Something Can't Come From Nothing? | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.07
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 02. 2019
- Talk Heathen 03.07 for February 17, 2019 with Jamie Boone & Shelley Segal.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Something can't come from noting, yet words are flying out of that guy..
hahahahahhahahahha
"You've never examined 'nothing' so how can you make any assessment of it?"
-Tracie Harris
Oh wow, he's been making the same argument for almost two years. No wonder every show banned him.
That’s why he’s a Darth Dawkins minion.
He just likes the sound if his voice. Put him on hold.
I think it's more of this guy has NO IDEA that his premise needs to be backed up and that there are different thoughts about the beginning of the universe. Or that there are multiple other opinions on the subject he keeps lecturing that "nothing can come from nothing" like if the guy didn't understand the premise instead of just that he disagrees. He thinks that he host is gonna go like "Oh now I get it, yes ofc, NEVER thought about it before O. M. G. YOU'RE A GENIUS". What part of your premise needs to be supported first didn't he get.
I heard him say the same thing OVER AND OVER AND OVER for 30 fricking minutes.
Put him out of business for good.Ban forever.
Whenever somebody comes onto the show saying they can prove something, why does it always have to be something we’ve heard a million times and is not getting any more sufficient?
That last quote from William Craig just looks like he is reading a list with the last results of his scrabble games.
*Andre* The caller speaks at *LEAST* two different languages, so that should help you u/stand the difficulty in the overall conversation with English not being his 1st language. He is very learned on this & other matters. Now, did you want to try to hurl another insult, or do you have s/thing of substance to share that would be worth the debate?
Yeah, that quote is gibberish.
@@Kman.they were referring to the quote, not his language ability. Relax.
Jamie crushed this. I miss his approach. He is calm, fair, and persistent
The big bang does not claim there was nothing and then the universe. It claims everything was in one place, but in an undefined state for an undefined amount of time. We do not know what natural forces, if any, existed in this undefined, and perhaps undefinable, thing we call the "singularity." So we cannot rule out that there was a natural cause for this instance of the universe. We can't assume that the singularity was the beginning of the existance of everything as what was before the singularity is also undefined, and perhaps undefinable.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom This universe had a beginning. Existance itself may not have. Indeed, that would have to be true for an eternal being to exist.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom If, then, existance is eternal, there is at least one thing beside a God that can be eternal- that is to say, existance itself.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Really? Why not? I fail to see how it is logically required that some non-material "substance" would need to have "personality". I mean, as long as we're imagining non-material things, the possibilities are limited only by the limits of our imagination.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Repetition doesn't make a claim true. If you want us to accept the claim that matter cannot produce thoughts, you need to provide a reason more compelling than your own incredulity at the very thought of such a thing.
After looking through these comments, it looks like Otangelo is F5 camping this page, and therefore I'm confident he will read this. Otangelo, I would encourage you to take Tracy Harris' advice - if you think you have evidence and/or arguments that can actually withstand expert scrutiny, then rather than just Ctrl-V spamming CZcams comments, why don't you submit a paper to an appropriate Journal. If your arguments are sound, they will withstand expert scrutiny and be published. If your arguments are convincing, you will change minds. If you had confidence in your content, you would do this.
If however you choose to just continue to copy/paste spam walls of text into CZcams comments, then it is pretty clear that you are not convinced your views would hold up to expert scrutiny. The question then is, why do you do it? Surely you realise that almost no one reads a wall of text, especially when it is just copy/pasted, and doesn't always even directly respond to the comment you are copy/pasting your text under.
Personally, I find it disrespectful when someone replies to an individual comment with Ctrl-V. It shows that you are not actually interested in engaging with the person you are replying to, but rather you simply want to use the platform to spam your views via mind-numbingly boring walls of text.
Yup. everything this guy says is entirely scripted mostly from an creationist website spewing nonsense as if it was true. And he buys into it because he just doesnt have a clue what he is arguing about.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom care to provide evidence for the god you believe in, instead of this vague, deistic notion of a god? Like is there physical, tangible evidence that YOUR god exists? Or are you operating 100% on 'faith' and 'feelings'?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom The argument made in the article you linked to is irrelevant. Yes, asking for evidence for God, or anything supernatural, means not ruling those things out (since asking for evidence presupposes the possibility, however remote, that such evidence could be forthcoming.) Once evidence for a God is produced, we will have evidence both of God and of the supernatural (presuming God is supernatural). Once that evidence is strong enough to count as "proof", "naturalism" will no longer be tenable. We are not at that point.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom you've done nothing to prove your case. Please stop calling you're boring
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom You said..."Atheists, in most, if not all cases, aren't looking for evidence of Gods existence or proof".
What this comes down to is, what you see as evidence for God atheists don't. There is no evidence that confirms God, there is only evidence that suggests there might be a God. That you see that evidence as compelling could very well be because you are looking for evidence for God's existence.
we know how plants collect solar energy, and we know they evolved to do it. We know there is no magical plant designer.
I fell kinda sorry for Otangelo. He is so desperate to convert someone. It is so sad what religion has done to this poor man.
the caller seems to assume nobody is familiar with these concepts he needs to get to business quick
Wow Otangelo. Logic is hard, isn't it?
Lol
where did my logic fail?
@@otangelograsso1179
When you started making fiat claims sans evidence, tried to pass them off as an argument, and then repeated them forever.
It's called the "I'm dishonest" fallacy, and we hear it all the time.
Maybe that's why you're banned from basically every other show...
Yea OrangeJello is a weird dude I think he just craves attention.
