1. Post #41
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.
    That isn't a good point. It's the argument from design for the existence of god and it has been debunked time and time again. Just because something on Earth looks like it has been designed does not entitle you to apply it to the entire universe and assume it also had a designer. If you're going to say "the universe is like a house, it had to have a designer", you have to first demonstrate in what ways the universe like a house. It is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

    The guy starts out in this video with a straw man argument about atheism (you do not have to believe a word of science to be an atheist, all it means is that you don't believe there is a god - that's it), misrepresenting two major scientific theories along the way. The big bang did not bring the universe into existence, it brought space and time into existence. The theory of evolution also does not explain how life came into existence.

    Basically his point is the old "we don't know how it got here, therefore god did it", which is just an argument from ignorance fallacy.

  2. Post #42
    An airbag saved my life
    Drax-Quin's Avatar
    February 2007
    2,121 Posts
    If you listened further, you would understand that he meant reanimate, as in making something live again

    I liked the story at 7:28

    He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.
    I'm sorry but please explain where anyone claimed the big-bang had no start? Where? You just like this idiot in the video makes this blind assertion when noone has ever claimed that is the case. Atheists merely claim they have no bloody clue what sprung everything into existence though with Quantum Theory we do understand how from what is considered nothing a universe can actually pop into existence for all intensive purposes.

    Anyway about that Houses = Architects bullcrap I did a rebuttal to another Muslim video ages ago involving Dr. Zakir Naiq who also used this argument. It seems to be hugely popular in the Muslim crowd right now for some reason, but anyway here's my refutation to it:

    The Watchmakers Argument - This is not a new argument in fact many theists have used it, , Zakir Naik in his example presents a machinery and a 'Creator' of said machinery, and that only the 'Creator' can know the mechanism of the machinery. This is flawed on many levels let me address them:

    1) Machine Metaphor - By stating the universe is a machine and by human knowledge we know machines require creators Zakir already presupposes in such an analogy that a God must exist, but how can he with no evidence just outright state the universe is a machine? We know through evolution how a world and life may form, but this is a natural process it is why we make the distinction between natural and man-made, through evolution a universe does not require any original creator or prime mover behind the wheel. Instead from Science we know that there are billions of planets each with different environments and other variables to consider, the fact that life spawned here is not a design based issue nor is it purely chance, if you have a billion planets ONE simply through pure combination of variables must have life.

    2) Cause & Effect - Through Zakir's logic everything must have a creator, but this leads to one of the greatest problems of a God. Who made God? If we follow Zakir's logic he cannot merely draw a line in the sand wherever he pleases, because it is just as logical to draw a line as the Universe being it's own creator, even though that would be a claim without evidence it would still pertain as much merit as what Zakir is stating.

    3) God's Complexity - The problem is further exacerbated by the fact religion whether it be Islam or Christianity all claim to know the characteristics of said creator, it isn't enough that they will the being into existence through fallacies but to go as far as to claim to know what the being desires, typically it's a remarkably vindictive and cruel purpose (worship or burn in hell). The problem is that through evolution we know that complex entities start with very simple beginnings, we ourselves 3.8 billion years ago were but bacteria, if we follow this natural process it would lead us to conclude that if the universe was created it's originator would be simple (something like the 'Higgs Boson' (God Particle)), but to think that some being with a conscience and a being that is both non-existing and existant is absolutely absurd.

    4) Homogenous Concepts - To claim the universe is 'created' or a 'machine' we must have more then one reference point. What I mean by this is simple, think about how we differ from that which is natural and from that which is created. Take for instance if you saw a statue was ashore on a beach, would you immediately assume it was constructed through natural processes? No! Of course not because we have multiple reference points as evidence, we know only humans make statues because we've seen humans create them, we view them in art galleries or stand them out in public to commemorate an important figure . The universe is a whole different can-of-worms because there are no reference points, we only know of one universe and we have no clue how it was created, we cannot make a distinction between the universe being natural and being a mechanism like we can the statue because we only have this one reference of a universe existing.

