This is, at best, an argument from ignorance. "We don't get it, must've been god"

@RinaldoDegliAlbizzi

8 жыл бұрын

+Siddiq Ismail dude, it's very simple. The argument is that not believing in a Creator is as much a faith statement than saying that there is. Of course in the end there might not be a Creator, but that belief is not more rational than the opposite. You atheist are so self-absorbed that you can't even hear to reasons, and you end up sounding like stubborn supersticious waks.

@MsSomeone98

8 жыл бұрын

RinaldoDegliAlbizzi How? You contradicted yourself, you said not believing is as much a faith statement as believing, yet you say that believing is more rational? The whole concept of faith is irrational, as it is essentially believing without being given proof. I'm not self-absorbed, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Tell me ONE thing in this universe that points to the existence of a sentient power/creator. You'll find none. And remember, something that can't be explained doesn't currently doesn't mean "GOD DID IT". We thought Gods and spirits made waves, then we realized it was the moon. Point me to irrefutable evidence that God exist, not something you don't know.

@obireidkenobi2191

8 жыл бұрын

+Siddiq Ismail so do you believe in the big bang

@MsSomeone98

8 жыл бұрын

+Obi Reid Kenobi Yes, because unlike the god Prager stupidly preaches about, there's proof for it.

@obireidkenobi2191

8 жыл бұрын

+Siddiq Ismail so then tell me where the first speck of matter came from, is there proof? the universe had to start from somewhere

"I don't get it and it doesn't seem likely. Must be God."

@joshjeggs

9 жыл бұрын

007VitaminD Looooool Nice

@007VitaminD

9 жыл бұрын

PBGellie Atheism: "I also don't get it and it doesn't seem likely. Must not be God."

@PBGellie

9 жыл бұрын

007VitaminD well actually, it's more "there's probably a reason behind this, but our scientific knowledge isn't to that point yet. Maybe we will know one day".

@IntegralMoon

9 жыл бұрын

PBGellie But to be fair, at this stage in the timeline of history +007VitaminD is completely right, the two of you are simply giving binary arguments, neither has provided any true evidence. Until this scientific knowledge that you are relying on surfaces, both stances are equally hopeless - I think the problem here is the fact that you're trying to use the wrong tool for the wrong job. Science never sought to answer the question of God, and atheism, just like theism is a belief (the absence of a belief, that one has given thought to is still a belief). Perhaps one day; we will stumble upon the answer of how the universe came to be, in exquisite detail, but for now; these answers don't exist! So you'd be wise to avoid wasting your time arguing a hopeless stance!

@michaelperez5323

9 жыл бұрын

PBGellie It's not about accepting God as the explanation, it's about acknowledging that science doesn't know enough to rule God out of the equation just yet.

Jupiter, you tha real MVP

@nomadic1816

2 жыл бұрын

Im a more Zeus Guy

@yosoft7695

2 жыл бұрын

No

@sydn2698

2 жыл бұрын

@@yosoft7695 yes

@yosoft7695

2 жыл бұрын

@@sydn2698 no

@ghrohrs2020

Жыл бұрын

No. Idiot. Even Jupiter was designed by God. Come on, use your brain every once in awhile.

Science doesn’t give a shit if there’s a god or not.

OMG, this deck of cards in my hand must have been intelligently designed, the chances that all the cards are arranged the way they are is 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000. You think that happened on ACCIDENT? It's proof that my God, The Flying Spagetti Monster, put this deck of cards here. There is literally no other way it could have possibly happened! Please science, you think you're so smart, try to explain it. Oh, thats right. YOU CAN'T! #HeLives

@ibrahimhassan6566

7 жыл бұрын

no you can't

@turtle3600

7 жыл бұрын

But those cards were created by humans or machines programmed by humans, weren't they? Where exactly were you trying to go with that poorly back-firing example of yours? lol

@Archangel125

7 жыл бұрын

+Adrian Mata I refuse to listen to your logic! I have faith!

@turtle3600

7 жыл бұрын

Don't listen to me, listen to Michael Hill. His logic and illustrations are impeccable lol

@turtle3600

7 жыл бұрын

For it to be a joke there has to be irony in it. This was really nothing more than a pathetic insult. But most evolutionist aren't very smart to figure that out, so they just go with the flow and pretend "they get it". The joke is really on them lol

*_Does science argue for or against god?_* Which god? If you are talking about the Christian god, then you've got a heavy burden to meet. - Talking snakes - Talking donkeys - Women coming from ribs - Men living inside of giant fish for days - Etc. Oh, let me guess, your god isn't bound by the laws of nature. How wonderfully convenient!

@Fred-yd8qb

8 жыл бұрын

LOL

@jacoblaslie1430

8 жыл бұрын

Well, I guess we'll start from the basis of your argument, which hypothetically suggests the existence of God. If God created the universe, then would he not have also created the laws of nature? Also, if we're using the Jewish/Christian God, doesn't the Bible say he's all-powerful?

@Fred-yd8qb

8 жыл бұрын

Then who created god or is god just eternal? And if you believe eternity is a real concept then couldn't the universe be eternal? There are multiple theories about how it started including the big crunch theory. It goes like this: Big bang happens> stars begin to slow down at a point> Gravity takes over and starts to pull them back>Black holes consume the universe>black holes mix due to others gravity>Hyper dense singularity explodes and another big bang happens. Also we don't know what the universe is expanding into and scientists believe it could be a multiverse or the theory I just described.

@XxSmoothGroovexX

8 жыл бұрын

Why would a God that created everything be bound by the nature he created? ....I'll pray for you....

@M_S_R_

8 жыл бұрын

Have you ever heard of figurative language? You should look into it I think it's very interesting. : )

im not here to argue im here to read the arguements

As a scientist, people always ask me how I can believe in God and this is pretty much what I attempt to articulate.

@TheBooBomber609

4 жыл бұрын

What branch of science are you a part of?

@jimi02468

4 жыл бұрын

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an Atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you." - Werner Heisenberg

@amorestperpe

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheBooBomber609 , I am a chemist.

@stevenshay2855

2 жыл бұрын

I think being a scientist makes it even more difficult to deny the obvious evidences that surround all of us that we were intelligently made. Here is a list of the greatest mental giants of science: Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Boyle, Faraday, Bernoulli, Euler, Mendel, Kelvin, Arrhenius, Milankovitch, Mendeleev, Lorentz, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, and von Neumann.

@trepinne6840

2 жыл бұрын

Their names arr irrelevant. What evidence did thry have?

Yo shoutout to my boy Jupiter, thanks for protecting our rock man, stay awesome bro!

@Zanta100

5 жыл бұрын

you might wanna hear that: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qp6e0cd7hc7bibw.html

@KILLJOY522

5 жыл бұрын

Sorry to tell you buddy but Jupiter didn't catch all of them. Put an F in the for are dinos.

@madledski5383

5 жыл бұрын

+f

@PauloGarcia-sp5ws

5 жыл бұрын

F

@HankleburyTV

5 жыл бұрын

@@KILLJOY522 Hey, no planet's perfect!

I don't even really want to read the comments bc I know there is going to be a war down there

@Farsmezan

6 жыл бұрын

Don't care about them.

@silentbigsteve3429

6 жыл бұрын

CuddleWithTrump And you know what son? War never changes.

@JMichael2x2

6 жыл бұрын

CuddleWithTrump - keep in mind that all the variety of comments just supports more what we learn in the Bible, how we humans were created with a freewill. If we thought all the same, like the left wants, you might think there was no God!

@Parahelion

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah its pretty sad, people can't just watch a video about Christianity without getting butthurt

@jwhsbsshsnsnanan9846

6 жыл бұрын

Arthwick Brother what contradicts others believes can make them angry it is normal, we are emotional beings, but what is not normal is the violent attitude that is due to this anger which then makes people say and do stuff they don't usually do, forgive them :), sincerely your Muslim brother

the creator of the big bang theory was a belgium priest

@vernyanke1131

3 жыл бұрын

So that discredits the Big Bang Theory I guess if it comes from a Belgian priest. Even if they can pinpoint when and where it occurred in space. And time.

@vernyanke1131

3 жыл бұрын

@@MasterDav Doesn't matter who created it or who coined it the point is they used it to infer that there is no God and to try to discredit the Bible by using different words to describe the creation event.

@ProximaCentauri88

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. He was Fr. Lemaître...

@maria369

3 жыл бұрын

The Big Bang theory has been debunked.

@maria369

3 жыл бұрын

@Projal Paul Thekkanath I'm afraid scientists will disagree with you.

That is a leap of logic There are many many many reason why supporting life is soo hard and rare to happen But there millions of planets so even if the odds are 0.00000001% there will always be a single planet that will beat those odds. And remember there are hundreds of religions which means the chances of yours being right is also low. And just because the chances are low for life to exist you seen to forget the fact that it took millions of years for life to even be born and other couple millions years for human to exist. This took time lots of it. So in that time frame life could of happened. Also this video was just a video saying how low the odds were but no evidence that a god even exists or any of the contradictions and complexities that can have to the world we live in

@louiscyfer6944

3 жыл бұрын

it took billions of years after life appeared for humans to appear. get it right.

@THIZZMONSTER

3 жыл бұрын

It took billions of years for any life more complex than single celled organisms to appear let alone humans.

@louiscyfer6944

3 жыл бұрын

@Lily Yu you are just flat out lying about everything. that document doesn't say that. we have observed speciation.just because you have your head in the sand and don't know this doesn't mean it is not there. you need to learn what evolution is, a fact and how it works. nobody, but stupid creatards, says that there should be half formed animals. you are a moron.

@Dah_J

3 жыл бұрын

where do people get the idea that there is a chance of life to happen? life does not just appear out of nothingness

@Dah_J

3 жыл бұрын

nobody just picks a "religion" and hopes its the right one. religion is not the lottery.

The smarter we become, the more we realize how utterly stupid we are.

@mrpankau

5 жыл бұрын

Whooooa, whoa. Hold on, there. SOME people realize how stupid they are - and they are the blessed few. Most I meet these days can't get over how smart they are and how much they've figured out from reading HuffPost science articles.

@deathbydeviceable

4 жыл бұрын

@@mrpankau I agree. I read one once, and I became woke af

@stevenwhite3.1415

4 жыл бұрын

The more you know the less you realize you know.

@JontheBerean

4 жыл бұрын

Religion means "bound up beliefs" . The more we think we know , the more religious we get. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" Proverbs 3:5 It wasn't until a week or so after I was born again , that I realized the Bible is actually Holy. God spoke to me so much in that first week . He still does. Science has it's place , it is good to question everything . But when you know Jesus is the Holy and Righteous One , your spiritual hearing is opened up. ❤️✝️

@bravesoulchannel1685

4 жыл бұрын

Amen! @Jon the Baptist. Grace and Peace to Each of you who can see just how small we are in comparison to how Great Our Heavenly Father is. Much Love Everyone, - Shalom

"Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying." -Arthur C. Clark

@hermitcard4494

5 жыл бұрын

Sounds like the guy was a paranoid living in fear as his only choice. I don't know. I would chose wonder about both scenarios.

@Stormkrow280

4 жыл бұрын

He helped develop communications technologies, even designed the first telecommunications satellite

@neben

4 жыл бұрын

It is not terrifying that we are not alone unless you believe that beings are inherently evil

@DR3W_TH3_ARTIST

4 жыл бұрын

@Brian that would be fairly reasonable

@jstudiojstudio3190

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed

I need my own personal Jupiter to sail through this life 😄😄

@user-pc1dp9vw3b

2 жыл бұрын

god

@isakayyik966

2 жыл бұрын

Jesus is

@morganwhalen3121

2 жыл бұрын

Amen 🤣

Not having an answer doesn't prove "god" exists

@barbthiessen7413

4 жыл бұрын

Common sense tells us that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there was a Creator. We cannot have a Creation without a Creator. We don't need faith to believe in a Creator. We just need a brain that works!

@noahconstable5760

4 жыл бұрын

@@barbthiessen7413 I can't believe people are still blindly following these tired, cliche rebuttals. Simply abysmal. Growing up in a Christian home for 19 years I have heard these supposed 'oh-so-obvious' reasons for God's existence. They're so unbelievably dull. You all want to feel special and you will fight tooth and nail to keep yourself in your bubble. Sad.

@barbthiessen7413

4 жыл бұрын

@@noahconstable5760 Yes, they are so very obvious! The evolutionists don't come up with anything new, it's the same old tired story.... How NOTHING created everything! They continually search for evidence and find none.... Like the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." What is very sad is that what evolutionists have is "blind faith".

@demiligne3456

4 жыл бұрын

+ *Barb* Creation is 100% logical proof there was a creator, yes, because that's the definition of creation. What hasn't been proved is the assumption that the Universe is a creation in the first place. Evolution has nothing to do with "nothing creating everything". Science says nothing about "nothing creating everything". Something coming from nothing is an idea exclusive to religion.

