i challenge you to watch this entire video and then respond

[Kershaw]

Based on all the problems stemming from christianity, judaism, and islam, i would think eliminating belief in the abrahamic god would do a lot of good.

I don't think that would be an ugly road. I also don't believe it would be an end to violence, but it eliminates one gigantic hurdle between humanity and world peace.

[shiftbmw]

OK, I'll bite. In this video he is attacking Christianity, not necessarily the existence of a creating entity.

I find it interesting how sure of ourselves we as humans are. That goes for both the religious and non religious. The question is bigger than "Is Christianity stupid?"

Prior to reading more, distance yourself from Christianity, Islam, or any other religion. They are irrelevant for what follows.

From a logical standpoint, we can agree that there is only one truth as far as whether or not a god exists. As such, I submit that we have two options:

1) There is a creating entity, that exists infinitely(relative to the universe), who created the universe and the laws that govern it
2) There is no creating entity, the universe exists infinitely as well as the laws that govern it

Science goes as far back as the big bang at the current moment(let's assume that it did in fact happen the way science perceives it). We'll skip M-theory for the moment as it's not widely accepted and highly theoretical. That said, the big bang simply explains the state our universe is in now. It does not explain why the stage was set for the big bang, nor does it explain what happened prior. Science doesn't address the question of whether or not the universe was created. It only addresses what happened after it may or may not have been.

That said, for the two options above, I assert that nobody has adequate evidence to make a 100% claim either way.The gentleman in the video confirms this, by stating that there is a chance a god exists. From here, I contend that we are left with three options:

1) Choose with conviction that a creating entity exists, rely on faith to maintain this view
2) Choose with conviction that no creating entity exists, rely on faith to maintain this view
3) Admit you don't know, have an open mind, continue to explore.


If you want to know, I consider myself an agnostic theist(which more or less means I choose option 3 above). When I view the world, I see intelligent design at this time. Accordingly, I lean towards the view that there is a creating entity at the moment. That said, I don't subscribe to much of the "morality" commonly associated with Christianity.

[Kershaw]

there is no evidence for a god existing, so that's not really a valid "logical" thought.

we arent going to say it's not possible, it is possible, it's just that without any evidence whatsoever the likelihood is infinitesimally small.. and to say that there are only 2 possible options is ridiculous. the universe is not binary. it is just as much a possibility that there are infinite gods that create infinite universes.

[shiftbmw]

there is no evidence for a god existing, so that's not really a valid "logical" thought.

The world itself is the evidence that I cite. When I view this world, I see it as the result of something designed. How is my conclusion invalid? You may disagree with my interpretation of the evidence, but I fail to see how your opinion on the matter is any more or less valid or logical.

and to say that there are only 2 possible options is ridiculous. the universe is not binary. it is just as much a possibility that there are infinite gods that create infinite universes.

Fair point, and one I agree with. Editing my post to replace "god" with "creating entity" to speak to this.

[Kershaw]

The world itself is the evidence that I cite.

please research circular logic and get back to me.

[Cliche Guevara]

The world itself is the evidence that I cite. When I view this world, I see it as the result of something designed. How is my conclusion invalid? You may disagree with my interpretation of the evidence, but I fail to see how your opinion on the matter is any more or less valid or logical.

How do you apply intelligent design (ID) to your worldview? Conventionally it has been used to explain away things that science does not yet fully understand. Sir Isaac Newton, for example, concluded The Principia that the orbits of planets are only able to remain stable because god is intervening. Newton was, to borrow a phrase for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, at the limits of his knowledge and unnecessarily invoked an intelligent creator. What's the harm in that, you might be wondering? Well, when you invoke ID any possible discoveries end there. The orbits of the planets aren't unstable, something that Laplace eventually explained using perturbation theory. This is something Newton could have easily come up with, the man invented calculus for fuck's sake. But he didn't, he went with ID instead and that discovery was put on hold for a couple hundred years.

ID is not a legitimate explanation for natural phenomena. It merely explains what you can't by saying "god did it," and saying that is incredibly hubristic when you really think about it. You're effectively asserting that not only can you not explain something, but no one in the world today and no one in the future will ever be able to explain something. It's much more productive to either admit you simply don't understand something or dig in and see if you can understand it.

[shiftbmw]

please research circular logic and get back to me.

What we see before us(the world in this case) is the evidence we have to interpret. You see it as the result of chance, I see it as the result of design. My logic isn't circular at all.

You make the assumption that I see the world as a result of design because I presume a creating entity designed it. Were this the case, your assertion would be true.

Read more carefully my friend.