@@otangelograsso1179if you cant see where your logic failed then youre incapable of self introspection, mate, all you do is spout what gary milne tells you to.... You follow his script.... Dont deny it, youre logic fell apart many times in this call, if you cant see it then it astonishes me as to how you have ever learned from any mistake youve ever made..... You ARROGANTLY assume youre right no matter what, and when proven wrong you either outright ignore it or change the subject......
You try to paint a picture where it must be that "god" even though that isnt his name and is very vague, created the universe, when not one religious person on the planet has proof of this..... And you know it, you simply believe it to be true, youre in the same boat as flat earthers, no proof what so ever yet you still think youre right....
If he said "something cant vome from nothing" one more time he mightve convinced me
Lmao. That was hysterical.
a solar panel still works without a battery.... The panels themselves and therefore the factory, are not useless.
Wow, he has been on this factory analogy is real instead of just an analogy for a long time.
was the lime green skylark a reference to 'My cousin Vinny"? (time 5:23)
Sounded like that to me.
11:43 mic drop
u let this slip, when u admitted if the solar panel doesnt work as a photovoltaic device, it has no function. It has a function. U can use it as an umbrella. A wall. A table. Its the argument of "what good is half a wing or eye". Imagine u have a table. All u need to do now is add solar cells and boom - solar panel. Small, gradual change. Imagine uve got light-sensitive cells to tell night and day. Add a lens - boom - u see shapes now.
It goes further back than though - u let him slip at "u see design in nature". U dont. Seeing 2 cars isnt about recognizing the other car was designed. Its about seeing how cars dont happen spontaneously in nature, without human intervention.
Otangelo's argument from design rests heavily on equivocation between two usages of "design". We observe "design" everywhere in the sense that we observe structure and order in things.
That ia not the same thing as recognizing the work of a designer. We recognize human design from knowing of humans and their works. Once we know of a God and that God's works, we can recognize divine design.
But just as I would not learn of the existance of other humans via human artefacts were I to have no other evidence of other humans existing, I cannot deduce God's existance from the existance of things that could conceivably have been created by a God.
You're just stating that because you are controlled by SATAN, and he has made you believe that the laws of logic can't be ignored when making a logical argument. If you understood that you don't need your logical arguments to ACTUALLY be logically sound, then you would be a Christian like all smart people. It's too bad Satan has gotten to you first, and you will burn in hell for your repeated demands for logical arguments and "evidence"
jk ;)
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Are you familiar with the Elephant Hurling fallacy? This is what this comment qualifies as, because you are just copy and pasting an absurdly long list of "proofs" to bury your opponent in points and arguments he is forced to refute and debunk.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom You've provided no demonstrable evidence that a deity or creator of any type exists, all yo have done is conducted biased thought experiments that you have already concluded the result of.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom "What is your better alternative?" For what? A concise answer, please. I will not answer a cut and paste job. Is "something cannot come from nothing" the upshot of your argument here?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom How so? Because if it were the case that I could "recognize design" by simply conceiving of a being that could be responsible for that design, I could "explain" non-human design as the creation of alien beings. Why not?
His argument is that solar panel is useless if it is "on its own"
I agree, but so are the control panel, inverter, batteries and all the connecting cables.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom If it were "undeniable" it would in fact be universally accepted among those working in the relevant fields at the very least. "Undeniable" literally means it CANNOT be denied. Now, is it in fact the case that this "fact" is not denied by any of the people with expertise in the field of say, the biological sciences?
And if it is denied, do you understand the reasons for their objections and can clearly explain why their objections are, in fact, incorrect?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Your claim that it is "undeniable" is refuted by the fact that is denied by people who actually have done the scientific work in the field. That makes your framing of the issue fallacious from the start.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Stop making fallacious arguments here and I will stop "bothering" you about them. Deal?
Actually, water freezes at temperatures below zero AT EARTH ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.
No. At 1 atm of pressure, water freezes at 0°C
@@mazingdaddidyoure incorrect, it BEGINS to freeze at 0, it doesent outright freeze, just like water STARTS to boil at 105 fahrenheit, but comes to a FULL boil at 212 fahrenheit..... So the original post is correct and you are wrong
@themanwithnoname1839 wrong. Water freezes at 0°C and boils at 212°F. What you see at 105 is degassing, not boiling. Water, unless special conditions are applied, at 1 atm cannot exists below 0°C. I was a chemistry major. I have a degree. This is basic phase transitions.
@24:40 Slam-dunk!
Battle of the convoluted conversation art - Otangelo vs. Jamie..
His first universe sized mistake is thinking we believe the universe came from nothing. We definitely don't believe that. If you're going to make a gigantic, nonsensical claim based on he's right just cause, AT LEAST understand other people's side. It's bad enough he doesn't listen, talks one word a minute, is extremely rude, condescending, crazy, oblivious, can't understand or structure or communicate an argument.... the list is endless. Otangelo is bad enough! It's too much to handle. Honestly, I think every host & crew member deserves a metal for tolerating thing. I would have snapped long before the end of the first call.
I'm surprised he didn't use a banana as an example for creation. The universe is a not a sand castle, city factory, car, etc. But then again, it's not like that would have helped. But it would have been hilarious!
It means Otangelo doesn't have a clue
Irreducible complexity has failed numerous times and he needs to show how we can test for god scientifically.
11:39 the silence that ensues when he tries to make "an argument from analogy" and gets told that's the name of a logical fallacy. I listen at 1.75x speed and it's such a long pause 🤣🤣🤌🏽
How can you argue about something without knowing what that something is?.
"i dont need evidence! Im right because i said so" - hes done it, he proved god, praise allah!
Oh, one more thing - complexity and inefficiency is NOT evidence of design, simplicity and efficiency is, and humans/cells are the former, not the latter.
