub self! In a way I follow Satanist philosophies however I'm an atheist all the way through.
@@failedsocialexperiment2382 ?
Buy the premise and its expected you'll buy the argument.
As a Turk i am sorry for that video
Same
He's not Turkish he's Greek! 🇬🇷 🇬🇷 🇬🇷 🇬🇷
@@Aaykke1938 😂😂😂
nice greek video
🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷
"It's easy to invent hypotheses which hypothetically explain our observations but if we accepted all such hypotheses we'd not only have to accept a vast number of mutually contradictory explanations of the same observations but we'd never again pursue explanations of our world which are empirically verifiable."
This.
I completely agree. Is this not where we are headed with all these ... 'truths'? .. Is this not precisely the 'job' that is being done on us to debase science .. to create a 'herd' of voters .. I think so..
Also add that we look to verify things that make sense based on pre-established facts, rather than trying to verify things that there is no real basis for in this universe.
There is no verified evidence of a creator within the scientific scope, so we don’t bother dealing with those explanations because there is no reason for those explanations to be realistic.
TLDR: if your explanation sounds based, we’ll choose one that doesn’t
@@zeapic8500 I think it's nurture rather than nature .. i.e. taught not genetic .. That is, the chains are given to us. Although insecurity does come from our being predated upon way back .. hence our blood-curdling feelings to a wolf howl and with our 'higher' sentience gained before we had science we concluded some pretty strange ideas as to the forces around us; wind, thunder, lightening and so on. For those with less science it would seem still to be a problem.
. :-
@Khush Bakht Khan
Your comment is littered with grammatical mistakes, but I'll try my best to respond to them.
"Ok. Cosmos begin to exist for if it had eternal past it would never reach this point. Like if I was to type for eternity I would never get to post this comment. Empirical proof."
By cosmos, I assume you mean the Universe. Your argument already has flaws in the first line of text. For one thing, there *is* a possibility that time has always existed in some form before the big bang, it's just that we currently have no way to trace it. Also, you are comparing two vary different things. You are comparing the universe, in its ever-flowing span of time, to a finished comment. The Universe is not 'finished', so your analogy is incorrect, and certainly not empirical proof. In any case, there is no proof that specifically a creator was the one to have made the Universe.
"It was created by some thing creating time so there was no before this way creator would not have eternal past. At one time creator was enough to create cosmos and at one time now so it was created by something conscious. Creator is intelligent based on fine tuning of the universe. Universe runs on laws an law giver requires knowledge. Creator is one as not only there is no proof for other creator but if he was to exist it would cause question like y he did not started and why is doing nothing and so on."
A lot of this is a jumbled mess that makes no real sense to me, especially the second sentence, but here you are referring to a creator as if we all know he exists already. That is false. We do not know if he exists or not, and your 'proof' has already been shown to be wrong. We only know that natural, scientific laws exist, not what it was that created them. Laws, as they are, will always be defined by those who are subjected to them, not those who create them.
"It is description of Islamic God Allah.
Creator that created the cosmos does not become cosmos it self.
Say Allah he is one and only
.the eternal and absolute.
Not does he beget nor does he is begotten. And there is none like him."
This is just you saying that Allah and Islam are great, and as such is irrelevant to my response. In my agnostic opinion, however, there is not any- let alone enough- proof that a God exists, let alone 'Allah' specifically.
"God sent messengers to every nation to explain to them purpose of creation."
Show me proof, please, anything. You won't find solid proof outside of religious texts. Why? Because they never existed.
"He wanted to test humans an create his best and worst creation one that obeys him with free will and every prophet was given miracles to show to their people. Muhammad saw is last messenger of God and his miracle is Quran."
Muhammad is the one and only 'prophet' of the Judean religions to be confirmed to have existed. His experiences with God, however, were seen by him and him alone, with the only references to his story being in Islamic religious texts. His story was most likely spread through word of mouth, and written down after gross misinterpretation. Even if the story he told his closest followers directly was the same one told today, there is no living evidence that what happened between himself and Gabriel was factual.
"It is unique fusion prose and poetry and new literary form never heard by an arab before or after It. So they accused prophet of magic."
I don't remember hearing anything about accusations of 'magic' from the story of Muhammad I know. I was certainly told that he went to Mecca, accused the people of worshipping idols of 'untrue gods', and got thrown out after. He then went to Medina, told the people of Medina his story, raised an army, and raided Mecca, destroying all of the idols in the city.
Just now thinking about it, Islam was born from a considerable amount of conflict, considering it's a religion that's meant to be all about peace.
@Khush Bakht Khan
My response was actually quite matter-of-fact and scientific. You have provided no proof of 'Prophethood' at all. You have only stated it, and a creator, exists.
Also, I highly doubt you could show me any miracles. If you want to prove to me that you can 'give' miracles, or even want to show me one, be my guest. I don't want to leave any rational evidence unturned.
Also, the Qur'an is not a miracle, it is a book written by the followers of Muhammad.
"Atoms don't have wheels, so cars are proof of god's existence."
And something that doesn't have a property cannot give that property to something else. Therefore god has wheels.
@@terryhinch Let us pray to Chevrolet, the big gas guzzler in the sky
Lmao 🤣
Actually that was similar to my first thought: none of the parts of a plane can fly on their own, but put them all together and you can.
@@brammeijboom1873 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I believe “I don’t know” is a valid, honest answer.
So you are agnostic?
@@tchrisou812 I don't think he's anything because agnostic is believing in a god who hasn't interacted or plans to interact with the world since the beginning of time.
@@unclejoe8313 that's not what agnostic is, I don't think. And I've seen agnostic used as a modifier for atheist and theist. As well as gnostic. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god. But doesn't assert that no god exists or that gods existance is impossible. A gnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, bad asserts to know 100% that no god exists.
I mean... no one really knows for sure, why are people pretending they do?
Better to have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned
Metal doesn't move, but my car does... Fellas, I think my car may be powered by God? Wait, my weedwhacker is moving too... Damn, this is one hell of a spiritual experience.
I am currently setting up my [human infant] to a series of pulleys attached to a train, on a negative gradient, and already with a velocity of 10 m/s.
I bet I can get this baby to move the train.
