In Defense Of God

Please, go ahead and try. I welcome the debate. Comment section below.

Response to "Does God Exist? - Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 2)"

So I promised to break down this entire series. It took a while before I was ready to confront this level of stupid/dishonesty (one or the other, though likely some of both) but here is the debunking of part 2.

The first minute and a half are just intro/recounting where video one left off. So, we're going to ignore that since part one is already destroyed, and start with his first new claim in part 2.

Text in bold is emphasized, and for fun, anything in italics can be read with the sneering voice of Severus Snape. Anything that is in all caps is supposed to be lower case and bold. Well, except acronyms like DNA and such. I think I caught all the caps, but I might have missed some.

1. Oh boy here he goes with "irreducible complexity". He makes two claims here so this will count as two numbers. His first claim is that Darwin himself would say that his theory has failed. Well, sure. This is true. It has failed. That's why the theory of evolution that we use today is not the same as the one Charles Darwin proposed. Darwin was human, and made some mistakes. The Theory of Evolution that we use today has roots in Darwin's theory, but it is not Darwin's theory. It is revised, you know, like any other thing that you test and find fault in.

Just by saying what he does he shows that he either doesn't know science at all, which throws his claim of having done serious investigation for years into question. (What kind of investigation doesn't at least hear what the other side has to say so that their claims can be investigated and proven right or wrong?) Or that he knows better and is a complete and utter liar right off the bat.

This means that I don't even really need to debunk the rest of the video, but I will just for completeness sake.

2. Let's get to the second part of his claim, the things that are supposedly "irreducibly complex".

F1-ATPase - Well, that's it! You've got us. Irreducibly complex! ...Wrong! See, when a thing is found it can at first seem to be irreducibly complex, but after time studying it, it can be shown just how and maybe even why such a thing is not irreducibly complex. A simple google search can now show this information is wrong.

I'll also note that he never said just why it should be irreducibly complex, just that it is complex, and then asserted that it was "impossible" for it to have evolved. No evidence, not even a real claim of what specifically was impossible, just an assertion that it was. This is the result of years of study? What a joke...

3. Proteins, cilia, etc... Here we go again. Many structures only function when all of the parts are assembled. Yes this is true; but this is also misleading. The structures in their current form only function when all the parts are assembled. We can and have shown on multiple occasions just how they were able to function separately in prior forms before they evolved together. They tried this shit in the trials about teaching intelligent design in school in Pennsylvania. They lost. Because nothing they could show was actually irreducibly complex. Not then, and still not now. It's a bunch of bullshit. Look it up. Watch the documentary about the trial.

4. We should stand in awe of any God who is just able to design and create cilia? Holy oversimplification batman! We have humans who have designed improvements of God's designs. Should we worship them too? I'd be careful what you say there buddy! You're encouraging blasphemy!

5. Sequencing of proteins is not at all a "crisis" of "evolutionary thinking". Maybe you should actually have done years of research like you claimed instead of just parroting other apologists like yourself. Because then you might at least be able to use arguments that haven't already been disproven time and time again.

Take a protein that doesn't have a viable sequence. It falls apart. Which means that eventually just from sheer random chance? Proteins will form viable sequences and stay together, while the "wrong" sequences do not, leading only the "correct" sequences to evolve. It isn't difficult.

See, they often compare it to monkeys typing on a keyboard, but they mess up the analogy. What if there was a computer, that deleted every letter the monkey typed unless it was a valid letter in a word?

Meaning if a monkey typed "M" it would stay. They then type a and it stays because a word like "Man" or "May" or "Maybe" exists. Now what happens when the monkey types "z" next? Well, if the computer has no word that starts with "Maz" in it's dictionary, it deletes the letter z and lets the monkey keep typing. You see how the monkey would actually turn out real words with that feature? That is how proteins function. You add a bad letter, (wrong sequence) and it doesn't stick.

Let me put your argument into a metaphor. I have a car. Now, for the car to function it needs all of it's parts. However that doesn't mean that the engine, the wheels, the fuel, and other necessary parts were all created together. We invented the wheel long before the engine, we invented the type of fuel we use at a different time than the engine as well. The light bulb had nothing to do with an engine, neither did electricity have anything to do with wheels. Yet all those parts are needed to have a car. They were invented independently and later came together to make a car. It's simple.

Now that isn't a perfect metaphor, but it gets the point across. Not all parts are needed "simultaneously" for evolution to be true.

6. Ahhhh here it goes. "It is not possible for a code of any kind to arise by chance." Really? Well my childhood writings would disagree with you, as would any sufficiently long book like War and Peace and Moby Dick. Search long writings trying enough different letter skip sequences and you'll find "hidden codes" that are the result of purely random chance. Blatant lies... worse it what else it says. All code is the work if intelligence. So, if anything that makes some kind of sense cannot arise without a mind behind it, then what mind created your God? He must be infinitely more complex than a simple human, despite his non-physicality... What mind designed that complex being? You have trapped yourself into an infinite regression that you simply refuse to answer by saying "God always was" despite the blatant contradiction.

7. "Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code..." Pure bullshit. What do you think a dog learning commands is? The sounds are meaningless to them, they haven't been taught English or whatever language the owner speaks. Yet somehow they "work out" the "code" of sounds to learn what sounds have what meanings to the point that they can follow complex commands. Chimps even more than dogs. Did you know that there are apes who can use sign language to communicate with humans? Even thought their level of ability with the language is low, it is still a "code" that had to be figured out. You're arguing from ignorance again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language

8. Oh wow... Just... Wow. You actually have the nerve to quote mine Richard Dawkins!? The guy who adamantly refuses to accept a god? Anyone with any sense that knows anything about Dawkins could tell you were taking him out of context. He said superficially the evidence demands a god. That means that it looks like that on the surface, but when you actually take the time to study and do proper research, you find that there is no need for one. The later line says that this is what the theist is stressing. Not that the theist is correct in his belief you utter fuck.

