Which one?

What B's! Lol

@@damienschwass9354 the one true God

@damienschwass9354 The obvious neccesity of an unmoved, eternal mover... it is the height of irrationality to posit any model of existence without that

The quantum fluctuations at the subatomic scale are an observed fact, not untestable or unproven.

@Tony Maurice Very close but not quite, but still if you're capable of making that assertion you probably are capable of refining it a little better and realizing the problem of the theistic position vs. the naturalistic one. The infinite natural universes is still a simpler hypothesis because it does not assign the extra (and extremely complicated) quality of "mind" to the multiverse. Postulating the existence of a mind that is capable of designing and creating infinite universes is one layer of greater complexity than the arbitrary postulation of that an infinite number of universes exist. They both have the same explanatory power in the sense of explaining the existence of the universe. They both invoke a postulate of infinity. The difference is that the natural one doesn't say "the infinite must be a mind", and the theistic one does, which is one extra arbitrary postulate that can be dismissed from a logical standpoint. Davies point is good but flawed in that it fails to acknowledge this critical aspect.

@@superdog797 I'm not sure what Tony Maurice said, but it's refreshing to see that you didn't hesitate about the 'infinity' part. I'd argue that it's more than infinity, but transcendence, and initiative. As far as we know, The Big Bang was the beginning of time, space and matter (at least, for us and any similar universe). So, when did it happen if there is no 'before' The Big Bang, only an 'after'? Where did it happen if there was no 'where' for it to happen? Whatever created the universe, or multiverse, cannot be part of the 'natural', because natural things have beginnings. It would have to be something completely unbound by what we know to be nature, something 'supernatural', yet dare I paradoxically say, _more natural than nature,_ since It would have to naturally exist when there's no such thing 'nature' as we know it, and even no such thing as 'when'. It sounds to me like some kind of decision would be required for the universe, or multiverse, to exist, since there's nothing natural that has the initiative to cause it. Our idea of 'nature' never initiates anything, only keeps doing its thing when you already have 'nature'. That would be no problem if nature were infinite, but as far as we can tell, nature has a beginning. It would be stranger for zero-initiative nature to start itself than an agent with initiative starting it. We have no concept of anything with initiative except for a mind. Personally, I think God is a metadimensional being, which would explain so much. An entity that supersedes the 4th dimension would transcend time, and an entity that supersedes the 5th would transcend branching possibilities. It would also be able to observe and act on any scale, in any time or space, all at once, since distance and space in general are part of the 3rd dimension. It would also be able to touch and affect the inside and outside of any lower-dimensional being without breaching any barriers, as easily as you could tickle the innards of a 2D being by touching its cross section. We know the hyperdimensional exists mathematically and scientifically, but we can't peer into it because we primarily perceive the world in 3D. Furthermore, I think spirits are hyperdimensional, perhaps 5D at least. That would explain free will, since the a being with a 5D spirit can steer its own timeline into different possibilities. However, since we perceive things in 3D, we'd be sort of flying blind, able to steer but unable to fully anticipate the outcome of our actions. Yes, nature and nurture have an influence on our minds, but it seems to be far more than that. Have you ever wanted to do something really badly, but not done it? Have you ever wanted to do something with very little motivation, but done it anyway? Have you ever known something was illogical, and had no rewarding stimulus, but done it anyway, even when presented with more logical and rewarding options? That flies in the face of you being a pure meat machine. You could argue that morality isn't a choice, but based on feel-good stimulation, but morality is actually quite hard to maintain. Yet, there are people suffering post-traumatic stress, with damaged body parts, who will put their lives at risk for others who have no emotional attachment to them. Their minds and their hearts both scream to save themselves, but they choose not to. How does this make sense for meat machines? To quote Dr. Who: _"I'm not trying to win. I'm not doing this because I want to beat someone, or because I hate someone, or because I want to blame someone. It's not because it's fun and God knows it's not because it's easy. It's not even because it works, because it hardly ever does. I do what I do, because it's right! Because it's decent! And above all, it's kind. It's just that. Just kind. If I run away today, good people will die. If I stand and fight, some of them might live. Maybe not many, maybe not for long. Hey, you know, maybe there's no point in any of this at all, but it's the best I can do, so I'm going to do it. And I will stand here doing it 'till it kills me."_ Then there are emotions, which we can choose to indulge or ignore. Machines don't need emotional motivation. They just do things, no ifs ands or buts, and if they for some reason did have emotional motivation and other drives, they wouldn't be able to defy these drives, yet we can do so. We barely even understand consciousness, so to disprove this with the subconscious is premature. Even so, all this doesn't make sense for the subconscious to entertain on its own. It seems to me like stimuli such as emotions communicate with something within us, as though part of an interface, and that something is piloting the flesh mech. It can't be just the brain, because a pure meat machine should behave like a machine and nothing more. The brain seems to behave as just part of the hardware and software for the pilot. Then there's heavenly timelessness and geometry. In many of the visions and near-death-experiences I've heard of when people mention heaven, they keep saying that there's no time there. One guy said he gets frustrated trying to describe it ('90 Minutes in Heaven'). He said an action, like walking to the gates of Heaven, feels like it takes forever, yet no time at all. Likewise, Rick Joyner said that God's throne room was vast, and walking to the throne seemed to take forever, but no time. Kat Kerr says that wherever you look in heaven, you can see the throne in the distance, and that's just how it is. She also said you could walk around a door and view it from _every angle_ without even entering it. None of these people mentioned hyperdimensionality, but it makes perfect sense in that context. If they were liars basing the idea on hyperdimensionality, it would have helped their case if they mentioned it, but they didn't, suggesting that they were experiencing the phenomenon, but unable to define it. Seemingly 'impossible' geometry, along with timelessness, are hallmarks of the hyperdimensional. For instance, a 4D tesseract's rotation doesn't make sense to the layman. It looks like it's shapeshifting, because we can only view it in 3D. It's the same way the shadow of a cube rotating at an angle will look like it's shapeshifting to a shadow creature, because shadows are not enough to represent a 3D object (you probably knew this, though).

