If you will learn science you wont even touch religions

Exactly, I was a Muslim.....then I studied other religions and then come to the conclusion: Islam is just another religion.

?????????????????????????//

@@npc_citizen9276 So you believe life originated from a "Primordial Soup". Hahaha, ROFLOL!

This guy. He has the answer for everything, but in his final hours he will find god. If he’s blessed. If not he could spend a entire afterlife in HELL. His choice.👌🏻🌞😃✝️❤️🌹

Steve, some artists act like animals, does that mean they are their own god?

We think God has a humanlike shape, characteristics and behaviors of humans because we are humans. God is more than we think, the limit of our knowledge today. Yet, because of some people's fanatism, we fight in religious dogmas on things we are not sure of, instead of searching for our real needs: happiness, welfare and good relations.

thats a line from xenophanes as well. doesn't seem to do much against the theist

Note, however, that dogs and horses, not being made in the image of God, can't create anything. Seems by your creating a straw man you missed the point.

@@emmadaughtry Lets just face it. Anything that can bring the universe into existence from a singularity so powerful that it is beyond human beings imagination and that caused energy and matter to come into existence out of nothing, with all of the laws of physics and chemistry, is beyond human comprehension. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====

actually the puddle doesn't disappear, it is evaporated into the air, becomes a cloud and returns to the Earth....and this is random??, don't think so.

@@magic10801 it's called an analogy. You're hardly destoying the argument by taking it all literaly. Plus your comment is not only begging the question, assuming the conclusion ratger than supporting your own claim, It's also committing a black and white fallacy

@@casparcubitt1117 wow, just because the analogy doesn't really make sense in terms of creation or humans existence, does not mean I don't understand it. I know what the puddle represents, but I'm actually thinking and not just regurgitating what I hear or read. The puddle is part of a system in which it is recycled repeatedly, do you ever think why? A Universe that supplies humans every need, while providing a brain to create their own needs and wants. And you want people to believe its random, or we just happened to show up. You have to realize how senseless that sounds.

@@magic10801 " Creation" doesn't make sense it's just something people say that has no actual meaning. What is "creation"? Describe an act of creation where god makes nothing into anything from nothing. You have a God and nothing else and this God does what exactly to create a hydrogen atom from nothing. Go!

@@dimbulb23 Creation is a term only thinkers can understand. We live in a world where objects are created all the time. you will never say oh that building. car or plane just appeared but then when it comes to a star or planet all of a sudden we become dumb. those things just appeared out of nothing. If it takes knowledge to understand this world. then something/someone with knowledge had to create it. period.

The universe is not eternal though, God is said to be eternal. It is consistent as far as I can see. The argument depends upon the universe having a cause.

@@crabb9966 Depends what you mean by universe. Our (observable) universe? That started with the Big Bang. The whole cosmos? We have no clue. When I talk about the universe, I mean the latter. Consistent, yeah, if the premises where true, but justifying the premises necessarily involves special pleading, that’s my point.

@@LomuHabana I only answered your question

@@crabb9966 Where did I pose a question?

​@@LomuHabana observable Universe doesn't seem like it had to start with a big bang event. Seems a big bang event could happen within the " Universe" and not fundamentaly change any observations.

Nubro Zaref but how do you know if there is people whose ultimate happiness consists precisely on getting involved in "pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else"? Just read atheist603 and Typical-Religious-Internet-Atheist-Troll comments above and you'll see what I mean... :)

***** don't give him the attention mate, he has no argument, he has only hate and ignorance.

nuckable lol

Thanks for saving my soul from this misery I keep falling into!

Funny, but false. I have learned a lot through commenting on YT.

A truly wise man like Sean Carroll.

Sean’s ok. Kind of a tool sometimes

He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not is simple. Teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows is simple. Teach him. He who knows and knows he knows is wise. Follow him! ~ Arabian/Persian Proverb (Somewhat ironic considering what Islam later did to previously groundbreaking Intellectualism in the Middle East, but still...)

EXACTLY!! ❤️🙏🏻🌈🥰 My favorite quote in this regard is Isaac Newton about calculus being “a seashell on a beach to a child” while the whole vast ocean of truth lay before him undiscovered. Or the Taoist ”the Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao” Both of which I live by. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t find new things, that there are not truthful symbols. When we read a book, where is the meaning? It does not exist in the black squiggles on the page. And we can later come back to the same book and see so much more. But it’s the same book! Or is it? The act of reading is symbolic of life. The reading is the progress of evolution. Which is why animals can be ranked so to speak, but also learned from as symbols. So they are at the same time much more valuable and intimately related to humans than generally realized. Same thing with plants.

@@OmniphonProductions .....Wise words.....Now who's head shall we cut off next?

Who knows. Human think they knows everything but we all know 0.000...to infinity....0 % of the universe. So better accept the fact we don't know anything and live the life happily

If we have each other, 8 billion or so, then we are by definition not alone. We also don't know where we were before this reality or where we go after. An open mind and humility are the best tools in this life.

You're as shallow as Sean. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

@@2fast2block Your premises don't follow logically. Yes, the universe is 'winding down' in the sense it is expanding and it appears matter will eventually become a diffuse fog of elementary particles. But you've never explained why this necessitates anything supernatural. The first step is to define supernatural and provide evidence. Until then it's just ambiguous speculation.

@@2fast2block Shallow is someone who believes others are shallow and that THEY know the unprovable. spare us you ignorance and talk to yourself in the mirror.

Let neuroscience study how human need for safety, hope and meaning created a God out of nowhere. Or not. My personal belief is that we, people in the 21st century, are obliged to talk about God, only because our ancestors set it on the table at the very beginning. Thousands of years ago, people had no better tools than religion in order to understand the world around them. But, hey! Today we are not obliged to ruminate all this stuff about God and life after death etc. Also our ancestors had to make rituals around the tribe's fire. But hey! This isn't mandatory for us today. Let's move on. Lets forget about this once and for all. We have no reason thinking about Gods and life after death. Today our life is different. Let's free ourselves. Lets save time and energy for real problems that actually exist today. Existential problems. Ochham's razor, afterall, dictates us towards more empirical, materialistic, physical studies of the world. If no ancestor of ours had ever thought about the existence of God, then I have no doubt that nobody would still argue about this stuff. Lets leave the "Neanderthal's beliefs" behind. Its ok. This is not our problem any more. We are mature now. We can handle our own existence better. We dont need mommy's/daddy's hug (God). We don't need existential comfort in order to move on with our lives. We are free and powerful to explore and taste the world! No God has ever existed. In any form. We don't need to think about it. We dont have to argue about it. We don't have to apologise for that. This is TOTALLY OK!