Argument from analogy fallacy: two things that are similar in some ways must be similar in other ways as well, including their origin. This simply doesn't follow.
Without logical fallacies, Theists wouldn't have arguments. They get so butthurt when you point out their logical fallacies, yet they are the ones who keep insisting we can't use science, and have to use logical deduction to solve these problems. They are the ones who want to use logic, so then they should be able to construct sound arguments, but they never seem to be able to do that. They are incapable to match their nonsensical beliefs to logical necessity, no matter how hard they try.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Nearly every theist that makes a *logical* argument for the existence for God. They almost always try to tell us that science cannot prove God exists because he exists outside of time and space, thus he cannot be detected or discovered by scientific means. The argument from design isn't scientific, it's logical deduction.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Forensic science is verifiable.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom The actual evidence available comes entirely from, and is concerned entirely with, the natural world. So I see no basis whatsoever for this claim you are making.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom I can just as easily respond that your continuous denial of the pertinance of all the objections made to your arguments speaks more to your state of mind than it does to the truth of the matter. So there we are. Now what? How shall we determine which of us is correct?
Anyone who quotes WLC as though he knows what he's talking about, has already lost.
Solar panels with no other parts could be used as a table. Wires could be used as ropes. Many things have other uses. Evolution does not support the ridiculous assertion that photosynthesis evolved complete and and functioning in a single event. Eons passed with mutation and natural selection blindly honing these systems. I can use my arm/hand to hold a pen and write, also to climb, also to wipe my face, also to signal or to dance. Which of these functions was it "designed" for?
Irreducible Complexity: The existence of irreducible interdependent structures in biology is an undeniable fact
A piston has no use by its own. But only, when working inside a gasoline engine. A flagellar filament structural protein has no use by its own unless inserted and conjoined with all other proteins to form the flagella filament proteins In the same sense, as an engineer would not project, invent, create and make a blueprint of a piston with no use by its own, but only conjoined, and together with all other parts while projecting a whole engine, envisioning its end function and use, its evident that unguided random natural events without foresight would not come up with assemblage of tiny molecular machines, enzymatic structures with unique contours, which bear no function by their own, but only when inserted in cellular structures with higher ends, being essential for cells to self-replicate, and perpetuate life.
Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
In other words : Why would natural selection select an intermediate biosynthesis product, which has by its own no use for the organism, unless that product keeps going through all necessary steps, up to the point to be ready to be assembled in a larger system ? Never do we see blind, unguided processes leading to complex functional systems with integrated parts contributing to the overall design goal.
A minimal amount of instructional complex information is required for a gene to produce useful proteins. A minimal size of a protein is necessary for it to be functional. Thus, before a region of DNA contains the requisite information to make useful proteins, natural selection would not select for a positive trait and play no role in guiding its evolution.
The argument of irreducible complexity is obvious and clear. Subparts like a piston in a car engine are only designed, when there is a goal where they will be mounted with specific fitting sizes and correct materials, and have a specific function in the machine as a whole. Individually they have no function. Same in biological systems, which work as factories ( cells ) or machines ( cells host a big number of the most various molecular machines and equal to factory production lines ) For example, in photosynthesis, there is no function for chlorophyll individually, only when inserted in the light-harvesting complex, to catch photons, and direct their excitation energy by Förster resonance energy transfer to the reaction center in Photosystem one and two. Foreplanning is absolutely essential. This is a simple fact, which makes the concept of Irreducible complexity obvious concept. Nonetheless, people argue all the time that it's a debunked argument. Why? That's as if genetic mutations and natural selection had enough probability to generate interdependent individual parts being able to perform new functions while the individual would have no function unless interconnected.
Behe et al provided a few examples, which have been popularized through ID literature. But it stretches through ALL natural systems, and on different system levels, to name :
Cosmology: Interdependence of the universe, with our milky way galaxy, solar system - sun - planets - sun - moon
Planet earth: Land - water - volcanoes - plate tectonics - earthquakes
Energy cycles on earth: water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, Phosphorus, Iron, and Trace Mineral cycles
Biology : Organism level - organ level - tissue level - cell level - molecular level
Imagine a production line in a factory. Many robots there are lined up, and raw materials are fed into the production line. The materials arrive at Robot one. It processes the first step. Then, when ready, the product moves on and is handed over to the next Robot. Next processing step. And that procedure repeats 17 times. In the end, there is a fully formed subpart, as the door of a car. That door is part of a larger object, like the finished car. That door by its own has no use unless mounted at the right place in the car. Nobody would project a car door without visualizing the higher end upfront, in the project and development stage, and based on the requirement, specify the complex shape of the door which precisely will fit the whole of the chassis of the car where it will be mounted. And the whole production line and each robot the right placement and sequence where each robot will be placed must be planned and implemented as well. Everything has to be projected with a higher end goal in mind. And there is an interdependence. If one of the robots ceases to work for some reason, the whole fabrication ceases, and the completion of the finished car cannot be accomplished. That means, a tiny mal connection of one of the robots in the production line of the door might stop the production of the door, and the finished car cannot be produced.
- No glycine amino acids, no pyrimidines, no DNA - no life.
- No Watson Crick base pair fine-tuning, no DNA - no life.
- No topoisomerase II or helicase proteins, no DNA replication - no life perpetuation.
- No peripheral stalk, a subunit in ATP synthase nano turbines, no energy supply trough ATP for biological cells, no advanced life.
- No cleavage of tRNA during its biosynthesis, tRNA's will not be useful for the cell, no life.
- No nitrogenase enzymes to fix nitrogen in an energy demanding, triple bond breaking process, no ammonia, required to make amino acids - no nitrogen cycle - no advanced life.
