You sir clearly do not fully understand the nature of entropy (and nor does about 95% of the human race so you can be forgiven there).

You have however stumbled into making a genuinely worthwhile point here (though I must state I think for completely the wrong reasons).

The idea that the universe inevitably moves towards a complete "heat death" is I think incorrect, it fails to account for the effect of ever increasing complexity within the closed systems the universe produces (i.e. evolution which applies as much cosmically as it does to organic life on earth).

If the universe remained with no more complexity than it currently has then yes everything would eventually "burn out" and spread the energy of the universe so thinly that everything would cease to work (if only on a space-time level).

But the nature of the universe does not remain static, it creates ever more complex and actuated systems dialectically. Energies>Particles>Compounds>Nebulae>Stars>Planets>Organisms>Unconsciousness>Consciousness>???>God! (not intended to be an exhaustive list it's purely for illustration)

Evolution does trump entropy IMHO but this is largely because the actual laws of entropy are crazy complicated to understand and most people (including to some extent myself) don;t fully understand the subtleties of how it really works.

If nothing else; to say that the whole universe eventually enters a state of complete entropy assumes that every complex closed system that does or ever will exist will eventually break down. This is far from a forgone conclusion, we alone as evolving conscious creatures are capable of developing means to circumvent or even prevent this. Let alone what other wonders we have yet to observe or the universe has yet to manifest!

In conclusion: The Universe evolves until it reaches God (or dies trying ). God does not then create the universe but rather commits suicide (what else is God to do? Eternity is a very long time for someone that already knows and has done everything...). Process repeats ad infinitum.


Makes a lot more sense that way around don't you think? (and no ancient books of dubious origin need ever be consulted to derive it either)

Saying God created the universe only leaves you with more questions which by their very nature cannot be answered. We would have to be God itself to ever answer them, so we are left with a judgement call. No logical certainty, only faith.

This way around we can by pure rationalism and empiricism arrive at an explanation of how the universe might evolve God via ever increasing complexity of consciousness and actualisation (true post-humans alone would be like demi-gods, it's not a huge leap to keep taking this idea further)

Further to that Ontological mathematics (that is to say "really real mathematics") can assess a framework to understand how the universe itself came to be (we can arguably go pre-big bang with this but that's always going to be a controversial idea here).

^ Now I might be wrong about some or even all of that but it is at least a reductive argument. Using God as an explanation for anything without first explaining God is always going to be a circular argument. If your going to use circular logic you can prove basically anything you feel like!

"God is dead!"

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" -Friedrich Nietzsche


^ We have murdered our God's because we (rightly) came to understand that by this very act were to become their superiors. The "Will to power" (the most fundamental force in the human psyche) always demanded that this must one day come to pass, we were always destined to outlive our fairy tales.
However given our God's now lie dead at our feet the same "Will to power" demands of us a stark choice...

We can stare forever into the abyss of meaninglessness we have created in their place.....
or
We can fill that void with the only meaningful entity that remains, ourselves!

We have killed the God's, now WE must take their place. The "Ubermenschen" are simply those Human's who have attained such a mastery of their own minds that the left hemisphere of the brain (where logic & rational thought occur) has complete assess and control of the right (where the God's & spirit/emotions/inspiration live).

This is why I would never call myself an Atheist but rather a post-modern Gnostic. The God's & spirits did exist to us in every sense that matters, all we changed was our relationship to them. Instead of being their slaves we are now their masters, and we can command them to do whatsoever we please.
Or to put it another way, we became masters of our own reality when we killed our tyrannical God's, now it's time for us to exercise this new found power. (Novus Ordo Mundi! ;-) )

☠
"In Hoc Signo Vinces"

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
"I reserve the right to believe in the possibility of God." -Nick Cave

What kind of God do you think is possible?

Good question Shiny. I don't think anything is necessarily impossible, because I don't claim to understand everything. But that's exactly the point, "I reserve the right to think for myself."
Again though, this is just a quote. I can't defend the position of someone else.

Ahh, I understand. I was just wondering what you thought is possible. Clearly, you think the existence of God is unlikely?


The more I think about it, the more I realize that my brain just simply has no concept of eternity.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
"I reserve the right to believe in the possibility of God." -Nick Cave

What kind of God do you think is possible?

Good question Shiny. I don't think anything is necessarily impossible, because I don't claim to understand everything. But that's exactly the point, "I reserve the right to think for myself."
Again though, this is just a quote. I can't defend the position of someone else.