He's got no gift except if you call lying a gift. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

@@2fast2block you've just convinced me with your babbling you're smarter than Sean Carroll, I am now a discovery institute CREATARD, also TNX

He's not. Well known in science that he is a how can we put it.... snake oil salesman. Well known that his backing of Kaku is a cartel within science talking absolute nonsense with string theory. He can conceive 26 dimensions but the god hypothesis for him is nonsensical. I neither believe nor disbelieve but Dr Carroll is a well known vagabond and lover of Dr Kaku. He's no smarter than a graduate student. Even Penrose can't stand either of them.

What facts for whom?

I am glad that you benefited from his knowledge, can you think of a practical implications of following his teachings? Such as Anxiety increased or decreased? Motivation for life increased or decreases? Love for others and compassion? Agility meaning quickly come back after being down?

Isn't that lovely; John k.

Sean carrol is as bad at science as stephen hawking , stephen hawking never made any contributions tro sceince , his whole spiel about dark stars is rubbish.Try reading his papers he is fucking nutter as is sean carrol, Who claims universes pop in and out of existence with no evidence to support the claim, it is no different than god claims.

@@ossiedunstan4419 wait a minute, God will be proven to all when they pass away. Unlike all the science here say.

@@ossiedunstan4419 thank you sir :) not everyone is gullible, good job!

Ramen!

It's great to listen to smart people.

Fine tuning is cosmology's intelligent design

God is neither an engineer, nor a scientist. Being any of those, would imply that God makes calculations, drawings, etc which can be proven would make a design of the universe impossible. But, as we do not make calculations to move an arm, or to transform electromagnetic radiation into light inside of our skulls, God likewise makes the Universe happen NOW, instantly in the eternal present , without design or calculation, just as we pick our noses without thinking and only wishing to do so. Therefore the Universe is created only by one thing very closely resembling magic emanating from the center of our own bodies.

Dural Lexan How do you know so much about an invisible entity that allegedly exists outside of time and who possesses a disembodied mind... whatever that is? Just stop making things up

For smart assets

He hates what science shows. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

The spiritual world it appears to be, a subset of existence, probably totally unlike the materistic world that humans live in, such as the micro level of quantum mechanics which differs from classical physics, but we cannot explain the processes, only observe the outcomes. It's a peculiar mystery that intrigues me.

​@@keyissues1027 What is the spiritual world?

​@@keyissues1027 I think it's understandable, so no big mystery, that there are fundamental limits to how we can figure out deterministic laws about the objects that make up ourselves. In other words: Observations (measurement results) cannot in principle be separated from what is observed.

@@keyissues1027 humans don’t live in the physical realm alone, we are also rational constructs that exist metaphysically in a timeless and essential (eternal and spiritual) fashion.

@@keyissues1027 navigate the (infinite) mystery with the Logos (God) and turn the peculiar mysteries into esoteric knowledge like a true sage does.

I've noticed that too. Even in Q&A's he's fluent.

Anyone can learn to speak without stuttering. They are just too lazy to care.

Between 5:03 and 5:05 prove you wrong buddy

@@nothingtoitbuttodoit Congratulations. Your mother must be so proud of you.

It's also the mark of someone who has prepared? He is literally giving a presentation with a slideshow.

well typically a debate has more than one person.. and the idea of god doesn't actually need to be "argued" in any way, that's kinda the beauty. This video is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else

@@baterickpatman Probably why he put debate in quotation marks. I agree, religion is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else.

@@cagedgandalf3472 "religion is utterly pointless" What makes you say that? Or a more pertinent question might be, how can you say that anything has a 'point' or 'purpose' at all?

@@nanashi2146 in the simplest form of all things, it shows that nothing is special

@@nanashi2146 Things have a 'point' because people give them a point. It's a simple fact of reality, that we'd agree with, that people like and dislike, and draw their own meaning from events. Religion is pointless because it's hypocritical to the points we choose. We all want personal freedom, better understanding of the world, love, peace, happiness, etc. The issue is that religion, while it does provide some of these things in parts, it does so while stripping many others away in far greater amounts or does so inconsistently. Just look at how many people want to remove certain people's rights to marriage or free-expression while it isn't the thing that grants those in the first place. Religion causes more harm than good; it's an awful way to get meaning.

Wdym?

@@lightmorrison5404 there isn't really a "reason" since nothing changes, I think

Exactly. We humans often perceive ourselves as having a reason for doing something, but there's no reason to assume fundamental nature does.

Then determinism is out.

This isn't as logical as you think it is, if this is the case you're talking about absolute contingency which is just doesn't cut the mustard, logically speaking.

@@emmashalliker6862 If determinism isn't absolute, it is out.

@@emmashalliker6862 Your statement is ambiguous. Care to elaborate?

// A must see video for everyone // The people that need to watch it , probably will never see it !

@@peterjames7073 Unfortunately you're right, but I've sent the link out to several people that should watch it.

@@robertschlesinger1342 It's like Dog Poop. The people who Need to pick their Dog's Poop, will never watch a video about Dog Poop.

😂😂😂 this guy’s tunnel vision is pretty embarrassing for a “scientist”. Regardless of what your stance is on religion, this guy is basically like “well, I can’t prove based on my formula so it must not be. It couldn’t be that my understanding is limited.”

@@rizeorfall it's not embarrassing in the least. I wouldn't call it "tunnel vision" to dismiss something completely made up. There are THOUSANDS of religions. You may as well say he's got tunnel vision for not believing in fairies or Santa Clause.

@@rizeorfall Except he never said anything as absolute as that and you're 100% strawmanning him. The very first tuing he talks about is the importance of the word "good" in the title of his talk. At no point did he say that god is impossible, or that he certainly doesn't exist. He merely says, as a proper scientist/skeptic should, that the types of god hypotheses he outlined at the start are either useless or much more improbable than naturalistic explanations. There are, actually, god concepts that are impossible or disproven, but he didn't talk about those here.

@@rizeorfall If anything is embarrassing it's your ability to interpret reality. He says the absolute opposite to what you suggest and many times.