- No chlorophylls, no absorption of light to start photosynthesis, no starch and glucose - cells will have no food supply to sustain complex organisms - no advanced life on earth.
- No water evolving complex in photosynthesis, no oxygen, no advanced life.
- No carotenoids quenching heat in chlorophylls in the antenna complex, the surrounding membrane would be burned - no advanced life.
- No rubisco, no fix of CO2, no hidrocarbons - no advanced life.
- No counterion in retinal, and rhodopsin could not receive visible light - and there would be no vision on earth by any organism.
This is just a small example - there are many others. The salient part is - in the same manner, as a robot has no function by itself and by its own, and outside of a factory, unless placed at the right production line, getting the right substrate from another robot, processing it in the right manner, and handing it over to the next processing step - which also has to have its right function and manufacturing proceeding pre-programmed- nothing done.
DNA is transcribed to RNA which is translated to Proteins. But proteins are required to make DNA and RNA. This creates an endless loop, which is only solved when we posit that all three were created at the same time. ...
@@otangelograsso1179TL:DR
How do you endure Otangelo's endless variations on the watch maker, cosmological and ontological arguments. He never freight trains through every conversation, appears not to acknowledge the comment's of others and never accepts correction. I rarely am able to finish viewing the clips that feature him.
the basic element of solar panel is a PN junction and it's not complex at all - as an example is a copper oxide diode which literally can be made from a chunk of copper, also some mineral crystals form a contact PN junction with metals - but it's not even a point - some non-organic chemical reactions just naturally involve EM radiation energy transferring it into chemical product
Otangelo is wrong about solar panels... a factory can make solar panels and some other factory can make the other parts.
Also, solar panels are not that complex, the actual collection of solar energy is fairly simple, and it happens whether you have it hooked to the battery or any other parts, the solar cells still collect energy and still convert it to electricity.
There may very well be an intelligent designer.
Certainly, my computer was very very intelligently designed.
But I don't think computer manufacturers could make the universe.
Where would they stand ? What material would they use ? See, it couldn't be done.
I give the video a "Thumb Up" for the credible witness from Otangelo!
If everything requires a creator, who created the creator. Then who created the creators creator.
*Another painful rabbit trail, not understanding that things evolve to the environment is just poor logic and education. The switching of the idea, is not getting the puddle story at all. So basically the end goal of IC is pre-sup bullshit, and the answer is Christianity. Nope, no bridge to it. Poor argument, should a I predict a long copy-paste reply with links? LOL*
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom STAHP WITH THE BLOGS, ARRRRRGH!
Objects appears designed therefore god.
There is an ecosystem therefore god.
This would be a much better analogy and argument if paintings, buildings, etc just pointed out if nothing.
Oh my :-0 who’s this girl?!
Arooga!
Same old argument in the same old way. This caller has never listened
Well done jamie, it was a long painfull watch, but exposing his reasoning at the end showed how weak and ridiculous his reasoning is. Entirely faith/imagination based. Its only faith based assertions when he doesnt actually know a damn thing. And ofcourse its a WLC nonsense. If Otangelo ever gets to a point he cares about truth and intellectual honesty he will lose that dumb reasoning and silly theism very fast. But i fear that will never happen because these people dont want honesty or truth.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom And more scripts you copy pasted. Which again shows you dont have a clue you are talking about other then what creationist and apologist say with full dishonesty and ignorance entirely based of faith. An apologist is a professional liar for jebus nothing more. They dont have knowledge, they dont have actual good arguments. They only prey on ignorance and gullibility by pretending to have absolute certainty with the most dishonest position a person can hold. faith.
You have nothing and you will never have anything.
This is an irreducible complexity argument.
The photovoltaic analogy doesn’t work. According to what we know from biology, archeology, and prehistoric meteorology we had life that conducted cellular respiration before the evolution of photosynthesis. You can actually observe such life in archaebacteria that respire from chemicals spewed by volcanic vents. The current consensus is that life similar to those archaebacteria existed first before some population among them developed a rudimentary mechanism of photosynthesis which then improved through gradual mutations and natural selection
Otangelo Grasso this is the third fucking time we’ve had this conversation. Respond honestly or stfu
@@andyrihn1 He won't respond honestly. I've asked him to do so many times over several threads. All he wants to do is info dump his copy/paste gish gallops, he does not want to have a conversation. He refuses to engage honestly.
That William Craig quote at the end was nothing but nonsensical word salad.
So I would have explained this differently. If we are talking about a literal definition of nothing, then it's a maybe. We don't have any evidence for or against. But physics does talk about a nothing, but the problem is that there is no solid definition for one. It's kinda like how people confuse theory to mean an idea rather than a collection of facts.
Something from nothing... it may be that when nothing happens... something will happen.
Even total nothingness may cause all of something to happen. It migt be impossible to not get someting from nothing.... out of nothing always becomes something... but yeah.. we dont know.
We do not know
It's too bad this *Edit* "poor communicator" spend as much time learning to construct a logically sound argument as he did learning English. I thought his native language is portuguese, and his English is pretty good, but his logic is flawed and fallacious. Logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Well well, a response from the caller himself, I am honored you took the time to respond to my comment. I will be happy to explain why your logic is flawed, fallacious and your arguments are unsound. I will now take the time to listen to your call a second time, to make sure I don't misrepresent you or miss any of your points.
*EDIT* I will take back my earlier claim that you are a "mental midget" as the problem seems to be your inability to communicate your arguments vocally, as you have shown in text better communication skills. Though I do wonder how many of your arguments are just "copy and paste" arguments you got off a Creationist website.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Since the reply you posted under @Paul Beaulieu covers most of your points without having to listen to your word salad and stuttering delivery, I will stop forcing myself to watch the video and address the points and arguments you made there.
