This is very minor and certainly doesn't take away from your point at all, but modern science doesn't really hypothesize about a "big crunch" scenario anymore; It's considered outdated. What follows is a brief summary of what I read on wikipedia: the big crunch was a scenario that came about by modeling the end of the universe dependent on density since, prior to knowledge about the dark matter hypothesis, gravity was the primary force acting on all matter across the universe. In this model, the universe's expansion would theoretically slow down and come back in on itself, leading to a universe that would theoretically collapse in on itself However, since we do know about dark matter and that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace because of it, the "big crunch" model is nearly impossible. This also mostly rules out old ideas of a "cyclic universe" where a big bang and big crunch would happen one after the other in a repeating pattern (apparently, there are modern versions of a cyclic universe, but I only just learned about them reading this article, so I don't feel able to explain them as well). I'm not a physicist, but I do focus my academic studies on the space side of aerospace engineering, and have a mild passion for astrophysics and a little bit of cosmology. I'm by no means an authority, but I do care about this topic. from our favorite most reliable source of information on the interwebs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
yeah i realized that after my brother read the script and pointed it out 😅 hes a physics undergrad lol i didnt heavily look into that hypothesis for this video admittedly, i just remembered hearing about it and figured it was a well known one to use as an example lol. i definitely should have dug into it a bit more before using it that way! is it alright if i pin your comment for the correction? edit: there is another model of a cyclical universe i wanted to include actually, but it was too much math for me to understand well & my brother was asleep when i was spamming him asking him to "explain like im 5" about it lol. ironically did not wanna include misinformation by not understanding it so i didn't include it. was specifically Penrose's hypothesis of conformal cyclic cosmology, though since i never really got to a point where i understood it well im not sure how plausible it is or if it more falls into the realm of like, okay thats an interesting thought but its definitely not true lol
@@godlesssnowshoe sure! Feel free to pin it! If there are errors in what I said based on what you or your brother learns, feel free to point it out so I can edit it. the big crunch model is a very common thing people propose as a modern theory for how the universe will end, not knowing it's been proven false. Frankly, if you look for it, the big crunch pops up a sad amount across science youtube. Also, I forgot to say this in my OG comment, but great video! The way you put everything together made me realize that, like, yeah... die hard christians do have a weird love-hate relationship with complexity, and that a simple yet incomplete model is better to them than a complex but incomplete model. It's obvious in retrospect, but I've never heard it put so succinctly before.
yeah to be honest i don't remember where i even heard it from, probably just popping up through out different videos tbh 😭 also thank you so much, i really appreciate that!
when i hear about people claiming that god is responsible for something that we dont yet fully understand all i can remember is something i heard about god being in the unknowns, it would lead to a stagnation in science to accept that god is responsible for everything we dont know yet, because we have seen that as the case in the past. you arent supposed to be comfortable not knowing things, and it brings comfort to know that we are working to understand things.
i remember when i first learned about evolution in like 6th grade i told my parents about it because i never heard about it before (all i heard was god made everything all at once) and my mom got so mad and then my dad pulled me aside and told me don’t bring it up near my mom because she doesn’t believe in it and get angry when people talk about it. 🤦🤦🤦
your videos on these topics help me feel less insane in a world where i would be killed if others knew i was a queer athiest and ex-muslim. anyways glad to see youre posting again
Wow it's exactly the same with me! Stay safe stay strong and try to find way to escape this situation and find a safe place that treats you like a human -with all love and support❤❤
Saying “how does the universe exist without god” is really just pushing the question back, how does god exist, did someone create him? How many turtles are there here?
@@rowandunning6877 the they pull the classic "God doesn't need a creator" argument, which just begs the question, if we have established that something can exist without a creator then why does the universe need a creator?
yeah its kinda a "rules for me but not for thee" scenario lol. god dosent need to have begun existing he can be eternal, but the universe cant be eternal? like sure maybe its not we don't know lol, but thats just it, we don't know. so that also means we don't know that its finite either lol
@Abyzz_Knight The justification is usually "Something that exists forever doesn't need to be made" and its just like... where'd you get that from? Doesn't even say that in their magic book
Well then that put into question how is matter even created? I choose to believe in God because of his law and his promises we will be saved from sin. I believe that his son die for our sins, his flesh pierced by the sins of man. Scars that remain in his glory. I don’t believe God is a monster, if God really didn’t care. There would be no hope, no law, no Christ to save us from the death that Satan had caused. When they say a lot of Christians won’t be save, its all the one who call themselves Christians yet regularly commit blasphemy against the Lord with no remorse. We all sin, it’s inherited from Adam and Eve. The first to sin. And this is not a “I’m gonna force you to believe” cause that’s not what Jesus wants, he wants you to worship God with all your heart, mind, and soul. May God bless you, for I would want to portray the most honest version of a complex, powerful, and righteous being. Amen.
@@godlesssnowshoe Why can’t the universe be eternal? Time didn’t exist until the universe did, so the universe has existed for all time and will exist for all time; therefore, the universe is infinite.
@@Quaggabagelnah i think the greatest piece of literature ever written is probably The Rise Of Kyoshi ATLA novel. or maybe the sequel, i really like Atuat and shes not in the 1st book smh
@@godlesssnowshoe I say it is Dorohedoro, personally. The bible is really dry. It's kind of a terrible piece fiction. Rise of Kyoshi is good taste, tho.
Im not a furry but I do have a soft spot for non-human animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities. with that being said, I'm glad that there are more videos like this that aim to promote critical thinking for the masses and spread awareness on indoctrination/dogmatic beliefs imposed by religion I find it also insane how I was able to recognize every distinct branches of science that you draw from so many different sources for your argument (which i really appreciate the eclectic style of approach btw) like physics, chemistry, mathematics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology/genetics, anthropology, sociology and maybe abit of psychology? thrown in the mix which I, myself is not even an skilled expert in most of these things but rather just a casual lifelong learner/enthusiast : ) Good job! you now have earned yourself a new sub : D
I appreciate when religious folks have the maturity to actually analyse and critically assess their own beleifs, and the beleifs of others. Those people are fun to have discussions with☺
@@Talon19 Actually, athiesm and spirituality are not mutualy exclusive. It's just that the vast majority of athiests like myself are not convinced that anything supernatural exists, while the minority are spiritual.
