Nature Can't Create Itself
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- If energy cannot be created or destroyed, does that mean there's a god? Omar in CA seems to think so
This clip is from The Atheist Experience, Episode 27.13 for April 2, 2023 with Paulogia and Forrest Valkai
See the full episode here: ruclips.net/user/li...
Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use your computer to save on long-distance charges: tiny.cc/callthe...
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
► Become a RUclips member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tinyurl.com/Th...
► Chat room rules:
atheist-experie...
► The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting
atheist-experie...
Note: We request pronouns as part of the call screening process on our shows, and we display the pronouns our callers provide. If you see a caller with no pronouns indicated, this is because they chose not to provide us with any, and we respect that decision.
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
► More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
www.atheist-exp...
► DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
www.atheist-com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2023 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
"Energy cannot be created, therefore it must be created." That sums it up nicely😂
We don't know, therefore it has to be magic.
Sounds legit. I'd like to subscribe to your mailing list.
Which makes me wonder, did Christians ever buy Black Magic chocolates, and if the Black Magic chocolate box comes with a map of the fillings, are they no longer magic?
@@ziploc2000 good question
I am ready to go to your Church and tithe.
@@raya.p.l5919 You might want to rephrase that bud
"you dont know literally everything, therefore god is real" - the least convincing argument ive ever heard
atheism is a closed circular argument
@@raysalmon6566
If that's true, so is theism. If that's not true, theism still is.
@@tosuchino6465 Psalm 34:8-10
8 Taste and see that the Lord is good;
blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.
9 Fear the Lord, you his holy people,
for those who fear him lack nothing.
10 The lions may grow weak and hungry,
but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing
@@sideboob6851 that the bible is a myth
but they avoid the historical methodology
@@raysalmon6566
Ironically, by citing from the Bible, you just proved my point.
Oh we haven’t had such a learned gods of the gaps discussion before. I’m enjoying this. 👍
"Nature can't create itself, therefore my invisible friend in the sky must be real"
In other word 'the mysterious stranger'
Very nuanced comment. Well done
@@Freedomfortruth90 thanks, i do my best ✌
Love both of these guys. Both are knowledgeable and articulate.
Theist: nature can't create itself
Atheist: no one says it did
Science: No one said it did, but we're curious about how things work. If nature in some form always existed, that would explain a lot. If absolutely nothing existed, and then something existed, that would require a lot of explanation. Meanwhile, our honest report is that we don't know. But we're willing to investigate. The most confident statement that we can make at present is "we don't know." And not knowing is never justification for some alternative claim that we do know.
Create is also smuggling in a supposition.
In a weird roundabout way it do but not the way you think it do lol. Life progresses ever onwards but it works off the paved roads of our ancestors if I can put it in a poetic manner.
I guess he means “formulated”, but either way I feel like we watch nature do things on its own all the time without really think twice about it. Plants actually grow and bore fruit millions of years before they ever needed a human to eat em. Our own bodies contain thousands of natural processes that keep us alive without us even being aware… so the universe as we know it coming to existence..not that bizarre to me.
@Jon C Scientists are discovering new things about the universe constantly. Quantum physics, quarks and dark matter, string/multi-verse theory. Thousands of dedicated minds are exploring the answers to age old questions. I don't know where you get the information that no scientist is working on "the ultimate mystery". Perhaps you should look up the most recently published papers on said subjects? Or go to a local college class.
If nature can't create itself, as the caller claims, how did his god start? If his answer is that his god is eternal, that's also how nature (universe) could have began.. No magic required.
That's what I don't get. They think their answer is the most logical. It is far from it.
@@DaveCM
Right. It's anything but parsimonious, the mark of careful regard for truth.
Indeed, it's ridiculously extravagant. "I know! A black box is responsible for everything that we don't understand. Just say the black box did it by some inherently mysterious means that we can't hope to investigate. Stop with those pesky questions! Just accept the black box. All praise the black box. It explains by refusing to explain."
@@DaveCM their logic is very narrow and childish . . .
T) This logical sounding thing sounds right
T) Nothing can refute it.
A) It's refuted due to X, Y, Z
T) But it sounds right.
A) Can you prove it
T) No, it's the way I see it
A) That's not proving it. Can people's beliefs in things be wrong?
T) My beliefs can't be wrong.
A) Do you believe bird's blood can cure a disease.
T) No, of course not
A) Well that was mentioned in your bible, which is the core of your belief, and you just confirmed it's wrong . . . so . . .
T) Uhhhhh . . . . uhhhhh, stop discriminating Christians!
Yup cuz i use ask tht who created god. N omg they get so mad when i was younger.
You are possessed. That is why you can't see God at the beginning of all things!
