@shinyblurry
You're not factoring in differing views in science. From that same site:
"There are a number of other observations that are suggestive of the need for a cosmological constant. For example, if the cosmological constant today comprises most of the energy density of the universe, then the extrapolated age of the universe is much larger than it would be without such a term, which helps avoid the dilemma that the extrapolated age of the universe is younger than some of the oldest stars we observe!"

We can't go back in time to make precise measurements and observations to say that the big bang itself was the very beginning of the universe. "What was going on before the big bang," is what I would ask. You can't say with certainty the the universe had a beginning with the big bang and it's very presumptuous for you to assume that I should believe in god based on an idea that we will always be uncertain of. That's not to say, exactly, that I don't think the universe followed the big bang theory. Instead, I would argue that there was a similar "big compression" that preceded the expansion, and the expansion is the only thing we can measure because it's all we're left with. I'll dig up theory if you like; though dont make me waste my time if you can't be dissuaded though.

p.s. I worry you may be delusional based on all the posts I'm reading. Repent! Reason! and perhaps you can save yourself.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^shinyblurry:
The Universe had an absolute beginning, including all matter energy time and space.

@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
As loathe as I am to continue debating with you I will quipple with you on one point that I think you are likely wrong on. The universe is likely infinite, that is to say it has no end, and thus, no beginning either. If it had no beginning, then it never was created. Therefore, since it never was created and has always existed, there is no creator to be had, and thus, no god.
Want to prove me wrong? Find evidence that the universe is finite (you cant) or you can continue to quote a 2000 year old book. You could also try to prove that infinity doesn't exist I suppose (think the highest number and the lowest number OH SNAP THERE IS NO LOWEST/HIGHEST NUMBER BC INFINITY EXISTS [albeit as a value since it would be impossible to measure])


lol..wow..yes you should stop trying to debate with me, I agree..

From your site:

How Old is the Universe?
Until recently, astronomers estimated that the Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago. To put this in perspective, the Solar System is thought to be 4.5 billion years old and humans have existed as a genus for only a few million years. Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang; just as crime detectives can trace the origin of a bullet from the holes in a wall.

So basically you just proved yourself wrong. You see the big bang theory is pretty much universally accepted in modern cosmology. Almost everyone agrees the Universe has a beginning..how could you not know that? This shows your startling amount of ignorance..you just did a little search and clicked on the first thing that seemed to agree with you, and didn't even bother to read it! If you had you would have seen that it actually disagreed you. hahahahaha

@shinyblurry

Sorry for the delay... had some "real life" to deal with (as well as a little sift-nonsense).

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning.

Yes, but that's not what we were talking about. You said all matter (material) sprang forth from nothing and BBT doesn't agree.

What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

You're the one who said we only act selfishly, not me. I don't believe that at all. My point was specifically that both selfish and non-selfish behavior are part of our nature to varying degrees and that non-selfish behavior tends to benefit us (biologically) more as a species than selfish behavior. That's all that's necessary for evolution to provide morality.

What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement.

I think you're arguing whether or not this is a good system whereas I'm just stating that it's how it works. However, if we follow through on your example, those two men would probably face severe punishment (and/or death) for those actions because they went against the consensus of what the larger population thinks is moral behavior. Evolution by both natural and artificial selection.

While it's a subtle distinction, I believe it's an important one: There's a difference between making a decision based on your emotions and making a decision based on how it will effect other people. Yes, I believe that not causing harm or distress to other people is an objective base. I realize that's controversial.

Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion.

Agree. Unfortunately that's all we've got. Even your God doesn't stop or prevent people from doing horrible things. He leaves us to fend for ourselves and do the best we can.

God told us that everyone is equal. The bible is the original source for the conception of equality for all people, men and women, free or not. Knowing that, I would never deign to be someones "master", since I myself am only a servent and no better than they are.

God told us that it's ok to beat a slave as long as we don't kill him. Only Israelites are above slavery.

In Exodus we're told that if a bull goes on a killing spree, the bull and the bull's owner are to be put to death. However, if the bull kills slaves, then the bull's owner owes the slaves' owners some cash.

