Well I think there's a big problem in approaching things that exist outside of the universe with a scientific (not philosophical) mind. The scientific process is based on things (in our universe) being testable. Seeing as you can't test anything that exists outside the universe, any supposition or philosophy will be simply that: supposition or philosophy.

Knowing this concept means that both branes and god have an equal stance for the creation of the universe. I stand in the circle of "god" because (like GeeSussFreek mentioned), I have an understanding that if causality is the basis for our universe, where is the first link? I think that God (as a beginning) is a solid answer to that.

>> ^xxovercastxx:


I think there's a big difference in value between an explanation (even if it's speculation) and "God did it".
How can "God did it" ever be an explanation when God himself can't even be explained or defined?

>> ^TheJehosephat:

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have faith in the answers that I do think I have.
Along the same lines, wouldn't string theorists be replacing "I don't know" with "It was branes"? No one on Earth knows all the answers. We all have to work together to figure out what the hell we're doing on this rock.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^TheJehosephat:
That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well.
Then aren't you just replacing "I don't know" with "It was God"?



I think there's a big difference in value between an explanation (even if it's speculation) and "God did it".

How can "God did it" ever be an explanation when God himself can't even be explained or defined?

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have faith in the answers that I do think I have.

Along the same lines, wouldn't string theorists be replacing "I don't know" with "It was branes"? No one on Earth knows all the answers. We all have to work together to figure out what the hell we're doing on this rock.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^TheJehosephat:
That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well.
Then aren't you just replacing "I don't know" with "It was God"?

>> ^TheJehosephat:

That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well.

Then aren't you just replacing "I don't know" with "It was God"?

My personal faith has led me towards the Religious Society of Friends (for the non-google oriented: Quakers). But I don't pretend to have all the answers, so I'm always learning and searching for the truth.

>> ^Smugglarn:

What god? The Hebrew war god in the Bible? Odin? Brahma? Ra?>> ^TheJehosephat:

What god? The Hebrew war god in the Bible? Odin? Brahma? Ra?>> ^TheJehosephat:

That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well. Anyway, this was a pretty civil discussion. Thanks @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/xxovercastxx" title="member since February 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">xxovercastxx and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/heathen" title="member since April 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">heathen
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/xxovercastxx" title="member since February 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">xxovercastxx @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/TheJehosephat" title="member since October 12th, 2009" class="profilelink">TheJehosephat And even more damning is if you believe in causality as the prime way the universe works, you need a first link in the causality chain. Without causes and effects, you have no real meaning for time. You need a point to which causality starts, it is a logically necessary condition.

>> ^TheJehosephat:

The idea that time exists outside of the universe is a wholly unscientific idea. If God created the universe, God exists outside of time. The only reason we assume there must be a creator to the creator is because we experience time in a linear fashion. There was no creator of the creator, because the creator was always there.

EDIT: I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong with the quotes here...


First, the quote system is pretty hosed here and probably won't be fixed any time soon.

To your main point... If God does not require a creator because he was always there, why does everything else have to have been created?

>> ^TheJehosephat:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Take THAT, godlovers!!! >:[
Except that not all God-lovers are anti-evolutionists. I might be considered a creationist because I believe God sparked the creation of the universe which lead to the evolution of life on the planet. Saying that all people who have a belief in God are also scientifically illiterate is an ignorant statement in itself


But then what sparked the creation of God?

That was the worst documentary (well part of one) I've ever seen. Give me David Attenborough over this over dramatised bullshit any day.

>> ^siftbot:

During the Anonymous Video Submitter Contest the doublepromote invocation is disabled.


I am highly displeased that I am forced to participate in your contest.

I appreciate the effort, but I'd rather not have to participate.

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
During the Anonymous Video Submitter Contest the doublepromote invocation is disabled.

9 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

In the voice of David Attenborough.

And here.. we have, the money shot. *splash*

To add to the comment I added on that post, I've always known who he was because the likes of The Goodies would make fun of him (and Sir David Attenborough, and the likes). He's a fairly well-known astronomer, and a slightly less well-known xylophone player, who has played (in 1981) for the Queen in a Royal variety performance.

I don't think I've ever seen him without his monocle.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
http://videosift.com/video/Space-Snacks-With-Sir-Patrick-Moore-the-astronomer
lol, I went to go see who Patrick Moore was and found this.
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Close. I would vote for Giraffe number 1, then Kenya. Maybe they're my equal faves with Scampi and Badger coming after.

I don't like all of them, the salad fingers ones and the like leave me completely cold (choccy otoh leaves me hungry

Oh no! I forgot Patrick Moore! Now I don't know whether I like it more than Scampi or not... OK, I'd better stop here before I get really confused...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'python, springbok, eating, mechanics' to 'Python, deer, David Attenborough, life in cold blood, eating, eating mechanism, cold' - edited by BoneRemake