There Are Only Two World Views? | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.04
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 02. 2019
- Talk Heathen 03.04 for January 27, 2019 with Eric Murphy & Hector Garcia.
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.
You guys are making it too hard for him to stick to his script.
Hahaha
How very unkind of you.
Haha! Yes. This was definitely a case of someone simply waiting to speak, not a dialog or discussion. He couldn't answer a question. Just move on to his next point.
Keep knocking him off that piece of crap script. Truly a dim light of the universe 😐
It's not his script it's Darths
OrangeJello: My god MUST exist!
Eric: How do you know?
OrangeJello: Because my god MUST exist!
and repeat for 46 minutes
nightmare :)
100%.
God is a turtle
Orange jello is just to funny
This man just dishonored my home country... Such a disgrace
He’s a logical fallacy machine
They didnt even catch all of them
@@reclusiarch6524 I couldn't catch them all with a comically large bug net.
Is he really that confused, or is he just trolling?
i came to this via the previous chat they had with him that i came to because i was trying to avoid an intelligent design chat before that. sheesh. otangelo will in the future become an alternative to darth dawkins.
He's amazing! A beautiful mind!
There are only two possible world views, either the universe was created by an invisible pink dragon or it was not.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom: No, because all those other possible beings that might have created the universe (such as your god) fall under the worldview where the universe was not created by an invisible pink dragon.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom : It is a necessary invisible pink dragon... Really this whole line of argument is totally specious: Sure there may be a fundamental fabric (and process) behind reality from which everything else is constituted (strings or something like that are a candidate in physics) and that isn't itself contingent, but there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for attaching human attributes to it. Intelligence is something that has evolved, so that we can avoid rocks and otherwise survive to reproductive age. All that religions have really done is take an image of dad and stuck him up in the sky somewhere, far enough away that nobody can notice that he is not really there.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom The objection doesnt fail.
A limitless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent and personal creator should have been created by the invisible pink dragon who also created the universe and put this creator to manage the universe, or the invisible pink dragon only created the universe and no one is managing the universe. Therefore a limitless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent and personal creator is not necesary for the existence of the universe, only the invisible pink dragon is necesary.
Julian so god is just middle-management 😃
I'm pretty sure it was a teal colored dragon. C'mon! Get your mythology right!
"Hey Otangelo, how do you get from Los Angeles to Long Beach?"
"Well...I once was at a Kentucky fried chicken in Toledo..."
Oh yes the famous ontanglogical argument.
I believe it's spelled otangelogical... but yes... that's what it is.
@@mazingdaddid 'Ontological'
@@AsixA6 it's a pun
@@mazingdaddid *Hahaha, forgot who the caller was!!*
@@mazingdaddid *In that case it's 'Otangillogical'. lol*
"Give me your best"
"No"
I hate when people have a script that they'll stick to no matter what. There's no discussion to be had there, it's just an attempt to get certain reactions out of people.
@THE PEOPLE SING That's right, they don't! There IS no "atheist message"!
How ironic that you would declare others guilty of projection while simultaneously being guilty of it yourself.
Otangelo “are the pixies intelligent or are they Not?”
All of us: “Otangelo are you intelligent or are you Not?”
I like Otangelo’s name very much.
I do not care for Otangelo’s brain...
Very Much!
For someone who is so set on dichotomies, its ironic that he can't seem to answer simple yes or no questions...
Otangelo is a magnificent dancer! The way he dances around all the questions and evidence shows he got the moves!
He and gary milne should become politicians, they would be perfect for it lmfao, the way they dodge questions and indirectly answer questions with questions would make even hillary clinton envious......
Eric is the Bob Ross of Atheism, so calm and oh thats add a little tree over here..... nicest guy on CZcams!
Omg, I was just thinking that he reminds me of Bob Ross when I read your comment. Lol
Gotta beat the theism out of it.
It drives me fucking nuts...
Personally I find his calmness can appear patronising/condescending. It's not clear what he's really thinking. I'd rather see Matt getting angry - at least you can be sure he's being genuine.
"The atheist have traditionally said..." Otangelo should try to listen what each individual atheist actually says.
Well, there are only two kinds of world views.
Mine... and all of the wrong ones.
Had to delete and repost this to get away from the nutball in the video sticking to his script in my comment, too. Can't think for himself at all.
Eric, you have the patience of a saint. Pun intended. 😂
Otangelo, "Well, assuming that God made us, how can we come to any other conclusion than that God made us?"