@barbthiessen7413

4 жыл бұрын

@@demiligne3456 The evolutionists theory is that a bunch of swirling gases and dust met up with a big bang, gravity pulled it all together and formed a spinning ball, we call Earth! Then we evolved from apes, but perhaps since my school days that story has been changed. That's the problem with error taught as truth, it always changes and so yesterday's facts become tomorrow's lies!! God's truth NEVER changes! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen. 1:1

"We're in the Matrix. Prove me wrong." My favorite go to strategy when family wants to talk about religion.

@dedale2610

9 жыл бұрын

Wild Academy How does it go ? I never had this kind of "family talks" ^^

@Jake-Day

9 жыл бұрын

Marc R I convert them to Matrixism and we end the discussion with a prayer to our robot overlords.

@Jake-Day

9 жыл бұрын

Marc R The goal is to get them to explain and make the case for why the Matrix doesn't exist. In my experience the best way to shake someone of beliefs unsupported by evidence is to get them to first disprove other belief systems using skepticism and critical thinking.

@lungdoctortn

9 жыл бұрын

Wild Academy Interesting question - the whole philosophy of epistemology is based upon your question, and has been studied by centuries by the likes of Rene Descartes who started his famous works trying to establish the basis of knowledge by asserting, "I think, therefore I am."

@AngeIofContempt

9 жыл бұрын

Wild Academy Your favorite strategy is also a logical fallacy, meaning it isn't valid whatsoever in an argument. That logical fallacy is BURDEN OF PROO.yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Dear, oh dear. Because we don't understand the universe, we'll believe in gods instead. No, we don't understand everything, but that is no excuse for superstition.

@mattcali8725

8 жыл бұрын

+Robert Brynin Well, we know that the universe had a beginning. The first uncaused first cause is what many call god. Call it what you may but a cause outside of time, matter, and space had to start the universe because these things came into existence all at the same time. Something had to be the start. I think many call this god.

@JaseekaRawr

8 жыл бұрын

+Matt Cali Many great thinkers, most notably & consistently Einstein, resisted the "Big Bang" theory because it had "religious overtones". It's very interesting that now people point to it as counting God out. I guess it's all in how you look at things. For instance, I look at all of the Hubble images & am moved, and makes me believe in God more, because of the greatness. I also love science because it's given us that opportunity to see them. It's very interesting that with science(though we do give ourselves much too much credit in that regard), we still haven't disproved the existence of God. If that day comes, I will have no choice but to agree. I really like what you've said, there's a certain force, and many refer to this as God. I've felt the same. I don't think of God as "an old man in the sky", as I think that could be too much projection on our part, as humans. ;) Just the vastness & greatness of space alone is enough for me to admire whatever is behind its existence.

@soupcake3092

8 жыл бұрын

+Jaseeka Rawr Untill it's PROVEN that there is no invisible wizard standing behind me I WILL CONTINUE TO BELIEVE SO!

@JaseekaRawr

8 жыл бұрын

+Nerdy Nachos That's not at all an apt analogy.

@soupcake3092

8 жыл бұрын

+Jaseeka Rawr Explain to me how it is different from your belief.

OR we are just a simulation on some teenage alien's computer that got bored while doing his homework

@cthulhufhtagn2483

4 жыл бұрын

That's my personal favorite theory.

@cloroxbleach3023

4 жыл бұрын

The Sims exposed itself

@BobBob-sf2gb

4 жыл бұрын

paul ubongen, no u

@Kanal7Indonesia

4 жыл бұрын

The Sims 2020

@c.i.a.932

3 жыл бұрын

Bob Bob the power of no u

"What are the odds that out of all possible planets only ours supports life?" is such a horrible fallacy. It reminds me of that one great tweet: "I'm so glad I wasn't born in Mexico. I don't speak a word of Spanish!"

@candychairman5715

2 жыл бұрын

Who wrote that tweet?

@Aaron-dq3xz

2 жыл бұрын

Atheism should be considered a fallacy lmao

*Loads Beretta and picks up flashlight* "I'm going into the comments section, if I don't come out, tell my girlfriend I love her."

@jamesdoe7605

5 жыл бұрын

Dinodogdude 209 RIP Because I brought an ar-15

@seniorpickle7936

5 жыл бұрын

Godspeed brother

@garrettsattem4799

5 жыл бұрын

*presents Remington 870 and crucifix* you might need this.

@joaquinaugusto625

5 жыл бұрын

You're going to tell her that *Grabs Minigun*

@rooshavik9133

5 жыл бұрын

all I got is an AK to protect me

This guy obviously never heard about the anthropic principle. This is by far the most ridiculous video of this channel.

@SomeonessChannel

8 жыл бұрын

***** Since when an author and radio host knows science better than a scientist?

@SomeonessChannel

8 жыл бұрын

***** Are you really that stupid? He is not a scientist and it is NOT necessary to be a scientist in order to be a professor at university. Stop humiliating yourself and check his education profile.

@musashishinnen

8 жыл бұрын

+Richard Sherman's Face After The Superbowl He talks about science, so he must be a scientist and must have studied the subject. No he is not a scientist and he is doesn't necessarily know what he is talking about., because if you actually did some fact-checking you would know that he is misleading you with the arguments he uses. Prager university is always misleading in their videos.

@CruelestChris

8 жыл бұрын

+Voin Eslaw So if I have, say, a doctorate in philosophy or English lit I'm a science expert? Just being a professor of _something_ doesn't magically make you an expert on everything, and anyone who goes with long-debunked arguments like this guy can be safely said to not be an expert on the subject in question.

@musashishinnen

8 жыл бұрын

***** No that's not my logic at all, can you read? Your logic is "he is a professor so he must be right." You can just come up with arguments and evidence against his statements, so an unbiased video would have adressed this.

If material and time are infinite, there would be infinitely many "universes" and "big bangs". No matter how infinitesimal the odds of fine-tuning are, as long as it is non-zero (and we know it *is* non-zero because of our *own* existence), there will be infinitely many intelligent lives. I don't understand this "oooooh look the number is sooooo small" argument.

@teamatfort444

3 жыл бұрын

yeah exactly, infinity sorts all the odds out

@maryeverett2266

Жыл бұрын

I'm skeptical of the multiverse theory since it's as unobservable and untestable as God's existence, but there are other good ways to argue against the "fine tuning" argument. There is also no way of knowing whether the constants the universe is likely or unlikely to come into existence, since there has only ever been one universe. So technically, the chances of the universe existing is 100%. It's also important to remember that true chance doesn't exist. Assuming that the laws of physics and chemistry were constant from before the Big Bang to now, the Big Bang had a 100% chance of happening the way it did, since all motion is predictable. Taking the dice example, on a surface level, it does certainly seem like the dice has a possibility of landing on multiple different numbers. However, if someone knew what the force of the throw would be, the original position of the dice, the surface texture of the ground, the force of the wind, as well as the mathematical equations of gravity and force, they could always predict which number the dice will land on.

@WARPDANCE

9 ай бұрын

​@@maryeverett2266 the problem here is "assuming the laws of physics and chemistry are constant". How do you assume that? Each passing decade we learn more about how our knowledge of physics are limited around blackholes and many of our known "rules" don't exactly apply there. What about quantum physics that we mostly can only theorize about? The idea that the laws were constant as we know TODAY before the formation of our current universe requires a huge leap of faith based on the evidence that they already aren't constant in our observable spectrum. That's why the odds of it's formation get increasingly lower the more we learn about the universe.

@maryeverett2266

9 ай бұрын

@@WARPDANCE Your claim that there is no good evidence to suggest the laws of physics and chemistry were constant to today’s before the Big Bang is insightful, but the follow up you made to that seems to be the opposite of what such a claim suggests. If the laws of reality were different before the Big Bang, there would be no way to know whether the Big Bang was probable or not. There wouldn’t even be a way to know that probability existed at that time. We would literally just have no information to go off of to make any claims at all about what made the Big Bang happen. I don’t understand why you think the laws of reality being different before means the odds of the Big Bang’s formation “get increasingly lower.”

@kvernon1

7 ай бұрын

You are assuming that, given enough time, even the rarest of events will ultimately repeat themselves an infinite number of times. Can't agree with that. It would still be theoretically possible for an infinitely rare event to happen only once, no matter how many years are involved. Other events will never occur at all. I don't care how many years you wait, if you place a rock on display somewhere, it will never ultimately transform into a living thing. Never. Never ever. Therefore, to theorize infinitely many "big bangs" is quite a stretch.

Given enough time, anything and everything can happen. We don’t know how long it took for the universe to be created, so even if the chances were one-quintillionth of a quintillionth of a percent, given enough time the universe was guaranteed to exist. The same is true for planets with intelligent life on them. Last time I checked, we didn’t know the size of the entire universe. The entirety of the unknown sections could have intelligent life in them for all we know, but even if that isn’t the case, at least 1 planet meeting the criteria for it is guaranteed given enough time. It just seems impossible because we’re comparing the amount of time required to our human time. The universe doesn’t run on human time, it runs on universe time, so applying human time to it to try and explain things that require universe time is just illogical. It would be like saying that a 3 year old lion is still just a harmless toddler because 3 years of human time is a toddler. In actuality, 3 years of lion time is enough for that lion to overpower a human, kill them, and then eat them.

@21area21

3 жыл бұрын

You're almost totally right man. I have no idea why people don't understand such basic concepts. The only reason i said almost right is that we do have a pretty good idea of the age of the universe. That's because from our observations, everything started from the big bang. We can see stuff all flying outward from the center and after looking at their speed, we can estimate how long it has been since the initial explosion that was the birth of the universe as we know it. What happened before that? No idea. Was time itself created during the big bang? Hell if I know. Also, the probability of life developing in an earth like planet is pretty high. Most people don't understand the phenomena, but basically, under the right conditions, the natural trajectory would be for life to be created. It all has to do with how probability works. To kind of put it in perspective, here's an example: Lets think about a grocery store. They only have parking lots that can only fit a limited amount of people. This is not a problem because people come throughout the day, and the parking lot usually doesn't go over capacity. But if everyone happened to decide to go to the grocery store at the same exact time, there would be WAY too many cars for the lot to handle. But this is so unlikely, it's pretty much impossible, but there is still a chance it can happen. Well, this is pretty common sense right? The thing is, most people think that life existing is like the chance of everyone going to the store at the same time, except the odds of basically an infinite number of people all deciding to go to the store at the same time. This assumption is where the error is. The amazing thing about life and how evolution works is that if certain conditions come together, probability prefers the development of life. To demonstrate this, let me take you on another little thought experiment. Do you know those little coin donation funnels that you sometimes see in stores? (I don't know if they're still around, but I used to see them when i was a kid.) If you don't, just look it up. Basically, we can represent evolution of life with this. Lets represent every planet in the universe as a 1 mile wide circle. Now, this circle has a surface that has a randomized shape. And lets represent the change of having life on a planet as randomly dropping a coin on the outer edge of the circle and having it END UP within 1 foot of the center. (crazy low odds. We're randomly dropping a coin on the edge of this huge circle. The odds of getting a coin to the center are almost impossible) Now, some surfaces of the circles might look like a single mountain. Some might look like a bunch of little islands. Some like a series of sand dunes. When we go through enough circles with these different surface shapes, we'll eventually get to one with a funnel shape like the coin donation funnels with the center of the funnel in the middle of the circle. Earth is one of these planets. When we roll the on earth, it ends up in the center. Bingo. This super long and kinda convoluted analogy is kinda how probability of life works. The surface shape is a representation of the factors that make a planet support life. Why does the funnel make sense? That's a much more complicated discussion but basically, because the nature of evolution is towards the spontaneous manifestation of life. I would recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins if you want to learn about this. There's an awesome audiobook version if you don't wanna read it, but it shows you how given the right conditions, the course of nature will result in the spontaneous manifestation of ever complex replicating units. These replicators went from replicating molecules to clumps of molecules to nested molecules to primitive cells and then to multicellular clumps and eventually, after a long road, complicated animals. This was all with the coin rolling down the funnel. A direction that is preferred by probability. I hope this was remotely helpful. I know it was very crude and kinda nonsensical but one can hope. D:

@samuel08790

3 жыл бұрын

ur argument need faith to justify. and it can’t be tested in lab or falsifiable. therefore it’s not sciences.

@21area21

3 жыл бұрын

@@samuel08790 No, therefore it's irrational.

@samuel08790

3 жыл бұрын

@staticlion99 ur argument need faith to justify. and it can’t be tested in lab or falsifiable. therefore it’s not sciences.

@doquangtuan4597

3 жыл бұрын

@@samuel08790 well, its a basic concept in mathematics, and mathematics is not like natural or social science, its doesnt have to be proven in lab or by experimences.

Why would God create Jupiter to pull asteroids away from earth? Why wouldn't he just not create asteroids?

@galaxy2699

8 жыл бұрын

Because you've been duped by NASA. There's no such a phenomena.

@typemoon4894

8 жыл бұрын

to trick people. god is an asshole like that.

@certifiedforkliftdriver9987

8 жыл бұрын

+type moon he would be if he existed

@Euph_-v-

8 жыл бұрын

+Galaxy Uh... People have been observing asteroids since before NASA even existed.