I normally don't lower my arguments to this kind of ad hominem attack but at this point you have literally asked for it by being so obviously dishonest that I can't even give you the benefit of the doubt anymore. You know that you are lying now, as you are purposefully misrepresenting your opponent's views. You are one lying, scheming, slimy sack of shit. Here's a quote for you:

"If God was real he would have put you to death, and long before you had a chance to even utter a breath."

Now to calm myself... Because your blatant lies are now pissing me off.

9. "Information" in a cell is not "information" as most people think of it. We compare it to how much data we could store on a computer sure, but it isn't that kind of information. Nice way of using words in a non-scientific context to twist people's understandings.... Just like that shit with the word theory. It doesn't mean in science what it means in common conversation. Information doesn't either, not in this context. Fuck you really are an asshole. Just trying to twist people's beliefs and get them converted.

10. Right.... about the bible claiming that God made everything in the first six days. There's a thing about that. God made the animals before he made Adam. Dolphins have two pipes, one for eating, one for breathing. Humans have only one. This dual pipe idea God had for dolphins makes it impossible for them to choke and die on their food. A pretty good design I'd say, if it was in fact designed.

Why did God not realize how good an idea this was and preserve it in humans? I mean, you'd think that since humans were his last creation, he'd have used the experience he gained from making the other animals to make a superior product, yet in almost every way other than our intelligence levels, we are inferior to the animals.

Did you know that some species of female moths can choose what male sperm goes to their eggs? That they can have sex with multiple males, but only get pregnant by the one they think is the best? How many human woman would love that trait I wonder? To be able to fuck whoever they want, but only actually get pregnant by the successful businessman and not their loser drug dealing boyfriend on the side? I guess it's good for us men that god discarded that particular ability huh?

Humans are weaker, slower, we don't have a stable breeding season meaning that babies can be born in deadly winter for our non-furred bodies instead of in warm spring... Horrible all around. Wtf? Did god just forget all the great ideas he had when he got to us? Were we made from the creative dregs of what was left of his mind after being awake for 5 days prior? God must have been on his last legs. Maybe if he'd rested on the 6th day and made us on the 7th we'd be better designed, is that it? Or maybe, just maybe, we don't have any of the good advancements some of our animal friends have because we evolved instead of being designed.

11. Two more horrible claims... First, species don't actually always produce the same species over and over. That's exactly why evolution is a thing. Species can produce slightly different subspecies, that eventually, should they remain isolated instead of interbreeding with the previous tribe, become a completely separate species that cannot interbreed back with the original species. But here's information about evolution both in short, and long.

12. Lastly, you're mixing things up. Evolution talks about what happens to life once it exists. The idea of life coming into existence in the first place is about abiogenesis. Evolution is a fact, wherever life originally came from. Even if some deity exists that created life to begin with, that deity then only created the first organism(s) and not all diverse life on the planet. As for whether life sprang up here on earth, was seeded from outer space through meteor bombardment, or was created by a deity, that doesn't matter to the truth of evolution in the slightest. Again, the origin of life is abiogenesis, what happens to life after it exists, is evolution.

Let me put your argument into a metaphor. Let's continue with the car. I can tell you what happens to that car after I drive it, but I can't tell you how that car was put together outside of general terms because I'm not a car guy. I know that my car needs gas, I know that it was once a different color before I had it painted, and I know that it needs oil changes. What you are saying is that just because I don't know how the car was constructed, I can't possibly know anything else about the car. Your argument is completely retarded.

13. "It's not possible to have life without a lifegiver." Please prove that. "Only God has life inherent in himself." Oh never mind, you've just been kind enough to disprove your previous sentence.

Since you obviously can come up with the idea of something having life "inherently" why is it so hard to believe that such a thing might not be a divine entity and not just another part of nature? Why assume divinity where you have no evidence of it? Oh right, you're a fucking liar. I almost forgot.

14.  "Is he more than a blind power? A dumb first force?" Well, maybe whatever first cause could be that... But I haven't asserted that it is, I simply said that you can't say for certain that it is not. Those aren't the same thing. And again, complexity is not the hallmark of design, simplicity is. Everything designed (with the exception of puzzles, because those are intended to be challenges and so are obviously different than anything made for other reasons) is made a simply as possible for efficiency. Complexity is the hallmark of nature, or at the least the hallmark of trial and error. Of someone learning as they go. Not the signs that an all-knowing god would leave.

15. Once again, YOU DON'T KNOW THERMODYNAMICS! For fucks sake, you keep getting those laws wrong. You're definitely a liar, and possibly stupid as well.

16. Wait a minute, something cannot come from nothing, therefore God had to always exist? Really? If obviously something had to always exist, why assume that this "something" is your God? Why can it not be the universe itself? You keep doing this bullshit assumptions game.

17. No, a cause does not have to be greater than the effect. That is only the case if the cause is inefficient. If the cause has 100% efficiency, then the effect can be just as great as the cause because no energy is lost. Therefore God (if he existed) wouldn't have to be greater than the universe, only equal to it. Unless you think God is not capable of being 100% efficient... And no, he wouldn't have to be "all-powerful" even if he wasn't 100% efficient, he would only have to be powerful enough to create the universe. That in no way implies all powerful, nor does it imply that he had to exist for "all eternity". Once again you keep making these stupid leaps in logic.

18. So... you have a nobel prize winner who either is being quote mined, where you are taking his words out of context because he probably meant that no matter how far science progresses, there are limits to the human mind, and therefore there are likely to be things that we simply cannot understand due to our inherent limits, or else he happened to be wrong about God. So what? Just because he was a nobel prize doesn't mean he's "all-knowing" so he can obviously be wrong on certain things. Big deal. Again, I can point out preachers who have quit religion to become atheists. Does that make them right about God? Stop trying to use arguments from authority to convince people of your lies.

