These are so small things that do not even matter for correction But thanks anyway Otherwise someone like tour could pick it quickly up to make bla bla of it
The creator God hypothesis is based upon the existence of free will. When the bible says man was made in the image of God, that means we share the possession of free will. If free will does not exist then God cannot exist. Any God without conscious preferences and the ability to choose them isn’t God. All that’s left is nature then and nature has no preferences and makes no choices. Nature simply is the imminent cause then of all things. Many religious people do not believe in free will…the Calvinists for example. This is a contradiction to their own bible. But who ever claimed religion was imbued with logical consistency? Free will may be empirically falsifiable, and may be a fact. If ever conclusively demonstrated this should provide absolute evidence of the non existence of God.
As someone who was homeschooled all the way through high-school as a young earth creationist, I’ve always felt a bit overwhelmed at the prospect of even where to begin with gaining the knowledge that was kept from me. I really appreciate these videos for their breadth and succinct nature-they’re informative and give me a lot of jumping off points if I want to go deeper into something. Thanks Professor Dave!
Just ask the question, "how do we know this?" Science can explain every claim it makes and religion has zero. 'It's true because the book says it's true ' is NOT an answer. Prof Dave is great at that. Enjoy your journey. Btw, love and dog hugs are real. Great medicine.
As someone who is deeply religious - I appreciate your call out in the beginning of the video that this is not a debate on whether or not a deity exists. Something I feel too many religious persons do is try to justify the existence of God using empirical means, when that’s just not possible, and in my opinion, just not meant to be. Religion exists to answer fundamental questions of the soul - our purpose, our destiny, etc. I’ve always tried to keep religion out of the realm of science, as that’s not what it’s there to explain. Conversely, the “evidence” of God is intended to be personal and private - something that connects with the soul. I don’t believe we will ever look to the stars and see empirical evidence of a God, as it’s meant to be a personal discovery. As always, Dave, I appreciate your thoroughness and high quality content, even if we disagree on the existence of God.
I like to say that my problem with religion is not the questions it tackles or the concepts it introduces, but rather that since the institutions are man-made, there will always be individuals who use their religion as a justification to control and subdue others. It’s not so much a god problem as much as it is a humans problem.
So, why aren't you an Existentialist? Everything you've said, and everything Dave said or will say, easily shows that "God" is just a human invention to give human life meaning. No need to 'wonder' or explain Evil or all the other blue-smoke-and-mirrors to hide the fact 'religion' is merely a question of childhood indoctrination. All we actually experience really EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE AND EVOLUTION OF EARTH-BORNE LIFE BY NATURAL MEANS. The ONLY wonder left is HOW, NOT WHY have MODERN humans been able to transcend Nature Red in Tooth and Claw because of Complexity of the Mind. Your 'religion' is just another Lie We Tell Children, where the 'We' is really 'Parents'/Culture. You know, like Newtonian Physics and Relativistic Mass.
"Something I feel too many religious persons do is try to justify the existence of God using empirical means, when that’s just not possible, and in my opinion, just not meant to be. " This right here. My best, armchair-psychologist guess on this is that some people experience a lot of cognitive dissonance when they compare religion with empiricism, even only in a semi-conscious way. They refuse to compartmentalize/contextualize two fundamentally different epistemologies, spend a lot of time trying to cram square pegs into round holes, and piss everyone else off in the process.
Religion exists to control. The answers to our existence were not written thousands of years ago. I practice judaism for the sake of preserving my ancestors’ practices, for which they were killed. I don’t practice because some uneducated people who heard voices in their heads thousands of years ago know more about the human experience than modern scientists or psychologists.
I respect your rights to freedom of speech and of religion, gonna have to agree to disagree there could ever be evidence of a God personal or otherwise. Again fully respect your beliefs and rights to them, I just thoroughly disagree.
This might be a good place to shout out some other TH-cam channels that do deep dives on these various types of creationism and all produce top tier content: - Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) - knows paleoanthropology (human evolution), debunks young earth creationism extensively - Aron Ra - knows paleontology and evolutionary biology, argues against various flavours of theists in biology - Creation Myths (Dr Dan) - knows genetics, disproves very specific claims of creationists mathematically - Forrest Valkai - knows a lot about biology, great for education of science newbs and ex-YECs - Dapper Dinosaur - knows a lot, debunks all kinds of pseudoscience, kinda like Prof Dave but more livestreams - Based Theory (Grayson) - knows abiogenesis, debates many topics in molecular biology and geology - Age of Rocks - very small channel, has great explainers on radiometric dating and how it works - King Crockoduck - knows a lot, had a famous debate with Kent Hovind on age of the universe
I’ll also add on that the educational channel “Stated Clearly” is a helpful guide for standard science education regarding evolution and DNA and all that too.
I'll never forget when our science teacher walked in the classroom for Bible 8th, while our teacher was gone. He asked us what we were learning and after some students answered he said, "Okay but how does conservation of angular momentum contradict the Big Bang? I feel like everything I teach you, you unlearn it in this room."
Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion y ears ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. To deny the existence of a Creator is an error.
Wasn’t it a catholic who invented the big bang theory it’s funny because there’s no way to prove any of this stuff god, gods, no gods it’s just dogma for atheists I guess. by the organization that finds it useful to believe their theories I mean you ever been on a basilica they make money from your beliefs
@@djsarg7451 lmao. There doesn't need to be a creator just because you want one to exist. If you didn't know what seeds were and seen a huge tree that doesn't mean the tree was built by somebody (with magic no less), it just means you don't know what a seed is.
I love the structure you're using. Starting by separating creationists by their beliefs, and then going chronologically and keeping track of which claims are typically made by which bunch of creationists, that's brilliant in its intuitiveness. I cannot imagine, how much work it took you to plan this out. Much respect, Dave.
@Professor Dave Explains, one of the biggest problems that I have with the creation story is that the earth was created on the first day, plants on the third day, and then the sun on the 4th day. This leads me to question how we’re the plants photosynthesizing and what was the earth orbiting around prior to the sun being created in the 4th day?
I'd think it should be obvious that plants were sustained by the sublime glow of god's glorious johnson even as the Earth was drawn to its inconceivable girth! Praise Him and his mighty Knob!
@@NotAUtubeCeleb That's also plausible, but I'm pretty rigid on Divine Johnson Theory. I think it's hard to dismiss. I've thought about it for a long time and I'd had to see such a compelling narrative get the shaft. Indeed, I will stand at attention and defend it!
I can tell this will be one of my favorite PDE series! Along with the Astronomy/Astrophysics, The History of Drugs, and Microbiology/Infectious Diseases series. 😊 Thanks for making awesome content for us, Dave!
You realize you're only a Christian because of where you were born, right? If you were born in another country you would be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. You would believe whatever you were told as a child. Period.
I learned a few new things here that 16 years of school didn't teach me. People need to know these facts and the overarching theory. Very excited for part 2.
Thank you, Dave, for choosing Ambulance siren! I'm a Paramedic and appreciate the recognition. One of my first memories inside an ambulance is finding it strange that there is no pitch change as the ambulance was never any closer nor further from the observer (me).
I'm a Theist, however I do not believe the earth is only thousands of years old. Also I respect Dave not pointing these arguments towards people, only ideas.
@@nploda1408this channel is science education theme and not atheist propaganda channel. Dave's channel mainly focus on attacking people that reject/didnt believe science. Learn to differentiate between the two. science didnt equally atheist.
@@nploda1408 Though, tyeler hasn't responded yet. I'll tell you why I am a creationist. Have you created anything? Have you created music? Or art or a new life through reproduction? Humans are creators. If something exists, then it was created. If at first there was nothing and now there's everything, then everything was created. Even nothing was created. Because you can't have nothing without everything and vice versa. Creation is real. Stars created elements did they not? Did stars not create elements and then gravity brought these elements together to create planets? If it's so bizarre that humans exist in the first place, and humans can create then why is it any more bizarre that something created humans? Something did create you. You probably don't remember but before you were born you were microscopic. A little squiggly. A painter uses various colors to create an image. A complex system used a bunch of molecular structures to create your body. Super complex, super intelligent and super alive. From the super tiny microscopic to the amazingly large cosmos is a series of Creation. A bunch of smaller things create 1 large thing and a bunch of large things create a super large and a bunch of super larger things... and so on. We've already ascended. We started at the microscopic and then born into the cosmos. Why is it impossible for us to ascend more? If you took your body and enlarged it to where now you are 62 miles long with all other dimensions proportional, that is about the equivalent comparison to how much a sperm grew to your body. With special instructions to keep your heart beating. Whatever it is, it's keeping you alive. You don't have to remind it, but it reminds you when you are in danger. I dunno what it is, why or how but it's happening. I don't question if God exists. I question what, when and where.
@@ilmiah2 There are atheist channels that debunk religious dogma, but that isn't atheist 'propaganda'. Atheism isn't an ideology or a belief system. It's the absence of a conviction that any gods exist, that's it. You propagandize for ideologies and belief systems, not the lack of such.
No, as it is written: Matthew 5: 11-12 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
@@Skivv5Where's the persecution... creationists always spout bs like this.. persecution 😂. You mean like the religious people have done to one another for literal millennia. You spouting a segment of a made up story doesn't make it true.
@@Skivv5 Honestly, putting "self-authenticating" passages like this in scripture was a stroke of genius. Like, "if people say you are wrong, that's just proof that you're right!" and "anyone who says our claims are false is lying because everyone knows we are right!" Brilliant!
Bro made a science out of science debunkers, which is almost poetic 💀 Keep doing what do you, Professor Dave. You'r of high value to this society (and my geoecology exams).
For anyone looking for more debunkers, I've recently been binge watching Forrest Valkai's videos and been learning loads. His series explaining evolution as well is fantastic
Both Forrest and Dave do shows in Call the Line, I don't think they've done a show together yet, but they tackle religion and science with a variety of other hosts
He covered a movie I thought was the shit as a Christian (A Matter of Faith) which was hilarious to watch from a new perspective, but also baffling to me now how I ever thought that was anything but garbage.
