Quantum Creationism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 янв 2024
- A response to • 5 Quantum Phenomena Su... by Quantum Creation. Yes, it's as dumb as it sounds. This guy thinks God is light. Literally. And that's not the stupid part!
Features a clip from an old classic: • Tribute to Kent Hovind by LivingDinosaur (A Tribute to Kent Hovind).
My Patreon: / martymer81
If you don't like Patreon, you can also make donations to martymer81(at)gmail.com via Paypal!
My Twitter: @MartymerM81
Step #1: claim there is "scientific evidence" that shows gods exist. Step #2: keep that evidence to oneself.
"Just look at the trees!"
And then you see the "scientific evidence", and it actually says the opposite of what they told you it said. They don't know that because they've never read it themselves and are only showing you because someone else told them to.
Step 3: profit
Was going add the step 3, but alas, my fellow troll has beaten me to it.
GG, 10/10, must troll again.
@@tripolarmdisorder7696 I'd argue that Step 3 is "Do your own research" 😉
“Quantum creationist” sounds a lot like “Flat Earth Physicist”
Or Flat Earth Geographer. Or FE Geologist. You know, there're quite a few possibilities 😂
Ooh, just thought: a Young Earth Radiometric Scientist! 😅
Well, I suppose that since quantum particles pop in and out of existence the same can be said for theories and preachers like this one. They come out of nothing and disappear into nothingness, preaching nothing discernable in the process.
Nah, it just means that you can't know which set of ridiculous claims they'll spout until you open the box, because until then their ridiculous claims are in superposition.
"Ancient Alien Theorist"
Two videos in two weeks? You spoil us, Marty 🙂 Seems even in 2024 there is no shortage of stupid to unravel by you 😀
They presumably think quantum means magic powers.
Two words: Depak Chokra.
They just can't help shoehorning their invisible sky wizard into every subject.
I don't know therefore God is a way better solution than using it where it can't belong or isn't needed.
God of the dump a cement truck into a gigantic gap
@@robynsnest8668
You contradict yourself with that because 'I don't know therefore God, is shoving it where ever it doesn't belong. Which untill positively indicative evidence crops up, is Everywhere. 🤷♂️
It’s truly amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to bring their god into existence.
Light is omnipresent? That's news to my shadow.
Does that mean Mary was a lightbulb?
It shows that I don't come around here often enough, that I actually thought "quantum creationism" might refer to something intelligent, specifically it might mean Lawrence Krauss' theory of how absolute void or nothingness would still contain quantum foam, which would eventually allow for the creation of a matter universe, seemingly, from nothing, popularly known as A Universe From Nothing. I don't know why I got my hopes up, because within thirty seconds, we're just talking about god.
Indeed. That would have been an intelligent and coherent way to use these terms. Unfortunately those that most use these terms fall rather short of both attributes 🤷♂️
Marty, I may not comment much on videos anymore but I am always watching. This time you actually made me drop my phone and laugh my ass off at around the six minute 30 mark.
Knew this was going to be silly from the title!!!! Dennis delivered the silliness!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Giving ol Jordan a run for the woo awards, 2024 edition.
It's interesting how the whole Dunning-Kreuger scale also shows that people who know more about a given subject tend to be more aware of any gaps in said knowledge. Someone who doesn't know a lot is going to have trouble understanding how much of that knowledge is missing.
It's akin to two people who are completing a jigsaw puzzle.
One person does them all the time & even has the box with a picture of the completed puzzle on the lid.
They can see straight away that a couple of corner pieces and the blue jug aren't amongst the pieces they've got in front of them, so they do what they can & look for whatever missing afterwards - at least we have most of the puzzle done & it all matches what we were expecting! They can even use the lid to predict what the edges look like, then test that hypothesis by assembling the edges & comparing the results against the prediction. Other people can do the same to make sure it all works.
The second person has no idea that there should be four corners & some blue pieces, so they just carry on to see what happens. They could speak to the first person but they would mean admitting that they need help.
They have absolutely no idea that a blue jug is involved & carry on as if there isn't, despite there being a huge jug-shaped hole.
Maybe they've never done jigsaws before & don't realise how to put them together, so just wing it.
They grab a pair of scissors to cut off the sticky-out bits from the pieces they think should fit, then use some tape to stick those pieces together.
There are snippets of puzzle on the floor & several pieces that weren't used, but it's all stuck together & kinda looks ok, so it must be right!
