Impossible Physics

Here is the link to the whole playlist.
• Dutko Against All Reason
This playlist addresses Bob Dutko's sermon "Answering the Skeptic"
• Answering The Skeptic ...
Here is my discussion with Grady McMurtry:
• Human Origins: Created...
Here is Phil Halpher's (SkyDivePhil's) preferred link.
• evolution
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @aronra
If you like what I do, please consider supporting my efforts.
PATREON► / aronra
PAYPAL► www.paypal.me/...

[@yakkow988]

There is no gravity, Jesus sits at the center of the earth and sucks.

[@littlefurrow2437]

Like a giant reverse Holy Fart.

[@harmonicamanrandy]

😂😂😂

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

Not sure about the no gravity thing, but Jesus certainly sucks. Indeed in the less salubrious taverns in Bethlehem, he was know as 'King of the Glory Boys'.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

and the expansion is due to him blowing too.

[@AECRADIO1]

@@littlefurrow2437 Megamaid went from BLOW, to SUCK....Hence: G R A V I T Y !

[@adpop750]

A catholic once asked what kind of Atheist I was. I told him I am a catholic Atheist. He asked what does that mean? I said that means that I specifically don't believe in his god (just to rub it in 😀).

[@77gravity]

I specifically believe HIS god does NOT exist - it is a logically impossible god. Other gods MIGHT exist, but not that particular one.

[@Ducatirati]

adpop I was raised Roman Catholic, and for the record, they do have good morals and ethics they spruik , and our Preist , worst thing he done was get pissed on Sunday at mass , but , I am not a active church goer , churches should pay tax , start to ask em about the Medici pope's, Who , all say at the once , at least we broke away from church and state , accidents will happen , it's people who blow them selves up and think they'll be watching them selves on TV that night , there is the big bang worry , OH GOD . RARARA

[@memecity9849]

When it comes to god, believers don't care about the laws of physics. " Something from nothing is impossible.... unless god does it"

[@IntenseVisuals]

With him anything is possible. Or so they say lol

[@enlacostaizquierda]

@@IntenseVisuals He can't fix a flat tire, regrow a limb, or make breakfast. The only thing he seems to be able to do is lie about what he did. Remember, the god of Abraham wasn't the top deity until much later in Judaism. There's no way that god created all the other gods, the universe, etc. He's a poser. A con man.

[@oscargr_]

God is the winner of every special pleading bingo and circular argument ever. That's statistically impossible, but that only proves how powerful god is.

[@markjackson3459]

@@oscargr_ except he is too weak to defeat the devil.

[@oscargr_]

@@markjackson3459 God allows evil because it makes the good so much better?? Free will?? Broken world because of Adam's fall into sin in the garden?? (Or some other unfalsifiable argument)

[@Sang-Je]

How can a non planet become a planet. Ha, take that evolution... good grief, these theists are something else.

[@brilanto]

How can a non-creationist become a creationist?

[@graydanerasmussen4071]

@@brilanto Severe brain trauma?

[@brilanto]

Don't you know the saying 'slight hits on the back of the head increase the capability to think'? 🤣 (Not to say that creationists 'think', or the result is logical or useful...)

[@GizzyDillespee]

The Galactic Council (Ramtha & pals) can decide whether an aggregate in the Milky Way is a planet. According to the Earthlings, their IAU also can knight an aggregate in their own solar system. But only Earth and Gleeglork don't recognize Pluto, so...

[@uriituw]

There’s no such thing as a creationist scientist.

[@gotsm9959]

Correct but there is such a thing as a creationist sudo scientist.

[@uriituw]

@@gotsm9959 Sudo?

[@woundedone]

​@@gotsm9959pseudo?

[@braelonoliver3529]

@@gotsm9959 *pseudoscientist

[@braelonoliver3529]

Exactly. There's only liars/charlatans and the people being duped by them

[@FurieMan]

"Gravity couldn't evolve" is probably one of the most stupid statements i have ever heard.

[@JaelPendragon]

I mean technically it is true, gravity doesn't evolve it just is. But alas this idiot has to misuse evolve/evolution for his own propaganda

[@Gandhi_Physique]

Didn't get to that part yet, but that got my eyes watering lol

[@goldenalt3166]

He thinks evolution disproves God so in order for him to accept it, he needs it to become his new God.