@shawnshackelford9149

8 жыл бұрын

+Michael Hurwitz Yes he does, he knows God didn't make it. He's a lot smarter than you.

*Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.* _"I do not know, then it must be god!"_ ಠ_ಠ

@michaelw2838

8 жыл бұрын

Ral Crux Atheist: "I don't see God. Therefore God does not exist?" Well, just read about the story of fatima apparitions, zaitun apparition, and others. These are apparition of the Mother of God. Miracles happened. And Atheist just blindly reject even though evidence shows that they are indeed miracleS. Miracle is one way to prove that God exist.

@Ral9284

8 жыл бұрын

Michael W Wrong, it is more like _"There is no evidence of god, therefore it's irrational to believe in god."_ All your so called "apparitions" and "miracles" can be explained by the simplest natural phenomena and/or mass delusion.

@KingWorstie

8 жыл бұрын

+Ral Crux Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. "Humans haven't found evidence of a god, therefore there is no god." ಠ_ಠ

@Ral9284

8 жыл бұрын

KingWorstie​​​​ Also there isn't evidence of magic, so it must be real too...¬_¬ Obviously you haven't heard of *falsifiability.* And you are changing my words, that is intellectual dishonesty. By the way, one cannot prove the existence of what doesn't exist, not even its non-existence. Reason cannot start with a conclusion and try to prove it right, you start with evidence and go wherever it takes you. You are intellectually incompetent, if you think you can get away doing so.

@Ral9284

8 жыл бұрын

Alvaro Ayque _"i can´t explain the apparitions, it must be mass delusion"_ What you refer to as "apparitions" does have scientific explanations. You are fabricating a *_Strawman Fallacy._* Everything in the universe has a rational and natural explanation. Any supernatural explanation is irrational from the very start. Now, even if such _"apparitions"_ had any resemblance to a supernatural manifestation, there is no evidence it was any god at all. Look, your thing isn't logical reasoning. You cannot grasp the bare basic concepts of the science called *Logic.* And you are committing too many logical fallacies in a single comment.

The people that disliked this were the ones that came here for proof of no God only to be taught that even science is starting to believe in a creator the more they understand these things.

@JDG-hq8gy

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/iX2rrcqRXZTNirQ.html

@Daniel-wr9ql

5 ай бұрын

Is that what you got out of the video? Jesus. Millions of years of evolution only to end up with a moron without critical thinking skills such as you

@lycaeo

2 ай бұрын

No, the dislikes are because nearly half of this video is full of gross oversimplification, estimates, and simply incorrect facts, along with poor critical thinking.

_For two cents, you should get change. Belief is not required where there is evidence. Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says. Science proceeds from evidence to a conclusion which is ALWAYS provisional. As additional evidence comes to light that supports that conclusion, so does the certainty it is correct. One's 'belief' is not part of that process. Belief is required where there is NO evidence. That is why religions are called belief systems. Beliefs exist in the human mind, they do not manifest themselves as evidence of any sort. Most of the 'information' one receives in life is OPINION, not fact. That is what religions are; opinions. They are opinions for which people kill in order to prove their opinion to be the correct one. This is NOT rational thought. Belief is an idea that neither seeks nor requires verifiable evidence. "A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind."_ - Robert Oxton Bolton

@studiobencivengamarcusbenc5272

4 жыл бұрын

good show me evidence that god does not exist - you cannot have it both ways - ignorant atheist make me laugh - by the way NEWTON believed in god - but of course he was just a genius hahaha

@randomness3235

4 жыл бұрын

@@studiobencivengamarcusbenc5272 I think Newton, like many, was a deist, not a theist or atheist.

@MarkWrightPsuedo

4 жыл бұрын

Science has nothing to say about God because there is no empirical evidence. At the same time it has to allow for the possibility as one possible theory. Atheism is therefore illogical. A suspension of belief, an agnostic position, is a far more reasonable approach than atheism.

@MrT398

4 жыл бұрын

Random Ness the major flaw with this quote is that evidence requires interpretation. It requires opinion. I am a scientist, the evidence in my experiments do not tell me truth, I must interpret the data to find the truth. Interpretation at any level is subjective. This is why many scientific “truths” have later been proven to be false. They required human opinion which is flawed. Quoting a philosophers logic, is a belief in the philosophical opinion. Things don’t magically appear to be true. You chose it. Truth requires opinion or choice. Every human on the planet has had error in interpretation, whether acknowledged or not.

@HI-sk9kn

4 жыл бұрын

Existence is the greatest evidence of a creator.

It doesn't matter what the odds are because they were evidently good enough for the universe to be created as it is at least once.

@AdamSmith-kl1rs

8 жыл бұрын

Anthropic principle 👍

@joelhk8081

8 жыл бұрын

+Samuel Andrychowski True, but which side do you think is believable? It has to be either God or odds.

@natsdad300

8 жыл бұрын

+Ali Can Metan Love it lol

@FuckYou8495

8 жыл бұрын

"Created as it is at least once" created by what? More like popped into existence for no reason with no cause. Idk sounds sketchy to me but believe what you will.

@CruelestChris

8 жыл бұрын

+Joel HK What are the odds of God, though?

This video uses some overzealous paraphrasing to the point of being really misleading. For example, look at the quote they put in the video @2:13. If you actually read the article, you’ll find that it actually says (I’ll put in bold only the parts they showed in the video): “However, in the interest of science and sound skepticism, I believe it is time to take the *new findings and insights* into account, to dampen excessive SETI euphoria and to adopt a more pragmatic and down-to-earth stand, compatible with facts. *We should quietly admit that the early estimates* - that there may be a million, a hundred thousand, or ten thousand advanced extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy - *may no longer be tenable*.” See how Prager cherry picked this narrative? Why would they do that? Because there’s at least 100 billion galaxies, so even if there was only one planet with intelligent life per galaxy, that’s still 100 billion planets with intelligent life that are totally beyond communication, which greatly weakens Prager’s narrative. What’s worse is that the article was written in 2006, years before Kepler discovered all those extrasolar planets, bringing the galactic estimate to _at least_ 100 billion planets in our galaxy alone, all of which are currently beyond our ability to communicate with even if there is intelligent life on any of them. I wonder how many other quotes in this video are misleading. I've already wasted enough time with the one quote and I don't want to waste time on the others, but if you'd like to reply to this comment with your findings, please do so. Despite all this, time is the most important variable and it’s completely ignored in this video. A planet can have life on it for billions of years, and intelligent life for millions of years, and still not have the ability to communicate with distant planets. In fact, that’s exactly Earth’s situation. So, to say that because our immensely limited species, “hasn’t found intelligent life in the universe yet” after only a few decades of primitive research, and use that as any sort of argument about the nature of the universe, is to exemplify a gross misunderstanding of the subject matter. Finally, having never observed other universes, we can currently only state that the odds of our universe coming into existence are 1:1. Anything else requires appealing to the unknown as if it’s known. Furthermore, if God had to greatly fine-tune, then it means He was bound by rules that _forced_ Him to do so. The greater the odds, the more restricted the god. The more restricted the god, the more impotent the god. So, omnipotence is sacrificed to make this argument, which is untenable for the Abrahamic god. Let us not forget that this also leads to the question of who created the rules that dictated the requirements for God’s fine-tuning? Example: you fine-tune a car, because physics prevents you from getting the car to do what you want it to do unless you take those physics into consideration and base your fine-tuning around them. So, what was preventing “God” from getting the universe to do what He wanted, thereby forcing Him to take such considerations that resulted in the need for this supposed extreme fine-tuning? The fine-tuning argument actually kills the classical monotheistc god, yet Prager still uses it.

@kmadoom

8 жыл бұрын

Well that just means we don't know. We'll never know until we die...

@joefinfrock3247

8 жыл бұрын

The argument also dose not explain where did god come into play and how this extremely fine tuned universe would need a god that would have to be way more complex then the universe would be. This argument is called passing the buck and falls apart at even remotely thinking deeper into what prager is saying.

@ydlbm

8 жыл бұрын

+DarkMatter2525 I know you you make video's about god but you do bad research

@glendsouza3375

8 жыл бұрын

+darkmatter2525 the crux of both statements is the same...a shorter statement makes it easier for viewers...you of all people should know that. ques. why haven't we found intelligent life outside earth? ans. must be because we haven't had enough time. Ad hoc much? odds of our universe coming into existence is just 1:1. ok let's just throw theoretical physics out the window, shall we? "if God had to fine-tune, then he had to have been restricted by rules that forced him to do so"...that's an assumption/your opinion, not a fact. grab a plate darkmatter, you just got served.

@ydlbm

8 жыл бұрын

Glen DSouza don't waste time with that troll he so lost with fantasy its sad

The puddle also thinks the pothole was specifically designed for itself since it’s edges so perfectly match the puddle’s.

@MF-wz4eq

4 жыл бұрын

Ok... but your atheist bias is showing by grasping for straws

@radicalxedward8047

4 жыл бұрын

visionware pot Uhh what? Who said I was an atheist? Even religious people can admit when someone makes a bad argument laced abundantly with logical fallacies. If this guy said 1+1=3 and I said 1+1=2 there’d still be people saying that’s just my atheist bias. And it’s funny how the only people who think atheists have a collectivist view of the world like Christians and Jews are religious people.

@sahilnajeeb2682

4 жыл бұрын

Well said!

@cthulhufhtagn2483

4 жыл бұрын

Could not have put it better myself. 15/10.

@1TalldrinkH2O

4 жыл бұрын

Water cannot puddle without boundaries on a planet with gravity. Therefore, a container such as a pothole is necessary for a puddle to even form. Your pothole argument has so many holes in it the water's draining out.

Religion is basically the old version of science. Science is based on facts, religion is based on guesses.

@thestratigic1631

3 жыл бұрын

>60 perfectly fitting books with 40 different authors is pretty well fitting A model that can't make planetesimals isnt

Intelligent design is not science, and it can never be. If anything, this is an argument from ignorance. Trying to use the science of "unknowns" to assert a deity. Shame that, as it puts your deity into an ever smaller and smaller box.

@frosted1030

9 жыл бұрын

***** "We have no direct evidence of God, therefore there must be no God?" You can say the same thing about anything fictional, the major difference is that theists endeavor to avoid specifically defining a deity so that they may move the goalpost. " How is that not an appeal to ignorance?" It doesn't rely on a methodology from ignorance, it relies on what we know. Skepticism is always the default position. Without a rational basis for an assertion there is no reason to follow the assertion any farther, it would be a waste of resources. In this case, an unknown is an unknown, we ignore that which we have no data for, until there is supporting data that forms a predictive model. We use deductive reasoning to determine these things.

@frosted1030

9 жыл бұрын

***** "When you really get right down to it, skepticism is a position of faith, when it is as you indicate the denial of all things that can't be proven." You are confusing faith (gullibility) with skepticism (a foundational ethic that all science relies upon, and in turn brings us results 100% of the time). We are not out to prove anything (unless you are interested in talking about mathematics). We evidence predictive models through use of a methodology. The same methodology that has brought you the internet, space travel, cures for diseases, and such. It's a reliable way to determine reality and build upon knowledge through predictive modeling.

@frosted1030

9 жыл бұрын

***** " what is logical about denying what you have no evidence for?" Do you beLIEve in Heryshaf, Ahura, Mazda, Quetzalcoatl, Damballa, Mbombo, Nanabozho, or Obatala, or do you deny their existence based only on the word of your own storybook *that never mentions any of them by name?* You see, you might as well beLIEve everything, from unicorns, pixies, and egg laying rabbits, if you just accept anything that doesn't have sufficient evidence to support it. Is that what you do?

@frosted1030

9 жыл бұрын

***** Actually, your methodology is precisely: Accept what you have no evidence for. Seeing as you have no evidence for what you have never heard of or think might be fictitious, you must follow your methodology and accept them all. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.

@frosted1030

9 жыл бұрын

***** How is that a strawman? You stated "what is logical about denying what you have no evidence for?". That directly states that it is logical within your methodology to accept everything not evidenced. " My point is that deductive logic isn't at play with either position, therefore both positions are based on faith." Faith is gullibility. This is hardly the case when evaluating assertions that lack qualitative demonstrable evidence. Thus skepticism is our guide.

Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

@AudreyTheMonkey

6 жыл бұрын

Gary Gray Not really though, an atheist is bread that believes science was the baker and the chemical reactions in the oven and yeast causes them to RISE

@austindarrenor

6 жыл бұрын

Audrey Tompkins I have a brother that's a devout atheist and I know that the reason is is that he just doesn't like the idea of some day having to be accountable to some higher being. Too many "unmentionables" in his life. I don't think that applies to all atheists but I haven't known enough of them to be able to say.