Your channel is a godsend! (wording intentional) These past few years during the COVID pandemic have been a struggle for my belief. As a Catholic (on paperwork)-probably moreso Deist personally-I was pretty distraught with the way the online world handled religious topics, with instances of both sides' pettiness and toxicity shining through, instead of genuine, productive discussion (well not everything has to be serious, playful banter is nice, but if its not that, might as well be respectful, right?) Generalizations and personal attacks left and right. I was getting tired and wanted out. But then, by mere chance, your channel (this video specifically) came along, as well as the channels of Dr. Andrew Henry (ReligionForBreakfast) and Dr. Justin Sledge (Esoterica) a little bit prior, both well-versed in religious studies. As a research nerd, seeing PhDs dissect my beliefs, with all the uncertainty and subtlety expected of academia, felt so refreshing. Seeing many comments under your video from *both* religious and non-religious folks being so civil, felt like home. That is to say, my faith is back and more secure than ever. Will we agree on everything? Of course not! But that is part-and-parcel of the weird, wacky, wicked, and wondrous blob that is humanity. You've got a new sub. From a fellow furry, Cheers 🥂
i appreciate this comment so much, thank you! 🩵🩵 also fellow religionforbreakfast enjoyer hello! i some how only recently found that channel and I've actually been binge watching his videos the last couple weeks haha, ill have to check out Justin though i haven't heard of him! best of luck on your journey with your faith as well! :)
I am a creationist. I believe God created all live. I also accept evolution. Just because animals were created does not mean they cannot adapt. For example, all dogs are relatively the same. However, dogs in the Africa will be different than in Siberia. Even more, dogs in Africa will not all be the same. This creates different species within the category of dogs in Africa. Environment matters. For me, Evolution answers why there are so many types of animals but not how life started. If this isn't evolution, then I apologize. For the first part, about space, flew over my head. I am lacking in brain power in that area. Sorry bout that. Other than that, I am happy that you are ok and excited about future videos. Thanks Friend.
evolution isnt meant to explain how life started no, we dont have a concrete answer to that however the most supported theory is called abiogenesis! thank you for the comment, i appreciate creationists who are able to discuss and think about these topics productively haha
@@godlesssnowshoe While abiogenesis doesn't appeal to me, I have been thinking about this for some time. I came up with a theory myself. //Before Earth, elements like oxygen and other elements were in small pockets of space. In these pockets lived single cell organisms. These pockets floated across the cosmos, mixing with other elements. Eventually, the elements gathered around the empty rock called Earth, forming an atmosphere. The single cell organisms became trap on the Earth. Water came after and then Evolution started. This is just a theory I thought about, the Start of Life.
@@skylight6596 So your explanation for the origin of life is that it just was, and then moved here during a time when earth was very hostile to life? Perhaps you should read more into abiogenesis, as that's an actual explanation for how live comes about, not just an unscientific version of panspermia.
I'm not sure how I got here, but I am glad I did. As a Christian myself, I find this to be an interesting topic of discussion that needs to be had. I do agree that Christians as a whole are very defensive to the point of close-mindedness on any form of creation outside the of the Bible, but I do think a lot of your arguments are weirdly hinging on your own perspective as a representation of Atheists as a whole. Additionally, you seem to go after Christianity's lack of belief in much of evolution specifically, when a lot of the "factual" ideas you discuss are still in contention with those outside of Christianity, even outside of religion as a whole. I think the most glaring example is "The concept of the big bang in itself is not widely disputed. While there are gaps in knowledge, especially surrounding its origin, the fact that the universe is expanding from a singularity is not one of them." As far as I am aware, the big bang is still very much disputed in both the scientific community and religious communities. I think the acceptance of a widely popular belief does not warrant the term "fact" being stamped on it, as Christianity itself would then be consider factual as well. The only fact is that neither of them are facts, regardless of the evidence provided, because neither of them have yet to be scientifically proven. I will say, however, that your perspective is a very refreshing one that seems to be coming from some desire of actually understanding the complexities of our universe. I think there are some issues with your perception of other people's understandings, as not everyone is as well-informed or even specifically chooses to not be as well-informed as you are on the topic. You did give me a new perspective on Big Bang Theory as a whole, as everyone I've personally ever seen/met has utilized the Big Bang in conversation/debates as a form of equivalent to Genesis. I'd be interested to discuss this further if you have any disagreements with what I've said, as my take comes more from the way the video rubbed me and not so much a thoroughly thought out rebuttal to any of your points. 👍
i mean in general anything thats a point of scientific study will be disputed so i guess that was poorly worded on my part, but what i more so mean in that is that there is a general scientific consensus that it happened, and that consensus is based on a large amount of data. its not in the hypothesis or theoretical realm anymore, as it used to be primarily discussed in terms of the math lining up but not actually being observable. many subjects in physics start as math that leads people to a certain conclusion that something SHOULD exist, or at least should be capable of existing even if it does not, and then seeking observable evidence of that thing physically being true or extant. something like for example, the heat death of the universe lol, is expected to happen due to thermodynamics, but obviously we cannot observe that because it both has not happened yet & we would be not physically capable of witnessing it. its a prediction predicted on calculations essentially, and the bigbang has surpassed that phase. while obviously due to the vastness of the topic and of course the massive gaps of information we could very well be misinterpreting the data we do have, theres enough evidence for it to be discussed for all intents and purposes as a fact. both in an academic setting and in casual discussion. again with that being said nothing in science is truly undisputed, so my phrasing definitely could have reflected that better. i think the difference in discussion of the big bang as fact and christianity as fact is notably different however. big bang cosmology is discussed in terms of fact because it has mountains of evidence to not only support it but also to explain it. you can dig into deeper and deeper rabbit holes of the smallest aspects of it and still find theres observable evidence to support it. all of which is also further backed up by math thats outside my personal range of knowledge lol (my brother is a physics major so i can ask him for details on that if you want haha). with christianity however, the consensus of christianity as truth by a wide amount of people, at least in this context, is more comperable to a "lots of people believe it therefore it is true". but theres a difference between a large portion of the population believing in something that has shaped their culture for centuries and a large population of experts with over a decade of education all coming to a consensus that something is likley true based on mutally observed and peer reviewed data. essentially a lot of experts all agreeing something is true based on data is not an equivalence to lots of everyday people believing something is true based on cultural prevalence. to be fair im sure there are some atheists who look at the bigbang as their own idea of a creation event, and dont have the personal interest in it (or a physics major brother lol) to do further digging than that, but i would argue the average atheist does not veiw the big bang as a genesis equivalent, because while genesis is essentially the orgin of everything, the big bang does not attempt to answer the question of where life comes from and most people are aware of that. the idea that it created life, at least regarding people ive spoken to, is an idea thats very much informed by a christian world veiw that seeks for an all encompassing answer as opposed to recognizing that these are two entirely separate feilds of study and the events take place an incomprehensibly long period of time apart. also thank you for the comment i love replying to comments like this haha
It is not disputed that something of the nature of the Big Bang happened. The universe *is* expanding, we have no reason to believe it wasn't doing it before, and we have no reason to believe it will stop. Until that changes, the Big Bang is the explanation that conforms best to Occam's Razor. Now, will there be a ton of dispute over the details? Yeah. Are there gonna be a lot of people saying "that can't be?" Yeah, Christians exist and try to use science to justify their God, badly. So "people argue about things" isn't enough of a refutation. It is kind if a non point.