  3. Post #43
    Don't Worry, I'm a Marine
    UncleJimmema's Avatar
    October 2005
    3,002 Posts
    The thing about the Big Bang theory is it is used to describe the universe as we know it. It is not used to try and explain the creation of everything, just the current universe we see. What is there to say the universe never had a beginning or will never have an end? It is entirely possible that everything we see has always been and always will be in some form or another. In that context the entire universe and all things can be described as "a god", a god that does not necessarily have what we would describe as a conscious.

  4. Post #44
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    Then who created God? And in the words of David Hume: "Which is more likely, the laws of nature have been suspended (in your favor), or that you are under a misapprehension or a delusion?"
    God is infinite.

  5. Post #45
    Mr. Scorpio's Avatar
    May 2010
    11,124 Posts
    God is infinite.
    Says who?

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member
    Kayl's Avatar
    February 2005
    207 Posts
    The Abrahamic religions in general have this consensus.

  7. Post #47
    Mr. Scorpio's Avatar
    May 2010
    11,124 Posts
    The Abrahamic religions in general have this consensus.
    And how did they come to this conclusion?

  8. Post #48
    Gold Member
    Doneeh's Avatar
    August 2006
    4,718 Posts
    He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.
    I tell people that I believe God created the Big Bang and evolution, because he could and did.

    Some people just don't appreciate merging science with religion. Eh, whatever, I suppose.

  9. Post #49
    Don't Worry, I'm a Marine
    UncleJimmema's Avatar
    October 2005
    3,002 Posts
    And how did they come to this conclusion?
    Something about being the alpha and the omega, and there's lots of magic.

  10. Post #50
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    Something about being the alpha and the omega, and there's lots of magic.
    Actually you are wrong. It's just common sense, is it not? An infinite God could only create an infinite universe wouldn't you say?

  11. Post #51
    Mr. Scorpio's Avatar
    May 2010
    11,124 Posts
    Actually you are wrong. It's just common sense, is it not? An infinite God could only create an infinite universe wouldn't you say?
    My infinite dad could also make an infinite universe. I asked how you came to the conclusion that god exists and is infinite.

    Though I'm guessing your answer is just going to be "because I think so", hm?

    Edited:

    oh and the universe isn't really infinite so yeah

  12. Post #52
    I AM A PUTRID FUCK WHO CHASES AFTER PEOPLE'S VANS, SCARES GIRLS, FELL FOR A RANDOM FUCK ON THE INTERNET WHO I'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN, AND SHOVED RUSTY NAILS DOWN MY COCK FOR THEM.
    demoniclemon's Avatar
    July 2008
    4,193 Posts
    Actually you are wrong. It's just common sense, is it not? An infinite God could only create an infinite universe wouldn't you say?
    Is it really infinite? What's stopping it from being really, really massive but limited?

  13. Post #53
    Don't Worry, I'm a Marine
    UncleJimmema's Avatar
    October 2005
    3,002 Posts
    Actually you are wrong. It's just common sense, is it not? An infinite God could only create an infinite universe wouldn't you say?
    I'm wrong for saying there's alphas and omegas and magic? What?

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    As another guy posted, it doesn't matter how or why the Universe was created, it matters that there's no evidence that a supernatural deity specifically based from the Qur'an did it.

  15. Post #55
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    Something about being the alpha and the omega, and there's lots of magic.
    That should tell you right off the bat that it's probably wrong.

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    Chrille's Avatar
    August 2005
    5,435 Posts
    He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.
    How is that a good point?

  17. Post #57
    Voted WORST Gold Member 2012
    Killuah's Avatar
    August 2005
    15,315 Posts
    His understanding of what the big bang is is completely wrong.

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    megafat's Avatar
    January 2005
    6,544 Posts
    The only way to prove a God or Gods that are in an old text is through observable methods, not applying whatever science already exists to that text and going "Hey Look! God Exists!!"

  19. Post #59
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    January 2012
    617 Posts
    God this is dumb, why dont these guys chill their balls and live their life

  20. Post #60
    shakadamus's Avatar
    November 2007
    795 Posts

  21. Post #61
    Absolute tosser, manchild, and belligerent douche-nozzle.
    download's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,756 Posts
    This is Craig's Cosmological Theorem

    P: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
    Q: The Universe began to exist.
    R: Therefore, there is a cause to the universe.