Side step, side step, back track, back track. Arguments from magic. LOL.
Sounds like the classic fallacy: the cha cha slide from deflection.
"SIDE STEP!! EVERYBODY PLUG YOUR EARS!!"
Otangelo Grasso good question but I'm not sure how it actually applies.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom "If God as a causal agent is excluded, the only two alternatives to explain the origin of the universe are either an eternal universe in some form, or it came into existence without a cause" this is a false dichotomy, a god is not necesary for the existence of the universe, a farting pixie could have created the universe, a burping invisible pink dragon could have created the universe, the universe could be a simulation in the matrix (solipsism). These are just some examples of how existence of the universe goes.
You choose to believe god is the right answer supported by fallacies, atheist prefer to be honest and say there is not enough evidence to support either claim so they stay neutral and respond "I dont know".
If atheism is a claim of ignorance, then theism is a claim of deceit.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom "and magic without a magician makes sense ? how ?"
*You're the only one claiming magic. I'm glad to see you admit to believing magic is real though. It says all we need to know about you.*
"So the question is, which option makes the most sense?"
*The non-existence of 'god' things.*
"Thus, the evidence against the existence of God is evidence of God."
*WOW!!!! Wholey fuck, dude! You're in-fucking-sane!!! According to your dumb ass, evidence for your 'god' thing, is evidence for your 'god' thing and evidence against your 'god' thing is also evidence for your supposed 'god' thing. AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!! Heads you win, tails you win!!! LMFAO!!!! That's some funny shit.*
Apparently, he wont answer a single question - fearing the answer would be uncomfortable.
Otangelo the answer to Life the Universe and Everything is 42. Come on catch up.
I can't help but think of Hitchhikers Guide whenever he says Life the Universe etc....
I like how sarcastic Eric sounds when he talks. It's like he's talking to a baby
He IS talking to a baby! A big, beautiful, smooth brained baby.
Who’s to say that a “creator” has to be “intelligent” and “powerful”. What if God is a complete idiot and was making celestial hot chocolate and just dropped the crockpot and bam 💥 UNIVERSE.
Also who's to say that a God didn'tmake the universe and then ceased to exist.
Being a non believer in Brazil is terrible, people are like this guy all the time
We have never observed "nothing"', the absence of space-time. So how do these theists know so much about it?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
No - you don't know that. You can't. No-one can.
Humanity has never been able to observe _nothing_ and hence can make *_NO_* determination about whether something can come out of it or not.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom , I don't understand how you come to know this.
You seem to be basing your conclusion on the fact that it doesn't happen in the observable universe, inside of space-time. Even the nothingness of the void of deep space has properties, a bubbling fluctuation of energy fields, so this is very different from the idea of true nothingness, everything we have ever seen has been inside of space-time and has acted in the laws of it, so we can't make any claims about what would or would not happen in the absence of the universe.
We don't even know if there could ever be such a state as true nothingness, an absence of anything, so I don't know how you can claim absolute knowledge of it.
Mathematically it's possible for a universe to arise from nothing, The same tool to which we use to understand anything to the level of which we do and currently can. This doesn't mean this is what happened, only that it is a possibility.
For all we know true nothingness 'always' give rise to the infinite possible ways that a system can equal 0, nothing. Just as the Estimated total mass and energy of the universe appears to be very close to 0, or how 2 virtual particles can pop into existence (one matter, one antimatter, the total energy of both is 0, (+1)+ (-1) = 0). I don't believe that this is the correct explanation of reality, and won't believe in any hypothesis of why there is something rather than nothing until there is a way of testing a hypothesis, just in the same way that I would never say that something can never come from absolutely nothing.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom "i only know that something does not arise from absolutely nothing."
*If something has always existed, then something did not have to 'arise from absolutely nothing'.*
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Thanks for the 'recap' on particle physics, it's all very interesting to me. However none of it states that something can't come from nothing
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
"haha. Yes i can."
Bullshit - Humanity has never been able to examine 'nothing' so cannot describe any possible properties or attributes of 'nothing.'
For all we know, 'something' will *_ALWAYS_* come out of 'nothing.'
This aside, it's a complete straw man argument anyway. Nobody is really asserting that we know that anything *_DID_* come from 'nothing.'
"Turtles the whole way down", beautiful.
I think Matt would say that the Pixies may be intelligent but their farts are not.
@Amy Xoxo a Bright reference? Really?
Or maybe it was just the other way around.
Otangelo is as sharp as a bowling ball.
He started with a dichotomy then said there are only 3 options?