Just don't look at it too closely or try to pick it up or anything like that.
Interestingly both the professor and the evangelist show their ignorance of the other subject. I suppose that is ok. I would have liked him to be a little more charitable on the definition of light. A quark photon medley would be awfully luminous, which might be enough for a biblical definition.
@@paraax
Being more charitable on the definition would have been useless regardless as it would have changed nothing.
Besides needless charitability is what people like these feed off of to further their claims.
It's better to be straightforward and not give them any purchase or levity on any definition of any particular thing. Even with something as small as this example.
As per the sayings, 'give a finger and they'll take the hand and 'give an inch and they'll take a mile.
Of course they had to shoehorn the word «quantum» into creationism.Edit: 10 minute gang!
Deepak did it way long ago and it was as stupid then as it is now.
"Herp derp, me no understand word, word must be hard, word must be important, word is MAGIC! If I say word, then I also magic!" ~Quantum Creationism people.
Tell them it's "quantum", and they'll believe just about anything.
@@DudeTheMightyTell them “god did it” and they’ll believe anything!!!!!
@@jackthebassman1 Pfft! "Quantum", "God did it", same thing! 🤣
Cue the Meme with Paul Rudd saying "Are you guys just putting Quantum in front of everything?" ;)
I blame the Quantum Gremlins, who become invisible when anyone tries to look for them. 🤣
All False Gods and Fantasy Beings were invented so that the Great Leprechaun might remain Hidden.
For whosoever finds the Great Leprechaun will be granted Three Wishes.
And that would be bad.
Very bad.
@@SomeCrap 🖥🤣🔌
@@SomeCrap I had a gremlin problem, when I built my two computers in 2020. It probably could have been fixed by re-flashing the bios, but I never bothered. It turned out that the RAM that was recommended by Amazon was incompatible. The guy in the repair shop had found the problem, by swapping the RAM.
@@SomeCrap The first guy that I called didn't carry any hardware. Not his fault. I couldn't boot up the gear. I took a computer to a nearby computer repair company, and the guy found the RAM problem. I exchanged the RAM, and paid nothing for the repair. I won't pretend that I have any special computer knowledge...I just put the plugs in the right sockets 🔌🤣
This guy reminds me of a neighbor we had way back when I was a kid, and I felt that guy was full of crap, and that's because he was. My father confirmed it after coming back inside after dealing with him and stating it out loud. Seems this guy fits the mold of my past neighbor, and I don't need my father to confirm it this time.
I'm not a PhD, but one thing I have learned in 30+ years of messing around with science.... The more confident someone is of their metaphysical "quantum mechanics" the less they actually know about the subject. Visual size effects and particle size effects don't really effect each other. The old idea that consciousness effects the results were disproven back in the 50s and 60s.
"Light makes matter"? I might think teh same thing too if I smoke too much of the good weed while watching an episode of Star Trek with a holodeck adventure.
I'm really interested in the hard problem of consciousness, can you send me a link?
There's a lot of hype around the double slit experiment, and it can be hard to find material that doesn't support a mainstream narrative. 😅
@@russellcollins4291 If you're interested in conciousness you should look into neurology. Also what exactly is the issue with something supporting a mainstream narrative?
@@hedgehog3180
The mainstream narrative is that consciousness affects the behavior of light. This is supportive of the idea that consciousness can affect results. You claimed this was disproved in the 50's and 60's. This claim shows that you don't follow this narrative, and therefore you are the one with the problem.
All I asked for was a reference to which papers or experiments you're talking about, not a vague reference to a broad and complex field of study.
A simple 'no' would have sufficed.
@@russellcollins4291 Did you read my comment at all? I didn't say anything about anything happening in the 50s or 60s. And I did give you a reference, I told you to look into neurology, I can't give you a reference to any exact paper because there isn't one single paper that sums up the entire field of neurology. If you don't like the fact that neurology is a broad and complex field of study then that's a you problem. If you're not willing to learn anything complex then you're obviously never going to learn anything.
Also I'm pretty sure that the mainstream narrative of neurology says nothing about consciousness affecting light. The current explanation for human consciousness is based on biochemistry, light doesn't factor into that except in the sense that chemical interactions are obviously explained through quantum mechanics and photons are the force carrying particle for the electromagnetic force.
@@hedgehog3180
My initial question was to JosephKeenanisme, so I kinda assumed it was him replying. My bad.
