>> ^budzos:
The answer to your question: I don't know. I can't know because I don't believe in God. Nobody can know anything about God (especially since he's a fiction).
However, the concept of God is that he created the universe. Implicit in that would be that he controls or created the physical laws.
If you accept that as part of the discussion then it makes no sense to try and use physical laws to argue for or against god. He's not a physical being.
EDIT: In other words, it's safe to assume that he did... and the point is not whether he CREATED them... but that he's above them.
FURTHER EDIT: I didn't ask you a question. Not really anyways. It was meant to be sarcasm.... like "are you kidding!?"


Yeah, I know you don't believe in a god. I thought you were answering as a theist might, since the question I originally posed was directed to a would-be theist that would have made that claim(God is God. He's not bound by any laws of nature/physics, because he created the laws.) So my reply was actually to the theist I thought you were speaking for.

Did you just say that was a retarded question and then not answer it? Nice work, you have convinced me that you are indeed godly.

So I won't bother humoring you with an answer to your obviously brilliant question.

>> ^budzos:
What a retarded fucking question.
You are familiar with the concept of God as creator of the universe?

>> ^budzos:
God is God. He's not bound by any laws of nature/physics, because he created the laws.


I would ask how anyone could possibly know that? If he did something beyond our laws of physics and are therefore not perceivable by us, how would you know he did anything at all?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Wow, so much solid logic only to throw it all out the window at the end.
P1 is a universal negative, but at least he spends a lot of time arguing for its likelihood.
P2 is flawed as it's based on P1, but otherwise would be fine.
P3 actually contradicts what he spends nearly the whole video arguing, that nothing ever actually begins or ceases to exist. Oops.
P4 is solid so long as you accept the flawed logic it's based upon.
P5 is fine.
At some point here he denies the antecedent, a logical fallacy. Accepting his arguments, he has successfully argued that God did not create the universe, but it does not logically follow that God does not exist as a result. He would have to put forth an argument that shows God can not exist without having been the creator of the universe. At best he simply fills one of God's gaps.


He has a follow-up video that addresses this. The premises are not a reflection of....well just watch the video he can explain himself better than I can. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeZ_BAWAhQ

I hope to god(and by god I mean Joe Pesci) that Sarah "Palming" Palin runs in every election. It's a sure win for a non-republican.

Thanks for clarifying the "Who Dat" thing for me. I never new wtf they were talking about.

if the universe is expanding from a central point(aka the big bang) then that point is the center. Granted it might not be a perfect expansion, but i would still consider that point the center. I guess "center" in this case would mean the starting point.

This whole thing could have and should have been avoided. If the little prik was prosecuted the first time, there would have been no need for all the drama. You can not play games with these kind of people because they have no problem cheating to win. And that is exactly what happened - No winners, many losers, and possibly more to come.

>> ^mentality:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/village1diot" title="member since November 29th, 2009" class="profilelink">village1diot
>> ^village1diot:
>> ^zeoverlord:
>> ^sillma:
that block is karate's answer to pretty much every single attack thrown at you.

Yea, karate is silly

Tell that to Lyoto Machida

Yeah except Machida doesn't use any of that karate bullshit in the ring. You ever seen him do a traditional karate punch or block in a real fight? His stance is a bit unorthodox but it's still not one of the flat-footed stances karate teaches you. And Shogun made him look silly.


Don't tell me, tell him. Then we could see how silly karate is.

>> ^dannym3141:

These people should not be allowed to go around bullying people in this "free" world in which we live. They should be concerned that they'll never see their family for a few years, that'd make them think twice before pushing people around with green paper.


That will never happen. I look at it like this.

These corporations are like a lion grrrrabbing a zebra by the throat. And every time we move the teeth just go deeper. They will never let go and its too late to do anything about it.

I can think of only one way to stop them at this point - a massive revolution by the people. In this country that is highly unlikely. We are surrounded by religious nutjobs who think Jesus is coming to take us away and could give a crap about this world. Men who care more about the size of their dick than anything else. And women who are always right, even when they are wrong, and only worry about their vanity. And I know that everyone doesn't fall into these categories, but too many do. Let's face it, us that care, we will never get enough support to back us on any issue that isn't in the corporate interest. They control everything, most important of which is information. They censor everything through the media and there is nothing that most people hear about that they don't want us to hear. As you can tell, I'm not optimistic about this situation at all.

"...now it's covered in all of this orange skin slut..."

lol - classic.

Speaking from experience, as I have been to almost every state and have lived in several. The people in the middle of the country and in the south are far more religious and far less intelligent than the people near on the coasts. It's just an observation, and I'm not saying that this is in any way binding for everyone and covers all states. I'm just saying from what I have seen and experienced, the map shown is more likely to be true than false...I'm just saying.

>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
What a silly argument. Not only should the makers of this video learn the basic difference between correlation and causation, they should also have a history and anthropology lesson as well. The USSR, China, and North Korea were (and still are in the case of the latter two) "non-theistic," though certainly not classifiable as "peaceful."
I wonder what the correlation is between levels of violence and uncritical acceptance of mindless propaganda films...


>> ^dag:
This.>> ^conan:
someone teach those guys the difference between correlation and causality.



>> ^Psychologic:
"Extremely accurate statistical study"? How is that determined? I'll have to look further into their methodology... it's just an odd phrase to use with statistical analysis.

Anyway, I wonder about the causality in this correlation. For instance, religious belief tends to increase in the presence of adversity (poverty, high crime rate, internal wars, etc), so it's possible that religion is at least partially propagated by those factors being measured. Perhaps a trend towards atheism is caused by stability?
Unfortunately this particular list was created in 2007, so there isn't much data from which to derive trends. It would be more informative to see how things play out over time. My guess is that declining violence/war would lead to a situation more favorable to less religion, but I don't have enough background in this area to form any real conclusions.


Come on people. This does not say that atheism leads to peace. It shows there is a correlation between them. Regardless of peace leading to atheism or atheism leading to peace or anything else, the correlation exists.

This correlation and causality crap is presumptions and not even applicable here.

>> ^zeoverlord:
>> ^sillma:
that block is karate's answer to pretty much every single attack thrown at you.

Yea, karate is silly


Tell that to Lyoto Machida

Who needs to block anything, I'll catch the bat and the bullet with my teeth, and at the same time.