I grew up in a YEC household, school and Church, and fell down the Kent Hovind rabbit hole my freshman and sophomore year of highschool. Eventually at some point I recognized the many logical fallacies in the YEC belief system and decided to reeducate myself. I'm still a strong believer in Christianity but I'm able to reconcile my faith with modern science. Videos like these and other science TH-camrs helped me with getting out of the YEC bubble.
@Anonymous-md2qp You have no clue why this guy still believes in Christianity. It's incredibly disingenuous to automatically assume this guy has poor reasoning, has looked further into science beyond YEC debunks, or that they outright deny parts of science or philosophy to have remained a Christian. I'm not Christian anymore, but I dont assume Christians are just flat out lying to themselves.
@@TTTristan1 In theory it is correct what you said. But if you go into the witnesses of Yeshua/Yehosua ben Joseph (referred as Iesous "Christ" (the annoited one) in the later latinized roman imperial language before we used the letter J since the 16th century with Jesus) - the sources of this person are absurdly thin. I was for example interested in what witnesses about the resurrection are there for real and did read the gospels once more only to see that in one of the gospels a man is at the empty tomb, then 2 men in another, then an angel in a different gospel account. In 1 was Jesus crucified before the passover was over in another after the passover festival - why was Paul (in the texts) just claiming we have 500 witnesses seing the risen Jesus and there are no names, no jobs mentioned - nothing at all? Just making up people with a number is not any convincing thing to do. Where are the texts of any of those people? A deeper digging into the matter turned out as a huge nothingburger. Modern scholars see the book of acts as forgery with the apostles being martyrs. Paul was a previous headhunter before mooching overnight and food possibilities thanks to his silver tongue traveling around as foreign cult leader in another country. Most of the miraculous resurrected people like Lazarus and widow's son of Nain, Jairus' daughter just vanish from history without any trace. It is most likely those people never existed at all like they would be just characters in a completely made up story. If you go back the writers of the gospels talk about that Jesus was in the Isaiah prophecy promised messiah...while the text almost desperately tries to retro-fitt the promised Immanuel messiah figure, who was said to be fighting against the Assyrian menace to be somewhat working out there, while it fails even with a small portion of scrutiny. The most funny passage is in the gospel of John where the authors say: yeahyeah he is promised immanuel...just... umm don't take the name seriously it is just another one we can just mention as footnote just trust me bro. It also fails as the second coming promised by "his kingdom shall come" when some of his listeners back the day shall not taste death. All of those listeners turned to dust and the promised kingdom of heaven did not arrive in their lifetime. In summary: We have texts from a cult of people wanting that some world end event happened so that good wins over evil (like the horrific roman occupation) and then it didn't work out but you could not be a letdown to your community of followers. And it did blow out of proportions from that time period with legends. It reminds me of todays worldend conspiracy sects claiming the end comes in the 1920s and instead of ending the sects with the failed prophecy the sects did grow instead in number.
As someone who isn't very religious but does believe in god, I find it absurd that someone could ignore the plain facts of science that show how the universe functions. If you believe that god created the universe then more so than some random 3000-year-old document, the evidence that the universe itself provides should be regarded as the true word of god or at least as close as we as humans can ever get to it. These creationist nutjobs make anyone who is even remotely spiritual look bad. Great job as always Dave! Keep fighting the good fight!
Religion corrupts even that logic. There are no plain facts of science that religious people can’t deny. For example, the astronomer Lisle denies the evidence for the age of the universe by claiming that light travels to Earth at infinite speed, then slows down so that the round trip in any measurement is C.
I'm a life long atheist, but I'm open to the possibility that there was some being that started our universe, we might one day have this ability through science. The problem is that you still have to explain where that being came from. We can explain our universe without the need to invoke a creator. So why bother?
Fun fact: you can debunk the c-decay (the argument that the speed of light decays over time) claim with Trigonometry. SN 1987-A is 168,000 light years away according to the model that the speed of light is constant. The ring of matter ejected from the star's equator years before the supernova occurred according to this model. Every time the supernova brightens, the ring around it brightens eight months later. The ring thus must be 2/3 of a light year away from the supernova for this model to work (or rather 0.658 ly.) You can measure the radius of the ring as 0.808 arcseconds, and this would suggest a distance of 168,000 light years. The universe thus must be 168 thousand years old or older, and this means that the star exploded 168,000 years before 1987. Let's assume the speed of light was faster in the past to account for this (which there is no evidence, see also PIDOOMA), so how would we need to make the speed of light decay? It cannot be linear decay, because the speed of light in a vacuum has not been observed to slow down. It must therefore be an exponential decay, which would account for the negligible supposed decay of the speed of light. If the universe was created 6,000 years ago, and the distance is 168,000 light years, that would mean that the speed of light must have been at least 28x the speed in the past on average. Let's assume for simplicity's sake that it was created 6,000 years ago and the speed of light was 28x the speed it would be now, meaning it started at 28²c (which is 784c.) If this were the case, then the object would be 168,000 light years away, right? Nope. The radius of the ring would necessarily be 784x further, making it a radius of 515.872 light years. Because there is a direct relationship between angle and size, if the object is twice the size, it must be twice as far away. 515.872 ly at 0.808 arcseconds would be drastically larger, and plugging in the numbers, it would make the distance 123,155,368 ly away. With this assumption the average speed of light being 28c, it would mean that the supernova exploded 4,398,406 years ago, meaning that the universe would therefore need to be 4,398,406 years old or older. Plugging in higher numbers would increase the age of the universe, not reduce it. (summarization of th-cam.com/video/nRmJbP25m-Y/w-d-xo.html) tl;dr the faster the light was in the past, the longer the minimum age of the universe would need to be. And to respond to the unfalsifiable claim that light was created on the path it was 6,000 years ago to make it appear that the universe is older than it is, I can argue that the universe was created last Thursday, and everything is just made to appear like it was billions of years old, and your memories are false.
The last point also makes god an incompetent fo oI who half assed it's creation because we now can literally see some stars mid birth and others mid death.
That's what I believe, that the universe was created about 6000 years ago with an apparent age. But I don't claim there is any proof of that other than what the bible says. My beliefs are based on faith not science, and use circular reasoning. The bible is true because it says it is true. That being said I find some science to be misleading. For example, I have not been persuaded that macroevolution exists given the information that is out there. I just don't see a clear and convincing fossil record showing what evolutionists claim, like sea animals evolving into land animals. They sure do draw some pretty cool pictures though.
As a Christian, I despise it when (as theinstituteforuniveraltr3629 said:) religious folk legislate laws based on our beliefs. Believing what you want to believe is fine, just don't force it onto others.
@@nploda1408 The baddies in the New Testament are the Roman state, and legalistic religious people. Again and again, Jesus calls us to personally choose actions based on sincere faith. It's not possible for us to legislate you into being a Christian and we're not told to try. I wouldn't go as far as Kinetic, because when I vote I can't help voting as a Christian, and thinking about things through that lens. For me this usually means being more merciful and charitable than I want to be. But I don't buy the "Christian nationalist" project at all
Impossible expectation of people who believe it's their dictated/moral duty to correct society, and I assume that's more than a small portion of christianity. Appreciate the sentiment
My favorite is when they say the Earth can't be a single mile closer or further from the Sun or else the planet will be too hot/too cold for life. It's always a great time to remind them that Earth's orbit is elliptical and the variation in distance between the Earth and the Sun every year is about 3 million miles. So clearly, the Earth's orbit can (and does) vary quite a lot without killing all life on Earth.
It might be helpful to those who haven't studied YEC as much as you have to clarify why YEC'ers believe the Earth is only about 6,000 years old (e.g., So and so begat so and so at the age of [insert ridiculous number of decades here], and died at the age of [insert ridiculous number of centuries here]).
Another stella video Dave! I’ve been watching your videos to help me become more enlightened in the field of science and I just began a new course on geologi. I thourpughly enjoy it and I have you to thank for that!! You reinvigorated me :D
People who claim to know God don't know anything about God. Even if the Creator exists, there is no reason to follow any of the human made creationist religions.
@@Colin-yu7pc That is up to each person to decide, whatever they want to believe in. Some say the world is too brutal for there to be God while others insist there must be a loving deity. We could spend an entire lifetime indulging in these issues and not get anywhere. I am focused more on the Buddha's teachings as recorded in the Tipitaka right now so that I can understand mental phenomena better.
Divine Revelation disagrees. I’d agree with you only that Truth is shown to be as such through Signs Wonders Miracles. He Taught, Died, Resurrected and Ascended. This knowledge comes firstly. No proof of Muhammad being anything other than a caravan robber turned politician / military and religious leader Quran calls him just a warner, only in later Hadith do we see explicit miracle claims, the source texts on the life of the Buddha come from over 500 years after his death, with him claiming ignorance on many things, Zoroastrianism provides no proofs inorder that it might be vindicated other than those commonly available to all ultimate truth claims of a religious nature. What sets Christianity apart has and will forever and always be: Jesus Christ the Lord who defeated death giving his Church the Kingdom of Heaven. Are you familiar with the minimal facts argument? I find it a good place to start, if one objects to this line of reasoning a more in depth discussion is likely needed either with a Disciple or the King. If that be the case I recommend William Paley contemporary of David Hume.. Blessings ❤
I love how creationists argue the big bang claiming it’s beyond our understanding and how we couldn’t possibly know and that blindly believing scientists makes you a sheep. They argue this by trying to rationalize an infinitely more complex and impossible being creating everything, and blindly believing anything that was written down in a book thousands of years ago and has been disproven a thousand times. And also, their belief system LITERALLY calls their followers “sheep” or “a heard” being led by (insert deity). The irony is almost too much to bear.
@@Paul-nv5bw Yeah, from nothing by magic. Unless you think your god took a piece of himself to create things. Dont worry, i have enough humility to NOT believe the whole universe was created just for me.
It`s the worst enemy of creationists is to give the public an opportunity to learn Science, and that`s just what Professor Dave is doing with this series. Thank you for this Dave and keep up the great work!