@AudreyTheMonkey

6 жыл бұрын

Gary Gray shit I responded to the wrong comment lmao sorry. Yeah I get what you’re saying

@austindarrenor

6 жыл бұрын

Audrey Tompkins No worries :)

@MeanBeanKerosene

6 жыл бұрын

+Gary Gray No such thing as a devout atheist. It's just Atheist or Anti-Theist. Secondly, you assume that there's a higher being to start with. Atheists are not convinced because there is no evidence of said higher being. Lastly, you say 'unmentionables'. Let's call them what you or theists call them: sins. According to your bible and doctrine, a sinner will go to hell if he does not ask forgiveness. Infinite punishment for a finite crime. Do you believe that this is in God's character to put eternal torture for something as trivial as not believing in him?

Not the universe is designed for life, but life is designed for the universe.

The idea of a creator is NOT the BEST but the EASIEST

Flip that coin for an infinite amount of time and suddenly that instance of being heads One Quintilian times in a row is almost guarantied to happen at some point. As for fine tuning the universe, in infinite time and space all possible settings will eventually happen, and we would only know of the specific settings that we exist in. There could be settings better for life in the universe, but we just happen to exist at this point in space and time. We can't know how many other possibilities have happened or will happen.

@lilschmea

8 жыл бұрын

+samtheweebo That's exactly what I was thinking. Have you heard of 'The Bubble Theory'? It is where it is speculated that there are separate realities within the universe. These realities are either so far apart we can't ever hope to reach them, or they are in another dimension. In fact, given the infinite amount of time and space within the universe, there is the immense possibility that there are parallel universes to our own. With never-ending time, you can almost guarantee that there will be never-ending worlds, with never-ending realities. Many of these theoretical realities can even contain multiple 'you's' or 'me's' or 'us's', where we make different choices. And with the infinite amount of choices people are given in life, you can be sure there are infinite outcomes to everyone's life. Just let that blow your mind for a little...

@samtheweebo

8 жыл бұрын

yup, the thing is with infinite time and space anything that is possible will happen. The question is what is possible? We don't know. Maybe our big bang and universe is the only possible thing, or maybe infinite universes are possible.

@defaultuser9423

8 жыл бұрын

Space and time are not infinite according to "modern" cosmology itself. Then what are you claiming?

@samtheweebo

8 жыл бұрын

Default User94 Well that's within our universe. Who knows if there is an "outside" of our universe or a cyclical system of the universe starting over. All we can ever know is what we can detect and infer. We can detect that space as we know it expanded out of nothing. But we have no way of knowing what was there before, or even if there was anything before. Was time something that was functioning before the universe began? Will time still function after the heat death of our universe? Will a heat dead universe eventually start over? All questions that are likely impossible to know the answers to.

@davidburke4101

8 жыл бұрын

The fallacy of this argument is that it assumes that time and space is infinite, and that there are infinite multiverses. If it can make those assumptions, then I can make the assumption that god exists therefore making this argument worthless to disprove him. And if you concede that there is no evidence that time and space is infinite, and that there is no evidence that there are infinite multiverses, then the math still stands.

My Bullshit-o-meter is going crazy

@einzeller85

9 жыл бұрын

just quote a so called "atheist" out of context and you´ve got a god argument :D wow.

@TheAndrew1987

9 жыл бұрын

i usually enjoy prager u's vids and generally agree with them but this one is too much bs for me to handle, "because its very unlikely it means that god did it *cue my profile picture* "

@MikeDunn

9 жыл бұрын

Alvin Unbekannt Damn bro. You OWNED this video just by saying it's bullshit. Look at all the thumbs up you're getting for your insightful comment.

@lolyganster

9 жыл бұрын

I know, I am just an examplary gentlemen, who has an astonishing lingustic repertoire and practises perfectly contructive and reasoned criticism.

@MikeDunn

9 жыл бұрын

Alvin Unbekannt You're more than one man? That's awesome.

Fighting science and religion is being close minded. Sometimes you can use them together, sometimes you can't. There are things science can't explain and neither religion because of its metaphoric nature. I'm Catholic and I love science too and there has never ever been a moment in my life where those two things collided in my mind. Just get your head out of your asses, both sides, and embrace knowledge and culture. The moment the world's going to be in peace is not when religions disappear (they won't ever, get over it), it will be when we all respect, tolerate and learn from each other.

@fridamoreno4224

4 жыл бұрын

@Greg Fakerson So, with everything you said, you just proved my point. Science and religion cannot win between each other because they're so different and forcing them to is just senseless. This is not a competition, this is about possibility of adquiring new knowledge (which is what I care) and learning more and more about the world we live in from different points of view (studying other religions you can see how other culture's are). Religion doesn't care about proving anything because is not science, you yourself said it, so I see no valid reason to separate them in the way atheists tend to do. Religion helps itself with science all the time, theology exists for that reason. No one has to believe if they don't want to, but looking and expecting science to erase religion won't ever happen; just the basic: science cannot prove God's inexistence such as religion cannot prove his existence. So while there's no way science can deny certain things and religion can't prove them, we're all in a vicious circle. I follow the example of religious scientists, whose job is to look out for the truth but find space to keep their faith in.

@maryeverett2266

Жыл бұрын

@@fridamoreno4224 Something being different doesn't mean they can't compete. Either science or religion is wrong. From everything that has happened in the past to the present day, it's very obvious that science is winning, if not has won already. The most basic belief in the scientific method is that we examine what exists to come to a conclusion. In summary, evidence before conclusion. Based on this, God doesn't exist. Please don't tell me that you don't believe in the scientific method. It has proven to be extremely effective for figuring out reality for thousands of years. To say that it's wrong is actually insane.

@ash_11117

Жыл бұрын

As a fellow Catholic I can relate to this, and I hate how some atheists say that science is incompatible with religion and some Catholics think our religion is incompatible with science. They both fit together.

@cosmo588

Жыл бұрын

@@ash_11117 they don’t “fit” it’s just you believe one thing that’s based in the natural world (science) and another that can’t be proved by the natural world and it’s laws (existence of a god). Faith in the supernatural is literally impossible to refute with science, because it’s based on faith.

@cosmo588

Жыл бұрын

@@ash_11117 btw, I have no issue with that. You believe what you want, I do the same and we treat eachother with respect.

You dip a pint glass into the ocean, take it out and look at it. “Nope no fish”

@josiahjudah3126

4 жыл бұрын

Dont even try to go that route, under a microscope there are planktons and bacteria. Even a pinch of dust from the desert has life or evidence thereof.

@shawnwilliams3604

4 жыл бұрын

@@josiahjudah3126 but we are talking fish not microbes

@josiahjudah3126

4 жыл бұрын

@@shawnwilliams3604 technically planktons are not microbes, they are small plant and animal life. Hahaha

@shawnwilliams3604

4 жыл бұрын

@@josiahjudah3126 again we are still talking fish whole fish not microscopic life or non-fish :)

@josiahjudah3126

4 жыл бұрын

@@shawnwilliams3604 Damn, but fishes are animal life like zooplaktons not microbes. How do you intend to interpret his argument in the first place?

"What are the odds....THEREFORE GOD"

@redrift7991

7 жыл бұрын

Sums this up pretty well I'd say

@norocristian4710

7 жыл бұрын

The odds are not just very small, but we humans can't even imagine the magnitude of that number, that's why the probability of creation is higher. And this is only one of the arguments for a created universe.

@PonzooonTheGreat

7 жыл бұрын

The odds that it was a magic man in the sky are higher? How exactly is that? No, this is a fallacy called the god of the gaps. I don't know, therefore I somehow do know and it was a wizard.

@norocristian4710

7 жыл бұрын

PonzooonTheGreat It's not that I alone or we christians do not know, we all humans have no ideea, and as I said, it's not the only argument, there are plenty evidence that point out (not demonstrate, because ultimately you have to believe) to God. Christianity brings far more credible evidence than any other theory. It's not a "magic guy" with a "magic wand", it's an all powerfull being. We can not fully understand what that means, but it's easy to speculate that an all knowing all powerful being could easily make the universe possible rather than, chance.

@GlimpseCorp

7 жыл бұрын

"but it's easy to speculate that an all knowing all powerful being could easily make the universe possible" It's also easy to speculate that non-intelligent fundamental eternal causes could easily make the universe possible.

There is also a DEFENING SILINCE FROM GOD

@beidouvirus3978

8 жыл бұрын

+ds5221 That's why it's called faith. We have faith he exists, even if there's no evidence.

@sutfolsemaj

8 жыл бұрын

+Manu Perez And Muslims have faith that Allah exists, and Romans had faith that their gods existed, and Greeks their gods, and so on. What makes you naivety - I mean faith, any different?

@beidouvirus3978

8 жыл бұрын

James Loftus I didn't say it was any different. Nowhere in my comment did I even imply that it was different and special.

@sutfolsemaj

8 жыл бұрын

+Manu Perez I know, and I'm telling you why I think that faith is stupid.

@beidouvirus3978

8 жыл бұрын

James Loftus Why is it stupid then? I saw nothing in your comment explaining this belief of yours.

When he said flipping a coin and landing on heads 10 octillion times that's when I knew God existed🤣🤣

@Eisenbison

3 жыл бұрын

Except that if you look at any event that's already happened and all the factors and odds that led up to it happening exactly the way it did, you could obtain a probability so small as to say it's statistically impossible for that to have happened. It's a terrible argument. It's like saying that if you look at all the events in my life that led to me typing this comment, you could say that it's statistically impossible for ANYONE to type a KZread comment.

@preciousadedibu1821

3 жыл бұрын

@@Eisenbison None of those are reaching 1 in 10 octillion

@Eisenbison

3 жыл бұрын

@@preciousadedibu1821 Dude, what are the actual odds that I'd live my life exactly the way I did by random chance to compose all of these comments exactly the same way down to every single letter and post each of them at exactly the same second? You're looking at a set of odds greater than octillions, my friend. And the "octillions" is a misrepresentation of the facts. That's just the odds of this Earth's conditions turning out exactly the way they did. The earth could be many millions of miles closer or more distant to the sun within the "goldilocks zone" have significantly different mass, atmospheric composition etc. and life STILL could have likely evolved on this planet, because the conditions under which life can survive are much broader than what this liar is implying, and every time we try to find a limit to the conditions in which life can survive, we find organisms that can exceed those previously-thought limits. This guy's argument fails spectacularly.

@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes

3 жыл бұрын

@@Eisenbison WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF A COMMENT TYPING ITSELF? ZERO!🤣😂 YOU FOOL, YOU TYPED THE COMMENT, SOMEONE MADE THE PLANET🤣😂 WHAT A FOOL YOU ARE!!!!!!

@Eisenbison

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes Then who or what made the creator if everything needs a creator?

One of the first thing you learn in science is that claims need to be backed up by evidence. I'm an atheist and have enjoyed many PragerU videos on youtube but these 5min 'informative' videos would really benefit from having sources otherwise it just sounds like a bunch of cherry picked punch lines and a few quotes from some religious scientists...

@betacuck3145

Жыл бұрын

The amount of cope from you guys is delicious

God isn't dead. One has to exist in order have lived, and then died.

@ericgriffin5085

7 жыл бұрын

No, God is probably a pile of shit here's my favourite passages words god gave us to live by: "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19" "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Exodus 23:19" “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Peter 2:18: )

@Reifen98

7 жыл бұрын

Dan Weeks *tips Fedora*

@ricardodiez4311

7 жыл бұрын

Harvard study - average IQ by religion Muslim- 92 Christian- 98 Pagan- 98 Hindu- 104 Buddhist- 108 Jew- 115 Atheist- 119

@synktrain

7 жыл бұрын

ed smith not if the atheist actively pushes away dogma

@kazikian

7 жыл бұрын

Dan Weeks When one says "God is dead," as did famously Nietzsche, one is being metaphorical. God exists in the minds of His believers; God is dead once the last believer stops believing.

We don't understand something, therefore god did it!

@itneeds2bsaid528

8 жыл бұрын

Well.. God did everything... so he gets credit for the things you do understand too...

@joeshortt6420

8 жыл бұрын

+David Smith God and man are two different things. Matter and God are the same thing. God created us, but he can not control us, but can control our atmosphere. (metamorphically)

@Redtecho

8 жыл бұрын

Anticipating that we can explain everything about our world and universe is equally appalling behavior I say. Therefore a God could potentially do something that we do not understand, might never know about, and may never be able to explain... what exactly is your point here good sir.

@smellycharly8956

8 жыл бұрын

+joe shortt God does have control over us, but he chose to let us have free will

@gendoruwo6322

8 жыл бұрын

and God is Jesus, or Yahweh, or Allah...

The fact that you can't explain why we are here doesn't mean that God exists. Just admit that you can't explain everything.

@Conan-Le-Cimmerien

2 жыл бұрын

@Yang Wen Li Hum evolution is perfectly explained, always has been in fact

I still think life can exist outside what we currently know. Just because we haven't found life beyond our limited reach doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This still does not change my belief that their is a God who created everything. It would be awesome if God spread love of life to many places in the universe instead of just our one grain of sand.

I just came for the toxic comment

@21area21

5 жыл бұрын

Poison. Mushrooms. Chlorine gas. Carbon Monoxide.

@truefan2123

5 жыл бұрын

Toxic subject too .. someone will kill you over wrong God.

