Using the term "higher power" isn't some generous olive branch. It's a dishonest way to pretend you're not talking about YOUR specific god and a feeble attempt to make your assertions sound more plausible.
I think the even bigger issue was conflating first cause and first mover. I think a ton of atheists will agree that, it’s reasonable to think there was a “first thing that happened”, although it’s entirely possible for time to extend infinitely into the past, exactly the same as it extends infinitely into he future. And that doesn’t run into the issue of infinite regress, because the fact that we experience time in one direction, but that doesn’t mean that’s the way it actually moves. Afaik, there’s no reason that time can’t have an origin point, and then extend into BOTH the future and the past infinitely from that point. So we would exist a finite amount of time from that point, even though there is infinite time before us. Whether that finite origin point is before OR after the current time. But anyway, the problem is, what makes you think the first cause was a *person*. THAT is what is smuggled in with the word “mover”. Why is an uncaused person who has infinite power that wanted to create this specific universe, more likely than an uncaused extra-dimensional mindless natural force that would inevitably eventually create this specific universe?
@@dansmith7009 I'm not sure that's accurate. I'm no expert, but from everything I've ever heard from physicists, time only flows in one direction. Even if you created a time machine, you would only be able to travel into the future, never the past. Please correct me if I've missed something.
@ afaik, you missed an important assumption. Time does only flow in one direction, as far as we can tell, BUT we have no way to determine if it is actually moving from past to future, or if that is only the way that we are able to experience it. If, according to underlying reality, time flows from the future to the past, with causes following after effects, and we only experience it going from the past to the future, then we would observe exactly the same thing. And someone “outside” the universe would see events happen in the reverse order that we experience them. Not sure if there is anything experimental that’s even theoretically possible to determine the difference. We do see *some* models with an origin point of time before the Big Bang, but even if we could prove that was accurate, we wouldn’t be able to tell if that was the origin point or the end point. My point was there isn’t even a reason to assume that time had an origin point that is the first day or the last day. You can count from 0 to infinity, and 0 would be your starting point. But you can also count from 0 to BOTH infinity, and negative infinity, and that could also be the case, where the origin point of time could be a finite distance into either the future or the past. And things moving backwards in time, time would be moving in only one direction, with all effects preceding causes. Kind of like how you have no idea if the book you are reading was printed from first page to last, last page to first, or starting with the middle of the book. All three of them, what you experience is starting on the first page and moving in one direction to the last page.
I saw Jackie from Metaphysical Substrate in the chyron on the first few seconds of this clip and I admire the hosts' ability to recover from his calls so quickly.
These calls are so useless, the caller rarely listens to points that negates or invalidates their position. Repeating an invalidated position with new words does not validate it somehow. What would be so refreshing is a caller stating: huh, I never thought about it that way. Fear of losing face, fixation to an idea or just plain “well how else can it be”? How closed can your mind be?
I love the "I don't want to sound unreasonable", and "I don't want to commit fallacies". (You say this because you know you can't escape doing these things.) Q. Does every apologetic ultimately boil down to incredulity?
To say, "You say this because you know you can't escape doing these things," is engaging in a strawman fallacy. Not everyone with questions about their beliefs are so online debate bro brained where they know enough about fallacies that they know if they are committing one or not. Having the self-awareness to be up front about it, like this caller was, is entirely reasonable. Also, stating that you don't want to sound unreasonable doesn't mean they KNOW they are being unreasonable. It means they know that they might come across to the person they are speaking to as unreasonable, even though they believe their points are completely reasonable. Believing every apologist is being incredulous is more of a statement on how the incredulity seems to be coming from inside the house.
@@brianmonks8657 i dont understand X so therefore science. Kinda sounds like God of the gap but atheists use the word "Science" insted. Like slap it all over without really thinking it thru :)
@niklaslundstrom7633 Except you guys use assertions to try to prove your point while not taking your limitations into account. Science doesn't pretend to know everything and acknowledges it's limitations. I rather not use blind faith to cover my lack of knowledge.
Isn't it strange how apologists - amateur and professional - frequently attempt to legitimize their religious beliefs by appealing to science, but the reverse never seems to happen.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 Most of the reasons why theists believe in a god are emotional, but not all of them. sometimes believing in a god is simply necessary for survival. There are people who are actually rationally convinced of the concept of a god. Some actually find it rationally convincing that the universe must have a creator.
The premises that everything has a cause, and that there can be no infinite regression, are both unproven claims that at the edges of quantum physics research both appear to be false. Then "god" is specially plead into both of these claims, by being both "uncaused" and "infinite."
@nealjroberts4050a good answer? No. The most common answer I hear is basically zeno’s paradox, which is the idea that if you shoot an arrow at a moving target, there are infinite points along that line, so the arrow can never arrive because each movement of the arrow means the target moves also, and there are an infinite number of smaller and smaller fractions to be measured. So if there is infinite time, we could never have arrived at the current moment, because you can’t get past infinity, only a finite amount of time could have passed. Which fails because, even though we experience time moving forward, we have no reason to think that the actual origin point of time is in the past, rather than the future, but more importantly, any brute fact is ALSO inherently illogical. And I don’t see any reason to prefer it.
@ yep. And as far as I can tell that’s the standard apologetic “it’s impossible for there to be infinite time in the past, because we could never have reached this point in time then!” While ignoring that they are demanding an infinite god as well. Ir doing the tap dance where they say god is “timeless” which somehow means both 0 time, and also infinitely much time. If something exists for 0 time before the existence of time, definitionally it began existing at the same moment time started.
Why was the perfect being so dissatisfied with its solo existence that it needed to create a universe with beings to worship it? Doesn’t that mean it wasn’t perfect?
Totally agree, if my life was perfect and I was perfect, can’t imagine I’d want for anything. Nor would I look at someone and say you’re perfect but you could use this or that. Doesn’t seem to track at all.
Trying to argue for a non-specific god is a total non-starter. If there is a god it is specific. Just like how every atom is a specific element there are no non-specific elements god would need to be the same. It's just a stop gap to prep your brain to accept things that can't be proven.
What I don't get is when you ask a christian how long we would be in heaven or hell, they say "for eternity". Well, if you can imagine an eternity in the future, how can you not imagine an eternity in the past.
6:06 This very thought led me to the conclusion that, in one way or another, the cosmos is eternal. It's hard for us, being linear thinkers, to imagine something that is eternal, but I think that's just our limitation. Then, if it's a loop, of there's a big crunch, if universe pops in and out of the cosmos, I don't really know. What I know is that going back in time in a linear way doesn't make sense to me.
A point on one of his arguments: He claims that all "orthodox theists" believe that god came before reality. There are numerous polytheistic religions which hold to a different view of reality than the one he's stating here. He's right that it's not just Christianity, but he's objectively wrong to claim that it's ubiquitous among theistic worldviews.
I'm agnostic pantheist. We explicitly hold the universe being _before_ gods. Some hold the universe is a god but that's still not "gods before the universe". Too many fellow theists are arrogant idiots.
According to science, the ultimate cause of the universe isn't any god. That's because there is a creator of every god created by the numerous human groups. And the ultimate creator, the uncaused first cause is none other than the mighty Nogod. Kneel before Nogod, puny humans! Also, kneel before Zod.
