Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
Created on: September 7th, 2006
Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
WARNING: My comments are NSFW. Please evaluate and vote based on the merits and quality of the YTMND not based on your religious standpoint. If you have an objection, post below and I will address it in the YTMND at the end.

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
September 7th, 2006
(0)
And who says YTMND is lowbrow. Well said sir.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Grats, you have proven that something existed before the big bang. Doesn't mean it was a 'god', and if it was, who is to say he wasn't killed in the explosion? :P
September 7th, 2006
(0)
What do I personally believe? I believe we'll never know the answer to the questions, at least not while we're in bodies here on Earth. Is God a person-type, that walks around and says, "I'm gonna make this today", or "Let's watch this", or "Let's punish this for this reason"? Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know. I do feel though, that at the very least, there is a creative force somewhere in space and time..Wrether it has a personality or not, who knows.. It may just be a simple "spawning machine" so to
September 7th, 2006
(0)
At least it's a fairly intelligent opinion, but you are really quick to credit any current hole in a theory to the existence of a supernatural power. Science is constantly inmproving, even recently a new theory on the universe's origins has been proposed that allows for an infinitely existing universe. You need to ask more questions before you make claims. Also the further you can get away from being condescending the better. You could go a little farther in that direction.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
kinda neat. nice execution.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
speak, LoL.. But I think just about everyone can agree that something, somewhere, is responsible for creation and exsistence itself. Where is my evidence? How can I prove this? I can't, other than to say, "It just feels right.". Notice too I said that I don't believe in ORGANIZED religion.. But do I think it's great to be religious/spiritual, and always reach out and question the things around you, and ask questions like, "Where did we come from", ect, and explore and delve into the situation
September 7th, 2006
(0)
as a whole.. Without being organized and boxed into a single particular thought or feeling, like organized religions force you to do. Infact if there is a God or a creative force, I would think that that's the very last thing he'd have wanted us to do. So yeah, that's what I have to say about that =P.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Dude it was obviously space monsters...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If your theory is correct. Everything that exists has a beginning. Where did God begin? Who/what created God? Surely if you can manifest the beginningof the universe through God you can manifest the beginning of God through something..
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Let me base my vote on the quality of this YTMND, rather than my 'religious standpoint'. 1
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Needs more NEDM. ... However, I believe that the world is in a cycle, much because of my interest in Quantum Physics and the Buddha. The universe expands, retracts, explodes to expand again... a cycle. Wish I could tell you the begining of this, but there a bigger questions and more immediate ones to me than whether or not their is a constant governing spiritual force in my life.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Funny thing is, no one truly knows when/how the universe came about. Mankind's collective intellect is far too simplistic to fathom such things. Thus, most people credit it to God. But the entire point of this YTMND is "cause/effect". Essentially, something happens and because said "thing" or "event" if you will occurred some other "thing" or "event" must occur because of it. If we run off this theory and say the universe is the inevitible result of a higher intelligence - then said higher intelligence...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
must have, itself, had a beginning. You drop a glass, it shatters, you incorporate hammer, nails, lumber and human energy, you get carpentry. You drop a bomb, it explodes. God wills, the Heavens are created. Fine and dandy but where does God's creator come into play? How can you say God can will him/she/itself into existence but the universe could not. Simple answer - faith.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Further, how can you say God has always been but the universe has not? Who's to say the universe had a beginning? Some say the universe has an inevitable end. Does this mean God will have an inevitable end? That's what always gets me. So quick to say God has no begining (no creator) and no end (no destructor) because you think you can understand God - in all his/her/it's complexity. This, in itself, is arrogance at it's finest.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I voted 1 initially, then changed it to 3 because it is a good effort. But I gotta agree with the other commenters you don't address the causality problem. You can't just say 'everything has a cause, except God'. Like a lot of other people, you take the logic only so far, then abandon it when it's convenient. You have to dig deeper into that question and not be tempted by sentiment. Also you should back up your 'intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence' point with evidence of some sort.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Since it's inception, mankind has been wondering where it is going, where it came from and when it started. We just can't face the fact that these questions cannot be answered. In my opinion, God did have a creator - man. Not for sinister purposes but to explain things it cannot explain itself.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I have to downvote this because of one glaring problem which the whole assertion of an intelligent creator hinges on in your argument: Can intelligence come from "non-intelligence"? You implied your owm ridiculous answer and it's without basis. Suns planets and galaxies gradually transform over a long-assed period of time, emerging into these states from a state that is unlike what they eventually become. The same can be applied to intelligence, and is illustrated through evolution.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
We'll all find out when we die. ^_^ That being said and done, I will 4 the site for effort and getting so many people intrigued - which - I think was the true goal of this YTMND.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist over my previous post, they should know one thing: Evolution is a MEASURABLE PROCESS, over both short and long perioids of time, on small and large scales.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Exelent suggestions. As being raised as a christian my whole life, i can consider this YTMND of explaining God's existance through science. After that happens, everything gets biblical and all falls into place. This is pure proof that 99% of scientists are retarted.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
My knickers are okay. People have their opinions and are damn-well entitled to them. If there is something out there, we'll find out when we die. And if it's going to punish us for not being sure whether or not is was there.. F*ck it, I wouldn't have liked it anyway.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
LOL BIG BANG
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"Being raised as a Christian your whole life" just proves you're biased to open theory and had chosen a side before watching the damn thing. Oh and when things get biblican, they don't fall into place. That's where the sh*t gets confusing. :)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Interesting, but I still think it's a bit dogmatic to immediately assert that "entropy expansion so therefore God". I mean, I still think Pascal's Wager is the best defense of faith out there, instead of pseudologic.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Except if you put into play the theory that there is no true time, and that time does not pass, and only we do.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
wtf, are you for real? explain to me why the universe cannot exist without a "prior cause", while God can?? religion, lol!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
you fail, please try again ^_^
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I've learned all those things in Philosophy class. While you do bring up a good point, you still do not answer whether or not it's God. You can propose it was something with certain characterisitcs all you like, but that doesn't mean it's true. Although God may exist, it's possible he does not hold all of the characteristics you proposed. For example, he may be omnipotent (which would allow him to create the universe), but he may not be omniscient and/or omnibenevolent.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5 for giving it a go.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
loooooooool! actually this is kind of funny, but also sad. anyways, I changed my vote...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. prove that, our your whole argument is flawed, oh wait, you made it up so you cant.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Interesting, but you blew out your own arguement with the first objection you answered (you didn't actually try to answer, you dodged the question). You essentially contradicted your own belief in the law of causality.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"The truth of the matter is that there is NO truth when it comes to proving the existence of God. Therefore, no one can claim that God does or does NOT exist. The concept of God, created in the mind, is only a CONCEPT and CANNOT -- as Kant argued -- manifest itself into a tangible idea. We can also see that the Bible is NOT divine by examining its existential symbolism." QFT
September 7th, 2006
(0)
sounds good, however, i must ask: If everything has to come from something, what was before God? or did i just miss something in your description?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
lol sublimital! my brain hurts
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Very well put together, but your arguement totally falls apart when the two triangles come on, that is all conjecture on your part.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Explain to me how it makes sense that God can come out of nowhere but the Big Bang cannot. Anyone who comes up with an answer involving God when asked to explain the universe is taking an easy way out.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
These are all the points I use in the God debate all the time, and yet I still question faith. I guess it's just one of those things that will baffle me until I die. Also 3 because it's not funny.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
you lost your credibility with that 'intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence' business. it certainly can. it doesnt matter, as our 'intelligence' is just part of the scum on a rock hurtling around a fusion reaction. [teal'c] you worship false gods [/teal'c].