Why Jesus?

@@BK-hp6fv Being part of the Godhead He is also Creator.

@@BK-hp6fv So if it's not Jesus, and not random chance, what non-thinking (or caring) entity is it?

@@goesfastandfar no idea, i just always think why Jesus, or why any claim on exclusivity.

@@BK-hp6fv Probably because no one else makes this claim exclusively other than God. Not Buddha, Mohammad or any other gods make this claim.

Except in literally every single observed instance of information. You can't start from the premise that God made everything and then try to infer back that this implies that orderly systems can only arise from God - it's just a tautology based on nothing but presupposition. On the other hand, you can look around using yours senses and observe the world in an objective fashion and realize that information comes from humans who make it, and that humans arose through an evolutionary process. If there were some evidence of a mind guiding that process then you'd have a case that information must ultimately arise from a mind but instead it's literally the opposite: no scientific evidence that a mind ordered the universe at all or that a mind was involved in the evolution of humans. All examples of information, structure, and indeed minds themselves exist in a material context with no empirical evidence of a mind or anything immaterial involved in the universe in any way. Science so far has only confirmed the existence of the material, and to say anything to the contrary is just counter-scientific ignorance. One can always make a _philosophical_ case that there must be an ultimate origin of mind but from an observational standpoint it's an open-and-shut case: no evidence just means no evidence.

>>> and that humans arose through an evolutionary process Let's see an example of a material system which is able to generate information. You realize that no experiment or an artificial life system has shown that this is feasible?

