God Did It . . . Or Did He?

[mibn2cweus]

Religion tells us that God did it. Science shows us how and in the process the hand of God is no where to be seen.

Here we go with another YouTube video but one I hope one some others (as I did) will find worthy of the time invested in watching.

[Old_Geezer]

Long videos impose on folks' time, but doesn't stop the poster from inwardly digesting the contents in order to put the case and answer questions. When the video is a out in individual's belief system rather than reasonable conclusions from data it is all the more unattractive since other viewers don't believe they'll get more than preached to with maybe at most some science misrepresented in order to add weight. And not all long videos come to a final conclusion. Here's one for you that I watched earlier today.

[mibn2cweus]

I don't subscribe to Theland's apparent notion that answers to all questions must be forthcoming.

As humans we are born into this world with no explicit knowledge of anything, let alone knowledge of the resources we have at our disposal and how to live in it. One of our most valuable and precious resources for learning about the nature of ourselves, our world and how to live in it is the capacity to reason, but even that must first be developed to the point where we able to use it effectively.

One of the most important lessons we can learn is that reality to be commanded must be obeyed and both are only possible to the extent that we understand it.

The thing I (personally) find most astonishing about existence is that we have any comprehension of it at all. In order to make sense of existence we must first learn to distinguish delusion from reality and key to the ability to make this distinction is learning how we acquire and process information.

What consciousness is and how we achieve it are no simple questions to answer but the refusal to do the maths is no justification for declaring that you already know the answer.

[Theland]

OG - I watched the video beginning to end.
Sadly, the speaker had nothing useful to say, and was unaware of all of the available evidence to explain the universe.
Thank you though for posting.

[Theland]

Mibs - Your obsession with pure reason misses the point. The simple possibility that we are created beings, created by a Creator with His purpose in mind.
Nevertheless I appreciate your thoughtful post and there is much there for us to discuss should you wish to do so. I hope you do. Thank you.

[Theland]

One obvious thing that is so simple, yet is missed by atheist scientists, is that time passes in one direction, past to future, and therefore, prophecies in the bible with their unerring accuracy are proof that there is a God giving us revelations that prove His existence, and also enable us to understand the times we are in.

[naomi24]

Theland, ‘unerring accuracy’? Nonsense! Every so called prophecy you’ve presented here has been explained and dismissed. Stop making it up. You’re fooling no one except yourself.

[mibn2cweus]

Prophecies say no less about those who fulfill them as those who make them. Belief in the promise of a sufficiently large carrot and long enough stick ensures they will. The nature of the prophecies mentioned ensure that I will never be a willing participant in their propagation or fulfillment while having only the greatest contempt for those who reaffirm or dream of their fulfillment all while worshipping their alleged author.

Belief in a God such as the one you espouse, demonstrating complete contempt for His own creation, should rightly be any decent respectable human beings worst nightmare.

[Old_Geezer]

You are just pattern matching with prophecies. Since different prophecies get matched to multiple events as time progresses it's clear they can not be considered to hold value.

[Theland]

Naomi - With the greatest of respect, I do not make things up.
That would make me a liar.
I am not a liar.

[mibn2cweus]

Are you calling Naomi a liar? (That's a rhetorical question.)

[naomi24]

Theland, biblical
prophecies are not ‘unerring’ in their accuracy. Make of that what you will.

[nailit]

//Theland, biblical
prophecies are not ‘unerring’ in their accuracy//
But they are unerring in there vagueness.
Matthew 24 predicts that in the end times that there shall be wars and rumours of wars and that nation shall rise against nation.
When has it EVER been any different?
Would have been more of a prophecy if it had stated that in the end times (which Theland believes we are in) that mankind will have space travel, the telephone, internet and Brexit!!

[Zacs-Master]

'time passes in one direction'

Time is an abstract concept. Another basic flaw in another crackpot argument, Theland.

[Old_Geezer]

There is evidence that it may be an emergent illusion created by/from the mind

[nailit]

Got a link O-G?
Would be interested to read about that.

[Old_Geezer]

The DeWitt equation attempts to combine mathematically the ideas of quantum mechanics and general relativity but ends up with no time related part, implying that time isn't fundamental.

Try a web search for timeless physics theory. Or to start you off https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-end-of-time (his book's an interesting read if you keep at it).

[Old_Geezer]

This may also be of interest https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691v1

[mibn2cweus]

Don't be too surprised if understanding how time is an illusion . . . takes a while.

[andy-hughes]

Theland - // Naomi - With the greatest of respect, I do not make things up.
That would make me a liar.
I am not a liar. //

No it doesn't.

Saying something that you believe to be true, that is not true, does not make you a liar, because you believe it to be the truth.

But it does mean that what you are saying remains untrue.

If you tell me that the earth is flat, and you believee it, then you are not a liar, because you speak the truth as you believe it to be.

But the fact is, you are wrong, not a liar, but not speaking the truth.

[Theland]

OG has hit on something there.
Krauss believes in a nothing that is fundamental but with physical properties whereas it is emergent so Krauss is wrong right away.