How long O sleeper will you despise truth? How long O sleeper will you walk in lawlessness? How long O sleeper will you remain dead in your transgressions? Now God commands you to repent of your sins and turn to Him
Not understanding something doesn't mean God did it. Gonna start copy/pasting this under every random pointless bible quote comment that pops up unrelated to anything. At least this is objectively true.
Matter and Energy are interchangeable, but they are not the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy and vice versa but they are not the same thing.
@@drg8687 I'd say matter is a subset or form of energy. They sort of are the same thing, but there's a reason we use different words for them. Matter IS energy, but it's a certain kind of energy. It is rest energy. That is what Einstein was telling us with E²= (mc²)² + (pc)²
@@turnb056 "According to Einstein's theory of relativity, energy and matter are interchangeable and can be converted from one form to the other under the right conditions. For example, nuclear fission reactions transform matter into energy. " Saying they are the same thing is incorrect. Also, what are the other subsets in your worldview? There's energy, and matter is a subset. What are the other subsets?
The apologists accept the laws of thermodynamics, so need to answer a question. If god created the universe, what energy did he convert into the universe's objects?
Interesting discussion, but the 'first mover' argument seems to rely heavily on special pleading without addressing the underlying logical inconsistencies
To better state the point, we could say that god is ALL good, but not only good. For instance, I could have ALL the twinkies but not ONLY twinkies I may also have all the ding dongs.
@@EdithBromfeld "Who argues God creates all concepts? " Theists as they say God created everything... Therefore if a concept is created, then God must have created it... and by creating the person who came up with the concept even if a god did not do it directly then god created the means for the concept to exist... And since your god is supposedly all knowing then it knew that before doing it so it was intentional....
I just had a thought that's weird. Magnetic fields being donutty bois, wouldn't going north from the north pole take you to the south pole, by way of "down" through the middle?
The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.
@Ghalaghor_McAllistor How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’ Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.
Everyone has the same problem regarding the beginning. How is the universe even here? Was there a first thing and if so how did that happen? Theists do not have an advantage here.
I once tried integrating e raised x, but I found it made no difference, therefore God. That's how first mover advocates sound to me. They stumble upon some mathematical identity or fundamental law of physics, they don't understand the "why" of it, and they see a God-shaped gap there rather than trying to understand the why.
13:32 "Does that make sense?" This is a kind of question that has travelled over here to UK. What does it mean? Listening to the context it seems to mean that the speaker is trying to claim that they _are_ making sense, and that they expect the listener to accept the claim.
9:52 "There has to be a beginning point." Why? Incredulity and/or ignorance does not make an argument. The only honest claim to be made here is that we do not know what happened before the Planck Era. We know for a fact that the laws of physics as we know them break down during that time, so we cannot make any knowledgeable assertion as to what went on before then.
The theist accepts that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" so he accepts that there's one thing his god did not create - energy, right? Since matter is really condensed energy then there's nothing left for his god to have created.
I don't think there is a beginning or end when it comes to the universe. It just is. Much like there is always something even when there seems to be nothing. Concepts theists often seem to have a hard time grasping. Something can't come from nothing. Who said nothing isn't something.
This caller is one of the best that I have heard. He might be wrong but answers questions. i really would like to know that there's a God. I have tried to believe but I have been unable.
Mass-energy is conserved according to E =mc² ..mass and energy are interchangeable at subatomic levels... it's how nuclear bombs /energy and stars work
Dear Theists, You've never once presented evidence proving the existence of a deity and many of you do nothing but dodge and deflect when challenged to a live one on one debate so how posting here a good use of your time?
For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths. The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display His craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make Him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world
@@STOP-n-READ And you just proved again that he is correct and that theists have no evidence... "The heavens proclaim the glory of God." No, they don't. Grow up...this is not the bronze age anymore...
@t800fantasm2 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” Day after day creation speaks with silent words; night after night creation renders illustration testifying of the Creator. For this reason you’re without excuse.
@@STOP-n-READ 👈👈👈 Beware the FloBLoJokeBoi sent here by *SATAN, The Great Deceiver,* to try and convince good, kind, and caring atheists that slaughtering infants to punish their parents is not a heinously *EVIL* act!
It seems that Law whose name I xan never recall is right: Any apologist (usually theist) bringing up thermodynamics won't present the Laws of Thermodynamics correctly.
*Carnot's Law* *Whenever a bible babbler invokes the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an argument for some kind g0d, they have lost the argument and can be dismissed on the spot!!*
@@Dr.James.Science.Ph.D "That Force can be none other than the supernatural God of the Bible. " It's not... 1... Even if it was fine tuned. That doesn't prove a God exists... It doesn't prove any god exists. Maybe there are eternal beings from other dimensions or universes that can fine tune universes... Maybe it's their function... 2... A fine tuned universe supports the idea of our far off future descendants traveling back in time and seeding the universe just the right amount to ensure they exist. 3... If space and time are in an infinite loop then the future may flow into the past and create it... Perhaps fine tuning is a cumulative effect of slight leaks form the old universe as each new universe is in turn formed. 4... Perhaps there is a simple cause that no one has ever thought of before...
If God exists, he’s like an absentee landlord-collects rent, never fixes anything, and expects you to thank him for the privilege of living in his crumbling building.
Any time a theist wants to use science to support their god claim, I ask to point to their peer-reviewed articles in reputable academic, scientific journals. They never have them.
None the theists I've run into even know how to cite anything. They think repositories such as Pubmed and arXiv are the publishing journals. They don't know the format even so don't think the author names need to be included. They are just clueless, especially since none of them can even read a research paper. Total toddler scientists.
@@ChallengeYourBeliefs What difference does it make? Isn't the information in the article more important? The highlights for the original articles and scientists involved are there for you to see, nevertheless. You didn't even know sodium fluoride was one of the main ingredients in rat poison. Look- @queuecee2 _"The toddler scientist now claims that I said sodium fluoride is not in fluoridated water. He's confusing his lie that sodium fluoride was used in rodenticide. So dumb."_
I have a thought about the universe we are in. It occurs to me that our universe was created within another universe and that this universe, over trillions of years, stretched to such an incredible extent that fractures appeared. One of these fractures created what we now call these days the "Big Bang'.
Georges Lemaître proposed that the universe emerged from a "primeval atom" in 1931, introducing the modern notion of the Big Bang. Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He coined the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949. It was said by George Gamow and his opponents that Hoyle intended to be pejorative, and the script from which he read aloud was interpreted by his opponents to be "vain, one-sided, insulting, not worthy of the BBC". Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for the radio audience.
@@Disturbed0neGaming Georges Lemaitre is the father of the Big Bang, but the name “Big Bang” comes from Fred Hoyle in a radio program to discredit this theory.
The caller was evidently too cowardly to pronounce Jesus as the creator of the universe. Rehashed Aquinas stuff is still nonsensical. Special pleading for his "prime mover" doesn't answer any actual questions.
What do you call something that exists outside of space and time, can violate all the laws of physics, and can’t be detected by any means known to humanity? And on an unrelated note, how would you describe something that does not exist?
A wiseman sees danger ahead (death) and prepares for it, but the simpleton proceeds onward in careless ease It’s appointed to you once to die, then comes the judgment Whoever calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved
Everyone who acknowledges Me (Jesus) publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But everyone who denies Me here on earth, I will also deny before My Father in heaven.