Have you tried God Supreme? Way better than God Plus & leaves less supernatural residue
Sand can not create a phone call, but your phone, with a radio chip and CPU made of sand, all phones are powered by god.
@@charlzthehuman6550 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@freddan6fly 🤪😂
Question 2 is basically ”what is DNA and I am confused about how it works”
Programming for our cells! (Simplified,) Our cells basically use it like programming in a computer, how to work, what to do, all that.
@@user-H_mI think they meant that the person in the original video talking about Allah was saying that, not the commenter themself.
Corrected, "What is DNA and i am generally confused on how it works, so it must probably be something god made!"
Similar to how the ancient people questioned "where do clouds go?", "what is this lighting?", "why am i sick? If there is no cure then god send it", "why is my cattle this angry today? It must be a sign", "how could there be this much water on this ocean, i dont understand how Earth could be sphere yet not in a constant juggle of maintaining this much water", "damn, the stars look so cool! Well, god made them juat for us to gaze on his work! What do you mean they are not actually small?", "where does the wind come from, and why does it not cooperate with my ship? Must be sign of god."
Science has answers to these questions, except "where do we go after we die?"...
And thats why theism is still around.
@@yusufcan-xl2dpScience DOES have an answer for that, just not one people want to hear...
A chemical compound in basically almost any living thing except virus that use rna or other exception. Dna is chemical compound that has structure that provide shape you are familiar with. Each if the 3 strand can be decode to make protein which is what make ech living thing different.
I always love when someone starts off a conversation with "It's an established fact that...", then proceeds to say something completely unestablished and untrue as the basis for their conclusions.
You will change your mind about God after seeing this scientific evidence that prove the existence of God th-cam.com/video/t2sMJMXDiH4/w-d-xo.html
It’s a trick as old as time. People will never stop doing this type of thing unfortunately
What exactly do you mean?
"It's an established fact that the flying spaghetti monster is the creator of the universe and we all must worship it."
@@nutronstar45 you're kidding
When your claims can be disproved by lego, you know you need to rethink your logic.
The real question is: Can atheists not answer the questions, or can theists simply not accept the answers they recive?
no, the real question is: Can't atheists answer the questions, or can't theists accept the answers they recive?
I bet you stupid atheists can't answer this question:
why did I piss my pants while sleeping yesterday 😢
No one said his answer wasn't acceptable, but you seem to have deduced this yourself
.
Hhhhh good luck
A question lack of intelligence. I must say
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5بays the person, that can’t even get my comment right. People like that theist in the video, can’t accept any answer that doesn't includes a deity. These people love to use the _god of the gaps_ answer, which GeneticallyModifedSkeptic already pointed out. And there are dozen of theists like that out there, which tried to use these type of questions, to "destroy" science or atheism. That's a fact, and most of them can’t accept the answers either.
It’s fun that he’s arguing for Allah. I can imagine a Christian listening up to right before then and being like “this guy knows what’s up” and then he drops the “therefore Allah” 😂 😧 😂
I think Viced said this in his video? dunno
@aden lol yes 😂😂😂
Yeah that's the generality of these apologetic arguments. They can always be used for every different kind of god, and thus (in addition to other reasons) utterly fail.
Someone pointed out to me that religious believers reject atheistic reasonings for not believing, but put a Christian with a Muslim to argue which god/text is true, and suddenly they start using a lot of atheistic reasoning to debunk each other. "You can't use those useless I need them".
@@Onoesmahpie That which proves too much proves nothing at all. Blaise Pascal had the same problem. Even if his reasoning had been sound regarding Pascal's Wager, it could not prove the truth of Catholicism, which was his hope.
"you can not give a feature you don't have. To someone else"
Bald hair stylist
Ha!
Lol
Creative
i dont support the original argument u put into quotes i just wanted to point out that the example u gave doesnt really work since a hairstylist doesnt GIVE hair, a bald hairstylist doesnt give that feature they dont have (hair) to their client. they do nothing more than what the name suggest and that is styling. this ofc unless we are talking about wigs in which case that would be correct :D
@@luanamariamusat4920 they do not have a hair style yet they are able to give a hairstyle.
For example this bald hair stylist does not have a mohawk as they have no hair however they are able to give someone else a mohawk.
It's actually quite funny, the guy says
- The fact you observe something does't mean you understand it
Then he claims to understand how laws of nature work(will of the god), based on observing them
"a football player isn't a team, so they can't come together to make a team" this is literally his argument
That's the basic counter to any fallacy of composition.
Not exactly, it’s more like “10 football players by themselves don’t have the skill to beat a football team, so how could 10 of them together beat a football team?”
Your analogy is more like “an atom can’t come together to make a group of atoms” which isn’t really his argument
A tree isnt a forest, so a bunch of trees cannot be a forest
No, actually: "a team isn't a wholly different thing, distinct from its members or unexplained in terms of them". #1 is a really, really good point. His only good point, really, because even to #3 I could just respond with "they just are". Like theists imagine their gods, "He just is".
@@icygood101
#1 isnt a good point because it ignores emergent properties
If nothing new could ever emerge then history, on the cosmic scale, would be a series if closing doors; all it would take is one time that a property didnt emerge across the universe and it would disappear forever.
Yet another video that should be renaimed to, "3 questions that aethiests have answered and explained countless times but my personal bias wont let me acknowledge."
No one said his answer wasn't convincing, but you seem to have deduced this yourself , hhh
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5ب I'll be honest I can't decide if your reply is agreeing or disagreeing lol
@@Alucia0I saw the same person trying to disprove another comment, they said "we Muslims" and "you atheists," so I would infer that they're disagreeing with you but idk. their reply to you didn't make much sense in my opinion
You mean the answers from your friends were biased
He didn't
"You cannot draw a rainbow with a pencil because it is black." Speaking as a Graphic Artist who as an art student in high school and college that did a lot of line work with charcoal and granite pencil: Yes. Yes, I can. Yes it won't be a myriad of different colors, but grayscale is in of itself is a color grade from dark color to lacking color--but that is in of itself color. Black is a color, it is all colors blended together (or the darkest a single color can achieve) of the color grading scales and white is the absence of color but still falls under the color grading scale as it is the lightest all colors can be. Thus making a rainbow with just a black granite pencil is of course possible simply pending how dark or light you do the shading of each bar of the rainbow.