It's a shame we have to expend the time and effort of our best educators on debunking idiotic gobbledegook. Those who push false and demonstrably wrong anti-knowledge are a millstone around Humanity's neck. Thank you for your service in combatting stupidity Prof Dave.
Slight correction: much of the heaviest elements are formed not by supernovae of very heavy stars, but from two neutron stars colliding in a kilonova and the expelled neutronium degenerating and recombining to form them.
Remember, folks: preachers are molded to display confidence and intimidate, so that those who don’t know better fall prey to their tactics and join their ranks. Fight belief with knowledge!
@@ahall9839 Faith is blind by definition. Beliefs can be founded upon evidence, or upon nothing. When it's the latter you say you "take it on faith" and when it's the former no f-word ever appears.
Have you noticed how many pseudo-scientific woo-woo ads there are on your videos? The internet, is not without a sense of humor (or at least irony) it seems. Also thank you for ALL of this you do fantastic work!
Also keep in mind that whenever a theist says “you believe something came from nothing”, they are projecting. The vast majority of the time, Abrahamic believers posit a certainty that their god created everything, even the components of the universe, and this created everything from a state of nothingness. Which, quite besides the illogical nature of this notion, means that they believe the universe was created from nothing by their god.
The thing they can't (or won't?) understand is that the naturalistic worldview as regards the early universe or the beginnings of life aren't actually knowledge claims. Nobody but theists are claiming to actually know that matter or energy began to exist, _ex nihilo,_ and nobody but theists are actually claiming to know how life began. There's a world of difference between saying, "I dunno, maybe chemical evolution by a hydrothermal vent?" and the claim that "an immaterial mind from beyond space and time created everything by thinking about it."
Yep. "This arbitrary law applies to ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING...except our idea, because it wouldn't work otherwise." The name for this sort of illogical leap is "special pleading."
There's actually a Christian "research journal" ( i.e. propaganda mill ) called Creation Ex Nihilo, which translates to Creation from nothing. Most creationist accusations are just projection and confessions.
If you push them *where* god did sit around and for how long he/she/it did in the supposed "nothing at all-ness" they start to rotate. Because this is not a rational approach to the world. It is a gut feeling approach. The idea behind is that they want to define the acts of thinking - meaning to have chains of thoughts not to be material brain operations, but magical/miraculous "immaterial" stuff, which they define or conflate with the term nothingness. So the convoluted tummy feeling they have is actually: _God or spirit would be nothing of solid substance but magical energy_ you shall never take into question. By pushing them further to say: You are aware that your mind is not a nothingnessburger but a chain of thought process being operated and this would also count for any other assumed agency - like a deity they try to assert - they are full of even more contradictions. A mind is not magic. A mind is not fairy dust energy that would hover in a nothingness imagination. A mind is not a worshipworthy idol or deity. A mind is not an unquestionable mystery box. This is why apologists come up with nonsense statements like that their deity would be quote: "timeless" and "spaceless". This is such a brilliant example of chaotic nonsense talk - as it highlights the way how emotional loaded statements in fact operate: They assume time and space to be chains on the imaginary knuckles of their deity. This is why they think the term "timeless" would refer to "not bound by time," Time however is not some sort of bounding it is actually a freedom grade (dimension) to have processes like thinking as such a process to be acted out and to be operated. This includes to have also emotional switches like God in the bible to be happy and then wrathful and then forgiving at different events unrolling as freedom grade to have emotional awareness and not to be frozen in 1 single emotion as 1 very illustrative example or to have not even 1 moment in time to feel anything at all. Where even a child understands that if you underline that. The same goes for the nothing of "spacelessness" where theists do the same tick game by imagining the term would men = "not bound by space"; Space is ALSO not a bounding/constriction, it is another freedom grade (3 spatial dimension) to offer the trait to exist/existence/to be to begin with: Such as to be/exist in a general sense but also to be at localities like in your chair on Mars or anywhere else. People have there also simply no opinion freedom, only because the english language and the term use in english is falsely emotionally imprinted. In which humans confuse freedom with *restrictions* and ultimately *insuts* like "Hey you are nowhere" with *compliments* , because the person would think time aka a freedom grade would be a burden (termuse "bounding" in the idea as an *insultive restriction* ). So religion reversed everything. Insuts are compliments, compliments are insults, freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom, nothing shall be something filled with a mind, atheists shall claim the world came from ex nihilo "out of nothing" not theists claiming something was poofed into being out of nowhere etc.
@@ThisAintIt435Twist science? Or tell the truth ? The Lord is what uneducated peasants called their master . Is this how far you have come you still need a superior to answer to?
@@ThisAintIt435I always held the position that if these religious types have such reverence for God, they should make full use of God's gift to them--their brains.
i was homeschooled because my mother wanted to keep me away from "liberal indoctrination" in public schools, and a big part of that "indoctrination" she wanted to avoid was anything suggesting young earth creationism might not be 100% true. your videos are enlightening and have really helped me catch up on the education i was denied as a kid. also as an aside i had no idea radiometric dating aside from carbon dating even existed, i was always told carbon dating was the only thing possible and that any dates gotten via other forms of dating were actually achieved by carbon dating and then the whole bit about carbon dating's limitations. ugh.
Man.. Adapting to their mental gymnastics doesn't give any advantage over a discussion with them; since they will either ignore, deliberately misinterpret or commit other dishonest tactics. But it is important to learn this type of mindset to remind ourselves how *delusional and deceitful* some people are... Good stuff Dave.
Professor Dave... you're about to be have a long week... Terrence Howard and Billy Carson are going live tomorrow.... TOGETHER. I can't even imagine what off the wall stuff we're going to hear 😂😂😂😂
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I was scrolling through Facebook and saw Billy Carson tag him and say they were going live tomorrow at 7 on billys podcasy. I'm not even sure what his podcast is called tbh. I checked TH-cam and it's scheduled too. It's captioned " going to break the internet " 😂🤣
I love that you make long content. Not only because long content is awesome but also because it makes the creationists that want to ‘debunk’ you have to work harder haha
If there were an all powerful creator with enormous magical powers, that it wouldn’t have needed the universal constants, it could have poofed life into existence under every circumstance.
Can't wait for part two! I have learned so much from your videos, Dave. And would like you to know that your expertise in these many fields has enabled me to actually get my mom to see her creationist mindset from a different perspective. Your coverage of the many MANY theists who attempt to spread God like an undetected virus, has wisened her up, and she now no longer accepts the Bible as fact and stopped trying to enforce religious beliefs upon me and my daughter. Your dedication to science and understanding has enabled my family to be whole once again, and for that I am eternally grateful. Keep doing God's work (pun intended 😉)
@@ProfessorDaveExplains this is why you're my favorite! (Well that and the way you mercilessly expose all the snake oil salesmen without beating around the bush on how stupid their "ideas" are) as some debunkers don't want to say the harsh truths that come along with exposing these fallacious frauds. P.S. Watch out for lighting bolts from the imaginary sky daddy, I heard he's pretty mad at you 😏🤣
Your comment on Gobekli Tepe needs some clarification - it is not the oldest archaeological site known - Gobekli Tepe is the oldest known human construction site (definitive shelters) - though one could make an argument that the tent pegs found in the Monte Verde site in South America signify a sort of construction as well. Of course, there are far older sites worldwide (any of the Neandertal caves in Europe, for example).
With the fine-tuning argument theists make it sounds like their god had to create life while constrained by the constants, but in their mythology that god also created the constants, so if it wanted to, it could set the speed of light to 420,420,420 m/s and make it so that's the value of c that works in this universe.
They are incosistent and omnipotent deity they envision is also needed to design a paradise/heaven place better than life on Earth and also defy any laws of thermodynamics in case of an eternal hellfire place, which has also not fine tuning at all when lifeforms do not immediately burn to ash but sustain sentient torture and other horror images the humans made up. The whole arguments are inconsistent and only there to delude and hypnotize people to stay sheepishly close to their dogma.
We are on a planet spinning and rotating around our Sun in a goldilocks band supporting "life". We are conscious (at least many humans). With all the planets we are on a voyage with our sun in the Milky Way, being somewhere in the boondocks on one of the "arms" in our Solar journey. This story is remarkable in itself and rather open ended with possibilities. The quest for knowledge and understanding takes a lot of intellectual courage to admit we know so little (even though we know so much). Thank you for your videos, Sir.
As a religious person I freakin' love this! Thank you Dave yet for another banger. Here are the types of creationism according to me: 1. Cockroach creationism - yes, even bugs can score better on exam day. 2. Monkey creationism - this is exactly how I imagine monkeys operate tho I feel like I'm too harsh on our ape brothers. 3. Copium creationism - "Ok guys, it didn't happen as quick as the Bible say, but it was still quick!" 4. More copium creationism - "Guys trust me, we just misinterpreted the word day!" 5. Debatable creationism - you could probably debate such person without losing too many brain cells, tho they would still be wrong and shortsighted on many topics. 6 Popular creationism - probably the most dangerous of them all, since it tries a lot to sound scientific and possible so many people will actually believe it. It still denies huge amount of science. 7. Non omni-god creationism - these people say that an omni-being created the universe, yet it had to interfear once again to create life. Would't such being foreseen the future, thus create an universe where life is already possible? 8. Scientific creationism - people who won't deny any science at all, but believe that behind it all is all powerfull being, hidden from us outside spacetime itself.
There is one group of people who do make the claim that something can come from nothing - It is creationists. According to them, God made everything from nothing. I don't see how they can argue otherwise. But since we know that something cannot come from nothing, we should assume that something always was. Existence itself could be eternal. But it also does a lot of damage to the creationist argument that God created everything, and that prior to God nothing existed.