The NT is a little softer (not surprisingly) on slaves, but still states that it's ok to own people so long as you treat them reasonably well.

Generally, were you ok with slavery and other immoral acts before your conversion? Did you really need to be told that these things were wrong? Or did you already know? I bet you already knew and I bet you were no less moral a person then than you are now.

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

As a former agnostic, I am familar with what it is. Are you agnostic?

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning. If you don't want to discuss this, it's up to you.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

As far as the animals go, it is written in the bible that God takes care of them. Yes, cooperation is necessary to survive but this doesn't account for all moral behaviors. The behaviors you describe all help perpetuate your existence because you are doing them to gain an advantage socially. What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Just because it doesn't lead to it every time, doesn't mean it won't eventually. It's suprising what people will compromise under certain circumstances. Personally, I've never seen anything good that came from it in my life. I think there plainly a wisdom to never coveting what you don't have, or refuse to earn for yourself. I know plenty of people who sit around jealous of other peoples things and accomplishments. They feel their lives are unfair because that everyone else has more than they do. Yet, if they just ignored that and did for themselves, to their own satisfaction, they would be much happier people.

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

It is so objective? What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement. Do you know how much evil has been done in the world because of thinking like that? Feelings are not objective..they are really the most subjective thing you could think of. Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion. In which case people will just make it up as they go along. As a limited human with a subjective experience, how could your morality ever be objective?

@shinyblurry

The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material.

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted?

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

@xxovercastxx

I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

Apparently, if the other Universes had different physics, it would be impossible to detect them anyway. So to me it's a fairly useless supposition. So, just one Universe and nothing but the material.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

Time and space had a beginning at the big bang, so really it would always be impossible to measure it. The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material. It's creation ex nihilo..IE, creation from nothing. Which funnily enough happens to uniquely support the judeo-christian belief.

How does something from from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing..So therefore, if time and space had a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space which created it. These have always been identified as Gods attributes, of existing outside of time and space in an eternal continuim with no beginning or end. Isn't a transcendent creator necessitated here?

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted? Without an independent existence from the body, IE the soul, this seems to be the conclusion you're left with.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness. In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

Putting aside, for a moment, your apparent war on etymology, what if you believe the universe is a simulation running on a computer? What if you believe it was created by an advanced alien race? According to you, these people would be theists.

Well, you could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false. And if the Universe was simulated, the question is meaningless..but point taken..the better question is..Was the Universe deliberately Created by supreme being?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, I'll bite. Since you don't want to discuss what the bible says, I'll delve into your world. Do you believe there is only one Universe, many Universes or infinite Universes? Do you only believe in material reality, or do you think there could be other dimensions or planes of existence that transcend it? Basically, what is your cosmology/model of reality? How do you think consciousness works? Do you believe in morality and how do you determine what it is?


I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

Ryjkyj..that's not what I said, or meant. Created from nothing, meaning there was no material that was used. Ie, it was willed into existence.

and it's not that physics breaks down..time and space had a beginning there..without them you don't have any physics. It all goes back to a singularity. I didn't know that a catholic priest proposed the theory, but I don't really see why that's relevant. It points to a beginning, that is what is important. >> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Shiny,
The universe can be eternal without there being a God.

This is actually what science used to think. It's called the steady state theory, in which the Universe has no beginning or end. Scientists and other skeptics used to point to this theory as ruling out the possibility of a Creator. After Edwin Hubble discovered the Universe is expanding scientists realized the Universe did have a beginning and thus is not eternal. Now this is what is interesting.
In the entire recorded history of humanity, the judeo-christian belief alone is unique in proposing a creation from nothing. One of the discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation (which is evidence for the big bang) said this..
"Certainly, if you are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"
Just as the bible says, and science confirms thousands of years later, the Universe was created from nothing. Makes you think, doesn't it?