3:08 Not all Biblical literalists are Christian, not all Christians are Biblical literalists. Being Christian doesn’t mean a rejection of science or a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Ok so I’ve kind of dipped off the face of the earth on this account and have stopped focusing on discourse and most of the general things you talk about on this channel, but I wanted to reappear real quick to say how much I appreciate this video! Things such as the big theory and evolution aren’t about coming to a conclusion based on what’s most convenient or what “makes the most sense,” it’s simply taking the evidence we already have and coming to our best possible conclusion based on said evidence and our current ability to understand it. Of course it’s not going to be perfect- like, sure, it doesn’t logically make sense for something to come out of “nothing” spontaneously with our current understanding of physics, but the point was never to come up with a convenient answer. And, like you said, the Big Bang theory doesn’t necessarily propose that there was “nothing” beforehand (also, our current understanding of physics may not apply at all to whatever came “before” the big bang). Likely, all of the answers are things we have absolutely no understanding of, and that’s ok! We as a species don’t know everything.
One bogs me the question how the big bang worked or how it began when there was nothing and how the universe in time began to tune in at a perfect tune to sustain itself. Now we all are people we should speak with Thinking and humility as we discuss topics that takes a lot of thinking and wisdom as these. My own thought is How did it even begin if there waw nothing, you see i have thought about it and sense in simple words I can say, if "Nothing" is basically the absence of something and anything how come Out of pure nothing there came something to begin everything, you see the nothing i mean isn't like a Void, or a space, or a empty jar, what i mean is pure nothing, no light, no darkness, no physics, no mass, no matter, no form of physical or invisible objects, no time, no force, no anything but only nothing and itself is nothing and it isn't to be seen at all because its nothing it doesn't exist it lacks any form of existence. What I'm saying is it how is it the 0 became a 1 if there was nevet a 0, but if we look around we see clearly there are something so how is it out of nothing came something and which also some may come up with the multiverse theory but how is it the first universe of all multiverses began if there was nothing. Now its outside of understanding because the "nothing" I'm saying isn't an expression, i mean it at full meaning literally anything there is is nothing it lacks existence so how is it out of pure nothing there came something if there were never a 0 to begin the 1 its confusing, but we should discuss everything with humility and thinking
I recon the moon crashed into the earth, which caused a lot of internal energy within earth. I also believe that some compounds can replicate better than others, resulting in more of a certain compound. Eventually, through some unknown, incredibly long time span, a carbon-based molecule becomes a cell. Cells replicate, and primitive life is formed. Random Mutations cause them to evolve, billions of years later, humans exist. By the way great art lol
Christian here, great video once again, and on one of the topics i find most interesting There is a lot to unpack in this video, but i first want to admire your intellectual honesty and well put together video but simultaneously disagree with your conclusions. Firstly, in the use of the kalam cosmological argument, i wrote a much more in-depth comment on your older video debunking apologetic arguments, but it boils down to 1. The strongest versions of the argument never use the Big Bang as a reason to think the universe has a beginning 2. While its true the argument doesn't get you to a personal Christian god, thats not what is attempting to do, its making the idea of a space-less, time-less powerful force more likely, and to be used in tandem with other arguments Also, I'd have to reject the idea that Christianity causes blind faith and rejection of science, i would recommend watching the youtuber 'inspiring philosophy' on the toppic Also, i just want to say how much i enjoy your comment section. It is so much more civil than the vast majority of other atheists, which leads to insightful and engaging decisions
If Christianity is not promoting blind faith, then why is Doubting Thomas criticised for seeking evidence? The exchange suggests that not only is blind faith good, but that it is actually better to have blind faith than informed faith. See for yourself in John 20.29. Aside from that there are also millions of people who reject science on religious grounds because of the way that they interpret the bible. It is not an accident that this keeps happening. They are acting based on the text and tradition.
yeah i agree with the # 1 haha, i dont think using the big bang is actually common from what ive seen in people using that argument, i more so was comparing the similarities in the base line reasoning of cause and effect rather than saying people frequently use the big bang in combination with the kalam cosmological argument! tbf ive mostly heard that argument from Craig as well as other atheists like, discussing Craig's debates lol, but i dont think ive heard him use the big bang as an argument personally because. well honestly hes better than that imo xD my little tangent about that argument was more so about the misuse of it than about the argument its self, though i still find flaw in the assumption that the universe must have had a beginning since we actually dont know if thats the case or not. the logic of course does follow in every other aspect of life and science but part of the thing with the big bang is our modern physics breaks down past a certain point so we cant safely assume that what we observe to be true now was true then.
also i do think thats true of some denominations and not other i guess in regards to blind faith, the bible is interpreted vastly different when comparing certain denominations
@godlesssnowshoe yeah that's fair, I don't know 100% if the universe has a beginning and I'm not sure science could tell us what it is if it does but it's interesting to think about 🤔, and I personally don't subscribe to sola scriptora
@rennidenni7792 good point, but if you read that in context he's talking to thomas after he has seen sufficient evidence, it's not saying for people to believe without evidence, and as for people denying science in the name of religion unfortunately I'm with you there. This absolutely happens in Christianity but I don't think that is what Christianity is ment to be and it's certainly not special to it, I don't even think it would be better in a secular world
@ Most religious people I know (living in rural Utah) acknowledge evolution as real. Evolution doesn’t disprove the Bible, Christianity, religion, spirituality, or the supernatural. So what’s your point?