@BlacksmithTWD

4 жыл бұрын

I'd recommend to seek out the comment sections of funny cats video's instead if you want to avoid toxicity.

@AdityaDeo-cg6eu

4 жыл бұрын

@@21area21 creativily hilarious

I am not convinced. Life evolves to it's enviornment, so use of parametars that WE need is pointless.

@josephang9927

9 жыл бұрын

Physic laws: biological life is supported by some parameters. Except, of course, if we refer to virtual or non ohysical life.

@rollingafatblunt2228

9 жыл бұрын

So you are using physics to argue biology? Great job mate, keep it going.

@lolyganster

9 жыл бұрын

Joseph Ang You need a base for life to start upon, but it is very "broad", the rest is adaption from the life form to the local conditions

@rollingafatblunt2228

9 жыл бұрын

Bro a microbe can fall on Venus and still find a way to live there. We only know life in this type. We don't know if there are any other types of life forms. It's redic to try and say "But there are too many planets and too many conditions to be met" because we can see shit of our universe. But whatever.

@Bosshogg386

9 жыл бұрын

Mike Minkov The parameters are not set to what "we" need. They are set to what any kind of life whatsoever would need, intelligent or otherwise.

Well by his agruements Zeus and Jupiter are just as probable as the christian god he is argueing for.

@sirlegrand4427

4 жыл бұрын

He didn't even mention Christianity.

@TheSteveRibeiro

4 жыл бұрын

@@sirlegrand4427 but he is referring to monotheism ;)

@viktorolovsson4899

4 жыл бұрын

You're right I just assumed it was the judeo-christian god as it's always him that prager U argue for. Also how many other monotheistic gods are there? Allha?

To be honest, in regards to the quote “there are two possibilities; either we are alone in this universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying” I would have to say the most terrifying one is “not alone,” for the sole reason of the unknown. If there is nothing to know out there, there is nothing to fear. If there is at least one civilization out there that isn’t ours, then we don’t know if there are more. Even if we find it.

@jervieglydelacerna9199

Жыл бұрын

To be honest, in regards to the quote "there are two possibilities: either we are alone in this universe or we are not, both of which are equally terrifying," I would have to say "not alone" is the most terrifying. NLEC 5_LACERNA,JERVIE GLYDE

Dude, all these factors have to be fulfilled for us to think about our origin. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here. If these odds were not fulfilled on earth but on another planet, the species there would ask itself the same kind of questions.

@patu2175

4 жыл бұрын

Doktor Thomas Stey Yep

@obimo3884

4 жыл бұрын

What're the chances of any other planet having the same results

@Dennis-nc3vw

4 жыл бұрын

The first half of the video is weak, because there are a billion other planets in the galaxy. However, the second part of the video talks about the fine-tuned universe, which is much more solid argument because we only know of one universe and literally the only evidence we have that there are multiple universes is that it allows us to doubt the existence of God.

@Dr.vonKrankenhausen

4 жыл бұрын

@@Dennis-nc3vw both parts are equally weak

@jon66097

4 жыл бұрын

​@@Dennis-nc3vw That is demonstrably false. The multiverse model is based on an equation, not because 'our universe sustains life'. Erwin Schrodinger, who came up with it, believed in god or gods, I'm not entirely sure myself, he described science as an approach to the 'godhead'. Besides, 99.99% of the observable universe does not have life so it doesnt seem very fine tuned.

If you make an infinite number of planets, then you'll eventually get one that supports life (by chance). If you make an infinite number of universes, at least one will end up similar to ours. We just have a 100% chance of being born on a planet that supports life, in a universe that didn't end up in smithereens.

@rlbadger1698

9 жыл бұрын

Tae Lim Kook You got it in one, congrats on being smart!

@CJ2345ish

8 жыл бұрын

Tae Lim Kook But here is the problem of the mutliverse theory; it's completely unsupported by scientific evidence. It's something that is highly speculative and honestly from my research seems to be the biproduct of arguments like these which have unavoidable conclusions for a divine creator.

@sethapex9670

8 жыл бұрын

Tae Lim Kook great now show that there are any more universes than the one we inhabit. the only evidence we have to go on with multiverse theory is string theory which is still incomplete.

@maverickdallas1004

8 жыл бұрын

+Andrew Hoffer Our Earth is but a tiny dot in our solar system, which is but a tiny dot in our Milky Way galaxy, which is but a tiny dot in the known universe which in all probability is just a tiny dot in an even bigger "megaverse".

@zacharykahle3065

8 жыл бұрын

Tae Lim Kook Life cannot create itself from a chance combination of nonliving chemicals. By the way, there is only 1 universe.

Wow I learned so much by reading the comments of all these KZread philosophers, astronomers, scientists, and physicists. It’s amazing how these nobodies think they know more than actual experts.

@VenturaWeddings

2 жыл бұрын

Eric relays dozens of scientific facts that can each be studied and explored. The evidence is right in front of your eyes. Obvious conclusion for most. How others can deny Ill never know.

I thought the universe was fine-tuned for life... why isn’t it teeming with it?

@Zimbobroke

10 ай бұрын

i thought the practically infinite universe wasn't fine-tuned for life... why is the earth teeming with it?

@kimbanton4398

2 ай бұрын

@@Zimbobroke Because Earth is literally nothing but a tiny tiny microbic space dust that is completely insignificant compared to the rest of the universe. So one small blink having some life in the grand scheme is literally nothing.

This argument only works for Deism though.

@robotputty

8 жыл бұрын

Michael Groesbeck Well, shit. I am not very informed in this specific area of discussion. I am conflicted. what religion are you?

@robotputty

8 жыл бұрын

Dude, you know that the Big bang theory is pretty solid... And, also your points can be counted by one thing: There can be multiple big bangs.

@galaxy2699

8 жыл бұрын

That's enough. Point is atheism is stupidity.

@walterwhite7554

8 жыл бұрын

+Galaxy SII Dear friendless troll, Taking Allah, Vishnu and magic Jesus on Faith alone from stories half-educated men wrote long ago is more like stupidity I think. Why you Christians and the many billions of your story believing Hindu and Muslim friends have chosen that wide easy path of just believing tales that comfort you, and give you hope a magic god will save you from the pains and realities of life and death is more like stupidity.

@MichaelGroesbeck

8 жыл бұрын

***** You're just encouraging people to study more Mythos, aren't you.

This guy is awesome. He is using logic, common sense, and science to rightfully defend God. Why so much hate for someone who's defending an argument the right way?

@Lordgenome76

7 жыл бұрын

Because it's a bogus argument that's old as hell. It's based on a misunderstanding of low probability vs. impossibility. Here's a question: what are the odds that you would grow to be (insert height here)? Let's say we measure in real numbers, not integers, and your adult height is 71.348329423472347 inches. Or to whatever precision you'd like. What are the odds that you'd grow to that *exact* height? Out of the *infinite* amount of possible heights you could grow to instead? For instance, 69.238423942835 inches tall instead. The odds that out of all possible heights you'd end up at ONE specific height are incredibly tiny, and if we're using the infinite set of real numbers between 54 and 90 (arbitrarily chosen max and min heights for a human being), then the odds are zero. But I measured you and that's your height, and I can see that you're not slouching or standing on your toes or anything, so you must've grown to that height. Do you understand now?

@turtle3600

7 жыл бұрын

Your comparison makes no sense as its irrelevant to the argument. Your example is that of a (1) fractioned number between two other numbers. However, the example in the video is referring to the numerous variables implied in just the requirements for a planet to habitable (how life emerge is still a mystery to atheist). So I really don't understand where you where trying to go with this. Now if you want to talk about precised numbers, even fine tuning seriously puts into question the faith many scientist place on chance. Arriving to precised measurements down to the exact fraction time after time after time which would otherwise destroy our universe is plain stupid and illogical unless you can prove any of it. Not to mention no one has ever witnessed a law spring out of chance.

@Lordgenome76

7 жыл бұрын

Lmao, I don't think you even understood the argument in the video, let alone my succinct rebuttal.

@turtle3600

7 жыл бұрын

Did you really understand it? Or are you just assuming you're right because you hate being wrong? Lol. Watch it again, it is clearly speaking of the criteria necessary for life to exist, right from the beginning of the video. Idk how you got everything confused so quickly lol. But like they say, ppl hear what hear want to hear.

@turtle3600

7 жыл бұрын

He even said nowadays the criteria is 200 separate requirements. Did you miss that statement too? Lol

This video is like saying scientists said there were 10 quintillion grains of sand but there’s 10 quintillion and 1, therefor god.

@jamesjob123

4 жыл бұрын

So the science really isn't settled then?

@radicalxedward8047

4 жыл бұрын

jamesjob123 There is no science in the first place. Science can’t prove nor disprove god. It’s untestable. Part of the requirement for testing something scientifically is that it has to be falsifiable (ie there has to be a way to show it’s true or false, not just true and not just false)

It makes me physically anxious hearing him throw around scientific 'facts' while clearly not understanding what he's talking about.

Popcorn doesn’t exist. *grabs god*

@ba3b

5 жыл бұрын

Then explain this emoji 🍿. Checkmate (this comment was made from 🍿gang)

@dataexpunged6969

5 жыл бұрын

@@ba3b that's God. 🍿 Is God, and he is more powerful than the Flying Spaghetti Monster

@jimmacky207

5 жыл бұрын

Subtexto O'Politan I don’t find that very respectful as a pastafarian. 🍝 long live linguini!

@linusschanreitner5825

5 жыл бұрын

@Fake as Fade thank you for your comment. Keep it up!

@eliarevalo

5 жыл бұрын

Gangrel mind blown.

In the description it says "the odds are less than zero" Edit: It seems my remark sparked quite the discussion which is not a bad thing in of itself. I didn't mean to disregard the ideas presented in the video in any way but I formulated the comment poorly. I apologize.

@willnewman9783

5 жыл бұрын

Lol. Nice catch

@el_perro_feliz6647

5 жыл бұрын

It should be the odds are less than 0.0000000000000000001 But anyways great video

@charzard1000

4 жыл бұрын

it's an expression chill lol

@SavageHenry777

4 жыл бұрын

@@el_perro_feliz6647 You don't know what the odds are, don't play pretend.

@gerardjones7881

4 жыл бұрын

The odds are no chance.

I am an atheist. Lets assume that there is a God. But which "God" should I believe in ? , it is easy to destroy the existence of God by analysing their crap holy books rather than argumenting about the existence of God itself....

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

@stevenshay2855

2 жыл бұрын

Great comment Doyle. This short video mainly covers the undeniable scientific evidence that our universe and Earth were intelligently designed. Being so short it would be tough to give some time to the marvelousness of the cell. The manufacturing/ departmenalized complexity of human cell…The human cell contains some of the most compelling evidence that something intelligent started all of this. Again, I agree with your sentiment and love other videos that cover the cell and intricacies of the human body. No way did we macro evolve.

@Bookshelf823

Жыл бұрын

But, if the big bang happens infinately, creating infinite universes, even with the odds of EVERYTHING (universe, cells, life, laws, etc.) being incomprehensably small, infinity nullifies all the chance

@shivangsrivastava6024

Жыл бұрын

Man, the probability of the existence of life on any randomly selected planet is stupendously low, but how many exoplanets have we discovered till now which are hospitable to life? An extremely low probability doesn't imply the impossibility of an event and in this vast cosmos, life had to evolve somewhere. Luckily though, it did on the earth.

@shivangsrivastava6024

Жыл бұрын

@@Bookshelf823 Correct.

well, if the rest of the universe is basicly useless for life, why should a god create it? what are the odds that a god would make oktillions of uninhabitable worlds?^^ (i dont stand for one side or the other tough, im an agnostic...)

@rhece123

8 жыл бұрын

Some Christians believe that, however that is not everybody. Mormons for example, we believe that there are other planets out there with more children of God on them, or in other words, we believe that there are other humans on other planets. Where do you think people get all those bizarre rumors about Mormons worshiping aliens? All those rumors just come from people taking that one simple piece and saying it's our entire religion. Why there are so many uninhabitable worlds I do not know, and I doubt any of us will be able to answer that correctly until the afterlife. A possibility could be for the very fact of making those odds that the above video speaks of. When one looks at the odds and the chances for things to go wrong for life it is uncomprehendingly high, there are many prophecies of how science will be one of the pillars supporting God in the last days; such chances are likely the beginning of the fulfillment of those prophesies. With the fine tuning argument being so strong towards having a creator it can be used to get those who are still trying to decide what is truth in their mind to see things in a different light. Allowing them to better decide for themselves. The mere fact of having more ways to bring people to a new understanding could also be a reason for creating the odds mentioned in this video.