My problem isn't that it's a complex field of study, rather that JosephKeenanisme said that consciousness affecting outcomes was disproved in the 50's and 60's. What he didn't explain was who 'they' were, and which field of study it was.
On the subject of 'mainstream narrative' often the mainstream are wrong. I had a debate recently with someone that Schrodinger's cat was used to show how ridiculous he thought QM was, and the mainstream just ran with it.
My apologies for seeming rude, I thought I was only talking to one person. 😅
5:40 in and I’m humming ”you’re a f***tard, aren’t you Kent?” under my breath due to the background images.
This one's for you, Kent. Yeah, check it out!
god of the gaps loves quantum physics because we don't know all about it, still
I haven't watched the video yet, but DAMN. The level of WTF that the title presents along with the thumbnail suggests a massive cascade of OH-NO about to be presented.
The more I see hacks talk about time, the more I feel we need to talk about the difference between chronological time (event to event) and space time. I mean, just because time can be slower or faster in space, doesn't mean you can use this to go to a birthday party you missed while in space. Or in reverse visit your unborn grandchildren to then go back to your "own time".
Although I have some understanding of QM (and in particular QED) it's pretty basic, *gleaned-from-pop-science-books* stuff for the most part. So I sometimes feel a little disappointed that I don't understand it more fully And without the math knowledge to understand it properly, that's likely to remain the case. One of the best things about these quantum quacks- quacktums if you will- is that their videos make me feel really, really intelligent and well informed by comparison.
Honestly the math quantum mechanics is pretty basic. It's linear algebra that you learn in your first course at university. There are a lot of very good courses here on RUclips that can help you acquire a more thechnical understending of QM.
It's interesting how the whole Dunning-Kreuger scale also shows that people who know more about a given subject tend to be more aware of any gaps in said knowledge. Someone who doesn't know a lot is going to have trouble understanding how much of that knowledge is missing.
It's akin to two people who are completing a jigsaw puzzle.
One person does them all the time & even has the box with a picture of the completed puzzle on the lid.
They can see straight away that a couple of corner pieces and the blue jug aren't amongst the pieces they've got in front of them, so they do what they can & look for whatever missing afterwards - at least we have most of the puzzle done & it all matches what we were expecting! They can even use the lid to predict what the edges look like, then test that hypothesis by assembling the edges & comparing the results against the prediction. Other people can do the same to make sure it all works.
The second person has no idea that there should be four corners & some blue pieces, so they just carry on to see what happens. They could speak to the first person but they would mean admitting that they need help.
They have absolutely no idea that a blue jug is involved & carry on as if there isn't, despite there being a huge jug-shaped hole.
Maybe they've never done jigsaws before & don't realise how to put them together, so just wing it.
They grab a pair of scissors to cut off the sticky-out bits from the pieces they think should fit, then use some tape to stick those pieces together.
There are snippets of puzzle on the floor & several pieces that weren't used, but it's all stuck together & kinda looks ok, so it must be right!
Just don't look at it too closely or try to pick it up or anything like that.
If you want to learn the math just watch 3Blue1Brown's videos about calculus and linear algebra, and maybe find a textbook about them with some exercises you can do to help you or use Khan academy or something similar. You might also want to learn some of the basics of statistics and probability as well if you don't really know that. The rest is just physics and you can find great courses on RUclips, I suggest starting with the Ultraviolet Catastrophe as that's also where the history of Quantum Mechanics start. Just have something to take notes with open on the side while watching the courses since you learn a lot faster when taking notes.
Glad to have found your channel again after 5 years.
"I'll give you a plain F. As opposed to an F Minus."
This guy seems like the one who'd ask you to curve his grade, only for you to give him a cursive F.
Happy to see a martymer video been watching for over 10 years
If there was a god of what is likely a multiverse not only would such a thing be beyond our understanding but we'd have no way to even know about it's existence.
Tack för att du försöker bekämpa den överväldigande mängden av dumhet som finns där ute idag med både logik och humor! Kämpa på! Du ger mig och andra hopp i denna värld av nötter!
I had one in a comment section of another video claiming that 'God is Love' and therefore I believe in God. It took ages for me to explain that in my world view love is a physical process that goes on in human brains which evolved to make our genes reproduce more successfully, and I don't believe in any metaphysical version of Love. So even if I take his ridiculous definition I still don't believe in it.