Big bang as far as I am aware is begining of time, rather than something of matter ex nihilio For anything before that its quantum, even then we cant even look at it, quantum gravity if it is understood it may help?
convoluted/ inconsistent and complex are not synonymous lol. edit: also i didn't say christianity teaches you to be simple but that simple or straight forward answers are favored over complex answers that require a deeper understanding or education. complexity is veiwed as a marvel of god outside human capability, as opposed to something we can study and understand. ie- "god works in mysterious ways" or "its a miracle" instead of "lets try and seek funding for a research study so we can understand how this works" lol that doesn't mean every concept within the religion is simple, theres a reason theologians exist. but that complex structures are always treated as though theyre the doing of god or would be impossible without god, which is a much more simple answer than doing intensive research to actually find the natural cause of something. its much easier to say for example, eyes exist because theyre so complex they require divine intervention vs say, studying how eyes evolved.
@godlesssnowshoe Catholicism (and traditional protestantism) has definitely been trying to understand god for humans and they rarely say "god works in mysterious ways." maybe what you said would apply to christianity in America lol
@YoLkE-22222 I don’t understand the pursuit to “prove God exists”. God is supernatural, the supernatural is outside the scope of science, therefore science cannot prove God.
On the one hand, I mostly agree. On the other hand, to me, your representation of religion seems every bit as reductive and prejudicial as evangelicals' cosmology.
@godlesssnowshoe I was referring to the blanket statement about religion _in general_ providing simplistic, reductive answers to complicated questions.
a fundamental reason religion exists to provide easy answers to questions outside our current understanding, or at least the understanding of the time. those answers aren't always simple to be fair, but they're invented to be compelling instead of truthful. edit: more so MORE easy of an answer i guess than just easy in its own right. making claims that sound nice but have no substance is much less work than doing actual research, much faster, and much easier to emotionally and socially manipulate people into believing. unfortunately most people prefer a shit answer to no answer.
@godlesssnowshoe Sociology and anthropology disagee with your assessment. They say religion exists because a community needs shared beliefs and values to function as a community.
theres no reason those things need to be supernatural. there are plenty of communities with shared values and beliefs that do not revolve around made up shit lol
As an ex atheist and ex trans woman(7+ years on hrt) I realized my simplistic understanding of what religion was for burned my soul and provided me nothing. Seeing you are in a similar situation that I was in over half a decade ago I’d recommend learning more about Christianity then make an informed decision on Christianity. I’ve heard all of your atheist arguments before and I’m not going to assume you haven’t looked into religion but I’d recommend using some talking points that are not parroted from other atheists if this is the case. I hope you have a wonderful evening and God bless ya.
i have read multiple versions of the bible and used to regularly attend a non denominational church with a friend i had in highschool ( tbf not because i even remotely believed it, but to be supportive of my friend and for free food). i watch content from christians both in a youtuber sense and watching more i guess you could say 'professional" content (mainly debates and apologetics so im familiar with it). ive been hyperfixated on religion for years, and while that of course doesn't make me an expert, i definitely have the knowledge to make an informed decision. im just not indoctrinated, and not in a vulnerable enough state for indoctrination to work. none of it has ever been remotely compelling to me and in the 10 years ive had religion as an intrest. the more i learn about it it some how continues to be more and more astounding to me people can actually believe it. quite honestly i think your situation is sad. i hope youre able to work through what ever put you in the place you are now and live a life authentic to yourself, not someone else's expectations and arbitrary rules.
@@godlesssnowshoewhat versions of the Bible have you read because that’s cool! A lot of your posts here are things I’d like to respond to over a voice conversation because there is a lot to unpack here. If you wouldn’t mind I’d appreciate talking to ya over voice about this stuff. To your last point though. I’m alright and the fear of God whilst being apart of the Christian life there is no truth in the life I was leading before. Stress after stress after stress of losing hrt/ the politics around that and all sorts of things that never really mattered. I’m not meant to be a woman if I was I would have been born one I have a purpose that I’m meant to complete. And whilst dysphoria is real my life can not be ruled by the chains of the world. I appreciate your concern that I’m doing this for other peoples expectations however I come from an atheist household having only went to church as a kid with my grandmother. Converting to atheism as a teenager.
This is very minor and certainly doesn't take away from your point at all, but modern science doesn't really hypothesize about a "big crunch" scenario anymore; It's considered outdated.
What follows is a brief summary of what I read on wikipedia: the big crunch was a scenario that came about by modeling the end of the universe dependent on density since, prior to knowledge about the dark matter hypothesis, gravity was the primary force acting on all matter across the universe. In this model, the universe's expansion would theoretically slow down and come back in on itself, leading to a universe that would theoretically collapse in on itself
However, since we do know about dark matter and that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace because of it, the "big crunch" model is nearly impossible. This also mostly rules out old ideas of a "cyclic universe" where a big bang and big crunch would happen one after the other in a repeating pattern (apparently, there are modern versions of a cyclic universe, but I only just learned about them reading this article, so I don't feel able to explain them as well).
I'm not a physicist, but I do focus my academic studies on the space side of aerospace engineering, and have a mild passion for astrophysics and a little bit of cosmology. I'm by no means an authority, but I do care about this topic.
from our favorite most reliable source of information on the interwebs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
yeah i realized that after my brother read the script and pointed it out 😅 hes a physics undergrad lol
i didnt heavily look into that hypothesis for this video admittedly, i just remembered hearing about it and figured it was a well known one to use as an example lol. i definitely should have dug into it a bit more before using it that way!
is it alright if i pin your comment for the correction?
edit: there is another model of a cyclical universe i wanted to include actually, but it was too much math for me to understand well & my brother was asleep when i was spamming him asking him to "explain like im 5" about it lol. ironically did not wanna include misinformation by not understanding it so i didn't include it.
was specifically Penrose's hypothesis of conformal cyclic cosmology, though since i never really got to a point where i understood it well im not sure how plausible it is or if it more falls into the realm of like, okay thats an interesting thought but its definitely not true lol
@@godlesssnowshoe sure! Feel free to pin it! If there are errors in what I said based on what you or your brother learns, feel free to point it out so I can edit it.
the big crunch model is a very common thing people propose as a modern theory for how the universe will end, not knowing it's been proven false. Frankly, if you look for it, the big crunch pops up a sad amount across science youtube.