@@betamusic5487 , Thousands of religions about gods indicates there is an original one. Only the Bible spells it out. That is how an intellectual person can figure it out. Zax is right. He starts with a bad premise then claims it can't be true because it didn't fit his bad premise.

@@OMAELITE ok

@@OMAELITE And you know Gawd, of course..

One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole.

@@OMAELITE i guess a lot of people know god and yet have toxic attitudes because that's what he teaches, right? that's the moral standard that god has set for his believers, amirite?

@@OMAELITE yea sure. you can just repent for being toxic, then get "forgiveness" and repeat that all over again, right? such a great excuse btw i was being sarcastic lmao. even now oh wait, you just said "what a dumb word". how friendly for someone from a religion that teaches to behave in the exact opposite way. god sure lives within them and through him comes these behaviours. what a solid proof that god exists.

They do. That's why government is such a mess.

@@wizardatmath politicians meet nowhere near the standards of first year physics let alone a phd

@@dangerouslydubiousdoubleda9821 this guy here has the easygoing wit of a Boris Johnson.

@@wizardatmath how am I dumb politicians are not held up to any evidence standard comparing them to physicists is inaccurate

One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole...

that's false many wise believed in religion

Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa They must all be hiding then.

i love that...never heard it put so well before

Correct that to modern religion. Back then it was probably more wise to go with the crowd for fear of death unless you were outspoken with proof of no God. Plus there are the scientistst such as Da Vinci, and Newton.

Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa I don't think we can ever know. just look at what happened to the ones who were open about opposing religion.

@@lepidoptera9337 at least not yet, but they have similar viewpoints as the holographic universe so who knows right?

You need Matt Dillahunty!!

But that’s the problem of evil... There are many philosophers that spoke about it!

Evil is proof of objective morality. Where does evil come from? A bunch of hydrogen atoms bouncing? That’s Sean’s position

@@patricksee10 indeed i think this is one of the weakest arguments.f For me how the world goes is evidence for free will and the fall of man.

Wait until next year when you're in 4th grade and you meet new friends.

I don't think we can draw a complete narrative about a spiritual being because we are not spiritual in nature, not in this plane of existence.

@@keyissues1027 we are indeed not created in his image.

@@Calligraphybooster how was anything created naturally? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

​@@2fast2blockYou've missed the entire point of his argument. His argument was never against a God and the creation of the Universe. He never said it's not possible. In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree. His argument is that at this point in time God is not a good theory. He then explained this with a very well researched, thought out and fair set of follow ups including the weaknesses in a lot of Scientific theories and the positives in God's. He however proved multiple times that although it is a theory at this point in time it is far from the best. He even took the best argument for God (by a long way).

@@matwatson7947 he's a typical 'maybe this, maybe that' actor atheist who will NOT give the glory to God. He loves his act of "In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree." but his empty pride can't get him to admit that God has ALL the evidence and he has NONE.

Better hope he's there to greet you in eternity.

@@moongoonrex which god/goddess? proof?

@@graveseeker moongoonrex is just an atheist who disbelieves in one fewer god than the rest of us.

@@con.troller4183 Wish there was an easy way to get them to understand that. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca Even Obama and Biden know that.

@@graveseeker Instead of being disqualified from office for believing in talking snakes and zombie saviors, you can't get elected unless you profess that you do.

TehJumpingJawa except that no mathematical equation would make any useful prediction unless there was a necessary event that proceeded along the same entropic event space whose interactions were anything but “causal”. It’s ridiculous for a determinist to deny causality, necessity etc

@@flyingmonkey3822 No determinist denies the existence of causality or necessity. But the word 'cause' is extremely slippery. There are a whole host of words that people use all the time, but which make very little sense as understood by a layperson, and 'cause' is one of them. 'Time' is another. So is 'free will'. All these words represent incredibly subtle, complex concepts. So when a religious person starts talking about causality they tend to have an extremely simple, blunt understandings of the concept. And if you're trying to deny the existence of uncaused events, like radioactive decay or quantum field fluctuations, then you're just arguing with reality.

@@thesprawl2361 I think that Dr Carroll should be self consistent in his physics. You are of course correct that our definition of a concept should evolve to either encompass new aspects of the thing it is attempting to describe or new words should emerge if the concept is no longer tenable. I very much appreciate the lucidity with which Dr. Carroll speaks, but i find that he also equivocates on definitions. I would like to take his same concept that he uses to describe why the arrow of time moves only in one direction and show why this description is completely consistent with causality and radioactive decay, quantum field evolution, and the beginning of the universe. I very much liked what he said during his debate with Dr William Lane Craig when he said that "our metaphysics should follow our physics", and also thank him for his story about "the principle of sufficient reason" as I also had no idea why it was called that until hearing him speak! I enjoy his lectures, and his contributions to science and especially to his popularizing engagement with quantum theory. I just think that if he's going to take the many worlds interpretation that he's got a LOT of explaining to do, the least of which is that it violates the Born rule (or does not return it) and therefore does not return predictable results. If ever we should abandon a theory, it would be because it predicts nothing. Yet he holds to it as a sledgehammer to the concepts which normal people observe in their everyday lives. He has to justify his reason for thinking that the wave function becomes real at every split, when we definitionally have no evidence for universes that are no longer connected to our own. It also assumes that there is a more fundamental bubble universe that effervesces universes like ours into being. BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not. Purely statistically, it will have such a dilute space to exist as a particle that it will decay eventually. The "cause" is then that the dividing action of universes separating will average out to one in which we see our physics play out. It is not possible for each planck moment to pass without a change in it's universal state, only in it's local state. Interacting with the universe along this splitting paradigm "causes" the events we see. When a portion of the quantum vacuum changes to a state where it has traded regularity in frequency for location we will see it "pop" up a "particle". Is it possible for it to change universal states and not fluctuate? is it necessary that it's variations "unfreeze" and choose another state? When concentrated to a definiteness in one measurable aspect, can it do anything but continue interacting with the ever changing and diluting universal state? I'm not aware of evidence of this. I have more questions regarding how it is that we "jump" planck moments, and why it is that non-local interaction cannot be avoided... but it seems that between choosing A to interact further and Not A to choose to stop interacting... that we have no choice but to interact. If that is not determinism and causality... please help me see where i'm wrong. I'm open to hearing this, it IS all new to me and I don't have a formal education in it. P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist. P2) the universe began to exist. C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing. It's the same thing as the original cosmological argument but with updated assumptions regarding what it means to exist (be able to interact with it) or to begin and cease to begin (depending on it's current state) that are consistent with QM. So, an electron-positron pair that eventually occupy substantially the same space would exist while traveling towards each other and then stop existing in their current form but change form while conserving their properties of momentum etc. This observation can reliably lead us to deduce that there is something more fundamental to the universe.

of course you aren't obligated to interact specifically with anything here i've presented if you just want to argue that words are slippery, then we can both go home saying that sean and WLC are entitled to their own opinions... even to their own facts.