We have 2 main problems the majority of people do not get. 1 problem is that the *to create* _verb_ activity is much younger in time than the age of the universe. Other activities like the _to swim_ activities are actually older in time than the _to create_ activity. There did spores and jellyfish perform swimming in paleozoic oceans already millions of years before the first act of any mindful creation was ever executed as 1 example. To argue that the universe would be the result of the _to create_ activity is similarly nonsensical as arguing that the universe did fall off a saddle of a mule rider, riding by. Thinking that the "out of the saddle falling" activity and the "riding on a mule" activity would be older in time than the universe. Or that mules, riders, saddles would be older than time basically. It is human imagination. The second problem is that in all worldviews humans ever believed or came up with: *uncausedness* is the actual answer - ALWAYS. This is a usual mistake philosophical laypeople do. In classical arguements it is this: A.) Existence just has a countable number of timeframes/hours which were not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer) B.) Existence goes endlessly into a never ending past which as chain was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer) Theism does not change that even a tiny little bit. If you for example deny the young age of the *to create* (verb) activity. You can construct a C.) which would be: C.) Existence was made from an already existing creator, which was not caused as "philosophical Alpha&Omega" or an aristotelian "unmoved mover" - as this God concept was not made it was uncaused (UNCAUSEDNESS is like in A.) and B.) here STILL the final answer). The reason why theists come up with this is that they deeply wish that their feelings shall matter, while they do not matter. To be loved by a surrogate fatherfigure to "smile upon them" from "the heavens" or something. However meaningfulness feelings simply do NOT matter by being externally projected. An uncaused "skydaddy" who loves somebody "very much", is there just a foreign body - a parasite that stands in the way to accept UNCAUSEDNESS as final answer in all worldviews. INCLUDING that God/the creator agent was not caused. This goes even deeper like: D.) Existence was made from an already existing creator, which was made by a META-maker, which was made by another Meta-Meta-Maker or a combination of existence forming makers which where made in an endless chain of Deities/Creators or existences prior while the chain of deities and existences itself was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer) E.) Existence here is a mere simulation (Like the matrix) with a countable number of hours of a more primary existence which has itself only a countable number of hours which was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is still the final answer). F.) Existence is a time circle/time travelerer itself and at the end of time it beams itself into the past to be its own origin, which is a circle that was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS remains there the final answer). G.) Existence is a combination of several of the given previous answers. So could our existence be a simulation E that was made by a Maker D outside of the simulation, while the maker itself was only a simulation E2 of a bigger meta-universalserver, which was made by a superMaker D2 which lived in the first premordial basic world (the actual "existence") which has only a countable number of timeframes/actions to be performed and was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is STILL the final answer) or that the first existence there is like in F.) a time traveler causing itself in the meta existence all the time anew where simulations appear like growing branches from a tree in each time circle, while this re-newal-circle was itself never caused. (UNCAUSEDNESS is yet again the final answer) Those are sophistry debates about made-up possibilities if we grant the nonsense assertion that for example creation activities would be older in time than they ACTUALLY are. This distracts people to face UNCAUSEDNESS in all worldviews per se. While "supernatural"/"non-material"/"immaterial" remains just additional bogus talk there. Like with invented time travels or matrix simulations or seeing everything without eye organs or camera mechanism or seeing organ equivalents. This is why regardless if you are a theist or an atheist or an agnostic or whatever in ALL worldviews in existence UNCAUSEDNESS is always ALWAYS the final answer to this question. Be it a finite countable number of events or an infintie chain which are both not caused in the end.
8. Deistic Evolution should have been the natural consequence for any deeply religious person to arrive. It's the only one that is also acceptable imo, as it's naturally shifts the discussion into more philosophical spheres. And honestly: If I ever would start believing into god or gods, that would be the path I would take.
I remember when my high school teacher showed the class a video/movie supporting creationist intelligent design. It led me to start researching proof of god so I could convince others of christianity. Long story short, I'm atheist now.
That sounds like a personal problem and no reason to be an atheist But hey, the most deluded either be one more deluded by doubling down or become atheist, afraid of the other end
I debated with creatinists years ago and your categories of different creatinistig beliefs are real good 😊 thank you for this video and greetings from germany
Thank you Professor Dave, I would give my right arm to know half of what you know and the power to construct meaningful explanations. If the majority of people on earth would have your logic and knowledge, we would be so much better. One can only dream of a species so well informed, logical and non-biased. I'm in the process of watching all your videos, in time. I sincerely regret that I can't incorporate and remember everything you've put out, even so, you've helped me a lot by giving me a lot of structure, knowledge and reasoning perspective to understand the universe even better. I truly appreciate you and, if I could, I would give you a very long life so that your spark of intelligence never fades. You're a beacon of hope for all of us that embrace science and reason, may your light never dim. Thank you again for all the effort and passion you're putting in. Wish I had a friend like you in my personal life with whom to talk at length about many things.
Quick correction at 21:47, uranium-235 actually decays into lead-207 and uranium-238 decays into lead-206, not the other way around. My bad!
@Atomicscale-19 lol he sounds like a funi guy
Do you have a way we can access your slides?
Uranium decays into helium - Marcos Eberlin
These are so small things that do not even matter for correction
But thanks anyway
Otherwise someone like tour could pick it quickly up to make bla bla of it
The creator God hypothesis is based upon the existence of free will. When the bible says man was made in the image of God, that means we share the possession of free will.
If free will does not exist then God cannot exist. Any God without conscious preferences and the ability to choose them isn’t God. All that’s left is nature then and nature has no preferences and makes no choices. Nature simply is the imminent cause then of all things.
Many religious people do not believe in free will…the Calvinists for example. This is a contradiction to their own bible. But who ever claimed religion was imbued with logical consistency?
Free will may be empirically falsifiable, and may be a fact. If ever conclusively demonstrated this should provide absolute evidence of the non existence of God.
All your arguments are invalid as you didn't write them on the chalk board!
_MISTER FARINAAAA!!!!_
ALL HE DOES IS TALK, TALK, TALK
Mr Farina! Here, Go, Go, Go, Go, Go, Go! You don't do it! Show me the Chemistry! Come to the board and write!
Clueless!
GO! GO! GO! GO!
As someone who was homeschooled all the way through high-school as a young earth creationist, I’ve always felt a bit overwhelmed at the prospect of even where to begin with gaining the knowledge that was kept from me. I really appreciate these videos for their breadth and succinct nature-they’re informative and give me a lot of jumping off points if I want to go deeper into something.
Thanks Professor Dave!
Same here, brother
Small steps good sir, one small thing at a time adds up quickly when you’re consistent. Happy travels 🫡
Just ask the question, "how do we know this?" Science can explain every claim it makes and religion has zero. 'It's true because the book says it's true ' is NOT an answer. Prof Dave is great at that.
Enjoy your journey. Btw, love and dog hugs are real. Great medicine.
I second this me too
Mothers are child abusers
All creationist arguments boil down to: *[argument from incredulity]* therefore *[god of the gaps]*
how could "perfectly explainable natural phenomenon" have happened without MY god ?! see ? god exists !!!!!!
YES
id ask how many times you need to know "what came before that" before you get to conscious energy?
I am incredulous that you said that.
My neighbour's dog barks through the gaps in the fence. A genuine example of a dog of the gaps.
@@SingleMost What is "conscious energy" even supposed to mean?
As someone who is deeply religious - I appreciate your call out in the beginning of the video that this is not a debate on whether or not a deity exists.
Something I feel too many religious persons do is try to justify the existence of God using empirical means, when that’s just not possible, and in my opinion, just not meant to be. Religion exists to answer fundamental questions of the soul - our purpose, our destiny, etc. I’ve always tried to keep religion out of the realm of science, as that’s not what it’s there to explain. Conversely, the “evidence” of God is intended to be personal and private - something that connects with the soul. I don’t believe we will ever look to the stars and see empirical evidence of a God, as it’s meant to be a personal discovery.
As always, Dave, I appreciate your thoroughness and high quality content, even if we disagree on the existence of God.
I like to say that my problem with religion is not the questions it tackles or the concepts it introduces, but rather that since the institutions are man-made, there will always be individuals who use their religion as a justification to control and subdue others.
It’s not so much a god problem as much as it is a humans problem.
So, why aren't you an Existentialist?
Everything you've said, and everything Dave said or will say, easily shows that "God" is just a human invention to give human life meaning. No need to 'wonder' or explain Evil or all the other blue-smoke-and-mirrors to hide the fact 'religion' is merely a question of childhood indoctrination. All we actually experience really EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE AND EVOLUTION OF EARTH-BORNE LIFE BY NATURAL MEANS. The ONLY wonder left is HOW, NOT WHY have MODERN humans been able to transcend Nature Red in Tooth and Claw because of Complexity of the Mind.
Your 'religion' is just another Lie We Tell Children, where the 'We' is really 'Parents'/Culture. You know, like Newtonian Physics and Relativistic Mass.
"Something I feel too many religious persons do is try to justify the existence of God using empirical means, when that’s just not possible, and in my opinion, just not meant to be. "
This right here. My best, armchair-psychologist guess on this is that some people experience a lot of cognitive dissonance when they compare religion with empiricism, even only in a semi-conscious way. They refuse to compartmentalize/contextualize two fundamentally different epistemologies, spend a lot of time trying to cram square pegs into round holes, and piss everyone else off in the process.
Religion exists to control. The answers to our existence were not written thousands of years ago.
I practice judaism for the sake of preserving my ancestors’ practices, for which they were killed. I don’t practice because some uneducated people who heard voices in their heads thousands of years ago know more about the human experience than modern scientists or psychologists.
I respect your rights to freedom of speech and of religion, gonna have to agree to disagree there could ever be evidence of a God personal or otherwise. Again fully respect your beliefs and rights to them, I just thoroughly disagree.
Do you ever sleep, Dave?
Next video: debunking the need for sleep
No cuz he's a man on a mission 😂
@@Maxrepfitgmhaha
He is an insomniac
IDK BUT HE IS AMAZING ME MADE ME LOVE SCIENCE
This might be a good place to shout out some other TH-cam channels that do deep dives on these various types of creationism and all produce top tier content:
- Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) - knows paleoanthropology (human evolution), debunks young earth creationism extensively
- Aron Ra - knows paleontology and evolutionary biology, argues against various flavours of theists in biology
- Creation Myths (Dr Dan) - knows genetics, disproves very specific claims of creationists mathematically
- Forrest Valkai - knows a lot about biology, great for education of science newbs and ex-YECs
- Dapper Dinosaur - knows a lot, debunks all kinds of pseudoscience, kinda like Prof Dave but more livestreams
- Based Theory (Grayson) - knows abiogenesis, debates many topics in molecular biology and geology
- Age of Rocks - very small channel, has great explainers on radiometric dating and how it works
- King Crockoduck - knows a lot, had a famous debate with Kent Hovind on age of the universe
Don't forget Paulogia, Viced Rhino, Just A Walking Fish, and Jackson Wheat (who literally wrote the book on creationist debunking).