The issue he has even regardless of what forest rightly pointed out is that it doesnt neccsarily solely point to a singular god too...
Well done Paulogia and Forrest. Calm and rational discussion.
Premise One : "Nature can't create itself"
Premise minus One: First prove nature was "created"
Doesn't entropy alone prove that already?
@@NayBuster
No
How would it.
Don't confuse "created" and "came into existence".
@@NayBuster No
Let's be honest here. The reason he insets his god into the equation is not because of some logical deduction he made. It's because he was raised Christian, almost certainly.
Well, Muslim, but yes.
You are assuming that, you don't know.
@@alekhinesgun9997 "almost certainly" = 0% and understood to be >90%
god(s) has been a reasonable deduction since the beginning.
@@skepticaliam5857 Then you don't know what your username means. Gullible Liam. Soft brained Liam.
This conversation reinvigorated my “faith” in humanity. Well done across the board - both parties - thank you!
Ultimately my response to the caller is - I think what he defines as the “supernatural” is simply what we do not yet know. It’s a variation/derivative of the ‘god of the gaps’.
I’ll add…the caller’s thought process is a road that I think most of us (as atheists) wandered down.
I was six when I first asked “who made god?”
This guy apparently has zero curiosity about that.
The smiles on your faces when he says nature can’t be natural
I have to go back because I apparently missed that. 😂
“Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy was created.” - Brilliant Theist 2023
Except that, when you account for the negative gravitational energy, the total in the universe might be zero.
@@timsn274 Gravitational energy as you call it is a result of energy. (Gravity doesn't exist*)
There are some theories about negative matter, (anti-matter, and remember that matter = Energy), but so far it does not seem like the total sum of energy in the entire universe is going to turn out to be zero. If we could use negative matter though we could perhaps do funky things like bend space, which would then possibly, permit faster than light travel**.
*Gravity is an emergent property of mass, or very simply: gravity is the attraction between two masses, we experience this as a measurable force, but it is not a standalone subject.
** Faster than light travel is impossible in the realistic sense, by bending space we'd essentially skip through a folded piece of paper by tunneling through it, rather than running across its surface.
Because magic!
So where did energy come from then?
@@rl7012 I don't know, but that doesn't mean that a magical being created it.
"Everything has to follow the rules, therefore my shit doesn't have to follow the rules."
- guy who claims to be smarter and better than you
"We'll never be able to make that claim", therefore I made up a thing. He said that out loud and thought it sounded good. That's his "deduction".
Let me just start off by accepting that energy cannot be created or destroyed as a premise and then conclude that it was created anyways. Can never get over how brilliant religious people are.
My creationist buddy would say that over and over again. I asked him to say the first part again, about how energy can’t be created, then watched his brain implode.
@madgodloki That was Albert Einstein who said that, not the Bible. So, a scientist came up with a theory, which according to the Bible is false. God's Word can be proven true and trustworthy, but it requires a sincere desire to set aside preconceived notions and sometimes be willing to go against the popular 'theories' of the day. John 3 16 invites you to know God's love and promise.
@@wwlib5390 "God's Word can be proven true" That would require that
step 1) the existence of any god can be proven and is proven
step 2) proof that this god is the god you believe in
step 3) that your god actually speaks the truth
I'll make it easy for you: we can discuss further if you can solve step 1. By objective evidence, not some "but the bible says so" or "look at the trees" mumbo-jumbo.
Be true to yourself: can you fulfill even step 1? The only honest answer must be "no, I can't"
@@johnscaramis2515 thanks. I, personally don't need to 'solve' step 1, 2 or 3. "Been there, done that." You may still be at the 'no I can't' stage. That's ok. Jesus says to seek Him while He may be found, so maybe you have a little longer to make this wonderful discovery for yourself, tho no one really knows how many minutes or seconds they have left to take the step necessary to make such a wonderful, life-changing discovery for yourself..
He believes we will never understand. And there is his defeated, lazy reasoning in a nutshell.
"We will be gods"?
Perfect example of why the god hypothesis is the enemy of progress. If you believe you'll never understand it, you'll prove yourself correct.
@@uncleanunicorn4571 Right! How else to become as gods?
@@uncleanunicorn4571 it also stops progress by making you think you already got the answer, who look for the keys they already believe they have in their pocket?
It is also a self-fulfilling prophecy.
15:53 Forrest nailed the flaw of this caller's argument right on the head. It's highly likely that the Law of Conservation Energy only applies to our observable universe. It's highly possible that it doesn't apply outside of our observable universe without requiring a Theistic explanation. Just because a scientific law is broken doesn't inherently mean that that situation is "unnatural".
