That's not proof that god exists. People tend to use quantum mechanics to justify supernatural events. Also, please don't say there is proof of gods existence as you can't even "prove" that were not in a matrix or something... :roll: Before all you crazy religous people try yelling at me for not being part of your religion, I do believe there is a "God", I just don't go to thousand year old books for all the answers.
I thought the presenter laid out a pretty persuasive case. What I liked in particular is that he backed his posts up with scientific papers and sources, instead of using a lay mans intuition. That being said, the video is meant to be thought provoking, and if you took the time to watch it, and still reject it at the end, at least you gave it some honest thought, which is all anyone can reasonably ask for. ️ I am curious, however.... What part do you disagree with, and why?
Hmmmmm.... I sense no rage coming from you. How disappointing. Actually, I don't disagree with any certain part, he laid his facts out well. I just always see the double split experiment being used as "proof" for one thing or another. I've actually been fooled by that "proof" before, which is why I had trouble watching this video with an open mind.
I will watch the video later... But as I am familiar with much of the Christian arguments... I will just talk in general. To start off, there is no real definite "answer" to the question "Could the universe have been created by a God?" right now, because science hasn't progressed that far yet. It would be OK for you to say "I think that a creator started the Big Bang", because before the Big Bang, we have no idea what anything was like.However, just because science cannot explain things right now does not mean that a god did those things. A common dilemma on the atheist's side is the "God of the Gaps". The God of the Gaps is basically a situation where Christians will point at anything science doesn't know yet and use God to explain it. An example of this is evolution. The missing link between our ancestors and us. We've found many missing links, but every time we find one link, that just makes two more links (gaps) that we need to fill. But even when we talk about the possibility that a creator started the universe, we also have to say to ourselves "Is this creator a god that people worship?" And also ask "If so, how would I know which God is the correct one?". Out of the thousands and millions of gods invented by religions over mankind's long existence, there's a slim chance that one person's religion is the correct one. There's a debate between Christopher Hitchens and someone else where Hitchens agrees that we don't know what could've caused the start of the universe, but also argues that even if it were, a Christian God would be very, very unlikely and illogical. Final point: If we say that the universe is so complicated that it MUST have been created by a god, then how could we say that God could exis without being created by another God? Clearly, if God could just will the universe into existence, that would be mean he is even more complicated. And the God who made him would be even more complex. And so on and so forth.
Nathan: I will give you the disclaimer right off the bat that "inspiringPhilosophy" is indeed a Christian website. There is no point in being deceptive about that to you or forum. HOWEVER, the link that I have provided does not deal at all with Christianity. It simply lays down the case for the existence of a god. That's where the case ends, and for forum, that is where it NEEDS to end. My goal isn't to push my religion here. My goal, however, is to refute the group of people who say that the existence of a god is illogical. You can rationally believe in a god. I post it to broaden people's minds to possibilities that they may not have considered. It, nor I, am presenting one religion over another.
Moose I think you just converted me edit: ive watched 5-6 more of their videos now. very very interesting
Commenting on the video, The science used all seemed to build up to a climax, which, all of a sudden threw in a subjective assumption, and was then like "thanks for coming, i hope you enjoyed the show. No time for questions, ok bye now". Theres a reason no one here had ever seen that video before or the supporting theory. Its because it could never be taken past their final (subjective) conclusion; non observable realities have to be observed by something within the reality but is not restrained by the properties of said "observable reality".... My conclusion of the video: If i didnt know a head of time the direction they were heading in the video, i would of had a "wait, what"? Reaction at the end. I would of assumed they were talking about a static connection between these specific particles that existed in an unobservable space time dimension. I was actually let down quite a bit to be honest.
Because unicorns aren't people,do you see people righting books with pets in them such as Cat with a capital C? or the normal way cat.
Well this is a stretch.... Here goes the spitballing If the multiverse theory becomes truth much more to consider if it created the big bang.