@@Kyeudo can't believe i forgot Jackson Wheat!
I’ll also add on that the educational channel “Stated Clearly” is a helpful guide for standard science education regarding evolution and DNA and all that too.
AronRa's _Systematic Classification of Life_ series is the stuff of legend. And I particularly like Erika's detailed examinations of the heat problem.
Great comment, adding Dr Joel Duff to this list.
Dave is completely Googledebunkers
S-tier reference
I swear these conspiracies are driving me googledebunkers!
*laughs in Miniminuteman*
@@mikotagayuna8494lol
I hope u Milo fans watched his vid from yesterday!
I'll never forget when our science teacher walked in the classroom for Bible 8th, while our teacher was gone. He asked us what we were learning and after some students answered he said, "Okay but how does conservation of angular momentum contradict the Big Bang? I feel like everything I teach you, you unlearn it in this room."
Lol
Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion y ears ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. To deny the existence of a Creator is an error.
@@djsarg7451 you still need to prove the existence of one, and until then, to say there is one is an error
Wasn’t it a catholic who invented the big bang theory it’s funny because there’s no way to prove any of this stuff god, gods, no gods it’s just dogma for atheists I guess. by the organization that finds it useful to believe their theories I mean you ever been on a basilica they make money from your beliefs
@@djsarg7451 lmao. There doesn't need to be a creator just because you want one to exist. If you didn't know what seeds were and seen a huge tree that doesn't mean the tree was built by somebody (with magic no less), it just means you don't know what a seed is.
Your arguments are invalid. You didn’t have horrible “music” playing with the volume getting louder when the most important parts are pointed out.
This is gonna be one of the best series Dave has.
I was hoping for the word "kablooey" and am not disappointed 6:54
I love the structure you're using. Starting by separating creationists by their beliefs, and then going chronologically and keeping track of which claims are typically made by which bunch of creationists, that's brilliant in its intuitiveness. I cannot imagine, how much work it took you to plan this out. Much respect, Dave.
Thought the exact same thing.
@Professor Dave Explains, one of the biggest problems that I have with the creation story is that the earth was created on the first day, plants on the third day, and then the sun on the 4th day. This leads me to question how we’re the plants photosynthesizing and what was the earth orbiting around prior to the sun being created in the 4th day?
I'd think it should be obvious that plants were sustained by the sublime glow of god's glorious johnson even as the Earth was drawn to its inconceivable girth! Praise Him and his mighty Knob!
The answer is that people 2,000 years ago didn't understand photosynthesis and were just guessing
@@NotAUtubeCeleb That's also plausible, but I'm pretty rigid on Divine Johnson Theory. I think it's hard to dismiss. I've thought about it for a long time and I'd had to see such a compelling narrative get the shaft. Indeed, I will stand at attention and defend it!
The plants were sleeping. duh.
That's Hovindian argument. He says the plants had a day on their own then photosynthesis started on the next day.
I can tell this will be one of my favorite PDE series! Along with the Astronomy/Astrophysics, The History of Drugs, and Microbiology/Infectious Diseases series. 😊 Thanks for making awesome content for us, Dave!
Can't read your comment, Dr. Bear. Unlucky
Dave really doing god of the gaps' work with these debunking series
I’m so surprised creationists exist in 2024. Bizarre.
you and me both, I am not surprised, however, to find you here haha mint💯
I’m just as surprised we’re still using 2024 as the year.
If so, you'll be blown away that FLERFS are still a thang.
Oh hey it's nice seeing you here lol
@@LSA30You mean cause we didn't destroy our planet yet, or something else.
Thanks Dave
I was a confused creationist until i stumbled on Ra's channel in 2020.......then immediately I also found you.
You realize you're only a Christian because of where you were born, right? If you were born in another country you would be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. You would believe whatever you were told as a child. Period.
I learned a few new things here that 16 years of school didn't teach me. People need to know these facts and the overarching theory. Very excited for part 2.
Thank you, Dave, for choosing Ambulance siren! I'm a Paramedic and appreciate the recognition. One of my first memories inside an ambulance is finding it strange that there is no pitch change as the ambulance was never any closer nor further from the observer (me).
I'm a Theist, however I do not believe the earth is only thousands of years old. Also I respect Dave not pointing these arguments towards people, only ideas.
Why are you a Theist, though?
@@nploda1408this channel is science education theme and not atheist propaganda channel. Dave's channel mainly focus on attacking people that reject/didnt believe science.
Learn to differentiate between the two.
science didnt equally atheist.
@@nploda1408 Though, tyeler hasn't responded yet. I'll tell you why I am a creationist. Have you created anything? Have you created music? Or art or a new life through reproduction? Humans are creators. If something exists, then it was created. If at first there was nothing and now there's everything, then everything was created. Even nothing was created. Because you can't have nothing without everything and vice versa. Creation is real. Stars created elements did they not? Did stars not create elements and then gravity brought these elements together to create planets? If it's so bizarre that humans exist in the first place, and humans can create then why is it any more bizarre that something created humans? Something did create you. You probably don't remember but before you were born you were microscopic. A little squiggly. A painter uses various colors to create an image. A complex system used a bunch of molecular structures to create your body. Super complex, super intelligent and super alive. From the super tiny microscopic to the amazingly large cosmos is a series of Creation. A bunch of smaller things create 1 large thing and a bunch of large things create a super large and a bunch of super larger things... and so on. We've already ascended. We started at the microscopic and then born into the cosmos. Why is it impossible for us to ascend more? If you took your body and enlarged it to where now you are 62 miles long with all other dimensions proportional, that is about the equivalent comparison to how much a sperm grew to your body. With special instructions to keep your heart beating. Whatever it is, it's keeping you alive. You don't have to remind it, but it reminds you when you are in danger. I dunno what it is, why or how but it's happening. I don't question if God exists. I question what, when and where.
Bequiet tiny mind
@@ilmiah2 There are atheist channels that debunk religious dogma, but that isn't atheist 'propaganda'. Atheism isn't an ideology or a belief system. It's the absence of a conviction that any gods exist, that's it. You propagandize for ideologies and belief systems, not the lack of such.
Creationists watching this video: 🙈🙉🙊
No it is more like 🙉🙈🙊
Don't waste any tears on those liars.
No, as it is written:
Matthew 5: 11-12
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
@@Skivv5Where's the persecution... creationists always spout bs like this.. persecution 😂. You mean like the religious people have done to one another for literal millennia. You spouting a segment of a made up story doesn't make it true.
@@Skivv5 Honestly, putting "self-authenticating" passages like this in scripture was a stroke of genius. Like, "if people say you are wrong, that's just proof that you're right!" and "anyone who says our claims are false is lying because everyone knows we are right!" Brilliant!
One good response to the fine tuning argument - if the universe is fine tuned for anything, it’s the creation of black holes.
I like "why would an all powerful creator need to fine tune anything".
Or horseshoe crabs. Gods most perfect creation.
Black holes are an important part of the fine tuning argument.
wait. oh no. god's a black hole. (joke)
Bro made a science out of science debunkers, which is almost poetic 💀
Keep doing what do you, Professor Dave. You'r of high value to this society (and my geoecology exams).
Poetic, sure. Like "two McFly's from the same gun."
Its meta-science 🤯
@@TheoCrox still hasn't debunked the Bible.
2,000 years. give it up.
@@stuffthings1417 Debunks the bible everyday insofar as said bible purports to reveal anything about how the natural world works.
"almost poetic"
Zoomers just vomit words
Best professor on youtube! Simple, clear and straight to the point.
This is what I need, THANK YOU PROFESSOR DAVE!
For anyone looking for more debunkers, I've recently been binge watching Forrest Valkai's videos and been learning loads.
His series explaining evolution as well is fantastic
The Valkyrie is good, but he could get the same info out in half the time, if he didn't hyperventilate so much.
Both Forrest and Dave do shows in Call the Line, I don't think they've done a show together yet, but they tackle religion and science with a variety of other hosts
He covered a movie I thought was the shit as a Christian (A Matter of Faith) which was hilarious to watch from a new perspective, but also baffling to me now how I ever thought that was anything but garbage.
Forrest Valkai is an absolute beast. I still learn something from every episode of anything he is on
I grew up in a YEC household, school and Church, and fell down the Kent Hovind rabbit hole my freshman and sophomore year of highschool. Eventually at some point I recognized the many logical fallacies in the YEC belief system and decided to reeducate myself. I'm still a strong believer in Christianity but I'm able to reconcile my faith with modern science. Videos like these and other science TH-camrs helped me with getting out of the YEC bubble.
The only reason you’ve remained religious is because you don’t want to admit that you were completely fooled, only partially.
@Anonymous-md2qp You have no clue why this guy still believes in Christianity. It's incredibly disingenuous to automatically assume this guy has poor reasoning, has looked further into science beyond YEC debunks, or that they outright deny parts of science or philosophy to have remained a Christian.
I'm not Christian anymore, but I dont assume Christians are just flat out lying to themselves.
@@TTTristan1 In theory it is correct what you said. But if you go into the witnesses of Yeshua/Yehosua ben Joseph (referred as Iesous "Christ" (the annoited one) in the later latinized roman imperial language before we used the letter J since the 16th century with Jesus) - the sources of this person are absurdly thin. I was for example interested in what witnesses about the resurrection are there for real and did read the gospels once more only to see that in one of the gospels a man is at the empty tomb, then 2 men in another, then an angel in a different gospel account. In 1 was Jesus crucified before the passover was over in another after the passover festival - why was Paul (in the texts) just claiming we have 500 witnesses seing the risen Jesus and there are no names, no jobs mentioned - nothing at all? Just making up people with a number is not any convincing thing to do. Where are the texts of any of those people? A deeper digging into the matter turned out as a huge nothingburger.