@@STOP-n-READ 👈👈👈 Beware the FloBLoJokeBoi sent here by *SATAN, The Great Deceiver,* to try and convince good, kind, and caring atheists that slaughtering infants to punish their parents is not a heinously *EVIL* act!
@@STOP-n-READ Vishnu, the sustainer of the universe and all life in it, thanks you for your worship of him, even if you are doing it improperly by way of your jesus proxy. Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 23: "Even those who are devotees of other gods, and who worship them with faith, actually worship me alone, O son of Kunti, but in an improper way."
Yet another person who took one look at thermodynamics and decided they were an expert on its "secret meaning" before they even came to understand it in the slightest.
Caller: "Genesis 1:1...in the beginning"...they don't even know who wrote the bible and now he is trying to give it credence by creating some cosmological concept of the start of the universe?
@@t800fantasm2 As the "Firmament" description is Babylonian in concept. The Hebrews had no astronomical understanding by observations in the ancient world.
If and this is a massive if, there is a higher intelligence etc, it is so far beyond our understanding that we have absolutely no way of explaining it.or quantifying it. That intelligence would not even spend a millisecond trying to explain itself to us.
Even if there was a higher power/ first mover who caused the universe, it is entirely possible that the prime mover only existed up to the big bang and once the universe was "kicked started" the prime mover said "my job here is done" and ceased to exist. If this is an argument for the existence of God it fails. It might establish there was once a God. It could never prove there is still a first mover.
Why does is it that the big bang is seen as the beginning of time and space? Although everything is condensed into a single point, a singularity does take up space and it would seem intuitive that time would pass for it. Just because I can vacuum pack my socks into an area smaller than a golf ball doesn't mean time and space stop existing for them.
No because time is the record of things happening. Before the singularity expansion, there were no things to move. Not one single atom. Therefore no time.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 unless you are claiming the singularity popped into existence and at that point time began, it exists, therefore it takes up space and thus also exists in time. If there was a moment where the singularity existed before the event of the expansion, a moment is a measure of time.
Why are they doing 3 hosts at once. There already wasn’t enough time for two hosts and now we have three. Just another stone thrown into my bucket making me question how AxP and the ACA are being run since it just keeps getting worse and more annoying
The “matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed therefore god created matter and energy” as an argument is getting pretty tiresome in its absurdity.
The universe can't be infinite but God can, the universe can't have always been but God can, everything has a beginning except God... religion is nothing more than childish "nuh uh muh God!
I need to correct Valkai, he made a very incorrect statement that I hear frequently. The theory of the Big Bang does NOT include a singularity. The Big Bang Theory begins a fraction of a second after expansion. It does not state or imply that there was a singularity, in fact, most scientist, believe that a singularity is not even physically possible. A singularity is where our mathematics breakdown and it is only theoretical and not even probable.
This is one of those times I wish a biblical scholar had been present. The caller's argument falls apart when you consider how Genesis 1:1 is most likely rendered in Hebrew. The phrase often translated as "In the beginning" (בְּרֵאשִׁית) is in the construct state, meaning it should read "When God began," and the word בָּרָא, usually translated as "created," can also mean "shaped" or "ordered." A more accurate translation would be: "When God began shaping the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void." This rendering completely undermines the argument, as it aligns with the first law of thermodynamics-God isn't creating out of nothing but reshaping pre-existing material.
@janusgeminus21 Yet, as you have stated, it is still GOD who is doing the creating and reshaping...This might bring some to question just HOW LONG is eternity past and HOW MANY TIMES has God created and reshaped the universe? Consider Revelation 21:1 "Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea". God's Word says He makes a 'people' for Himself' - those who through thick and thin CHOOSE Him. I suspect He has been populating His Kingdom - and will continue to do so - for everlasting. John 3 16 invites all to know His love and everlasting promise as they draw near to Him and He draws near to them.
@@wwlib5390 yes, according to Genesis it in indeed Elohim who is doing the shaping. My point is that the caller's argument of: 1. There must be a prime mover; 2. Because 1:1 says God created; 3. Thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore God, falls apart if you use a more accurate rendering of Genesis 1:1. I'm merely showing how this specific argument is nullified when a more accurate translation is used.
@@janusgeminus21 What if God created once all that was needed for each universe that has ever been - at the BEGINNING - THEN established the Laws that have run the universe(s) ever since. There HAS to be a beginning. God identifies Himself as IAM. I realize some don't believe anything He says, but apart from God being the Beginning, I can't come up with an alternative - can you? I see the beginning of 'our' universe described in Genesis. I see the beginning of the 'next' universe in Revelation.
If there was nothing. Then there would be nobody to ask why isn't there something rather nothing. It's a pointless question. Secondly.. If thing A . (Some kind of higher power) can exist eternally without cause. Then so can thing B. (The universe) in some shape or form.
It feels to me like the god people believe in reflects the time in which they live. So pre-civilisation our gods were nature spirits who controlled the weather and the harvest, the animals (our prey and predators) and the seasons. As we constructed more complex societies and began taking dominion over nature so our gods changed to mirror things like war, love and justice. These gods are clearly still an influence at the start of the Bible. Speaking of which, as religion became a tool of control, so the single one-god-to-rule-them-all emerged with a book of law, mythology and shared goals. As science has developed so this god has been reinterpreted as more loving (our improved morality), more of a designer (our understanding of biology) and more cosmological (the first mover). It's interesting that new religions like Mormonism and Scientology have emerged at this time, and fascinating to ponder what the picture might be in 500 years.
@vladimirimp that is a very well thought out comment. Do you suppose that 'God' changed or is it our understanding that enabled us to relate to a God who is described as our Creator. Do you suppose that He revealed Himself to very early civilizations as the Creator of everything - sun, moon, trees, animals, rivers, etc, and that man then 'assigned' gods for each of these creations, and then, as time went on, the revelation of one God was finally received?
@@wwlib5390 I suppose it's a human-fabricated invention that has served a useful function in our evolutionary journey. If I imagine two scenarios; one in which God is real and one in which he isn't; and then I look at what we see and wonder which looks more expected, then the scenario in which God isn't real seems more likely. Because 'of course' if humans invented him we'd have multiple contradictory religions, 'of course' people would have to do God's work for him (wars, proselytising, punishment), 'of course' there'd be silence with prayers, children suffering horrific illness and the powerful dominating others. 'Of course' there'd be things that believers once ascribed to God (e.g. weather, gender of children, fortune, falling pregnant, design of biology, design of geology) that we'd find different causes for. It's much harder the other way around. Why would a real god be invisible? Why would it be silent? Why would it allow believers to be determined by geography? Why would it send thinking people to non-belief? Why would it communicate through a medium knowing how misunderstood it would be? To invent excuses for all these things is the evidence that it's not real. So to my point, it's a human need that's being served by a fictional god, and that's why that fictional god changes through time.