Also, I forgot to say this in my OG comment, but great video! The way you put everything together made me realize that, like, yeah... die hard christians do have a weird love-hate relationship with complexity, and that a simple yet incomplete model is better to them than a complex but incomplete model. It's obvious in retrospect, but I've never heard it put so succinctly before.
yeah to be honest i don't remember where i even heard it from, probably just popping up through out different videos tbh 😭
also thank you so much, i really appreciate that!
Hey, have you heard of the Timescapes theory?
It's got a paper and some proof now
As professor Dave once said: Complexity is not the hallmark of design, simplicity is.
Dave beloved
when i hear about people claiming that god is responsible for something that we dont yet fully understand all i can remember is something i heard about god being in the unknowns, it would lead to a stagnation in science to accept that god is responsible for everything we dont know yet, because we have seen that as the case in the past. you arent supposed to be comfortable not knowing things, and it brings comfort to know that we are working to understand things.
@@helipad4050 god of the gaps
It's commonly known as the god of the gaps theory.
@@Bluegreenman99 yes thanks i couldnt remember it for the life of me
i remember when i first learned about evolution in like 6th grade i told my parents about it because i never heard about it before (all i heard was god made everything all at once) and my mom got so mad and then my dad pulled me aside and told me don’t bring it up near my mom because she doesn’t believe in it and get angry when people talk about it. 🤦🤦🤦
Bro just teared down two of religion's most famous arguments in the most humble and direct way i've ever seen, mad respect, smart furry friend.
your videos on these topics help me feel less insane in a world where i would be killed if others knew i was a queer athiest and ex-muslim. anyways glad to see youre posting again
you make me glad i use my critical thinking snowshoe :)
Wow it's exactly the same with me! Stay safe stay strong and try to find way to escape this situation and find a safe place that treats you like a human
-with all love and support❤❤
thats very sweet thank you!! 🩵
@@godlesssnowshoe its no problem !! lets hope for the best of this channel
@@hexedforh3llthank you so much 🩵 i hope youre able to find a place where your able to feel and genuinely be safe
Saying “how does the universe exist without god” is really just pushing the question back, how does god exist, did someone create him? How many turtles are there here?
@@rowandunning6877 the they pull the classic "God doesn't need a creator" argument, which just begs the question, if we have established that something can exist without a creator then why does the universe need a creator?
yeah its kinda a "rules for me but not for thee" scenario lol. god dosent need to have begun existing he can be eternal, but the universe cant be eternal? like sure maybe its not we don't know lol, but thats just it, we don't know. so that also means we don't know that its finite either lol
@Abyzz_Knight The justification is usually "Something that exists forever doesn't need to be made" and its just like... where'd you get that from? Doesn't even say that in their magic book
Well then that put into question how is matter even created?
I choose to believe in God because of his law and his promises we will be saved from sin.
I believe that his son die for our sins, his flesh pierced by the sins of man. Scars that remain in his glory.
I don’t believe God is a monster, if God really didn’t care. There would be no hope, no law, no Christ to save us from the death that Satan had caused.
When they say a lot of Christians won’t be save, its all the one who call themselves Christians yet regularly commit blasphemy against the Lord with no remorse.
We all sin, it’s inherited from Adam and Eve. The first to sin.
And this is not a “I’m gonna force you to believe” cause that’s not what Jesus wants, he wants you to worship God with all your heart, mind, and soul.
May God bless you, for I would want to portray the most honest version of a complex, powerful, and righteous being.
Amen.
@@godlesssnowshoe
Why can’t the universe be eternal?
Time didn’t exist until the universe did, so the universe has existed for all time and will exist for all time; therefore, the universe is infinite.
WOW! I'm impressed, I did not have high hopes but I was severely impressed.
A most concise analysis and not a disparaging one at that.
thank you haha xD
“because an old book says a thing”
Because the greatest piece of literature in the history of mankind says a thing
@ ah yes, the book that tells people to smash babies against rocks(Psalm 137:9)
@@Quaggabagel the Torah is better
@@Quaggabagelnah i think the greatest piece of literature ever written is probably The Rise Of Kyoshi ATLA novel. or maybe the sequel, i really like Atuat and shes not in the 1st book smh
@@godlesssnowshoe I say it is Dorohedoro, personally.
The bible is really dry. It's kind of a terrible piece fiction.
Rise of Kyoshi is good taste, tho.
Im not a furry but I do have a soft spot for non-human animal characters with anthropomorphic qualities.
with that being said, I'm glad that there are more videos like this that aim to promote critical thinking for the masses and spread awareness on indoctrination/dogmatic beliefs imposed by religion
I find it also insane how I was able to recognize every distinct branches of science that you draw from so many different sources for your argument (which i really appreciate the eclectic style of approach btw) like physics, chemistry, mathematics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology/genetics, anthropology, sociology and maybe abit of psychology? thrown in the mix which I, myself is not even an skilled expert in most of these things but rather just a casual lifelong learner/enthusiast : )
Good job! you now have earned yourself a new sub : D
I appreciate when religious folks have the maturity to actually analyse and critically assess their own beleifs, and the beleifs of others. Those people are fun to have discussions with☺
agree!
I agree. It’s much more enlightening to discuss things with spiritual people than atheists.
@@Talon19 Actually, athiesm and spirituality are not mutualy exclusive. It's just that the vast majority of athiests like myself are not convinced that anything supernatural exists, while the minority are spiritual.
@@craaab____721
The issue isn’t whether or not they are mutually exclusive; the issue is the inherent negativity of atheism.
Well thought out script as well as good artwork. Lovely. 😎
Your channel is a godsend! (wording intentional)
These past few years during the COVID pandemic have been a struggle for my belief. As a Catholic (on paperwork)-probably moreso Deist personally-I was pretty distraught with the way the online world handled religious topics, with instances of both sides' pettiness and toxicity shining through, instead of genuine, productive discussion (well not everything has to be serious, playful banter is nice, but if its not that, might as well be respectful, right?) Generalizations and personal attacks left and right. I was getting tired and wanted out.