Modern scholars see the book of acts as forgery with the apostles being martyrs.
Paul was a previous headhunter before mooching overnight and food possibilities thanks to his silver tongue traveling around as foreign cult leader in another country. Most of the miraculous resurrected people like Lazarus and widow's son of Nain, Jairus' daughter just vanish from history without any trace. It is most likely those people never existed at all like they would be just characters in a completely made up story.
If you go back the writers of the gospels talk about that Jesus was in the Isaiah prophecy promised messiah...while the text almost desperately tries to retro-fitt the promised Immanuel messiah figure, who was said to be fighting against the Assyrian menace to be somewhat working out there, while it fails even with a small portion of scrutiny.
The most funny passage is in the gospel of John where the authors say: yeahyeah he is promised immanuel...just... umm don't take the name seriously it is just another one we can just mention as footnote just trust me bro.
It also fails as the second coming promised by "his kingdom shall come" when some of his listeners back the day shall not taste death. All of those listeners turned to dust and the promised kingdom of heaven did not arrive in their lifetime.
In summary: We have texts from a cult of people wanting that some world end event happened so that good wins over evil (like the horrific roman occupation) and then it didn't work out but you could not be a letdown to your community of followers.
And it did blow out of proportions from that time period with legends.
It reminds me of todays worldend conspiracy sects claiming the end comes in the 1920s and instead of ending the sects with the failed prophecy the sects did grow instead in number.
@@Anonymous-md2qpPeople like you are where the obnoxious reddit atheist view come from.
@@TTTristan1 "I'm not Christian anymore, but I dont assume Christians are just flat out lying to themselves." They kind of by definition are, though.
Nah, I need the whole series right now. This is actually an amazing, quick explanation
There's a reason that your content is watched by so many, you're good, really good, thank you.
As someone who isn't very religious but does believe in god, I find it absurd that someone could ignore the plain facts of science that show how the universe functions. If you believe that god created the universe then more so than some random 3000-year-old document, the evidence that the universe itself provides should be regarded as the true word of god or at least as close as we as humans can ever get to it. These creationist nutjobs make anyone who is even remotely spiritual look bad. Great job as always Dave! Keep fighting the good fight!
we need more theists like you, friend.
If all theists were like you, none of this useless discussion would be taking place.
Religion corrupts even that logic. There are no plain facts of science that religious people can’t deny. For example, the astronomer Lisle denies the evidence for the age of the universe by claiming that light travels to Earth at infinite speed, then slows down so that the round trip in any measurement is C.
I'm a life long atheist, but I'm open to the possibility that there was some being that started our universe, we might one day have this ability through science. The problem is that you still have to explain where that being came from.
We can explain our universe without the need to invoke a creator. So why bother?
they placed 3000-year-old document over The Universe itself( All truth are there in reality)
Fun fact: you can debunk the c-decay (the argument that the speed of light decays over time) claim with Trigonometry.
SN 1987-A is 168,000 light years away according to the model that the speed of light is constant. The ring of matter ejected from the star's equator years before the supernova occurred according to this model. Every time the supernova brightens, the ring around it brightens eight months later. The ring thus must be 2/3 of a light year away from the supernova for this model to work (or rather 0.658 ly.) You can measure the radius of the ring as 0.808 arcseconds, and this would suggest a distance of 168,000 light years. The universe thus must be 168 thousand years old or older, and this means that the star exploded 168,000 years before 1987. Let's assume the speed of light was faster in the past to account for this (which there is no evidence, see also PIDOOMA), so how would we need to make the speed of light decay? It cannot be linear decay, because the speed of light in a vacuum has not been observed to slow down. It must therefore be an exponential decay, which would account for the negligible supposed decay of the speed of light. If the universe was created 6,000 years ago, and the distance is 168,000 light years, that would mean that the speed of light must have been at least 28x the speed in the past on average. Let's assume for simplicity's sake that it was created 6,000 years ago and the speed of light was 28x the speed it would be now, meaning it started at 28²c (which is 784c.) If this were the case, then the object would be 168,000 light years away, right? Nope. The radius of the ring would necessarily be 784x further, making it a radius of 515.872 light years. Because there is a direct relationship between angle and size, if the object is twice the size, it must be twice as far away. 515.872 ly at 0.808 arcseconds would be drastically larger, and plugging in the numbers, it would make the distance 123,155,368 ly away. With this assumption the average speed of light being 28c, it would mean that the supernova exploded 4,398,406 years ago, meaning that the universe would therefore need to be 4,398,406 years old or older. Plugging in higher numbers would increase the age of the universe, not reduce it. (summarization of th-cam.com/video/nRmJbP25m-Y/w-d-xo.html)
tl;dr the faster the light was in the past, the longer the minimum age of the universe would need to be.
And to respond to the unfalsifiable claim that light was created on the path it was 6,000 years ago to make it appear that the universe is older than it is, I can argue that the universe was created last Thursday, and everything is just made to appear like it was billions of years old, and your memories are false.
The last point also makes god an incompetent fo oI who half assed it's creation because we now can literally see some stars mid birth and others mid death.
Creationism does not equal young Earth. There are many Old Earth creationists.
That's what I believe, that the universe was created about 6000 years ago with an apparent age. But I don't claim there is any proof of that other than what the bible says. My beliefs are based on faith not science, and use circular reasoning. The bible is true because it says it is true. That being said I find some science to be misleading. For example, I have not been persuaded that macroevolution exists given the information that is out there. I just don't see a clear and convincing fossil record showing what evolutionists claim, like sea animals evolving into land animals. They sure do draw some pretty cool pictures though.
As a Christian, I despise it when (as theinstituteforuniveraltr3629 said:) religious folk legislate laws based on our beliefs. Believing what you want to believe is fine, just don't force it onto others.
Why, though?
@@nploda1408 The baddies in the New Testament are the Roman state, and legalistic religious people. Again and again, Jesus calls us to personally choose actions based on sincere faith. It's not possible for us to legislate you into being a Christian and we're not told to try.
I wouldn't go as far as Kinetic, because when I vote I can't help voting as a Christian, and thinking about things through that lens. For me this usually means being more merciful and charitable than I want to be. But I don't buy the "Christian nationalist" project at all
@@nploda1408 why NOT force it??
Impossible expectation of people who believe it's their dictated/moral duty to correct society, and I assume that's more than a small portion of christianity. Appreciate the sentiment
@@PatrickMurphy-j2d I don't appreciate it
Thank you, Dave!! This deserves a thorough treatment that I know you can give!
Excellent overview, Professor Dave! I will be watching this entire series! Thanks for all you do!
Love this. Great idea. Hopefully other debunkings will happen.
My favorite is when they say the Earth can't be a single mile closer or further from the Sun or else the planet will be too hot/too cold for life. It's always a great time to remind them that Earth's orbit is elliptical and the variation in distance between the Earth and the Sun every year is about 3 million miles.
So clearly, the Earth's orbit can (and does) vary quite a lot without killing all life on Earth.
The habitable zone!! You’re right a mile difference will not do much but a several few thousand and it’s gg for life
@@npsick did you even read the comment you replied to?
@@npsick Um, the Earth's orbit varies by 3 million miles every year. So no, a few thousand miles wouldn't be the end of life. 😅
It might be helpful to those who haven't studied YEC as much as you have to clarify why YEC'ers believe the Earth is only about 6,000 years old (e.g., So and so begat so and so at the age of [insert ridiculous number of decades here], and died at the age of [insert ridiculous number of centuries here]).
Another stella video Dave! I’ve been watching your videos to help me become more enlightened in the field of science and I just began a new course on geologi. I thourpughly enjoy it and I have you to thank for that!! You reinvigorated me :D
People who claim to know God don't know anything about God. Even if the Creator exists, there is no reason to follow any of the human made creationist religions.
Well spinozism technically grants humans can know God with a relational view, yet Spinoza's beliefs are completely possible with science.
@@Colin-yu7pc Maybe but it is just a conjecture, just like if we're in a simulation.
@@sajanaryal6932 To say that is to technically say all metaphysics in conjecture, which it may be, depends on one's views.
@@Colin-yu7pc That is up to each person to decide, whatever they want to believe in. Some say the world is too brutal for there to be God while others insist there must be a loving deity. We could spend an entire lifetime indulging in these issues and not get anywhere. I am focused more on the Buddha's teachings as recorded in the Tipitaka right now so that I can understand mental phenomena better.
Divine Revelation disagrees.
I’d agree with you only that Truth is shown to be as such through Signs Wonders Miracles.
He Taught, Died, Resurrected and Ascended.
This knowledge comes firstly.
No proof of Muhammad being anything other than a caravan robber turned politician / military and religious leader Quran calls him just a warner, only in later Hadith do we see explicit miracle claims, the source texts on the life of the Buddha come from over 500 years after his death, with him claiming ignorance on many things, Zoroastrianism provides no proofs inorder that it might be vindicated other than those commonly available to all ultimate truth claims of a religious nature.
What sets Christianity apart has and will forever and always be: Jesus Christ the Lord who defeated death giving his Church the Kingdom of Heaven.
Are you familiar with the minimal facts argument? I find it a good place to start, if one objects to this line of reasoning a more in depth discussion is likely needed either with a Disciple or the King.
If that be the case I recommend William Paley contemporary of David Hume..
Blessings ❤
I love how creationists argue the big bang claiming it’s beyond our understanding and how we couldn’t possibly know and that blindly believing scientists makes you a sheep. They argue this by trying to rationalize an infinitely more complex and impossible being creating everything, and blindly believing anything that was written down in a book thousands of years ago and has been disproven a thousand times. And also, their belief system LITERALLY calls their followers “sheep” or “a heard” being led by (insert deity). The irony is almost too much to bear.