September 7th, 2006
(0)
you use how does on use causality as an argument and in the same breath insist the existance of an entity that exists outside it?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You have essentially taken the argument "The universe exists therefore God did it" and attempted to dress it in scientific language. By using the term 'God' I assume you mean an omnipotent being with human-like sentience. You haven't been able to come close to proving that such a being exists, or that such a being is directly responsible for creating the universe. Such unreasoned arguments threaten my ability to remain an agnostic...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
- "you use"...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I believe god only exists to make people feel comfort in the unknown. Give reason to the chaos. More narrow-minded propaganda. *yawn*
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I can only take comfort in knowing that there are plenty of Christians who are far more reasonable than you.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
what if religious standpoint gets you a five? Oh well, some good science right there.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You're banking a lot into causality there son
September 7th, 2006
(0)
-4'd for the following objections. 1) Your first premise is everything has a sufficient cause, therefore what is the sufficient cause of the existence of the first cause. If you say that is a moot point, then there is no reason to assume that the universe itself had to have a cause, and thus could have caused itself. 2) You assert that intelligence cannot come from non intelligence, which needs mountains of proof, and you provide none. 3) You assert that life cannot come from non-life, which ....
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Why do we need to turn YTMND into yet another forum for religious discussion? Can't you do that on the other 69285742956435620 sites on the internet?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
once again requires mountains of evidence when you provide none. In fact scientists have created the basic building blocks of life from chemical "stews", putting them about 1 step away from creating life from non life...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
String theory already coughed up a cause for our universe. Also, you're presumption that life can only arise from life is flawed. Furthermore, there is solid proof we evolved from apes, a less intelligent "Inferior" life form. Though apes have 24 chromosones and humans have 23, it's because a pair of ape chromosones fused at some point in the past. In the human genome, it's been found to be Chromosone #2
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Why can't the universe just be the first cause? You fail.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Perfect.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Thought provoking and well made.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Just because we don't know everything right now, doesn't mean there is a God.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
five because only 3 people are intelligently downvoting
September 7th, 2006
(0)
wow, longest comments ever? anyways, a 'first cause' breaks the logic of that theory. nothing makes sense, dont try to figure it out.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
4'd for too long and wordy.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
im just curious about the non intelligence creating intelligence? i know many situations in which intelligence comes from non intelligence.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'm giving you a 5. I like it when people attempt to prove something so controversial (forgive my spelling). Now I get to add my two-sense :D. Here's the problem that lies in your logic (at least from what I can manafest). In your logic, you dictate that God is living and also say that something can't come from nothing. Unfortunantly, this logic also has to follow in the beliefes that God does exist. It's like this, God came from nothing, and God made something. This has already been disproven by Aristotle.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Lifetime Atheist here.... but well done sir. I like logical standpoints
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Ok, if anyone hasn't notice cybermans pals have been slowly intoxicating YTMND with Christian propaganda. That fat f*cker must pay.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Big Bang anyone?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You get a 2 because youve done something other reliqious nuts havent, attempt to use science. You have inevitably failed either way, as you make the astronomical leap from the theory SOMETHING made the universe, and are implying that that SOMETHING can only logically be god. You fail sir.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
SabinsAura, the problem lies in the fact that God did not come from nothing, he just always has been. He is not bound by time and rules like we are; for he made them. But think about it, you make something, anything, say a YTMND. Does that page control you? No. You have control over that site to change it, tweak it, even delete it if you wish. So why would God be bound by time if time did not exist before God created it? It's hard to imagine, I know, but think about it. God did not come from nothing
September 7th, 2006
(0)
, he always was, is, and will be. He was always there and is always there. That's the major concept that human kind has trouble overcoming.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your premises that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence and that life cannot come from non-life are not backed up in any substantial way. "Because it sounds good" isn't a way to prove something. I'll grant you that the cause of the universe has to be considered powerful, but it does not necessarily need to be sentient or alive. Lol, attempts at serios on ytmnd. (Or the internets at all)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Why do you assume that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence? Just look at the frequency of genius kids being born, who are far more intelligent than either of their parents. There is no reason why humanity could not have evolved to be more intelligent than it initially was and that it came to exist from a less intelligent species.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
f*ck right the hell off. 'causality' - pffft, so what created God then? Super-God? Where's Super Gods bible? who created Super-God? Super-Duper-God? I've never said outright that the existence of God is impossible, but its massively arrogant to think we pathetic little humans figured it out. Its one stretch to say God exists, its another to say its the God of the Bible and that it actually gives a sh*t about any of his creations, or that theres an afterlife.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your premise breaks down when you consider that the Universe had a definite beginning. "Causality" is a trait of the Universe. It exists as a law specificaly in this Universe. Anyhing "before" the Universe, ie that which preceeded its creation, are not required to follow Causality, since it is a law of a Universe not yet in existence. Thus, the creation of this Universe does not necessarily follow causality. -2 for flawed logic. Good try though.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
the God of the Bible is an invention of humans, and as such, has of course turned out to be an egomaniac with many truly sh*tty nonsensical laws like marrying your rapist, while letting women speak in church or wearing cotton/poly blends is much worse. the Bible is flat out RETARDED if you actually read it. Bottom line - if you think god exists because of science, go ahead and be a Deist, but Christianity? Islam? thats another huge f*cking leap, and a mind numbingly dumb one. Just say no.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'll pray for you.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
read my comments.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