Exactly
I thought the same thing when he said it, (to a less detailed degree). :]
With color science I can clearely say that the human eye respond differently to color tints. We are very sensitive to green, cyan and yellow where the last color we're sensitive to are blue and red. And from it, we can give a grayscale of the percieved luminosity of colors from a mathematical point of view. And these grayscale values put in the right order will give a realistic looking rainbow. Even if there is only grays. Yes maths, science and art are all put together. That's why I love colorimetry ! 😀 That's how we managed to make colors in computers and being able to make art from it.
@@freestalkerdotfr6391 Fascinating! :D
I'm a big fan of Japanese sumi-e art. It's incredible how vividly a wide range of colors can be portrayed in grayscale
Last time I had same argument with religious dude, I simply asked that "If I agree with your reasoning that it is a GOD, can you for sure prove it is that 1 god you are beliving in?". It was the end of argument.
I'm christian, my dad is too, and my dad is a physicist. So I asked him what he thinks about the first question. He said it's stupid.
Christian by faith alone? Or because you know?
Sorry to hear you're a Christian. You can do better.
@Khush Bakht Khan learn English before spouting your inane nonsense. It sounds like it would at least be poetic.
@@TedTheAtheist So we're just going to comment on every reply that identifies the OP as a religious believer of some kind? Hardly supporting respectful dialog
@@anthonymoss4383 I care, that's why I comment!
This man is exactly why I could not continue to be christian because every time I had a serious question it was always because god.
Same
"Why am I depressed, my therapist?"
"God made you depressed now get out of my face loser"
@@defnotnaruto222 lol
Here is a thought experiment for you. What separates you from actually being conscious (what I would call having a soul), from being a biological robot who simply believes it is alive and conscious. The atoms in this situation causing “emergent properties” can not exactly explain this consciousness at least not in any scientific way. There are brainwaves we can measure but there is no way to differentiate this from a consciousness therefore there must be something else at play that science can not yet identify (or might never be able to identify) this is why I believe there is something spiritually accurate to what religion says about humans
Then you didn’t look hard enough I mean have you even read the bible in a critical thinking way. I mean if you actually read it and do research you’ll find answers just because you asked someone or googled it doesn’t mean you’ll find an answer that way. People now a days give up way to easily and I just can’t see how people can think we all used to be monkeys it just doesn’t make sense.
The funniest part about the pencil analogy is that it's actually wrong: graphene can be arranged in such a way that it shimmers with iridescence. This same principle is how a butterfly's wings are colored or the vivid colouring of many tropical bird species.
The rainbow can indeed emerge from black graphite.
Stop! That sounds dumb as fuck
@@michaelreyes6258 and is nevertheless true.
It’s true. Blue is a colour that is very hard for organic (carbon based) natural beings to obtain, as blue pigments are rare. Certain plants have them and only one species of butterfly does. Yet, there are many blue birds, which, take any feather of a blue bird and look at the back of it, or grind it up in a fine powder, and you will see it’s likely brown, and no longer blue. Do the same with a red cardinal feather and the powder will be red.
It doesn’t have blue pigment and therefore shouldn’t have a blue colour, but they have nano sized pockets of air and keratin that lets all colours but blue pass through, reflecting and refracting blue. They are made from parts that do not contain any blue, and yet create it with the physical connection and structures of these parts
Its all waves my man! Far out!!
Colors are merely perceived by organic lifeforms. So what we see as black or grey, may appear many different colors and vastly different to an animal or organism with a larger range of perceivability. Its a similar analogy to dogs being able to smell more smells than humans.
I looked at the second question, and the conclusion i came to with his explanation is that he's trying to say "the things that happen must have something causing them to happen", he then compared the bricks in a house to the atoms in a body, and said that an object cannot hold 2 opposite properties at once.
Otherwise, he basically reiterated that atoms don't have a will to create, therefore god, while conveniently not mentioning how things can join together on the atomic level without a will behind them
"We can see, hear and feel because of the Chaos Emeralds" sounds like a good head canon to me tbh
Before I respond, I must make known that I'm the 69th like.
But agreed.
CHAOS CONTROL
I like the sound of chaos emeralds too 😁
Tomar, the one true god and creator of the chaos emeralds.
Humanity inherently knows da wae, God only lets us ask if we kno -Abraham Lincoln, issuing the code of Hammurabi at the opening of the Great Pyramid gift shop
Can you imagine how technologically stunted we would be if everyone was just like "how does it work? God. Why does it work? God."
It’d be very boring as well. Imagine just choosing to believe that one person just created everything when you could instead choose to explore the mysteries of the universe and find infinite possibilities
I once saw an animation about it where Adam and Eve never eat the fruit and even leave the fucking tree to explore, have babies and all animals, tame a dinosaur and ride it until God comes down and literally yells "EAT THE FUCKING FRUIT"
That is rather the point. Religion was used to keep people dumb and obedient. Asking too many questions and changing the balance of power is not good for cult leaders.
@@muchotexto4248 😂do you remember the title, would like to watch this
@@malikkateta5323 I think it was "If man obeyed God"
The Obvious answer is, All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster and how he holds the universe together with his noddlely appendages.
Ramen my brothern. Don't forget to go relax on Friday.
@@xanebateup8069 Genius
@@Vynnter not genius...there is an actual church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the “Ramen, Brother” thing is an accepted part of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, otherwise known as Pastafarianism.
Edit: removed “Invisible”, added “Pastafarianism”
@@Danlows1 Oh wow, didn't know that. I first thought this was a joke, but now that you mentioned it, i searched it up and you're right. Thanks for informing me!
Ramen brother.
I find it hilarious that people ask questions atheists can’t answer, because every answer a religious person gives has proof along the lines of “I made it up” or “I read it in a book that has absolutely zero physical evidence”
"I don't know" IS an answer. It's the proper and best answer when you don't know. Your opponent should learn that.
@Angel Vollant I have mo problem with them believing it because I know how having hope in the afterlife can help some people. But when they force it to children, or move this logic to science and medicine, that's when the problem begins
We dont know YET!