Perhaps. But firstly, trying to say anything meaningful about something outside the observable universe is more or less pointless. Secondly, given the clear patterns and consistencies WITHIN the observable universe, it is only logical to infer that those same patterns are very likely to extend to whatever is 'outside' the observable universe. It could be that there is some other overarching phenomena, without any evidence or even possible indication of something so antithetical to everything we DO know and observe makes such a thing highly improbable.
@@madmaxfzz Your second ascertain isn't as simple as logical leap as you're making it out to be as there are significant assumptions being made.
Personally as an agnostic atheist. I wish there were benevolent gods. I wish they would come down tomorrow, fix everything, eliminate the concept of pain and suffering and create a heaven on earth
ETERNAL LIFE and EXISTENCE ON EARTH for LOVING, KIND, and RESPECTFUL HUMAN BEINGS
All lowly, ordinary, and submissive persons who submit to the authority of Jesus Christ as the One given by the Creator all authority in heaven and on earth and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" are the loving, kind, and respectful human beings on earth who will be favored, honored, and rewarded by the loving, kind, and merciful Creator with ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains griefs, sickness, and deaths on a safe, secure, and peaceful earth without arrogant, cruel, merciless, and hateful atheists, agnostics, and fanatics of religions, without liars, slanderers, deceivers, hypocrites, terrorists, criminals, and murderers.
In the Creator's own right time, Jesus Christ will resurrect back to life all loving, kind, and respectful worshippers of the Creator who died even thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, King David, his disciples, and many others so that all loving, kind, and respectful human beings can happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "Kingdom of God" and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, compassions, generosities, favors, and blessings of the Creator and his Christ for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth, his Christ.
@@jaflenbond7854 dude r u taking ur meds
For the first part of your comment, there's a benevolent God that came down about 2000 years ago in human form, but was still able to operate the whole universe at the same time. This human was known as Jesus Christ. The proof that he was God in human form were miracles that he performed on others and himself that are physically impossible (Godlike). The second part of your comment is after death, no Heaven on Earth. Heaven and Earth are two different places. Hell is where you're headed though since you're an agnostic atheist, all atheists burn and all agnostics will also burn, curiosity tormented the agnostic atheist. Truth hurts... Although it's not too late to right your wrong, until you're out of time. 😇
@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 How can he be all loving and benevolent when pain and suffering exists? How many children are being raped right now? Why does that concept exist? The fall of man is stupid abusive nonsense.
Its a horrific self hating death cult, not the truth. Sorry, the truth does indeed hurt. Keep threatening people with hell and see how far that gets you. You may be a dirty filthy sinner from birth because Adam and Eve ate an apple and had a big incestuous gangbang to create you, but I'm a human being from earth. No reason to believe in any magic or fairies.
Omar knows about as much of physics as my son at age 8.
Without watching I bet I’m about to hear the god of the gaps.
Paul has a seriously intense listening face. It's like he's staring into his camera's soul.
I created the universe out of nothing. I don't have to prove it, you just have to accept it unless you can prove me wrong.
Asking these types of questions in a universe that has time and space is like asking what height is in a 2-dimensional universe that only has width and length. If a god is a timeless being it can't look like us and therefore we can't be made in his image. A timeless being has no need for a penis or a brain or a white beard. A timeless being doesn't make decisions or move from point A to point B because that concept is meaningless to it.
I always wondered. If we are made in gods image, did he have to chop off his own foreskin?
I guess what they mean by ‘made in his image’ is like what they imagined for us to be. Like if you have an idea of an image you want to draw, and then you draw it, the drawing is made in the image of what you want to draw. But then, you have to explain all of the faults of our bodies, like how you only ever get 2 sets of teeth, or the vagus nerve. Still doesn’t explain why they would even need to build us, or whether we were the ones who they made in the first place tho.
I've never observed one of these timeless beings. Are they empirically confirmed things, or just a sort of excuse inserted into an argument in hope of making it seem more credible?
Because, if the latter, it doesn't seem more credible, sorry. And if the former, please provide citations.
@@drsatan9617 only 30% the men in this world are circumcised
If we are "created" in the image of an of course non-existing "god" then why are we not invisible???
I rewatched Sabine's video on infinity, and I don't think she said infinity doesn't exist but that it isn't scientific. We can not, and we may never be able to falsify infinity in either direction. So the answer to 'is the universe infinite, or existed infinitly long' is we don't know.
'We don't know' means 'We don't know', not 'someone had to create it'.
What's always interested me about this particular argument, is they accept the notion that energy/matter can not be created or destroyed, but then jump over the obvious conclusion that it must have always existed, to claim a completely inexplicable entity created it. The very thing they just got through accepting can not be created or destroyed. Woosh! Right over their heads.