Eric has such a soothing voice, I want to harness it and weave it into a blanket and wrap myself in it
Ricktus M ASMR voice
40:30 - apart from the fact that this is yet *another* perfect example of the caller not bothering to actually answer the question; if according to Genesis, god made everything good and it was made worse by the fall of Adam and Eve - that means he created Adam and Eve badly; he made an ERROR.
I seriously need to take notes from Eric on how to respectfully tell someone to slow down and say one thing at a time lol I just glaze over
Otangelo Grasso? If so, a number of things show up via google. The first url is from 2017, and is a blogger who says Otangelo suffers from Dunning-Kruger.
More like Down's Syndrome (although the two aren't mutually exclusive). Anyways. Sorry to the folks with Down's Syndrome who haven't succumbed to willful ignorance that see this.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Why should the naturalism should refute ID proponents but the ID have not this obligation? Is this a special plea fallacy?
Anyway the ID get short in his explanatory power when it proposes a unexplainable, untestable and infalsable being as the origin of anything that tries to explain.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom "Namecalling is the last refuge of those who cannot disprove an opposing point of view."
*You've given no proof to disprove.*
@@enumaelish1118 *I have a tangelo tree and it's just as fruity as Otangelo.*
If Eric created the universe, I am going to hold him personally responsible.
So patient. It amazes me. There is no way I could do this show.
Gawd, what a dishonest sot.
poor Otangelo, his apologetics are rough and 4th rate. I would like to have him actually answer the question asked
Otangelo sent me a request. I accepted. I usually lol at his lunacy. Occasionally, he posts/ says something unrelated to religion that I agree with.
The universe had a beginning, as far as we can tell.
We have no idea if the cosmos did, which is essentially the set of all things that exist, which includes our universe.
The universe is all. You maybe mean "continuum".
Otangelo's mind is perfectly broken. He'll never escape his madness.
I have noticed that when I go out, I sometimes get wet.
So I've got this theory that there is something causing the wetness.
I will call it "water" and we need to find a way of controlling it.
I propose that we collect donations to fund the construction of a container for the water.
I just want to point out that his English level is too low for this conversation. He understands like 35% of what y'all are saying
There are three ways to understand the world:
1) Science, which means observing, studying, testing, measuring and then reaching to conclusions.
2) Philosophy, which is trying to reach to conclusions just using logical thinking,
3) Religion, which is making up the conclusions that you like best.
Not only are there are not only two world views, there are about as many world views as there are conscious beings to view the world.
9:58
Asking about the feelings. I like this!
Gostei da honestidade nalguns momentos da chamada, Otângelo. É necessário sermos honestos e admitir quando não sabemos, e esta gente demonstra-o muito bem. Continua a fazer perguntas, e a estudar a natureza da razão, da lógica, e da evidência. Também são importantes os tipos de falácias de pensamento que frequentemente cometemos, (por muito inteligentes que sejamos, os nossos cérebros são falíveis). Acho que se leres alguns dos trabalhos do Richard Dawkins ou até mesmo A Origem das Espécies do Darwin, que poderás apreciar uma perspectiva diferente sobre quanto daquilo que referiste nos é inato como espécie, ou não.
I liked the honesty at some moments in the call, Otangelo. We need to be honest and admit when we don't know something, and these guys demonstrate it really well. Keep asking questions, and studying on the nature of reason, logic and evidence. The types of thought fallacies we commit are also important (no matter how intelligent we are, our brains are fallible). I think if you read some of Richard Dawkins works or even Darwin's Origin of the Species you might appreciate a different perspective on how much of what you referred here is innate to us as a species or not.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom *Like I stated in another thread, you need to stop citing the crap websites that you do. Only a brain dead theist would not realize how unconvincing citing a religitard website would be.*
I hate when people assume that Atheistism is a religion or have certain beliefs. I've never felt that a label should put on me because I don't think a God exists.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom *False. There are theistic and atheistic religions, but neither are religions. There is no requirement for a theist to be part of a 'religion', just belief that a 'god' thing exists. The same is true for atheism.*
"A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion,"
*False. It was declared to have the same RIGHTS as religions do.*
"Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians"
*Yes, Buddhists can definitely be more religious than supposed 'x-tians'.*
"Consider the rise of “atheist churches,”"
*Consider the majority of atheists that aren't part of these 'recovering from religion' atheist churches. AGAIN, atheism is not a religion, it's a human lack of belief that invisible magicians exist.*
All hail our lord Eric and his legions of universe farting pixies. May his hold button be ever merciful
Think I missed the bit about the science said the earth had a beginning, can you get him to repeat it 😂 well done guys, you handle it with grace.