    P⊃Q
    Q
    ∴R

    Essentially, this is the Theist's argument for God's existence.

    But notice, couldn't all three of the above premises be true, without the requirement of God's existence?
    The Atheist could argue that God is not a requirement for the above issues.

    The truth is, there could be hundreds of causes to the creation of the universe. We just don't know what that cause is for certain.
    In this case, the Theist is basically saying...

    "We don't know, therefore, God caused the universe."

    Which pretty much follows the same logical format as...

    Not to mention God would also need a cause

  22. Post #62
    Glod Menber
    TurbisV2's Avatar
    May 2008
    24,564 Posts
    i am an atheist and i don't care how it all started as long as i don't have to praise a bearded man i never met.

    Edited:

    for all i care santa should replace god because atleast santa gives me shit

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    ScoutKing's Avatar
    May 2007
    6,412 Posts

    Now that's actually a good counter argument. Defibrillator can and does "reanimate" literally dead people with no heart or brain activity.
    Defibrillators are used to correct fibrillation (a lot of the time V-fib), if your heart is in fibrillation, i would still consider you "alive", at least biologically alive. Even if you have no electrical cardiac activity you're still alive for a brief amount of time until cellular/biological death kicks in due to a lack of O2 (5-10 minutes). As Swebonny said, defibrillators "reanimate people with no heart activity" This is completely false. A lack of heart activity (no fibrillation or function, "straight flat line") is called asystole, defibrillators need some kind of fibrillation for them to work; if fibrillation/pqrstu is not present in someone they are in asystole or what swebonny says is "no heart activity", a defibrillator won't be helpful until you can get some sort of rhythm present.
    The way it works with death is legal death, and biological death. I would assume that the guy in the video is referring to biological death.

  24. Post #64
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,808 Posts
    People go WAY over the borders with this..

    It's very simple; We are the next best thing to God, or we are the Gods, or God is just another fictional character we've made up, like any comicbook hero.

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    Matriax's Avatar
    November 2006
    714 Posts
    Given that this guy is Muslim, I assume he believes that Allah is the only god? Why has he chosen his god, over the thousands of others people claim exist.

    And yeah, the argument is bullshit anyway due to what people here have already said.

  26. Post #66
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,808 Posts
    We don't get to choose God, God chooses us.

  27. Post #67
    Scar's Avatar
    September 2010
    4,167 Posts
    We don't get to choose God, God chooses us.
    Uhh..what?

  28. Post #68
    Gold Member
    Combine_dumb's Avatar
    August 2006
    8,142 Posts
    Cosmological argument + some absurd claims about souls.

    Completely discreditable. I admire his confidence but sorry he's wrong, besides, science will never be able to disprove the existence of a god simply because theists will continue to redefine what 'god' is. It's ignorance on their part and for the first time since religion was invented, atheists have the moral high ground.

  29. Post #69
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,041 Posts
    This is Craig's Cosmological Theorem

    P: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
    Q: The Universe began to exist.
    R: Therefore, there is a cause to the universe.

    P⊃Q
    Q
    ∴R

    Essentially, this is the Theist's argument for God's existence.

    But notice, couldn't all three of the above premises be true, without the requirement of God's existence?
    The Atheist could argue that God is not a requirement for the above issues.

    The truth is, there could be hundreds of causes to the creation of the universe. We just don't know what that cause is for certain.
    In this case, the Theist is basically saying...

    "We don't know, therefore, God caused the universe."

    Which pretty much follows the same logical format as...
    I think the causal argument is wrong, but it's not wrong for that reason. They say the creator is god because he must be self-causal. A lot of philosophers agree that the only thing that's self-causal is god by virtue of meaning. I don't agree with the argument, but that's not why it fails.

    Edited:

    Not to mention God would also need a cause
    Not really; pretty much everyone who conceptualises god in any semi-meaningful way insists he is self-causal.

  30. Post #70
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    The cosmological argument attempts to apply properties of things within the universe to the universe itself. Just because (and this may not even be true) everything we observe within the universe has a cause does not entitle anyone to try to apply that property to the universe itself.

