it's like noones ever heard of confirmation bias

Science in no way points to "God"

Science doesnt point to anything. Science asks questions. Religion doesnt answer them

@Bushranger They are attempting to obfuscate the fact that they have no evidence for god's existence by using ad hominem attacks

There is no God for science to point to. God is a construct invented by a primitive people to give quick fixes to complicated problems they couldn't possibly solve or understand. I mean when you're bare ass naked, running around in Africa somewhere hunting deer, hiding from lions and suddenly Johnny starts bleeding from the nose and drops dead, well, there's got to be some form of explanation. so God done gone and done it because Johnny was always banging his neighbour's wife, or the evil spirits got him will have to do for now. Because they did't know any better.

No actually quite the opposite. If people believe in science then they have no need for god.

Stopped watching this trash at around 100 seconds. Conflating evidence of unknown to evidence of a deity is beyond absurd, and the claim that such a line of logic is even vaguely scientific is utterly laughable. And DNA is not evidence of a deity; it's evidence that evolution is a powerful thing, and that billions of years is a long-ass time, both of which we've known for centuries.

I've never understood why so many religious people are so stubbornly opposed to science. I've always viewed science as an exploration of "How?" and religion as an exploration of "Why?" As far as the video, there's still an assumption here that there's some sort of engineering and design to all of this, and there's just simply no tangible proof of it. At the end of the day, it still requires a leap of faith that the universe isn't just the result of countless moments of random happenstance beyond our comprehension.

What a load of nonsense!

OK, I realise that Stephen Meyer isn't a scientist, but that doesn't excuse such basic errors and misinformation. No wonder the so-called intelligent-design movement failed and died!

They make four claims... and every one of them is incorrect.

This is cynical deception, aimed at the gullible and the unquestioning.

Science can't still point to god, because it has never pointed to god.

Oh please, a bronze age myth written by people so dense they spent forty years making a 19 day trek through the desert has nothing to offer by way of valuable information.

Alright! This my jam baby! Let's do it. Science in no way points to any deistic being, because it simply can't. The scientific methodology itself can only investigate that which can be observed and/or measured. God is an unfalsifiable presupposition and therefore can never be tested in any kind of scientific manner, ever. Unless he himself comes down for testing. Attaching God to any kind of scientific discovery is incredibly dishonest and a giant leap in logic. I'll watch the video and then see if I can explain where they are going wrong.

Okay so right off the bat they start out using circular reasoning (God exists, therefore we find evidence of it's existence through scientific discovery.) and a clear confirmation bias. Then move into an argument from authority to support their circular argument. (Quoting Fred Burnham)
The quote itself is just an argument from popularity. (All these people believe it, so it must be true!) Millions of flies eat shit, so it must taste good!

The universe had a beginning so therefore God? Does this also mean that God would have had to had a beginning as well? How does beginning equate to creation? Two completely different concepts. Yep. The famous transcendental argument or otherwise known as the Kalam cosmological argument popularized by apologist William Lane Craig. The premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That creates a dichotomy within our shared reality between things that began to exist, and things that didn't begin to exist. How do we determine if something began to exist? Observation and the ability to detect it. In the very first premise of this argument there is already a gaping logical flaw. Since God is determined to have always existed, he has to go in the did not begin to exist set. Therefore the argument actually becomes "All things except for God, has a cause." And if we take God out of the did not begin to exist category then he has to go into the began to exist category and that my friends, creates an infinite regression. Who created God? There is a lot more to this argument but since the very first premise is deeply flawed, it's kind of pointless and I need to move on.

More quote mining and argument from authority. The fine tuning argument, another apologetic staple. Almost the same as the first in respect to making a logical leap to God in it's conclusion. This argument states that the universe just operates too perfectly to have happened by chance. When in reality, it's everything but perfect. The overwhelming majority of our planet and the universe is not suitable for human life. The majority of plants will cause harm or kill you if you eat them. Most of the wildlife will try and kill you if you impose, believe it or not. Pretty ridiculous if you give it just one iota of thought.

Argument from complexity, argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance.

This guy is so dishonest. Of course modern science undermines the scientific principles of it's predecessors, that's exactly how science works. How can people take this guy seriously? We still believed in medical humors and all kinds of goofy supernatural/pseudoscientific crap back then.

This is a longer video than I had thought. I think I'm gonna take a break. I may come back to this and I may not.

@GodSpeed63You cannot have life without death. If things were not suppose to die parasitic species of animals could not exist. The life cycles of many Monera involve the consumption of dead organisms or cells. Most species of living things either could not live without or actually are the cause of decay.

I have done three science degrees and god or religion was not mentioned...

Science threatened religious dogma so scientists (Galileo for example) were vilified by the church.

@Bushranger @BlueMetalChick @PikachuTrainer The eschewing of the term religion isn't new. It is a tactic to avoid defining what a person actually believes

The universe exists, it can be observed, measured and predictions made based on those observations and measurements. Stars produce the elements in the universe by nuclear fusion so, in the words of Carl Sagan, "We are all made of star stuff...." These are observable facts, the laws of physics are immutable and have existed since the origin of the universe.

