The Video Atheists Don't Want You To See.

[Theland]

This is a lon video on YouTube. I would like you to be entertained by it, and informed. Ditch your faith / belief in atheism and at least CONSIDER the information in it. For your eternal souls sake. God bless you all.
"The Video Atheists Don't Want You To See."

[Theland]

Stephen Hawking, like Dawkins, HAS to fall back on the idea of a multiverse, to explain the fine tuning of the numerous cosmological constants. These are so called scientists who are suppose to base their claims on evidence, observation, and apply reason and logic to support their arguments.
The Emperors New Clothes would not be out of place in their company.
I hope and pray they get saved. .

[dieseldick]

hmmmm.....what ?

[naomi24]

Theland, if this is the video you’re talking about ….



… would you mind giving us a synopsis of its content? I doubt many of us have time to watch it in full before discussing it – it’s almost two hours long.

As far as I can see from your OP you’re complaining that scientists maintain that they base their opinions on evidence, observation, and the application of reason and logic to support their arguments. Upon what do you base your opinions? An ancient book written by ancient men to whom the world was a complete mystery – or simply the conclusion that you don’t know how it happened so God must have done it? If that is so, it seems eminently sensible to consider the alternative.

I will watch your video when I have time. I suspect atheists won't mind at all if anyone sees it.

[waterboatman]

theland. You are entitled to believe what you like, as is everyone else. You not, however, entitled to keep trying to impose your beliefs on everyone else.

[Old_Geezer]

I'm unsure one "falls back" on the multiverse hypothesis. If there is, for want of a better word, a "mechanism" by which a state of nothing can "break" and create something (such as one universe) then what would stop the same thing happening again and again creating many, possibly an infinite (or so many it makes no difference) of them ?

[jim360]

Oh no, he found the video. Darn it, I didn't want people to see that.

[douglas9401]

Yup, it's blown everything. No more Sundays lying in bed.

On the plus side though, now that it's all proven and out there the world will be a better place. We just need to figure out which god's the best.

What could possibly go wrong?

[waterboatman]

I'm sure the atheists don't give a toss who sees what.

[Marshwarble]

As an Agnostic I don't know whether I want you to see it or not. I only wish I had a video.

[Canary42]

A dog thinks "This man feeds me, loves me, grooms me, houses me, pets me, and takes good care of me. He must be God."





A cat thinks, "This woman feeds me, loves me, grooms me, houses me, pets me, and takes good care of me. I must be God"

[naomi24]

Jim, //Oh no, he found the video. Darn it, I didn't want people to see that. //

I have to confess I found it for him. Sorry....

(Naomi hangs head in shame).

[Hopkirk]

Nice one Canary.

[jim360]

Like Naomi I have no desire to watch a two-hour video to find out which arguments I have to debunj. Please check against this list and then I'll reply accordingly:

- fine tuning argument?
- argument from design?
- argument from irreducible complexity?
- argument from first causes?
- teleological argument ("there must be a reason")?

and also whatever others are made along the way. Ta.

[mibn2cweus]

Theland,
Admitting ones ignorance is by far more noble and potentially conducive to learning than the pretence of knowledge. Positing the existence of a divine creator has never contributed to an increase in knowledge of how reality works much less an understanding of the cause of the universe.

[wildwood]

@Theland //Ditch your faith / belief in atheism and at least CONSIDER the information in it.//

You just don't get it, do you!? Atheism is neither a belief nor a faith. It is merely the rejection of man made ideological idols commonly regarded as gods, to compensate the lack of understanding of the workings of the Universe.

[Peter Pedant]

There is a book called the Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose

do you think Theland was referring to that in his first post ?

[RATTER15]

Well I wanted to see it!! well that was until I sat through the first 15 mins, then I gave up on the will to live!

Theland, I think you will need to try harder, you are on a hiding to nowhere with this one, lol

[beso]

Theland //These are so called scientists who are suppose to base their claims on evidence, observation, and apply reason and logic to support their arguments. //

Meanwhile the theists insist that the musings of some ancient, arrogant misogynists are the ultimate truths for eternity for everyone. In support of this position they offer books unashamedly offering tales of genocide as evidence for the existence of their deity.

And then they expect their beliefs to be afforded automatic respect on the sole basis of the sincerity with which they are held.

There is no place for such religious ignorance and bigotry in a modern society.

[Khandro]

Jim; Not necessarily anything to do with "God", but I would be interested to hear you debunk (or even debunj ) 'the argument from irreducible complexity'. Ta.

[jim360]

Not debunk, perhaps, so much as reject as an argument. I've said before that I'm not convinced that people actually know what is "irreducibly complex" yet, so anything held up as a particular example (the eye, most famously) turns out not to be so many years later.

When science is genuinely finished (ie never, hopefully), then you'll know what is irreducibly complex, not before.

Essentially this is the same rejection as would apply to the fine-tuning arguments, which is that the amount of fine-tuning required is not really understood until the "final" physical laws have been understood themselves.*

To cut a long story short, any chain of argument that runs something like
"the current state of science cannot explain such-and-such a phenomenon, therefore it's never going to be able to (without invoking an apparently stupid theory eg like the multiverse), therefore God", is fundamentally broken at its starting point, confusing as it does the currently unexplained with the never explicable, and not worth taking seriously as an argument.