@@flyingmonkey3822 "BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not" ...But that IS the Many Worlds definition of probability. Probability is just the proportion of actual worlds in which an event happened. Count the proportion, and you attain the probability. (...There's a section in his new book where Carroll describes precisely how many worlds comports with the the Born Rule, but it's on my phone. If you have the book it's on pages 146-148.) "P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist. P2) the universe began to exist. C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing." Okay. For the sake of argument let's say I agree with your first premise. (Although what exactly 'more fundamentally existing thing' means I'm not sure. I think you just mean that it precedes it in a chronological sense, but that doesn't make it more fundamental. My mother isn't more fundamental than me just because she 'caused' me. But forget that.) Even if I were to accept the first premise, I most definitely do not accept the second. Firstly, what makes you certain that the universe began to exist? Sure, we had a Big Bang, but you know that many, perhaps most, physicists do not consider that to be the beginning of the universe/multiverse/reality. And again we hit upon the problems of definitions: what does it mean for something to 'begin to exist'? Have you ever seen anything begin to exist? No. You've seen matter and energy change form, you've seen that fundamental relationship fluctuate...but you've never seen something 'begin to exist' in the sense that you're talking about. It's unclear to me how it even makes conceptual sense. ...........

A response sure. But a good response? Probably not.

​@@alankoslowski9473 I think maybe quoting 1 Corinthians 13 which describes the uselessness of all action without love would alone fry the "God didn't tell us to love each other," argument, let alone a vast number of similar sections of the Bible that encourage loving. "Love your neighbour as yourself," is in there, as is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and other instructions on love and compassion. Saying that stuff isn't in there ("I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other") belies a lack of knowledge about theological teaching - and that's just on that one religious text. There are plenty of others. It's not a good argument.

@@ghr8184 But it's not consistent, and there's much lacking in scripture, such as equal rights for everyone. It's also complete devoid of modern practical science. As he says, if it were written by an omniscient god, why isn't there anything about the germ theory of disease? I think his point is that it's evident the bible was written by humans during a particular historical period rather than being the inerrant word of god since so much of the bible is is lacking and erroneous.

​@@alankoslowski9473 Perhaps I was unclear in what I was specifically saying. I was not addressing Carroll's whole lecture or even that whole section. I was specifically speaking to his saying that God (he is mostly using the example of the Christian God) didn't tell us to love each other. It explicitly says this exact thing multiple times throughout the Bible. It's literally right in there. Either Carroll doesn't know this or he is discounting these statements based on something he doesn't specifically indicate here, but that specific statement makes him sound like he really hasn't done his research on that specific statement's full implications regarding the Christian Bible. Making that statement in front of an apologeticist or theologian would be like jumping into a school of piranhas. And, yes, I know that piranhas don't really strip flesh from bone in seconds like in a cartoon. However, the overall point I'm making, I think is clear, even if I opened myself up to critique with a poorly-chosen analogy - especially if there were any marine biologists around. Which makes it the perfect analogy to describe my point about saying, "The Bible doesn't tell us to love each other," in the presence of a hypothetical theologian. Again: I like the lecture overall, and I think Carroll's main points are clear, intact, and challenging. He just has one poorly selected phrase.

@@ghr8184 Understood. Though he probably rehearsed the lecture, I don't t think he was reading directly from a script, so at least some of it was improvised. Considering this, I guess some inaccuracies are expected.

A religious man thinks he knows the truth of the universe.

@@lrvogt1257 it seems to work better knowing your not floating on a rock in space for absolutely no reason at all.

@@Lintpop : Clearly many people believe that but it doesn't make it factual. I don't know that pretending is helpful. Bad information leads to bad choices. We give meaning to our own lives. That we are self-aware in the vastness of space is pretty special and we should appreciate how remarkable it is.

@@lrvogt1257i guess my reply was more in the lines of a simplistic answer. For myself no one can debonk the fact that there is a no God. Unfortunately I can not say the same for person next to me in the store or anyone for that matter. I grew up with the understanding that there is a God, when I was older and ready I challenged the God vs science, did alot of reading and studied apologetics. The end of the day there is more proof that God is the cause of why we are here.

@@Lintpop : I think you were trying to say that you can't disprove god. That's right. You can't disprove a claim that is unfalsifiable. You can only point out the lack of evidence to accept it as fact. You can't prove there are no goblins. You can only speak to the lack of evidence for them. If someone were to catch one, we'd have to accept that as evidence. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can actually demonstrate the supernatural.

Prove it!! Sean Carrol isn't even Real and I'm surprised that so many people believe he actually exists!!! People are so gullible.... It's obvious that Sean Carrol is made up!!!

David Belcher, I take it from your use of "!!!!" 's that you are a bit bent out of shape. "Sean Carrol isn't even Real".....wow. What are you so angry about? Is it because people don't believe exactly as you do?

I have had some chats with the person calling himself Sean Carrol. He seems as real to me as you or anyone else. I happen to be a brown teddy bear so feel free to doubt my existence but someone presumably is typing this message on my behalf.

Lucky!

In fact, he is the up~there genius, all he is missing the Equation, the ~Quanta.

That’s funny, how can someone share something like knowledge if there’s no Source (of knowledge and logical existence)? This man misled you overall and only taught you anything because he was occasionally coherent with the Logic of the Universe (God) who is the Essence of Reason and who is being brought into form (embodiment in this part of the physical universe) by myself and others like me through our work on the Formal Theory of the Universal Logic (which is the Unified Theory as it applies to physics and the laws of reason applied to physical matter that we call “the laws of physics”).