@AlexTrusk91

8 жыл бұрын

the fine tuning argument meets its oponent in the believe that there could be as many different tuned universes as there are planets in our universe. that would mean most if not all other universes fail and we can think about that because we are luckily in that one possibility wich turns out well. but i admit that the problem with any kind of multiverse theory is that its outside of the scientific realm as long as we are limited to the speed of light as the fastest way to move stuff, energy or information trough space. if the bubble theory would be correct, we would never see other universes because they are too far out and even our own expanses so fast that we could never ever reach its edge. if other universes are some kind of parallel dfimensions and "here, but not here", we have no clue how or if we can get there to find out how they might look. for me, the thing that makes me a theistic agnostic is not the fine tuning argument, but it is, that there is something at all. if we take any mass, energy, stuff that we didn't know about yet of the past, the future and all possible universes, they have one thing in common: they are physical. and every physical thing needs a cause. it may be a probabalistic cause, maybe just a quantum fluctation, but even this is a cause. and this bears the question why there is the logic that there is anything. problem here is that we just can't say that its a natural/physical cause that follows physical logic (or probabilastic logic), because then its part of "everything that there is". the source of it all, ofeverything, has to be either a non-physical thing/eintity/pure enternal will to just be, or, 0=1 and all logic ends. either way the source of everything can't be restrained by logic at all. its ultra-free, free from every logic and limits. and if so, it seems kinda possible that there are more universes, or even things we can't even imagine. via logical reasoning this showed me that there is a part of existence wich jsut can't be logical explained, because the source of all logical/physical stuff can't be logical stuff again, that would basicly mean there was no source at all. and like i said, that would mean all logic ends, because in our physical world everything needs a cause. me the big bang be a thing, then this may be the link to the non-physical. it may had no physical cause, but another. quantum fluctuation bears still the question of "who or what made this rules?". if i would have to decide what i thing i believe, than i would say that there was a undefined thing that wanted borders to explore possibilities and basicly things/dreams the entire physical wourld. we are part of this and so we are part of this undefined unity or now plurality. but before anything physical, it might be very empty. no tought, no words, no feelings. just the will to be rather than not to exist. and since logic already ended, itself needs no cause, no time, no before and after. maybe all is what humans what call a tought. trying out things and playing with possibilities by setting besic rules and limits. on the other handy, maybe its just 0=1, all logic ends by creating rules, energy and stuff out of nothing, nopt even an eternal undefined meh. if there usnt anything that is non-physical, the universe makes no sense at all and if noone experiences it (wich/who is not bounded to be in it), then it would make no difference if it wouldnt be there. but it is there, because stuff is there. we can say its there because we exist and anything exists. come on hardcore atheists, prove my reasoning wrong. being an atheist would basicly mean giving up logic at all, 0=1 and A=>A without any cause. no matter how many big bangs you would set before this universe, even infinite big bangs doesnt solve the question of the first cause of everything.

@AlexTrusk91

8 жыл бұрын

before anone gets started: i dont see this as god in a classical way. with morals and stuff. there just wasn't any need for anything before there where anything (or any need for anything at all). so no moral ideal and history is not written yet (unless something can reverse it to thing/dream the universe again, maybe even all possible outcomes trough. morals and ethics may be just created when we create and shape them, not before. and maybe there are other self-reflecting beings in the physical universe wich are also take part of, well, everything. to get more perspectives of this existence.

@eddenz1356

8 жыл бұрын

I think most atheists are agnostic. No one can prove god's non existence. Dawkins admitted the same. But gods existence can be compared to that of the the tooth fairy unicorns leprechauns etc

@jericawilson1484

7 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure if others have answered, but the Bible says the heavens were created for God's glory. It shows just how powerful and wise God is, because it leaves us with awe. Creation reflects God like the moon reflects the sun.

While they brought up the magnitude of the size of the universe, they forgot to mention that it still perfectly explains how we can come to be. In fact, even if you factor in these parameters, you can still get that there are more than one planet like ours. Plus, this video neglects the idea that life elsewhere can be different than life on Earth. As far as the universe, you have to take up the magnitude of time (note i'm using time as an analogy). If the multi-verse exists, than it is inevitable that a universe exactly like ours would pop up more than once.

@jeffreymuu5451

7 жыл бұрын

iPhotonQ ok we get it your athirst but the chances of any kind of life are too low, I love science and I have a religion but I'm not all into it but it's nice to lie to yourself once in a while ;)

@iphotonq2235

7 жыл бұрын

Jeffrey Muu Actually, I never said I was atheist, that has nothing to do with what I said. The truth doesn't care about my personal beliefs (or non-beliefs). The chances of life are not that low when you consider the vastness of our Universe. In our Galaxy alone, we've discovered numerous candidate planets that may support (Earth-like) life (but we can't be certain). When people consider the probability for the universe to exist the way it does, they tend to not be considering every possibility. And there are explanations for why we haven't received any radio signals from any extraterrestrials. Note that I am not necessarily saying that extraterrestrials even exist, but that we can't jump to any conclusions here. The entire point I am trying to make that it is deeply wrong to draw any conclusions. God may exist, or God may not exist. We don't know. And given our current ignorance when it comes to the universe itself, we can't use the God of the gaps idea. We are far from knowing everything there is to know.

@DeadtomGC

7 жыл бұрын

no matter how you slice it, something created the universe... all estimates of what that was are based on unknowns. These are things that cannot have any probability attached to them. The only thing we can put a probability on are things in this universe. And this universe does not look kindly on the idea of randomly generated life at the moment. I'm sure you disagree, but the first point in not able to be reasonably refuted by any believer in science at the moment. Therefore, all external possibilities can be justified to some extent.

@iphotonq2235

7 жыл бұрын

DeadtomGC Actually, in reality we do not even know that. The truth is that we are too ignorant currently to come to any conclusions.

@ComedyLoverGirl

7 жыл бұрын

The problem with the "multi-verse" theory is that it is even more difficult to prove than intelligent design. We have evidence of intelligent design due to the fine-tuning of the universe and the fine-tuning of living organisms. However, there is *no* evidence of a multi-verse, and there can never be, because we are restricted by the natural laws of our universe, therefore any theoretical multi-verse would have a different set of laws and therefore any matter in the two universes cannot interact or exist conceivably in the other. Thus, a multi-verse is beyond the natural laws of our universe, and therefore supernatural, and cannot be reached or proven using science (study of natural laws of the universe). Thus, there is absolutely no way of proving if there are multi-verses, and there is no evidence within our universe to suggest that multi-verses exist, much less their nature. Multi-verse theory is a flight of fancy that is impossible to prove and is another far-fetched narrative used to insist that we're here by coincidence. In fact, it is more of an exercise of blind faith in the supernatural than creationism ever was. We don't know that multiple universes exist, we know that one universe exists, and we know that it appears suspiciously likely that this universe was tailored perfectly to exist and harbour life in a way that a coincidence could not convincingly have created.

Well, the odds aren’t inconceivable seeing as there are 1000000000000000000000000 It’s not luck it’s simply inevitable, so many stars that change over time for such a long time, eventually the right scenario was bound to happen…

@mathsdebater231

2 жыл бұрын

The Big Bang created time space matter so there is no time for ur god to exist

"Science brings men nearer to God." - Louis Pasteur

@gibsonmethod112

3 жыл бұрын

@Julien Lindauer how?

@gibsonmethod112

3 жыл бұрын

@Julien Lindauer so you believe that the universe came to be one it’s own? That it just so happened to create itself over billions of years, and that out of the octillion planets in the know universe just ours seems to be perfectly aligned to have not only life but intelligent life that is capable of understanding good and evil? That seems like it would take a lot more faith to believe in than that there is a creator, who purposefully designed this universe and set these things in place with meticulous accuracy.

@kekeh.5696

2 жыл бұрын

@Julien Lindauer the big bang is incomplete lol, it proves everything after the spark of energy but the most basic law of conservation of energy disputes it

@kekeh.5696

2 жыл бұрын

@Julien Lindauer both science and the idea of a Godly existence are incomplete without each other even as they deviate at certain points, and maybe thats because there's still more to be found out about both, science doesn't explain everything and religion has been over interpreted by men creating bias over the centuries and possibly taking away the missing pieces that could perfectly interconnect religion with science. until there is proof of where the enormous amount of energy, the very precise and perfect chemistry of life that made this planet so ideal comes from,until then atheist ideas are poorer than Creationism and superior being existence, because they only dispute saying "it's impossible..the idea is the creation of men etc" hence are only antagonistic without giving core their own hypothetical views, that's why there's been more past scientists with beliefs than not, prove your point of the non existence of some type of superior being with your own researched theoretical findings and then maybe I'll listen to what you're trying to say

@DanielFahimi

2 жыл бұрын

@Cali Developer Big bang is only theory. We simply do not have any strong evidence to prove this theory yet.

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." ~C. S. Lewis

@MrCricket103

3 жыл бұрын

Love this quote, absolute logic. Looking up the source for further study.

@insightfultoaster2965

3 жыл бұрын

Which god?

@colokolito1

3 жыл бұрын

@@insightfultoaster2965 Christian God

@insightfultoaster2965

3 жыл бұрын

@@colokolito1 what about other gods? Where do they fit in this world view?

@colokolito1

3 жыл бұрын

@@insightfultoaster2965 the multiple gods in Polytheism are probably the equivalent of Angels.

One of the requirements is for the planet to be flat, otherwise the planet will fall to the ground as a sphere doesn't fly like a disc.

@danielwisdom8045

5 жыл бұрын

Elijah Miniuk Best comment ever

5 жыл бұрын

Elijah Miniuk I hope you're kidding

@lol-hk2xq

5 жыл бұрын

Elijah Miniuk underrated comment

@elijahminiuk2058

5 жыл бұрын

Lol, I need your help to spread the truth around.

@FlyingPaladin

5 жыл бұрын

The Flat Earth Society has members all *around* the globe

Great example of the god of gaps fallacy!

@andr0meda313

4 жыл бұрын

This video literally does not make logical sense. So there is a extremely minuscule chance of life existing on planets, so therefore the universe is "finely tuned"? Despite the fact we have not yet found any life to begin with.

@avroarrow1805

4 жыл бұрын

@@andr0meda313 I think you may be missing the point a bit. He's not saying that the universe is finely-tuned because of the fact that there probably isn't any life on other planets. He said it was finely-tuned in ways such as the ratios of the forces which must have been determined a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. And the earth is finely-tuned because it meets an astonishing amount of criteria spot-on, against all odds. The fact that we have not yet found any life elsewhere only serves to confirm that a planet with such perfect conditions isn't as easy to happen upon as scientists once thought.

@avroarrow1805

4 жыл бұрын

@VLOH Could you explain how he was fallacious? I don't know a lot about different kinds of fallacies but he seemed perfectly logical to me.

@andr0meda313

4 жыл бұрын

Avro Arrow Where does god come from?

@andr0meda313

4 жыл бұрын

Avro Arrow The universe is not finely tuned for us, dude. The vast majority of our cosmos can kill you flat within seconds if not milliseconds if you do not have the correct tools that rational people (NOT religious people, that is) have been making sense the dawn of civilization. This is similar to a puddle of water saying that the pothole is so efficient and meant for him since it clearly contains it perfectly. Research on the god of gaps fallacy. It’s a real fallacy you theologians use to push your narrative that was FED to you since you were an infant.

4:33 I think Hoyle, although an atheist, criticized Darwin and the theory of evolution at times.

@ethelredhardrede1838

3 жыл бұрын

Hoyle often said things to push his failed hypothesis, the Steady State Theory. The willfully ignorant like to pretend that Hoyle supports them. No he did not.

@andrewthetextbook489

3 жыл бұрын

@@ethelredhardrede1838 I never said that Hoyle was a creationist. He was far from it undoubtedly. That is why I pointed out the fact that he was an atheist. I just wanted to point out his criticism because I thought it to be interesting as he seemed different from the average evolutionist at the time. It's kind of like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Trumpists do not think Sanders is one of them or a supporter and they disagree with a lot of his rhetoric, but they recognize that he is outside of the Democrat political establishment and feel he is wrongly treated by them, even if they represent two totally different breeds of populism. I think Hoyle was outside of the scientific establishment even though I have no doubt he was on the opposite side of the spectrum that pitted him against creationists, as he was snubbed of a Nobel Prize and did have a tendency to break from the scientific establihsment during his lifetime, even if he did it for totally different reasons than creationists. I thought it was just worthy to note.

@ethelredhardrede1838

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewthetextbook489 " I just wanted to point out his criticism because I thought it to be interesting as he seemed different from the average evolutionist " He was not an evolutionist, they are imaginary. OK there are maybe two people in real science that call themselves that. The only one that I am aware of has a hidden agenda. Its a Creationist term. In any case he didn't know biology and the one thing that Creationists abuse him for is that idiotic airplane in a junkyard quotemine that only shows how little he knew on the subject. Life is not built, it grows, there is no blueprint. ". It's kind of like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. " That is not a sane opposition. " I think Hoyle was outside of the scientific establishment So far outside that he was Knighted. Hm, seems was not outside, but he did age into crankery because, like Creationists, he would not give up a false assumption that was long disproved, his Steady State theory. "as he was snubbed of a Nobel Prize a" Seems like he should have won it but that was for something that had nothing to do with his long term crankery. "I thought it was just worthy to note." And I think its worthy to note that he was ignorant about biology and that silly quote mine only shows badly he understood the subject. Just like Creationists. He turned into a crank. Not really a good thing.

