bwain huuuwts!

Seriously however he makes some interesting points that I haven't heard before, and some that I have.

F*cking brilliant.
I award this man 72 virgins. Or raisins. Whatever they are.

Nothing does not exist.

There's a red pill joke in there somewhere.

2:49

He says "Scott, even you began to exist!"

My attention had been waning a little bit, but all of a sudden, he says that (Scott being my name) and my attention was instantly fixated back on the video.

I hereby take this as a sign that god exists. My evidence is irrefutable.

first you have to define "god"

god /gɒd/: a supernatural narcissistic dad that is always angry, and blames his children for something he himself did.

I would assume that he also does not believe in a "soul" (defined however you want) and that humans (and any other intelligent life) are simply the sum of their biological components. (like God, the existence of a soul cannot be proven. I'm not trying to prove it, but I like to think that we are more than an amalgamation of cells and electricity)

I wonder what his take on antimatter/dark-matter is? Is it something which is being created in the LHC?

Also, what about observability? Is it possible for something to exist outside of our observable universe? Mathematically, we need 10 dimensions (+time) for string theory, so what if our observable universe is in a subset of those 10 dimensions, and there are many other universes for which it is impossible for our universe to interact? If you accept that, then one could argue that our big bang was caused by an unobservable event that took place in other (disjoint) dimensions. So, it's possible for "god" to exist (in another subset of dimensions), and to have created our universe, but it would be impossible for that "god" to interact with our universe in any way. I don't think this "god" is the God that religions speak of, nor the one that Scott the protagonist is trying to disprove. But I still think it's important just to point out that he was not thinking of extra dimensions...

Also, this guy should start his own porn endeavor. Would be kinda like bangbus, in that they all start the same way, and dumb people think it's real and not pre-arranged -
but instead of driving around in a van and offering money, he would go into Starbucks, pick up some pseudo-intellectual girl, totally blow her mind with philosophy, then fuck the shit outta'er.

Just need to come up with a clever name for the website...

>> ^spawnflagger:
I would assume that he also does not believe in a "soul" (defined however you want) and that humans (and any other intelligent life) are simply the sum of their biological components. (like God, the existence of a soul cannot be proven. I'm not trying to prove it, but I like to think that we are more than an amalgamation of cells and electricity)

I'd like to think that I'm going to be a millionaire one day. Like to think all I want, I'd have better luck learning to love top ramen. Oh and you're really bringing string theory into this? It's a little early in the game to consider string theory a load bearing part of any argument. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy mathematics leading the charge of what we know about the physical world, but let's pump the brakes a bit.

>> ^spawnflagger:
I wonder what his take on antimatter/dark-matter is? Is it something which is being created in the LHC?

Dark matter isn't being created in any human experiment yet.

When matter/antimatter is created, what happens is merely that energy goes from one form (kinetic energy in particles) to another (rest mass of matter). The same would go for dark matter if it was ever going to be created in an experiment.

I did not mean to offend any pastafarians...

This video is an argument of philosophy, not an argument of science. As such, it doesn't matter if we bring string theory into it. One could say instead "imagine if there were 10 dimensions, but we can't see all of them". We don't know why gravity works yet, but you just have to accept that Newton and Einstein's work was incomplete. Big Bang theory is based on observations of an expanding universe, but it's impossible to say what happened before that point in time (t=0). It's ok for Scott to use that, but not ok for me to use string theory? Maybe it's an oscillating universe, and it's impossible to observe because humans have not had the capacity to make observations for a long enough time span on a cosmic scale.

I thought Scott presented a good argument in the video. My comments are not to disprove his argument, I stated that already.

>> ^rottenseed:
I'd like to think that I'm going to be a millionaire one day. Like to think all I want, I'd have better luck learning to love top ramen.

Oh and you're really bringing string theory into this? It's a little early in the game to consider string theory a load bearing part of any argument. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy mathematics leading the charge of what we know about the physical world, but let's pump the brakes a bit.

>> ^Almanildo:
>> ^spawnflagger:
I wonder what his take on antimatter/dark-matter is? Is it something which is being created in the LHC?
Dark matter isn't being created in any human experiment yet.
When matter/antimatter is created, what happens is merely that energy goes from one form (kinetic energy in particles) to another (rest mass of matter). The same would go for dark matter if it was ever going to be created in an experiment.


Sorry Almanildo, you are right. The LHC is not yet creating dark matter, but that is one of the aims:
"We need to study dark matter directly by detecting relic dark matter particles in an underground detector and by creating dark matter particles at accelerators, where we can measure their properties and understand how they fit into the cosmic picture."
from:
http://www.uslhc.us/LHC_Science/Questions_for_the_Universe/Dark_Matter

So, how would the law of conservation of energy apply to dark matter and dark energy?
Current theory states that dark energy is homogeneous and makes up 70% of the universe (with visible matter being 4% and dark matter 26%). I realize at the LHC they have only regular energy to use...