@@vladimirimp I cannot fathom, nor does it seem at all logical that all the universe began by some real lucky chance that could sustain life as we know it. I cannot fathom that the question, 'which came first - the chicken or the egg?” can have NEITHER answer be correct if evolution is our only explanation. I cannot fathom why, of all the life-forms on the earth, mankind is the only one who feels the need to go to college, write books, smelt metals, build rockets to the moon - for certainly the 'building blocks' of all that ability and knowledge must be available in nature somewhere and can be applied equally to all lifeforms - or at least what we term the 'higher life-forms'. Perhaps it is because two minds can think and see things differently, tho they start with the same visible materials. I cannot fathom that there is no God behind this Creation. God makes sense to me. Randomness and luck of the draw does not. That caused my understanding that 'there is a God' established in my early childhood to progress to taking the journey to find out if I could ascertain more than just simple 'there must be' to 'there is'. The Bible says that the Gospels were written "that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His Name' and that, if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. So I took that step - and then took another, and another. Each step provided a tiny bit of evidence - just enough to test that evidence to see if it would lead to more so I could choose to continue or give up - and it did, tiny bits at a time - an answered prayer, a gift of provision when I was lacking, a gift of plenty to share abundantly, a healing, a deliverance, a word of knowledge that opened a whole section of formerly-confusing Scripture, peace in incredible turmoil - and on and on for over 40 years. Jesus has revealed Himself as present in my life countless times and in countless ways. So much so, that I can no more deny His existence than I could say there is no sun in the sky. That is my testimony. I can see where you are coming from - and I would guess most everyone has thought as you have. I just want to encourage you to 'think longer.' I wish you well.
@@wwlib5390 No one but creationists refer to the origins of the universe as a lucky accident. Additionally, claiming only randomness or intended order is a false dichotomy. Nonrandomness doesn't require agency to exist.
@07:00 Jim tries to talk about Bell’s theorem. For which the 2022 Nobel Prize was awarded to Aspect, Clauser and Zellinger for their work on quantum entanglement. This does nothing to invalidate the claim that everything that beguines to exist has a cause. Jim is wrong here. Theists who want to argue that the universe began to exist need to prove that. They need to do a little more than special pleading and god of the gaps.
Agreed. Jim, i think sometimes tries too hard to seem like he knows the science. The Bell's theorem work only says that there are no hidden variables that account for the entanglement, not that causality doesn't apply.
I've always been baffled by how people will pick a thing that vaguely reminds them of something else and then just conflate the two. Infinity is god? The concept of a number increasing in value without ever stopping is god because god is so (infinitely) kind? That is a complete non sequitur. No wonder you're a theist when you walk around calling random things god for no reason.
Science is not a forever answer, it is a forever inquiry.
"forever inquiry"
That's good... one of the better comments I've read today...
Using the term "higher power" isn't some generous olive branch. It's a dishonest way to pretend you're not talking about YOUR specific god and a feeble attempt to make your assertions sound more plausible.
Yeah, take away the fallacies in the first mover, the argument is really "MY FIRST MOVER WHO SAYS I AM RIGHT AND GOOD AND JUSTIFIED."
He immediately cited Aquinas. Proves your point.
I think the even bigger issue was conflating first cause and first mover.
I think a ton of atheists will agree that, it’s reasonable to think there was a “first thing that happened”, although it’s entirely possible for time to extend infinitely into the past, exactly the same as it extends infinitely into he future. And that doesn’t run into the issue of infinite regress, because the fact that we experience time in one direction, but that doesn’t mean that’s the way it actually moves. Afaik, there’s no reason that time can’t have an origin point, and then extend into BOTH the future and the past infinitely from that point. So we would exist a finite amount of time from that point, even though there is infinite time before us. Whether that finite origin point is before OR after the current time.
But anyway, the problem is, what makes you think the first cause was a *person*. THAT is what is smuggled in with the word “mover”.
Why is an uncaused person who has infinite power that wanted to create this specific universe, more likely than an uncaused extra-dimensional mindless natural force that would inevitably eventually create this specific universe?
@@dansmith7009 I'm not sure that's accurate. I'm no expert, but from everything I've ever heard from physicists, time only flows in one direction. Even if you created a time machine, you would only be able to travel into the future, never the past. Please correct me if I've missed something.
@ afaik, you missed an important assumption. Time does only flow in one direction, as far as we can tell, BUT we have no way to determine if it is actually moving from past to future, or if that is only the way that we are able to experience it.
If, according to underlying reality, time flows from the future to the past, with causes following after effects, and we only experience it going from the past to the future, then we would observe exactly the same thing. And someone “outside” the universe would see events happen in the reverse order that we experience them.
Not sure if there is anything experimental that’s even theoretically possible to determine the difference.
We do see *some* models with an origin point of time before the Big Bang, but even if we could prove that was accurate, we wouldn’t be able to tell if that was the origin point or the end point.
My point was there isn’t even a reason to assume that time had an origin point that is the first day or the last day. You can count from 0 to infinity, and 0 would be your starting point. But you can also count from 0 to BOTH infinity, and negative infinity, and that could also be the case, where the origin point of time could be a finite distance into either the future or the past. And things moving backwards in time, time would be moving in only one direction, with all effects preceding causes.
Kind of like how you have no idea if the book you are reading was printed from first page to last, last page to first, or starting with the middle of the book. All three of them, what you experience is starting on the first page and moving in one direction to the last page.
This guy will never understand that he started with arguing it was scientific evidence but in the end he was just preaching.
Logically explained how you get something occurring. You must start with something.
I saw Jackie from Metaphysical Substrate in the chyron on the first few seconds of this clip and I admire the hosts' ability to recover from his calls so quickly.
@@petersage5157 I bet Jackie would be fun at parties. If he ever got invited to one.
These calls are so useless, the caller rarely listens to points that negates or invalidates their position. Repeating an invalidated position with new words does not validate it somehow. What would be so refreshing is a caller stating: huh, I never thought about it that way. Fear of losing face, fixation to an idea or just plain “well how else can it be”? How closed can your mind be?
The calls are often useless to the caller, but not to people in the audience who might be questioning their beliefs
17:40 "I know if I wanted to I could think of a valid argument, but I just don't want to."
I love the "I don't want to sound unreasonable", and "I don't want to commit fallacies". (You say this because you know you can't escape doing these things.)
Q. Does every apologetic ultimately boil down to incredulity?
Mostly yes.
Tiss why it’s infuriating to see people believe every day and try to con it off to other people
Yes
I'd argue that most apologetics boils down to "believe what I tell you" and that they use incredulity in others to say so.
YES!
To say, "You say this because you know you can't escape doing these things," is engaging in a strawman fallacy. Not everyone with questions about their beliefs are so online debate bro brained where they know enough about fallacies that they know if they are committing one or not. Having the self-awareness to be up front about it, like this caller was, is entirely reasonable. Also, stating that you don't want to sound unreasonable doesn't mean they KNOW they are being unreasonable. It means they know that they might come across to the person they are speaking to as unreasonable, even though they believe their points are completely reasonable. Believing every apologist is being incredulous is more of a statement on how the incredulity seems to be coming from inside the house.
I don't understand X therefore an imaginary being must have magically done it isn't science in any way.
And obviously my particular god is the true god
Whatever happened to good old faith 😉
Seems like faith ain't enough anymore 😕
@@brianmonks8657 i dont understand X so therefore science. Kinda sounds like God of the gap but atheists use the word "Science" insted. Like slap it all over without really thinking it thru :)
@niklaslundstrom7633 Except you guys use assertions to try to prove your point while not taking your limitations into account. Science doesn't pretend to know everything and acknowledges it's limitations. I rather not use blind faith to cover my lack of knowledge.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596It should've never been enough in the first place people can't be trusted without evidence to back it up.