@isakayyik966

2 жыл бұрын

Ey he wasnt based

@stevenshay2855

2 жыл бұрын

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

And now you got a problem here. Who created the creator? and who created that creator of that creator?? It can go for infinite possibilities. Also were does God gets resources to create a universe.

@Vicowanger

7 жыл бұрын

but who created the universe?

@phasorthunder1157

7 жыл бұрын

Remember Jesus But that means that if your claiming God is eternal than that's means the universe could Be eternal also without a creator.

@roxef

7 жыл бұрын

An object outside of time and space isn't something that has been observed. It's not known how it would behave or what it's properties would be. It's not even known whether it's a valid concept.

@roxef

7 жыл бұрын

Mohammad Butt My point is, there may be other possibilities. The human idea of creation is not necessarily the best thing to describe the beginning of the universe. Physics doesn't care about what people think is rational. In the past people were surprised many times when they discovered physical laws that seemed to violate logic.

@roxef

7 жыл бұрын

Mohammad Butt "there is nothing that begins to exist without a cause" There are many problems with that statement. It is very vague. What does it mean to begin to exist? If I change one part of an object, do I have a new thing that began to exist, or just a rearrangement of old things? What if I change all parts of an object? What is a thing? If I have an apple, that can be a thing. What if I divide it into halves? Do I now have two things? What if I don't divide it? Can I still call half of an apple a thing? Can I call a molecule in that apple a thing? What is a cause? An object, an event, or just the circumstances during the beginning of the thing? Can something have multiple causes?

Leonard Hofstadter has aged terribly.

@beakt

8 жыл бұрын

+John Cunningham Select text. Right-click. Click "Search Google for 'Leonard Hofstadter". LOL.

@zViperAssassin

8 жыл бұрын

Yeah he also caught the disease of rationalizing the illogical.

@Ministry_0f_Truth

8 жыл бұрын

Is the guy in the video talking about conditions suitable for the terrestrial life, or ANY form of life? Actually we don't know how many forms of life might be out there. Any conditions that are hostile for terrestrial life may be sufficient or even great for some form of extraterrestrial life. Regarding "fine tuning argument". That has been debunked many times. I randomly pick just one of many videos. Copy and watch this /watch?v=rt-UIfkcgPY

Okay PragerU but what if i now say its Allah who is that god? probably not going to be as supportive of this claim are you

@arthurwieczorek4894

2 жыл бұрын

The question is, Is PragerU more supportive of Allah or atheists?

Does science prove or disprove the giant spaghetti monster? Of course it doesnt!

@lordx4641

4 жыл бұрын

Abrahamic faith is nonesense

@jamestor6700

4 жыл бұрын

@IdkGoodName Vilius are you referring to anti theists?

@kingnate9534

3 жыл бұрын

@IdkGoodName Vilius Quick question, can you believe in the possibility of life on other planets, and the possibility of god at the same time? I'm wondering this because what if god exists, but god decided to create other life forms that developed, evolved, and created their own societies other then us humans on earth.

Science is just the study of gods work?

@Zanta100

6 жыл бұрын

and it found that god didnt do anything

@uhhhhhdellie

6 жыл бұрын

SAM M Correct.

@sedevizokielienyu3879

6 жыл бұрын

Zanta 100 Can you give me a solid proof for your statement?

@Zanta100

6 жыл бұрын

you ask me for evidence of a negative state....

@zachantes1161

5 жыл бұрын

Sedevizo Kielienyü Evidence could be that we have found reasons for things happening, and so can definitely state that God did not do it. For instance, say you find a loaf of bread on the counter. You could say that it was put there by god, but then you find the oven is hot, the bag of flour is lighter, there is some yeast spilled onto the floor, and there is a baking pan in the sink. Yes, you could say that God created the bread and leave it at that, or you could put the pieces together and actually find what happened.

How this is proof of God exists?

@JustInertia

6 жыл бұрын

The point is that everything is far to perfect to just be a random product. Way to perfect to not be created.

@JustInertia

6 жыл бұрын

Pretty much the same reason of why I am an agnostic.

@TheBooBomber609

5 жыл бұрын

@@JustInertia How exactly is everything "far [too] perfect?"

@lamestudiosinc418

5 жыл бұрын

@@JustInertia Well, perhaps things aren't too perfect and you prefer the argument of god because it requires less effort.

@behemoth2320

5 жыл бұрын

@@lamestudiosinc418 in what way is it less effort? I would argue the reverse. It takes a lot of effort to remain loyal to God in a rapidly increasing Godless world. I for one believe both God and Science are interchangeable, and as silly as it might seem I like to use the quote for the film Thor - "Magic is just science we don't understand". What we can explain is amazing. Science has taught us so much. But there is yet more to discover than we can ever fathom.

Jupiter is now my best friend.

@Admiral45-10

4 жыл бұрын

*Mars disliked that*

You can tell the video is going to be good when the description starts off saying "the chance life exists at all is less than zero."

@maxjohnson1448

3 жыл бұрын

Guess I’ll die?

@georgelux126

Жыл бұрын

Actually anyone who says the chance is less than zero clearly has no idea what they're talking about

For the record I'm Christian and I am also a HUGE fan of Carl Sagan. I obviously don't agree with the atheism aspect of his ideology, but science certainly allows me to appreciate the beauty of creation and the Almighty. Having said that, I think it's important to note that Carl Sagan used the Drake equation in his Cosmos series in 1980. That equation has been modified by others to include some of the parameters that are in the above video. I think there is a very high probability of life on other planets. Not gray aliens, but perhaps beings that we cannot possibly imagine. On the other hand I am open to the possibility that we are the only ones in the universe. It's a possibility. If that is the case then millions of years from now humanity will be the ones to venture to the stars and colonize planets and Earth will become a myth. A legend. A place where people came from. Who knows. It's interesting to think about. I'm certainly an optimist and I think human exploration it still in it's infancy and I think God just wants to sit back and watch the show to see what we'll do next.

@chrispanca1590

6 жыл бұрын

I, personally, don't like the thought of us being alone in this universe, cause it kinda feels creepy and... well, lonely. I dunno

@nightwolfwillis1138

6 жыл бұрын

I have to agree with your second option. I think that we were created by God and that we are the only ones out here. It is up to us, as the first civilization, to expand into the cosmos and then maybe Earth will become a myth. Then again, that may never happen depending on when the end begins...

@bobg.3206

6 жыл бұрын

NightWolfWillis, I find it a little shortsighted, maybe even myopic that we refer to God as the "Almighty" and accept His omniscience, and then limit Him to one world. And I have always found it odd that when people venture far enough to consider beings on other planets, they are "grey aliens" or some other mystical creature. Being created in His image, I think we are about as good as it gets. Yes, the mortal physical body has imperfections and limitations, but those are all temporary and serve a purpose.

@jacobbrockhaus2737

6 жыл бұрын

NightWolfWillis seems rather selfish to think God would only create a single sentient race in a whole galaxy, let alone the universe. God has the power to bring about entire universes, why would God only stop with one? And it is very likely that God is not even close to how we portray Him, though in our time, we will never know.

@secondpsycho6577

6 жыл бұрын

Hmmmmmmmm.... let me put my viewpoint this way: I don't believe God created other intelligent life in this universe. But I'll be dashed if we don't check. And, rather than sitting on the sidelines, I imagine God will empower us to do just that.

These comments make me lose my faith in humanity.

@ztrinx1

6 жыл бұрын

Religion has that effect on people

@Leoleao1

6 жыл бұрын

Madeline Wendorf some people are just retarded

@garetclaborn

6 жыл бұрын

take heart kind stranger! it is merely the youtube atheist brigade, they are not a representative sample of humankind!

@TheLifePhoenix

6 жыл бұрын

Madeline Wendorf well don't, cuz that's what KZread wants. Your emotions and you getting a little bit more of a skewed perspective on life. Don't let them win. It's just adolescence manifesting in a opinionated society You win! Not them

@yeahyeah9856

6 жыл бұрын

Ah good one, I see what you did there.

As a physicist, I am annoyed when people use physics discoveries without understanding them. When one talks about fine tuning, one should also talk about the multiverse and also the fact that since we do not yet understand what happened during the very early universe, we do NOT know yet if the fundamental constants are fine-tuned or if there is a physical explanation to their values. Also, one should that when Hoyle coined the term Big Bang during an interview, he was ridiculing the concept of a Big Bang (he was a proponent of the continuous creation theory) and he has since then been proven wrong (the Big Bang theory actually describes the evolution of the Universe after the very early times, and it has been spectacularly confirmed).

This video is like taking a spoonfull of the ocean and saying that whales don't exist.

Does Science Argue for or against -God- Santa? Yep, still fits.

@BombalurinaAI

8 жыл бұрын

***** Allah, Zeus, Demons, Big Foot, Miracles, God, Jesus, Aliens, Xenu, Dragons. They all fit in the same unfalseafiable camp of claims that science can't investigate disproving a negative.

@fulanodetal3614

8 жыл бұрын

+Enid Redden I'm BA-ACK! Xenu is an alien. Sorry, I don't think even aliens could survive the empty coldness of nothing. Nothing is actually less than a vacuum. It's just absence. Can't be Xenu. Goodbye Xenu.

@fulanodetal3614

8 жыл бұрын

+Bombalurina05 Got any more?

@BombalurinaAI

8 жыл бұрын

No need to. You've already established that your claim gets special rules and special exceptions to investigation. Can't have a logical conversation who won't evaluate the world without starting with the conclusion first. You said, "You can call Yahweh whatever you want..." and yet that claim has no evidence.

@fulanodetal3614

8 жыл бұрын

+Bombalurina05 You don't NEED evidence to give an object a name. It's Shakespeare's famous rose quote "A rose, by any other name, would smell just as sweet". God is largely considered both omnipotent and omniscient. Something you suspiciously seemed to have overlooked. The simple fact is that you don't even know what a God is. None of the creatures and "gods" listed are truly both omniscient and omnipotent. In fact, all the creatures listed were neither. The gods listed didn't qualify for either as well. This is a simple case of ignorance: you don't even know what the great I Am is.

Basically: We dont know. lol

@onefoot7

5 жыл бұрын

The more you 'Think', and live in your mind, the more and more and still yet more do NOT find God-who is your very own True self(not your False self-which has doubts and has to Think)...............there isn't life-you just think there really is-there is absolutely only God.....and He cannot be explained or 'Thought of', that is pointless, that insults Your (His) True intelligence....

@legowarcreator

5 жыл бұрын

onefoot7 stop trying to explain life through riddles u sound like a moron... it’s 3 dots btw not 20

@joshuahand407

5 жыл бұрын

why is it that anytime one of my boys drops knowledge like this, someone from the other side says, welp neither side realms knows what’s goin on?

@captainsweeney5964

5 жыл бұрын

Basically: science argues for God

@aplausos2

5 жыл бұрын

Perfect!

There's a lot that we don't know. I find it ridiculous when people talk about the universe as if we got all the facts about the universe.

greatly done . Thank u all very much . in need of little more on emerging humanism .. visuals and illustrations really add up to the fine understanding . THANK U ALL

His argument can be paraphrased: "Things are complicated and everything would be different if a few variables were changed, therefore a god exists, that is of course, the Christian god." Just because you have a small mind and can not comprehend the universe it does not mean that there is an (obviously Christian) god. Quoting spiritual statements by great scientific thinkers does not strengthen a god-theory.

8 жыл бұрын

I Hate Ads Those scientists, who don't represent the entire scientific community, did not as far as I can see conclude that a god created the universe. Besides, I was not referring to them but proponents of intelligent design, which is a laughable idea and not at all supported by the scientific community.

8 жыл бұрын

I Hate Ads ID is considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community. I think it is virtually unknown outside of the US.

@guccimane2226

8 жыл бұрын

Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson I have already told you that the greatest scientists with the greatest discoveries believed in God and supported ID. These are the real scientists, this is the real SCIENTIFIC community, not some dumb idiots who have ZERO scientific discoveries whos objectives are pushing their agendas forwards and gaining prestige instead of finding the truth. Many scientists today support ID. But well, you probably think Richard Dawkins is a scientist, there's not much that can be done with you... Im afraid to say but, you're pretty much lost.

8 жыл бұрын

I Hate Ads Believing in a god is not the same as supporting ID. A person can be spiritual without being a fundamentalists. ID is quite a new thing and has only been around for a few decades, mostly in the US.

@guccimane2226

8 жыл бұрын

Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson ID is the idea that God created the Universe with a fancy name. Nothing new.

If you have an infinite number of trials to get something right, no matter how small the chance, you will eventually get that right. Nobody knows how many big bangs there have been and how many have failed

@Henrix1998

7 жыл бұрын

With the evidences of the age of the universe I don't see real problem here. It is not infinite but big enough to nullify meaning of luck and a need of creator

@joejohnoptimus

7 жыл бұрын

Why is it self-refuting?