Their obliviousness is unsettling af
They also try to mock with their 'something coming from nothing' despite that being literally what genesis says.
@@Julian0101 but they pull the special pleading stuff on you with that one.
The shepherd is the sheep's friend....... until he leads them to the slaughter house, now he's their executioner 😅
@@Paul-nv5bw Yeah, from nothing by magic. Unless you think your god took a piece of himself to create things.
Dont worry, i have enough humility to NOT believe the whole universe was created just for me.
What a fantastic and succinct video. I can't wait to see the rest in the series.
It`s the worst enemy of creationists is to give the public an opportunity to learn Science, and that`s just what Professor Dave is doing with this series. Thank you for this Dave and keep up the great work!
This video is so well done, it's easy to see how much effort you put into your content. Your videos are getting me through med school, keep it up❤
you said spectroscopy and I remembered that time someone told you spectroscopy needs to be in a jar
I seem to remember a container.
That's the only way to keep it fresh!
It was Dave Weiss who claimed that during their “debate”.
But the important question... Was the jar in the chalckboard?
"Spectroscopy needs a container, that's my claim. I got no proof, I just hang my head in shame."
It's a shame we have to expend the time and effort of our best educators on debunking idiotic gobbledegook. Those who push false and demonstrably wrong anti-knowledge are a millstone around Humanity's neck. Thank you for your service in combatting stupidity Prof Dave.
Legendary work as always. Thank you for your service Dave.
Slight correction: much of the heaviest elements are formed not by supernovae of very heavy stars, but from two neutron stars colliding in a kilonova and the expelled neutronium degenerating and recombining to form them.
I did not know this. The universe is truly an endless source of marvels.
Thanks bro really appreciate your comment (and no there is no sarcasm in here I just really appreciate it)
Remember, folks: preachers are molded to display confidence and intimidate, so that those who don’t know better fall prey to their tactics and join their ranks.
Fight belief with knowledge!
All preachers? Every single one? I am personal friends with my church's pastor, and I can safely say he is a great man.
@@Skivv5 He didn't say that, but acting confident about things without cause is sales 101 and that's the job of the preacher - peddling snake oil.
You're not fighting belief, you're fighting blind faith. Everyone has beliefs.
@@ahall9839 Faith is blind by definition.
Beliefs can be founded upon evidence, or upon nothing. When it's the latter you say you "take it on faith" and when it's the former no f-word ever appears.
You’ve fulfilled my Christmas list making this series thank u father Dave
Have you noticed how many pseudo-scientific woo-woo ads there are on your videos? The internet, is not without a sense of humor (or at least irony) it seems. Also thank you for ALL of this you do fantastic work!
yeah the ads are placed by keyword so it doesn't differentiate between promoting and debunking things, it's pretty ridiculous 😂
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Nothing a new EU law and another $30 billion fine won't fix, eventually.
I`ve been waiting for this vid ever since i heard it will come out
As someone who grew up with AiG materials instead of science books, I really appreciate this.
That is so sad. I'm pleased that you eventually found your way out. Welcome to reality.
This is a masterpiece! Amazingly logical, thorough, and concise. Well done, Sir!
I'm so glad you talked about the green river formation varves, that is a fascinating example
3:24 I'm hoping you mention *Cdesign Proponentsists* as it stands as the single best evidence that ID is just creationism.
oh yes
Also keep in mind that whenever a theist says “you believe something came from nothing”, they are projecting.
The vast majority of the time, Abrahamic believers posit a certainty that their god created everything, even the components of the universe, and this created everything from a state of nothingness.
Which, quite besides the illogical nature of this notion, means that they believe the universe was created from nothing by their god.
The thing they can't (or won't?) understand is that the naturalistic worldview as regards the early universe or the beginnings of life aren't actually knowledge claims. Nobody but theists are claiming to actually know that matter or energy began to exist, _ex nihilo,_ and nobody but theists are actually claiming to know how life began. There's a world of difference between saying, "I dunno, maybe chemical evolution by a hydrothermal vent?" and the claim that "an immaterial mind from beyond space and time created everything by thinking about it."
Yep. "This arbitrary law applies to ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING...except our idea, because it wouldn't work otherwise."
The name for this sort of illogical leap is "special pleading."
There's actually a Christian "research journal" ( i.e. propaganda mill ) called Creation Ex Nihilo, which translates to Creation from nothing. Most creationist accusations are just projection and confessions.
I just like reminding Abrahamics that their baby bitch boy god, Yaweh, had to get fanficed into stardom.
If you push them *where* god did sit around and for how long he/she/it did in the supposed "nothing at all-ness" they start to rotate. Because this is not a rational approach to the world. It is a gut feeling approach. The idea behind is that they want to define the acts of thinking - meaning to have chains of thoughts not to be material brain operations, but magical/miraculous "immaterial" stuff, which they define or conflate with the term nothingness. So the convoluted tummy feeling they have is actually: _God or spirit would be nothing of solid substance but magical energy_ you shall never take into question. By pushing them further to say: You are aware that your mind is not a nothingnessburger but a chain of thought process being operated and this would also count for any other assumed agency - like a deity they try to assert - they are full of even more contradictions.
A mind is not magic.
A mind is not fairy dust energy that would hover in a nothingness imagination.
A mind is not a worshipworthy idol or deity.
A mind is not an unquestionable mystery box.
This is why apologists come up with nonsense statements like that their deity would be quote: "timeless" and "spaceless".
This is such a brilliant example of chaotic nonsense talk - as it highlights the way how emotional loaded statements in fact operate:
They assume time and space to be chains on the imaginary knuckles of their deity.
This is why they think the term "timeless" would refer to "not bound by time," Time however is not some sort of bounding it is actually a freedom grade (dimension) to have processes like thinking as such a process to be acted out and to be operated.
This includes to have also emotional switches like God in the bible to be happy and then wrathful and then forgiving at different events unrolling as freedom grade to have emotional awareness and not to be frozen in 1 single emotion as 1 very illustrative example or to have not even 1 moment in time to feel anything at all. Where even a child understands that if you underline that.
The same goes for the nothing of "spacelessness" where theists do the same tick game by imagining the term would men = "not bound by space";
Space is ALSO not a bounding/constriction, it is another freedom grade (3 spatial dimension) to offer the trait to exist/existence/to be to begin with:
Such as to be/exist in a general sense but also to be at localities like in your chair on Mars or anywhere else.
People have there also simply no opinion freedom, only because the english language and the term use in english is falsely emotionally imprinted.
In which humans confuse freedom with *restrictions* and ultimately *insuts* like "Hey you are nowhere" with *compliments* , because the person would think time aka a freedom grade would be a burden (termuse "bounding" in the idea as an *insultive restriction* ).
So religion reversed everything. Insuts are compliments, compliments are insults, freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom, nothing shall be something filled with a mind, atheists shall claim the world came from ex nihilo "out of nothing" not theists claiming something was poofed into being out of nowhere etc.
Check out Gutsick Gibbon if you want to hear more about the heat problem for flood theology.
Can we appreciate his time management skills i NEED him to drop a video on this
Fantastic opener to this topic, Prof Dave! I'll be re-watching this one and those to come many, many times; I'm quite certain of that!
Get the popcorn! dave dropped
You’re doing the Lord’s work Professor Dave.
Indeed, those who twist science for their own gain are disrespecting our reality from God at the end of the day. It’s on us to call them out.
@@ThisAintIt435Twist science? Or tell the truth ? The Lord is what uneducated peasants called their master .
Is this how far you have come you still need a superior to answer to?
Simpleton ?
@@ThisAintIt435I always held the position that if these religious types have such reverence for God, they should make full use of God's gift to them--their brains.
Been waiting for this series!!!
Great job Dave, its apparent that you put a tremendous amount of hard work and time in producing these series. Its greatly appreciated.
i was homeschooled because my mother wanted to keep me away from "liberal indoctrination" in public schools, and a big part of that "indoctrination" she wanted to avoid was anything suggesting young earth creationism might not be 100% true. your videos are enlightening and have really helped me catch up on the education i was denied as a kid.
also as an aside i had no idea radiometric dating aside from carbon dating even existed, i was always told carbon dating was the only thing possible and that any dates gotten via other forms of dating were actually achieved by carbon dating and then the whole bit about carbon dating's limitations. ugh.
Man.. Adapting to their mental gymnastics doesn't give any advantage over a discussion with them; since they will either ignore, deliberately misinterpret or commit other dishonest tactics. But it is important to learn this type of mindset to remind ourselves how *delusional and deceitful* some people are...
Good stuff Dave.
I have a hunch this will become one of my all-time favorite series.
Oh boy this is going to be awesome
Thank you Sir, fighting ignorance seems to be the final frontier. May you never lose your power of reason.
More excellent content , Dave. Thanks! Another series I look forward to.
Dave, great work as always, I love your content, but please change the background to black; my eyes can't handle the white color.
Nice work once again Dave.
Professor Dave... you're about to be have a long week... Terrence Howard and Billy Carson are going live tomorrow.... TOGETHER.
I can't even imagine what off the wall stuff we're going to hear 😂😂😂😂
Haha what? Where?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I was scrolling through Facebook and saw Billy Carson tag him and say they were going live tomorrow at 7 on billys podcasy. I'm not even sure what his podcast is called tbh. I checked TH-cam and it's scheduled too. It's captioned " going to break the internet " 😂🤣
@@jordanfuqua62 Don't include their podcast, no one goes to their channel.
@@jordanfuqua62Of fucking course its facebook 💀
Bro… I love your videos. Keep on doing what you do. We need more people creating beneficial educational content like these.
I love that you make long content. Not only because long content is awesome but also because it makes the creationists that want to ‘debunk’ you have to work harder haha
If there were an all powerful creator with enormous magical powers, that it wouldn’t have needed the universal constants, it could have poofed life into existence under every circumstance.
The fine tuning argument is hilarious to me because it really just demonstrates a failure to be able to do basic math
Only 5 minutes in and I know this is going to be a fantastic series! Can't wait to watch every one of them!