The logic is that energy cannot be created or destroyed NATURALLY. That means that, if it was created, it must have been done supernaturally. They claim there is evidence that energy has not simply always existed and thus it must have been created and thus it must have been created supernaturally. I think they're wrong or, at least, unjustified, but if you ignore that logic then you're strawmanning them.
@@wunnell It's still special pleading and I've yet to hear anyone claim they have evidence that energy did not exist at some point, let alone provide that evidence. In the end it's still positing an inexplicable entity to explain an unexplained reality. However, okay fair enough.
@@somersetcace1 , like I said, I think they're wrong. When the argument they're actually making is so weak though, we don't have to pretend that they're making some other argument that they're not.
@@wunnell Well, I wasn't really pretending. I could press the issue, but I think the real `strawman` part of the argument was in saying it goes right over their head. No, it doesn't go over their head. They're just special pleading it away. So, again, fair enough.
@@wunnell what logic ? That's Just special pleading since the supernatural hasn't been demonstrated. Plus if something I'd supernaturally created to then exist in the natural world it still needs to obey the natural laws.
Natural things have to obey the laws of time as far as we know. So how does something outside of time be created and inserted into the natural where it then suddenly becomes something that cannot be created. How does that even work.
Give 'em hell - er, give 'em science, Paul and Forrest! 😄 I'll have to find the whole show and watch it, now. 😊
❤️❤️
Give this man the Nobel Prize In Physics because he knows “IT”.
Whenever the watchmaker argument starts about how everything is so perfect, I bring up cyanoalgae and how the Earth's atmosphere was almost void of oxygen in those early stages of life. It took hundreds of millions of years before the algae as a waste product spewed enough oxygen into the atmosphere for other life to start, however, the cyanoalgae died off, not able to live in an oxygen enriched environment.
Not quite. I think that there was NO oxygen in the early stages of life. I am amazed that the molten ball when it started to have a crust, could only have an atmosphere of very heavy gases, anything as light as hydrogen chloride or even pure diatomic chlorine would escape. It follows that the gases of our atmosphere must be the product of cometary bombardment after the crust cooled sufficiently. The shocking thing about that, is that the faster any comet was moving, the harder it was to catch. If, relative to the Earth, a meteorite is sufficiently slower than the Moon to have an elliptical orbit half the semi-radius of the Moon, and it comes as close to this planet as the Moon is, it'll be captured.
They can't say "I don't know" because if they do then their god they don't know might torture them in fire forever.
This question was answered in the first response. After that it was just going in circles.
The "rules" and "laws of nature" only apply to the current iteration of the universe. They were written based on observations of the current iteration (or presentation) of the universe which can only be traced back to the expansion of the singularity. Gawd is also a concept of humans within the current presentation of the universe.
This was the FIRST thing I heard, right off the bat, at the 0:20 second mark:
"My conclusion is I believe in god, so now, what I am trying to do is to USE my conclusion and invent evidence so it sounds like science."
The famous augment:
The god of gaps. . .
We don't know, therefore . . . God!
Paulogia always looks like he's thinking "What are you talking about @$$#○|€?".
His problem is assuming that Laws in Science are absolutes when there are many exceptions.
Worse even perhaps, it is extrapolating to far outside the domain these laws were observed in. You shouldn't feel comfortable to extrapolate laws that hold in the universe to situations where there was no universe, inasfar as such a situation is even conceivable.
A "law" like all swans are white can have exception (e.g. black swans), but these guys are making more an argument like "Zeus must be white because he seduced Leda as a swan".
The more we learn about our universe, the smaller the gaps in which god can reside.
Yet another Argument from Ignorance. How novel.
This caller was closer than most! He didn’t claim that lack of knowledge about the origin of the universe or origin of life was evidence for HIS OWN God. He did admit that.
AGAIN (for Omar and everyone else): *Conservation of Energy DOESN'T apply to the universe.*
As per Noether's Theorem, for there to be a conserved quantity, there must be a differentiable symmetry of action. Space is NOT time translation invariant (it is changing over time), therefore energy is NOT a conserved quantity.
The *stress-energy tensor* (aka the energy-momentum tensor) is the conserved quantity in the universe. It's elements, energy and momentum, are only conserved in places where space is not changing (appreciably) in scale or shape (such as on earth).
Now that you've set everyone straight, no theist is going to try to "prove" God with their limited understanding of the laws of thermodynamics!
Right? You all agree with me, right? 😰
@@jquest99 go take a long, hard look at yourself!
For the caller's statement/claim at 12:40: I wish the hosts would have asked him to demonstrate that. You don't have to create energy to do or create something...you only have to change energy's form, which is allowable by the laws of thermodynamics.
One of the better theist callers.
I’m so happy to hear Emmy Noether’s Theorem mentioned on the program.