But then, by mere chance, your channel (this video specifically) came along, as well as the channels of Dr. Andrew Henry (ReligionForBreakfast) and Dr. Justin Sledge (Esoterica) a little bit prior, both well-versed in religious studies. As a research nerd, seeing PhDs dissect my beliefs, with all the uncertainty and subtlety expected of academia, felt so refreshing. Seeing many comments under your video from *both* religious and non-religious folks being so civil, felt like home. That is to say, my faith is back and more secure than ever.
Will we agree on everything? Of course not! But that is part-and-parcel of the weird, wacky, wicked, and wondrous blob that is humanity.
You've got a new sub.
From a fellow furry,
Cheers 🥂
i appreciate this comment so much, thank you! 🩵🩵 also fellow religionforbreakfast enjoyer hello! i some how only recently found that channel and I've actually been binge watching his videos the last couple weeks haha, ill have to check out Justin though i haven't heard of him!
best of luck on your journey with your faith as well! :)
I am a creationist. I believe God created all live. I also accept evolution. Just because animals were created does not mean they cannot adapt. For example, all dogs are relatively the same. However, dogs in the Africa will be different than in Siberia. Even more, dogs in Africa will not all be the same. This creates different species within the category of dogs in Africa. Environment matters.
For me, Evolution answers why there are so many types of animals but not how life started. If this isn't evolution, then I apologize. For the first part, about space, flew over my head. I am lacking in brain power in that area. Sorry bout that.
Other than that, I am happy that you are ok and excited about future videos. Thanks Friend.
evolution isnt meant to explain how life started no, we dont have a concrete answer to that however the most supported theory is called abiogenesis!
thank you for the comment, i appreciate creationists who are able to discuss and think about these topics productively haha
@@godlesssnowshoe While abiogenesis doesn't appeal to me, I have been thinking about this for some time. I came up with a theory myself. //Before Earth, elements like oxygen and other elements were in small pockets of space. In these pockets lived single cell organisms. These pockets floated across the cosmos, mixing with other elements. Eventually, the elements gathered around the empty rock called Earth, forming an atmosphere.
The single cell organisms became trap on the Earth. Water came after and then Evolution started. This is just a theory I thought about, the Start of Life.
@@skylight6596 So your explanation for the origin of life is that it just was, and then moved here during a time when earth was very hostile to life? Perhaps you should read more into abiogenesis, as that's an actual explanation for how live comes about, not just an unscientific version of panspermia.
@@skylight6596 that's panspermia
Abiogenesis still happens, but they dont have the chance to compete
@@lorekeeper685 Thank you for clarifying this. I don't research this stuff due to my beliefs. I was thinking about this.
Heck yes! I am so glad to see MoonWalker's songs be more known, got to find him recently as well and his music is just Chef's Kiss!
i love him!! i actually had tickets to see him when he was in denver over summer but got sick :(
@@godlesssnowshoe That sucks! i am sure it would have been an amazing time!
I'm not sure how I got here, but I am glad I did. As a Christian myself, I find this to be an interesting topic of discussion that needs to be had. I do agree that Christians as a whole are very defensive to the point of close-mindedness on any form of creation outside the of the Bible, but I do think a lot of your arguments are weirdly hinging on your own perspective as a representation of Atheists as a whole. Additionally, you seem to go after Christianity's lack of belief in much of evolution specifically, when a lot of the "factual" ideas you discuss are still in contention with those outside of Christianity, even outside of religion as a whole.
I think the most glaring example is "The concept of the big bang in itself is not widely disputed. While there are gaps in knowledge, especially surrounding its origin, the fact that the universe is expanding from a singularity is not one of them." As far as I am aware, the big bang is still very much disputed in both the scientific community and religious communities. I think the acceptance of a widely popular belief does not warrant the term "fact" being stamped on it, as Christianity itself would then be consider factual as well. The only fact is that neither of them are facts, regardless of the evidence provided, because neither of them have yet to be scientifically proven.
I will say, however, that your perspective is a very refreshing one that seems to be coming from some desire of actually understanding the complexities of our universe. I think there are some issues with your perception of other people's understandings, as not everyone is as well-informed or even specifically chooses to not be as well-informed as you are on the topic. You did give me a new perspective on Big Bang Theory as a whole, as everyone I've personally ever seen/met has utilized the Big Bang in conversation/debates as a form of equivalent to Genesis. I'd be interested to discuss this further if you have any disagreements with what I've said, as my take comes more from the way the video rubbed me and not so much a thoroughly thought out rebuttal to any of your points. 👍
i mean in general anything thats a point of scientific study will be disputed so i guess that was poorly worded on my part, but what i more so mean in that is that there is a general scientific consensus that it happened, and that consensus is based on a large amount of data. its not in the hypothesis or theoretical realm anymore, as it used to be primarily discussed in terms of the math lining up but not actually being observable. many subjects in physics start as math that leads people to a certain conclusion that something SHOULD exist, or at least should be capable of existing even if it does not, and then seeking observable evidence of that thing physically being true or extant. something like for example, the heat death of the universe lol, is expected to happen due to thermodynamics, but obviously we cannot observe that because it both has not happened yet & we would be not physically capable of witnessing it. its a prediction predicted on calculations essentially, and the bigbang has surpassed that phase.
while obviously due to the vastness of the topic and of course the massive gaps of information we could very well be misinterpreting the data we do have, theres enough evidence for it to be discussed for all intents and purposes as a fact. both in an academic setting and in casual discussion. again with that being said nothing in science is truly undisputed, so my phrasing definitely could have reflected that better.
i think the difference in discussion of the big bang as fact and christianity as fact is notably different however. big bang cosmology is discussed in terms of fact because it has mountains of evidence to not only support it but also to explain it. you can dig into deeper and deeper rabbit holes of the smallest aspects of it and still find theres observable evidence to support it. all of which is also further backed up by math thats outside my personal range of knowledge lol (my brother is a physics major so i can ask him for details on that if you want haha).