Sean really doesn't have knowledge. He makes things up. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

Knowledge defined as direct immediate personal experience*cannot* be shared any more than any experience can be shared. the puzzling thins is why such mice(nothings and nobodies) trouble their dreaming/associative apparatuses with matters so far above them.

​@@logicalconceptofficialGod is an absolute myth. Get over it.

@@Bad_Miracle Reason is not a myth it’s the True God and the Origin of Reason that myth shows to be the only truly feasible Origin logically, as Moses said if you apply Logic and have the ≈180 IQ that one probably needs to “catch the drift” and understand the true message of the Torah on their own without a rabbi or rabbis of great understanding. Surely you haven’t read the Torah in Hebrew and still come to the conclusion that God is not Logic or logical (godly) and that Moses was defining God in all those rational ways (more than 72 of them in the 5 books) to define a God and Origin and “Source of Knowledge” (one of the KEY descriptions) because God is “nothing” and he needed to teach (write a “Torah”) and give all that explanation of “nothing”, have you? God is Logic and when you stop fighting that idea but investigate where it leads with all the forms of Logic like Math, Formal Logics, and the Sciences, then you will get SO MUCH further and will understand the Universe and it’s Logic (the Self-Same Logic and Logical Origin). That is the way to have “True Knowledge” is to “reckon faithfully” (reason properly and honestly) with the incorporeal/metaphysical but ultimately rational Source of Knowledge and Reason (Logos). There is no logical flaw in such an idea. It is fundamentally saying “you must think properly and honestly to know Reality, Truth and the Logic at the Foundation of Reality and Truth”. Genius!

ShowMe Agree completely on your philosophy of science. However, religions have been enormously useful in encoding "how to" type information distilled over thousands of years, for example take the greek mythical constellations: in part, they are mnemonic devices for remembering the star patterns so useful in agriculture and navigation. Granted, one could use Ptolemaic calculations to navigate without reference to any mythology (and they did), but the point remains that religion served to teach about the star patterns and their movement. Like song, story and myth in general, religion is partly a form of preservation of lessons learned over the deep time of human existence.

I wouldn't try to deny that. Go back far enough and religion and science would have been nearly the same discipline...an effort to explain the world we live. And I wouldn't deny the use of any philosophy to ask further questions. Unfortunately many religious philosophies have stopped asking questions, and claim to have all the anwsers.

ShowMe i know, rait! they go by 'god is beyond all human knowledge' and then proceed to say exactly what he does all day.

N Marbletoe Yep. that one always gets me.

ShowMe Even if energy is conserved, what is the source of the energy?

With an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes to go, a universe capable of spawning life was an inevitability. We aren't lucky, we just are because the universe is.

@@graveseeker What?

@@thelivingcross3785 Infinity is a very, very long time. Time for infinite universes before ours and an infinite number after. Who knows how many had or will have intelligent beings to create imaginary gods?

@@graveseeker That literally makes no sense.

@@thelivingcross3785 Makes way more sense than does gawd (even though it is almost certainly just as false)..

Yes a single particle universe is plausible. Who made the particle? Again, Sean can not get around the pesky making something from nothing problem... I know several high level particle physicists professors at Cal Tech who were so intimidated by him while he was there that they hid their deep belief in Christianity. We can only love and pray for Sean.

@@jamesrichards3086 the question "who made the particle?" cannot be answered without first making the assumption that everything that exists must have a creator. you cannot answer such a question until you can demonstrate that the question even has an answer (through proving or justifying said assumption)

@@Azide_zx I never understand why people conclude that the only possible answer for these kinds of questions is a creator. "If answer is unattainable, answer must be a creator". Like, no? The answer could be anything and maybe there even is no answer. No one can possibly know, yet so many people have a need to make the conclusion of a creator. Clearly the faith itself is not enough to them so they have to seek additional cope by "justifying" it to others and coming to conclusions about "how it works".

​@@denisdelinger3265 the thing that baffles me is the assumption that the originator of everything is a conscious creator. consciousness is an extremely complex property so out of anything i could possibly assume about what our universe came from, a conscious being would probably be one of the least likely some argue that a conscious being is the only thing capable of creating something new, but they have no basis for that assumption, or even the assumption that our universe even had an origin point some say that only a being with free will can create something truly new and creative like a universe or an artwork, but this inherently relies on the assumption that free will exists, implying that some influence exists in the mind other than the predictable interactions between neurons and cells and chemicals. this assumption is also unfounded. in fact, to assume that there is a supernatural influence in your chain of logic to prove a divine creator (a type of supernatural influence) is a circular argument and a fallacy

@@denisdelinger3265 doesn't Science use one theory and only one theory to assume the possible explanation to something?Why when its used with God you have a problem?You say it can be anything ,anything how?Lmao logic will then have to defy anything Creation theory is no way far fetched at all Your assumption that it can be anything it is because you not even specific at all which means that explaination can br outside the frames of logic and if so then no answer will be thought of instead of intelligent Design

😄 very well said

Huh... Where in the Bible did you read that?

@@djgroopz4952 I didn’t read it in the Bible. But that’s exactly the nonsense I hear from the so-called religious.

Right because they have queer folks! Totally ludicrous! My Arkansas cousin explained Katrina slamming New Orleans as God punishing the queer & sexually deviant! But Moore, Ok gets pummeled year after year! 🤣😂

@@skronked hypocritical and self-serving, isn’t it?

There is a principle in philosophy elucidated by The Munchhausen Trilemma. All factual statements rest on chains of reasoning that are either circular, infinite in regress, or brute assertion. Therefore, our question should always be not "what is really true?" but instead rather "what is reasonable given the constraints we agree to for purposes of this conversation or investigation?" The latter question can be commonly answered by people who employ good logic; the former is more of a personal choice.

@@superdog797 ==== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====

@@kennethbransford820 If you want to think God guided evolution that's one thing. But the idea that life forms on Earth have a common ancestor is well-established.