*1. Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.*
Nobody in science makes this claim, or uses that wording. You are using a deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific theory of the Big Bang to make this claim.
*2. The universe had a beginning, therefore, it had a cause.*
This is a claim without evidence, and as such cannot be stated as fact. We know the universe had a beginning, and nothing more. As we have ZERO data before that event.
*3. The present moment cannot be reached by adding individual events together from eternity.*
Nobody is claiming it can. Time began at the Big Bang, and has been moving forward since then. I wonder if you are familiar with the concept of time being relative, as explained by Einstein's theory? Time does move forward, but the speed can be varied when affected by outside sources such as gravity and speed.
*4. The second law of thermodynamics refutes the hypothesis of an eternal universe.*
Yes and no. The second law of thermodynamics is a law *within* this universe, and doesn't exist independent of it. So if the universe was expanding and contracting, then it would reset at the point of the singularity, which is the Big Bang. This would reset time, and also energy.
*5. Therefore an eternal & necessary first cause is the best explanation of our existence.*
No, based on the flaws I have demonstrated in the premise that led to this conclusion, you cannot make this claim, as the argument *is not logically sound* and thus it fails.
*6. An agent endowed with free will can have a determination in a timeless dimension to operate causally at a (first) moment of time and thereby to produce a temporally first effect.*
If you exist outside of space and time, then how can you "cause" anything at a "first" moment? This is highly theoretical, and untested in any conceptual way. You are just guessing at this point, as your premises don't lead to this conclusion, and it doesn't follow. A non sequitur logical fallacy.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom As you chose to employ the elephant hurling fallacy of dumping pages of arguments and claims into a *single* reply I will address the arguments separately.
*1. Contingent or non-necessary beings depend on an external cause that made them come into existence - the physical universe - is also contingent.*
How do you know that the universe is contingent, which is to say occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on? The universe EXISTS, and that's all we know about it. By what knowledge do you claim that the universe is both contingent and non-necessary?
*2. Since that external cause has to be outside the whole aggregate of contingent things, it cannot itself be contingent. So it is necessary.*
No, being outside of the thing it creates doesn't mean that it cannot be contingent. All things that create other things within the universe are also contingent. So if all examples we have of beings/things that exist outside of their creations are also contingent, what logic justifies your claim of non-contingency in this *one instance?*
*3. Hey presto, we’ve demonstrated that there is a necessarily existent, non-created, non-contingent being which causes all other things! And this, of course, is God.*
Hey presto, you've once again built your logical argument on unsound premises that can be easily refuted. Your conclusion is a Non-sequitur, as it doens't follow.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom *1. The implementation of laws of mathematics depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.*
Demonstrate this, instead of simply ASSERTING it. We know the laws of mathematics exist, and that's all we know. You are making assumptions that you cannot justify.
*2. The universe obeys laws of mathematics, a specific set of equations. Everything in the universe is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical.*
Correct, we have observed all of these things, and they are agreed upon by most if not all scientists and mathematicians.
*3. Therefore, most probably, an intelligent creator of the universe exists.*
No, because your first premise failed due to the need for assumption about the action of an intelligent rational agency, which you never demonstrated.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom *1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.*
Why is God necessary for objective moral values? If they are God's values, then they are subjective to him. Demonstrate why and how God must exist for objective moral values to exist.
*2. Objective moral values exist.*
They have never been demonstrated to exist. The only thing humans have ever been able to prove the existence of is personal, subjective, moral values that are unique to the individual. The only people who claim the existence of objective moral values are Religious people, and they claim those values come from their personal God. These values would then be subjective to that specific God, and only objective to us. The same thing could be accomplished with *any* individual with absolute authority, and it would still be a false claim, as they would be subjective to that individual authority.
*3. Therefore, God exists.*
Non Sequitur. Two flawed and unproven premises don't produce a sound argument or a logical conclusion.
This caller was really REALLY boring. Just saying. Anyhoo - my understanding of the current scientific view is that there never was "nothing" (in the philosophical sense of the word), and in fact, it may actually be impossible for "nothing" to "exist". (I can hear Tracy saying "but what does that even mean???)
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Holy cut and paste a wall of text Batman. You are just channelling WLC, and like him, your grasp on modern physics is faulty. If you want to understand how WLC is wrong in his scientific understandings, I suggest you watch his debate with Sean Carroll. If you don't care about scientific accuracy, and are happy just to stick to WLC's script, then I recommend that you don't watch that debate.
@@1970Phoenix The debate with Sean Carroll was great. I was very entertaining watching WLC try his pseudo science on Carroll, and then watching Carroll get up and dismantle it using REAL science. Another charlatan exposed for what he is. We had a lovely exchange of ideas under my comment under this video. He really loves to employ the Elephant Hurling fallacy, and tries to bury you in a mountain of text. When his logical fallacies are exposed, and his science is demonstrated to be inaccurate he just falls back to denial like so many others.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Well, for example, if it is only possible for things to be created from things (something rather than nothing), that means that God could not have created things out of nothing either. One could say that God made material things out of himself, but that would be impossible to do in a manner that is consistent with your claim unless God himself were material. Otherwise what you call "nothing" could actually be all the conceivable "non-material" elements from which material things could have been formed, of which God is but one conceivable possibility.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom *i have yet to see where my logic fails. keep trying.*
You likely never will, as you cannot accept that your copy and paste arguments could be flawed. I gave you detailed refutations that addressed your arguments in a point by point format, giving explanations why they don't work, and why the reasoning is fallacious. I supplied responses that addressed the ENTIRE argument, both the premises and the conclusion.