[@Z4r4sz]

Is there any creationist statement or argument that isnt stupid?^^

[@ironsausage808]

As far as we know gravity is a constant. Could it have evolved? As far as the data shows no. There is nothing to show it did. Even in the Plank epoch. So going by the data, no.

[@LogicAndReason2025]

When the theist claims that there was nothing, before there was something, then claims there was a god, he has already shot himself in the foot; for a god is not nothing. Most apologetic, when fairly applied, self-refutes.

[@mursuhillo242]

Obviously, their indoctrination criminalizes the pointing out of the problem of where Dog came from. At this point they are still equally clueless as science is, of what was before the beginning. What came after the beginning, science CAN and DOES explain.

[@oscargr_]

"My friend is a member of Mensa" sounds so similar to "my dad knows kung fu"

[@thekaxmax]

My dad was in Mensa, I know how little that means in the real world. V smart, not always usefully so.

[@oscargr_]

@@thekaxmax Intelligence is not a single dimension. "Mensa smart" is a very specific way of measuring intelligence.

[@thibautklinger5178]

IS there a Database to fact Check that?

[@oscargr_]

@@thibautklinger5178 if you have to ask, then there is no reason for you to know.😁

[@finestPlugins]

Mensa meetings often have talks on how to date. So much for high IQs.

[@radleycarter8521]

Using the argument from authority from someone who isn't even remotely an authority in the subject. You know your arguments are crap when you can't even do your logical fallacy correctly.

[@oscargr_]

I would love to be a fly on the wall when two members of Mensa/Intertel have an argument... they both cannot be wrong. That's gotta be more dangerous than a super collider.

[@RetroBackslash]

Argument from authority that cited an argument from ignorance by their authority.

[@LoisoPondohva]

But he smart

[@dreamworld3319]

Never stop kicking creationists' butts!!! You're the goat, Aron!

[@hankbeckleshimer5541]

More importantly he is an educator with a huge following. He doesn't cuss and get mad so he is more palatable for people to let their children listen to him.

[@camwyn256]

​@@hankbeckleshimer5541he does, on occasion, get mad when he's live on The Line, talking to incredulous callers. Though I don't think I've heard him cuss, except for the Texas way, bless your heart

[@volodyanarchist]

Summary: Creationist has said something for which there is no evidence, while claiming that others ignore evidence.

[@ale6o]

Dr. McMurtry, the guy you debated on NonSeq so long ago? The one who mumbled for 2 hours about shit he didn't understand?

[@originalslothking]

Yup. The same guy who refused to accept that velociraptors had feathers and basically admitted to believing in the creationist conspiracy that National Geographic and Popular Science "take good science and publish it with a spin" to push the "evolutionist agenda".

[@1Dropboys]

That's still a long list of people :p

[@thekaxmax]

Yes, him

[@ChrisBreederveld]

I just tried to rewatch that debate, but had to give up after McMurty for the nth time failed to answer or even understand the question... Why is it so hard to get a simple answer out of apologists? (This is rhetorical, of course we all know that you cannot give answers that clearly show how wrong or clueless you are about the topic)

[@rocknroll1973]

​​@@ChrisBreederveld because they are dishonest

[@steveaustin4118]

So the creationist expert on evolution knows nothing about evolution sounds about normal

[@77gravity]

Theist "logic" - the universe cannot be infinite, this proves that god created the universe, and god is infinite.

[@j.ascension7]

Or when they claim God exists outside of space time, and that's why he can't be seen, yet For some reason God cares if you have sex out of wedlock 😂 Imagine making your own rules and universe yet everything you don't want to happen, you make it a possibility, and also base survival off of mechanisms that lead to unfavorable actions.

[@jacobtorma2490]

It's so stupid and it's nonsense

[@jacobtorma2490]

The one that gets me is the fact that they think we are too complex to "form from nothing" therefore we need a creator and yet this disembodied mind who is far superior and literally all knowing and perfect that is capable of creating billions of galaxies... well him he's just fine existing on his own, he didn't need a creator 😅

[@kellydalstok8900]

@@j.ascension7 god can’t make boats or defend itself

[@al4nmcintyre]

For people who don't like thinking, they sure do love to revere those who are "brainiacs." (As long as they agree, anyway.)