    Another problem is that the argument relies too heavily on human intuition in assuming the first premise (everything that begins to exist has a cause). Thunderf00t made a pretty good video illustrating this problem and shutting down the cosmological argument.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6Mz21jTaA

  31. Post #71
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Oh god, so much ignorance.

    1. How did an explosion create the perfection of the universe, when other explosions only destroy?
    The Big Bang did not create this "perfection", it created chaos, just like any other explosion. Planets and solar systems are a result of gravity and other forces, AFTER the Big Bang.

    2. How did natural selection create souls?
    Atheists don't believe in souls, so this argument is null to begin with.

    3. Everything must have been created by something.
    That means God would have to be created by something. This argument works against both religion and the Big Bang.

  32. Post #72
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    10,988 Posts
    they're called defibrillators, they stop the heart fibrillating
    they're not called dedeathers, they don't bring you back to life

    Edited:

    Given that this guy is Muslim, I assume he believes that Allah is the only god? Why has he chosen his god, over the thousands of others people claim exist.

    And yeah, the argument is bullshit anyway due to what people here have already said.
    Islamic "conversion" is very strict. It does not permit any thought of other god, or for that matter even any belif in other gods. Whilst it isn't true that it says to destroy other people who do not agree with you, it does put a large penalty on others, and in general islamic religious conversations they are not brought up, apart from using their belifs to re-enforce theirs, eg "Jesus was in the bible as a propet and a propet in the Qu'ran so he must have been real" (this is like saying Harry Potter is real because he was in the Prisoner of Azkaban AND the other one which i've convienently forgotten or that the Discworld is real because it is refrencened in Diablo 1,2&3 and that its in many books)

  33. Post #73
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    they're called defibrillators, they stop the heart fibrillating
    they're not called dedeathers, they don't bring you back to life

    Edited:



    Islamic "conversion" is very strict. It does not permit any thought of other god, or for that matter even any belif in other gods. Whilst it isn't true that it says to destroy other people who do not agree with you, it does put a large penalty on others, and in general islamic religious conversations they are not brought up, apart from using their belifs to re-enforce theirs, eg "Jesus was in the bible as a propet and a propet in the Qu'ran so he must have been real" (this is like saying Harry Potter is real because he was in the Prisoner of Azkaban AND the other one which i've convienently forgotten or that the Discworld is real because it is refrencened in Diablo 1,2&3 and that its in many books)
    But with where science is going, we may soon be able to create life. (albeit, not on the scale of a human).
    http://www.istpace.org/Web_Final_Rep...bug/index.html

    and of course, there is the eternal question: what defines life? depending on what life is, we may have already created it.

  34. Post #74
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,808 Posts
    Straight to the above ^: We have created life.. it's called giving birth. Women do that. Men play their role in it as well.

    That's creating life, isn't it? And it's in our genes so that we seek to do that, to create more life. Or in other words, to help life recreate itself, evolving in the process. I'm not sure what good it would be trying to create life when we've got plenty of life on this planet already. But some high-end nanotechnology or faster speeds for transferring vast amount of information (Space), if that's where science is headed then it's cool by me.

    Also creating life in the future could very well mean just a laboratory-conditioned womb where some preserved DNA of the target organism is set to bloom into life and grow from the scratch.

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    hypno-toad's Avatar
    October 2006
    14,703 Posts
    He also says that science teaches that you can't create something out of nothing.

    Doesn't this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...e-nothing.html invalidate that?
    Yeah. Really the boundary between "nothing" and "something" is extremely ambiguous.

    I'm pretty sure most sentient beings make the same logical paradox that this man makes some time in early childhood. Hell usually the first question when somebody first learns of the Big Bang is "what made the big bang." It's a great question but it doesnt even begin to prove the existence of god, all it does is show that the true reality of our existence is many, many times more fantastic and outlandish than anything in the bible. In the end that's probably why people choose to be religious (or to remain religious) They aren't comfortable with the fact that the concept of existence is probably never going to be truly understood, and they really like the compact short-form answer that a god created everything. Science is by definition, a continuous and self-scrutinizing process, so its pretty silly that a fraction of religious people believe it's their job to try and disprove actual observations in favor of anecdotes written in a book over 2000 years ago.