But here's a little video that talks about how even intelligent people can believe ridiculous claims:

19. Right... Science ignores the truth. That's why science had to fight so hard against religion to get the world to learn that the sun was the center of the solar system and the earth went around it, not vice versa. That's why science had to teach that the earth wasn't flat, that there wasn't a canopy of water above to firmament pouring down, that's why science had to teach that no only was the earth not the center of the solar system, but that our solar system wasn't even the center of the galaxy. Because Earth isn't actually special. It's just one planet among many. What a crock of shit. Just more and more assertions and nothing of substance.

20. Why would highly intelligent men believe such false and silly ideas, and even willingly deceive people? I don't know. Ask a Muslim, or a Baptist, or a Christian, or a Catholic, or a Hindu, or anyone of any faith on the planet. Maybe it's because people believe all kinds of stupid shit for bad reasons, and because they believe it, most of them aren't "deceiving" people because they aren't trying to lie, they're just wrong. Not everyone is as big a liar as you after all. Stop assuming that people have the same reasons you do.

21. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's your answer? The reason people don't believe and teach others not to believe is because they don't want to obey a God? The old, "Atheists just want to sin!" answer!?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I've been waiting for someone to be so stupid as to actually use that argument. Here's how much of a fucking idiot you are:

22. "Speaking truth with facts (uhhh, aren't they one and the same fucktard?) allows speaking with authority." Wrong! One can have all the truth/facts in the world, and not speak with authority. Speaking with authority is all about having charisma, and having the balls to do so. That's why there are so many religions out there. Because authority is not dependent on facts, truth, or whatever word you want to use to describe it. Authority is only dependent on the ability to make people listen. Either through force, or through the strength of your personality.

23. "All existing food on earth is perfectly designed for human or animal consumption." You fucking idiot. We classify things as "food" because we can eat them. Not the other way around. It isn't like we classified arsenic as "food" only to find out later it was poisonous! We call it "poison" and not "food" because of what it does! Your ignorance and idiocy is beyond words.

24. "Every time man tried to improve or alter food..." Really? Not according to banana man aka Ray Comfort. Not according to the "super foods" that we have artificially made to be more resilient. Not according to even the "normal" foods that we have today that are a result of man breeding different strains of plants together centuries ago. All the "original" plants are long since gone you fool.

25. Sickness would vanish if man just "left food alone"? Huh. I wonder where all those illnesses of the past came from then...

26. "...God who made perfect food..." You mean that God who made water, our main necessity to survive, but made the lakes and rivers so that the water inside kills people if they drink it naturally? That they had to use alcohol to dilute the water and kill most of the bacteria in it, leading us to the alcohol infused societies we have today? The God who made the only good water to drink so hidden that we needed wells to get to it, wells that only science invented? Even if it was primitive science? Damn, you're setting the bar pretty low. Humans win that one easy.

27. Fossils. Yes, some fossils were indeed misclassified. But you know what? Science showed that and corrected itself. This is something religions fail to do. You know what else? We have many, many, many, complete skeletons in the fossil record. Go to museums and see them. They exist. Some are in the back, in storage, but you can always ask the curator to show you more than what is on display. The rotate their selections so as to not get stale.

Nice to see you using a professor of physics to argue about fossils though. Let me just go to a car mechanic to get information on my plumbing system. Because getting people who are experts in a different field than the one they are being questioned about is obviously the way to go. Have a dentist fix your airplane and see who trusts it to fly.

28. Again you use Darwin. Well guess what? Darwin had no idea how old the earth actually is. He was dealing with the religious age of the earth, a little over 4,000 years rather than the now known millions and billions of years. Had he known just how old earth was, he'd have realized that it takes longer for the changes to occur. His question makes sense with the framework of time he thought he had. More evidence that even smart people can be wrong sometimes.

29. I like how you try and limit evolution to fossils. Fact is, we don't need a single fossil to prove evolution. DNA alone is enough. Much like we don't need to wait until a kid dies and use their fossils to prove parentage, we can use DNA to prove what species came from what other species long ago. But go ahead, keep talking about the fossils without actually saying anything of substance. You know, stating that the article was honest and said maybe, presumable, and other such statements without giving any context to say what they were talking about when they used those terms, in order to make it seem like they were saying that about evolution itself.

30. There is no "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution" these terms are only used by people who don't actually know what evolution is, or by those who are trying to use terms that their opponents are using in order to explain how evolution really works. Whoever you're talking about either didn't know what the hell they were talking about, or else was trying to "dumb it down" for you, and you still failed to understand it.

31. "Any who mock God's existence..." Mocking a belief is not mocking a person. You aren't giving what you're getting, you're going above and beyond. I don't mock all religious people, even though I do mock you yourself. Because they don't deserve to be mocked. But I do mock their belief, which is a very different thing. It's like a wise man once said: "People deserve respect, beliefs don't."

Any belief that can't be mocked without fear of reprisal is suspect. Because any true belief would be able to stand against such on its own merit. I guess we know what beliefs can't...

32. And no, the fossil record does not show that, despite your abject lies. Anyone who wants to look into the fossil record can check, by talking to scientists who actually specialize in fossils and so know what they are talking about. Not physicists who might know a lot about physics but nothing about fossils. You do that, but your practices should obviously not be followed in that manner.

33. I like how you claim to believe anything other than what you say is to be dishonest with the evidence after you lied so many, many, many times. Please people, educate yourselves before believing these liars. In the meantime, I'll get to video three eventually. It's gonna take time to get over this much stupid again.

The Existence of God Makes Humans Irrelevant Or: If God Exists, We Don't

This post has not been fully fleshed out yet, and probably has some hole (or holes) in the presentation. It'll be cleaned up later, but I wanted to get the idea down before I forgot to.