[@brilanto]

Like 'Pinky and the Brain'?

[@MLaak86]

Quite frankly, though yes I do respect Aron and others providing more detail (which is fascinating if mindbending) on this than the average layperson would ever have heard of, when creationists pull this my personal attitude is that all that's required to rebut it is "so what's the cause of your god?" and "well if your god can exist without a cause, why can't the universe?" since the objection isn't based in science, it's based in self serving theology that takes assumptions as fact and proceeds from there to try to get to an assumed conclusion.

[@pansepot1490]

I watch Aron for the science not because I need more in-depth arguments against theists. And the additional science info can be very useful to people who have been raised creationists and have basically zero scientific background on these topics. Scrolling through the comments I continually find people who credit Aron for helping them out of creationism and then out of religion.

[@MLaak86]

@@pansepot1490that’s very true - I definitely find a lot of these concepts truly fascinating

[@waynetemplar2183]

Creation Scientist? Isn’t that an oxymoron? 🤔

[@Paraplegiclapdancer]

Of course

[@YetAnotherAtheistChannel]

yes. with an emphasis on the moron.

[@lostpony4885]

Yeah if youre gonna argue that the universe cant always have existed without God, then you are going to have to explain where God came from

[@dominiqueubersfeld2282]

Basically creationists implicitly assume creation. For them an atheist still believes in creation, but without God's intervention. This is the reason why they project their own "from nothing" strawman that is purely religious, non scientific.

[@Firestorm12345678910]

The human imagination basically works off memories and experiences gained in a material world. Since God does not appear to reside nor originate from any world then where did God get the idea to create a universe with it's dark matter/energy, ordinary matter constitution? In the Old Testament they solved this problem by having God simply live up above in the clouds somewhere invisibly (holiness gives you the power of invisibility or something like that, lol) alongside some of those other weird mystical creatures. If we work off the notion that God is a time-less space-less God then how could God begin to imagine much the same way as humans begin to imagine? And then if God is everything in a literal sense (containing both good and evil and everything) then such God would be stuck perpetually imagining and would not be able to create anything.

[@kellydalstok8900]

God stopped living above the clouds with the invention of air- and spacecraft and space telescopes. And Einstein’s ideas about spacetime clearly helped them come up with the idea of “outside of space and time”.

[@phrozenwun]

The 2nd law ONLY applies to an isolated system - there is no evidence that the universe is an isolated system, you want to invoke TD then you have to demonstrate that the universe is isolated.

[@teknoaija1762]

@@user-vt3vo1yd3v Halper just stated that expansion of universe creates more energy as vacuum energy.Heat death is very likely but not 100% certain.Look up Penrose work on cyclical conformal universe which has no infinite aeon of heath death in it.

[@davidschneide5422]

“I don’t need to believe in impossible physics, I just need to convince you of these lies so you’ll give me your money and vote how I tell you to” - Power & Prophet model

[@michaelbean2478]

The only honest answer any human being can offer regarding the absolute origins of our universe is "Nobody knows."

[@longcastle4863]

But it is a worthwhile thing to speculate about, imo.

[@graydanerasmussen4071]

Precisely. No data, and under our current understanding, no way of getting data. Even our math breaks down at T=0, the "absolute beginning of Time, Space and Everything".

[@graydanerasmussen4071]

@@Lamster66 My bet is cyclical, somehow. Most things inside the universe are. -But you are right, we are trying to "understand" something for which we have no data, using a device that evolved to detect the ripe fruit! :)

[@graydanerasmussen4071]

@@Lamster66 We're missing pieces of the puzzle. To any real scientist, science (outside of mathematics) is wrong -well, it's uncertain within error bars :) We know we can't align particle physics and quantum mechanics, so something is missing.... There might be no "bottom to the barrel" so to speak, but we WILL learn more about what "reality" is all about :)

[@davidkeller6156]

Gravity evolves? Wow! That may be one of the dumbest things I’ve heard from a “scientist”.

[@waveman0]

I thoroughly enjoyed that, this is why I watch these videos there's always something to learn and Aron always consults experts in the field.