In response, you copy and pasted A SINGLE LINE OF MY REPLY, and dismissed it with a glib comment or reply, while ignoring or omitting the arguments I gave as a whole. You then once again posted excessive, and often unrelated PAGES of text in a copy and paste format, which once again made use of the ELEPHANT HURLING FALLACY. Your replies to my refutations were little more than DENIAL OF FAULTS, followed by copy and pasting the exact same flawed arguments again.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom So at some point, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer to you as well? I might have guessed! Our ignorance catches up with us all. Some just recognize it sooner than others.
Unfortunately, the program is more about entertainment - in this case, the same sense of entertainment that's derived from being compelled to look at a dead squirrel in the middle of the road - than elucidation.
Otangelo just regutgitates the absolute worst theist arguments as if they are being presented for the first time. It really is painful to listen to the same failed, unrefined arguments.
guess this guy never heard of passive solar systems ?
Nature does not suddenly show up with a human or a complex cell.. it’s stars with something really really simple and it evolves through changes over time (very simply put). Please read Darwin’s theories explains his lack of understanding of evolution
Jamie and Otangelo both love to hear their own voice.
If we exist and prior was no - thing then we have evidence of something coming from nothing. (That's me arguing like Theists do.)
Why doesn't any of these religious explain how their god created the universe. Where did the god get the material from, did he have a factory somewhere? Or did he magic the whole universe?
Unnecessary baby talk ad nauseum.
Otangelo has been doing the rounds:
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/04/fun-and-games-with-otangelo-grasso.html?m=1
From nothing nothing comes except when god does it.
Also what is nothing ?
He talks about nothing like it's something
and this nonsense is why Ortangelo is not allowed to call in anymore lol
Well since Christians are so concerned with where things come from......where did god come from?
*davids* You're creating a god that Christians don't testify of. Christians have never said God came *FROM* somewhere, for if He did, that is not the God of the bible, for God is omnipresent. Then too, if He came *FROM* s/where, that means He's not already here. God transcends time & space. That is the short answer, but because we believe God created e/thing, how then would *YOU* explain the origin of life if I may ask?
@@Kman. on earth we can't tell as we don't have a time machine, but we know abiogenesis is possible from some specific conditions that allow life early life to form and that our version of life is likely not the only to exist as seen under hugh acidic conditions we've seen cells with non carbon chain but arsenic.
To add on; arguing for a god outside of time is pointless as existence is dependent on being temporal so to say your god doesn't exist in time is stating that it cannot exist.
@@megabeaver23 "On earth we can't tell..." What is *THAT* supposed to mean? smh
*2ndly* ....it's abiogenesis (sorry, but never has/never will), or creation. *THOSE* are your choices.
*3rdly* I'm not arguing for God "OUTSIDE" of time
@@Kman. you stated god was outside of time and space and I pointed out that arguementively means god can't exist as being a temporal entity is part of existing and saying it did not exist at any time is synonymous with that.
For my statement about what occured on earth, that is entirely my point as we cannot go back in time to know the exact nature of the planet to examine if abiogenesis was caused by a reducing atmosphere, under sea volcanic vents or maybe a third option we don't know for which gave the conditions for abiogenesis to occur. Another hypothesis that has credence is directed/undirect panspermia in which early nucleotides came to earth outside our solar system as we've uncovered meteorites that had base nucleotides needed for early pre-life.
@@Kman. Having explanations for everything has no bearing on the non-acceptance of the assertion that magical beings explain everything, because that’s just a total non-answer with no explanatory power, no matter how much you think it does it explains nothing.
If nothing can not come into existence from nothing where did your god get all the materials to create the whole universe...did he magically snap his fingers and all the materials came into existence to create the whole universe...lol
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Actually seeking truth with regard to origins requires a certain honesty about what we do not already know. If we are honest about what we don't know, we keep an open mind and keep looking for an answer. If we kid ourselves into thinking we already know the answer, we stop looking and we will not find the truth.
Yes, actually seeking truth means a willingness to say, "I don't know", the very thing you say is unacceptable. Oh well.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom "Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false."
To actually do this, you must demonstrate that you know and understand ALL the conceivable alternatives to your proposition enough to be able to eliminate them. And the only way this can possibly work is if you exclude ALL unfalsifiable propositions from the outset. If you do not, there will be a subset of propositions that by their very nature cannot be eliminated.
But if you are prepared to actually eliminate all unfalsifiable propositions from the outset, that means you must either eliminate your own proposition or show how it can be falsified.
🤦🏼♂️
So creator is eternal he always existed "which is impossible" and some point after infinity that creator get idea to create universe? This caller says universe had to be come somewhere "first cause" but creator not? This is logical fallacy! God not need creation but universe does?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
So what cause god?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
There had to be cause behind god! God can't become nothing?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
So you say god maybe omnipotent eastern bunny who knows? Because he lives outside universum some timeless bubble he not need to be created it is necessary being who just creates universums because why not!?!