@@superdog797 HOW, is it well established? How did amino acids come together by accident? How, did the individual amino acids get their properly shaped isomers or enantiomers ? Why, are ALL, of OUR, amino acids right handed? If, life was by accident? The mixture of right and left handed amino acids would be the same. The chirality wouldn't be there. It would be non chiral. No one knows what the first step was for life. You comment ====> "common ancestor is well-established."< ==== This is showing you to be a liar. You don't know. All the worlds scientists don't know. ===== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====

@@kennethbransford820 Life's amino acids are left-handed. It's completely false to say that both enantiomers should be present, and in equal mixtures, in living systems "just because". There are different theories as to why left-handed amino acids exist in life's proteins but it's safe to say nobody knows why the LUCA had left-handed amino acids. I don't know why you think that's a particularly important point. A universal common ancestor is indeed well-established, and since you seem to be interested in chemistry and likely science in general you should perhaps be asking why people think there is a LUCA instead of just disagreeing on little to no basis. Like I said, believing that God or an intelligence guided the emergence of lifeforms is one thing, but to suggest organisms on Earth don't share a LUCA is just ridiculous and betrays a failure to grasp why it is that people are so sure there was a LUCA. Think about a few questions from both an intelligent design perspective as well as an evolutionary perspective, and give me your answers and thoughts. Why do all lifeforms on Earth have DNA, RNA, ribosomes, a small group of about 20 amino acids, and a lipid cell membrane? Why are all multicellular organisms eukaryotes? Why are all lifeforms carbon-based? Do you think all humans have a common ancestor? If so, why? Do you think all cats have a common ancestor? If so, why? Do you think all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor? Why? Do you think all insects have a common ancestor? I could go on with questions like this but I'd like to hear your response. Have you heard of the term "nested hierarchy"? Do you know what it means, and how it relates to evolutionary theory?

problem solving and testing . this includes building faster computers and AI if the calculations become too complex , run simulations .... be open to change ,

At least he is not arrogant enough to know the origin of the cosmos because of an old book

And yet reprogramming his comprehension analysing and predicting how nature works is pretty much what a theoretical physicist does.

And furthermore, if God is omnipotent, why does he not just reveal himself to everybody?

I guess He wants us to believe. It is "like" understanding someone with whom you talk online especially far away

==The Conglomerate - Universe Creation Theory (combing GOD, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Theory & Biology)== ‘The BIG Bang-Bit Bang‘ inflation/expansion of energy and information into the void 13.8 billion years ago was a supermassive white hole spawned by a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our ‘parent universe‘. This duality combines general relativity’s singularities of infinite density in a ‘Cosmic Egg’ birth of this and all baby universes within ‘The Conglomerate‘: multiverse without random bubble universes and parallel worlds. “In the beginning”, the Planck density of the core of a SBH acts as a birth canal. ‘Quantum bounce SBH-SWH seed transitions‘ are ‘quantum tunneling umbilical wormholes‘ with energy-matter and data transformed/transferred, albeit scrambled and encoded. Our Universe is 1-in-2 trillion ‘self-similar offspring‘ each with the same inherited physical laws (‘DNA’). This basic cause-and-effect cycle/‘circle of life‘: birth-life-death-transformation-rebirth explains both infinite space and eternity. Reproduction is GOD/Nature’s simplest plan for spreading life for everything from cells to universes. - Seal #1a of the 7seals.blogspot.com This has triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation.

A lot of science is based on philosophy, they go hand in hand, that's why philosophy of science is a field. Also worth noting that a lot of science is based on inference and philosophy is at least in part the rules of valid inference.

@@eugenecoleman8525 Sir Issac Newton considered himself to be a Natural Philosopher. The term "scientist" did not come in to vogue until the latter 1800s.

@@thomasreaves588 great point and thanks for the info!

First of all, your brain has not ever thought. Thought springs from one's soul, the part of you that is reading this comment right now. The brain takes it's orders from you and just deals with the body......................falun dafa

',

' 0.

Simulation theory is a God based explanation so it's just back to square one with that one

Why are you advertising that you are stuck in puberty? :-)

Simulation theory is just a bad of an explanation as a theory of god. To date, physics has not needed to rely on the existence of a higher power.

from my understanding they would fall into the same system cause you have language and code on the face of the 8th script but theres still a structure above all of that which states tunnel line point and feeds back into information so the top of the structure as far as i can tell seems to be the statement of complexity

Sean doesn't follow the laws anyway. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

George said it a little better!

@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - George also said if you don’t believe in him he’ll send you to hell where you will be tortured forever and ever…..But he loves you!😂

@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - I have debated them ad nauseam and I have come to the conclusion that most of them are innately rotten people. Now that might sound harsh at first, but once you consider that most of them don’t believe any human can be a good person without the fear of believing a sky daddy is going to punish them, it makes perfect sense. They ask me stupid questions like “what’s to stop you from randomly killing people or raping women?” My response is, “oh, so that’s what you were doing prior to being converted?” Or “is that what every non-believer you know is out here doing?” Then I respond with, “statistically speaking most rapists, murderers, and their victims believe in God.”

@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - Trust me, I know. Growing up in a catholic school and studying world religion gave me all of the ammunition I needed to fight back against indoctrination. The cult hated me because even as a child I asked a lot of logical questions and refused to take their word for everything. What you stated is an absolute fact. According to their belief system the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. How convenient? That type of system is highly effective for recruiting people, especially considering the estimated 300,000,000 to billions of deaths, rapes, and torturous activities perpetrated toward free thinkers and people of other belief systems over the centuries. My ancestors were read Ephesians 6-5 to keep them in line.

That was George Carlin’s pithy quote about God always needing money. Every religious person should watch the UKposts video of George Carlin’s excellent and hilarious account of his conversion from a young Catholic believer to a enlightened skeptic. It is transformative.

Sounds more like a hybrid of Fozzie Bear and Kermit the Frog to me. {:-:-:}

OMG I WAS THINKING EXACTLY THAT great minds think alike

Oh no. Now I can’t unhear it, and I’m just waiting for him to talk about playing Tom Jones on a Chicago diner jukebox…

Know the Safari-Project? Professor Dave and other Sci-UKpostsr covered it!

Aaawwww fyi watched it 5 times ......didnt help 😁😁😁

@@jimanderson2518 it's okay, you'll get the hang of it, I had to go back a few minutes to fully digest too

Wrong

​@@_.ian. right

I just LURVE any and ALL references to H2G2 -- in any and ALL contexts!

Sorry, there are no books from the future but there is one available today that explains today, Falun Gong.

He's the real and only James Bond

@@drinking6314 Truly James Bond of Physics or science in general...