    At the end of the day you can choose to believe the facts that we currently know to be true, the facts that as of yet still offer a very incomplete and largely "unfulfilling" picture of existence, or you can choose to believe the "complete" anecdotal musings of a single medium-sized book and accept those as reality.

  36. Post #76
    Don't Worry, I'm a Marine
    UncleJimmema's Avatar
    October 2005
    3,002 Posts
    3. Everything must have been created by something.
    This also neglects to address the concept that the universe has always been. What we know thus far is the known universe, what was before or what may come after we do not know. We do know energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. I find it reasonable to believe that everything has always existed, and that the ball of mass that created the big bang is just a small blip on the infinity that is our reality.

  37. Post #77
    Lilyo's Avatar
    October 2011
    2,326 Posts
    You can most certainly get "something" from "nothing". God is not an alternative answer to anything. It does not answer the questions it aims to solve and it brings forth more questions to be answered. We can't play the god of the gaps game any time we want to you know, it doesn't work that way.


  38. Post #78
    CheeserCrice's Avatar
    September 2010
    1,453 Posts
    I believe the idea is that God didn't cause some 'beginning' to the universe at a singular point in time, but continues to cause its existence in every moment.

    Edited:

    Given that this guy is Muslim, I assume he believes that Allah is the only god? Why has he chosen his god, over the thousands of others people claim exist.

    And yeah, the argument is bullshit anyway due to what people here have already said.
    There can only be one God, if they were lots the whole concept wouldn't work. One first cause, not lots. People only choose the theory that seems best to them.

  39. Post #79
    mustachio's Avatar
    March 2010
    50 Posts
    But science has proven time and time again that all that makes us intelligent and what makes us us can be broken down to our brain's makeup. I'd like to see what he's basing that claim off of, just because he's a leader in the field doesn't mean he's right.
    In case you haven't noticed, we haven't found out everything about the human brain, which is why we can't connect our brains via a plug into a computer and manage the data (like a memory stick). To assume we have no souls is to assume that we have already discovered everything about the mind. But to assume we do is equally an invalid point, therefore rendering this whole argument about souls useless. Neither side can produce valid evidence against each other.

    Edited:

    By the way, never believe a wahabi scholar, every (knowledgable) muslim knows that.

    Edited:

    His argument should have been: "Man cannot create a single grain of sand from scratch, other than what god has provided for him. He cannot create energy (as energy can not be created or destroyed) and convert it to matter, then form the atoms and molecules" and so-on. But there is always room for discussion, so there's probably still a hole somewhere in this theory, and I guess it won't take long for someone to either point it out or make one up.

    Edited:

    And how did they come to this conclusion?
    I shall leave you to work that one out. I won't tell you the answer, you have to find it out.

    Edited:

    they're called defibrillators, they stop the heart fibrillating
    they're not called dedeathers, they don't bring you back to life

    Edited:
    Come on man, spell check? Yes a defibrillator does not bring you back to life. The reason for the poor education of Islam is naturally down to the parents and/or scholars. Dr Zakir Naik, for instance, is the greatest bullshitter on the face of the Earth.


    Islamic "conversion" is very strict. It does not permit any thought of other god, or for that matter even any belif in other gods. Whilst it isn't true that it says to destroy other people who do not agree with you, it does put a large penalty on others, and in general islamic religious conversations they are not brought up, apart from using their belifs to re-enforce theirs, eg "Jesus was in the bible as a propet and a propet in the Qu'ran so he must have been real" (this is like saying Harry Potter is real because he was in the Prisoner of Azkaban AND the other one which i've convienently forgotten or that the Discworld is real because it is refrencened in Diablo 1,2&3 and that its in many books)
    Edited:

    And sorry I typed in the wrong place, for any nit-pickers out there.

  40. Post #80
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    To assume we have no souls is to assume that we have already discovered everything about the mind. But to assume we do is equally an invalid point, therefore rendering this whole argument about souls useless. Neither side can produce valid evidence against each other.
    Yeah but the burden of proof is on the person claiming that souls exist, so until evidence is presented proving that souls exist, there really isn't any valid reason to believe they do.