To me, her correlation of all the conservation laws with the symmetries of the physical world is evidence that these laws aren’t arbitrarily chosen by some creative agent.
Feel free to enjoy your ideas, but please don't use that as an argument; "symmetry-based conservation" isn't evidence for no creator as much as "look at the beautiful trees" is evidence for a creator. Neither follows or even has anything to do with anything.
@@landsgevaer Sorry to have used physics jargon here, which made my post unclear. ‘Symmetry’ isn’t an aesthetic judgement, but means in this context that an experimental result can be unaffected by, for instance, a later starting time (time symmetry), a different orientation (rotation symmetry), or a different location (space symmetry).
Time symmetry leads directly to the law of conservation of energy (CoE), for example. The fact that repeated consistent results implies to a fundamental law of nature underscores the lack of arbitrariness of that law, making it based on logic rather than subjective prescription.
@@sciphyskyguy4337 I am aware of what Noether's law entails, but thanks.
It isn't evidence against a god though. A theist would likely argue that that is precisely how a god would like to design it. That you recognize the signature of god in the perfection of the abstraction, or some such word salad. Just like MC Escher designed his etches with particular symmetry resulting in a mesmorizing effect. While at the other hand we have a lot of evidence in undesigned nature that is pretty ugly and not necessarily "logical".
Noether's theorem is beautiful from a theoretical physics perspective, but beauty is a poor guide towards truth. Sabine Hossenfelder has some nice opinions on that; she demolishes a lot of modern physics for adhering to beauty and (super!)symmetry whether that is fruitful or not.
On top of that, many "symmetries" of nature are not symmetrical at all actually, like C, P, T separately, so it is a bit of a trap too. Finally, an expanding space isn't time-symmetric on a kosmological scale anymore, so with regards to the universe as a whole energy conservation doesn't necessarily follow. (Google redshift expansion energy conservation, there are some serious explanations, but YT doesn't like me posting links...)
(Btw, not arguing for a god here - I am an antitheist - but let us please not give theists a foothold by giving - imho - weak arguments for them to attack; or emulate for that matter.)
If God could not have made 1+1 added algebraically equal anything other than 2 then he can't be given credit for it.
And there is so much that stems from that. Spiral numbers, the Golden Ratio to name a couple.
@@stephenolan5539 Exactly. There’s no room for design choice.
We need to normalise scientists saying "We don't know", but also clarify that it's "We don't know, but we will know. We're working on it.".
How about you run with, "We don't know, we may never know. We will continue to investigate."
@@rembrandt972ify I'm going to be honest, that makes a lot more sense. I think though for a lot of things, it's pretty much guaranteed we'll know something(things that aren't specific to time). Either way, thanks for your input. We should normalise scientists saying, "We don't know, we may never know, but we will continue to investigate".
@@ParadoxDev_ 😀
I only know i dont know.
And it is ok for Scientists to say, we were wrong.
Conservation of energy refers specifically to closed thermodynamic systems. We don't have a way to measure the universe as a closed thermodynamic system.
I don't lose sleep over what created the universe.
I might lose sleep over why not a single GOD does anything in modern times.
I stopped losing sleep over it. For decades, I prayed every night for God, whatever form it might be in, to reveal itself to me because I truly wanted to believe. And of course I got zilch. So I gave up asking for something that I don't believe exists.
My question for you: What currently holds all structures within the universe, including life, and the whole universe together?...
Your answer: "I don't know."
My reply after your answer: Stop thinking so selfishly about your sleeping patterns, it's distracting and deflecting from the truth... the truth you may never know because you've been sleeping too much. 😇
@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 I don't need to know the truth.
What I do know is I see plenty of claims about what GOD can do or has done.
When will any GOD appear in reality doing them in modern times?
Yep I don't know and will probably be sleeping AKA DEAD when it happens if then.
Thank you your community helps.
Paulogia has a very distracting audio video sync problem.
Can not be created or destroyed IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, IN A CLOSED SYSTEM
He would be right that IF a god exists it would probably be outside of whatever system we know, but that would need to imply that it was not a closed system and there is outside input.
Larry the Troll is back
His mother must be out.
The sad part is that I don’t think he’s trolling. There are plenty of religious people with severe mental problems, especially here in the United States. He definitely appears to be one of them
Yes, the bleeder is spraying shite everywhere again.
And he's triggered AF! 🤣
Thing he might be right about is that the truth might be so strange that we may have the proof of its strangeness but we can't comprehend it.
For eg.
1) There are signs of multiple dimensions, but as it is difficult for us to understand anything beyond 3 dimensions, even though we have an inkling about how things might work in higher dimensions it is very difficult to see them.