That's why brilliant persons know the quote, "if one teaches, two learned"

Let neuroscience study how human need for safety, hope and meaning created a God out of nowhere. Or not. My personal belief is that we, people in the 21st century, are obliged to talk about God, only because our ancestors set it on the table at the very beginning. Thousands of years ago, people had no better tools than religion in order to understand the world around them. But, hey! Today we are not obliged to ruminate all this stuff about God and life after death etc. Also our ancestors had to make rituals around the tribe's fire. But hey! This isn't mandatory for us today. Let's move on. Lets forget about this once and for all. We have no reason thinking about Gods and life after death. Today our life is different. Let's free ourselves. Lets save time and energy for real problems that actually exist today. Existential problems. Ochham's razor, afterall, dictates us towards more empirical, materialistic, physical studies of the world. If no ancestor of ours had ever thought about the existence of God, then I have no doubt that nobody would still argue about this stuff. Lets leave the "Neanderthal's beliefs" behind. Its ok. This is not our problem any more. We are mature now. We can handle our own existence better. We dont need mommy's/daddy's hug (God). We don't need existential comfort in order to move on with our lives. We are free and powerful to explore and taste the world! No God has ever existed. In any form. We don't need to think about it. We dont have to argue about it. We don't have to apologise for that. This is TOTALLY OK!

Poor you.

@@2fast2block Yea we should envy your UKposts education

@@Jonathan-Pilkington "Yea we should envy your UKposts education" Hey, I worked hard on my UKposts university degree. Since you have a real degree, please give your science how creation happened without God. In other words, give me a good laugh, you clown.

2fast2block „how creation happened“ :D

@@Jonathan-Pilkington Me, "Since you have a real degree, please give your science how creation happened without God." Your educated answer: "how creation happened"“ :D" You must be proud. Oh, remember they're delaying student loan payments. Yours must have cost a fortune.

Richard Gomes Yeah, it's a pity that word was used in a scientific context as it opens the door to deliberate obfuscation by unethical religious types.

I think Dr. Carroll is giving the theologians a very large head start... and then demonstrating that even when given the easiest possible case to make, gods fail spectacularly. He does the best thing possible when dealing wtih pseudoscience: He takes it seriously and then says "What if that's true?" Apply it to biological evolution denial, big bang cosmology denial, climate science denial, abiogenesis denial and it *always* comes back as egg on the face of the denier.

Richard ,you talking nonsense;theory is a specific scientific construct,it is the ignorant that should learn by reading,asking questions, any means accessible what the word theory means depending on context it`s being used .If you bring the information to the lowest denominator nobody will learn anything and knowledge won`t be served and all will stay in darkness.

I hardly think changing "God is not a Good Theory" to "God is not a Good Scientific Theory" is dumbing anything down, and it would address the OP's point that ignorant people, especially the willfully ignorant, will immediately insert their superstition based mythology/conjecture as "also a theory" It's not going to stop them, superstitious people will always just double down when confronted with evidence that they're peddling superstitions, but nothing can be done about that other than teaching kids how to think instead of what to think.

Richard Gomes wouldn’t it be nicer if we could continue the correct usage of the word and simply teach others the proper use? The word theory is used in place of hypothesis frequently and inaccurately.

I noted that too. He seemed to be using theory in a colloquial sense and he didn't do himself a service.

@@rizdekd3912Yup exactly

Herrroooo 👋🤓 Fancy seeing you here 🤣 I commented on this video more than a year ago, I don't remember watching it 🤣

So was mine. God.

@@Bacpakin my biological "father" is, and always was, a lazy, uneducated waste of flesh, I'd love to know what it would have been like to have a family who actually gave a damn, I do have a family now but obviously not biological, more of an adopted family although they live more than 5,000 miles away 😔 People say you can't choose your family or parents, and while I agree with the latter you most certainly can choose the former, they make me a better person every single day and I hope you have as much luck as I did 😊👍 ♥ 🤗

@@DoctaOsiris And yet you are the best he could have and has biologically made. You are the best product of this [as you call it] ,waste of flesh...Think Really hard my friend.

@@juanitosuriel6931 think really hard? Are you actually kidding me? You know nothing about my life, if I'm the best my biological father could have ever "made" then I wish he'd never bothered, I'd be perfectly fine with never existing, not that I'd have ever known about it anyway, what's there to think really hard about exactly? 🤷

Lol why? I haven’t watched the video but I’m curious

The irony of so many comments is they merely studied one religion: Science. Science doesn't have to be a religion, but it is to these people. I wonder where these people ground making any sense of anything. Why logic? What makes that belief?

@@Roescoe The science and math of basic logic has a pretty good track record.

@@Reticuli Track record? Isn't that circular logic? Why should you believe logic exists?

​@@Roescoe That's the whole point of it. Literally means the art of reasoning correctly. Just truth vs false and simple math. Go study basic logic. Any academic pursuit that isn't art aesthetics has a basis somewhere in the study of logic -- math, science, engineering, social sciences, history, humanities, etc. Fundamental to all those and inherently accessible. It doesn't start getting abstract or overwhelming until they start throwing in large number sets, statistics, and information theory math into it, which is way beyond basic logic.

Carroll defines God the Creator down based on his extremely limited knowledge of creation. Everyone who would harm you and your family thinks and actualizes atheistic thoughts. Science is methods for dealing with physical creation without useless opinions and conclusions. The vast majority of dishonest scientists are nonbelievers, especially atheistic scientists who work for Big Pharma.

@@candeffect The difference is atheism isn't a belief system. Saying atheism is a belief is like saying people who don't watch football are a type of football fan. When a non-football fan chooses to watch basketball they don't do it as a way of supporting not playing football it's a totally separate issue. Atheism is the same, there are good atheists and there are bad atheists but being a bad peorson who does bad things has nothing to do with your lack of belief, at best that would apply to anti-theists. However when it comes to jihadists who kill themselves because their belief in their holy book then that would be a fair judgement to levy against them, it isn't factually wrong to say they do horrible things because their interpretation of faith compels them to. And on the topic of science an interesting to note is science is the only discipline that has a way of self-filtering itself. Everyone has biases, there are scientists who promote bad science definitely. But the reason we have the scientific method is to filter out biases, science doesn't care what the scientists' biases are, whatever is demonstrable will always be demonstrable when repeated under the same constraints. And it isn't just demonstrability but also falsifiability, it's not just about asking a question by seeing how it can be proved but also asking whether a question is even sensible to ask in the first place by seeing how it can be disproved (E.g. if I say monsters always hide under your bed and use their aura to make you scared but they disappear when you look no matter what then it's not falsifiable and until the time where there is evidence it's not a rational fear to have) Stuff like that is important and that isn't just limited to physical phenomena but to life as a whole. Understanding that we are inherently irrational pattern-seeking creatures helps us ground ourselves in reality and be more rational to tell the difference.