A lot of these people seem to struggle with the fundamental distinction between the sign and the object itself. Like the word love is not the actual phenomena of love, it is a sign that we humans have decided to use to represent an actual physical thing. The realization that language is and can only be descriptive is a pretty important one and one it seems most people who subscribe to these kinds of ideas haven't made. Because if you have made this realization you'd understand that since there is nothing directly tying a word to the thing it refers to then people can use the same word in completely different ways. This is why definitions are so important in any form of communication because as it turns out we rarely do use words in the same way so often to start a discussion we first need to agree on a set of definitions.
@@hedgehog3180I ran across one of those people about 2 weeks ago, he told me that he "worshipped love" When I asked him how you worship an emotion his explanation was to follow its commands (who knew emotions gave commands) of being kind, honest and a bunch of other every day human civility.
If a persons god is love, and love exist, their god exists.
@@huepix
The thing is this person was arguing for the Christian God, who has a lot of attributes that aren't just Love and arguably could much better be described as embodying hate far more than love.
@@huepix And this is where what I said comes in. At that point to me and anyone else on the outside you've effectively just declared that to you "god" is just a synonym for "love", which raises the obvious question of like why you'd do that since we already have a perfectly good word for love. And usually what's actually the case is that this person isn't actually talking about love but rather missing the distinction between the sign and object and thus sees some sort of higher meaning in declaring two different words equal. It's basically a breakdown of the main function of language as a form of communication that usually makes effective communication impossible.
You know what's the most ironic thing about people arguing the existence of gods?
There are *SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS* that all have to be right, in order to even BEGIN arguing about it.
Some of these include:
- That the universe HAS been created
-- Which assumes that the universe CAN be created
- That an entity that CAN create a universe exists
-- Which assumes that the aforementioned entity CAN exist
- That an entity that CAN create a universe and that DOES exist, DID in fact create our universe
-- This also runs on the assumption that a universe CANNOT exist, if not created by such an entity
The irony is that literally all of these are unknowns, and literally nothing in nature points to any of these as being true.
They like to look at a clock and make the clockmaker's argument, but it's fallacious, especially when you consider the fact that the more fundamental we go, the less "common sense" reality is, and if we extrapolate this to THE MOST fundamental part of reality (which they claim is a god), then it follows that it would be anything BUT common sense.
So those assumptions (in addition to a lot of others) HAVE to be proven correct before you even begin to discuss the nature of such an entity.
Quantum woo, my favourite kind.
After that intro, I was waiting to see Jordan. Miss your regular content. Aces as always.
Always happy to see a new Martymer upload! Two so close together? RUclips is peaking!
God is light
God created the universe
My lightbulb makes light
My lightbulb creates a universe each time its turned on
"Light is a super force."
Please help us.
I was looking for "Quantum Jesus", but all I found was a dead cat.
You're doing it wrong! If you open the box and find dead Jesus, just close it, and open it again three days later!
@@kevincrady2831 Thanks for the advice. 🤣😂. Quantum Christianity now makes more sense than cosmic Christianity.
0:17 - of course one could ask him is “which god, which of the multitude this species has come up with.”
10:45 "The physic of the very tiny ..." I don't know why but that cracked me up 😂
I love your point that fine tuning is actually an argument against a god.
It really isn't. He gets the argument wrong. Also his idea of god is not what people who use the argument put forward. Would say a strawman but i just don't think he knows.
I don’t think “fine tuning” has much to say about anything. It is not surprising that life as we know it would evolve along the lines of the universe its in. Nobody knows what might or might be possible with other “tunings”, except to say if you project your CURRENT knowledge of life as we know it THAT might not fly. But since nobody really knows the probabilities of what might or might not be possible under different tunings or if and how many tunings would even be possible it becomes a moot point. Generalising from what we are familiar with is a backwards process. Fish live in water. Turns out if water was air they’d die and if it was lava it would fry. Conclusion: Water is finely tuned for fish!!! So unlikely - only a all powerful water god could’ve done that to achieve fish (even if fine tuning seems redundant if fish is what an omningpotent being wanted. No tunings needed, it could just be magically unexplainable but there. Why would such a being be dependent on mechanistic causality. Silly waste).