The thing is, when people are trying to win an argument so they don't have an existential crisis, it just makes you look dumb when they think they have the answer already, and you won't have an alternative answer even if you completely and fundamentally debunk it, so they'll have no reason to drop their confidence that they'll go to World 7 if they do what their god says
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ Alaah god lorge pp skrr skrr brrapp
I know but people like this are probably gonna think they have no way to lose an argument if the people have proof against their case but not really any alternative proof for their own case
Probably just don't even bother arguing with them unless you necessarily need to change their life and know they have some shred of intellect in those thick heads of theirs blessed with resistance+ by God
"You cannot give a feature you don't have, to someone else"
*Evolution has left the chat*
He probably doesn’t believe in evolution to be honest.
@@anomalocarislover7254 science does not explain anything, only the sequence of events that occur, and it does so thanks to the order in the universe.
My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube. YOU WILL REACH THE TRUTH !
@@enesrp1712 correct science does not explain everything. But until I find substantial evidence that we were created by a God, I will stick to it. To me, the universe seems to be a random sequence of events with no intelligence behind it. Science has helped us uncover sciences history and its rules more than religion ever has.
Could you provide a link to the series, I can’t find it online.
@@enesrp1712 If sacience didn't understood how stuff works, we wouldn't have modern technology. For example you can't make mashines that generate or use electricity wichout understanding how electricity works.
Edit: I've noticed you spammed same comment absolutely everywhere. Really..? Do you really have nothing better to do?
@@Derg3586 hm why isn't he/she responding back, i hate when pple spam a reply everywhere just for em not to reply when someone proves to be intelligent enough to argue
This dude deserves a gold medal in logical gymnastics
From the Special Olympics.
@John-Paul Hunt ?
@@tronche2cake science does not explain anything, only the sequence of events that occur, and it does so thanks to the order in the universe. My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube. YOU WILL REACH THE TRUTH !
@@enesrp1712 Ah yes, because "god did it" is a very good and valuable answer that provides insight into the inner workings of the universe. Don't kid yourself.
Who? The Muslim dude? Agreed
2:29 The house consists of bricks. You can live in the house. You can't live in bricks. THE QUESTION IS, who gave this property to bricks from outside? A man, and this supposedly proves that once a man created a house, then someone made a man? So you want to say that a person has the property of a room in which to live, which he transferred to the house? Does someone live in a person? Are you talking about parasites? Well, this property was given by God. Then the question is, who lives in God?
complex structures can be naturally formed. Just like many caves are naturally formed
@@OttomanHabsburg Yes, but author of chanel Towards Eternity claims, that is can't
His first point is literally disproved by *water colours*. Neither the blue nor the yellow are green on their own but when mixed they BECOME green.
Damn you just completely debunked his point with such a simple response.
Green spaghetti monster? I thought his holy noodly appendages was red and yellow.
And equally, there's more than one type of atom. And they can form structures with their own unique behavior. It's also not a good argument for the existance of god, because it suggests that god (who would be the one holding the pencil) wouldn't be able to create human life from atoms.
Green doesn't exist.
@@CocoonpawzZ0 no, YOUR green doesn't exist. But MY green is the only real Green, and is the source of ALL greens. An ancient colour-chart assured me of this, you foolish A-greenist...
I like that this guy isn't being disrespectful, he's not being mean to anyone, and he understands that these are complex things. Most people practicing religion or not will debunk the other side in a mean or emotionally charged way, this guy just presents the information as it is.
Honestly if he had done it any other way then I would not have watched and thats probably true for a good number of people.
I dont understand why people have gone from actually debating ideas/beliefs to just arguing and insulting each other. Its not necessary and often runs the entire thing.
@@lucifer3416 probably because these topics have been argued so many times by now that people just resort to diminishing character instead because it's easier.
Truth is on the side of atheists.
unlike the rest of this comment section smh
Exocentric same with the religious ones if you are intrigued by these genuine and actual good people who don’t argue and insult I can name other channels like these
"How can a peacock come from an egg"
This guy forgot that animals needs to eat to grow.
Plus, he doesn't realize that the egg is EVERY BIT as complicated as the peacock.
THIS IS what i think before i see this comment lol
Peacock ? Nah .what about the huge ass ostrich bro. The size of that thing and how it comes from an egg is just mind boggling .
@@andrewjonas6437 just take everything about the peacock and its egg and just upsize it.
How can magikarp evolve into gyarados?
huh checkmate athiests
Sayın sözler köşkü, bizi bütün dünyaya rezil etmeye yemin mi ettiniz?
Derdiniz nedir aga sizin 🤦🏻♂️
burda rezil olacak bir şey yok boş yapam rezil olacak şey aroyosan ülkende rezil olacak çok şey var
@@AliQULYEV-l4t olum video yanlis bilgilerle dolu sözler köşkü denen kanal saçma sapan bir evrim videosu yapmıştı bu seferde Evrim ağacı bunları yerden yere vurdu
@@AliQULYEV-l4t 3 iq bedevi , ülkemi zaten bu hale getireni konuşuyoruz
Cahilliklerini her yerde göstermezlerse bi yerleri kaşınır
@@AliQULYEV-l4t olemi olmus mymoon arkadasim :D vidonun tamamı rezil şeylerle masallarla dolu
In his second question he stated: A room cannot be dark and bright and a paper cannot be wet and dry at the same time
What I was thinking: a certain cat can be dead and alive at the same time
But if you have a piece of paper and get one side wet then technically part of it is dry and part of it is wet. That evidence seems to be based on the sort terms we use when saying something(you got my paper wet) rather than saying a long and unnecessary numbers like (you got 3.6745% of my paper wet and 6.7492% of my paper on fire) because what is important in the moment is not how much is or isn’t wet but that part of it ended up wet anyway.
So basically, some cars of your train of thought determines morality and some of the others are selfish?
No, the mentioned cat can't be "dead and alive" at the same time. It is in a non-determined state until it is observed. When observed, it is either dead or alive.
There is no hope to understand quantum mechanics as long as one considers the superposition of states as actual.
I can literally get half of a paper wet and have the other half to be dry, wtf was this question about????
I think this statement is more of a miscommunication of "what properties are observable". Which if it sounds very vague is because it is. Is a room dark or bight if it is flooded with ultraviolet light? Can something be wet and dry at the same time or does it depend on what level of absolute humidity is in the air before you would consider something wet?
"Well science can't explain everything, so therefore god."