Well, I'm a philosopher at heart, despite my love of science, religion, fantasy and much more. I think deep thoughts in my spare time more than anything, (other than reading) and I just usually don't take the time to write them down. This blog however is useful for recording things as I come across them when they are sufficiently deep to share. (Provided I remember to post it, working on that!) So here we go. God, should one exist, makes humans not only irrelevant, but also not even real beings.

There's another interesting thing about religious interpretation when you think about it. At least in the sense of any religion that says God created time and space, which is where Christianity, Islam and Judaism have run to. Not the ones where the universe was simply an empty thing until God filled it, like many of the ancient religions of old (aka Pagan religions) but ones that proclaim that God is outside the universe, and moreover, created it.

It means that we aren't really real.

Think about it - it is literally the "we are a video game or otherwise simulated universe theory.

In Ocarina of Time you have time (in a limited sense of course). People have schedules they follow throughout the day. They have space, obviously as well.

In Skyrim you also have time. It is even more detailed. They have days of the week, and people will do different things on different days. Not just a day/night schedule. They even have months and years, and people can age over enough in game years.

The point is that if God created time and space as we know them, then we aren't in the true reality. Because he can't have created true time, that had to exist for him to have time to do anything. He could only have created our experience of time. A "lesser" time that exists only in our non-real universe. Non-real in the sense that we are "real" just like the Zelda game is "real" but we don't actually interact with true reality, just as Saria, Link, Zelda and Gannondorf don't actually interact with the player.

Religions that claim God created time and space themselves say that we don't matter, because we aren't real. They then give us the rules of the "game" and claim that we are the players. But how can we be, if we only exist in the game? In that sense we are the NPCs who seem to have free will to act, but don't.

In a game everything about a character is scripted. The better the code, the more it seems not to be so, but that doesn't change the fact that it is. We only have "free will" in the game because we aren't part of the game, our characters aren't controlled by the game's logic (choosing their actions, not the limitations of their actions, meaning I can make Mario jump, but I choose whether he jumps down that pit or not) because we are outside of it controlling the character. However, we don't have that luxury. We are inside of our reality. Our brains are physical and control everything we do. How can we have free will in a system where our physical brains operate in a system that is outside of our control?

Now some will say "But this isn't a game! This is a test to see who goes to heaven/hell!" It is important to note that the limit of not being "real" isn't only because it is a game, but also a result of the limits of the characters being imposed upon them by the system itself. Meaning that even in a simulated universe where the NPCs have a true AI and can evolve and learn and have "free will" they still cannot truly act. At least, not on reality. Them having free choice in no way makes them any more real. They are still merely characters and nothing more.

To put it simply, God and the Devil would be the MVPs, with the angels and fallen angels as their teams, and we humans are the game. The universe is deterministic, and our brains are just like the code in Skyrim, only better. We seem to have free will, but since our brains are physical, and every decision we make comes from them, we seem to make choices, when in fact we are not, the choices are being made by the "code" in our reality. We are NPCs.

If anyone has ever played the Star Ocean series? That's us. It's the story of our reality - at least if the God claims are true. Religion literally makes the "simulation universe" claim without even knowing it whenever it claims that God created time and space itself.

Response to "Does God Exist?-Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1)"

So I found another heap of lies today from yet another critic of science who tries to use science... to disprove science. All while not understanding science in the first place. Yep... it's a guy trying to prove his religion.

I always love how the religious are quick to use science when they think it proves something right for them, but then quick to abandon it as a source for facts and truth when it disagrees with them.

Guess what? He had comments and voting disabled on his page. So guess what I did? I downloaded the video, and re-uploaded it with comments enabled. Here's the list of lies found in episode 1.

This is best read while listening to the video to see what he says and have my refutation right there in real time.

Refutation of the Video

Does God Exist? - Many Absolute Proofs (Part 1)

Let's start listing the flaws in the arguments one by one. I wonder how long it'll take this guy to get to the cosmological argument? The images I'm seeing lead me to think this is his main case. That will be sad if it's true... The cosmological argument has been defeated long, long, long ago. And this is just last year. But okay, here you guys go, comment being left in real time as I watch the video. No prep work needed for this nonsense I'm sure.

1. Atheism is not the conclusion that God does not exist. The guy doesn't even know what atheism is and he wants us to believe him? Wow. Atheism is the admission that we have no proof that a God exists, and therefore not believing in one until proof is shown. It is not stating that God definitely 100% does not exist. Agnosticism would be being unsure about whether you believe or not, which is something that doesn't realistically last very long. People just choose to hide behind that word instead of saying "atheist" for two reasons: a) they don't know the difference or b) they are afraid of the stigma. Either way, Atheism is what most "agnostics" are despite their claims. If they say "I don't know" shrug and are generally uncaring? Then they are atheist. Because if they did believe, they would care. Only a non-believer can not care considering the punishment in the afterlife for apostasy.

2. There is no "absolute proof" for the existence of God. The Catholic church, that giant moneymaking business, would be shouting it from the rooftops if such a thing were true. Even for those who believe the Catholic Church to be a trick by Satan, consider this. If there was "proof" and it was available to be found, would not Satan give said proof to his puppet false religion? This way the false religion would show the "proof" and people would believe it was a revelation from God and fall further into the trap. In essence, whether you believe the Catholic Church is of God or not, it is in the church's best interest to broadcast such proof to bolster its numbers and spread its doctrine. True or False. The mere fact that they haven't shows that there is none. Well, none as of yet. Who knows, it could be found later. Possibly. IF it exists of course.

3. Evolution is not "blind dumb luck". What particular mutation any given organism gets is, but the survival of one mutation over another is survival of the fittest. Trial by fire. Not luck, not chance. It is more of an all out battle in the ancient roman coliseum, only no teams, every man for themselves. The best win. Not the lucky. The lucky can last a few days maybe, but to win the championship? That takes skill. Luck only goes so far.

