4044920 If laws of nature are God then we should drop to our knees, and praise the holy Gravity.

4044940 No offense but that's a ridiculous way to look at it. The law's of nature are what he's presenting as the evidence of God. He's not saying that they are God but that the represent what god is. In that everything God says he is can be found in the law's of nature. Being outside of time, creating matter from nothing, etc.

Let's say you painted a picture and somehow you created sentient life out of it. All the people in the painting know is their world. They can't fathom anything beyond 2d. They know however that there had to be a beginning to their universe. Your proposing that they view the paint or the brush or the paper or other tools used to create their universe rather than the painter who made them.

4044920
The thing is, it's kind of up to interpretation. While the video does indeed prove that the old ideas of the Universe, that it had no beginning or end, are completely wrong, just as the idea that the Universe revolved around the Earth was completely wrong too, and the Big Bang was a little more complicated than we thought(though a lot of people like Stephen Hawking suspected this sort of thing for years, so it's not like it's like the idea is that new; only difference is now these new details about the Big Bang are confirmed as fact rather than a popular idea) and this means that God is still a possibility after all, it still doesn't prove him for sure, it doesn't prove his existence conclusively to all, it's still up to interpretation; it doesn't narrow down the possibilities like it implies, but rather it opens more opportunities than people used to believe. Some might interpret it as part of a cycle of a Universe that keeps dying and being reborn, or the Universe was made from a random accident, the possibilities are now endless. I still am skeptical that something can come from nothing without a lot of help, so I still believe in God as I always do, but that's my opinion, that's how I interpret it.

That being said, I think I should say that that the idea of God, or at least in my opinion the educated man's idea of God, is something that can't be described except perhaps that it exists both within and completely independent of all dimensions (not sci-fi definition either, mind you, don't confuse dimensions with alternate universes), and as such existed before time, and can exist without time, and likely has enough power and skill over the dimensions to make shape from them out of nothing, like a sculpter makes statues using all three dimensions we use, except it's not from nothing. Using Flatland physics, as it's sometimes called, it can make sense why exact we don't often see such a thing. While it's a concept that cannot exactly be easily disproven, it's a concept that cannot exactly be easily proven either. So it's up to you to choose how to interpret this, really. It all boils down to, as it always did, faith and skepticism, what do you choose to have faith in? What do you choose to be skeptical about? That's what it shall always boil down to. I personally believe in a God, that's where I have faith, and I look at the fossil record, and while I believe in evolution, I know enough to tell you that it's a long and destructive process, so it seems strange that the fossil record shows so much diversity and fairly rapid changes, making me question if it's possible for such conditions to be so without something subtly guiding them.

4044920
Absolute nonsense. The argument he's trying to use is about the Big Bang. Nothing to do with the existence of the supernatural. He's saying "I believe the Big Bang is proof of God, and all "hardline atheists" believe this too", which it isn't, and they don't.

Also, all that stuff about "Something from nothing"? Directly contradictory to the theory he's trying to use as proof of God, as well as being impossible in our current understanding of the universe. The Big Bang wasn't "First, there was nothing, then it exploded", which is what he's explaining it as. It wasn't the creation of the universe, it was the expansion.

And there is also nothing that suggests the laws of physics pre-date the Big Bang, either. Or, if they do, they were warped into unrecognisability by the unfathomable pressure and temperature.

Sorry, but the dude is taking established facts and claiming they're proof of God, when in reality they have nothing to do with religion. His argument can be summed up into "The world exists, therefore God does". Doesn't sound quite so convincing when you strip away the misinformation, does it?

This is pretty much how I have felt for years now. This guy just... is awesome.

Cross-posting my response from the Atheist group thread about this exact same video.

Now that I've actually watched it, it's just a god of the gaps argument mixed with semantic finagling. We can't describe the events leading up to the big bang, but that doesn't prove anything. He's also conveniently left out all the other parts of the biblical definition of God (the self-contradictory parts).

4045189
So you've felt entirely wrong on all fronts for years?

That sucks.

4049184

Yy

This is more or less a debate about intelligent design more then if god exists. A god could exist or did once exists but we can't say for sure since we are the created trying to understand the creator. We can find and try to make sense of small clues or notes left behind by the creator but since we are on a different plane then the creator we wont know for sure if there is something more out there. Even for the big bang to happen just so and things to pan out for life as we know it to happen isn't completely explained by science. Models for the 'perfect' universe have been made and even in them they all say that life shouldn't be here. Gravity is perfect so nothing gets pulled together to make larger and more complex atoms. Everything just stays at a set distance apart form the next particle. In the big bang there was anti matter created that is the opposite of matter, when anti matter and matter met they both cease to be. Now we are made from matter so there was more matter then anti matter made in the big bang. Why was this? our nice models say that life should have ended before it even began. So does this mean that there was a different force at play during the big bang? Yes and no since we are trying to understand the beginning of everything as we know it so how can we be sure about any of it since all of or tools and ourselves are made from things that were made at this moment. This dis evolves into a circle argument or train of thought about the created trying to understand the creator or how the created came to be, which can't be because we are trying to understand or seek out information about something on a different plane then the plane we are on. We are trying to understand the 4th plane by looking at it from the 5th plane. We are a part of the 3rd plane and live through the 4th plane.