@@whynottalklikeapirat i would say that if we cant use any definition of life. At that point the conversation is meaningless. As far as other tunings they are limited by logic. Logic works metaphysically not physically so it would have to make sense. And if there were others where life formed that doesn't take away from the argument. It just means there are others god could choose from. But in regards to your fish analogy it dosnt map onto the argument because it predisposes life conditions. Life has to be in an environment to adapt to it. The tuning logically must come before the life for life to further tune to its environment. You also imply that god doesn't have to work logically in the first place. This isn't true in many faiths. The fact that god can do anything excludes non things or things that are impossible. For example god cant make a shape that is a triangle and has 10 sides. The impossibility of the phrase makes it hold no meaning.
Yes, he seems to have mixed up fine tuning and anthrplopogenic principle which by the way use the same facts to prove opposite conclusions showing the weakness of both arguments.
@@mitslev4043 I think the point Marty was trying to make was that an omniscient and omnipotent God would not be bound by laws of nature or even logic. He is proposed to exist apart from space and time, and thus unconstrained by any of the laws of space and time. That being the case, such a God would not need to fine tune anything to enable His creation to grow and thrive. He could just snap his fingers (metaphorically speaking) and everything would just work ™.
Even if you can’t quite get to this being an argument against the existence of God, it certainly illustrates how weak it is as an argument for the existence of God.
I've softened my position on religion over the decades, but I've never softened my position on bullshit.
The average person wants to believe: no problem for me. Want to preach? Fine. But when you start trying to apply the god of the gaps argument into something you clearly know nothing about? Now I've got a problem with you.
But religion IS bullshit.
I think also many misappropriate the gaps fallacy to religion. Many arguments that insert god in to the gaps aren't making a gaps fallacy. Sane reason a any new theory isn't a gaps fallacy.
@@mitslev4043 I don't think you know what a "gap" is.
@@hedgehog3180 the gap fallacy covers any insertion of a premise that is made without reason. Many times when god is used in a gap it is done through inductive reasoning. Which i admit makes it uncertain but not a gap fallacy. If this was not the case most of what we know would simply be a gap fallacy.
"Once you go full hyper-dimensional dihectapentacontahexagon, you never go back."
---Albert Einstein
"Hyper-dimensional dihectapentacontahexagon to live. Live to hyper-dimensional dihectapentacontahexagon."
---Albert Einstein
Ancient astronaut theorists say yes!👽
@@satanofficial3902 I live in both anxiety and anticipation of one day being presented with a business card showing someone holds what I consider to be the dumbest, most embarrassing position a worker could ever want people to know about their job.
I see the good old "A Tribute to Kent Hovind" is still well honored in the fandom. I appreciate that. And i could even hear the melody while you silently played the video ;)
Good to have found your channel. Subscribed of course.
God is Thor, and Thor is about to boink denim-shirt on the head...
This was by far your best video ever and all are great.
glad i found your channel!
If light holds the particles of atoms together, then they would all fall apart every night. Surely ?
Taking it all as metaphor makes it more significant
Awesome channel. Glad I found it.
oh I know Dennis personally! haha, this is surreal
Also, I'm not sure if you'll care, but Jason Liar is holding a seminar tomorrow on "Evolution and Errors in Reasoning". For all the good that tells you, I know biology isn't your field, I just wanted to give you a fair warning.
Your video made my day,
Could it be that this dude has looked at a Feynman diagram and read " … something photon …" and thought "photons are light, so light holds anything together"? He might not understand the term "virtual" or anything regarding Quantum-whatever. Edit: Is F- actually a thing? (We have a different grade scheme here in Germany, so I don't know.)
The F- as a test result in the schools in most english speaking countries is equivalent to the 1 on the 1 to 10 scales applied on most schools here in Europe; iow: _If you got an F- as a result for your test, all your answers for that test were considered to be nonsense._
Wait, if we take out the supernatural ... WE ARE GODS!
Actually, "antropomorphic personal being in control of some aspect of nature" is much more narrow than "light"
yup. it's a wild leap
Well the reason light is associated with good is because we are day time animals. If we were primarly night time animals then it would be reversed. Dark and night and black all would be good things and the oppisite would be evil and scary.
Sir I lack your smarts and education but I always learn and I know enough to appreciate the honesty of someone who is a straight shooter with the facts, or with the best understanding that science has afforded us. So glad you're still making videos and shining a light on charlatans (intentional or not).
5:50 I mean have we seen them in the same room?
Ok, not my cup of tea, but you sure showed him who's boss lol.