[@drokus]

my dad taught me that being honest is the number one thing in this world. was a hard lesson to learn, but is the biggest thing i took from my upbringing. to this day i am brutally honest, to a fault. i wish more people in this world were like that in this world

[@RonFerlman]

My dad taught me that the only thing a man has is his word. It's a good lesson.

[@Gandhi_Physique]

Hopefully honest and not just super mean for no reason like some people that call themselves "brutally honest." lol

[@ianmason2964]

Honesty but with good manners

[@johniec5282]

I see. You will tell your wife she looks fat in a dress.

[@MAJMAJESTIC]

What is an evolutionist? Someone who understands reality!

[@uriituw]

No. There’s no such thing.

[@LisaAnn777]

I figured "evolutionist" was a term from Pokemon or something.

[@hydroids]

Nothing more than a creationist snarl word

[@Exquailibur]

Its literally just adding the "ist" to the end to make it sound like its somehow equivalent to creationism, its just an aspect of false equivalence. I am not an atomist or a gravitist so why insist I am an evolutionist. They just want to make it seem like people who accept evolution as true based on the evidence are equivalent to creationists, creationists are weird.

[@goldenalt3166]

From creationist context, "evolutionist" is someone who worships evolution and takes it on blind faith and also believes it is the answer to every origin question. As distinct from "Darwinists" that also have a Bible from Darwin.

[@clemstevenson]

The bible is proof that you should never underestimate the ignorance of the uneducated.

[@clemstevenson]

@@Lamster66 That is more appropriate 🙂

[@michaelramon2411]

I'm always impressed by the people who argue with a straight face that the laws of physics prove God... when God frequently violates the laws of physics. Heck, even if you cut out the miracles, the just-a-First-Mover God is still violating thermodynamics - why was he in a low entropy state at the start of time?

[@RetroBackslash]

"There's no scientific method through you can go from non-gravity to gravity existing.' And Dutko thought that this argument from ignorance was "scientifically high brow" thinking! LOL

[@theclocktower3258]

We should force a change in dialogue. Every time they say "well you just believe the universe came from nothing" we should say: "No. I believe it came from noBODY."

[@Marconius6]

Intertel is not a part of Mensa, it is a completely separate organisation. It requires that you be in the 99th percentile of IQ (as opposed to 98th for Mensa). And reminder, IQ doesn't mean that you're smart or know a lot about science, it mainly just makes you good at solving puzzles and stuff.

[@wcsxwcsx]

I was a member of Intertel. Thanks for explaining what I was about to explain.

[@Marconius6]

@@wcsxwcsx I'm a Mensa member, so I had to look this up. My first reaction was "wait is there some secret Mensa inner circle I've somehow never heard about?!" Reality is sadly more boring.

[@noone3216]

24:00 this also lines up with YHWH being an air/wind god - that 'heaven' is more accurately translated as 'sky'. After all, god lives in heaven..

[@COR2025]

It would also make sense that YHVH is a wind God since people believe that God gave Adam the breath of life, which is a tiny wind going in and out of the mouth.

[@CatsMeowPaw]

There was a time when people believed thunder and lightning was created by Thor banging his hammer. We now know better. It staggers me how Christian and other Creationists still hold onto beliefs that have long ago been disproven.

[@Catholictomherbert]

My dear fellow, your words are as thunderbolts, striking down beliefs held dear by many. Yet, let us examine the foundations of your assertions. Tell me, how can you be certain that the passage of time necessarily implies the falsity of a belief? Does not wisdom often lie in timeless truths? Can you demonstrate how the disproval of Norse mythology necessarily invalidates the claims of Christianity, given their distinct historical and philosophical contexts? And what, pray tell, is this "better" knowledge you speak of, by which you measure the validity of all beliefs? Is it not possible that our understanding, like the gods of old, may also be subject to revision? Let us probe these questions, that we may uncover the truth, unencumbered by the shadows of assumption. And there are 4 logical fallacies in your argument: 1. Appeal to progress 2. False equivalence 3. Argument from ignorance 4. Ad hominem

[@skepticsinister]

@@Catholictomherbertyour response to @catsmeowpaw is weak sauce, ‘shadows of assumptions’ word salad. “Better knowledge” are facts that religious people deny because faith requires you to engage in cult behavior. There is no god of any holy book. There was/is nothing divine about Jesus, he died for no one, no such thing as resurrection, which is an idea borrowed from earlier religions. Must be awful to be on the wrong side of history. Humans created God/god(s).