@@candeffect "Everyone who would harm you and your family thinks and actualizes atheistic thoughts." What an absolute lie. Look up the _No true scotsman_ -fallacy before you make an ass out of yourself.

Somehow I knew this comment would be too wholesome to avoid having trolls in the comments.

Wonderful, but now could we explain a nonmaterial existing God by our theories? If so can we explain cause of our consciousness? God is not part of our material world.

So what you are saying is, If there is not enough proof, believe it anyway!!! Sounds sensible!

I don't anyone here claimed to be a leading expert in physics, but there are many comments here from people who claim to know god.

runamokkk They don't just claim to know their gods, they claim to know about all gods. Think about it. If they claim it was their own gods who created the universe then they're making two claims, one ridiculous and the other completely fucking outrageous. The ridiculous claim is that magic/the supernatural is real and their gods used it to conjure the universe. The completely fucking outrageous claim they're simultaneously making is that all other gods invented by all the other humans on the planet are all false. At least 3,000 named gods that we know of, people who claim their gods created the universe are insisting that all those other gods aren't real. If you're ever stuck in a cafe waiting for Godot, try asking one of them what specific criteria they applied to each of those other gods to determine they were false. Godot and all his family, friends, relatives, his neighbors, and his neighbors relatives will all arrive long before you'll get a straight answer from a fundie.

Many religious people cannot even define god or god's characteristics. Thus, they don't even know their god.

The comment above me is the perfect example of what I said earlier. Surely he must be the leading theist/physicist to have such insight into what a 'GOD' is. He's probably smarter than Einstein and all others that came before him. He doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants for he is the Giant.

like who? Could you give some examples?

You’re welcome!

Steve?

This imbecile will be forgotten like you and judged sad news you lose. I would really think 🤔. This guy is in trouble but doesn’t know it. Sad for you fools yes I am calling you that. You can say anything you want about me and that’s fine I hope you wake up one day. I really don’t but I’m trying to be a good Christian.

a rational discussion about an irrational topic...is rational?

@@jgalt308 Whats irrational about it?

@@slashmonkey8545 What is rational about it?

@@jgalt308 "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." this is the defination of rational according to google so since theology is based on logic hence it is rational. So now will you answer my question.

@@slashmonkey8545 Why? You didn't answer mine. What is logical about theology? What is the evidence that supports the logic? BTW Science has the same problem and they both end up in the same place taking different paths.

Caught him saying arh

Postulating that mathematical objects are real entities, that they should be part of our ontology, *is* ontologically extravagant. You can say that mathematical objects shouldn't be considered "things". I.e., you can say that "there is" should be understood to mean something different when you say "there is a city in Nebraska with over 150 zipcars" than it does when you say "there is a prime that can be written as the sum of five cubes but not as the sum of two cubes". And if you do that, your list of "things" is a lot smaller. The question is whether you've gained anything by that. I think that including mathematical objects in your ontology is perfectly reasonable, but that's because I think that being ontologically extravagant is perfectly ok. If there's an empirical reason to believe that some type of things is scarce, then there's an empirical reason to doubt a hypothesis that entails the existence of lots of things of that type. But beyond the scope of such an empirical basis, there's no good reason to insist that ontologies have to be small.

integers don't exist, and if they did you could never have an infinite quantity of them

@@johnholmes912 People say all the time that infinite quantities are impossible but can never prove that to be true. It's just a false mantra they repeat, why I don't know.

@@superdog797 Check out Hilbert's Hotel. That's an argument against actual infinites.

We can't even agree on whether a virus is alive or not.

Partha Ghosh ===== Anything biologicaly living in the universe could never survive in it because of the harshness of the universe, making life on our planet pretty rare and unique and special. But life that is responsible for our universe is the problem here. The reason for why we were created in the universe was done so for our existence. The question is, who is the source for life? It wasn't by an accident. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====

Partha Gosh Sean is not really that unique. Just a other self important hypocrite trying to pass off something as new. Lmao

@@davidnco1 'Not really that unique'? 'Just a other self important hypocrite'? You give me no confidence that you are an expert on anything except fried thoughts.

One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole...

nope - misrepresents Aristotle revealing his deep lack of a philosophical education, which I can prove

I enjoy Carrol but he is not omniscient, as I am sure he would agree. Anyone who thinks there is proof for the non-existence of God is not a scientist.

@@jakeolthof Interesting point! 👍🏿

OK. Game, set, match because "Kevin says..." We should have ask him 6 or 7 years ago.

lol

LMAO 😂

Well, if he is not brilliant, at least he thinks he is.

Thank God I'm an atheist

@@victormaratovich7412 I'm a witness to what you sayed.

Know Viced Rhino, Prophet of Zod, GMS and Belief It Or Not?

It isn't. It may not even be the end of our observational data.

Hope we're not stuck in a time loop of 10 billion yrs. This all sounds familiar.

I'm perry sure you can't improve your IQ, I'd like to know how someone would benefit from watching this, before taking an IQ test, how would the results be any different? Have you ever taken an IQ test? They wouldn't benefit because thats not how IQ works, but it would be a very pointless experiment.

Dan.. you dont even know what iq is do you lmao

@@Himmelvakt this is a misconception. IQ can be improved upto 20 points by training. It's not some all powerful value that defines your brain.

Guys a moron its story hour

Define ‘facts’. Because most scientific creation and evolution theories are not in fact, ‘facts’.

Also a question of equality was raised. One of the most important ones in today’s time. I loved this question. Sikh Faith says “Ek Noor Teh Sab Jug Upjya Kon bhale Koh Mande” which translates to “the whole creation can from the same source, so who is good and who is bad?” No one is good or bad but we become good and bad with our actions and thoughts. So all are equal and we become closer and farther from the creator within by our actions and thoughts. There isn’t even a question of lack of equality in this faith

I hate that this is the case honestly. It creates so much unnecessary confusion. Its very difficult to convince someone that a word doesn't mean what they think it does.

Nah. He'd have to be arrogant to do that.

A statement of a true believer.