The sad part is that you cannot convince the ones that need it the most. They're shut off from reality while they think they're the enlightened ones.
A Zelazny story has two battling wizards reciting names at each other, e.g Newton, Gauss, Hawkins for the good guy. Me i fancy quantum holography, entanglement and tunnelling. Not sure what the believer says in response? Although if the big guy is 3K he’s a pretty cool guy. Good vid!
Another great video, Martymer. The referenced video also shows that the presenter either doesn't know his own religion or his Bible, but chooses to lie about or misrepresent them. The key to this is the God is light proposition, proven by references to God as light in the Bible. In that very book, Lucifer, [a.k.a. Ha Satan, Satan] is the "Light Bringer." This would be a major flaw in his narrative, but there are so many other flaws that one more seems unlikely to make a difference.
Thanks again for all of your work.
Why do so many pseudoscientists think quantum means magic?
Have you seen the way popsci often talks about it?
@@GhostGlitch. indeed, their overhyped stories are unhelpful.
Love the content! ✌
You've heard of the one electron universe? Well welcome to the ONE PHOTON universe, duuuuude. 🤯🤯
🤣
I just did a video on an Answers in Genesis video on the possibility of 2 big bangs. A viewer told me about you in the premier. I love your work! I had to leave my physics questions unanswered, primarily, do the laws of physics break down if matter doesn't exist?
Idk if the guy is... well versed enough to know about this in the slightest, but the 'light holds atoms together' claim sounds to me (a person with a bachelor's in physics) like he's trying to grasp at the idea of virtual particles exchanging the momentum of charges particles experiencing the electromagnetic force. But, of course, this is a misunderstanding. Virtual particles and 'real' particles are both excitations in their respective quantum field, but virtual particles are transient whereas 'real' particles are persistent. They aren't quite the same thing as the electrons literally emitting light (I wont claim to understand virtual particles as much as an actual quantum field theorist and I'm not about to write a 30 paragraph lesson in detail in the comments lol but, it's a cool thing to look into if you're interested). The thing about quantum is that it doesn't make any sense until you actually go in and work out the math for it (which once you do that it suddenly makes way more sense - to the point where its clear that classical physics has to be an approximation of quantum on large scales) meaning that it's super easy for people to use it as a buzzword because no lay person will really be able to grasp it. Quantum, to a lay person, feels like magic. It's only demystified (literally) when you do the math, but most people don't even know linear algebra, or even the calculus needed to do even undergrad level quantum.
Also id like to point out that in some ways, this is... somehow... one of the most compelling arguments I've seen for the existence of god... which means it's not compelling at all. It's just that all the other half baked washed up arguments that have barely changed from the middle ages are so utterly debunked and even more fallacy ridden and unconvincing that this just barely teases over them for me, but maybe it's just because it's the first time I've seen this argument as well.
I feel like you're assuming that our man is deliberately misrepresenting half-facts, but I'm pretty sure he's just talking out of his ass.
That's something I see skeptics do pretty often. (Edit: To clarify, the thing I see skeptics do is "thinking the other person knows what they're talking about", not talking out of their asses.) It's usually a good opportunity for a quick science lesson, but it always gives off a weird vibe.
It's like the old "playing chess with a pigeon" adage, but the person thinks the pigeon actually knows how to play chess and is just picking a really bad opening move.
That facepalm! !SMACK! 🤣🤣🤣
Quantum word salad is full of variety, but not very nutritional.
I do have a dumb question that I never really thought about before this video.
So visible light in the electro magnetic spectrum uses photons (is photons?).
Would this also be true for the rest of the em spectrum, IE does radar, microwaves, still utilize photons? I assume so, but I've never really thought about it before.
Yup, they're still photons.
God is literally the opposite of omnipresent. He's omni-non-existent - he exists nowhere all at once.
And. not existing, he is the opposite of omniscient. He omni-ignorant.
Finally, being, as he is, THE most evil character in all fiction, he's also omnimalificent. The new Three Omnis
Thanks for the video :)
If God existed, he would facepalm hearing this guy.
God let a fart, and that was the big bang. Lol. Ha Ha.
Puerile, but strangely appropriate.
Deities have taken other forms than human.
On another note, I bet it would be hilarious to listen to this person discuss entropy.
Anthropormorphic doesn't mean having the shape of a human (even though yes that is the literal meaning of the word in the original greek/latin, language is weird like that), it just means having the qualities of a human, like feelings, consciousness, self awareness and so on. Humanoid is the word that refers to having the shape of a human.