Ahh, I understand. I was just wondering what you thought is possible. Clearly, you think the existence of God is unlikely?

I would not pray what you have suggested.

You're unwilling to do what you accuse me and other Christians of being unwilling to do. That's called hypocrisy.

For one, I do not need a lord or savior.

You don't know whether you need a Lord and Savior, or not.

Two, the god that you believe in should know exactly what it would take to prove its existence and unless those rigorous conditions are met, I will maintain my doubt.

Romans 1:18-21

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Scripture says God has already given you sufficient evidence of His existence, but you suppress that truth and that you're without any excuse, and I believe scripture.

Personal revelation, whether singular or continuous, is not, for me, a good measure of whether or not I should believe something.

Is it possible that God could reveal Himself to you in such a way that you could know it for certain?

That kind of prayer is not meaningful investigation

Actually, it is. According to scripture, that is the only kind of investigation that will yield any results. Neither does it cost you anything. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If I am wrong, nothing will happen. If I am right, you will come to know the truth. That you're unwilling to take a minute out of your time to do that speaks volumes about your true position.

I do not need a lord or savior

Demonstrable, reproducible, externally verifiable, logically sound, and consistency with what we can/do know about reality are, among others, the basis of what it takes for me to believe something. The god of the bible, as well as all supernatural claims, are none of those

That kind of prayer is not meaningful investigation

You make plenty of claims. You're fooling yourself if you believe that you are at all neutral on this subject. You have a calculated neutrality, merely to justify your skepticism rather than a true neutrality. If you were truly neutral you would be open to the truth. A true agnostic neither believes *nor* disbelieves.

If you were truly agnostic, you couldn’t have had a claim that would have been falsified since, as an agnostic, you would admitted that you do not know.

I was a naturalistic materialist. When God revealed Himself to me, I found out that everything I knew (or thought I knew) was in some way, wrong. Can you personally conceive of that?

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

I would not pray what you have suggested. For one, I do not need a lord or savior. Two, the god that you believe in should know exactly what it would take to prove its existence and unless those rigorous conditions are met, I will maintain my doubt.

Personal revelation, whether singular or continuous, is not, for me, a good measure of whether or not I should believe something. Demonstrable, reproducible, externally verifiable, logically sound, and consistency with what we can/do know about reality are, among others, the basis of what it takes for me to believe something. The god of the bible, as well as all supernatural claims, are none of those so therefore I cannot believe in its existence.

That kind of prayer is not meaningful investigation and my view is that of doubt and skepticism. “I don’t know” is a null position, a “0” in binary, and because it makes no claims to knowledge, my position does not require falsification. “I do not believe” and “I don’t know” is not a claim to knowledge. Claims to knowledge are what require a path to falsification.

If you were truly agnostic, you couldn’t have had a claim that would have been falsified since, as an agnostic, you would admitted that you do not know.

>> ^shinyblurry:

As a former agnostic, I was perfectly fine with the answer "I don't know". That was never a scary thing to me. At the time, I simply did not have enough information to say either way. I wasn't going to go beyond what I felt was possible to understand given our subjective bias. I only changed my mind when I received revelation of Gods existence. Neither was it a single revelation that I base my belief on, rather it is actually a daily revelation. I could no more deny Gods existence than my own reflection in the mirror. To know God is to know Him personally, and to know Him personally means that He is personally involved in the intimate details of your life.
My question to you is, are you willing to falsify your viewpoint? I already had mine falsified, which is why I became a Christian. I don't expect you to accept my personal testimony as absolute proof of anything. You can investigate the claim for yourself, by asking Jesus to come into your life as Lord and Savior. You can falsify your view this way:
Pray something like..Jesus, I don't know if you're there or not, but if you are there, I want to know you. If you let me know you are there, I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior. Thank you God. Amen.
Are you willing to do that?
>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
"I reserve the right to believe in the possibility of God." -Nick Cave

What kind of God do you think is possible?


Good question Shiny. I don't think anything is necessarily impossible, because I don't claim to understand everything. But that's exactly the point, "I reserve the right to think for myself."

Again though, this is just a quote. I can't defend the position of someone else.

Could you point out the straw man or hateful comments? I'm scratching my head at this one..