This was the longest version of the clockmaker-analogy.
Pixies AREN'T intelligent? I don't agree. I think it takes a lot of intelligence to figure out how to fart a universe into existence.
Nah, man. They didn't figure anything out. Their universe-creating farts are obviously just an involuntary biological function.
Nomad94 I can confirm iv studied these pixies extensively
Think of Azathoth the mindless chaos who vomits universes into existence constantly. The pixies are like that, only plural.
So you had to figure out how to fart? Sounds unintelligent to me..
J Mal thank pixies for logical discourse like this
The callers script reading is almost impressive.
How this was allowed to go on for 46 minutes is beyond me.
I'm from Brazil 🇧🇷 and non believer. I like you guys
"I'm not doing a gaps arguement" proceeds to immediately use the god of the gaps
The superiority of the hosts debating and reasoning skills are laid bare in this clip.
Otangelo struggles because he is used to debating using text where he can just Gish Gallop and dump pages and pages of irrelevant information not related to anything in the discussion and provide endless links to pages on his blog then claim victory when his opponents become fustrated at this dishonest method of arguing.
It is difficult to debate this way verbally, of course he tries by throwing out topic after topic and not listening to the hosts responses as he tries to preach but they are very good at cutting him off and pointing out that he has not listened or answered their questions.
I honestly think otangelo just needs to become a better listener and debater, perhaps then his reasoning skills will improve and he might actually learn something
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom not only do you demonstrate a misunderstanding of what science says about the origins of life, and the origins of the universe but you also show that you still have much to learn with regards to reason and logic......you use fallacy after fallacy in your arguments and yet even after these fallacies are pointed out you still continue to use them.
You don't know how to listen, you consistently fail to answer the hosts questions or acknowledge their points and it gives the appearance that you do not want to debate, you just want to preach.
Sorry otangelo but by watching these videos it is clear that you are very poor at this and your arguments very weak (you even use arguments copied from William Lane Craig that have been debunked and refuted for decades now)
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom this is a fine example of your refusal to listen.....I've refuted many of your claims on other posts....Happy to do so again, shall we start with recognising design, argument from ignorance, the origins of the universe, or special pleading?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom any particular subject?
The origins of the universe could be interesting.....you claim the universe has a beginning therefore it must have a cause, but we know what caused this universe - the big bang
Now we don't know what (if anything) caused the big bang....yet....but what caused the big bang is a different question to what caused the universe
I think this is one of your many large errors worth discussing
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom ah yes Kalam...
This has been debunked so many times to see someone still attempt to use it is hilarious.
The big bang was a very sudden and rapid expansion of time and space that created the universe as we know it including space and time.
Whatever happened before the big bang is currently unknown, indeed the term "before" could even be meaningless as time did not exist.
You want to claim God as a cause, this is highly illogical and wraught with problems:
1. It is an argument from ignorance - a logical fallacy - we don't know what, if anything, caused the big bang, you just want to assert "therefore God".
2. Special pleading - You want to assert God as an explanation without any sort of demonstration of God's existence and with no explanation of how God did anything - not only is this yet another logical fallacy but you are trying to solve a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery
3. Assertions without demonstration - you assert without demonstrating that something cannot come from nothing, how do you know this? How can we test this? After the point of singularity the known laws of our universe breakdown and we have no way to test, observe or assume anything, the known laws of our universe today may not apply, besides how can we claim anything about "nothing" when we have never observed "nothing"?
Even attempting to define it makes it a something, the very notion of "nothing" may in fact be impossible.
Yet you claim to KNOW that something cannot come from nothing? How did you test this? How can you demonstrate this claim?
The simple fact is - beyond the big bang, we don't know much of anything, and to claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest, unless you can demonstrate what you claim
You assert lots of biblical characteristics of your God but without any demonstration or explanation of how or why you know these things or any way to falsify or test these claims...
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom it's amusing that you've kind of demonstrated my point that you are incapable of reasoned debate, I think you are getting desperate.
How many times does the logical fallacy of "Gish Gallop" also known as "truth by verbosity" have to be explained to you? Please just Google it
Time and time again it's been explained and pointed out and yet you still continue to engage in it, over and over again.
It's a documented fallacy by logicsticians usually used by those with weak arguments who don't want to engage or debate and instead just want to get rid of their opponents by bombarding them with an overwhelming amount of information that has nothing to do with the discussion.