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
So this god being omnipotent eastern bunny or what ever! Created universe 13 billion years ago and put laws there like physics and mathematics but why the hell make it so huuuge? I mean if it created for us smaller department would be just fine or is it not just for us? And why make it so hostile for us i mean is this thing you know perfect right? Or does it even care for us because it busy to creating other universums? Are we just production of this material physical laws? Can you clarify this herr grasso?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
Why not just keep answers simple and coherent so everybody understant it!!! It's wearing to read this answers which say same thing over and over again also use layman terms ok herr grasso? Or do you copy paste this texts some christian pseudo site? Ok god just not need creation because daa he is supernatural entity which somehow exist outside our universe and poof make universes some reasons??? Also naturalism is not true!? Problem just is if philosophical naturalism is not true then there should be something supernatural phenomenoms going on our universe or purely be supernatural laws and mechanics which make this universe work! But looks like our universe works trough natural laws! Why is this? If god is supernatural origin why our universe seems not to be? Of course if you can show or prove there are supernatural force/forces this universe then naturalism not work! Can you give me actual proof this kind of supernatural macigal thing? I love to see evidence of unicorns and tooth fairys pleeeas?
Otangelo, is one of those typical apologists that follows a script trying to lure people into accepting things that they simply dont. Its very dishonest, you can hear how it throws him up when people dont accept his bad assertions. And instead of justifying an assertion he just rambles on until someone says " okay lets just pretend i accept it" to finally get to the actual point.
He clearly doesnt understand evolution in any way or form. Asserts design because of his own ignorance and personal incredulity. Its all such standard stuff that has been refuted atleast 20 years ago. Since we know how evolution works we also understand how something can get the appearance of design but because we know how this proces works we know it wasnt designed. I think Otangelo is one of those people that looks at a cloud and sees a puppy and then feels justified its the work of undetectable pink flying micro elephants farting a puppy cloud. We recognize design by knowing how it was made.
The sickening thing is that people like him prey on ignorance and gullibility of others.
haha Jamie did very well, cornering Otangelo with his own failure about how to compare design and then jumps to, but not for the universe..... wtf..
And then again that moronic phrase " something cannot come from nothng" which nobody other then dishonest creations say crap like that.
Nobody makes the claim there ever was a nothing. I dont even know if its possible to have an absolute nothing.
And there it is.. the assertion " but my god didnt have a beginning..." he just exists for no reason and he had all knowledge and then started making things out of nothing... etc etc etc.... its just so incredibly dumb. All just faith based nonsense.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom And again more scripts from you. Copy paste from some moronic websites that have nothing to offer but faith based ignorance and assertions.
All arguments have long time been refuted and there really isnt any point on going at that again. There is no irreducable complexity, just creationist not understanding it and again faith based assertions.
All arguments here are just copied down and never worked before. its just bad premises and again ignorance and faith based assertions. one failure after another.
I dont have to give a better explanation, you dont have an explanation either, only a faith based assertion based on ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. You pretend to know which is faith. And faith will never ever be an acceptable justification.
Sorry but you are a failure at this aswell.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom And again more scripted bullshit.
You dont have evidence, you only have bad philisopical arguments that have been refuted for decades already entirely based on ignorance and dishonesty. You keep failing because you arent intellectually honest.
All you have is faith.. the most dishonest and selfdeceptive position a person can hold. Everything you said is a complete scripted fail.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom You simply fail at every step along the way because you have no clue what you are talking about. You dont know shit about evolution or any other topic other then what other creationist (professional liars for jebus) have said. Their job is it to sell you the nonsense you already wanted to hear. The fact everything you have posted and have said is entirely scripted shows this already.
And the funniest thing is you are doing this for a completely unjustifiable imaginary god concept. A specific one we already know doesnt exist. Because the god of the bible cannot possibly exist based on the claims of the bible.
We know jesus is a fictional character probably based on a traveling conartist/faith healer. And everything that lead up to him comming also never happened. the illness of christianity has no more place in this world.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom You don't understand chemistry do you. I strongly suggest you stop relying on arguments from apologist websites and enrol in some educational classes to better your scientific understanding. Then you wont have to continually copy/paste and will actually be able to construct your own arguments.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom So this is another god of the gaps fallacy. You do realize that scientist do have a very good understanding how how DNA formed. That Miller-urey for example also shown that the building blocks for life do form on its own under certain circumstances.
The problem here again is you only get your information and thus ignorance from creationist websites and other dishonest lying ministries. There are more then enough sources you can find that do explain this. But even if we couldnt explain it yet, you just made an god of the gaps fallacy.
You have no arguments, you have no evidence for your position you only have willfull ignorance, gullibility and dishonesty. aka faith.
Frustration in huge amounts in this. You guys are so patient, but the answer, in my mind is simply to say "we know what a car, which is designed by humans look like (if we weren't grown up deep in the Amazon jungle with no interaction with them before), but we don't know what a universe made by a god, using design, would look like, so it's not EVIDENCE, simply a poor effort at trying to use argument by analogy - a logical fallacy.
Now, if you really have evidence, present it to a peer reviewed journal.
Otangelo Grasso It’s not unlikely given that we are here to talk about it. The universe does not “obey” laws, the laws describe its reality.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom The probability of a universe developing to allow complex life is 100% if complex lifeforms are discussing it.
Otangelo Grasso You can repeat yourself as many times as you like, you remain incorrect. By the way, what exactly is the probability of an entity which exists outside the realms of space & time (breaking all known natural laws) which creates a medium sized planet for the existence of a bipedal primate which then is expected to worship said entity, this entity also having created a multitude of other stars & planets in a galaxy before going on to create a myriad of other galaxies all of which have sod all to do with the worshipping primates??
I’ll await the probability calculation of that with interest.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom You can regurgitate as much shit as you like, you lack originality & you lack any semblance of actually understanding the arguments being made.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom That is like saying, "Hey, either the universe was created by the mating of two universes in a "big bang" (my hypothesis incorporating British slang) or it wasn't", and that the negation of my hypothesis is the sole "alternative hypothesis" that I need consider, and that as such it can be proven or disproven. That's ridiculous. That would assume that I knew and understood enough about all the possible alternative explanations, including some that may not even been thought of yet, to rule them all out!