2) We can't understand the concept of no time or reverse time. So it might be nearly impossible to comprehend anything before big bang as that is the origin of both space and time as we know it.
The actual explanation of pulsars as NOT being "Little Green Men" 's digital signals, is *_very strange indeed_* We start with the Heisenberg uncertainty rule telling us that protons are 1000 times as massive as electrons, and *_therefore_* an atom's radius is a thousand times that of its nucleus. Next we find that a White Dwarf star is electrons packed together by its enormous gravity, size comparable to a planet, mass like any other star. Theoretically, Chandrasekhar's Limit say the to massive a star will collapse the lot into neutrons bound together, and it'll have to spin at a prodigious rpm because its angular momentum is so huge. Radiation directed by its magnetic poles, not on the axis of spin, is what we detect as pulses.
_This is a _*_less extravagant_*_ explanation than Little Green Men._
Hey, has anybody got an LGG, a Little Green God?
I think a better question to ask is, how is that modern humans have both Neanderthal and Denisovan genes in our DNA? How they got there is obvious, which is to say we are of the same species, or humans are hybrids of them, but how do they explain (away) the 40,000+ years until God finally decided it was time to communicate with man? To answer my own question, I believe man invented a plethora of gods slowly over time to meet various needs, but mostly to explain natural phenomena and as a way for one group to control another, with both being equally futile. If you think this is a stupid question and answer fair enough, but if we can agree that nothing can originate from nothing, then what possible mechanism created "God" from nothing? I have a great peace not knowing. But I have an even greater peace not living under the overpowering spell of man-made mysticism.
There were never any Neanderthals or any Denisovans. There's not enough evidence to justify their existence. DNA tests that say you have DNA from either of those beings or any ancient being from 40,000 years ago or so can't prove what it's stating objectively. In other words you are looking at DNA results that state something, but it's not Neanderthal or any caveman DNA, that's false and you were lied to. 😇
What? Two species closer to a nodal point of speciation can still breed fertile offspring, when they diverge farther they can only breed infertile offspring (think a liger or donkey), and with even more divergence they will not breed at all.
The basic species model taught in school is insufficient because two species can still breed fertile offspring IF they are close to the nodal point of speciation.
Homo neanderthalensis were genus Homo, so they were still humans, but they were not sapiens, so they were not the same species and there are tons of anatomical evidences for this.
Furthermore, the law of conservation only applies to a closed system.
@@whatabouttheearth Are you homo? Can you prove neanderthals or better yet cave men from 100,000 to 1,000,000 years ago that look like a human-ape hybrid existed? Explain the science proving their existence if you can because I don't believe they ever existed, because they're part ape by appearance and I can disprove they existed pretty easily, even scientifically, with objective facts of reality. 😇
I tend to think that the law of conservation of energy only applies within our universe, but I don't know if there's any reason that it applies *to* the universe. Maybe the fact that the universe is (or appears to be) logically consistent not only means that it can exist, but that that logical consistency *is* existence.
Inserting a god into the equation makes no sense, why would you do that? That would be like me inserting a tomato into a math equation. It doesn't belong there so why would I do that?
Tomato Math Equation Example: If you went to a store and bought two tomatoes for a dollar each, then how many slices can you get from those two tomatoes?...
Now what belongs where again? 😇
@@alnycss2000 Thank you very much. 😇🙏
3 options:
The Supernatural, which cannot touch nature, "created" nature.
The Unnatural, which can never become natural, "created" nature.
Or
The Natural "created" nature.
If there is a creation, it must be natural. But if the caller is correct, the only option is that the flaw is in the belief that there a "creation" at all.
Fourth option: Nothing "created" nature, but it is just inherit property of existence.
@@ShadowManceri Nothing is not a thing. It is the absence of something. Nothingness cannot exist as a something without being a something.
@@ExistenceUniversity Exactly. Now that you know this, read it again.
@@ShadowManceri I read it again, and it is still an ambiguous sentence. You should be more clear what is the inherit property of existence, as you seem to be claiming that nothing is inherit to existence, which is wrong.
@@ExistenceUniversity As you were talking about nature, then context should be fairly obvious. Thus it = nature. Hopefully that clears it up.
I think one factor here is that 100s or 1000s of years ago the level of science was (for lack of a better word) simpler. Scientific knowledge builds upon previous work. We have reached a point where the level of understanding needed for some of these topics takes decades of work in the field to fully grasp. The average person must therefore lean on those experts to provide the best simplified answers they can, as the layperson is not in a position to see the nuances and details (unless they have several years to spare to build-up the required background understanding...) Areas like cosmology and particle physics contain numerous concepts that are not intuitive.
Does a caterpillar create the butterfly?
A chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.