[@volker2714]

@@Catholictomherbert Noone claimed that the mere passage of time implies the falsity of a belief, my babbling friend. What implies the falsity of ancient beliefs is the knowledge we have gained in the meantime (or some of us, that is...). I will tell you a secret: truth doesn't care about what you believe in at all, or how many people believe in it. There is no magic that will turn reality into the fantasy that you personally believe in, no matter how hard you belieeeeeeeeve in it. And YOU are the one who needs to show that there is any truth to the claims in the first place. Oh, you can't present even a single shred of evidence for your claims that you have snatched out of thin air, or excuse me, from some ancient book of fairy tales? Then I will not even take the claim into consideration. And neither should you.

[@Catholictomherbert]

@@skepticsinister Here's the previous response from a lawyer (me). "Objection! Your Honor, the statement is riddled with assumptions and logical fallacies. Ad Hominem: Labeling my response as 'weak sauce' and 'word salad' attacks my argument's validity without addressing its substance. Appeal to Ridicule: Dismissing faith as 'cult behavior' employs emotional manipulation rather than logical reasoning. Burden of Proof Reversal: You assert religious people deny facts, but where's the evidence supporting your claims? False Dilemma: Presenting faith and facts as mutually exclusive oversimplifies complex relationships between belief and knowledge. Argument from Ignorance: Claiming 'no god' exists because you haven't seen evidence ignores the limitations of human understanding. Straw man Fallacy: Portraying faith as requiring blind obedience misrepresents diverse religious perspectives. Historian's Fallacy: Assuming modern perspectives are inherently correct ignores historical context and development. Let's examine your assertions: · What facts specifically do religious people deny? · How do you define 'cult behavior' and apply it to diverse faiths? · What evidence supports your claims about Jesus' life and resurrection? · Can you demonstrate how humans created God/gods? Through rigorous questioning, we'll uncover the truth, separating fact from assumption."

[@yourguard4]

@@Catholictomherbert "What facts specifically do religious people deny?" - They deny the fact, that their beliefs are not certain. They think of them as "true", even tho there is no basis, on which that claim could stand on. But it is fine, when they just say "I just (like to) believe it" or "I am convinced of it". These would be true statements, and not dishonest claimes. "Can you demonstrate how humans created God/gods?" - Well, the same way, all fictional characters are created.

[@el0j]

"creation scientist" lmao

[@franciscosustek7249]

Same as "military intelligence"...

[@jameshall1300]

​@@franciscosustek7249 to be fair, the military is probably more honest than your any creationist apologist.

[@hydroids]

About as valid as "flat earth scientist"

[@Amigo21189]

@@franciscosustek7249 At the very least, the military is perforce a fact-based institution (to some degree). If you base your operation on wishful thinking, the enemy military who bases their battle plans on facts kills you and wins the war.

[@noone3216]

4:42 My first question as well. It's as silly an argument as saying "well, everything about atheistic convictions can be dismissed since there's no model to show how space could have evolved. There's no model that shows how non-space could evolve into space." No, and neither is there any reason to think that every concept must have had an 'evolution' by necessity. Space either is or isn't - there's no 'evolution' in between. Now apply that to other things.. like gravity...

[@alanhilder1883]

Gravity is a "function" of mass. The 'Big Bang' was a huge amount of energy ( no mass, no volume needed ) but it did expand, allowing the old E=MC squared thing to happen. The "function" of mass is gravity and mass is "growing" so the amount of gravity is growing. We are getting towards where the amount of energy converting to mass has slowed down, in our area now, to a point where more often it is the other way around ( radioactive decay ), doesn't mean everywhere in the universe, we don't know. So the evolution of gravity is that it has stayed the same, just a "function" of mass. ;-)

[@noone3216]

@@alanhilder1883 Thanks! that's equal parts interesting and awesome (and makes sense)🤙 So yeah, essentially it's akin to saying gravity has no 'evolution' per se, but does behave differently, following described laws based on mass. Like 2 sides of an entropy coin. Namely, energy-to-mass on on side and mass-to-energy on the other That was worded weird, but hopefully you get me. I'm currently drunk, so 🤷‍♂️ Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up and read this and think 'wth was I talking about??'. Maybe I'll edit it. Maybe not. Time will tell.