Otangelo Grasso Have you cioncluded that you may be wrong.... maybe something can come from nothing... Maybe it's a a propery of nothing... that it alwayss leeads to something ... maybe the impossibily of nothing means that, teality conformt into something.
Saying that something cant come from nothing... does not make it a facct..
32:12 ... a decider ... So George W. Bush is god!
Not this guy again
Yeah you should see his cut-paste responses to threads in this comment section. He's been proven wrong with his fallacies and assertions time and time again and refuses to admit his errors, or even remotely considers rethinking his arguments, and acknowledging the points of others. It's like he thinks he can never be wrong and is not liable to prove anything, just because.
Holy shit this is hard to watch.
Write a paper to prove ure crap n let it be viewed by experts in the field ! Why waste time with him
First 😱?!
not very bright this guy. We know that cars are created, because all examples of cars are known to be created. So what? That's in no way an argument for ID. Show me the examples of nature, which are known to be created...
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom If it is impossible to observe God or get any empirical evidence for God, on what basis can we make any claims about God's composition and how simple or complex it may be?
He has no understanding of Evolution. Total waste of time.
Im an Atheist but man your analogies suck and you interruptway to much and you misunderstand what he is stating and you talk way to much... just let the man tell you his whole argument first then destroy it.
A Creator God is a logical necessity based on the contingent nature of the physical universe.
Because the physical universe is contingent, it is not eternal. (Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of origin, cessation, or change, in effect, eternity means no past, present, or future; it is an eternal “now,” but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in creation, living, changing, and dying, ergo matter and energy are not eternal) Every physical (natural) entity is contingent and therefore has a cause, and because causal chains cannot be of infinite
length, because that would be an effect without a cause, if you were able to follow the causal chain back to the very beginning where the very first physical entity was effected into being, it's cause HAD to be supernatural, since the “natural” was not yet in existence, something cannot come from nothing, something cannot “be” before it “is,” and nothing can create itself (not even God). The reality of the impossibility of infinite causal chains also refutes any notion of a “multiverse” that some have posited as an explanation of the eternality of the universe, and it also nullifies the question “where did God come from?” that some have posed when God is explained as the ultimate cause of the universe.
Others (like Stephen Hawking) have foolishly said that we cannot talk about the origins of the universe since time itself did not exist before the universe began to expand at the Big Bang, so we just cannot know. However, since time is the progression of sequential relationships between two or more contiguous events, if there was indeed a point when there was no such thing as time, but assuming the universe did exist in some previous form, be it as a singularity, a quantum vacuum, or whatever, then because there was no time, then there would be no progression from the universe’s previous condition from “A” where there was no time to, “B” where there is time. Hence, if there was a point when there was no time, then there never would be time unless some supernatural (outside of nature) force created it.
Contingent beings are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings in the ultimate sense. Frederick Copelston once said, “If you add up chocolates, you get chocolates after all and not sheep. Therefore if you add up contingent entities, you are still left with contingent entities, and not an eternal one”: therefore there must exist a necessary, non-contingent, supernatural being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent, physical beings are derived (Hebrews 11:3).
Otangelo knows jack shit about the universe. Urgh. Dunning Kruger effect at its finest.
Are you from China or Taiwan?
@@khanhminhnguyen7274 Taiwan.
@@user-gb7ji6xy5d
Is Christianity on the rise in Taiwan as it is in China?
@@khanhminhnguyen7274 Nope. China has their own cardinal appointed by the government and Vatican has no say on it, and is pretty much an atheistic nation save for small pockets of believers as much as I know. There are believers of every major religion save for perhaps Hinduism and Islam in Taiwan but none of them are prominent. Taoism has been kinda the norm but we aren't particularly fervent or devoted to it. Annual ancestral worship and Taoist holidays have become things-we-do with little to no religious emotion mixed in. Why do you ask?
@@user-gb7ji6xy5d
I grew up in a Buddhist family. I read Tao Te Ching, the Analect, and Bhagavad Gita and see that how Eastern religions look at sentient beings' sufferings and value life.
When I heard a report that Christianity is on the rise in China, I wonder how the Chinese can throw away what Confucian, Lao Tzu, and Buddha taught about how to value human life in order to adopt a religion that teaches everyone is born inherent evil and deserves eternal torture unless they are redeemed through Jesus. I don't understand that.
It is good to hear that Taiwanese do not catch up with this trend. You have no idea how toxic Christianity is to people's psyche. I am living in the USA now and I can tell you that Christians are not people who are meek and nice as their deity commanded them. They are very authoritarian. Even moderate Christians think like Otangelo.
I am very fortunate that I learned evolution in Vietnam and I was done with high school before I immigrated to the USA. With the rise of creation extremists like Otangelo, can you imagine what people like him can do to children in high school?
Yeah dude we get the shit analogy, stop explaining it, it’s not getting any better, still awful
Evidently Otangelo gave up intelligence for intelligent design. Looks like his sanity is in a black hole somewhere. He's arguing for intelligent design with unintelligent non-designed arguments. The hosts & crew member deserve a star for putting up with this. Otangelo believes god gave him the moon. God mooned Otangelo. Otangelo believes in intelligent design but doesn't believe in intelligence. Man makes the universe. This man makes no sense. Otangelo is one psych ward away from being a flat earther.
I thought I'd come up with more jokes/puns. I'm disappointed in myself, but not as much as Brazil's education system.
Sounds like he either brainwashed or have mental illness...
Sad part is. Religion will prey on mentally Ill
Noting can come from noting. Before the universe there was noting. God created the universe. God is nothing.