Isn't it strange how apologists - amateur and professional - frequently attempt to legitimize their religious beliefs by appealing to science, but the reverse never seems to happen.
It's sort of trying to legitimise the existence of Bugs Bunny by appealing to rabbits.
Because religion is ijitry.
They must forget about the "faith" part.
Why are they even attempting to find evidence, they have FAITH don't they? 😂
@@AndyCampbellMusic ok but what about all those 5 minute long documentaries about his life? -_-
Show me Nothing. Then we can discuss whether anything can come from it.
Theists fail that test every time
look between their ears
And this is what all men call "god". 😂
The caller believes just because he wants to believe.
That's the question. Does he believe in God, or does he believe in the utility of belief in a God?
Everyone believes for emotional reasons not logical evidence based one's
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 by everyone, do you mean all humans?
@TheLevantin
All believer's in savior God's
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 Most of the reasons why theists believe in a god are emotional, but not all of them. sometimes believing in a god is simply necessary for survival.
There are people who are actually rationally convinced of the concept of a god. Some actually find it rationally convincing that the universe must have a creator.
“You can’t really measure energy…” Umm what?
A shame this callers name wasn't Jules (joules)
The premises that everything has a cause, and that there can be no infinite regression, are both unproven claims that at the edges of quantum physics research both appear to be false. Then "god" is specially plead into both of these claims, by being both "uncaused" and "infinite."
In other words special pleading fallacy
Indeed.
Has anyone ever got a good answer to why infinite regress _must_ be rejected?
@nealjroberts4050a good answer? No.
The most common answer I hear is basically zeno’s paradox, which is the idea that if you shoot an arrow at a moving target, there are infinite points along that line, so the arrow can never arrive because each movement of the arrow means the target moves also, and there are an infinite number of smaller and smaller fractions to be measured.
So if there is infinite time, we could never have arrived at the current moment, because you can’t get past infinity, only a finite amount of time could have passed. Which fails because, even though we experience time moving forward, we have no reason to think that the actual origin point of time is in the past, rather than the future, but more importantly, any brute fact is ALSO inherently illogical. And I don’t see any reason to prefer it.
@@dansmith7009
Zeno's Paradoxes are a terrible answer I agree
@ yep. And as far as I can tell that’s the standard apologetic “it’s impossible for there to be infinite time in the past, because we could never have reached this point in time then!”
While ignoring that they are demanding an infinite god as well. Ir doing the tap dance where they say god is “timeless” which somehow means both 0 time, and also infinitely much time. If something exists for 0 time before the existence of time, definitionally it began existing at the same moment time started.
Why was the perfect being so dissatisfied with its solo existence that it needed to create a universe with beings to worship it? Doesn’t that mean it wasn’t perfect?
Also, if “outside” of space and time, there could be no point in time that this decision could happen, let alone manifest.
After God lost one 'o', is he still good?
Works only in english...
Agreed, I personally don't want anyone to worship me, that's gross.
Totally agree, if my life was perfect and I was perfect, can’t imagine I’d want for anything. Nor would I look at someone and say you’re perfect but you could use this or that. Doesn’t seem to track at all.
I credit Shannon Q with introducing me to this concept. First time I heard it expressed that way.
Trying to argue for a non-specific god is a total non-starter. If there is a god it is specific. Just like how every atom is a specific element there are no non-specific elements god would need to be the same. It's just a stop gap to prep your brain to accept things that can't be proven.
But if I won't tell you my position it should be harder for you to attack my position.
I see it more as a cop out to avoid proving "your god" is the one filling that role.
What I don't get is when you ask a christian how long we would be in heaven or hell, they say "for eternity". Well, if you can imagine an eternity in the future, how can you not imagine an eternity in the past.
6:06 This very thought led me to the conclusion that, in one way or another, the cosmos is eternal.
It's hard for us, being linear thinkers, to imagine something that is eternal, but I think that's just our limitation.
Then, if it's a loop, of there's a big crunch, if universe pops in and out of the cosmos, I don't really know.
What I know is that going back in time in a linear way doesn't make sense to me.
I can understand that something is eternal. However, I have never been able to understand why it has to be anthorpomorphized.
Because... monkey see, monkey imagine Super Monkey...
A point on one of his arguments: He claims that all "orthodox theists" believe that god came before reality. There are numerous polytheistic religions which hold to a different view of reality than the one he's stating here. He's right that it's not just Christianity, but he's objectively wrong to claim that it's ubiquitous among theistic worldviews.
I'm agnostic pantheist. We explicitly hold the universe being _before_ gods. Some hold the universe is a god but that's still not "gods before the universe".
Too many fellow theists are arrogant idiots.
This caller's 2 cents aren't worth 2 cents.
"Energy cannot be created. My god created energy."
I tink day'r saying der god is energy
@@Apotheosis-81 Then that's yet another claim they'd need evidence for.
@@Apotheosis-81-- energy has never claimed that gay people are bad. Ive always hated this cope.
The "I'm Catholic" at the end was a real gut punch.
There has to be…
There has to be…
There has to be…
According to science, the ultimate cause of the universe isn't any god. That's because there is a creator of every god created by the numerous human groups. And the ultimate creator, the uncaused first cause is none other than the mighty Nogod.
Kneel before Nogod, puny humans! Also, kneel before Zod.
Strawhat Luffy is a cartoon character dude
@@Dr_Crankenstein00
One Piece has nothing to do with the original post.
@@tonyclements1147Well, you could say that his god is a cartoon character...
How long O sleeper will you despise truth?
How long O sleeper will you walk in lawlessness?
How long O sleeper will you remain dead in your transgressions?
Now God commands you to repent of your sins and turn to Him
@@STOP-n-READ
How much longer O troll will you spam?
Love from a ModifiedSceptic and Vaush fan!
Not understanding something doesn't mean God did it.
Gonna start copy/pasting this under every random pointless bible quote comment that pops up unrelated to anything. At least this is objectively true.
He thinks wrong, no valid reason or any EVDENCE has ever been presented. That is why such a belief relies on Faith and Apologists.
Matter and energy are the SAME THING! Electricity? Electrons. Heat? Photons. There is no magical woo "energy".
Matter and Energy are interchangeable, but they are not the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy and vice versa but they are not the same thing.
@@drg8687 I'd say matter is a subset or form of energy. They sort of are the same thing, but there's a reason we use different words for them. Matter IS energy, but it's a certain kind of energy. It is rest energy. That is what Einstein was telling us with E²= (mc²)² + (pc)²
Disagree, an hour ago i defenitly had Woo energy ! ;)
@@turnb056 "According to Einstein's theory of relativity, energy and matter are interchangeable and can be converted from one form to the other under the right conditions. For example, nuclear fission reactions transform matter into energy. "
Saying they are the same thing is incorrect. Also, what are the other subsets in your worldview? There's energy, and matter is a subset. What are the other subsets?
@@decay79what were you doin’ naughty boy :-)
The apologists accept the laws of thermodynamics, so need to answer a question. If god created the universe, what energy did he convert into the universe's objects?
Forrest: "You're giving me the square root of two" rofl😂❤❤
Interesting discussion, but the 'first mover' argument seems to rely heavily on special pleading without addressing the underlying logical inconsistencies
If god is infinitely good and the creator of all concepts, she is also infinitely evil
To better state the point, we could say that god is ALL good, but not only good. For instance, I could have ALL the twinkies but not ONLY twinkies
I may also have all the ding dongs.