@@les2997 How about a human being? A human being is a material system and we generate information. Again, you're working backwards. You're starting with a *philosophical assertion* that material systems can't generate information and then saying this implies that our information didn't come from a material system. That's trivially obvious. The whole question is whether or not material systems can't generate information and obviously they can. Humans generate information. Humans are material. Ergo, material systems generate information. You are going to have to make a case that human beings aren't material. Which is an absurd challenge you obviously can't meet. Yes, it is *philosophically possible* humans have immaterial aspects to their nature but this is just an argument for substance dualism, which is refuted as far as I'm concerned. There is a caveat I must include. Many people who attack "materialism" are attacking a very narrow description of a specific materialist notion. Materialism doesn't imply that "things that aren't made of matter" don't exist, which is probably the kind of materialism you think a materialist should defend. Instead, materialism is probably better understood as "naturalistic materialism", i.e. the idea that matter plays a fundamental role in the universe and that there is a fundamental relationship between the material and all other aspects of the universe. For example, energy has no mass, but there is a mass-energy equivalence notion in physics. Gravity is a force that has no "mass" but there is a well-understood notion in materialist thinking of making gravity a kind of warping of space-time fabric - which is another "immaterial" thing that is "part of naturalistic materialism." In short, what I'm trying to point out to you is that from a *scientific* perspective on "information systems" - i.e. *observational* perspective - as your starting point, you don't go around *assuming* information can't come from natural materialistic frameworks and then go backwards and infer that there "must be something more than a naturalistic materialistic framework" - that's just a pointless paradigm with no justification. Observation is the *starting point* in scientific methodology, and when you use observation, you just look around and see what kind of things you can verify through observation, and there's nothing outside of a naturalistic materialistic framework, as I'm attempting to describe it, which is observationally (i.e. scientifically or experimentally or empirically) verified. In other words, the *scientific* evidence is that information comes from material systems *all the time* . You can make a *philosophical* case that your apprehension of the immaterial realm - like emotions for example - must not be reducible to a naturalistic material framework, but you leave the realm of science there because we have no way to observe these in a scientific fashion, and all the evidence we have is that there is a *fundamentally contingency* of these so-called "immaterial experiences" (like emotions) on material states. In other words, the *scientific evidence* is that emotions are dependent on *brain states* - a material arrangement - and not the other way around. And it _could_ have been the case that it _was_ the other way around - it could have been the case, from experimental observation, that changes in subjective consciousness _preceded_ material arrangements in the brain, but all experimental evidence is to the contrary. And in fact, even before people studied this with modern scientific technology (fMRI and such) it was quite obvious that your subjective emotional and mental states were dependent on your material state because, to take one of a gazillion ways it is obvious, brain damaged people were always emotionally messed up. Again, from a scientific perspective, information comes from material arrangements and we don't have evidence - or even examples - to the contrary. It could be the case that such examples exist - we just don't have those. Thus, you are left with philosophical argumentation to suggest otherwise, but even that is problematic given our scientific knowledge about how subjective states are contingent on material arrangements. Furthermore, the simplest philosophical perspective to take on the matter is not _substance_ dualism but instead a naturalistic materialistic framework that involves a _dual nature of the material and the conscious_ united together as one; our conscious subjective experience is something that exists *intrinsically* in the material arrangement of our nervous system - that's the simplest explanation and comports with the data we have from experiment. This of course implies, however, that information does indeed come from the material arrangements in our bodies, which, scientifically speaking, are governed by the laws of physics.

@@superdog797 >>> A human being is a material system Humans are not entirely material. This is very easy to prove using simple reasoning.

@@les2997 By the way, what did you mean about the artificial life experiments? I didn't follow.

Ah, but he is. Quite. I came across this from a debunking video that may be easy enough to find, but instead of sharing that, let me instead point you at an interesting exploration of how simple a system can be and still be influenced by evolution, and what it takes for that to happen - "I programmed some creatures. They Evolved.", by davidrandallmiller (v=N3tRFayqVtk). DNA is a replicator... so...

@@DavidLindes There's a big problem here. *_He_* programmed them, then they evolved. They needed _him_ to be programmed, and they needed a computer, which is man-made. Without the humans behind the programming and the computer, these digital creatures have absolutely zero chance of existing and evolving. They wouldn't even have a matrix to dwell in.

@@MisterEvvvSymphoenix I believe I can see why you think that's a problem, but to me, it's really not. These are necessary features of _the particular experiment that was done_, but not of evolution as a process. The point I was trying to make is that even in something _as simple_ as that computer program, evolution can occur. DNA and its supporting infrastructure are _vastly_ more complex than such a program. And as far as I can tell, they didn't have any "he" creating them.

@@DavidLindes Though we disagree, you seem more reasonable than the typical individual I've seen of this opinion. You didn't hurl insults right off the bat, so perhaps we could have a healthy debate. Yes, those are the necessary features of that experiment, but that doesn't really affect the argument. You state that DNA is far more complex than programming, yet programs absolutely require a human being in order to exist. There's pretty much zero chance of a human-style computer system evolving independently from raw materials, anywhere in the universe, no matter how many billions of years pass. Many processes involved in its creation require advanced tools and the knowledge to use them. You can't just have rubber or metal for wiring. You have to have shaped tubes of rubber with perfectly sized strings of wire running through them, of specific lengths, connected in all the right places, and that's just wiring. To make them self-perpetuating (like organisms) would be a whole different level of _deliberate_ engineering, and they still wouldn't be as advanced as organisms. That kind of complexity is a hallmark of intelligence. If a single organism of our biosphere is unimaginably more complex than a computer, it stands to reason that Someone designed it. There's also the way proteins fold to create cell components. If you just create them, they won't do the job, but a folded protein vs its unfolded counterpart is like a ball bearing vs a chunk of unrefined metal. Have you ever heard of the Irreducible Complexity argument? There's a lot that indicates the existence of a supernatural God, and a lot that zeroes in on a specific God. There's The Big Bang Theory, for starters. I'll tell you why I think so, if you want.

