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.