@@ccreutzig
It's all just atoms making cells as vehicles that make organisms as vehicles to ensure their own survival.
God is a tardigrade
"Things have physical properties that interact with one another in consistent ways, therefore GAAAAAAAAWD."
A perfect example of how the god hypothesis stops us from discovery., the callers attitude is the enemy of progress.
This is the 1,000th comment, thanks to all the theist trolls for helping!!!
solid start
Dear Theists,
When your deity created reality, where were they?
Outside of space and time.
@@heinshaaine8153 how is that any different than being nowhere?
@@jonclark8252 You need to get on your hands and knees and pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you up.
@@paulthompson9668 "You need to get on your hands and knees and pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you up."
Statement presupposes that your deity exists. What evidence do you have that proves this is the case?
Also, When your deity created reality, where were they?
In fantasy, not reality.
I... I think I'm in love with Forrest. My goodness.
But a long haired he/him God in a dreas can 😂
Came here to say the same. It's a version of the watchmaker argument, applied to "god".
@@Kenjiro5775 are you saying the guy is framing nature as God and just automatically unconsicously including "god"(nature) as if if nature did create energy it would've required intelligence to do so? I really don't get how the watch maker argument is involved. Also I can imagine he finds a "law" not existing at some point and then existing at some point to be antithetical to something that could create energy. Only because he probably subscribes to god's laws being unchanging and eternal.
Please make sure to capitalise it... He Him His... Otherwise god will be offended 😂
@@_Somsnosa_ Think I give a shit?
Paulogia cusses out the camera with his mind 😂 he looks like he wants to go on a tyraid
If matter cannot be created or destroyed, how did god create those things?
My theory is, God is light and God creates everything out of that light.
through special pleading
A bad case of gas maybe?
@@yes55504 If god is light, can you give us its wavelenght, that will certainly be useful to prove it exists.
@Julian just a personal theory but it's wavelength is
what many don't understand is that their own self is not real, their own self is an imagination an idea that arises in our heads....🤗
God must be eternal but the universe can't be?
Um... no.
Good talk.
Thanks for summing up the video so quickly. I didn’t really feel like watching it. Now I don’t have to and I could still get the gist of it
Its a pity that in spite of all this uncertainy,and our grasp for understanding,no one is coming forth with info,it would have been so easy
The big bang, aka the ultra massive white hole. 🤔
I've been an atheist all my adult life, but I've only been interested in religious arguments for a few years. But in those few years, I've heard pretty much all the arguments put forward by theists as to why their God exists. It's been a long time since I've heard an argument that was new to me. 1 minute in and I thought, "Oh, the Kalam cosmological argument again". The caller was thoughtful, but the arguments for a god never change. Nothing new is discovered within theism.
My big issue with most true believers. If there is not an answer that they can understand or accept, the answer becomes... SUPERNATURAL.. MAGIC... GOD. I wish they could simply say, "Well, I do not know the answer. But I would like to learn what it is sometime in the future."
The problem with Omar was he thought abiogenesis was a “spontaneous creation of life from nothing” and how could that be possible with the first law of thermodynamics. The actual answer being all the matter that combined into life-creating proteins already existed, they weren’t spontaneously created, but they can self assemble to some degree
The higher the gravitationsfield the slower time flows, so before the Higgsfield was created in the big Bang ,the gravitation field strengh was zero, so the time flowed infinitely fast, so the not very likely big bang could appear, with the premise, that the laws of quantum mechanics was "already" working.
It's wild how often this happens.
*Science* "we are not sure how this began"
*Random person* "obviously it's a supernatural deity who broke the laws of nature to create this"
I kept thinking the other Omar who had beef with Matt would be on. Lol 😅🤣
Furthermore, there is no thing in this universe as "nothing". All space has quantum fields wiggling in it, thus it always has some energy. The vacuum is never truly empty.
It sounds to you to he's making a god of the gap argument... because he absolutely is...
It seems to me that the essential motivation for any concept of god is to establish an Authority. A God, of whatever kind, is an absolute authority. People claiming to know the mind of God are seeking to become a local authority. It is not about Truth, but about power. The question I have for anyone claiming to know the mind of God is: Why should I believe YOU?
I "love" this argument: energy can not be created or destroyed.... except it can because God
Douglas Adams wrote "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul", in which the Eternal Gods of Asgard were created by the religious needs of the Norse people, that they should have gods to worship. Thor is magnificently described, and his quarrel with his father Odin, who has been swindled by a couple of human dealers.
Adams introduces sympathy for a very sad notion, how awful it must be to live forever after they've been created to be worshiped, and nobody is left who worships them.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 I'd only add that having read just about everything Douglas wrote... everything he wrote was magnificent.
“I don’t know, therefore God” is not an argument.