Regardless of how the universe came into existence, everything still exists and continues to operate according to physics. But we can make some assumptions:

1/ The universe came about as the result of the rapid expansion of a singularity. I'm not an astrophysicist and if I make any errors here, please let me know. Now, it's possible that this has been something that has been happening forever; rapid expansion followed by contraction to a singularity which then expands,ad infinitum.

2/ The universe was created but a God which is outside space time. When God said "Let there be light..." was that the start of the big bang? This would imply a hands off God who created the everything needed for the universe to continue forever with no ongoing intervention.

3/ The existence of a God outside space time but one that is more involved with creation and continues to intervene in the creation. This would imply ongoing changes in the universe.

Regardless of the assumption that one wishes to follow, the universe still began and continues to exist. It can still be observed and measured and those observations and measurements are purely materialistic. It is my contention that science, while needing an ethical direction, needs to answer the question "What?", not "Why?".

To answer the second question, one would need to look at philosophy and religion. So a researcher may believe in God, but still practice science. The religious side of that researcher may provide a metaphysical explanation for their work, but wouldn't necessarily change the results of their research.

Regardless of how the universe came into existence, it does exist and the observation and measurement of it does not necessarily, point to God. Philosophy on the other hand, can do.

jfc am I gonna have to start trolling this post to get it out of my feed? LET IT DIE ALREADY

I'm not going to watch a half-hour video with some hack making claims based on unfounded assumptions. Post a link to an article if you want me to respond. All I can say is it's not "proof" if anyone can come up with objections to it. Also, scientific theories don't "prove" anything; they are models that explain observations. Proof is for mathematics and logic, not the physical sciences.

Stephen Jay Gould came up with the concept of "non-overlapping magisteria." Science and religion do not have to conflict with each other because they are addressing completely unrelated areas of knowledge. It's only a problem if they intrude on each other, but they don't have to.

Ah, I've seen a lot of these. You can prove "god" but not the one you want to.

Science deniers will deny science. Then they get sick and demand the latest medical advances.

People who make fun and criticize other’s beliefs, like they’ve done here to you, is simply a lack of understanding on their part, which leads to the false conclusion that you’re wrong. They are not teachable if they’re not at least willing to hear you out before drawing conclusions.

I don’t think you understand the basic principles of science.

NOW who’s accurate? God’s Word. I rest my case. 😊 God bless you.

Wow. I mean...wow.

@hippyjoe1955 Whether or not life can be created in a lab doesn't do anything to prove the existence of a deity

Science still scrambles for “reality”.
Recently the idea of “black holes” and “Big Bang” with its “point of singularity” are being refuted by intelligent scientists.
The theory of Evolution is just as flaky.

YOU CAN GET RID OF ATHEISM, WITH JUST ONE PIECE OF TANGIBLE EVIDENCE!!!???

Why do people go to any length to prove the existence of God - Let them believe or not believe as they wish. I am a believer but not a missionary. But I like the missionary position.

No it doesn't. The Christian worldview is essentially that god made this environment for us and anthropocentric as hell. Yet we know that 9/10s of the known universe is completely inhospitable to life. If you were in much of outer space besides just suffocating you'd be hit by gigantic waves of huge amounts of radiation. You wouldn't want to be in the path of an exploding star for instance.

On top of that what kind of loving creator would make sex feel so good and yet have so many consequences? STDs are pretty much proof there is no designer. They're the ultimate argument in favor of evolution.

The Science indicates there was no Adam and No Eve and the biblical account in genesis's is literally refuted or at least not literal. WE KNOW Mitrochondrial eve had MULTIPLE partners and not just any ONE Adam and so humanity cannot trace it's origins back to a single father.

There was no "Adam."

Without the Adam the bible is like hamlet without the prince of denmark. Without an Adam the simple truth is that There was No Fall From Grace and Jesus's supposed Blood sacrifice washes NOTHING from us.

@newjaninev2 @PikachuTrainer I, as a hard core atheist, can present a far better argument for the existence of god than the three christian musketeers. All that pseudoscience hocus pocus concerning black holes not existing and singularity theorems that these "Christians" use is, as we know, idiotic. Stephen Hawking had bowel movements that were more intelligent than Aliveshock

@hippyjoe1955 There hasn't been any debate. Not even a semblance of one. Everything the two of you has written is utter nonsense

I guess I have the following question:

Why does faith have to rely on science at all?

If one looks at the early Church fathers, it's clear that God is beyond all categories, all conceptions, every limitation of our mind.

It's clear in the early Church father's that faith is beyond reason. As Tertulian said: I believe because it is absurd.

So why is there this constant attempt to ground faith in science?

To me it seems to be a sign of materialism. Also a lack of faith.

3500+ responses. GOD man, how serious can you all take this?? 😂😂😂
It's like a warzone

Hasn’t anybody told Science it’s rude to point 😂