Of course science can't explain everything, if it could then there would be no more science to do. And where's the fun in that?
That’s like saying it’s God’s fault of your child being a horror show because you can’t explain why they are
If the universe has fun, god must exist (easy explanation for everything) :D :D :D
@@georgy2596 close, they would say it’s demons
They love using god of the gaps fallacy but you can't expect to have a logical debate with people that believe in angels
I disagree, I believe science can explain everything but we just haven’t found the answers yet
I don't understand why people can't accept "We don't know, yet."
Your right, not knowing what number the answer is doesn’t prove its 1 because it could be 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 and so on This means that not knowing why everything exists doesn’t prove that it’s god this only means we don’t know yet And doing science is what will eventually tell us how and why everything is here
It's an age-old truth: people are scared of the unknown. It's one of the reasons I think religion was ever invented. Biggest thing people are scared of is death - just ceasing to exist. They can't fathom what it is like; they can't comprehend the unknown. So they make up a god who can save them from it; someone who can give them all the answers.
@@enderawesome4521 That's probably a better explanation than any God or conspiracy I've heard all year
Because that's agnostic. Atheistic is "we know there ain't anything."
@@theboombody Atheist: lacks belief in a god/gods
Agnostic atheist: lacks belief in a god/gods but is open to the possibility that one might exist because we can't know for sure
Gnostic Atheist: lacks belief in a god/gods and is certain that one does not and can not exist
They're both atheists.
evrim ağacından yedikleri dayağı bi de ingilizce yeme kararı almışlar
😂😂😂
Bestami abimiz osturağa basıyor.
@@mathslover98fazil haran ağrıyır faazil 😅
@@NoName-nu8wtQaqaş salam mən videonu başa düşmədime bu kanal sahibi müsəlmandı yoxsa ateist? İngiliscə bilmirəm ona görə soruşdum. Videoda nəyi anlatmaq istəyir qısaca?
@@aurorahx.Sözler köşkünü rezil ediyor kanalın sahibi kardeş, kanal ateist ve sözler köşkünün saçma argümanlarını bir bir çürütüyor
The difference is science accepts "they don't know" but religion doesn't
Muslims where the first to put science into the next level, also i recommend checking out the scientific facts in the Qur’an
@@Theotok0s Check out all the violence and killing in the Quran.
@@MSoundous fr, just because there are a few scientific stuff in a religion doesn't mean shit
@@Theotok0s yea bro i Trust you, because my magic has been detroyed by the Qur'an, i realized that Qur'an have some kind of power to burn evil things amazing book keep it up bro if you are attacked by magic try to recite some your book thing i believe it can destroy the spell, my friend has defeated me he is really pious
Purple and red aura need to be known by many people, many people only know the lime aura or the yellow aura, very very narrow thinking they have no knowledge about it 😌😌😌
"Atheists can't answer these questions"
Usually when a theist posts a youtube video titled "questions atheists can't answer" the reason is because the theist has the comments section disabled.
Quite.
It's the cow-like complacency on their faces though. As if "A big man in the sky did it" solves anything. How does that help?
The argument should be and really is; things that atheists can find, and how they point to God
@@TheHunkiestCandle That would be a really short segment, since the answer is "Nothing points to God except ignorance."
Even if god, with a capital G did exist, it would solve nothing. In fact, it would add many problems, such as "why are you such a sadist, God?" and "How about you take some frikin responsibility?"
Of course I expect some facile, self-assured, nonsensical reply like "You will learn the love of god in the end", which is just aggression
@ You realize the questions you just asked God are ANSWERED IN THE BIBLE. The story of Job has someone lose everything, and he asked God why he would do something like that, and God said that you should try being God because where you there when I created everything, etc etc.
Also the thing you said about Nothing pointing to God just proves your ignorance.
Evidence 1: Noah’s ark, found on earth on mount Ararat, and it’s in the same dimensions as stated in the Bible
Evidence 2, all true atheists (people who actually try to prove their belief) who have tried to prove that God didn’t exist got the opposite answer, and proved that their has to be a creator (that’s why I believe the simulation theory came to existence along with the fact that we created AI)
Evidence 3, every culture has a story of a great flood
Evidence 4, The records of Jesus are so plentiful that the only answer is that Jesus was real
Evidence 5, the fact that humans can physically see the future (premonitions, and premonitionary dreams which about 20% of the people have had atleast one, also Harriet Tubman had this ability)
If you have counter arguments to any of these claims, and they aren’t the only ones then please send them, but if you can’t then I hope to see you at church.
"You cannot give a feature you don't have, to someone else" is the exact opposite of
"I guide others to the treasures I cannot possess"
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ wow you really like copying and pasting the same response to every joke comment you see. stop wasting your time.
So you saying i cant make a sand castle without the castle in the sand
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ it really is a waste of time
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ noone will listen to you, making it a waste of time.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ a fact is not opinion based. it is a FACT that nobody will bother listening to you, that WHY it's a waste of time. please stop being stupid.
Nice Greek video by Towards Eternity
🇬🇷
I think, that I missed the joke, unfortunately.
@@portalingstudiosgaming7705this guy is turkish, and greek and turkey is a bit passive agressive against each other, so any time some turkish guy make a bad music/video/movie etc. They say "nice greek video" implying yhat only they could make something that horrible to mock greeks bassically
@@Esmerthe10thjojo Oh, thank you for explaining very much!
@@portalingstudiosgaming7705 you're welcome
I love how you don't attack anyone and try to be respectfull with your arguement
But sadly, some comments are a bit less open minded :{
@@caveboy5677 comments from TGMS or comments in this comment section?
@@danielwood3912 this comment section
@@caveboy5677 Oh, gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.
I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
Agreed!
I'm a christian, and it is my pleasure to tell you the bible actually generally encourages questions
@@arosegaming4793 Sure it does. So the bible allows you to question the validity of your beliefs? Right!
@@watto2355 Why, yes! It does. There's several examples in the Bible that support questioning answers simply handed to you until or unless you're comfortable with the person handing you answers. I'll share the shortest story for now, but I'd be happy to share more if you're curious.