Who argues God creates all concepts? Silly atheist.
@@EdithBromfeld "Who argues God creates all concepts? "
Theists as they say God created everything... Therefore if a concept is created, then God must have created it... and by creating the person who came up with the concept even if a god did not do it directly then god created the means for the concept to exist... And since your god is supposedly all knowing then it knew that before doing it so it was intentional....
@@EdithBromfeldall theists do
@@EdithBromfeld
Silly theist *Jimmy.*
I just had a thought that's weird. Magnetic fields being donutty bois, wouldn't going north from the north pole take you to the south pole, by way of "down" through the middle?
I believe electricity is essential for life.
Mainly because my Biology teacher told me so.
God is like the square root of negative one - it's imaginary.
The heavens tell of the glory of God;
And their expanse declares the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out into all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.
@@STOP-n-READ tell them to do it a bit louder. i don't hear shit
“I don’t understand, I can’t figure it out. Therefore, it is *rational* for me to believe there’s a god.” W.T.F.
Willing to bet this is some form of the kalam fallacy of composition
Satan has come to kill, steal, and destroy
Jesus Christ has come to give life and give it more abundantly
@@STOP-n-READ Who created Satan according to the bible? *Isaiah 45:7* and *1 Kings 22: 22-23* say that your god created Satan.
@Ghalaghor_McAllistor
How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
@@Ghalaghor_McAllistor
It's clear the false preacher doesn't know
@@STOP-n-READ hilarious deflection
Everyone has the same problem regarding the beginning. How is the universe even here? Was there a first thing and if so how did that happen? Theists do not have an advantage here.
The first law of thermodynamics applies universally… except for my god. If this isnt special pleading then I dont know what is.
I once tried integrating e raised x, but I found it made no difference, therefore God.
That's how first mover advocates sound to me. They stumble upon some mathematical identity or fundamental law of physics, they don't understand the "why" of it, and they see a God-shaped gap there rather than trying to understand the why.
Of you have science, you don't need magic. Reason supersedes wishful thinking.
13:32 "Does that make sense?" This is a kind of question that has travelled over here to UK. What does it mean? Listening to the context it seems to mean that the speaker is trying to claim that they _are_ making sense, and that they expect the listener to accept the claim.
"I think there's a generic 'higher power', it just happens to be my specific god, now let me preach about it."
9:52 "There has to be a beginning point."
Why?
Incredulity and/or ignorance does not make an argument. The only honest claim to be made here is that we do not know what happened before the Planck Era. We know for a fact that the laws of physics as we know them break down during that time, so we cannot make any knowledgeable assertion as to what went on before then.
And obviously if time runs in a circle there is no beginning point...
@@t800fantasm2
It's my favourite solution to the only something from something premise.
The theist accepts that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" so he accepts that there's one thing his god did not create - energy, right? Since matter is really condensed energy then there's nothing left for his god to have created.
I don't think there is a beginning or end when it comes to the universe. It just is. Much like there is always something even when there seems to be nothing. Concepts theists often seem to have a hard time grasping. Something can't come from nothing. Who said nothing isn't something.
😂😂😂😂😂
This is the first time I heard Forrest swear on YT.
Not the first time ever, just FYI! 😄
This caller is one of the best that I have heard. He might be wrong but answers questions. i really would like to know that there's a God. I have tried to believe but I have been unable.
"These are my reasons there could be a god" just sounds like a god of the gaps to me.
Mass-energy is conserved according to E =mc² ..mass and energy are interchangeable at subatomic levels... it's how nuclear bombs /energy and stars work
Felt a bit of J Mike being channeled when Forest points out that god not beginning is the same as the universe not beginning.
Dear Theists,
You've never once presented evidence proving the existence of a deity and many of you do nothing but dodge and deflect when challenged to a live one on one debate so how posting here a good use of your time?
For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching.
They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear.
They will reject the truth and chase after myths.
The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display His craftsmanship.
Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make Him known.
They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard.
Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world
@@STOP-n-READ And you just proved again that he is correct and that theists have no evidence...
"The heavens proclaim the glory of God."
No, they don't.
Grow up...this is not the bronze age anymore...
@t800fantasm2
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”
Day after day creation speaks with silent words; night after night creation renders illustration testifying of the Creator. For this reason you’re without excuse.
@@STOP-n-READ "The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”"
Yes, even a fool can figure it out...
@@STOP-n-READ 👈👈👈 Beware the FloBLoJokeBoi sent here by *SATAN, The Great Deceiver,* to try and convince good, kind, and caring atheists that slaughtering infants to punish their parents is not a heinously *EVIL* act!
If this is a video game, somebody needs to do the main quest and free the working class from our shackles already!
It seems that Law whose name I xan never recall is right:
Any apologist (usually theist) bringing up thermodynamics won't present the Laws of Thermodynamics correctly.
*Carnot's Law*
*Whenever a bible babbler invokes the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an argument for some kind g0d, they have lost the argument and can be dismissed on the spot!!*
@holgerlubotzki3469
I'm guessing there's a more general one too?
@nealjroberts4050 I'm sure there is. I made that one up as a variation on Godwin's Law
@holgerlubotzki3469
I like that googling it gives you Carnot's theorem and thus should teach people something about thermodynamics!
@@Dr.James.Science.Ph.D
"That Force can be none other than the supernatural God of the Bible. "
It's not...
1... Even if it was fine tuned. That doesn't prove a God exists... It doesn't prove any god exists. Maybe there are eternal beings from other dimensions or universes that can fine tune universes... Maybe it's their function...
2... A fine tuned universe supports the idea of our far off future descendants traveling back in time and seeding the universe just the right amount to ensure they exist.
3... If space and time are in an infinite loop then the future may flow into the past and create it... Perhaps fine tuning is a cumulative effect of slight leaks form the old universe as each new universe is in turn formed.
4... Perhaps there is a simple cause that no one has ever thought of before...
If God exists, he’s like an absentee landlord-collects rent, never fixes anything, and expects you to thank him for the privilege of living in his crumbling building.
While the prime mover argument is fascinating it feels like it's inherently paradoxical and we don't have enough data to answer and we may never.
If you you can convincingly demonstrate there was a first movement, then, and only then, will I entertain the notion of a first mover.
You would have thought basic logic would be a part of that degree. 😬
Any time a theist wants to use science to support their god claim, I ask to point to their peer-reviewed articles in reputable academic, scientific journals.
They never have them.
None the theists I've run into even know how to cite anything. They think repositories such as Pubmed and arXiv are the publishing journals.
They don't know the format even so don't think the author names need to be included. They are just clueless, especially since none of them can even read a research paper. Total toddler scientists.
@@ChallengeYourBeliefs What difference does it make? Isn't the information in the article more important? The highlights for the original articles and scientists involved are there for you to see, nevertheless. You didn't even know sodium fluoride was one of the main ingredients in rat poison. Look-
@queuecee2
_"The toddler scientist now claims that I said sodium fluoride is not in fluoridated water. He's confusing his lie that sodium fluoride was used in rodenticide. So dumb."_
@@Apotheosis-81
Apot, you can't even impersonate properly
I have a thought about the universe we are in. It occurs to me that our universe was created within another universe and that this universe, over trillions of years, stretched to such an incredible extent that fractures appeared. One of these fractures created what we now call these days the "Big Bang'.