with christianity however, the consensus of christianity as truth by a wide amount of people, at least in this context, is more comperable to a "lots of people believe it therefore it is true". but theres a difference between a large portion of the population believing in something that has shaped their culture for centuries and a large population of experts with over a decade of education all coming to a consensus that something is likley true based on mutally observed and peer reviewed data.
essentially a lot of experts all agreeing something is true based on data is not an equivalence to lots of everyday people believing something is true based on cultural prevalence.
to be fair im sure there are some atheists who look at the bigbang as their own idea of a creation event, and dont have the personal interest in it (or a physics major brother lol) to do further digging than that, but i would argue the average atheist does not veiw the big bang as a genesis equivalent, because while genesis is essentially the orgin of everything, the big bang does not attempt to answer the question of where life comes from and most people are aware of that. the idea that it created life, at least regarding people ive spoken to, is an idea thats very much informed by a christian world veiw that seeks for an all encompassing answer as opposed to recognizing that these are two entirely separate feilds of study and the events take place an incomprehensibly long period of time apart.
also thank you for the comment i love replying to comments like this haha
It is not disputed that something of the nature of the Big Bang happened.
The universe *is* expanding, we have no reason to believe it wasn't doing it before, and we have no reason to believe it will stop.
Until that changes, the Big Bang is the explanation that conforms best to Occam's Razor. Now, will there be a ton of dispute over the details? Yeah. Are there gonna be a lot of people saying "that can't be?" Yeah, Christians exist and try to use science to justify their God, badly.
So "people argue about things" isn't enough of a refutation. It is kind if a non point.
3:08
Not all Biblical literalists are Christian, not all Christians are Biblical literalists. Being Christian doesn’t mean a rejection of science or a literal interpretation of the Bible.
yes I say as such in the video lol
I'm always wondering what was the very beggining of everything
Ok so I’ve kind of dipped off the face of the earth on this account and have stopped focusing on discourse and most of the general things you talk about on this channel, but I wanted to reappear real quick to say how much I appreciate this video! Things such as the big theory and evolution aren’t about coming to a conclusion based on what’s most convenient or what “makes the most sense,” it’s simply taking the evidence we already have and coming to our best possible conclusion based on said evidence and our current ability to understand it. Of course it’s not going to be perfect- like, sure, it doesn’t logically make sense for something to come out of “nothing” spontaneously with our current understanding of physics, but the point was never to come up with a convenient answer. And, like you said, the Big Bang theory doesn’t necessarily propose that there was “nothing” beforehand (also, our current understanding of physics may not apply at all to whatever came “before” the big bang). Likely, all of the answers are things we have absolutely no understanding of, and that’s ok! We as a species don’t know everything.
Just subbed. Will watch later.
One bogs me the question how the big bang worked or how it began when there was nothing and how the universe in time began to tune in at a perfect tune to sustain itself. Now we all are people we should speak with Thinking and humility as we discuss topics that takes a lot of thinking and wisdom as these. My own thought is How did it even begin if there waw nothing, you see i have thought about it and sense in simple words I can say, if "Nothing" is basically the absence of something and anything how come Out of pure nothing there came something to begin everything, you see the nothing i mean isn't like a Void, or a space, or a empty jar, what i mean is pure nothing, no light, no darkness, no physics, no mass, no matter, no form of physical or invisible objects, no time, no force, no anything but only nothing and itself is nothing and it isn't to be seen at all because its nothing it doesn't exist it lacks any form of existence. What I'm saying is it how is it the 0 became a 1 if there was nevet a 0, but if we look around we see clearly there are something so how is it out of nothing came something and which also some may come up with the multiverse theory but how is it the first universe of all multiverses began if there was nothing. Now its outside of understanding because the "nothing" I'm saying isn't an expression, i mean it at full meaning literally anything there is is nothing it lacks existence so how is it out of pure nothing there came something if there were never a 0 to begin the 1 its confusing, but we should discuss everything with humility and thinking
I love ur sona :3 need more furries making theology / political stuff
thank u!!!
@@billy2896 yeah, sonas are pretty fun to see
Omg new videoooo
I recon the moon crashed into the earth, which caused a lot of internal energy within earth. I also believe that some compounds can replicate better than others, resulting in more of a certain compound. Eventually, through some unknown, incredibly long time span, a carbon-based molecule becomes a cell. Cells replicate, and primitive life is formed. Random Mutations cause them to evolve, billions of years later, humans exist.
By the way great art lol
Christian here, great video once again, and on one of the topics i find most interesting
There is a lot to unpack in this video, but i first want to admire your intellectual honesty and well put together video but simultaneously disagree with your conclusions. Firstly, in the use of the kalam cosmological argument, i wrote a much more in-depth comment on your older video debunking apologetic arguments, but it boils down to
1. The strongest versions of the argument never use the Big Bang as a reason to think the universe has a beginning
2. While its true the argument doesn't get you to a personal Christian god, thats not what is attempting to do, its making the idea of a space-less, time-less powerful force more likely, and to be used in tandem with other arguments
Also, I'd have to reject the idea that Christianity causes blind faith and rejection of science, i would recommend watching the youtuber 'inspiring philosophy' on the toppic
Also, i just want to say how much i enjoy your comment section. It is so much more civil than the vast majority of other atheists, which leads to insightful and engaging decisions
If Christianity is not promoting blind faith, then why is Doubting Thomas criticised for seeking evidence? The exchange suggests that not only is blind faith good, but that it is actually better to have blind faith than informed faith. See for yourself in John 20.29.
Aside from that there are also millions of people who reject science on religious grounds because of the way that they interpret the bible. It is not an accident that this keeps happening. They are acting based on the text and tradition.
yeah i agree with the # 1 haha, i dont think using the big bang is actually common from what ive seen in people using that argument, i more so was comparing the similarities in the base line reasoning of cause and effect rather than saying people frequently use the big bang in combination with the kalam cosmological argument! tbf ive mostly heard that argument from Craig as well as other atheists like, discussing Craig's debates lol, but i dont think ive heard him use the big bang as an argument personally because. well honestly hes better than that imo xD
my little tangent about that argument was more so about the misuse of it than about the argument its self, though i still find flaw in the assumption that the universe must have had a beginning since we actually dont know if thats the case or not. the logic of course does follow in every other aspect of life and science but part of the thing with the big bang is our modern physics breaks down past a certain point so we cant safely assume that what we observe to be true now was true then.
also i do think thats true of some denominations and not other i guess in regards to blind faith, the bible is interpreted vastly different when comparing certain denominations
@godlesssnowshoe yeah that's fair, I don't know 100% if the universe has a beginning and I'm not sure science could tell us what it is if it does but it's interesting to think about 🤔, and I personally don't subscribe to sola scriptora
@rennidenni7792 good point, but if you read that in context he's talking to thomas after he has seen sufficient evidence, it's not saying for people to believe without evidence, and as for people denying science in the name of religion unfortunately I'm with you there. This absolutely happens in Christianity but I don't think that is what Christianity is ment to be and it's certainly not special to it, I don't even think it would be better in a secular world
But if we came from a big bang, why are there still small bangs?