On top of this, the peacefulness of hugely atheistic nations in Scandinavia compared to the warlike nature of Christian and Islamic and yes, Jewish nations, only goes to further prove to me that organized religion is neither relevant nor practical. most of you live in a nation where George H.W. Bush said that atheists do not DESERVE CITIZENSHIP. just say no to theocracy.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Nice try. The theory of evolution is not brought in to your argument, and you take for granted that knowledge cannot be caused by ignorance etc. However, the theory of evolution shows how relative "ignorance" can, over time, lead to relative "knowledge." Also, you didn't properly defend you stance against the "created god" objection. Your whole argument is based on the fact that everything had to have something cause it. If nothing caused god, or god caused him/her/itself, then the argument is unsound.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
this is absolutely wonderful.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"the problem lies in the fact that God did not come from nothing, he just always has been." - yet you would not accept a statement that the universe has always just 'been', and that time is circular. sceintific theories get tested to see if any elements hold true (christians constantly mischaracterize the Big Bang, even though I myself am not convinced either)... Faith is just gullibility. if you think god has always 'just been' whats stopping you from believing atheists are the manifestation of Satan?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'll tell you what - nothing. and thats the problem. Christianity has built in its own system within its churches and text to write off all criticism. Faith is non-thought, and I shake in fear that its only the faithful that run the most powerful nations on earth. DOOM.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
http://whygoddoesntexist.ytmnd.com -- The fatal flaws in Whetstone's argument explained.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"If nothing caused god, or god caused him/her/itself, then the argument is unsound." - precisely. to use Causality of proof of God, but then say God has 'always been' is a complete and total forfeit of your argument.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I have to give you credit for putting a lot of time and actual thought into this, instead of just resorting to some lame excuse like you said. However, I still don't think it explains much of anything, since what's the causality for the creation of God? Can God just "exist" from nothing and no creation? Wouldn't that shoot down the whole causality argument?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Okay, I WILL Conced that God Caused the Big Bang. Conceded, Whetstone 1, FunkyM 0. Now Prove to me that Evolution is Bullsh*t, if you want your stars.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The first law of thermodyanmics states that matter is eternal, so it needed no cause.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
4'd. Nice job =) (Constructive criticism) 1. The idea of a first cause is all well and good. And ( i know you didn't but...) It doesnt prove that there is 1 and not many. More specifically, its not an indication of which. And therefore has no following belief system to subscribe to. If there is a god, is he evil/good, loose/strict, the same from the bible or another god never before interacted. 2. Events are not linear. Effects do not always have 1 cause be can be a result of many factors.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Note that I said matter, not the universe, and what caused that matter to expand in the big bang you ask? Two p-branes colliding in 10 dimensional space (or hyperspace, I forget exactly). This gets in to quantum and theoretical physics, just wikipedia a p-brane.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
3. This is assuming the universe does - infact - have a begining.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
i think it is funny how a lot of these people commenting thinks the creator of this ytmnd are pointing out a "christian God" people are so retarded. did they stop teaching english in schools in the us?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
MS: "the peacefulness of hugely atheistic nations in Scandinavia compared to the warlike nature of Christian and Islamic and yes, Jewish nations, only goes to further prove to me that organized religion is neither relevant nor practical." I'd much rather live in a nation where evil is confronted, not tolerated. Christianity +5
September 7th, 2006
(0)
omg debate
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"I'd much rather live in a nation where evil is confronted, not tolerated." - Osama Bin Laden would agree with you. "evil" is subjective.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"Everything that comes to be has a sufficient prior cause." I don't understand why this doesn't apply to the "first cause," because this "first cause" would also have to have a sufficient prior cause. If anything, causality makes more sense, in a way, to be of a cyclical nature rather than a linear one.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
First off, the UNIVERSE did indeed come to be, and I will get to what caused that later, but matter (1st law of thermodynamics) is eternal. As for what caused the big bang to expand from the infinitely dense ball of matter, that gets into theoretical and quantum physics. Two p-branes colliding in 10 dimensional hyperspace would cause what is necessary to make the "bang" so as to allow the matter to expand to the present state our universe is in.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Now, you might say that God is eternal, but that is one, assuming a God exists, which you could very well say is what logically follows your premise you set up in your ytmnd that are based on the laws of causality...however, if matter is eternal, and this is evidenced by a law of science, then we know that is what is eternal. Even if you were to go further with this, you can apply Occams razor.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
god is probably not even anything like a person, its probably some kind of energy force that just randomly spawned us as a by product and doesnt give 1% of a f*ck about what happens to us or even our planet or galaxy - keep praying to it though haha it has a crazy paradise place that can hold billions and billions of people you've never met before but if you're bad there is a horrifying fire jail that you land in along with tons of other motherf*ckers and then you stay there forever (long time)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
PREMISE 1.) Matter has always existed, and is PREMISE 2.) An infinitely complex being, that is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, has existed forever Premise 1 is simpler, and according to Occams razor, premise 1 would most likely be the correct answer. I might also add that the laws of causality do not always apply, they are broken in quantum physics experiments in which quarks, among other things, appear to pop in and out of existance - causeless.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Just as newton's laws of gravity apply only in certain circumstances, such as here on earth and under only certain "non-extreme" conditions, so to do the laws of causality function in this way. So, we need to come up with something else to explain how it works in those extreme conditions, just as Einsteins theory of relativity would replace Newton's laws under certain circumstances.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Firstly, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. However calling a question flawed to cop out of answering it doesn't make it work.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