The problem with tiring to understand the big bang and what happened before it is impossible because the laws of physics as we know them didn't exist. There wasn't even time then. The big bang was the beginning of everything for us and simple and elegant existence. More or less I am echoing what Professor Plum was saying.

Adding onto this point I was raise you this. Black holes are out there in space and we know nothing about them since they are mainly the abstinence of everything more then there being anything there. Now since light is unable to escape the pull of gravity in a black hole we can't say what is on the other side of one. The laws of physics end at the gravity well. Now with that in mind there can be a entire universe past a black hole with a completely different set of natural laws and laws of physics. Now this can also mean that our universe is in the back hole or an equivalent thing of another higher and different universe. This is another way of looking at the idea of the created trying to understand the creator that Doctor Grant perfectly described.

4044940
Ever since I started praising gravity I feel like my life is more well grounded. I really feel it has provided to me solid foundation in which to stand.

4049835

Even for the big bang to happen just so and things to pan out for life as we know it to happen isn't completely explained by science.

Finding ourselves in the universe that supports life is trivial. What would be miraculous, would be finding ourselves in a universe that doesn't support life. If the later was the case then that would pretty much prove the existence of a supernatural force.

What you're saying is equivalent to studying a pond. Every molecule is aligned just so that water touches the edges of the pond perfectly. There must have been a creator to align the molecules in that way so that they match the pond perfectly. There can be no other explanation to the existence of ponds!

4045189
Why the Hell did you get so many downvotes? You don't deserve that many! I mean, I don't entirely agree with you (I'd say on average I'd probably half-agree with you on the subject), but you didn't say anything offensive or dangerous or anything, just a harmless opinion. You just said what you thought about something, and it was innocuous too. It's like people read what you said and somehow or the other, still got offended anyway.

How many times do I have to tell everybody? If you get that easily offended, you're not fit for the internet. You completely lost the entire "internets game" or whatever you call it if you get offended at something that innocuous. People can be half-wrong about something and still not be a threat or offensive, that's part of our diversity and part of life.

Anyway, as for you, I gave you an upvote, because even though I don't totally agree with you, you didn't say anything that would cause traumatic damage, so all those downvotes aren't fair unless there are a few upvotes to go with them. It balances things out a bit.

4058303

Your argument doesn't really make sense. Just because someone stated their opinion in a relatively polite manner does not make them immune to disagreement or criticism.

4058463
Oh I'm not anti-criticism or anti-opposition; criticism helps us grow and do better in life, and opposition is a sign of free speech; but in my experience, downvotes are used in such a way that they don't always indicate as much emotionally neutral natural disagreement of mind as much as they indicate a certain amount of deep-seated anger, and again in my experience, that many drive-by downvotes, especially over a comment that's so short and innocuous, implies that somebody finds something offensive because it's of a different train of thought. I'm not anti-criticism, but I am anti-hypersensitivity and I am anti-mono-opinion groups. It's the internet, while it's natural to disagree, getting furious over something harmless indicates hypersensitive individuals, and frankly, again, it's the internet, you shouldn't get so offended, so angry over something that warrants little anger. Yes, Blazing Sword's probably wrong, but frankly, I don't see any point in getting angry at him; with a statement as innocuous as his own, that's like getting angry at people for preferring Socrates over Aristotle.

4058704

That also seems rather fallacious to assume downvotes automatically indicate 'deep-seated anger'. They could, but could just as easily indicate mild annoyance or disagreement. You're saying it's ridiculous to get upset over petty things on the internet, but it sounds like you're getting upset with people not agreeing with that comment - which is also a rather petty grievance. Seems a mite counter-intuitive to me.

4058979
Nah, I'm not upset at the lack of agreement, because I don't entirely agree myself. It's just that comment seems too harmless to even warrant that treatment. I mostly just downvote something when it could be really, really bad, and so do most I know; to treat a harmless opinion like it's evil seems a bit of an overreaction to me. And it's not that fallacious, because I know when most FIMFictioners downvote, and it's usually because they're mildly to majorly pissed, but I see stuff I don't agree with all the time, and I'm not usually pissed. People are all raised different and have different experiences, so they'll all think differently, and they'll post what they think on the internet. It seems like it's silly to get pissed at these numerous opinions that don't encourage harm to others.