4. I never understand why people talk about proof then go on to talk about faith. This guy is especially contradictory, in saying that proof will give you faith. Faith is what you have when you don't have proof! The second you have proof, all faith is gone. Because proof gives certainty. Faith requires trust. Proof would completely and utterly destroy faith. I realize that people use the word "faith" in many different ways now-a-days, but is it really that difficult to grasp?

5. "Many Gods of wood, stone and other materials." He then goes on to say that the true god created the materials these man-made gods are made from. What is he a fucking idiot? People don't think that the statue is the God... it is a representation of the God. You respect the statue, for the same reasons that people respect the bible. The bible is just a book. Yet people swear on it like it holds some power to compel truth or punish those who lie on it despite us knowing that people lie on it every single day in court. You respect it because it represents your God. Not because it is your God. So the little snubbing comment to other religions where he tries to make them look dumb for worshipping things they made themselves? Yeah, what an idiot.

6. In fact, all this talk against pagans and other Gods besides Yahweh, but Psalms 82:1 Says the Yahweh is "He that judgeth among the Gods." That's Gods. Plural. People like to ignore that one, or say it's a figure of speech. Funny that. Especially when archeological evidence has unearthed the Jews having multiple gods. Yahweh's wife among them. A Goddess named Asherah. Where do people think these "other Gods" the Jews had a huge habit of turning to kept coming from? Why did they keep worshipping bulls and calfs? Those weren't Egyptian gods that they turned to after leaving Egypt. And yet all through the Old Testament we see that it was a constant battle for the priests of the "new movement" to get them to convert from polytheism to monotheism. The Jews had many Gods, just like everyone else.

7. Oh boy... he went with the "you just want to sin" argument. We don't want this God to exist because if he does we must obey him. So we obviously just put our heads into the sand and pretend that God doesn't exist so that we can sin right? Because if we pretend that we didn't know it was real we'll avoid hell right? Here's how stupid you sound guy:

8. "The bible is for people of all kinds who are willing to study." You mean like the Amalekites? The ones who were killed "man, woman, child, and even their animals you shall put to the sword?" I don't recall the bible giving them a chance to convert. They were just slaughtered. So much for that "all people" nonsense. But go ahead Christians. Study your bible. By that I mean actually read it. The whole thing, every single line. There's no faster way to make an atheist.

9. The bible would get rid of confusion and evil? Please don't try and mix the cosmological argument with the moral one... you can't handle one, let alone two. And the moral argument has been refuted many, many, many times before. There is just no way that the bible teaches morality. At least, not any that we'd follow today. Slavery, mass murder, sacrificing another to atone for your own wrongs, killing animals for the sins of their masters, killing children for the sins of their parents,  making people unable to understand each other because they were making a big (small to our skyscrapers now) tower because God didn't seem to realize that they couldn't actually get to heaven, that they'd suffocate before they even left the planet, let alone that heaven was a metaphysical place and a tower was no threat... Yeah, that's some all-knowing God there. So afraid of humanity working together as one. Why? What does an all-powerful being have to fear? Unless he isn't all powerful and was worried that we'd kick his ass and take his throne? You know, succeed where Lucifer failed? So much for him not being the author of confusion, he's so afraid of unity that he confounds our language. What a coward.

10. "All powerful supreme being of infinite intelligence carefully provided more than sufficient proof..." Then he goes right behind that and says "assumptions don't count". Glad to know you realize that much. Well then, please tell me why you made these two major assumptions: a) If I just give you that a god created the universe, no argument, how does that make said creator an "all powerful supreme being of infinite intelligence" in any way? How do we assume that this is true? Could not a creator be just that, a creator and nothing more? There are many "creator deity" archetypes in many religions. In some, the creator is similar to an animal. Acting on instinct. Creating not because he loves his creations, but because it is simply his nature to create. Nothing more. Not all powerful, not all knowing, not even loving. Just creating because it is what he does. One might stretch a bit and say it makes him happy, but even that is an assumption. What possible evidence do you have that this "creator" has more powers than simply the ability to create? Why does creation equal infinite power, knowledge, etc.? More importantly, b) Even granting you a deity doesn't help you. Because there is nothing that proves that it is your deity that created the universe. Even if you could prove a God, that wouldn't prove your God. You still would have no proof that your given religion was the right one to follow. And since you can't possibly follow them all as several religions contradict each other on rules, you're pretty much fucked. I mean, I honestly don't even need to go any farther, this alone is enough... but lets see just how many more stupid assertions he makes due to his confirmation bias.

11. "Assumptions don't count." Well, glad we agree on something. Maybe there's hope for you yet. "Neither do superstitious myths or traditions." Aren't those called religions? Why are you still talking? Myth is what we call a religion that no one follows anymore. Mythology and Religion are literally the same thing, just one is current and the other is past. You literally just ended your own argument. Or are you going to actually try and claim that your myth is different, that your myth is true? Yeah, you are. You'll fail though.

"With such exceptional odds... a large expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects started in the 1960's was sure to turn up something soon."

And here is where your assumptions begin. Didn't you just get done saying that "assumptions don't count?" I thought it was always the religious who loved to say that "the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence" when we would ask for proof of God? Yet suddenly not seeing any aliens is proof of no aliens? Wrong. We are aliens to every other planet but our own. We alone prove that aliens can exist. We serve as an example of the possibility. There is no such for your God. We don't assert that there are aliens, just that our existence proves that there can and statistically should be.

a) Radio Waves - You are assuming that because we use radio waves, an alien intelligence would also use radio waves. Why? There are infinite different ways to communicate depending on the biology of the being. Some beings might find radio waves to be harmful to their health. Why does anyone assume that they would communicate in a way that we would recognize at all? We don't even like using radio waves anymore. Our internet is already moving to FiOS. Why? Because talking with light is more secure than talking with radio waves. Radio waves can be picked up and listened to. If these aliens know that there could be other life out there, then they know that it might not be friendly. Maybe they didn't decide to take a risk like we did. Maybe they are purposely hiding their communications just in case they run into a very powerful race of aliens that likes to conquer and enslave others.

b) Time - Even if they do use radio waves, you are assuming that we are in the proper time and place to hear them, and that we will be listening in the proper direction at that time. Ex - The radio waves could have passed us before we even evolved, let alone the time between our evolution (creation for you) and when we invented radio. We could have "missed the ship" as it were. Also, they could be pointed in one of the myriad other directions! Who says the waves are even aimed in a direction that points to Gaia (aka Earth) at all?