It's one possible solution to the "end of the universe"
I always wondered if time always was, how did it catch up to now???
Thank God for a finely tuned creation to include atheism 🙏✝️
And a good thursday morning AXP fans and theists ❤❤❤
Peace Love Empathy From Australia 🤠
Is this first mover still around or did it move off?
The label 'Big Bang' was coined as a pejorative to begin with by Fred Hoyle as an insult to the then hypothesis.
You're thinking of Georges Lemaitre, not Fred Hoyle.
@Disturbed0neGaming You are mistaken. Monsignor Lemaitre ackchully came up with hypothesis to begin with.
Georges Lemaître proposed that the universe emerged from a "primeval atom" in 1931, introducing the modern notion of the Big Bang.
Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He coined the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949. It was said by George Gamow and his opponents that Hoyle intended to be pejorative, and the script from which he read aloud was interpreted by his opponents to be "vain, one-sided, insulting, not worthy of the BBC". Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for the radio audience.
@@Disturbed0neGaming Georges Lemaitre is the father of the Big Bang, but the name “Big Bang” comes from Fred Hoyle in a radio program to discredit this theory.
The caller was evidently too cowardly to pronounce Jesus as the creator of the universe. Rehashed Aquinas stuff is still nonsensical. Special pleading for his "prime mover" doesn't answer any actual questions.
What do you call something that exists outside of space and time, can violate all the laws of physics, and can’t be detected by any means known to humanity?
And on an unrelated note, how would you describe something that does not exist?
B-but, but...look at the trees...a book says a thing...mysterious plans...divine ways...therefore gawd!1!!11!111!! /s
A wiseman sees danger ahead (death) and prepares for it, but the simpleton proceeds onward in careless ease
It’s appointed to you once to die, then comes the judgment
Whoever calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved
Everyone who acknowledges Me (Jesus) publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But everyone who denies Me here on earth, I will also deny before My Father in heaven.
@@STOP-n-READ 👈👈👈 Beware the FloBLoJokeBoi sent here by *SATAN, The Great Deceiver,* to try and convince good, kind, and caring atheists that slaughtering infants to punish their parents is not a heinously *EVIL* act!
@@STOP-n-READ Vishnu, the sustainer of the universe and all life in it, thanks you for your worship of him, even if you are doing it improperly by way of your jesus proxy.
Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 23: "Even those who are devotees of other gods, and who worship them with faith, actually worship me alone, O son of Kunti, but in an improper way."
@@STOP-n-READ Still no evidence that your god exists. *The bible is the claim, NOT evidence.*
Yet another person who took one look at thermodynamics and decided they were an expert on its "secret meaning" before they even came to understand it in the slightest.
I am drunk again. On Kraken!
Fitting for today given my talk on pirates.
Mix it with ginger beer and a little lime juice. Best served with ice.
You can thank me later.
Who defines "higher"?
WHY does there have to be a starting point?
Caller: "Genesis 1:1...in the beginning"...they don't even know who wrote the bible and now he is trying to give it credence by creating some cosmological concept of the start of the universe?
Even worse, Genesis is a copy of a much older Egyptian creation myth...
@@t800fantasm2 As the "Firmament" description is Babylonian in concept. The Hebrews had no astronomical understanding by observations in the ancient world.
If and this is a massive if, there is a higher intelligence etc, it is so far beyond our understanding that we have absolutely no way of explaining it.or quantifying it. That intelligence would not even spend a millisecond trying to explain itself to us.
Even if there was a higher power/ first mover who caused the universe, it is entirely possible that the prime mover only existed up to the big bang and once the universe was "kicked started" the prime mover said "my job here is done" and ceased to exist.
If this is an argument for the existence of God it fails. It might establish there was once a God. It could never prove there is still a first mover.
I think he talks about Odin.....
Then their paper is ridiculous. If something always works in a certain way, then there is a cause for that result even if you cant find it.
Why does is it that the big bang is seen as the beginning of time and space? Although everything is condensed into a single point, a singularity does take up space and it would seem intuitive that time would pass for it. Just because I can vacuum pack my socks into an area smaller than a golf ball doesn't mean time and space stop existing for them.
No because time is the record of things happening.
Before the singularity expansion, there were no things to move.
Not one single atom.
Therefore no time.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 unless you are claiming the singularity popped into existence and at that point time began, it exists, therefore it takes up space and thus also exists in time. If there was a moment where the singularity existed before the event of the expansion, a moment is a measure of time.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 So in other there was no time for the Big Bang to occur as there can be no such thing as before the Big Bang.
A singularity does not take space. As per the Hubble Constant, the expansion of spacetime can be extrapolated to t=0.
@@a_plastic_bag Is the singularity a concept or an object ?
Why are they doing 3 hosts at once. There already wasn’t enough time for two hosts and now we have three. Just another stone thrown into my bucket making me question how AxP and the ACA are being run since it just keeps getting worse and more annoying
Have you contacted the ACA? Have you Called in?
Yeah, three is too many, I agree.
The “matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed therefore god created matter and energy” as an argument is getting pretty tiresome in its absurdity.
The universe can't be infinite but God can, the universe can't have always been but God can, everything has a beginning except God... religion is nothing more than childish "nuh uh muh God!
I think what he is getting at is somehow energy equals god. But that doesn't answer how energy can somehow be sentient.
You are 100% composed of energy. You are sentient.
@@justanotheropinion5832 Is energy wet?
@@TheLevantin more of a buzz than a drip
@@justanotheropinion5832 I have no idea what that means. The question was whether you believe that all energy is wet.
I need to correct Valkai, he made a very incorrect statement that I hear frequently. The theory of the Big Bang does NOT include a singularity. The Big Bang Theory begins a fraction of a second after expansion. It does not state or imply that there was a singularity, in fact, most scientist, believe that a singularity is not even physically possible. A singularity is where our mathematics breakdown and it is only theoretical and not even probable.
This is one of those times I wish a biblical scholar had been present. The caller's argument falls apart when you consider how Genesis 1:1 is most likely rendered in Hebrew.
The phrase often translated as "In the beginning" (בְּרֵאשִׁית) is in the construct state, meaning it should read "When God began," and the word בָּרָא, usually translated as "created," can also mean "shaped" or "ordered."
A more accurate translation would be: "When God began shaping the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void."
This rendering completely undermines the argument, as it aligns with the first law of thermodynamics-God isn't creating out of nothing but reshaping pre-existing material.
@janusgeminus21 Yet, as you have stated, it is still GOD who is doing the creating and reshaping...This might bring some to question just HOW LONG is eternity past and HOW MANY TIMES has God created and reshaped the universe? Consider Revelation 21:1 "Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea". God's Word says He makes a 'people' for Himself' - those who through thick and thin CHOOSE Him. I suspect He has been populating His Kingdom - and will continue to do so - for everlasting.
John 3 16 invites all to know His love and everlasting promise as they draw near to Him and He draws near to them.