[@alanhilder1883]

@@noone3216 I refuse to comment on my state of mind, ;-)

[@noone3216]

@@alanhilder1883 Ah, a wiser man than myself, I see 😆

[@davidwebb793]

Love yer work and hail Santa 🤘🎅

[@enlacostaizquierda]

Hail Sagan! (I think I've seen Aron with that shirt)

[@uriituw]

Santa isn’t real.

[@chickenpants]

Natas is more real than the other 3 options. At least Natas could do a kick flip.

[@ΘάνατοςΧορτοφάγος]

Nah ah, my frend haz big brainz an saiz god am real

[@graydanerasmussen4071]

A colleague of mine lived in the same block as Bent Larsen, chess Grand Master. Definitely Mensa/Intertel material, but he was not allowed to help mending the yard, because he couldn't hold a hammer correctly on the second try! High intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be. :D

[@kellydalstok8900]

@@graydanerasmussen4071 from what I’ve seen of IQ tests they mostly look at math skills, which is a disadvantage to people with better language skills than maths skills.

[@graydanerasmussen4071]

@@kellydalstok8900 As I understand it, the standard ones test for ability to make connections, to understand change, and other things where math skills are a big help. I score above average, but I suck at math :) More in-depth tests do take language skills, motor skills, spatial awareness and other things into the picture. I Tend to side with Forrest Gump's mother: "Stupid is as stupid does". It's just a number :)

[@cliveadams7629]

To creationists a genius is an apologisr who can tie his own shoe laces without drowning in dribble

[@johnnolen8338]

Krauss' nothing is not actually nothing. (Just needed to point that out. 😶 Carry on.)

[@johnnolen8338]

Dutko confuses the Zeroth Law (Thermal Equilibrium) with the Second Law (Increasing Entropy).

[@finestPlugins]

Just the fact that it's Krauss' nothing already makes it something. 😉

[@johnnolen8338]

@@Lamster66 As for myself, I don't care. The whole God/no God debate is just silly. Whatever side one is on presumes to have an answer to an unanswerable question: Why? Based on the answer one presumes, one chooses a path and says to one's self, "I shall proceed thusly ..." Only an idiot believes he has everything nailed down. In the meantime, Bob Dutko is wrong about thermodynamics.

[@kellydalstok8900]

Didn’t Krauss use that title because that’s what creationists wrongly think that’s what atheists believe?

[@johnnolen8338]

@@kellydalstok8900 In my opinion, Krauss chose the title as a philosophical poke in the eye to those who believe the complexity of the universe necessarily implies the existence of God. What I don't understand about Lawrence Krauss is why someone as apparently bright as he is would willingly pull the wool over his own eyes.

[@mf2015]

Wish you everlasting health Aron, thank you so much for freeing people from the shackles of ignorance and fear religion tries to keep you in

[@dogwalker666]

Rain is Jeebuss crying, Thunder is Jeebus trumping

[@KarlaRei]

If the universe evolved, then why is there still hotness? Sir, what are you even saying.

[@robtbo]

This was a great video. Bottom line. The dude who actually devoted years to study in the field is confident about what he doesn’t know… and knows enough to explain how nonsensical the assertions of apologist whose only interest is in getting himself and others to think he’s someone who can eliminate every hypothetical other than “God did it.” Apologists like him commonly call themselves skeptics and critical thinkers. FML

[@XiOjala]

The laws of physics are the current best DESCRIPTION of how things work. They are not dictated by God, nature or anything else for nature to obey. The problem arises from confusion over the word 'law'.

[@longcastle4863]

The best defense of our current laws of physics is that they work, they produce results. Just look at the technological world all around us. And exactly the same can be said of our theory of biological evolution. Almost all new medicines and medical practices and treatments are informed by and based on our understanding of the ways life has evolved and is continuing to evolve.

[@kellydalstok8900]

The same goes for the word “theory” that creationists constantly misunderstand. How sad their lives are, because they miss out on all the wonders of reality.