LHC is supposed to start back up on Feb 15th, and the proton beams are expected to reach 99.9% speed of light on December 21st 2012. (lol, just kidding. it's actually slated for sometime in 2011).

He brings up thermodynamics ( you could add QED into this to make it even stronger, quantum foam and what not...), but entropy would be what he is talking about. Entropy can be seen as something that is the same homogeneous "thing" (quarks, photons, hydrogen; or in the case of QED potential energies) breaking down by "physics" or the physical mechanics and properties of the universe into a less homogeneous "thing". Hence energy then particles then elements, stars, black holes, planets, galaxies, cluster groups, the universe. It never really changed it is merely entropy that distinguishes most of these things.

Time itself may induce entropy, but we still have things to figure out in that area. What QED teaches is that you don't need anything special at all to create the universe, "chance" is more than enough. Throw in time or entropy and wallah, instant mechanical system created with it's own mechanics and in superposition to anything outside to detect it unless they become entangled to us. If they measure anything our "universes" would combine into a hybrid (most likely--impossible for now to begin thinking if this would be possible).

Recently scientists have been able to "tune" cobalt niobate (the magnetic spins) into a quantum critical state (superposition) and more recently they've done the same with electrons. The magnetic "tuning" frequency they used to accomplish this was extremely close to the Euler's number: e. "Euler's number" may be linked to the appearance of entropy merely being a function of mechanics that me be described by physicists later as an algorithm. If e is linked it would explain many observable systems we already have knowledge of. You can see it already at work in multiple situations. It also has a strong correlation with: fractals, golden ratio, golden spiral, Fibonacci sequence, etc... It's also an irrational number which may cause the algorithm to seemingly never stop; you could zoom in and out on the universe and it would continually look the same in correlation with an universal algorithm.

I hoped I made my thoughts clear enough; I dumbed down a lot of the material hopefully I still get the point across. It may be that the universe is merely just potential energies with an algorithm thrown in for spice. Other universes would have their own algorithm and constants like e.

Some articles pertaining to some of this: Here, here, here, here, here, and here.

>> ^rougy:
Nothing does not exist.


Does nothing not exist?

>> ^smbot31:
god /gɒd/: a supernatural narcissistic dad that is always angry, and blames his children for something he himself did.


so judeo/christian god.
ok..good..got it.

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.

...chemicals...chemical...chemicals...

I'm all for this type of discussion. The problem I see with all arguments of this type: God is God. He's not bound by any laws of nature/physics, because he created the laws.

This is why I usually tell most other non-believers "stay off my side, you're not helping." Such as my friend who joined in an argument about it when I was young. He thought it was a TOTAL TRUMP CARD to say "if God created us, why does he let all this bad stuff happen?" which is just about the weakest fucking argument against the existence of god that I can think of. Meanwhile, since his argument was so weak, and he was "on my side", I basically lost that particular argument.

I have truly come to believe it's pointless to argue about belief in God.

>> ^budzos:
I'm all for this type of discussion. The problem I see with all arguments of this type: God is God. He's not bound by any laws of nature/physics, because he created the laws.
This is why I usually tell most other non-believers "stay off my side, you're not helping." Such as my friend who joined in an argument about it when I was young. He thought it was a TOTAL TRUMP CARD to say "if God created us, why does he let all this bad stuff happen?" which is just about the weakest fucking argument against the existence of god that I can think of. Meanwhile, since his argument was so weak, and he was "on my side", I basically lost that particular argument.
I have truly come to believe it's pointless to argue about belief in God.

Before any debate over the existence of God begins, everyone must agree on a clear definition of "God".

The problem of evil is a valid argument against a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god. The only problem with it is it's ancient and everyone has heard it already, so most people dismiss the argument out of hand.

It's an invalid argument against the Christian god, who is really the only widely followed, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, singular creator god I can think of.

>> ^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

>> ^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?

What a retarded fucking question.

Are you not familiar with the concept of God as creator of the universe? "Let there be light" and all that?

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?

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!?"

>> ^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.

Yeah you came off that way. I'm not going to bother pointing out which logical fallacy you're guilty of in replying to the person rather than the argument. You don't know me fool! That's why I tell people like you -- T-shirt wearing atheists -- to stay out of the argument. You're not helping. And we're not on the same team.

This post has been removed from the Brain channel by channel owner jonny. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.