You're backed into the corner.....so this is your only option, a perfect example of cognitive dissonance, you are trying to protect your beliefs by shielding yourself against reality and closing off your mind to opposing views.....you don't want to reason, listen, or debate, you just want to preach.
Not only are you being fallacious and dishonest, but also rude, I take the time to read your posts, absorb what you have said, and type up a personal response accordingly......the least you could do is offer me the same curtesy, but you can't because your arguments are too weak.
Now.....if you really want to have an actual reasoned discussion please just respond to one of my numbered points from my previous post.
Otherwise.....well if you read my original comment to this thread i think you'll see that you've demonstrated my point for me quite well
The universe in its current form has a beginning. That doesn't mean the universe isn't eternal.
Maybe Talk Heathen should create Otagelo's greatest hits.
" We have 3 methods at finding truth: Science, Philosophy and Theology ". From the mouth of Otangelo the great.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins.
the singularity has fallen out of favour. vilenkin was saying in a recent interview "not all quantum mechanical processes require a cause" - good enough for me.
I applaud Eric for his patience. I'd turn into The Hulk.
This guy is mental.
You know thiest are going on a script and not engaging in a honest argument when they just want to go on without questioning.
What a silly first question:- ... There are as many "World Views" as there are people who can hold one :0)
... and the rest is like pulling teeth...
Line of TURTLES....how cute!
energy can't be created nor destroyed (fact), so it's eternal; energy creates matter (fact and recently demonstrated)
matter resulted in our known universe. Everything that exists today is energy and matter, our brains are matter and chemical reactions.
Our experiences of this universe has created the logic, knowledge and so on as we understand it today. You don't need a creator for this.
The difference here is we actually have a universe in existence to look at!!!!!
This dude doesn't seem to realize that it's pointless to talk while others are talking.
Their expressions at 21:00 are me at that point.
I don't know why I feel sorry for Otangelo's wife
Number 1,000,000th definition of an eternal being .
It’s doctor Nick, Hi Everybody, Hi Dr Nick.
we do not know if the universe is not eternal.
And when asked a question, he goes to another subject
Seems everyone in this conversation would benefit from listening to the audio book by Lawrence Krauss, titled A Universe From Nothing.
otangelo should be able to tell US what the pixies are like, he knows all.
Two world views: I'm right and you're wrong.
Wait a minute...
No Otangelo, Science indicates that there is only so far back that we can know. That doesn’t equate to nothing existing, it equates with unknowable.
he only answers one of 20 questions, redirect , redirect , redirect , redirect
38:30. Beautiful Eric. Took my breath away.
There are several if not numerous ways 'life' came into being. None of them require magic.
Did no eye make the eye, did no ear make the ear. Yes. One hundred percent yes.
What?
We don't know what we don't know.
this is not a brazilian name, this is not a brazilian accent, this is no brazilian.
God created the universe farting pixies. Just kidding.
The Brazilian evangelical I know many. One asked me once you can’t see wind how do you know it’s real ?
Talking to a wall every time with this guy
I wish they could give us an example of "nothing". Scientists the world over would be incredibly interested in having some nothing to be able to observe it.
@@intelligentdesignacademy3460 a dictionary gives definitions. We have never at any point in human history witnessed a nothing. In fact i dont even know if nothing can exist. Because if it had properties..itd be something no?
It may very well be that nothing cannot exist in our universe but...i dont know. Right now it is merely a hypothetical.
I would love to ask Otangelo one vital question;
"Can you take one almighty furk to yourself?"
LOL! This Dude is like a Hypnotist.....We all fell asleep and mind numb at the same time. Does he do parties?
My God is like Mr Gregg, and it has a Leg for an Arm and an Arm for a Leg
I love how he thinks “ignorance” is an insult. Everyone is ignorant. Some of us acknowledge it.
As far back as Plato "I know that I now nothing" was understood by the Greek philosophers (it is attributed to Socrates but we don't even know if he said it!). It is the foundation of what has become the Socratic method however and is a much better way of looking at the world than the one read in the bible.
Ten seconds! I'm gone.
If I could be bothered to look up the definition of the word ‘obfuscator’ would it I wonder say ‘Otangelo’?