One of the things I hate most about Christianity is how most people become Christians before they even read the text... either born into it or just insta-converting after depression or getting off drugs or prison or ________. Do you have that much faith in your parents to make a supposedly eternal decision for you? To believe a book written in a time when people were even dumber than they are now?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'm giving this a 1 because Whetstone assumes that people care what he believes in. Your beliefs are of no importance to me so please don't feel the need to explain yourself.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
According to the Bible, selling children to slavery is acceptable, stoning them to death if they misbehave is acceptable, and that you should kill your children if they want to worship a different God. This is the work of a supreme intellect?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone hi
September 7th, 2006
(0)
hear, and fear." -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death." -- Exodus 21:15 - there are even parts of the Bible that legitimize cannibalization of children. Holy holy holy.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
this ytmnd is proof to me that this site will never entertain me again. it was bad enough with the epidemic of overproduced short films flooding the top viewed sites, but i always took comfort in the fact that at least a few users, though most of them retards, remembered that this site is supposed to be stupid and funny and random. when religious documentaries appear on the front page, that's when i leave. goodbye, ytmnd. i guess all cool things begin to suck eventually.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You guys, he never said it was the God of the bible, second, please try attacking what he said in his ytmnd, going off on a tirade about how immoral the bible is (and it definately is immmoral) does nothing to his argument, which is almost right, as I pointed out above.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
We had an expert athiest and an expert Christian come to my school to debate whether or not God exists. Bth sides had a number of valid points, but niether had enough evidence to prove his point concisively.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I said this same thing about the Chernobyl YTMND a few months back: both of these are noble and interesting ideas, but what I have to wonder is, why YTMND? Why go to the home of "lol, internet" to voice such lofty and serious ideas? I dunno, it just seems kinda strange to me.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I direct you to the poem "The walrus and the Carpenter."
September 7th, 2006
(0)
It's a good attempt, however it is a distortion of a few things. It's all well and good to use causality to ascribe purpose to things. It gives you hope. However, quantum physics suggests that time can be modeled equally well going forwards as backwards(mathematically speaking), and to the more miniscule versions of physics, the notion of causality is meaningless.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your argument is sufficiently flawed. You managed to prove the universe had a begining, that's not the point. You never proved that it was created from a divine being. It could have been created by some other kind of phenomena just as easily. Anyone can make an argument based on some facts and then expand it into a crazy theory. For example: E=MC^2. Since God is infinitely powerful he must haveinfinite energy and therefore infinite mass. If he had infinite mass, the universe would be sucked into him.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
As a quantum mechanics major myself, I find your conclusions to be incredibly nieve. Do you really think we've learned all there is to know in the realm of science? You're proposing that we do, and our lack of any other information pertaning to the perpetual state of the universes existense must obviously be the result of a 'god.'
September 7th, 2006
(0)
are you retarded or something? "lol, what happened b4 teh universe? god, so don't masturbate or u go 2 hel" second, someone asked what caused god, since you base proof of god on causality. you call the question ignorant without really answering. f*g
September 7th, 2006
(0)
A second misconception here is again with causality. This one goes back to the big bang. Your notion of causality is derived from the form "X preceds Y, and X is strongly related to Y therefor X caused Y". However modern physics suggests time is a limited circular dimension. Although it is not presently discernably finite, Time does(and "does" is the best word I can think of to describe it) not exist without the other dimensions for it to be projected accross.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I don't buy that that dissmissal of who created God. True the universe had a beginning and by your logical a necessary cause, but you just claim that God always existed in spite of the fact that there is no logic to support it. Something without a beginning? Explain that one to me, logically. BTW I am not a total atheist.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
In summary, the human notion of causality is derived from our perspective in a fairly expansive, fairly statistically consistant(in quantum terms) universe. This isn't as obnoxious as peterguy and merely misinterprets some modern physics, which I hope you should look into. It's beautiful.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
and "can intelligence come from non-intelligence?" you said no, it can't, without backing it up. Evolution is fact, ok? It's not really a theory anymore, take an anthro class. Humans did come from dumbass monkeys. maybe you ought to ask "can non-intelligence make a sh*tty ytmnd" and the answer is yes.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Looks like you arbitrarilly define the limits of these claims. Someone says "who created god" and you say that's where the causation begins. Why does it begin there? Because you say it does. Replace the word god with the big bang there. "Who created the big bang" maybe no one, because it was the "first cause." See how easy that was? I even followed your rules
September 7th, 2006
(0)
good presentation of the 'first cause' theory. don't agree personally, but well put
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your assumptions regarding the nature of god are not sufficiently grounded. Not to mention your terrible argument against the "can god create a rock he can't lift" idea. The "rock he can't lift" idea is refuting the idea of the CHRISTIAN god (and the like), not the idea of an intelligent first cause. The point is all absolutes break down. An easy answer to the rock question is "why the f*ck would a first cause outside of the natural be concerned with such physical things as lifting"
September 7th, 2006
(0)
this ytmnd must have the record for "longest average comment" on the site.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The Law of Causality applies to within the universe or the "natural." What causes the universe, if it even has a cause, is supernatural and is not subject to the laws of the universe. We have no imperical laws for defining and describing the supernatural. I swear to god you guys are a bunch of straw grabbing idiots.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
First off, why doe we keep having these stupid debates on a site that has Hitler signing happy cake songs? Second: It's easy as f#ck to classify that omnipotent being that created the universe as God. Almost as easy as saying, why don't we sacrifice a child to Ba'al so it rains (it has to rain eventually right?). Third: STFU and give me more Hitler happy cake ytmnds..... lame
September 7th, 2006
(0)
See, now that's the bad part about this argument. It uses terminology people do not comprehend, and if people quit because they can't comprehend it, then there is no resolution to the argument, because you get something stupid like "LOL UR DUMB". F*ck the downvoters, you sir, are wildly intelligent, and deserve to be exalted in today's world.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ytmnds are not supposed to be powerpoint presentations. i voted based on how good a ytmnd this is. it's horrible.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Wow.... just read all posts since my last post... Go Mastersitsu, geez. He just pwnt your YTMND..