“I can’t imagine a world without God.” That’s not proof of God, that’s proof of your lack of imagination.
If you think that “God” is the only possible explanation for something, it just means that you haven’t explored all of the possibilities.
So there's the law of conservation of energy that has to be preserved, then there's a god within infinite energy that created it... Makes total sense...
Pretty sure Noether's theorem (or its corollaries) is a proof of the necessity of conservation laws given certain symmetries (time, spatial, etc.). The expanding universe to my understanding appears to violate energy conservation, as photons lose energy as they travel through an expanding universe. This is because, although conservation of energy is observed experimentally on local scales, it is not actually supported on universal scales. It appears to be approximately true, but unless it can be demonstrated that the conditions at the earliest points of the universe had these symmetries (and that any conservation was necessarily broken; energy can be positive an negative under most models), Noether's theorem is not necessarily valid. As such, its application is not sufficient to demonstrate "supernatural" influence.
Discussions like these always make me think of Fullmetal Alchemist and the concept of The Truth. I want to know everything there is, was, and Will be, and the only reason I'm afraid of dying is I will not know what happens in the future and what kind of knowledge on the past and present will appear. It makes me anxious and very willing to say "I do not know"
Fixing this anxiety with a god seems coward to me. WE WILL NEVER KNOW and will have to just live with it.
Was hoping forest would touch on the statement he made in the beginning where he said that since energy can’t be created or destroyed then life could’ve have formed through natural processes. It was a very weird misunderstanding that I don’t see how it could have happened. Like, energy doesn’t go away. It just changes form. Just like how elements changed form into compounds and then into molecules and then into life by pure chance. There was no creation, just formation.
Not "pure chance" no.
Based on iterative chemical processes.
Both our statements are correct. It’s pure chance that the right molecules met in the right location. It is iterative chemical processes, but what pure chance means is that is just happened because there was a chance it could.
@@viscorg7765 Not exactly. Chemical reactions go according to their properties. There's a probability of products when you have alternative reactions possible but the reaction itself can't be described as pure chance.
Abiogenesis is also not about a lucky meeting of two molecules, it's about the aggregate of chemical reactions going on, feedback loops etc.
Where religious people go wrong is not understanding the difference between a specific lottery ticket winning and there being a winner.
If you assume that we were chosen and on purpose then the probabilities are overwhelmingly against us being natural.
But if you don't make any assumptions either way...
So this guy’s argument basically is: “energy couldn’t be created therefore it was created by god”
I’m glad that he at least tried to say it out loud but I think he should have practiced in front of an audience (like friends and family) before going public and embarrassing himself…
I think the answer should have been Matter and energy was never created it is same as it always has been just tightly packed. And since space and time are related, reduction in density means "expansion" of "space" and "time" losely. In a sense "space" and "time" was "created" as a consequence of expansion but not matter and/or energy.
Perhaps you should stop just making things up, and leave cosmology to people with some understanding.
Forrest: outright points out the caller’s misconceptions of evolution and abiogenesis
Caller: I hear ya, but ima find a way to link it to god anyways
🙉💭
I haven't watched the video yet but I wanted to make a comment that always comes to mind when these sorts of topics come up. Nature is not a thing. Nature is literally just the way things are. Theists talk about "god's nature" and they understand that that just means the way god is. When we talk about nature in general, we're just talking about the way everything is. If there is something then the way that something is is its nature. There always has been something - there never was nothing - and that something has always been the way it is so that something has always had that nature.
Caller: "Nature _can't_ be natural."
It was odd that Omar threw Sabine Hossenfelder into the conversation as if she would agree with his point of view. She wouldn’t. Dr. Hossenfelder is extremely critical of physicists who try to smuggle “before the Big Bang” rhetoric into their research.
He didn't mean Sabine Hossenfelder, he meant Sabine's sister Sabian. 😅
God of the gaps - I don"t know therefore God, What would you call I don't know therefore nature?
Oh Omar, you so silly! Stop running from the cold, hard, beautiful truth, Omar!
What do you guys think about Plato’s forms and diotima ladder of love?
Why in the world do theists think that there's only 2 choices, the universe created itself or god did it? It's like they have no imagination at all
Some theists don't understand dichotomies and end up committing false dichotomy fallacies.
Energy can't be created unless a special magical being creates it. I see, got it.
I'm an atheist but I actually agree with what Omar said at the end there. We would definitely make new discoveries and find new evidence about life and the universe but I also believe that we will never comprehend or have 100% knowledge about all of life and existence. In that sense I am not optimistic. Instead I would invest on how to live better as a whole and protect our environment and earth rather than destroy it.
Imagine what could have been done here on earrh with the money that was used on the James Webb telescope for example.