Otangelo Grasso it seemed you were being asked relatively straightforward questions which (to my ears) seemed to cause you to either in return answer with your own question or instead continue on with your own proposition. The problem here seems to be that the notion ‘something cannot come from nothing’ is entirely unprovable. How could anyone possibly know this to be so? Positing that some kind of god is therefore THE solution is just filling an empty box with the only other thing you can think of. Roll our clock back through the centuries and you will find humans believing things that, at that time, were not only regarded as true but could not be conceived of ever being shown as false. How wrong we were! However, whether we will EVER discover a first event, or a ‘nothing’, who knows?
Otangelo Grasso you’re repeating your behaviour from the show in suggesting that I stated something, in this case that ‘something CAN come from nothing’ and I clearly did not state this....anywhere. The statement ‘how could you possibly know that ‘something can’t come from nothing’ works just as well (or badly!) the other way around. I don’t intend to read long diatribes like the one you include here. I’m happy to live a life free from any god-belief but will be happy to adjust my situation when I can be shown that I’m wrong or unwise to so do.
Otangelo Grasso ‘to live for what you were created for’ is a claim for which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever. To attempt to construct a reasoned response that begins with such a statement is destined to fail and did. I note a further claim, namely of ‘another life’ , follows hot on the heels of the first. As I believe you wrote earlier, good luck with that one.
The third position is 'we don't know'.
He is incorrect that science says that the universe had a beginning.
The correct answer is that there is no current theory that establishes whether the universe had a beginning or not. Einstein did postulate the beginning of time, where all matter came from an infinitely compressed singularity via the mechanism of a big bang (e.g. the Big Bang Theory). As a consequence, he said our current understanding of physics breaks down and that space-time had a boundary or edge, and thus a beginning. Analysis of available data ultimately undermined Einstein's assumptions, however. That is, Einstein's theory was having difficulty explaining certain observations. The quantum theory of gravity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle better explained the available evidence.
Several cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that quantum physics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may mean that there is no boundary or edge to the universe as Einstein asserted; no need for a fixed point or beginning to the universe where physics breaks down. Thus, the universe may have always existed in some form (from Hawking and Mlodinow's Briefer History of Time).
According to Hawking:
"There is no edge of space-time at which we would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. We could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed."
So, there is no currently evidenced belief that there was ever nothing if it were ever possible for nothing to have been a thing. So, the correct answer to the origin of the current incarnation of our universe is "I don't know."
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom You cherry picked a quote from earlier in Hawking's book where he discusses Einstein's conclusions about space-time. I never denied Einstein made those claims. Unfortunately, you ignored the later quote I offered from Mlodinow's update of Hawking's book Briefer History of Time (2007) where it discusses the challenges to Einstein's theory using quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Evidence exists that challenged the Big Bang theory of a quantum singularity, A FACT THAT IS PRESENTED AFTER YOUR QUOTE. It is not settled science. There is no consensus.
Einstein's theory did not account for radiation that appears to be emitted by black holes. So, saying that a black hole "prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it" is not accurate nor justified by the evidence. This is one of many reasons why Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics were so important to cosmologists. If nothing escapes the gravitational field of a black hole, how is it that they emit certain kinds of radiation? This was a black-body problem that was actually discussed by Hawking after your quote. Quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle solves Hawking's black body problem. But, it makes no assertion as to whether or when the universe began. Nor does it say anything about the Cosmos.
Eventually, the book comes to the conclusion I quoted.
So, quoting that earlier passage in the book is intellectually dishonest.
As for the other single citation, a scientific consensus is not based on a single paper much less a few. If you read my response, I was not objecting to your belief that there was a beginning, merely that you assumed this was settled science. There is no consensus on this issue. One may very well emerge, but you're making a claim that is not supportable.
Regardless, even if there were a beginning of time, it does not mean your or any other God created the universe. All you have is "Science says there was a beginning, therefore God."
But for the moment, let's assume there was a beginning and the universe was somehow created by some entity. That provides no evidence for your Christian interpretation of God. The universe could have been created by universe farting pixies. It's also possible that Yahweh was sitting at the dining table with mamma and pappa God eating their sauteed Mister Mxyzptlk, Yahweh started choking on his food, Pappa God used the Heimlich on him and he vomited up our universe. It also could have been some random God that created the universe for the hell of it and left.
You have no evidence to support your claim, and you can't prove my claims incorrect, because you have no evidence either way. All you have is a presuppositional assertion that it's true. Furthermore, a belief in a creator at the beginning of time does not provide evidence for your Christian God.
I was merely challenging your assertion that "Science" claims what you claim it does . . . when it doesn't.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom You might find it interesting to look into the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. They are three aspects of the singular divine that brings into all being, regulates, and destroys to rebuild a new all. That trinity fulfills all the characteristics you listed.
Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation) [whatever that means.]
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known) [Irrelevant. Humans can create a hydrogen bomb. All you need to do is start the process. Who says a creator needs to be powerful if evolution can get you there?]
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
[Irrelevant]
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
[Irrelevant]
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
[Irrelevant]
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
[Irrelevant]
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
[Huh?]
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
[Don't know]
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
[Irrelevant]
• Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity)
[Huh?]
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
[Unnecessary, since once the process starts, there's nothing that indicates evolution won't get you there. Too many of these statements indicate you obviously don't believe in the scientific consensus on evolution. Kinda ironic given all of your Science assertions previously.]
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
[Irrelevant]
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
[Untrue, Hammurabi's code was written nearly 1800 years before the supposed birth of Christ and long before the first Christian bible was ever written. The moral codes of Confucious were derived 500 years before Christ. So, this is obviously a false statement. ]
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given) [It's these last two statements that really make me fearful of Christians. Basically, you're saying that if it wasn't for God, you would have no problem or compunction with murdering someone or stealing from them or raping women, children and animals. The only thing holding you back is God's law. That's some scary shit. Do you support slavery as it is written in the Bible?]
I don't need a better explanation. [Unsurprising.]
Your problem is the belief that you need one. [No, I don't need one. Thus, I don't believe. You're the one making the claim.]
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom *I am not interested in your ignorance and "I know" answer.*
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Nice God of the gaps response. I MUST KNOW, so God. Very scientific and rational of you.
"Did no eyes make the eye?"
How about..."Did no god make the god?"
"If you are so smart why don't you know everything?!"
What’s the name of a person that just waits their turn to talk?
I feel like a lot of time could have been saved by just accepting, for the sake of argument, that an omnipotent and omniscient god exists, that's responsible for the universe, reason and logic that is completely amoral, created no afterlife for us to go to, and gives literally no shits about what we do. In other words, a god that is indistinguishable from no god existing at all from a practical standpoint. Then we can actually have a conversation about Otangelo's god and why he believes his is correct.
The first thing you need to prove design is a proven designer,. You can’t prove a designer by assuming design or even proving design.
At 9:00 or so with the 3 options of "eternal creator", "nothing created the universe", "eternal universe".
O.K. let's grant a creator, even with that grant it misses so many obvious possibilities:
"that which created the universe died when it created the universe or has passed on in the last 14 or so billion years"
"the creator(s) moved on after creating this universe and moved on to another and doesn't care"
"the creator is timeless so it created the universe but cannot perceive our "time" because it is timeless".
i.e. Think about CZcams. There was a creation of CZcams (the iteration of material sciences, computers, graphics cards, video etc.) So right now there are millions/billions of streams of videos that other people are watching that you aren't. All of this content that COULD be watched by the creators but they can't see everything. Some of those creators in the dependency chain are already dead.
"What if the creator isn't timeless but that it's time is so much slower than ours. A hundred billion years of our time is a millisecond of it's life. The entire history of the universe has been less than a blink of an eye and our lives are measured in billionths of a nanosecond. We are metaphorically a firecracker that hasn't even finished popping"
"the creator(s) created this universe, got bored and is/are ignoring us or is really interested in beetles (and we are an annoyance) or really just loves looking at swirling galaxies"
So, even if you prove a singular creator that still exists, there is still a GIANT jump to suggest it would even care one iota about our daily lives.
Great answer! I really like the way you think.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
1. Agnosticism is simply the null hypothesis. I don't believe a claim until provided sufficient evidence and if new evidence comes to light I re-evaluate the claim.
2. Adding a "Holistic requirement" to add additional factors to make evidence "fit" suggests that the claim may not have merit. My computer works or it doesn't. Passing a crystal over it may be holistic, but doesn't help debug the sound card driver incompatibility.
3. This view is begging a binary approach by adding "Biblical" vs. "everything else" but discounts other religious approaches. If applied evenly one would have to add "does this evidence work within Islam? Shintoism? Animism? What would Zeus think?
4. Very few biologists appear to need to insert a specific deity within DNA/Change mechanics to justify the change in the population of species. There are many physical contradictions for intelligent design that are better explained by vestigial components of anatomy that used to be needed or divergent physical paths. Things like humans having an appendix, the path of the vagus nerve in giraffes, etc.