One of Jesus' s twelve disciples, named Thomas, was told by his fellow disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. He said he would only believe it only when Jesus himself walked up to him and showed him the nail marks through his palms and feel the hole in Jesus' hands for himself- for context, the disciples had confirmed his death. Lo and behold, Jesus shows up some time later and not only allows but encourages Thomas to see and feel the wounds for himself. Jesus then says “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:24-29)
So God does not inherently object to questions and the desire to know more or to know the truth.
@@arosegaming4793 Replying because I want to see where this conversation goes.
@@ChrisandRusty Of course! Let me know if you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer
“questions that atheists can’t answer”
atheist: hold my beer
I think its more anyone who took atleast 1 biology class at school
It's weird because there are actually a lot that atheist can't answer (yet) like what was before the big bang? We don't know. What was the very first living being? We have hypothesis but we don't know. Ect...
But they don't ask that because they know that even though we don't know, we won't accept that the answer is god just because someone said so
@@maeko1997 i think it’s more of the fact there’s a lot of questions that no one can answer but theists just answer with what they assume to be the truth. my is a christian and we talked ab this for like 2 hours last night
@@marleyrobinson483 yes I agree. The "because someone said so" was for us not believing something without evidence or even good arguments.
@@drdougy7772 actually, just seeing that one point doesn't have a length, but a connexion between 2 points (a line) is enough to answer too. So anyone with basic logic really
To summarize, a theist goes to the cinema and watches a movie for the first time and gets stunned “oh my god! How can there be humans inside the screen? There is some sorcery and deities involved…” You proceed to explain the entire process-filming, editing, cinematography, CGI, distribution, projectors, and the economics behind it all… his response would be: “Sure, you’re explaining the steps, but take a step back and look at the bigger picture, there are humans inside the screen! How can this not be a proof for gods existence” as an ex-muslims i can assure you, muslims are on another level..
The burden of proof does not lie with people rejecting a statement, opinion or belief, it lies fully with the people pushing it and claiming its' validity.
I claim the validity (and more) of "there are no gods".
According to my following simple and undeniable demonstration, there should be no more atheists. Because of the following two simple facts:
- *from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes*
- *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process*
the existence of the Creator of this reality (God/Divinity) *is proved* by the existence of this reality with intelligence into it.
That is why atheists renounce to elementary logic and to simple rationality intentionally when they believe that this reality has always existed without any intelligence involved.
*God is not bounded by what He has created,* but atheists, in their superficiality, do not want to recognize their limitations. For example, science will never be able to really know, at least, what a photon is (the magnification process being infinite). Regarding the Creator of this reality (the nature of God etc.), our power of comprehension will always be like how much the cups can think to understand the man who made them (comparison mentioned in the Bible), but *we have Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity, to be able to see God and what He expects from us.*
Faith is the ultimate "trust me bro...."
The unbelievers of the truth are like those who live in "a house" (this world) but do not want both to follow the rules of the Builder/Owner (they denying Him) and to pay "the rent" (which means, in brief, to strive always only for good, for perfection, to never do evil, especially to not do evil intentionally) so that in the end, when they will face the Builder/Owner of the house (at the Judgment), they will regret their incorrect and undeserved using of the house (their earthly life).
_"In everything you do, remember your end, and you will never sin."_ Sirach 7, 36
*_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
@@filmeseverin That entire argument relies on the fact that someone OWNS the "house". You still don't prove God. This is more of shunning than an argument.
I have proved the existence of God in many other posts (answers and top comments / new threads). Those interested can sort the comments to read enough from my recent and quite recent messages to see my demonstrations.
@@filmeseverin Rocks literally disprove god. Rocks have been carbon dated to more then 6000 years ago - which is when the Bible claims the universe began.
1: Atoms can't be seen, humans can. Therefore humans are not made of atoms. #headdesk
Atoms are not chairs. Chairs are atoms. This guy???
Wrong. Atoms can be seen with an electron microscope. Of course the microscope is made of atoms and it was designed and created by humans, whom, by the way, are also made of atoms. But what is "intelligence" made of and how did humans get "intelligence"? How did humans get the intellectual ability to design and build, not only a microscope but everything that humans design and build? Do atoms have "intelligence"?
The natural law of cause and effect cannot be denied. The Bible states: “Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists.” (Hebrews 3:4, The Jerusalem Bible) Since any house, however simple, must have a builder, then the far more complex universe, along with the vast varieties of life on earth, must also have had a builder. And since we acknowledge the existence of humans who invented devices such as airplanes, televisions, and computers, should we not also acknowledge the existence of the One who gave humans the brain to make such things?
John Polkinghorne, of the University of Cambridge, England, observed:
“Theoretical physicist Paul Dirac discovered something called quantum field theory which is fundamental to our understanding of the physical world. I can’t believe Dirac’s ability to discover that theory, or Einstein’s ability to discover the general theory of relativity, is a sort of spin-off from our ancestors having to dodge saber-toothed tigers. Something much more profound, much more mysterious, is going on. . . .
“When we look at the rational order and transparent beauty of the physical world, revealed through physical science, we see a world shot through with signs of mind. To a religious believer, it is the mind of the Creator that is being discerned in that way.”-Commonweal.
@@cusoon9908 I think he was joking
@@cusoon9908 If intelligence was a spiritual thing, how come we can remove it. Lobotomized.
@@downwithputinsaveukraine1313 he was joking he was just talking bout how stupid it is to believe that
Him: if you have a black pencil then you cannot draw a rainbow
Artists who draw in greyscale: am i a joke to you
And technically you can, its just not easy. Because light’s color is dependent of structure, if you change the graphite’s structure or size you can change the color it reflects.
You can draw a rainbow from the perspective of a dog with a graphite pencil
Exactly. Black colour has a spectrum. You can draw a rainbow from a pencil
Of course you can draw a rainbow with a black pencil. Just draw a line drawing of one and providing you've seen a rainbow in real life you should at least be able to recognize it for what it's supposed to represent.
@@MegaBadgeman Shading... A varying degree of pressure from the graphite tip onto the paper. I'm no artist, but I have a friend who is a tattoo artist, and they amaze me with just their shading techniques.
What I find most interesting is that these questions are being framed by a theist as "atheist" questions, but these questions aren't unique to atheism. Christians can be scientists too, for example, and agree with your point while recognizing the fallacies of the other, notably the fallacy of composition and God of the gaps. It honestly just sounds like more of a dig at scientific method than it is about not believing in God when scientific method and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.