To put it into perspective for all you bible people still pissed that we haven't found the aliens yet... Moses wandered the desert. Not the planet, just one itty bitty desert looking for the "promised land" for 40 years. We have been looking for life in the universe since the 60's. It is 2016. So from 1966-2016 is exactly 50 years. You expect us to find life in the universe relatively infinite times faster than Moses found life in one tiny desert? Who's being unrealistic now? Here's a quick video to explain just how vast space is, and why we are looking in a haystack the size of our solar system while being as small as a single cell of bacteria:

c) Looking for a Precursor - Maybe they don't exist yet. Meaning maybe we are going to be the "precursor" race. Maybe we will be the ones that other races listen for and we will be the ones teaching them! Ever think of that? We could be listening for nothing because we could be the first!

d) Encryption - Depending on both the language of the species and the type of encryption(s) used, it is entirely possible that we would not even be able to recognize their radio transmissions as anything but "background noise" since we don't have the cipher. These kids of encryption do exist, even here at home.

12. You obviously can't math. The number of possible planets hit zero? That is mathematically impossible as we have one. Now, I get you're talking statistically, so that last bit was "tongue-in -cheek". What likely happened is that they fixed the number of requirements for life as they discovered more and more things, but you never updated the number of planets. You'd be surprised how many planets there are. Way, way, way more than the number you gave. Just to be fair, I'll use an estimate from the time of the posting of this video, which will show that you are blatantly lying, not just misinformed with old information. Well, either lying about your numbers, or lying about your "extensive" research.

This was posted on May 21, 2015 according to the YouTube date above. Well, on May 19, 2015 an article at cnet.com (http://www.cnet.com/news/the-milky-way-is-flush-with-habitable-planets-study-says/) said this:

"Actually, if the estimates of 40 billion Earth-sized planets in habitable zones of sun-like or red dwarf stars in the Milky Way and the estimate of the 100 billion to 200 billion galaxies in the universe are accurate -- and if the average galaxy has roughly the same number of Earth cousins as the Milky Way, then the chances that we are the only planet with life are more like one in 6 sextillion."

Six sextillion is six with 21 0's after it. And those are just the habitable, Earth-sized planets. Nothing to be said about the habitable non-earth sized planets for life that can handle more or less gravity, and nothing about the non-habitable planets. Funny that your number for total habitable planets in the entire universe (1 with 24 0's) is about the size of the odds of us being the only planet, not the number of planets with the ability to support life. Not only that, but you also failed to explain that they were talking about our kind of life! That is why "earth-sized" is important. The size of the planet determines the gravity. Other life could potentially exist in gravity too heavy or light for humans. It would still be life, just not our kind. You are playing with numbers Mr. I-have-done-extensive-research for 2.5 years. That took me 5 seconds to Google.

13. The odds against life in the universe being astounding is an argument against God's interference, not for it! If God made this universe for us as the bible seems to claim, then why is it so inhospitable? This is not the work not of a loving God making a "Garden" for his children, but of a child making a torture simulation for his characters in a Sims game. This is like the guy in those Saw movies, making a world that is nothing more than a "Deathtrap Dungeon" just to see who will make it out. If it was proof of a God at all, it would be a malicious one, or a trickster God. Not a loving paternal one.

14. Can those results be "perfect" by accident? - Yes. Why? Because we evolved to fit our surroundings, not the other way around. We are fitted to it, not it to us. As for the possibility being there at all? So you just need 200 things to be right? Out of over 1 with 27 0's planets? Easy probability there. Or it would be if you also supplied the other possible answers. See, that's the other way you trick people. "All 200 things had to be exact!" How many of those 200 things have more than 2 or 3 possible positions? Do you even know? You need that to do proper probability you know. But anyone in their right mind at a casino would place that bet. Get 200 things lined up perfectly, but you have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tries? Please. You would take that bet if nobody told you it was about life and therefore God. You only say no now because you know the topic.

15. "Assuming an intelligence created these conditions requires less faith than happenstance..." This is utter nonsense for multiple reasons.

a) Assuming an agency of any kind is adding an unknown simply because you don't already have an answer. This always takes more faith by sheer definition. It also happens to be a logical fallacy.

b) No matter how small the odds, we all know that anything is possible with enough flips of the coin. If they odds are say.... 1 in 50,000 that doesn't mean you need all 50,000 flips to get the result. You could get it on the first try, or the 43,587th. Or not at all. Those are just odds of what will happen over time. Even if odds were against life existing at all, (you've said they are but provided no proof) it wouldn't matter. Luck happens. That's why it's called luck. Assuming an agency over luck is adding to the equation without any reason to. Like those tribesmen dancing for rain. Their dance didn't make it rain. They kept trying though. Superstition. It's in the brain. And you're no different.

16. "Experts whose atheism is greatly shaken by recent developments." Anyone can be "shaken" when new information comes out. Because before we look at it rationally our minds already begin drawing "common sense" conclusions. Unfortunately for us humans, "common sense" is usually wrong in science. Science deals with things that are "counter-intuitive" as in, things that make things seem one way, when they are really completely the opposite, but you wouldn't know that if you weren't an expert. Because it's tricky. That's why math and science are difficult subjects. Because they require the ability to think counter-intuitively.