If we came from stardust, why there is still a stardust?
Gravity. Stars are created and destroyed due to how gravity affects mass.
@@Talon19 I was just going on in the joke about how religious present their arguments about how evolution is not real.
@
Most religious people I know (living in rural Utah) acknowledge evolution as real.
Evolution doesn’t disprove the Bible, Christianity, religion, spirituality, or the supernatural. So what’s your point?
Big bang as far as I am aware is begining of time, rather than something of matter ex nihilio
For anything before that its quantum, even then we cant even look at it, quantum gravity if it is understood it may help?
Is this nuka cola lore?
i have never played fall out i am so sorry im confused LMAO 😭😭😭
@godlesssnowshoe btw your oc is kinda pretty
Omg I love moonwalker too
HE FOLLOWED ME ON TIKTOK AND I LITERALLY SCREAMED LOL
You have a very cute voice.
I was just listening to this in the background and 7min in noticed the furry art lmao. 🖤
Omg yesssss
"Christianity teaches you to be simple" then how do you explain the Trinity, it is very complex and many, or i would say most, dont understand it well
convoluted/ inconsistent and complex are not synonymous lol.
edit: also i didn't say christianity teaches you to be simple but that simple or straight forward answers are favored over complex answers that require a deeper understanding or education. complexity is veiwed as a marvel of god outside human capability, as opposed to something we can study and understand. ie- "god works in mysterious ways" or "its a miracle" instead of "lets try and seek funding for a research study so we can understand how this works" lol
that doesn't mean every concept within the religion is simple, theres a reason theologians exist. but that complex structures are always treated as though theyre the doing of god or would be impossible without god, which is a much more simple answer than doing intensive research to actually find the natural cause of something. its much easier to say for example, eyes exist because theyre so complex they require divine intervention vs say, studying how eyes evolved.
@godlesssnowshoe Catholicism (and traditional protestantism) has definitely been trying to understand god for humans and they rarely say "god works in mysterious ways." maybe what you said would apply to christianity in America lol
that starts with the assumption that god exists at all, let alone that specific god.
@godlesssnowshoe they also of course attempted to prove God through different ways
@YoLkE-22222
I don’t understand the pursuit to “prove God exists”.
God is supernatural, the supernatural is outside the scope of science, therefore science cannot prove God.
On the one hand, I mostly agree. On the other hand, to me, your representation of religion seems every bit as reductive and prejudicial as evangelicals' cosmology.
this is referring to a very specific type of christian, not all christians. that was the purpose of the disclaimer at the beginning 🤷♂️
@godlesssnowshoe I was referring to the blanket statement about religion _in general_ providing simplistic, reductive answers to complicated questions.
a fundamental reason religion exists to provide easy answers to questions outside our current understanding, or at least the understanding of the time. those answers aren't always simple to be fair, but they're invented to be compelling instead of truthful.
edit: more so MORE easy of an answer i guess than just easy in its own right. making claims that sound nice but have no substance is much less work than doing actual research, much faster, and much easier to emotionally and socially manipulate people into believing. unfortunately most people prefer a shit answer to no answer.
@godlesssnowshoe Sociology and anthropology disagee with your assessment. They say religion exists because a community needs shared beliefs and values to function as a community.
theres no reason those things need to be supernatural. there are plenty of communities with shared values and beliefs that do not revolve around made up shit lol
As an ex atheist and ex trans woman(7+ years on hrt) I realized my simplistic understanding of what religion was for burned my soul and provided me nothing. Seeing you are in a similar situation that I was in over half a decade ago I’d recommend learning more about Christianity then make an informed decision on Christianity. I’ve heard all of your atheist arguments before and I’m not going to assume you haven’t looked into religion but I’d recommend using some talking points that are not parroted from other atheists if this is the case. I hope you have a wonderful evening and God bless ya.
i have read multiple versions of the bible and used to regularly attend a non denominational church with a friend i had in highschool ( tbf not because i even remotely believed it, but to be supportive of my friend and for free food). i watch content from christians both in a youtuber sense and watching more i guess you could say 'professional" content (mainly debates and apologetics so im familiar with it). ive been hyperfixated on religion for years, and while that of course doesn't make me an expert, i definitely have the knowledge to make an informed decision. im just not indoctrinated, and not in a vulnerable enough state for indoctrination to work.
none of it has ever been remotely compelling to me and in the 10 years ive had religion as an intrest. the more i learn about it it some how continues to be more and more astounding to me people can actually believe it.
quite honestly i think your situation is sad. i hope youre able to work through what ever put you in the place you are now and live a life authentic to yourself, not someone else's expectations and arbitrary rules.
@@godlesssnowshoewhat versions of the Bible have you read because that’s cool!
A lot of your posts here are things I’d like to respond to over a voice conversation because there is a lot to unpack here.
If you wouldn’t mind I’d appreciate talking to ya over voice about this stuff.
To your last point though. I’m alright and the fear of God whilst being apart of the Christian life there is no truth in the life I was leading before. Stress after stress after stress of losing hrt/ the politics around that and all sorts of things that never really mattered. I’m not meant to be a woman if I was I would have been born one I have a purpose that I’m meant to complete. And whilst dysphoria is real my life can not be ruled by the chains of the world. I appreciate your concern that I’m doing this for other peoples expectations however I come from an atheist household having only went to church as a kid with my grandmother. Converting to atheism as a teenager.
@@dumbsimpleton207 hearing the arguments doesn't sound like necessary countering them.