[shiftbmw]

How do you apply intelligent design (ID) to your worldview? Conventionally it has been used to explain away things that science does not yet fully understand. Sir Isaac Newton, for example, concluded The Principia that the orbits of planets are only able to remain stable because god is intervening. Newton was, to borrow a phrase for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, at the limits of his knowledge and unnecessarily invoked an intelligent creator. What's the harm in that, you might be wondering? Well, when you invoke ID any possible discoveries end there. The orbits of the planets aren't unstable, something that Laplace eventually explained using perturbation theory. This is something Newton could have easily come up with, the man invented calculus for fuck's sake. But he didn't, he went with ID instead and that discovery was put on hold for a couple hundred years.

ID is not a legitimate explanation for natural phenomena. It merely explains what you can't by saying "god did it," and saying that is incredibly hubristic when you really think about it. You're effectively asserting that not only can you not explain something, but no one in the world today and no one in the future will ever be able to explain something. It's much more productive to either admit you simply don't understand something or dig in and see if you can understand it.

Perhaps I'm using the term "intelligent design" incorrectly. If I say the words product of design to describe the world, does that change the way you interpret what I'm saying?

What I mean is that the laws governing our universe seem to be a product of design. For instance, the laws of physics seem like a thoughtfully designed system. That said, I take nothing for granted and "god designed it" does not constitute any level of understanding about something in my opinion.

Understand what I mean?

[Cliche Guevara]

Perhaps I'm using the term "intelligent design" incorrectly. If I say the words product of design to describe the world, does that change the way you interpret what I'm saying?

What I mean is that the laws governing our universe seem to be a product of design. For instance, the laws of physics seem like a thoughtfully designed system. That said, I take nothing for granted and "god designed it" does not constitute any level of understanding about something in my opinion.

Understand what I mean?

I suppose so. It just seems... unnecessary to do that, though. I mean, you're postulating the existence of a deity based in intuition rather than evidence. Granted, it is a completely harmless belief, but if you wanted to be 100% intellectually honest with yourself you would take the position that a deity almost certainly doesn't exist.

[tjts1]

Jesus called. He said doesn't give a fuck about you.

[shiftbmw]

I suppose so. It just seems... unnecessary to do that, though. I mean, you're postulating the existence of a deity based in intuition rather than evidence. Granted, it is a completely harmless belief, but if you wanted to be 100% intellectually honest with yourself you would take the position that a deity almost certainly doesn't exist.

I disagree. I think if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves, the only reasonable conclusion is that we have no clue.

Science currently addresses how we got from point A to point B, but it does not yet address why point A existed in the first place(unless there is something I am unaware of). As such, I don't think my opinion stands in opposition to any evidence. The same can be said about your opinion. In a case like this, what other tool do we have than our intuition?

I worry about using words like "with certainty" because it sets the stage for us to suffer the same consequences as Mr. Newton in your example above. Like anything else, science evolves. As our understanding of the universe improves, it is conceivable that the big bang theory could become nothing more than a faint memory, replaced by a newer and more plausible theory. Remember, people were scientifically certain that the earth was flat once upon a time. I'm not saying science will ever answer the question of creation, but I am saying it is possible.

When we use words such as "with certainty," it means we stop asking questions. If we stop asking questions, we'll never find answers.

[cale]

You just have to be careful with ID, there's a reason the creationists tried to adopt it. It makes them feel as though they have a valid argument when it comes to explaining why the universe is, not simply how it is. As soon as you accept it as a rational theory they've got you, and they slide you a pamphlet telling all about Jebus!

If more people admitted they didn't know we'd have a lot more advancement.

[herbivor]

Jesus called. He said doesn't give a fuck about you.

Not true. Jesus is dead and buried. (I think James Cameron found his grave a few years ago.) So it is not possible that he can give any more fucks.

[Vedubin01]

Jesus called. He said doesn't give a fuck about you.

Same thing your mom said about you!

[Kershaw]

Read more carefully my friend.

im not your friend, buddy.

you're postulating the existence of a deity based in intuition rather than evidence.

he's postulating the belief in a deity based on his specific time and place. were he where he is now, but 500 years ago, he'd have a very different world view. if he was raised in norway in our current time, he'd be most likely be completely atheist. this is something that i really find ridiculous about god arguments. oh you were born in just the right time and place to believe in the one true god? how convenient!

I disagree. I think if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves, the only reasonable conclusion is that we have no clue..

we have to go by what evidence is in front of us. there is no evidence for an existence of god. and in fact, the only "proof" that the abrahamic god is real is the bible. and that story book is so full of holes it cannot be used as proof. it says the world is only 6000 years old. that is false. it said the world was created in 6 days. that is false. so you cant take it literally, you can only take it metaphorically as an allegory for how the world was created by their very limited knowledge. and that's great. but then you have to take everything pertaining to the supernatural as a metaphor. you cant just pick and choose.

to say that the world exists is proof enough of god is just lazy and ridiculous. where in the world is there proof that god exists? there is none whatsoever. if you have some, show me.

the only reasonable assumption is that there is no god. yes, you can say it's possible, but since there is no proof of that, it is not a reasonable assumption.