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

Why is it that every religious poster has to speak in strawmen? This one is pretending there is something hateful about saying "I DON'T BELIEVE YOU." I guess the Nigerian prince would call it hateful if I didn't give him my bank account. Playing the victim card in the first few lines of your special snowflake poem is a good way to get me to go take a shit while your video is playing.
If it weren't for religious hate, you'd never hear from an atheist.
I hope this guy at least came up with something more intelligent than "I hate Coca-Cola, but I LOVE Coke."

Hey, hello again. Good to see you. I do remember our conversation. I'm glad I could inspire you in some way and I pray it will eventually bear fruit.

As a former agnostic, I was perfectly fine with the answer "I don't know". That was never a scary thing to me. At the time, I simply did not have enough information to say either way. I wasn't going to go beyond what I felt was possible to understand given our subjective bias. I only changed my mind when I received revelation of Gods existence. Neither was it a single revelation that I base my belief on, rather it is actually a daily revelation. I could no more deny Gods existence than my own reflection in the mirror. To know God is to know Him personally, and to know Him personally means that He is personally involved in the intimate details of your life.

My question to you is, are you willing to falsify your viewpoint? I already had mine falsified, which is why I became a Christian. I don't expect you to accept my personal testimony as absolute proof of anything. You can investigate the claim for yourself, by asking Jesus to come into your life as Lord and Savior. You can falsify your view this way:

Pray something like..Jesus, I don't know if you're there or not, but if you are there, I want to know you. If you let me know you are there, I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior. Thank you God. Amen.

Are you willing to do that?

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

>> ^Ryjkyj:

"I reserve the right to believe in the possibility of God." -Nick Cave


What kind of God do you think is possible?

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I've seen that you have an openness to the idea, but you're also quick to take an adversarial position. Are you truly open to who God is? Are you okay with the idea of a God so long as it isn't Jesus?

I can also say that as a former agnostic, I understand where you're coming from.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence

Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is proof of His existence. I don't know about you, but personally I find the idea of Universes spontaneously creating themselves to be an absurdity.

Imagine a painting with three black lines on it. You could come to all sorts of conclusions about what that is supposed to represent. You could draw philosophical ideas from it. You could see it as a social commentary, or a mathematical representation. You could measure it, sample the paint and paper, run many different tests. You could count the number of brushstrokes. You could do all of this and more, subject it to every sort of empirical inquiry, and you would be no closer to finding about the intention of the painter than you were when you started.

The only way you are going to see the signature of the Creator is if you realize you are looking at His Creation. The evidence is *everywhere*. Neither is poking and prodding it and subjecting it to tests going to tell you anything about what He intended. This is the only real question.

and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion.

I agree, and I've made this point to atheists in the past, mainly when I believed that no religion was the correct one. If you consider that everything is equally unlikely, then you are looking at 50/50 odds for special creation versus naturalistic means.

There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong.

Why is it more likely that all are wrong rather than one being right? The question is, has God revealed Himself to the world, or not. If not, then all are wrong. If so, then one is right.

In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image.

The stereotype you are presenting does not represent anything Christians believe. Maybe some Christians act that way, but that isn't what scripture says about God. It says that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways.

If we were created, humans are the Creators crowning achievement. The "odds" are better that He made us like Him.

The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or, it does matter what we do, because God does intervene in His creation, and He has given us a standard of behavior which He is going to judge us by. The existence of God does not make any of the religions true, but it is positive evidence that one of them is true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

Man corrupts everything he touches because our nature is inherently sinful. Man can use anything as an excuse to do evil.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Except there is evidence in the bible which proves the bible is Gods word, such as the fulfilled prophecy. It may not prove that I am right, to you, but the evidence has convinced over 1/3 of the worlds population. That isn't even the question, in any case. I'm not trying to prove I am right to you. I don't believe there is anything I can do to ever convince you that God exists, or that His name is Jesus Christ. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I was explaining to you earlier. It's not an evidence problem, it's a heart problem. God has already given you sufficient evidence to know that He is, and who He is. Only God can change your heart. What He charged me with is to tell you the gospel and give you an answer for the faith that I have.

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Christians are not called to have dominion. I will of course strongly disagree with immoral laws, but people have the right to govern themselves as they wish. Although this is still a strongly Christian nation, we have a strong secular influence in our government. I accept that as being the reality.

your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?