@@MisterEvvvSymphoenix glad to engage in civil discourse! Alas, I'm pretty tired as I write this, so I hope you'll please forgive me any terse moments or otherwise lack of care putting this together. Anyway, a few thoughts: 1. you say ~0% chance of a "human-style" system evolving on its own. Well sure (on one hand; more in point 2), but that's like... well, my tired brain is having trouble articulating this quite how I want to, but as an example that I hope might be illustrative: there's also about ~0% chance of evolving a dining table, but flat things exist in the world, and various animals have places that they eat (flat or otherwise). So, the chances of a "human-style" thing evolving separate from humans is near-zero, but at the same time, the chances of a human-style computer evolving are actually exactly 100%, given that we're typing at each other from extant examples of them! (See point 2.) 2. Of course, I'm of the opinion that humans evolved (do you share that much? -- not sure, from what you've said so far). Given that as a premise, than anything that's human-created is, in some sense, a part of human evolution, just as a spider's web is part of a spider's evolution. So in that sense, the first part of my point #1 is sort of up-ended - but only in that context, and the latter part is strengthened. 3. Yes, I've heard of irreducible complexity. Have you heard any of the arguments in response to that? Because there's been abundant work already showing complexities that are, in fact, reducible... An eye is sometimes used as an example of irreducible complexity, but in fact, there's abundant evidence that even photo-sensitive cells without any sort of lens or anything can have value, and that a whole host of in-between states between that and a modern (human, or cow, or whatever) eye exist, and have enough value that they could easily be seen as intermediates in evolutionary thinking. So if you look at the evidence, I think you'll find that it just doesn't hold up. If you disagree, I'd be curious to hear about why. I think there was more I wanted to respond to, but I'm tired, so calling it there. Thanks for engaging!

Really? Music is a language, blue prints are language, math is a language, DNA is a language. The secular humanist creates a narrative that science and God are at war. The truth is the secular humanist just doesn't want to find God. End of story!

@@catified2081 So you can learn, here are some definitions of language for your reference, which DNA meets none of: ======= a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings; speech. the system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (opposed to speech). any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another. any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc. the means of communication used by animals ======== The liberal use of the word "language" is a *metaphor* There is no conflict between science and religious belief unless your religious beliefs include falsified scientific claims.

@@catified2081 well said

But there is order, the symbols are ordered, and they successfully sustain a system (inform it, one could say).

@@soniavadnjal7553 the tapering of a mountain top or the tapering of an icicle also demonstrate order. Order exists everywhere in nature and contradicts no natural law as long as the total entropy in an isolated system increases. DNA has order and structure but is not a language by any stretch of the imagination and thus does not imply a mind.

Mentioning random numbers that are irrelevant can't support the attempt to infer an agent-as-creator. It's not relevant that any given sequence of amino acids or nucleotides or codons has a very low probability of forming by random chance because nobody is proposing that that scenario is what happened in the biological world. You bringing this up in this way is just misinformation and/or betrays a failure to understand science. The whole _purpose_ of biological scientific inquiry is to establish the most probable *mechanisms* which explain the structures we see in the world. Your whole citation of these supposedly relevant numbers is just to ignore literally everything we know, to negate it all, declare it all impossibly improbable by fiat, and then act like you've scored some kind of victory. Instead you should be asking _what are the plausible mechanisms_ that we can invoke to explain the structure we see. That's what physicists are exploring when they investigate cosmology and that's what evolutionary biologists do when they investigate the evolution of species - they're coming up with plausible mechanisms to explain the structures we see. If you want the idea of a God or an agent-as-creator to be in the running you need to provide evidence that such a thing could exist or does exist, and that it has the capacity to actually create the kinds of structures you say it created, and quite preferably actually find *real instances* of it actually _doing_ those kinds of things. If I see a watch on the beach, I can infer that it was created by humans because there are no known processes that make this specific thing - a watch - and not only do we know that humans exist, and that they're capable of designing and creating watches, but we literally *see* humans designing and creating watches all the time. Scientifically speaking it's a no-brainer: the simplest explanation is that humans made this watch, too. But there is no such equivalence for biology, much less the universe itself, and thus to assert that "it had to be designed by an agent-as-creator" is totally vacuous and unscientific. It bears no logical relation to the facts, i.e. is a non-sequitur. People just have a tendency to overlook that because they are susceptible to fallacious thinking. And in fact, in biology, it's quite literally the exact opposite: the evidence *strongly favors* the idea of the origin of species without any causal agent involved, and moreover we know from *observation* how organisms come about: every single organism we know of comes from a prior organism that was biologically similar to them, with slight variation (though no known limits in terms of variative capacity), and created them through spontaneous reproduction through processes that have no causal agent guiding them. There has never been any instance of special creation of any kind observed and we don't even have any observational evidence of any agent that could even do such things. We don't even have any observational evidence of any life in this universe besides that which exists on Earth, and to thus assert that it's "most likely" the case that there is such an agent that created life is just vacuous. It's totally devoid of logical compulsion. It's one possibility among many others but it is in no way favored among the many others, and in fact, there are good scientific reasons to think that it's more probable that biodiversity came about spontaneously without any agent involvement at all. Trying to make the leap you are making just won't hold water to an objective thinker.