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'll give you a three for great effort. Still, this does not prove God exists. In fact, why does it have to be a singular God...why not many? You also would then have to touch upon God always being existant which in itself is a paradox. Also, you are applying temporal views of human rational to explain causes which in itself can only explain natural occurences. So again, three for good effort.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If I could, I'd give this more than five, because not only is it great, it made me smile because of Connery in a graduate hat. :D
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Lot's of atheists hold up logic and science as shields when they do nothing but point towards god. So this YTMND is so TRUEeueleuelalaualeulueleaulaeau!!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
also, why do you refuse to believe the universe came from nothing but easily accept that your God came from nothing?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Everyone whom fived and/or faved this site should have their family permanently made part of the working class of society. It is where they belong.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The problem with this argument is that a higher being didnít need to create life, intelligence, or things like that. Life was created from the evolution of the simplest forms of life like a virus (which frankly isnít life because it is just some proteins and genetic information) to the complex creatures we have today. Intelligence was created the same way, evolving from bacteria just looking for a way to divide to professors at Cambridge teaching string theory. There may well be a God, but there is no way
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Also, I find the fact that people try to approach the existence of God scientifically. You just can't do that. It's like trying to scientifically prove the Easter Bunny is real. Scientific theories were not orchastrated with God in mind. Granted, some scientific theories sound silly. But is it any more silly than a man in the clouds snapping creation into reality?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
we can definitively prove or disprove his existence. Iíve lost many night of sleep contemplating the existence of God and it has got me nowhere. We are not going to find the solution to this problem anytime soon, so instead of arguing about it we should just go on with our lives. If you have a personal faith in God, that is excellent. If you are atheist or agnostic, that is good too. Just keep an open mind. I am giving you a 5 because this YTMND made me think.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Lol, flawed.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
please show me the scientific evidence that shows that human beings (or any other life form) evolved from viruses. Thanks.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Heartskullkid, btw, there are many ideas in many occult circles that, there are more gods than just Yahweh. In fact, the one that makes the most sense, is that Yahweh is the god of this plane, which is evident in how the Bible says that you will be given and new body and will not die. This implys that you do not move on to the "next plane" of other "gods", hence, people who worship other gods are not inherently false, yet they are not worshipping the one who had created them.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
senoranderson, that's a stupid neo-american way of thinking. If there is truth in this world then you should look to find it, and perpetuate it. Not sit around and tell people that there opinion is ok because it's there own. That's bullsh*t.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Get back to work, peasants.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
It's not the idea that there is an omnipotent "creator" that's silly. It's the image Christianity and most mainstream religions have created for God that is silly and, quite frankly, absurd. You can't just believe in a higher power, you have to force-feed it into the mouths of others. You have to tell people that if they do not share your faith, they are doomed to an eternal fire. None of you people KNOW God exists, you have FAITH he does. Essentially, you HOPE he exists.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Sexyloser, if ever there was a person that I wanted to curse right now...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If you had faith in your ability to take off and fly after jumping off a building would it happen? Of course not. You're still going to fall to your death. Case in point, faith does not insinuate fact.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'm sure you would, QReaper... now get back to work, simpleton!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Is god matter? Non-matter can not create matter. Unless you want to change your rules. If he was matter, he would not be the first clause. Similarily, he would have been crushed by the forces present at the first singularity of the universe. On a different note, you have created a "First cause" for something that we do not yet understand. Examples come from earlier civilization. Early humans believed that Lightening was caused by god. It's fairly obvious that it's not. The idea is similar to that ofcreati
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Example: Any of you "believers" out there hear about the Minister who took his "flock" to the beach to prove he could walk on water like Christ supposively had? He had complete faith in his ability to do so. He walked into the ocean and, holy sh*t, he f*cking drowned.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Whetstone, your argument for the existence of God is incredibly flawed. While your first three points seem valid and true, you make a false claim when you try to attribute those points to "God". You assume that in order for the universe to have come into existence it MUST come from something supernatural, aka God. You do not consider the possibility that the nature of the universe derives from natural forces that we have yet to discover or observe.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Therefore your conclusion is flawed and misleading. You fail. Good day sir!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
lol, I wish I could sic a servitor on you, it would be so fulfilling to have him come back to me with whoever's posting those comment's head...but alas, I have not yet perfected my creation of useful Sigil Servitors. You are completely incomprehensive of logic, and you are one of the people who, just since they can not understand the opposing side's argument, shuts down their brain and has no idea about anything that amounts to "intelligence".
September 7th, 2006
(0)
this ytmnd has nothing to do with christianity. did you even watch all of it? ultracoolhumanite, i'll tell you this: If this world is a world of truth, then living life in truth is how we are supposed exist. One shouldn't be satisfied with that personally because when you get down to it, the love of our humanity will not be satisfied with that. We need to help others, and show others because, unfortunately for closeminded, nihilists like you, we essentially love each other deeply.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You guys want a god to exist because your life sucks. Guess what? There isn't one and you're just here to lift up those of us worthy of a good life. You may rebel all you want, but in the end, our kind will always rise above yours.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your reasoning has been heard before. Some of its valid. I lost all respect for this ytmnd when you, yourself, tried to explain why "god" would or wouldnt create certain things. Who the hell are you?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
People believed the world was flat because at the time science could not prove otherwise. Who are you to say that the only thing that exsists beyind the universe is this super natural being. People created God for this exact reason, to explain things that they couldnt with Science. Ancient Cultures all over prayed to Gods for miracles which are new regarded as patterns of natural science. Centuries from now, civilization will look back on us the same way for believing in God because we didnt know any
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Do you even know what the term "nihilist" means? I'm not a nihilist. I just do not share the common belief in God. I stated previously that I support the idea of a "creator" but I am not arrogant enough to claim I know what it is, where it is, and what it looks like. I also never downed the teachings of Christianity only the way mankind goes about utilizing said teachings. Mankind proved it was not ready for God when Christ walked the Earth - and it continues proving it to this day.