Recent developments are things that have to be analyzed and considered before any real stance can be taken. A scientist being "shaken" by a recent development is nothing. Give it time, let them actually take time to calm down and thing rationally rather than when they are in excited fight/flight/hysteria mode and you'll get a real answer. Also, stop appealing to authority. Just because a few scientists here or there are "shaken" doesn't make it true. Truth stands on its own merit, not on a few people not knowing how to deal with it. I mean really, believing in God not because you actually believe in him, but only because you can't think of what else it could possibly be? God of the Gaps anyone? I'm pretty sure that if God existed, God would want you to believe in him because you believed, not because you had no other answer and he was a convenient excuse. And you're trying to teach other people about faith. Pathetic. Faith based on not having an answer is the kind that gets shaken and fails. Because when an answer does get found, then there is no more need for the God explanation. Which was what was said at the beginning of this entire episode! Keep up please. Use that brain in your head. It's not there for decoration!

Also, your use of "scientist gets shaken" is a two-edged sword. I could just as easily say "priest becomes atheist" (of which there are many) and use that to say "Ah ha! See, if a priest gave up his religion, then it obviously isn't true!" Your own bible tells the parable of the women with the oil in their lamps. You have to have your own oil, your own faith. Not follow others and rely on their oil. You have to be made up in your own mind. Stop trying to use arguments from authority.

17. Cosmological constants. Nuclear forces. First, we don't know that those are constant. For all we know that can and do change. Also, we don't know that they could be different. We can calculate what would happen if they were, but we don't know that it is even possible for them to be anything other than what they are. Also, the number being "different" wouldn't stop the universe from "existing" it just wouldn't exist as it is. The universe has to exist for there to be a number value. The value came into being at the big bang. Hence, the universe comes before the number, not vice versa. Lastly, you're ignoring the multiverse theory, which suggests that our universe is merely one of many, which makes the "odds" no longer astronomical. We would be just one of many, so of course the right one had to turn up. But even without the multiverse theory, it in no way suggests that a "super-intellect" has monkeyed with the physics, because again, we have no way of knowing if it was even possible for the values to be anything other than what they are. It might not be "luck" or "odds" but simply that they had to be the values they are due to some other forces that we are still studying to find out one way or the other.

Assuming an answer before one is found is foolishness. And against the rule you laid out at the start. No assumptions, remember? And again, even if the results do come back saying yes, we are in the only one universe, yes the numbers could have been different, so something likely made them this way, that doesn't prove your God. It leaves the door open for any God. This argument doesn't help you because yours is not the only God out there! If proven true, this would only mean that we had to choose one, and yours isn't real by its own book! Basically even if you proved that a God was necessary, I would be able to disprove yours as one of the possible ones using the bible and science alone.

18. Really? The watch comparison? The universe is not a watch. Our watches lose time because they are mechanical. And time is based off of the sun because of daylight. Which is why our clocks are set to it. Not because God made "a great clock" for us. I mean really, what kind of clock doesn't have a whole number as its turning point? Why the extra quarter day? And it isn't even a perfect quarter! Is God just a bad watchmaker now? You are literally making your point worse, not better. The sun is a horrible clock for keeping real time, it is only great for keeping Earth time, due to earth time being based on the sun! Once we go beyond our solar system, our sun, (Sol) will be useless. But you apparently didn't think of that. Likely because your brain is full of religion and not facts.

Worse, the sun doesn't "keep time" it actually warps time horribly. If you know anything about time. Some clock.

19. The big bang doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics. It says that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. However one can turn into the other. Matter to energy, and vice versa. The big bang could be massive amounts of energy converting into matter and exploding outwards as it does so. It could be several other models as well, but none of them violate the first law, as all of them say that the entirety of the universe was there at the beginning. As for "something from nothing" see Laurence Krauss and "A Universe From Nothing" before you spout things you have no idea about. Maybe read a science book instead of the bible all the time so you can actually know what the hell you're talking about.

I mean, this literally. You have to understand science to argue against it. It would be like me arguing against religion if I'd never read the bible. You can't just make up shit and have a good rational argument. You have to know the subject material, to understand the opposite side, otherwise you make arguments that you think are disproving something (in this case science) but are actually not. Which is exactly what you are doing!

20. Again with the "all-powerful" assumption. How do we know? Why couldn't the "creator" be a being with one unique ability, the ability to create a universe. What says that such a being must be a magical Genie who can do everything else too? Nothing. Just human assumption.

21. This... is the stupidest "proof" yet. of course radium wasn't around forever. However, we do know that matter can change form. It happens in nature all the time. There is nothing saying that something can't *become* radioactive due to a natural process during the formation of planets, stars and galaxies. Fuck. Nothing says that Radium had to be radium from the beginning of time you imbecile.

22. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STATES OF MATTER!!! - Other than the obvious part of us living beings being made up of matter, that has nothing to do with the various states of matter! Non-living matter doesn't "evolve". What the fuck are you even talking about here!? Try to learn the damn argument being presented before you try and discredit it. You have no idea what evolution is if you think it in any way effects planets and their formation, or states of matter. The "evolution of the universe" is in no way related to "biological evolution" despite the word evolution being used.

23. For the last damn time, atheists are not saying that the universe came from literally "nothing". Even the book "A Universe From Nothing" starts with "something". We are simply saying that the universe was always here in one form or another, that perhaps it goes between material form (matter) and energy form after long periods of time since matter and energy are eternal (neither created nor destroyed) but can change into each other. You say God always was and he created everything. We say why invent a God, when we already have everything, and if something had to always be, shouldn't it be the thing we already *know* can't be created or destroyed? Energy/Matter? You are adding something where there is no need for something. Literally the only difference between us is what we claim always existed. You say God, we say Universe. How the fuck is that so difficult to understand?