5. The evidence points more towards the influence of society for the evolution of different religions/philosophies than the intelligent manipulations of the reverse. Otherwise, we had this huge social detour where we had a holy text that demanded/condoned slavery, treated women like property, only to now realize that it may not be the right path. It is so odd that religion seems to trying to survive by adapting to advances in society and knowledge rather than religion advancing society and technology. Early Christianity seemed to be very communal with people being told to give up their worldly possessions and rejecting the concerns of government, yet now we have dominion-ism and prosperity Christianity that suggests that driving for wealth is a good thing because it can increase your ability to do good (and to tithe).
6. What is weird Agnosticism and even anti-theism is the PREFERRED default for the religious so long as it is not THEIR chosen deity. If you are Christian you are expected to NOT believe in Ra (and 4000+ other deities that you consider false) but believe in Yahweh. While another may believe in Xenu but doesn't believe in your god.
The fully agnostic position is simply accepting the 99.99% of everyone's beliefs that "every other god is false" and simply adding the 0.01% of their neighbor.
So it is taking that step of saying, "Hey you both are probably right about each other's deity. If you want me to pick one, show me some real evidence you are right and I'll reconsider."
7. There is no verifiable evidence of an infinite let alone an infinite creator otherwise this discussion wouldn't be happening. I think you are creating a logical argument and suggesting that is "evidence". Your claim does not have evidence, you admit it because you are saying it isn't testable. Evidence has to be testable or it isn't really evidence.
But using a logical argument is conjecture. You can have a logically sound argument and still be wrong. Yes, you can have an irrational argument and your conclusion could still be correct (i.e. the world is round because globe manufacturers make round globes. The claim used to support the conclusion isn't rational even if the conclusion is physically correct). I am seeing claims and producing simpler conjectures that do not require as many dependencies that equally solve the problem. Until you provide evidence for your more complex solution, it is more logical to go with the simpler answer.
8. Societies that have heavily Abrhamic religious influences that have typically purged local belief systems and records will have more opportunities to suggest that is correct. Is this world view taking on the positions of non-Abrahamic societies. What is they Mayan evidence of the bible? Why are several older mythologies (i.e. Babylonian/Sumerian) mythologies pre-dating similar myths of the bible? Why are you just discounting newer versions of this evidence like Islam and Mormonism. What compelled you to stop like Judiasm stopped with the Torah? It is weird that you don't you accept the newer information and have picked a particular stopping point and didn't continue along the religion's evolutionary path. Why?
9. Internal evidence? Internal evidence.... interesting term. Isn't "internal" just a flag for "cognitive bias?"
10. There is only a preponderance of evidence for your religion because you are not applying the same requirements for other religion's evidence to your own. Most elements of Judaism do not point to Jesus as the messiah, Islam suggests he was a prophet and Mormonism said he re-visited America so there isn't even a consistent world-view within the Abrahamic religions. If there was a preponderance of evidence, it seems odd that there are so many schisms looking at this compelling argument but not even agreeing to any core "truth" to the point where they have been killing each other for thousands of years.
So back to the original construct. If you had 3 inventors claiming they had the ONLY POSSIBLE perpetual motion machine that MUST replace the electrical grid. But one said it was powered by ether (so you can't have any open flames), the other by magic (so you better not wear any iron), another by cosmic rays (so you can't ever wear hats).
Then when you hooked them up to a tester, they sorta blinked and spun but really didn't provide any real consistent power. The inventors were fighting among each other and telling you to give them funding OR ELSE and trying to write laws to make sure you used the "ether power" etc.
Would you really trust them or would you plug your phone into the wall and keep them from shutting down the electrical grid?
And perhaps use that time and money they wanted to research better solar/geothermal/wind that has shown that it can provide energy and could be improved.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom just because you believe "your" God is real, doesnt mean it is. I say "your" because it's your imagination. Not mine.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom if you read the bible.... and you believe it after all the murder and killing of babies and acceptance of slavery, then you are either not reading the bible, or you are cherry picking "your" interpretations of said bible..... a picture is worth a thousand words, remember when you learned this in art class? Interpretation is a big part in "your faith." Faith, a fancy word for saying I believe because I do. But, it doesnt make "you" right. I'm not claiming I'm right, but I know bullshit when I see it. All religions are a scam, and you fell for it. Enjoy fearing for your life from an invisible sky dad, and a fear of ending up in a imaginary Hell if you arent accepting another man in your heart, who you also believe to be god. There is so much about the bible that is CLEAR metaphors, and you take literal word for word. This is "your" error.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom number 9, internal evidence? U mean delusions you think are evidence to "you."