(0)
I believe in God, but I still don't understand how a middle eastern man is going to save my soul.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
who said god even cared about his creations? "hey look, I took a sh*t" do I care about my sh*t? no. I flush my sh*t down the toilet. LOL
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Well, I'm agnostic, but I like the way you put your ideas forward. I am still trying to find answer to questions that you answered "god" to.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Actually, science points towards this initial movement in the universe. It is KNOWN that beyond this, science will never trek. Science in our universe will never be able to explain before the beginning. I've talked to a famous italian astro-physicist about this at length.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ultracool, i was just trying to f*ck with you. I don't know if you are a nihilist or not, but many exist in modern day america. Don't take it personally :)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Oh, and dreamscythe you f*ck. Should god be american?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You were doing all right for about the first half of it. After that? Fail.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
What Italian Astrophysicist was this? Mind sharing a name, if he/she is so famous, I'd love to read their work. You're correct, however, about the fact that science will never explain past the beginning. Mankind can not explain past the beginning, that is what organized religion is for.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Oh, ok Filth. My bad on defensiveness. SHINANIGHANS! and stuff..
September 7th, 2006
(0)
3 because Christian arguments are getting smarter, but are still working based on presumptions. That being said, if your argument was put through a logical equasion (with the PA of course), I believe it would have come out valid.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I couldnít tell you what the first form of life was on earth or humanís evolutionary chain; Iím a Political Science student and not a Biologist. I just used viruses as an example because they are the simplest form of life. Finding higher truth is great; learn something new every day as the old clichť goes. However, we arenít going to answer the ultimate question via YTMND. Instead of having a flame war, we should just stick to what YTMND is best at, teh funny. Iím going to stop being a hypocrite, peace.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
While I could quibble over selected bits of information, thereís no denying that this site is exceptionally well presented. The rampant and unwarranted downvoting seems to indicate that many atheists are just as narrow-minded and poorly-educated as their religious counterparts...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I agree with that. Aetheists tend to be very ill-informed, narrow-minded people. I don't think there is any harm in questioning things. Mankind is an inquisitive species, afterall.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I would never down a man for believing in God or being a member of a specific organized religion. But a person should not be shunned for having questions.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Neither atheism nor theism are provable. Anyone who isn't agnostic is a sad and romantic idiot.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
There is really no proof here at all. If you delve into causes deep enough, you might eventually ask how God began. Either way, the origon of the universe wouldn't fall in line with these arguments either way, as there must be a cause for the cause. Unless you believe in the supernatural in the first place, this YTMND really doesn't show much.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
this is a nice attempt
September 7th, 2006
(0)
People whom believe in god are closet emos.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your logic is not so much incorrect as it is flawed. For one your getting your stuff off of wikipedia.;P Another is the contradiction of everything before something and that god is the first.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
EVOLUTION
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I don't believe in god myself, that is just how i am, however, i did enjoy the logic and reasoning, and the overall feel of the presentation. It brought up some good points, (and i must say, even as an athiest, it anoys the hell out of me when someone asks that "rock" question) However, i do think that any attempt towards proving God is a moot point, simply because a religion is baised on faith, not proof, and while you call it proof, it only proves the possibility that he exists, not existance itself.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
It's a shame you don't spend any time actually arguing for your points about the characteristics of God. It's also a shame that you don't entertain the notion of a circle of causality. It's especially a shame that you introduce your argument as a revolutionary new position, but it is really boring old hat.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
... But I will propose.. What if we use spacetime? What if god was created at the end of the universe? He could then make the beggining of the universe since god (should!) be able to ignore time basically.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Enough of this inane quibbling. Get back to work, peasants.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Really, the biggest problem of this YTMND is not that it is flawed, but that it is tremendously boring.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
talk about idiotic
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ill say this you steam a good ham. i mean create a reasonably good flash.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
nifty...however it'd be nice to see that half of your sources are something other than Wikipedia.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
well if the universe came to be becuase of god than what did god come to be from...you said so yourself...everything comes from something..what did he come from then? or is that just the exception to your logic that we are suppose to just ignore
September 7th, 2006
(0)
not bad, however the god is alive part and is intelligent part i wonder. the life no way to ever know, so i wont touch it. the intelligence needed to create tho..look rocks dont dig holes, but they can create one by falling into the ground hard enough. rocks as u said arent intelligent, yet they can create holes by falling. creaas u say arent intelligent we evolved from non intelligent ancestors into intelligent beings. does god really need to be intelligent?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You can't refute an argument by making up a rule that says it's invalid. If the universe needs a cause, so does God, and saying He doesn't is simply arbitrary. In addition, there is no law that says non-intelligence cannot cause intelligence. On a different note,Einstein himself was a believer in Spinozan pantheism, if I'm not mistaken, which is (again, not 100% sure) the belief that the universe as a whole possesses emergent properties that gives it a form of intelligence, but not intelligence as we know i
September 7th, 2006
(0)
3 for effort, -1 for ripping off sound from Newgrounds. See me after class. You can do better than this!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Ultracool, sorry for the delay. The guys name is Marco Bersanelli. I'm unsure whether any of his work is published in english or not, but good luck with his stuff it's good.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ps. ultracool, you'll quickly find he is a christian scientist, but don't let the jargon get in the way.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"Really, the biggest problem of this YTMND is not that it is flawed, but that it is tremendously boring." exactly. well, actually it's very flawed, but that's beside the point
September 7th, 2006
(0)
i love controversy! good job everyone who previously commented you win
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Rational argument but flawed. Mainly because of your intelligence/non-intelligence assumption. This is subject matter best explored in an more academic setting, not a YTMND. Also, this argument relies on human observation. Human observation relies on known Human senses and perceptions. It is reasonable to assume that humans do not possess the mental and physical tools needed to completely dissect this question.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
the causality argument hasn't been taken seriously in philosophical circles for quite a while...an infinite regress is NOT impossible
September 7th, 2006
(0)
wow sir. you are and idiot. with your many jumps in logic and assumptions you could prove that kevin bacon is god.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The law of causality has not been proven. One of your premises is false.