24. Oh, and I forgot to say this earlier when you talked about the complexity of the universe. But the universe is *not* "too complex" to have come into being naturally. Complexity is *not* the hallmark of design. Simplicity is. Intelligent agencies makes things simple. Not difficult. Complexity is the hallmark of nature. Simplicity is the hallmark of intelligence. So either God isn't real, or he's not smart enough to make a simple universe. Take your pick.

25. You don't understand thermodynamics so stop pretending that you do. The second law of thermodynamics only will say that once the initial burst of energy is done, it will wind down. The universe is not winding down. It is in fact speeding up. Which is to say that "creation" as you call it, or what started with the big bang, is still happening. It isn't finished yet. So much for God being done in 7 days. Because since creation is still happening, those "last days" are nowhere near. It will start winding down, eventually. It isn't yet.

26. YOU DON'T KNOW EVOLUTION OR THERMODYNAMICS! - For fucks sake, a Google search will tell you that the second law of thermodynamics applies *only in a closed system* so the universe as a whole? Yes. A close system as far as we know. (Maybe not, depending on the findings of the multiverse theory.) The earth? Not a closed system. Energy is being pushed into the earth by the sun. Which allows evolution since there is more energy being added. Do you even check your arguments or do you just listen to Christian scholars with their biased agendas?

27. The universe doesn't need to be "wound up" it just needs to be energy that changes form. That's it. Nothing more. No God necessary. The top and yoyo examples are a severely dumbed down explanation to try and get something of the idea across to laymen. It isn't a perfect metaphor. Stop using it like it is one. Even if it was, (which it isn't) the question wouldn't be who wound up the universe. The question would be what wound up the universe. That could be a god, but you are assuming a personal agency. There you go breaking your own rules again...

28. You've established that creation does indeed demand a creator. The English language does that for you. You have failed however, to establish that the universe is a creation in the first place though, and not an ever existing thing. You know, that first law of thermodynamics that says energy and matter can't be created or destroyed? That tells you right there that energy and matter are eternal. Thus, they need no creator, and had no creator. Hence, no god made energy or matter. Because they can't be made. Science says so. The same science that you are trying to use to disprove other science. Oh the hypocrisy. To accept the parts you like but not the parts you don't. But then, you religious people do that with your "Holy Texts" all the time though, so I guess I should expect no different of you with science. In fact, you treat science a lot like the bible. You read a little, assume a lot, understand less than you read, and claim to be an expert.

29. Now you're going on and on about Evolution. I assume that is what the second video in the series is about so I'll debunk your "arguments against evolution" there.

Final count, 28 inconsistencies for a 28 minute video with a 29th comment for your last comments that lead to the next video. One per minute. Damn that's a lot of lies.

I'll close this with a single important statement.

There is no proof (as of yet) for a God. That does not mean that one does not, or did not exist. That does not mean that there will never be proof for a God. However, if you are going to claim to have proof, you probably shouldn't have comments disabled so that no one can answer you and say why you're wrong. Also, even if there was ever proof that a God had to exist at some point, that would not prove Christianity right any more than it would prove Islam, the ancient Celtic Gods, the Greek Gods, the Egyptian Gods, or any other. To just jump from a God to your God is a huge error. Even if there ever comes to be proof that a God does indeed exist, you will still require evidence to prove that said God is the particular one you worship.

Evidence. You can't get around it, under it, or over it. You have to present it. End of story.

Modern Feminism, LGBT & Safe Spaces

Feminism when it started was not even going by that name. It was the Women's Rights Movement. This movement was to help gain things like the right to vote for all women rather than just a few landowners under old laws. This many people will agree was a good thing. Progress. It is what came after that is questioned.

Power is addictive. Some wonder if the current incarnation of the "feminist" movement (in quotes because whether it actually is feminism by definition or just misandry hiding behind a pretty word is up for debate) was nothing more than people in the Women's Rights Movement not wanting to let go of the power they had gained once it became no longer necessary. If they are making up enemies to fight so that they can remain leaders of a mob. Some even think that they are doing so at the cost of society as a whole. Are these points true? Is one true and not the other?

I can't say for sure if the first is true, although I must admit that it seems likely. But the second? The second I agree wholeheartedly. Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces, Preferred Pronouns and the deleting of comments that disagree with yours. These things are linked to the phenomenon where we can no longer "offend" anyone.

I wonder though, what would have happened if we had such things in the past? How would the Women's Rights Movement have succeeded in giving women the right to vote if their voices of dissent of the current system had been silenced? If they had been blocked from areas declared "safe spaces" and if their written words all had "Trigger Warnings" that would keep people away? How would their message have ever been spread?

How would the LGBT community ever have been able to go from having bricks thrown at them (something I am ashamed to say my own father has done) to now being able to walk openly, get married, etc? If "Safe Spaces" had existed in the past (a nice name to cover up what it actually is - Segregation - especially against so-called "cis-gendererd" white males) would not these spaces have been used against what was at the time considered a disease, a mental problem, or a demonic one?

I remember when college was considered a place to meet those outside of your personal circle, who have different views, who would challenge your currently held opinions and beliefs. This was considered a good thing! This is what caused people who had grown up being taught that LBGT were horrible sick disgusting people to learn that, hey, maybe they aren't so bad. This was how those raised of a particular religion would meet others of another religion and say, hmmm... maybe these people aren't completely horrible and deserving of death.

Now we seem to be headed in the other direction. What made America great was that it was a mixing bowl of cultures. We took the best from the ones we saw, and could leave the bad parts behind. Yet now... now we are headed back to a path of insular minds.

What, I wonder, do people think is going to happen to them outside of their precious "safe spaces"? Are they that afraid of their mental paradigms being challenged? Are they so afraid that they cannot back up their assertions and opinions with fact that they have to run away in denial? How is this in any way a good thing? Shouldn't truth, no matter how hard to accept, be more valued than self indulgent lies?