[@FlatWorld_Jomhuri_Regime]

There's also The Prometheus Society - an ultra high-IQ society so elite entrance comes down to how fast you complete IQ tests (top 1 in 10,000)

[@jameshall1300]

I was invited to the Triple Nine Society in high school ( similar to Prometheus Society ). Books smarts aren't everything, but they sure do help.

[@redfoxninja3173]

Religion should stay in its mystical nonsense lane and not try to confront scientific evidence, realistic facts, and reason with God magic, prayer wishes and miracles

[@jursamaj]

0:50 On a quick google, Intertel is not "within" Mensa. It's a separate organization altogether.

[@ryaneakins7269]

On what Day of creation did God create gravity? Checkmate, theists!

[@alanhilder1883]

So there is more "evidence" of a multiverse then there is for the christian god. And that is not a high bar to reach.

[@YetAnotherAtheistChannel]

non gravity evolving into gravity ... holy sh*t, this is the most insane thing i ever heard. i have been following your and many other similar channels for a LONG time, but this is literally the most insane thing i ever heard. fffffffu* ... wow, just wow.

[@YetAnotherAtheistChannel]

its really just this: creationists have to describe everything in terms of evolution, because evolution is their final boss enemy. so they want to apply evolution or its concepts to areas where it simply does not apply, to make it seem like evolution is not legit. thats like saying "you cant write a hello world programm with the laws of germ theory". its just a category error, but it is a deliberate deception.

[@windigo000]

why is he saying "scientific method" when he means "natural means"? 🤦🏿

[@dragonfiremalus]

Physics, you say? Now you're in my backyard! Bring it!!

[@foppishdilletaunt9911]

Look at the size of the crowd - such intese energy !

[@doginhat13]

McMurtry every time I hear his ideas I think I have a stroke

[@kaudsiz]

☝️🤡💩✝️➡️😵‍💫➡️☠️

[@kellydalstok8900]

Is he related to the McMurtry who is sexually attracted to pumpkins?

[@Sidistic_Atheist]

It's all about "The God of the Gaps" as our knowledge and critical reasoning improves over time. The gaps, where all religions are happily shoving their deities/gods into. Are quickly disappearing.

[@kellydalstok8900]

Do creationists suffer of trypophobia?

[@ironsausage808]

When talking about the Big Bang, or before there is no data. None. So the question is not why. That is in the realm of philosophy. The proper question is how. How is always in the realm of science.

[@George89999]

I nearly did a spit-take when I heard that "gravity can't evolve" idiocy. That isn't just grasping at straws, it's grapsing at hallucinatory straws.

[@anthonycrumb5753]

If you listened through this until the end, understood less than half, you still know and understand 100% more than most creationists do or want to. Well done gentlemen, an extremley informative video.

[@nio804]

I don't really have a problem with people who define god as something that just is the ultimate cause or whatever; that's just a bit weird, but acceptable. What I do have a problem is that almost invariably everyone who makes the claim that a god or gods exist, they also think that those gods have *many more* properties besides just being an abstract ultimate cause of things. Most importantly, the gods have opinions on what is true in reality and how humans should live their lives and somehow those beliefs happen to align with the believer's. It's the use of an unsubstantiated god as a source of (by definition) unquestionable authority that is unacceptable to me.

[@keithziegler8881]

"There is no scientific method by which gravity could evolve." That was the last line of this video that I listen to About one line told me all I needed to know about that preacher

[@monkerud2108]

The bgv theorem is valid, if the assumptions hold about geodesics and such things and analogs hold provided the properties of the uv complete theory works that way. But that isn't necessary, we cannot apply theorems to nature rigorously, only to our models so to speak, that gies for every theorem, because they are derived from constraints on our theories, its always possible to construct counterexamples that are consistent with experiment within the margin of error, that sort of a very general thing about reasoning from imperfect knowledge. I think there are good reasons to doubt tje geodesics interpretation of GR, its certainly not necessary to define things that way, but ultimately its experiment that will decide whether the implications of the theorem that is true under its assumptions is something nature respects in full or just approximately. So i don't want to shit on the work they did, there is nothing wrong witj the theorem, we just can have theorems about an unknown formal object like nature, not in the proper sense.

[@PebblesProtein]

Nobody will ever know. Not even Aron Ra. To scoff at others is useless, too.