(0)
I must go pray to white triangle for I wish not to be smited by the triangle.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Dont even get me started on the poor logic here.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
okay, i was with you (mostly) until the end...When you just breezed by saying that intelligence can't come from non-intelligence and life can't come from non-life. First off, how do you define intelligence? is there a line you can draw somewhere where you can say something smarter than x is intelligent and something dumber than x isn't? it is not black and white. it is perfectly reasonable to assume that slightly more intelligent beings evolved from each other, progressing to the level of intelligence..
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Deserves a 10
September 7th, 2006
(0)
No No No. Using the logic which you use to say that the universe must have a prior cause, surely God must have been made prior. And intelligence doesn't come from nothing? Bull. Any high school biologist can tell you how evolution took place from naturally occuring amino acids to form humans, intelligence is a bifactor of complicated life which is constantly trying to be better than it's enviroment to live.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
After skimming through the comments, it seems that a lot of people failed to even watch the whole YTMND. That's pretty sad. Overall, this was a pretty good ytmnd, and I'm glad that there are far fewer trolls in here than in some of the other theological ytmnds.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
...we see today. Have you never heard of the theory of evolution? seems like something you should look into. as for life coming from non-life, i am going to make the same argument (though i am sure there will be objections). what is classified as alive? are bacteria alive? what about viruses? The scientific community generally agrees that the former is alive and the latter isn't; a virus is simply a strand of DNA/RNA in a protein shell...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You tried, and weren't an ass, so I'll give a little credit. Unfortunately there is no precedent to declare that cause 'intelligent' and 'God.' Neither is there reason to call it a 'first' cause when we cannot say nothing came before it! I am not atheist but I won't support false logic either.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
...so we have a spectrum here as well, not just black/white. Also, organic matter has been created in laboratories from nonorganic matter, so your whole "no life from unlife" conjecture is flawed anyway.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'm not too much into this sort of stuff -- but despite what others say, your logic is fine. It doesn't "prove" God, but it is a sound reason to believe in God. Very interesting.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The use of "First Cause" and "Causality" render the point moot. Lot of work went into it, but your logical conclusion falls short.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You offered proof but all you gave me was an opinion based on several incomplete THEORIES. Change the title to "Why I believe god exists" and you will get a 5 from me.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Onyxia (one of the earliest comments): All planets and stars DO have the same elements; that's one of the pinnacles of our understanding of the universe. Though diff planets contain diff amounts of each, we have all the same building blocks in our bodies and homes that are in stars and clouds a galaxy away.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"evolution took place from naturally occuring amino acids to form humans, intelligence is a bifactor of complicated life" As a biology major myself, I can tell you that your statement is wrong. Biologists can't really do anything but guess how the random amino acids and lipidic envelopes began to change to what we have today. We just assume that there was a pool of around 7.15 ph with adequate available carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur [the first bacteria most likely created energy via sulfur].
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Boo
September 7th, 2006
(0)
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html http://www.ebonmusings.org
September 7th, 2006
(0)
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Lol religion
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I think it's funny that you state something intelligent cannot come from non-intelligence but then call God intelligent, which is circular reasoning where you actually prove yourself wrong. You state that intelligence cannot come from nonintelligence but then state god is intelligent, which means either 1.) he doesn't exist according to your argument because he would have to be made by an intelligent being or 2.) something intelligent created him, which puts us back to the beginning.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. The line must be drawn heah!" Ok. I draw it at the universe. That's simpler, and requires less explanation than God. The End. http://entertherzor.ytmnd.com/ If you have any questions about evolution or abiogenesis, I'd be happy to explain them for you. You really don't seem to understand either of them.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
STOP! you had me at Raptor Jesus...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Tard, life DID originate from non life. This guy once recreated the evironment of earth when life began and proved that organic (not yet a full fledged organism but getting there) particles formed during that time.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Honestly I see these arguments and it kinda makes me feel sad. Not because I think im right or better than anyone, but because I have FELT truth in my life, it feels right. I may face persecution but the bottom line is when you feel what is right, every other path just feels wrong. You don't have to go to church, you don't have to be a super active member in the religious community, you just have to know and believe in a being who would sacrificed His only so that you could have eternal life.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Also, the people who claim that God had to come from something, this is untrue because if we look at causality we can easily see that since everything has a beginning or cause, there must be an origional cause or beginning cause. God IS and always has existed... How much human time he went before creating our universe? It is a question that may only be answered at the end. God has always been, I know this is hard for alot of you to grasp because its alot to wrap your minds around. I hope all works out.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
These are the facts. 1) Energy = Matter. 2) Matter can spontaneously appear from energy. 3) Given enough time enough energy will spontaneously come together to create the universe (the Big Bang). How much time? Well, given an infinite amount of time it is guaranteed to happen. The fact that the universe exists is proof that it did occur.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
However, you cannot simply ignore the premise that all causes must have cause when declaring that there is a first cause. Additionally, you gave no evidence that intelligence must come from an intelligence source.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5 for NEDM and poland...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
...also gods
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Somewhat recently I came to a similar conclusion: there can be a supernatural "first-mover" and at the same time, the universe can be entirely deterministic. In any case, nobody will ever prove the existence or nonexistence of God.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
1 question: If you reality shows that you can count up from the number 1 infintely, then why can't causality go back infinitely? What about the law of causality says that there must be an initial move?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
creamportion, if you understand the concept of the big bang you'd know that there would be no plain for matter to exist, so it wouldn't be able to spontaneously come together. The big bang was the start of time/space, or that in which matter and energy exist.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