And you said all that, tonot be able to show one shred of evidence! Just blind faith, how sad.

@@scottroberts9177 I don't think is a blind faith, the moment science is just a process to discover causes and effects. Science can't explain immaterial reality, such as: math, love, reason, etc... Also, science will never find a natural explanation for everything, to say so, It would be like me saying: give me more time and one day I will find out that I gave birth to my own mother. Nature is the effect, if nature is the effect, the cause can't be inside nature. It's impossible. Also, in 2015 the Royal Society, created by Sir Isaac Newton, brought their members together to discuss the Darwin view, because they knew it doesn't work, they were looking for another natural explanation. If they are so sure about evolution, why did they set up such a big meeting to discuss it?

That's the thing with science and inquiry, there are no final solutions, there is no absolute truth, no great leader, no totalitarian solutions that say if you just give up your right of inquiry, you critical faculties, a world of idiotic bliss can be yours. We must repudiate all such claims! There are no scientist who have all the answers. They are at least willing to ask the questions and not be credulous and believe anything they are told! Scientists don't "believe " anything!

@@scottroberts9177 "there is no absolute truth" is that an absolute truth? Using self defeating statements, not a wise idea.

How is admitting going we simply don't know self defeating? As we inquire, we find we know less and less about more and more. Socrates said you become wise when you admit how ignorant you are. My point is this, that anyone, scientists or theist that tells you they have all the answers to the origin of the universe are simply diluted. We may never know, but it doesn't hurt to seek more knowledge.

Would you like me to break down where your logical fallacies are in this? Because this logic is not sound.

Wow, so crazy he's making a living doing something he's good at! Nobody does that. Like, ever.

Are preachers not allowed to have money now?

Anti God people all took a vow of poverty ?

To think of yourself as part of a flock! How abject can you be?

that or too much education in a specific field. the whole "if you're a hammer everything is a nail" thing.

Christians who are true followers of Christ follow Christ because their heart was changed because they tasted and saw and experienced that the Lord was good (figure of speech) not because they were raised to think that. My brother was raised to think that and he totally rejected it because he hates God. There are many people raised to believe other religions such as Islam, and they turned from it and believed in Christ even tho it cost them their relationship to their own family becoming disowned. You don’t do something like that because Jesus and heaven is just a comforting thought, if it was merely just for comfort it wouldn’t last because family comfort Is far more real than something like that. The fact is that Christ when you truly have your eyes opened to who you are and what you are (a sinner) and you see sin for what it is and you God for who He is you become frightened and tremble. Then there’s the hope that Christ came to offer and the promise of forgiveness, to believe in Him that his sacrifice and resurrection and conquering over death is enough to save you, and turn from your sin you are absolutely changed. But this is complete nonsense to people who want nothing to do with God. It actually says in scripture that the gospel will be seen as blasphemy and a stumbling to the Jews and absolute foolishness to the Greek( non Jews). And that’s exactly how the world sees it.

Weird so we need to demonstrate that information come from intelligence its common sense logic what do you mean demonstrate like u want a formula for that or an experience

I agree completely. By saying things like this, he is actually destroying his reputation as a scientist (or mathematician).

U attack the person instead of the argument. I think they have a name for that

@@PInk77W1 Considering his complete lack of knowledge of elementary biology in this instance it’s warranted. I don’t pretend to know mathematics like he does and his misrepresentation of evolution and his claims that is biologists are rethinking evolution on the fundamental level are just complete and blatant lies. I don’t have to have a rebuttal for what he claims because it’s completely absurd and has no basis in reality. If he wants to make a real argument that’s different but this isn’t an argument it’s just stupidity.

@@Mugen503 So, attacking the person is wrong Unless u attack the person. Got it. Thx. I’ll have to remember that. LoL

@@PInk77W1 you’re not very bright are you? You completely missed the point.

There are two too many words in this statement. :D

You are correct