You said that it isn't sustainable yet if you look at history you will see that stealing and killing is what we have been doing all along. The point is this..Let's say that the Nazis won the war and conquered the world. Eventually, they won everyone over to their philosophy, and now there is peace on the Earth. The glue that holds everything together is that once a year, they torture a jewish baby to death on camera, which brings great happiness and unity to the entire world. One year the baby died before they could torture it, and there were riots and many, many people were killed. Is it therefore moral to torture that baby to death, since it brings peace and happiness to the entire world?

>> ^VoodooV

>> ^Kofi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
No one created God, He is eternal.

>> ^

Thats the debate in a nutshell.
Atheists can't explain eternity nor do they require it to be explained. Religious types can answer it and need it to be answered.
It comes down to what Williams James called "personal temperament". Beyond this you are just shouting past one another. Metaphysics has not, and most likely can not, answer this.
The effects of such temperaments is quite another matter.


I wouldn't say I can explain eternity, but I can say that it is logical to believe in something eternal. Logic tells us that from nothing, nothing comes. Therefore, unless there is an eternal first cause, you would have to believe that nothing created everything, which is an absurdity.

Why hello there @shinnyblurry, we meet again (sort of). You know, it's kind of funny that while I was watching this video I was suddenly struck by the memory of our last encounter and expected that I'd see your responses to this video (and other people). Either way, no hard feelings about our previous encounters or anything.

If you can believe it, you've inspired me in a way. Not in the way that I imagine you might hope though. I don't really get into debates/arguments with died-in-the-wool believers anymore. Especially those who claim person divine revelation. There isn't a whole lot to be said at that point because most people aren't interested in attempting to falsify their own experiences. They especially aren't interested in attempting to falsify experiences that they deems profoundly meaningful to them personally, giving them new meaning to their life which I can understand. That kind of debate/argument cannot bear fruit unless something like education standards or public policies are at stake.

I'm sure you remember my whole standpoint on the god(s) thing, so I wont repeat myself, I mostly wanted to say Hi

I will say this though; personal revelations aside, "I don't know" followed up by skeptical inquiry is a far better answer and process to interacting with questions that we simply cannot, or haven't yet, verify objectively. I just can't accept that personal revelation is good enough to determine whether or not something is true. The probability of being incorrect about an experience is astounding. Humans are pattern seeking and creating machines. The answer "I don't know" is extremely hard to rest on for most humans because there is a biological need to fill in the blanks of our knowledge, and we do that by looking for patterns which may or may not be there. It was far better to believe that a predator is in the bushes when they rustle than to employ investigative powers thus taking the risk of being eaten. The studies on these phenomenon are amazing and it's amazing to see how easily humans will accept an an answer that doesn't make logical or empirical sense in order to avoid being in the position of "I don't know". It requires a lot of mental rigor to maintain "I don't know" as a placeholder. It goes against human biology. There is also less cognitive dissonance felt if investigation can be halted. When a belief is strongly held, it's fascinating how many self justification techniques are used to maintain that belief. There is a lot of literature and research that strongly suggest that superstitions follow from the urge to provide an answer rather than resting at "I don't know".

Anyone can say that they "know" because of some personal revelation, but does that mean that what they believe is actually true? Is personal revelation actually good enough?

Either way, it's all very fascinating stuff and there are a lot of books out there which cover all of the techniques that humans use in fooling themselves, to self justify beliefs, and in preventing cognitive dissonance.
>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^A10anis:
It is NOT a choice between "god and nothingness," It is a choice between childish myth, wishful thinking, and divine slavery based upon brain washing and fear, or the choice of reality, based upon logic, free thought, education and common sense. Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.

That's a very unsophisticated analysis, A10anis, and very biased as well. It's really a big surprise that you've attributed rationality solely to your viewpoint. Based on what? You've made all sorts of claims here, but nothing to substantiate them.
It is a clear choice between a Universe that was created intentionally, with meaning and purpose, and a Universe that is a product of chance, without meaning and purpose. What other choices are there?
Another question is, how would you know which one you were in?
Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.
That's a false dilemma, A10anis. A couple of them, actually. Clearly God can exist and require our faith at the same time.

>> ^shinyblurry:

No one created God, He is eternal.

>> ^


Thats the debate in a nutshell.

Atheists can't explain eternity nor do they require it to be explained. Religious types can answer it and need it to be answered.

It comes down to what Williams James called "personal temperament". Beyond this you are just shouting past one another. Metaphysics has not, and most likely can not, answer this.

The effects of such temperaments is quite another matter.