when i say time, i mean the timeline of our universe began. the only way your idea could work is if energy and matter could transfer over from an alternate universe, in some sort of "natural process" of the highest order. Unfortunately, we're left with the same problem since the universe from which this energy and matter came from would also have been subject to this process. See the loop?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You presented the argument well up until you said that whatever created the universe had to be intelligent and alive. We see non-living non-intelligent things create and destroy all the time.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I disagree. Live cannot come from unlife: Scientists believe just that; that life formed from unliving protiens in the "primordial ooze". Intelligence from Unintelligence: Again, this is what the whole evolution debate is all about. We evolved from something stupid, which evolved from something stupider, which evolved from something that could be described as nonintelligent. First Cause; sure. But the attributes you described only serve to verify pre-existing beliefs that serve to make you feel
September 7th, 2006
(0)
yay wikipedia helped prove what thousands of scholars have been trying to discover for 3 millenia. Nothing is definitive about the existence of God. plus 1 star for rodney harrison super bowl victory photo.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"In fact physical, chemical, and electrical energy can be completely changed into heat. But the reverse (heat into physical energy, for example) cannot be fully accomplished without outside help or without an inevitable loss of energy in the form of irretrievable heat. This does not mean that the energy is destroyed; it means that it becomes unavailable for producing work." Energy is always conserved. Period. It was never created.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I have three problems with your anaylsis. A), your use of God implies an omnipotent force, which you is not entirely proven by this YTMND (only that this "creator" has tons of power). B), life has formed from the huge force of powers during the beginnings of the Earth. We have created the building blocks of life by artifically introducing this immense, but natural, power into an enviroment. Therefore, life has been formed from non-life. C), intelligence has been formed from the "random" bumping of cells and
September 7th, 2006
(0)
i'll wait for the apology ytmnd after this is over.. id say infinite universes one dies sh*ts out another one thru black holes or some sh*t.. u know the circle of life Simba
September 7th, 2006
(0)
We could try to investigate that by observing any phenomena in our universe where matter/energy ceases to exist. From my understanding there's never been such a discovery (I belive antimatter could be an exception... i think. I really wouldn't know.)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Also, the cosmological argument does not prove that God exists, as the term God carries with it a certain number of characteristics that, unless you are a follower of Spinoza, you would not do without. The first cause argument, if true (not likely), means that something caused the universe to come into existence. That's it. You have no reason to attribute omniscience or omnipotence or anything else to it, and doing so illogically would disrespect the logical conclusions that you attempted...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5, but im still agnostic
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Therefore, life has been formed from non-life. C), intelligence has been formed from the "random" bumping of cells and energy, to form everything we know. Everything that exists today has been proven to be formed from the random collisions of cells. I know it sounds unlikely and disappointing, but as far as science goes, it's true. I nonetheless give you a five for your nicely done YTMND, and as part of the promise for the Starfox Chick YTMND.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
1. God has no cause, but the universe has to have a cause. Not really. We don't understand how reality could exist forever considering the second law of thermodynamics - it's no reason to default to god because we don't know everything. God makes no more sense to fill the gap here than magic fairies would. I'll wait for actual proof, thanks. 2. Life can't come of non-life/intelligence can't come of none-intelligence. The YTMND was a 3 until there. You just made those two up, and both are totally wrong...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
It is still not a part of accepted, proven scientific theory that nothing has ever been created or destroyed (antimatter / matter reactions included). Energy and matter exist. Energy and matter have existed. Without proving that there is something that has kept them existing, it is not logical to assume that they could fail to exist (under the burden of proof, PSR, etc.).
September 7th, 2006
(0)
*anything
September 7th, 2006
(0)
GOD SUX0RS LOLZOLOL. No really. he does. He does it with Jesus.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The inherent flaw in using science to define philosophy is that there are too many factors involved. In this case, aspects such as string theory, cyclical time, or dimension theory work against the core of your line of reasoning. One can still present a compelling argument, however it is not a total argument. Therein lies the secret to religionís success; Once someone gets an answer they like, they accept it and stop asking questions. Science, in this case meaning factís and reason, never ceases and continu
September 7th, 2006
(0)
technically, washington wasnt our first president :) he was our first president under the CONSTITUTION
September 7th, 2006
(0)
...I got cut off. Science, in this case meaning factís and reason, never ceases and continues to seek new answers and more importantly, new questions. I applaud your presentation and ask that you continue to pursue your own resolution.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
just because you explained causality, entropy and quoted some physicists doesn't mean there's a god, douche. 3 for effort. I'm going to PM you as to why this is flawed.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I like how your counterarguments are the weakest strawmen ever. Off-topic as well. Your style is so obviously flawed that it works only in its presentation and not in its logical framework, kinda like religion. You didn't make any conclusions based on your "acceptable" premises. You drew false conclusions from your premises and drew a final conclusion from false conclusions from (possibly) true premises. Fun with propoganda!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You really believe in god because of this? But doesn't the concept of a first cause not follow the laws of casuality? Cause something had to happen to cause the first cause or it wouldn't happen, right? Also, there was no arguement why life can not comfrom something not alive.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
life can come from non-life and intelligence can come from non intelligence. A) the chemical building blocks that became the first set of self replicating DNA where not alive and yet the DNA was. B the bacteria was not intelligent, and yet evolved into intelligent beings such as humans. this means that- the first point does not have to be a live meaning: it can simply be a lot of energy that spread out and condensed into forms of matter.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The Prime Mover? First Cause? The weakest of all the arguments... Sorry, but this was weak. I feel sorry for you.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
you definitely lose control of the argument with the non-life non-intelligence thing. You give those statements no setup and no proof. Not to mention that inorganic molecules can be turned into organic ones, its been done in labs before. So, fail.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your attempt at an irrefutable argument fails on three accounts: 1. You assert that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, but you give no evidence for this. 2. You assert that life cannot come from non-life, but again, you give no evidence for this. 3. You assert that nothing created God, and once again, you give no evidence for this, acting instead as if it is a universal fact. What you have presented is the POSSIBILITY that God exists - which any intellectually honest person would grant.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I watched it all, and disagree with everything. I thought this site was for comedy, not minute long speeches about the existence of a probably non-existent god.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
How do you expect anyone to vote "based on the merits and quality of the YTMND not based on your religious standpoint"... that's just foolish.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Also defining things as "intelligent" and saying that nothing intelligent ever came from something non-intelligent and then straw-manning a rock writing a book is laughable. First off, you'd need to prove this notion of "intelligent" things, as all I see is matter and energy proceeding along determined paths according to the "natural" laws. Nothing "intelligent" deviates from the laws that un-"intelligent" things follow, therefore there is no reason to assume that one is super-non-intelligent (intelligent).
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>