What do you think about transcendental argument, are you familiar with Jay Dyer?
"God is Light", I mean to be fair Aten *was* a solar disc so we clearly should worship Aten and deny worship of Amun....
love my old earth creationists ❤️
OEC, yo!
Is he saying that electrons are held in place by light because the photon is the force mediating particle of electromagnetism? It’s a bit of a stretch, but not technically wrong.
Quantum woo, who woulda guessed ?
Btw, you should take a look at the engineering guy who has a project he explains on his yt channel called 'the Light Compass' (don’t remember the channel name right now, but searching for 'light compass' ought to find the relevant video. He thinks he is smarter than Einstein and all others who have contributed to GR & SR over time, believing he can construct an instrument to measure 'the absolute reference' to zero and find 'the center of the universe' - ie, disprove relativity completely.
I say good luck to him and anyone foolish enough to invest money into that project… Because even null results advance science. But it would be fun to see Marty tear someone a new one even if they aren’t (overtly, at least) religiously abusing science.
reminds me of the quantic of emotions...
if you define god as the electromagnetic field, then i'm a theist.
but... that's not what god is lmao
At least he's not a YEC.
Reminds me of what another American said: "I know words. I have the best words.”
I think I might find this even more upsetting than regular religion, since it pretends to be science.
7:40 Invisible Facepalm detected. ;)
FYI: Despite anything I say in my first three points, I don't agree with this guy. He's just an older, softer version of Jordan, quite frankly.
Oh man, when I was a teenager back in the 70s ,i never would have guessed that religion would still be around in 2024.
My guess I that the tolerance we showed towards religious organizations allowed them to renew their roots in certain societies and made them politically powerful.
I was always not just atheist,I was antireligious, antitheist if you like.
I advocated for a ban on religions,a disbanding of their criminal gangs that pose as "churches" and nationalization of their assets.
(Assets collected by selling to dying members of the church salvation,and bought with tax dollars (tax exemptions,"charity donations" etc).
Strip them of the money and watch them dissolve in thin air.
People need hope,but real hope,not false promises.
Religious "scientists" are a byproduct of our tolerance.
In a sane society these scientists would be ridiculed . Today they have the "diplomas" and the "PhDs" from religious "universities " and pose as real scientists only bcs we tolerate them.
Yes I advocate for a response to the violent intrusion of religion in our lives.
...
I thought all EM radiation was light, and the part of it between 400 and 700 nm is just "visible" light. At least that's how it was taught in my uni.
3:25 That sentence a predicate, sir.
Timelessness can only make sense in something that doesn't affect the world, like light that hasn't collided with something yet.
A gawd could exist in a different time than ours, maybe very slowed or accelerated to ours, but no time means to events.
and impressionable children are buying his bs (and/or others like him). and we nonbelievers face palm and often keep our mouths shut to be polite. this guy makes me angry. glad martymer is there, but many kids wouldn't even be allowed to see this, or would steer clear so as to not challenge their faith...
13:57 What's truely astounding is his mastery of mental gymnastics. That's Olympic grade stuff right there! 🤨
god botherers will grasp at any straws.
it’s amazing how many apologists have been able to debunk all of science without knowing any science
I love how believers like to put a god in any area of science that is either immature, their audience has little knowledge or they themselves are making up their own pseudo science. 😂
Please keep making these great videos, and correct this creationist crap before it traps others.
Where can I get a “stupidly dispenser”? Oh, never mind I think we all have one, but it comes with the inability to recognize when it is activated 😮
So is quantum creationism only stupid when it's observed?
WELLL to be a pedant: In Quantum Field Theory, the elecromagnetic force is mediated by virtual photons, so in some sense, that _is_ light. Tho virtual particles are famously difficult to understand and I don't understand them fully either, but I do know that they're definitely different from real particles (otherwise the "virtual" would also be unnecessary lol), for example they don't obey conservation of mass (afaik). I read in one paper that they are an interpretation of the terms in the perturbation theoretical expansions of the quantum field interactions, but since I haven't studied QFT beyond the surface, I can't elaborate on that.
Great vid!! Haha
12:12
I was listening, not watching the first time
So I reserve the right to say this, as I was screaming it in my head
THAT WE KNOW OF!
He even lost the shirt game.