>> ^Jinx:

I'm probably not a sheep then.
I am ignorant of much, but what I do know is that humans are prone to believe what they want to be real, I know that humans fear the unknown, that we look for patterns and that we'll invent them when they aren't there. I don't know that there is no God, I don't know that you aren't gifted with some divine knowledge that I am not privy too, but I do know what is probable and what is not. Thats how rational humans make decisions, we accept that our knowledge is imperfect and we make a best guess. Science is best guess. Thats all we have, thats all we've ever had and like it or not, thats all you have. Certainty is your own deception.


Yet, science has nothing to say about the existence of God, so how do you say this factors into probabilities? Again, you say you're fairly certain about my uncertainty..but I say that is because you are uncertain. Certainly, God could let you know. Do you want to know?

"Only a mile away from the shepherd and his flock was a goatherd and his herd. The merest accident of microgeography had meant that the first man to hear the voice of Om, and who gave Om his view of humans, was a shepherd and not a goatherd. They have quite different ways of looking at the world, and the whole of history might have been different.

For sheep are stupid, and have to be driven. But goats are intelligent, and need to be led."
-- Terry Pratchett

For once, shiny, we are in total agreement.
>> ^shinyblurry:

His sheep hear His voice.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^shinyblurry:
How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid

You're not going to push me any further away, that's true. But presumably there are more on-the-fence readers who are smart enough not to get embroiled, and are fed up of seeing you banging away at your favourite drum.


His sheep hear His voice. I am a human being prone to failure, and again, I can't lead anyone to salvation. It is God leading through His Holy Spirit that changes someones heart.

>> ^dannym3141:

How dare you accuse me of being a militant anti-theist after the discussions i've had with you? Do you have no conscience about lying or something? You had to swallow your pride and apologise to me once for being a jerk (when i came to you as an inquirer) and yet you bandy around terms like "militant anti-theists?"
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. God is watching; shame on you.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid



I don't regard you as a militant anti-theist. However, the sift has many *proud* militant anti-theists and so I generalized. I didn't mean everyone.

Besides intelligent design and random chance, what other alternatives are there?

For your part, do you accept it's possible that you're being deceived by a demon who can mess with your thoughts

Do you believe God can make Himself known in such a way as you could be certain about it?

>> ^jmzero

>> ^shinyblurry:

How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid


You're not going to push me any further away, that's true. But presumably there are more on-the-fence readers who are smart enough not to get embroiled, and are fed up of seeing you banging away at your favourite drum.

How dare you accuse me of being a militant anti-theist after the discussions i've had with you? Do you have no conscience about lying or something? You had to swallow your pride and apologise to me once for being a jerk (when i came to you as an inquirer) and yet you bandy around terms like "militant anti-theists?"

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. God is watching; shame on you.
>> ^shinyblurry:

How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid

I know you are, but what am I?>> ^shinyblurry:

If you don't know, how would you know what I know?
>> ^Jinx:

We're both ignorant. Only one of us knows it.

Congratulations! Your video, Richard Feynman on God, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I think we have to take certain things for granted because not everything can be proven empirically. There is no way to empirically prove that the Universe is actually real. To say that it is real you have to rely on your senses and reasoning. You can't say those are valid without using viciously circular logic. "My reasoning is valid because my reasoning says so" Without assuming certain things, apriori, the world would be unintelligable. Neither could you do science. To do science you have to assume the uniformity in the nature. How do you prove it? By assuming the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? The past. It's the same vicious circularity.

As far as Gods existence goes, I never assumed either way. I knew I didn't have enough information to say either way, so I was agnostic by default. I only changed my mind when I received evidence. I wasn't under any pressure to do so, nor was I even looking to do so.

So, while science has a pitiless indifference to how you feel in regards to what is true, it is not the sole arbitor of what is true. This idea that empiricism is the only way to determine truth cannot be proven empirically, ironically. It is an assumption that materialists make with no actual evidence. The argument seems to be that since we can build a space shuttle, empiricism must the way. Yet, that isn't a logical argument. Empiricism might be useful, but it isn't the only method of inquiry that is useful. Everything has its place, and empiricism has a hard limit to what it can prove.

Yes, there certainly is material out there. Does that we can see and test material means that material causes are the only possible solution? We can't see dark matter, dark energy, other universes, other dimensions, yet scientists have no trouble postulating about what we can't see. So why not postulate that the Universe has a non-material causation? Why not an intelligent causation? I would say the evidence is a lot more convincing for intelligent design than other Universes, yet science only considers one to be plausible. Don't you think that is irrational?

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence. Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?

>> ^gwiz665:

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.
I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.
It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.
Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.
If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

The size of the Universe does not determine our relative significance in it. Why should Gods letter to mankind focus on mankind? Because He wrote the letter to mankind?

If the bible were a collection of mere stories then Islam couldn't be true, since Islam, like mormonism, is derivative of Christianity. Islam is a 6th century cult which claims to have extra-biblical revelation, which is flatly condemned by scripture.


>> ^mentality:

>> ^shinyblurry:
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

Feynman is not saying that god can't touch something on the scale of the universe. Feynman is saying how self centered, naive and provincial your silly little bible is to only focus on our tiny little insignificant corner of the universe.
Where are the tales of space Jesus who died for the sins of Omecron Persei 8?
Also, what I want to know is, what makes your understanding of a creator more correct than other religions? Why not follow Islam? I hear they have the direct word from god himself, far superior than your collection of mere stories.

Are you saying there is no infallible knowledge; ie, no truth?

>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^Jinx:
We're both ignorant. Only one of us knows it.
To me, this is a compelling qualitative argument against most organized religions (though perhaps not against theism explicitly).

"Science" in general is willing to discard and reject what was once believed "true" when presented with consistent contradictory evidence. We know the picture is incomplete, so we're prepared to refine and correct it as we learn.
Most organized religions are predicated on some form of infallibility. Some indisputable, irrefutable, unquestionable "truth". There is no room for new understanding. We are not allowed to refine or correct the message as knowledge is accumulated. (Which is doubly frustrating when in many cases what is and is not a part of that "truth" was established by committee hundreds or thousands of years ago.)

You have said to me that you attempt to give me the benefit of the doubt, which I appreciate, however most of those here tell me I am wrong, so is that somehow less arrogant in your eyes? In any case, it is both falsifiable and provable. You could find Jesus' grave for instance. It is also provable in that God does reveal Himself, as billions of people today, and billions more throughout history have found out. Whether you believe that or not is beside the point. The point is, if you demand evidence, tell me how we should find it. How would you test for God? If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence for God. How would you tell if you were in a Universe created by God or one created by random chance?

>> ^messenger:

"The answer"? Not sure what part of Feynman's interview response you're alluding to or what exactly "the question" was, but the best you personally can say is that you have "an answer", and one which may or may not be true, and which is both unfalsifiable and unprovable. Commenting all over the Sift like you know "the answer" and as if the rest of us are too stupid to just accept it is why people call you arrogant, FYI.>> ^shinyblurry:
It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it.