If the universe came from god, then it didn't come from nothing as the bible says, it came from god. It's interesting to me that you would prove the bible wrong yourself and not notice that. Unless god is nothing?
Either way (and completely separate), the big bang theory only states that the current shape of the universe was caused by a particular formation or event. It does not purport to know anything about the universe before a certain point where physics break down. And it certainly does not say that the universe popped into existence from nothing.
It just means that we cannot say, scientifically, what happened in our observable universe before a certain point. But since the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, I'm surprised you would use it in conjunction with your beliefs to help illuminate the existence of a creator.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Shiny,
The universe can be eternal without there being a God.

This is actually what science used to think. It's called the steady state theory, in which the Universe has no beginning or end. Scientists and other skeptics used to point to this theory as ruling out the possibility of a Creator. After Edwin Hubble discovered the Universe is expanding scientists realized the Universe did have a beginning and thus is not eternal. Now this is what is interesting.
In the entire recorded history of humanity, the judeo-christian belief alone is unique in proposing a creation from nothing. One of the discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation (which is evidence for the big bang) said this..
"Certainly, if you are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"
Just as the bible says, and science confirms thousands of years later, the Universe was created from nothing. Makes you think, doesn't it?


If the universe came from god, then it didn't come from nothing as the bible says, it came from god. It's interesting to me that you would prove the bible wrong yourself and not notice that. Unless god is nothing?

Either way (and completely separate), the big bang theory only states that the current shape of the universe was caused by a particular formation or event. It does not purport to know anything about the universe before a certain point where physics break down. And it certainly does not say that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

It just means that we cannot say, scientifically, what happened in our observable universe before a certain point. But since the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, I'm surprised you would use it in conjunction with your beliefs to help illuminate the existence of a creator.

Funnier than a whole season of the big bang theory!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Kaley Cuoco, Shake Weight, Ellen' to 'Kaley Cuoco, Shake Weight, Ellen, The Big Bang Theory, TBBT' - edited by ant

* 30 Second Bunnies
* All Your History (not all of the episodes).
* American Dad
* The Apprentice
* The Big Bang Theory
* Chuck
* Cinemassacre Productions for online movie and video game reviews (not all of them) with cussings and humor.
* Classic Game Room/InecomCompany -- Not all reviews.
* Educated Earth -- not everything.
* Family Guy (later seasons only)
* Fast and Loose
* Futurama (all episodes and movies and kept up since the pilot).
* GameInformer's Replay Hub (not all of them).
* Grey's Anatomy (since the pilot and kept up)
* The Guild (since the pilot and kept up)
* Know Your Meme (also on YouTube; not all episodes)
* The IT Crowd (kept up since its pilot)
* Matt's Chat (not all episodes)
* MythBusters (not all old episodes, but do keep up with the latest ones)
* New Media Agency (NMA) for sometimes funny animated news from Taiwan daily. Not every one of them is watched like the lame weather ones.
* No Ordinary Family.
* Nostalgia Critic (mostly movie and television/TV reviews, and do not watch all episodes).
* Retroware TV (not all episodes)
* Simon's Cat on YouTube (all episodes).
* The Simpsons (should be all episodes since Tracey Ullman's short days)
* Smallville (all episodes and kept up mostly after a few episodes in season one)
* South Park (not all episodes; skip the "sewer"/dirty ones)
* Star Wars: The Clone Wars (kept up since its pilot)
* Undercover Boss -- Rarely, since this worker ant only watches the interesting companies.
* Versus (not all old episodes).
* The Walking Dead.
* Walk on the Wild Side (kept up since its pilot).
* Television/TV/Telly commercial/spots/advertisements/ads. on FunnyPlace (kept up with its latest frequent updates).
* Many other online videos especially random ones from VideoSift (not all of them and using filters).
* Various interesting documentaries.

I never thought of Big Bang theory like this...

My God, it's disturbing how much she looks like that Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory. Chuck a blond wig on him, and you're 90% there!

Fixed and thanks. We will use Netherlands'!

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Neither can I, but google translator can: "There is no such video."

*dead

>> ^bareboards2:

I think this is dead again, ant. I can't read Hungarian....