@pallasathena1555

Жыл бұрын

The odds of winning the lottery are 23,000,000 to 1 but someone will still win it

@Zimbobroke

10 ай бұрын

@@pallasathena1555 up that to 600 billion and wait for a decade and at least one person will get it.

Soooo delighted it’s Eric Metaxas speaking in this video! So check out his channel Socrates In The City if you don’t know him!!

@JDG-hq8gy

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/iX2rrcqRXZTNirQ.html

@ethelredhardrede1838

3 жыл бұрын

Why would be delighted that he made a nonsense video for a channel filled with nonsense and bad reasoning?

@stevenshay2855

2 жыл бұрын

“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” ― Isaac Newton

@shivangsrivastava6024

Жыл бұрын

@@stevenshay2855 "Our understanding of the formation of the universe and our solar system traces back to the later half of the 20th century, therefore, if you witness any advocate of theocracy claiming the genius of Isaac Newton or Galileo, be unperturbed by his oblivious attitude towards knowledge and scrutiny and don't allow his opinions to intervene in your worldview." - Shivang Srivastava

God cannot be dead if there was never a god in the first place.

@federicodiaz6880

4 жыл бұрын

Daring today??

Questions to our friend atheists: Question 1: Do everything that we believe that exists can be proven scientifically? Does Science have an answer to everything? Five rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science--but you would agree to be real. 1. Logic and Mathematics - Science pre-supposes logic and mathematics but can't be proven by science. 2. Metaphysical truths - The past wasn’t created five minutes ago with the appearance of age. 3. Ethical beliefs - Murdering a person in exchange of millions of dollars is evil. 4. Aesthetic judgments - The sunset is beautiful. 5. Science itself - Example: Science only relies in the assumption that the speed of light is constant in any points between A and B but can't be scientifically proven. Science is a good tool to understand the PHYSICAL realm and create technological wonders but it's limited to that only. It doesn't address other important non-materialistic issues in life. Some atheists are proud of saying "I'm on the side of Science and not religion" but you can actually be on both. Question 2: Killings caused by religious wars in the ENTIRE HISTORY for DISOBEYING God's command to love your enemies amounted to a very small number compared to killings caused by Atheists (Polpot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc) in just a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN MODERN HISTORY amounted to 124,047,000. Considering these facts, if these people had the teaching LOVE YOUR ENEMIES in their hearts, do you think they would have done these evil things? YES or NO? In case you don't believe that HITLER shared the same atheistic ideology of Stalin before he betrayed him-check out what Hitler said below: the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61 “Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7 Hitler PRETENDED to be a Christian to win the support of his people but he's in fact a closet atheist. Question 3: What would make it wrong to murder someone when you know you have a way not to get caught and you will be paid 100 million dollars to do it? Question 4: Scientists have proven that the universe had a beginning which started with replicating molecules, which came from atoms, which came from quarks, which came from? Did it pop out out of nowhere like magic? Let's say that the size of molecules is 3, atom is 2, quarks is 1. Obviously the next is 0. And we know for a fact that out of nothing nothing comes.

@drew3976

7 жыл бұрын

How can math not be proven? Maybe some theory's can't but if I have one apple and someone gives me another apple I now have two apples. No debate

@drew3976

7 жыл бұрын

Also points 3 and 4 are opinions and can't be proved because it's subjective. Science has no way to prove if a person likes a sunset. There are thousands of opinions on a sunset that are acceptable. Creation of the universe should be viewed as objective, because there should be ONE way that it actually happened. There might be different factors that led to a creation but all in all all of those factors combine to the way it happened. Not bashing I just don't see what those points are trying to accomplish.

@TheSeekerNFT

7 жыл бұрын

The amount of ignorance in these questions are why "Atheists" have a hard time debating with the religious. Question 1: 1. Logic and Math are proven, we use it every day in just about everything. if it were unproven we couldn't build simple machines such as buildings. Your "Holy Houses" are all built using mathematics, all religions build grand cathedrals with these amazing arches and domes because of math. 2. I am assuming you are talking about being conscious or the ability to be aware. This can be with or without a creator. The fact that a universe with infinite possibilities can exist would prove this. However, with such a small timeframe to work from, it is hard to have definitive evidence, however, God still isn't the answer here either. 3. This is so stupid! Are all Atheists murderers? No! Religion has nothing to do with ethics. People from all religions and from all ages have a fundamental understanding of ethics. Murdering someone is bad because it disrupts the community, without community the individuals chance to survive is seriously impacted. This is an evolutionary trait. 4. Subjective; not all sunsets are beautiful all the time, beauty is still an evolutionary trait where beautiful things last while gross things don't. If we were nocturnal would sunsets be beautiful? 5. Science is wonderful in the fact that it doesn't have to be right all the time. The biggest difference for someone who is religious is that they will take the word of "God" without questioning anything. This is ridged thinking and is dangerous. Science allows you to be wrong and adjusts its premise based on newly found evidence. Religion is stuck in the mud to say the least. Question 2: HOW WRONG YOU ARE! Almost all wars are religious based! Not even enough time to list them all. BTW Hitler was baptised and confirmed in Catholic church, Stalin was brought up by a catholic priest and was severely beaten by his father, Both of your examples are how religion caused the actions of these men, if they grew up atheist the actions of their fathers would not have caused such evil. A child is a product of their environment, in which the case for these two dictators, a catholic upbringing. I would argue that these men were anti-catholic more than an atheist, people confuse this and give atheists bad reputation. The fact that Hitler killed "Jews" proves that he was religious. Atheists are non-biased toward any religion. Question 3: See question 1, number 3. Evolution prevents us from doing this. Also, what would make it wrong to murder someone in the name of God? Gods murder in the thousands! Question 4: Seriously? replace "universe" with God and answer your own question. Science doesn't have all the answers, but we don't stop at God. If an atom is 3,.. 2,..1 then we dont jump to 0 right away, there could be more beyond that, in which we haven't figured out yet. We might come to a conclusion that an atom is actually 33 and there are 32 things below it. Science is not ridged! Most Religious people have a hard time understanding atheism. Most think that we are Anti-god, where in fact we are non-believers. Trying to debate us frustrates us. Imagine trying to debate the existence of dragons with someone. You don't believe dragons exist or have ever existed and are figments of stories of long ago. But the person insists that they are real. Does their belief in dragons impact you in any way? No they do not and you pay no attention to them. Atheist feel the same. However, religion does impact us where we are treated unfairly for not believing in YOUR god, nevermind any God. This is where you get angry atheists. Atheism in itself is not evil, bad, or wrong. Its those who are unjust to us. You preach, love thy neighbour, but then cast stones at him for minding his own business. Try to see everyone's point of view on the world and you will see that "God" is a man-made object to control and oppress populations. However, the thought of a creator is not uncommon and may be true, but to physically fight over this is silly. For all we know we are in a computer simulation created by a teenager who has nothing better to do. In which case science and math created us. /rant

@mavrickiii

7 жыл бұрын

Both of you gave the same answers. The point is about "Scientifically" proving something for both MATH and LOGIC. That's why term "pre-supposed" is used. Let's focus on the simplest YES or NO topic here instead of jumping back and forth in the other topics. We know that killings caused by religious wars in the ENTIRE HISTORY for DISOBEYING God's command to love your enemies amounted to a very small number compared to killings caused by Atheists (Polpot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc) in just a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN MODERN HISTORY amounted to 124,047,000. Considering these facts, if these people had the teaching LOVE YOUR ENEMIES in their hearts, do you think they would have done these evil things? YES or NO? Yes he's baptized a Catholic but did he stay a Catholic? Did you even read what he said below? the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61 “Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7 Hitler PRETENDED to be a Christian to win the support of his people but he's in fact a closet atheist. Don't TRY to evade the question above. Again YES or NO?

@drew3976

7 жыл бұрын

Probably, can't give a definite answer and neither can you but I believe Hitler was evil no matter how many times you told the man to love his neighbors. I can't prove I'm right and you can't prove you're right so please tell me again why you're using this point in an argument? If you're asking would he have done it if he truly believed to love his neighbors than the answer is no but that's the same as saying what if Hitler was born in America? You're asking me if I think Hitler would have killed people if he was a good person and religion does not always equal a good person. And again cause you never actually answered me, what was the point of some of you're other arguments? I see you believe you're right about the math section (I'm not arguing that anymore, I tried to put it as simple as possible but somehow you still don't think what I said makes sense) but I'm just so confused what you were trying to prove.

Fun fact, it was a Belgian Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre who first began the theory that is now popularly known as 'The Big Bang Theory.' He did it before Edward Hubble who later confirmed it. Science and religion, everyone! ^^

@jmallen1962

5 жыл бұрын

Very few scientists believe in the big bang and if they do, it is still a theory and not proven.

@kyleschneider5693

5 жыл бұрын

David Gilmour A scientific theory is literally proven. Gravity and evolution are both theories too. What you people define as theories are literally just Hypotheses

@maiyaadrien6376

5 жыл бұрын

Guamie Commie If it was proven, it would be a scientific fact. A scientific theory means that they collected enough evidence to guess that this is what pretty much happened.

@lameduck1690

5 жыл бұрын

David Gilmour, the big bang theory is the most accepted theory for the origin of the universe as we see it today. It is very widely accepted by science. Maiya, there is no difference between "scientific theory" and "scientific fact." You clearly don't understand basic science.

@shyguy1845

5 жыл бұрын

@@lameduck1690 just because it's the accepted doesn't mean it's true, we really know little about the universe to theorise how it came about

+ 생명체가 행성에 존재하기 위해 필수적인 미세조정들은

TLDR: Science doesn't disprove the existence of god, but science says there's a possibility that life can exist without a god.

An octillion is one followed by twenty-seven zeroes smh

@joyhassantutu9545

4 жыл бұрын

Does it matter?!!!

@howtocossackdance

4 жыл бұрын

@@joyhassantutu9545 yes...

@Sir......

4 жыл бұрын

noun, plural oc·til·lions, (as after a numeral) oc·til·lion. a cardinal number represented in the U.S. by 1 followed by 27 zeros, and in Great Britain by 1 followed by 48 zeros. amounting to one octillion in number.

@filipedias7284

4 жыл бұрын

Holy cow, that 'university' can't get even numbers right

@lightbearerslamp5870

4 жыл бұрын

Please explain how three zeros discredits the point? I do not think it does. As for the whole "odds are less than zero" thing, that is a turn of phrase meant to act as a buzzword. I cannot defend that but it is nowhere near enough to discredit the whole video.

I like to say "how many times have you thrown a deck of cards in the air and watched them land in a perfect house of cards?"

@ovrkill1234

8 жыл бұрын

Javier Morelos It could happen. One day. That's what happened when life formed. Is it so irrational to believe that a few, if not, only one planet formed life, out of how many planets there are in the universe, especially a constant expanding universe?

@Los_Morelos

8 жыл бұрын

ovrkill1234 of course it's possible but the chances are like.00001 in infinity

@beidouvirus3978

8 жыл бұрын

+Tit Lord Even smaller chance is 0.1 to the power of infinity. If you multiply a decimal by a decimal, it just becomes smaller. And in this one you keep multiplying decimals forever.

@Strav9

8 жыл бұрын

+Manu Perez chances are quite low, but imagine the size of the universe and try to think how many "tries" there were. Imagine if in every star, billion times every second, someone was doing that, would you say it was impossible?

@beidouvirus3978

8 жыл бұрын

Strav9 I'm actually a Catholic, so you don't need to lecture me about a creator.

The internet was the final nail in the coffin of god

@BlacksmithTWD

4 жыл бұрын

Nope, the internet is god's creation to spread god's word even quicker.

@xX_wiLLiam_Xx

3 жыл бұрын

Ok liberal

@studygodsword5937

3 жыл бұрын

Modern technology actually proves the legitimacy of the Bible ! There are two upcoming prophecies, that will being seen simultaneously around world ! The Bible also talks about in the last days knowledge will be vastly increased ! So the internet shows the legitimacy of the Bible !

@kaydnroberts1225

3 жыл бұрын

Christians Pray for USA no it doesn’t this is a clear example of confirmation bias

@studygodsword5937

3 жыл бұрын

@@kaydnroberts1225 the Bible also prophesied the European Union including brexit, and Israel returning to the land after 1800 years in exile, but before the formation of the European Union ! 2 more countries will leave the European Union !

They're forgetting about something called the Anthropic Principle. Basically only planets with intelligent life have life capable of wondering if there's other life in the universe. Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised that Earth has life, regardless of how common life is the rest of the universe. Just because we exist doesn't mean that life is common or that the universe or Earth is perfect for life. The argument PragerU makes in this video is like finding someone who won the lottery and claiming that the odds of them specifically winning are so low that they must've somehow cheated. Though the odds of them winning were astronomically low one of the millions of tickets sold was bound to win, simply by chance.

@daniel5909

3 жыл бұрын

Sad that this video is 5 years old and none of the major comments at the top point this out. I wonder why a channel that keeps claiming to be factual, then posts a video ignorant of the scientific principles of statistical and probabilistic analysis.

@danielyang8270

3 жыл бұрын

Random and unguided evolution is folly.