Question no atheist can answer, without recognizing the existence of God: *Are you and this world the result of no intelligence?*
Because of the following two simple facts:
*- from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes;*
*- the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process,*
the existence of the Creator of this reality (God/Divinity) *is proved* by the existence of this reality with intelligence into it.
Many hope that this reality is the result of no intelligence, in other words that God does not exist, only to escape the responsibility for their deeds, to not be Judged after they leave this world.
The problem with the deceived ones is that they do not know enough science, otherwise they would realize the fact that true/proven science is used to gain the trust and after that the fake/unproven science is used to manipulate the superficial people, to keep them away from the truth about/from God/Jesus, the most important truth.
@@filmeseverin"Question no athiest can answer, without recognizing the existence of God: Are you and the world the result of no intelligence?"
As far as we can currently tell, yes. That was a question no athiest can answer answered by an athiest.
"Because of the following two simple facts:
-from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes"
That's not a real fact
"the results of a process prove the intelligence involved in that process"
So all processes involve intelligence because all processes involve intelligence? This is a circular reasoning fallacy.
"The existence of the Creator of this reality (God/divinity) is proved by the existence of this reality with intelligence into it"
Just like with your previous statement, this is a circular reasoning fallacy.
As usual, are in denial (without counterarguments, of course) only those who are too superficial to think enough to understand *the simple fact that from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes,* the entire process until nowadays proving the existence of God because *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process* (even schoolchildren can understand that every photon, ... atom, ... cell has intelligence into it, *not to mention their functionality together).*
They ignore the intelligence put from the beginning. For example, the intelligence mentioned includes the exact value of the speed of light matching the manifestation of what we call "gravity", working together since the primordial conditions to form in the end this reality, which hosts intelligent life that is able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love the Creator, especially through His human form, Jesus Christ.
The deceived ones, through their denial without valid counterarguments, cannot fool the serious and honest readers of my messages.
“I don’t know.” Is an answer.
It’s an honest answer.
It’s the right answer.
I don't know... But I'm willing to figure out or learn . Is honestly the right answer
Also, just because “I” don’t know, doesn’t mean humanity doesn’t know. Some scientific concepts are really complex and don’t translate well to laymen terms and so you really have to study something for years to fully understand it. People like simple, easy to understand answers where they don’t always exist. It’s why a lot of people turn to religion to explain things. “God did it” is an simple, easy to accept answer to complex questions.
@@balbs100 he's saying it generally.. there are questions that humanity doesn't figure out yet through research. So idk is the better answer than filling the dashes with fallacies
@@aarthiramesh4584 some things are beyond our understanding, which most theists cannot accept. They insist they know the truth and make claims without supporting them with solid evidences. Anyone can do that, even a child. I can claim God has a beak, no one can disprove nor prove it. Does that mean that's the truth? Nah. Theists really like to throw questions at atheists when they shouldn't even be doing that, they should be the one answering the questions instead. Atheism isn't a belief-system, why do we need to get interrogated?
I don't know...but God doesn't exist. Yet, i'm going to study the universe for 60-80 years only to realize that my work truly does not mean anything to me, and my life is ultimately meaningless without life after death. The memories I create, truly turn into nothing, so the sad reality is, I will focus on the natural world, not realize that me studying, analyzing and making sense out of the irrational is supernatural in itself.
My left hand cannot clap on its own. My right hand cannot clap on its own. When I bring them together, there is a clap. Where did it come from?
Therefore Allah
God did it, obviously.. duh
The flying spaghetti monster gave birth to it.
I can actually clap from one hand. Am I God?
@@colon5246 not so fast there buckaroo I can do it too
"A single string cannot keep you warm during winter, so a blanket woven from that string shouldn't be able to either. If it does, then God exists."
Going by the “every drop of water raises the ocean” argument, the string would slightly insulate you, not enough to notice though.
Your words indicate that you did not understand the argument put forth by the Muslims, or that you claim that you did not understand it and used the straw man deception.
.
But I will try to understand you using one simple question:
Referring to your example, does this mean that the string made the blanket by itself ?
If you understand this question, your atheism is over
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5ب I'm not fully sure I understand your comment ? I'd say that yes, the string (or at least multiple strings) make up a blanket. There's no other "thing" within the blanket itself, at least nothing measurable by humans
EDIT : I think I understood. If you're asking whether the blanket wove itself, then no. It was made by humans
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5بyou see, a blanket is just a simple blanket as are the strings that make it. Outside the blanket is a whole another world, with complex mechanics and structures, which have createe the blanket. And these structures and laws can indeed make theirselves what they are.
But since the strings are limited to strings, they cannot theirselves form a blanket.
@@نسيتكلمةالمرور-ذ5ب I love how you seem to think an atheist is going to read this and go "oh shit! you got me there!" and then suddenly start believing in YOUR SPECIFIC DEITY as if there aren't way more options to choose from.
The answer is infinity, see our universe, has a starting point under this infinite space with infinite quantum fluctuations, so this answers that we don't need a creater, because infinity can't be created or destroyed, so the possibility of why these laws exist in nature are also infinitely different in different universe (multiverse) . So the ultimate answer from which any root cause can be extracted is Infinity.
If you have any concern and doubt, Ask here
Can you explain how this concept works in a beehive? (With the queen bee and worker bees)
sorry if this question sounds stupid........
@@YourWorstNightmare8-k4i there's no workers or queen concept, look you just need to understand what is mean by actual ' nothingness' in reality ' absolute Nothing ' can't exist it always need something to fill that space, and also 'something ' doesn't mean anything in particular it means everything, and our universe is just a possibility part of that everything, I mean we exist because we can. Do you understand? 😁
@@YourWorstNightmare8-k4i I'm going to try to answer this by explaining the theory I *think* this comment is propsing. in terms of beehives (Which is what I think you're asking). I'm specifically going to focus on the third question because its easier to answer
So the question is how are the laws of the universe created. Imagine theres a beehive and in this beehive there are rules. a bee questions how these rules have come into existence (because these rules are very specific and if tweaked bees could not exist in this hive) The answer would be that it is random. now imagine an infanate forest full of beehives. Each beehive has a random set of rules. even if there is only one specific set of rules that bees can survive in, because there is an infinite amount of beehives, there must be one that randomly has the specific set of rules needed for bees to survive, while other hives can't support bee life because of the rules. The hives are like universes (in the multiverse theory) and the ability to support bee life is the ability to contain matter and survive long enough for intelegent life to evolve. does that make sence?