I love the radiometric dating stuff its so cool thanks dave
Can't wait for part two! I have learned so much from your videos, Dave. And would like you to know that your expertise in these many fields has enabled me to actually get my mom to see her creationist mindset from a different perspective. Your coverage of the many MANY theists who attempt to spread God like an undetected virus, has wisened her up, and she now no longer accepts the Bible as fact and stopped trying to enforce religious beliefs upon me and my daughter. Your dedication to science and understanding has enabled my family to be whole once again, and for that I am eternally grateful. Keep doing God's work (pun intended 😉)
This is why I do it!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains this is why you're my favorite! (Well that and the way you mercilessly expose all the snake oil salesmen without beating around the bush on how stupid their "ideas" are) as some debunkers don't want to say the harsh truths that come along with exposing these fallacious frauds.
P.S. Watch out for lighting bolts from the imaginary sky daddy, I heard he's pretty mad at you 😏🤣
Your comment on Gobekli Tepe needs some clarification - it is not the oldest archaeological site known - Gobekli Tepe is the oldest known human construction site (definitive shelters) - though one could make an argument that the tent pegs found in the Monte Verde site in South America signify a sort of construction as well. Of course, there are far older sites worldwide (any of the Neandertal caves in Europe, for example).
With the fine-tuning argument theists make it sounds like their god had to create life while constrained by the constants, but in their mythology that god also created the constants, so if it wanted to, it could set the speed of light to 420,420,420 m/s and make it so that's the value of c that works in this universe.
They are incosistent and omnipotent deity they envision is also needed to design a paradise/heaven place better than life on Earth and also defy any laws of thermodynamics in case of an eternal hellfire place, which has also not fine tuning at all when lifeforms do not immediately burn to ash but sustain sentient torture and other horror images the humans made up. The whole arguments are inconsistent and only there to delude and hypnotize people to stay sheepishly close to their dogma.
This could possibly be the most informative video I have ever watched. Thank you for sharing...so much to learn here!
We are on a planet spinning and rotating around our Sun in a goldilocks band supporting "life". We are conscious (at least many humans). With all the planets we are on a voyage with our sun in the Milky Way, being somewhere in the boondocks on one of the "arms" in our Solar journey. This story is remarkable in itself and rather open ended with possibilities. The quest for knowledge and understanding takes a lot of intellectual courage to admit we know so little (even though we know so much). Thank you for your videos, Sir.
And then the young Earth creationist replies "my momma didn't come from a monkaaay!"
thats cause she literally still is 💀
If'n people done came from monkeys, _'den for why is there still monkeys, college boy?!!_
@@shassett79 I just learned the perfect retort: If people came from dust, how's there's still dust then? :P
Oh my goodness, thanks so much for this Dave.
As a religious person I freakin' love this! Thank you Dave yet for another banger.
Here are the types of creationism according to me:
1. Cockroach creationism - yes, even bugs can score better on exam day.
2. Monkey creationism - this is exactly how I imagine monkeys operate tho I feel like I'm too harsh on our ape brothers.
3. Copium creationism - "Ok guys, it didn't happen as quick as the Bible say, but it was still quick!"
4. More copium creationism - "Guys trust me, we just misinterpreted the word day!"
5. Debatable creationism - you could probably debate such person without losing too many brain cells, tho they would still be wrong and shortsighted on many topics.
6 Popular creationism - probably the most dangerous of them all, since it tries a lot to sound scientific and possible so many people will actually believe it. It still denies huge amount of science.
7. Non omni-god creationism - these people say that an omni-being created the universe, yet it had to interfear once again to create life. Would't such being foreseen the future, thus create an universe where life is already possible?
8. Scientific creationism - people who won't deny any science at all, but believe that behind it all is all powerfull being, hidden from us outside spacetime itself.
Looking forward to the rest of the videos in the series.
Short, simple, and to the point. Great work as always big guy!
There is one group of people who do make the claim that something can come from nothing - It is creationists.
According to them, God made everything from nothing. I don't see how they can argue otherwise.
But since we know that something cannot come from nothing, we should assume that something always was. Existence itself could be eternal.
But it also does a lot of damage to the creationist argument that God created everything, and that prior to God nothing existed.
We have 2 main problems the majority of people do not get. 1 problem is that the *to create* _verb_ activity is much younger in time than the age of the universe. Other activities like the _to swim_ activities are actually older in time than the _to create_ activity. There did spores and jellyfish perform swimming in paleozoic oceans already millions of years before the first act of any mindful creation was ever executed as 1 example.
To argue that the universe would be the result of the _to create_ activity is similarly nonsensical as arguing that the universe did fall off a saddle of a mule rider, riding by. Thinking that the "out of the saddle falling" activity and the "riding on a mule" activity would be older in time than the universe. Or that mules, riders, saddles would be older than time basically. It is human imagination.
The second problem is that in all worldviews humans ever believed or came up with: *uncausedness* is the actual answer - ALWAYS. This is a usual mistake philosophical laypeople do. In classical arguements it is this:
A.) Existence just has a countable number of timeframes/hours which were not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer)
B.) Existence goes endlessly into a never ending past which as chain was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer)
Theism does not change that even a tiny little bit.
If you for example deny the young age of the *to create* (verb) activity.
You can construct a C.) which would be:
C.) Existence was made from an already existing creator, which was not caused as "philosophical Alpha&Omega" or an aristotelian "unmoved mover" - as this God concept was not made it was uncaused (UNCAUSEDNESS is like in A.) and B.) here STILL the final answer).
The reason why theists come up with this is that they deeply wish that their feelings shall matter, while they do not matter. To be loved by a surrogate fatherfigure to "smile upon them" from "the heavens" or something.
However meaningfulness feelings simply do NOT matter by being externally projected. An uncaused "skydaddy" who loves somebody "very much", is there just a foreign body - a parasite that stands in the way to accept UNCAUSEDNESS as final answer in all worldviews. INCLUDING that God/the creator agent was not caused.
This goes even deeper like:
D.) Existence was made from an already existing creator, which was made by a META-maker, which was made by another Meta-Meta-Maker or a combination of existence forming makers which where made in an endless chain of Deities/Creators or existences prior while the chain of deities and existences itself was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer)
E.) Existence here is a mere simulation (Like the matrix) with a countable number of hours of a more primary existence which has itself only a countable number of hours which was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is still the final answer).
F.) Existence is a time circle/time travelerer itself and at the end of time it beams itself into the past to be its own origin, which is a circle that was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS remains there the final answer).
G.) Existence is a combination of several of the given previous answers.
So could our existence be a simulation E that was made by a Maker D outside of the simulation, while the maker itself was only a simulation E2 of a bigger meta-universalserver, which was made by a superMaker D2 which lived in the first premordial basic world (the actual "existence") which has only a countable number of timeframes/actions to be performed and was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is STILL the final answer)
or
that the first existence there is like in
F.) a time traveler causing itself in the meta existence all the time anew where simulations appear like growing branches from a tree in each time circle, while this re-newal-circle was itself never caused. (UNCAUSEDNESS is yet again the final answer)
Those are sophistry debates about made-up possibilities if we grant the nonsense assertion that for example creation activities would be older in time than they ACTUALLY are.
This distracts people to face UNCAUSEDNESS in all worldviews per se.
While "supernatural"/"non-material"/"immaterial" remains just additional bogus talk there.
Like with invented time travels or matrix simulations or seeing everything without eye organs or camera mechanism or seeing organ equivalents.
This is why regardless if you are a theist or an atheist or an agnostic or whatever in ALL worldviews in existence UNCAUSEDNESS is always ALWAYS the final answer to this question.
Be it a finite countable number of events or an infintie chain which are both not caused in the end.
It's turtles all the way down
@@flawedgenius Unless down isn't a thing.
8. Deistic Evolution should have been the natural consequence for any deeply religious person to arrive. It's the only one that is also acceptable imo, as it's naturally shifts the discussion into more philosophical spheres. And honestly: If I ever would start believing into god or gods, that would be the path I would take.
On dapper dinosaur's channel, we have a bingo card with their overused arguments
hello fellow dapper dinosaur viewer
Certainly better than making it a drinking game. So many viewers would get alcohol poisoning.
Atheism could be more publicly respected if we had more Professor Daves, and less weird autists with cartoon avatars.
YES!! This is exactly the series I didn’t even know how bad I wanted and needed! Thank you Professor Dave!
I love it! This could be a great series of videos to create guides for debunking all sorts of various talking points.
I remember when my high school teacher showed the class a video/movie supporting creationist intelligent design. It led me to start researching proof of god so I could convince others of christianity. Long story short, I'm atheist now.
That sounds like a personal problem and no reason to be an atheist
But hey, the most deluded either be one more deluded by doubling down or become atheist, afraid of the other end
@@aceclover758 lol
Twist ending! I absolutely laughed
One things that's difficult to fight is that frequently you're fighting against what people WANT to believe.
So true!
Facts!!!!
10:19? Spectroscopy, on the vaccuum of space? But how could we do that without a container?!?
Why would you need a container to study light?
LOL! Good reference…
@@stambo1983Some idiot used this idea a while back, but understanding the different types of spectroscopy. It’s a satirical reference.
I debated with creatinists years ago and your categories of different creatinistig beliefs are real good 😊
thank you for this video and greetings from germany
Thank you Professor Dave, I would give my right arm to know half of what you know and the power to construct meaningful explanations. If the majority of people on earth would have your logic and knowledge, we would be so much better. One can only dream of a species so well informed, logical and non-biased. I'm in the process of watching all your videos, in time. I sincerely regret that I can't incorporate and remember everything you've put out, even so, you've helped me a lot by giving me a lot of structure, knowledge and reasoning perspective to understand the universe even better. I truly appreciate you and, if I could, I would give you a very long life so that your spark of intelligence never fades. You're a beacon of hope for all of us that embrace science and reason, may your light never dim. Thank you again for all the effort and passion you're putting in. Wish I had a friend like you in my personal life with whom to talk at length about many things.
If a deity is all powerful and wants me to believe in him. Then the fact that i have no proof of his his existence is absolute proof he doesn't exist