A lot of Bible proponents don't know Hebrew. Some even think nakhash translates as lightbearer rather than snake 😂
@@wwlib5390 yes, according to Genesis it in indeed Elohim who is doing the shaping. My point is that the caller's argument of: 1. There must be a prime mover; 2. Because 1:1 says God created; 3. Thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore God, falls apart if you use a more accurate rendering of Genesis 1:1.
I'm merely showing how this specific argument is nullified when a more accurate translation is used.
@@janusgeminus21 What if God created once all that was needed for each universe that has ever been - at the BEGINNING - THEN established the Laws that have run the universe(s) ever since. There HAS to be a beginning. God identifies Himself as IAM. I realize some don't believe anything He says, but apart from God being the Beginning, I can't come up with an alternative - can you? I see the beginning of 'our' universe described in Genesis. I see the beginning of the 'next' universe in Revelation.
@wwlib5390 what if the Moon were made of green cheese? Then the astronauts who visited would have something to eat when they arrived!
If there was nothing. Then there would be nobody to ask why isn't there something rather nothing. It's a pointless question.
Secondly.. If thing A . (Some kind of higher power) can exist eternally without cause.
Then so can thing B. (The universe) in some shape or form.
7:00 holy jeebus jim why you gotta bring up quatum bs right off the bat it doesn't refute the callers point anyway 🤦🏽♂️
It feels to me like the god people believe in reflects the time in which they live. So pre-civilisation our gods were nature spirits who controlled the weather and the harvest, the animals (our prey and predators) and the seasons. As we constructed more complex societies and began taking dominion over nature so our gods changed to mirror things like war, love and justice. These gods are clearly still an influence at the start of the Bible.
Speaking of which, as religion became a tool of control, so the single one-god-to-rule-them-all emerged with a book of law, mythology and shared goals.
As science has developed so this god has been reinterpreted as more loving (our improved morality), more of a designer (our understanding of biology) and more cosmological (the first mover). It's interesting that new religions like Mormonism and Scientology have emerged at this time, and fascinating to ponder what the picture might be in 500 years.
@vladimirimp that is a very well thought out comment. Do you suppose that 'God' changed or is it our understanding that enabled us to relate to a God who is described as our Creator. Do you suppose that He revealed Himself to very early civilizations as the Creator of everything - sun, moon, trees, animals, rivers, etc, and that man then 'assigned' gods for each of these creations, and then, as time went on, the revelation of one God was finally received?
@@wwlib5390 I suppose it's a human-fabricated invention that has served a useful function in our evolutionary journey.
If I imagine two scenarios; one in which God is real and one in which he isn't; and then I look at what we see and wonder which looks more expected, then the scenario in which God isn't real seems more likely. Because 'of course' if humans invented him we'd have multiple contradictory religions, 'of course' people would have to do God's work for him (wars, proselytising, punishment), 'of course' there'd be silence with prayers, children suffering horrific illness and the powerful dominating others. 'Of course' there'd be things that believers once ascribed to God (e.g. weather, gender of children, fortune, falling pregnant, design of biology, design of geology) that we'd find different causes for.
It's much harder the other way around. Why would a real god be invisible? Why would it be silent? Why would it allow believers to be determined by geography? Why would it send thinking people to non-belief? Why would it communicate through a medium knowing how misunderstood it would be? To invent excuses for all these things is the evidence that it's not real.
So to my point, it's a human need that's being served by a fictional god, and that's why that fictional god changes through time.
@@vladimirimp I cannot fathom, nor does it seem at all logical that all the universe began by some real lucky chance that could sustain life as we know it. I cannot fathom that the question, 'which came first - the chicken or the egg?” can have NEITHER answer be correct if evolution is our only explanation. I cannot fathom why, of all the life-forms on the earth, mankind is the only one who feels the need to go to college, write books, smelt metals, build rockets to the moon - for certainly the 'building blocks' of all that ability and knowledge must be available in nature somewhere and can be applied equally to all lifeforms - or at least what we term the 'higher life-forms'.
Perhaps it is because two minds can think and see things differently, tho they start with the same visible materials. I cannot fathom that there is no God behind this Creation. God makes sense to me. Randomness and luck of the draw does not. That caused my understanding that 'there is a God' established in my early childhood to progress to taking the journey to find out if I could ascertain more than just simple 'there must be' to 'there is'.
The Bible says that the Gospels were written "that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His Name' and that, if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. So I took that step - and then took another, and another. Each step provided a tiny bit of evidence - just enough to test that evidence to see if it would lead to more so I could choose to continue or give up - and it did, tiny bits at a time - an answered prayer, a gift of provision when I was lacking, a gift of plenty to share abundantly, a healing, a deliverance, a word of knowledge that opened a whole section of formerly-confusing Scripture, peace in incredible turmoil - and on and on for over 40 years. Jesus has revealed Himself as present in my life countless times and in countless ways. So much so, that I can no more deny His existence than I could say there is no sun in the sky.
That is my testimony. I can see where you are coming from - and I would guess most everyone has thought as you have. I just want to encourage you to 'think longer.' I wish you well.
@@wwlib5390
No one but creationists refer to the origins of the universe as a lucky accident.
Additionally, claiming only randomness or intended order is a false dichotomy. Nonrandomness doesn't require agency to exist.
Turtles all the way down
@07:00 Jim tries to talk about Bell’s theorem. For which the 2022 Nobel Prize was awarded to Aspect, Clauser and Zellinger for their work on quantum entanglement.
This does nothing to invalidate the claim that everything that beguines to exist has a cause. Jim is wrong here.
Theists who want to argue that the universe began to exist need to prove that. They need to do a little more than special pleading and god of the gaps.
Agreed. Jim, i think sometimes tries too hard to seem like he knows the science.
The Bell's theorem work only says that there are no hidden variables that account for the entanglement, not that causality doesn't apply.
What happened before the Big Bang? What's north of the North Pole? What was your name before you were born?
The singularity is the prime mover. No god(s) necessary.
But where did the singularity come from ?
@@giauscaesar8047 Why assume it came from anything at all?
@@bobvanderwest9358 So it just existed it had no cause it is in effect the uncaused cause is this correct ?
@@giauscaesar8047 Yes, as originally posted, the singularity is the prime mover.
@@bobvanderwest9358 So when you are talking about the singularity what are we talking about exactly what is the singularity exactly ?
Why does no one ever use incompatible properties arguments to disprove the existence of a theistic type of God?
What ever happened to good old FAITH?
I remember the good old days when faith was all you needed. 😉
Inflation happened. Cost of after-living went up again.
It's because they're not secure in their faith. That's why they have to spread it around.
I don’t understand, therefore Jesus.
Isn't matter basically 'frozen' energy? Everything is energy.
If you agree that energy cannot be created or destroyed, great! That means all the energy of the universe has always existed. No God required.
I've always been baffled by how people will pick a thing that vaguely reminds them of something else and then just conflate the two. Infinity is god? The concept of a number increasing in value without ever stopping is god because god is so (infinitely) kind? That is a complete non sequitur. No wonder you're a theist when you walk around calling random things god for no reason.
Too many hosts on at the same time.
IRRATIONAL AF.
No ; There is no "God" : ""God" is the "is" ! 😇 ....🤣
“God” is the “is”, “no” is the “there”, and “is” is no “god” but “the”.
I’m glad we figured this out together.
@@alamunez 😂👍🤣
Jim looks so thin and healthy not like a beached whale on the shore for a week. I want to be like Jim