@@laurenschoolfield671 Yes, thanks!
"You cannot give a feature you don't have to someone else". Counterpoint if I'm interpereting this correctly: I could hypothetically give someone a bruise and not have one myself
Wait... are you implying that what the theist says is complete baloney!?!?
It's not true, but I think hes referring to genetics.
@@micah7492 Which is bullshit when you consider how plenty of birth defects are rare and not hereditary.
@@justinjakeashton but some birth defects are hereditary, not all of them, but many are caused by genes, which are passed down, generation to generation, the only reason everybody isn't born with 6 fingers is because mutations happen.
Mutations are a tricky thing, they happen randomly and are quite rare, but exist because we have seen and documented people with traits that none of their parents have, the entire existence of cancer is based on a mutation in a cell going horribly wrong and causing it to start hurting the body
Hydrogen and oxygen atoms have no texture. How can combining hydrogen with oxygen (2 things with zero texture) create water (something with texture)?
Flying spaghetti monster solve 99% of the questions a theist may have.
My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube. YOU WILL REACH THE TRUTH !
@@enesrp1712 dude.... stop.
Ramen🍜🍝🙏👀
If u are actually not trolling, no, the fsm cannot answer ANY of the questions any theist has.
@@pureone8350 Depends on what a theist typically ask. lol
These questions give off "is the floor really made of floor? Is water wet?" energy.
An actual answer to “is water wet?” Yes, unless you have one water molecule that is not bonded to another water molecule.
But what is wet?
@@crazylabz_ha hmm, wetness may be molecules moving rather quickly when other molecules touch them, like a chain on a bike. but idk at all lol
I think the person did not articulate himself well enough for you to understand if thats the vibe you are getting.
Here is his argument in a hopefully easier to understand way.
1. If our brain is not consensus, and neither are any other part of us, where did our consensus come from.
Video Response: We do not understand how the reactions occur to form consensus, you are simply saying "because we dont understand, it must be god"
2. All of our cells and organs, don't "know" or have a process for assembling themselves into a human, or any animal for that matter, nor does an atom have a way of assembling into a cell, so how does anything exist without a pre-existing body.
Video Response: "I currently lack the necessary knowledge to understand the argument, or respond to it, I don't want to mis-represent atheism and thus decide not to respond.
3. Their is no explanation for how the laws of nature exists, and thus the only option is god.
Video Response: We don't know the answer that question, you are doing the "because we dont understand, it must be god" thing again.
So basically, no Atheists can't answer these 3 questions, but according to the video, that doesn't matter. So the title of the video should be "Atheists can't answer these questions" ... Does it really matter?
The entire crux of the argument for the source video appears to be that ALL emergent properties are God. He sticks mostly to properties of living things. However, he hints around that he is talking about everything. Taken to the logical end, hydrogen and oxygen combining to form a substance with completely different properties is also "proof of God".
I have some pretty good evidence for that first one.
A red pencil cannot draw a rainbow on its own. Neither can an orange pencil, or a yellow, green, blue or purple one. But if you combine all six pencils, you can draw a rainbow.
…duh.
As someone who is religious, I just wanted to say how appreciative I am of how seriously you took this video. Often times both atheists and religious people will refuse to understand the reasoning behind differing opinions, so the way you tried to understand each question fully before answering is incredible.
exactly!!
That is why he is my favorite channel
How do you accept with this video's answer whilst being a theist ?
Thing is that Religious Opinions majority of the times are false and not true.
Christian reasoning is an oxymoron
"God have the most annoy fandom on Earth, no matter what religion he or she is the deity of "
*Change my mind*
kpop stans.
@@Hanagigi but how many murders having been committed in the name of Kpop? God still wins 🤣🤣🤣
@@manda8512 ikr 😂
Other religions will automatically decay if Islam is true. then the question is islam is real religion? of course.. I do not think there is any other doctrine above times and places that can better explain the world universe. My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube.
@@enesrp1712 God does not exist, no matter what religion.
1+1=2, but 1 doesnt have any curved lines, therefore god created 2
Mind of a Christian 💀
Underrated lmao
Pre-Christian Romans be like: II
And god cant give traits if he doesn’t ones so therefore god is a number he has curved lines
@@pajac6809the mind of an atheist is that the universe and everything blew up into existence from nothing and by nothing, i’d say that requires much more faith ngl
Just remember all screens have only 3 colors- red,green,blue.According to someone there must be a god made up of led display
"If the universe is so big, then why won't it fight me?"
Internet Historian
If the universe is so big then where the fuck are my aliens so I can fight them!?
@@junkoenoshima2756 right!? lol
"how can something give a feature it doesn't possess" my dude literally hasn't heard of sodium and chlorine, two dangerous chemicals, that come together to make mf table salt
That doesnt involve people, it said "how can someone give a feature it doesnt possess to someone else"
Still hes wrong
@@rebeccacummings6697 Which is even worse, because acording to his logic, god is a rappist
So two cats can make a dog now
@@rebeccacummings6697 blind people can have sighted children.
I would have said this:
Take vinegar: is vinegar explosive?
No
Take baking soda: is baking soda explosive?
No
Now put them together, what happened? It exploded. Even though neither ingredient is normally explosive
I have three questions no atheist can answer
1) what is the last digit of pi
2) how many digits are in pi if you remove every other digit
3) if a tree falls in a forest and none is around, what's the second to last digit of pi.
You are technically right ✅️
I can actually answer number 2, pi has an infinite number of digits, meaning 1 and 3 are impossible to answer, but 2 is possible to answer because infinity / 2 = Infinity. So the number of digits in pi if you remove every other is infinity
its 4, 0 and 7
@@AnnoyedSonic sure thats an answer, unfortunately infinity is not a quantity, as requested in the "how many" part of the question. by definition the word infinite just means impossible to quantify. So the answer you gave to "how many digits are in pi if you remove every other digit" is basically saying you don't have an answer.
also the point of this post is a meme. r/woosh
At least 1 in all the questions, take that