[@Seticzech]

"Nobody will ever know." How do you know that? "To scoff at others is useless, too." Great arguments, really. 😀

[@rocknroll1973]

Typical creationist making up lies about some ex scientist athiest/evolutionist

[@markd.s.8625]

huh, interesting conversation

[@bodan1196]

All I hear from this preacher, is the same old selfcentered core of all religions: I don't know. No one knows. I understand that no one knows. I can therefore claim to know, and they can't disprove my claim. When I pretend to know, I feel better than those that admitt they don't know.

[@kellydalstok8900]

Also: “I’m so special, because my god created me.”

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

The *SHEER IDIOCY* of most theists never ceases to amaze me!

[@thoughtlesskills]

I love the constant reminder banner: 'The Lord is good'. They have to gaslight themselves because deep down they know he's not.

[@kellydalstok8900]

God, the most unpleasant character in fiction.

[@smadaf]

I followed your link to your debate with Grady McMurtry. It's pretty painful. In that appearance, he says that humans are losing their DNA at a rate of 1 percent to 2 percent per generation. If he means the percentage of the amount that the progenitor had, then we lose it all in 50 to 100 generations-which, at 25 years per generation, is just 1,250 years to 2,500 years. If the percentage is calculated on the basis of the immediately preceding generation and the loss is 2 percent per year, then in 230 generations we get from 100% down to less than 1%; if the loss is 1 percent per year, it takes 460 years to get down below 1%: if a generation averages 25 years, it takes 5,750 years to get through 230 generations-and 11,500 to get through 460 generations. If he really thinks humans have existed for only about 6,000 years and he really thinks this loss has been going on at this rate, then what does this mean? That the first people had about 100 times as much DNA as humans have now? What did they do with all those extra genes? It's so silly. ADDENDUM: Later in the same debate, he says that his grandchildren have 2 percent to 4 percent less genetic information than he has. It seems therefore that he always means a percentage of the progenitor's genetic information-so it takes only 50 to 100 generations to eliminate _all_ of it. Absurd! ADDENDUM 2: McMurtry's part in the debate is painful. Your part is pretty entertaining, especially when you get loudly flabbergasted.

[@oscargr_]

That guy is a genius at setting up an argument from authority. Destroying authorities along the way.

[@piscator_M1-17]

It sounds like two toddlers trying to figure out how to open a door.

[@kellydalstok8900]

You obviously mean the creationists

[@rynther]

It's a pretty good bet that we will never know the origin of the known universe, or if there are more of them out there. It's certainly fun to contemplate the possibilities, but almost none of it is testable, and the tests that might even be possible, are less than practical. What caused the big bang or what conditions preceded it are the realm of pure speculation, at least for now. So, we have in counterpoint, a sentient being, with a gender, that has no parents, peers, or siblings, but has offspring with humans, except those offspring are just extensions of himself. In the real world, we don't see offspring without parents, so how exactly am i supposed to believe a sentient creature came from nothing, when that's not possible for the universe, and not just any sentient creature, but one that can create universes.

[@rudylikestowatch]

Gravity was included at no extra charge in the base model package for the universe. We also got 3 additional fundimental forces with a premium singularity.

[@jamesyoung1022]

Should you pretend to know that an undetectable supernatural realm exists that is inhabited by undetectable, all-powerful, immortal, thinking agents, monitoring every human thought and act, pursuant to the purpose and duty to micromanage every aspect of human existence?

[@MonochromeWench]

This was a fantastic Video. Surely all the arguments against an eternal universe should also apply to god unless you use special pleading. If God exists eternally outside of time and space, doesn't this imply some sort of Multiverse that God exists in and therefore shouldn't god also be affected by entropy if a multiverse can't solve the entropy problem.

[@KGP221]

For anything lacking certainty, the most honest answer is "I don't know". We are finite is without question, certain.

[@maxdoubt5219]

Yes, our universe appears to have had a beginning, which jibes with the first three words of the bible. But what if we had found the universe to be eternal? Would Xians today be admitting that the bible's kickoff is mistaken? Of course not! No, today we'd be hearing about how our "eternal" universe is evidence for their "eternal" god and how "In the beginning" should be interpreted "metaphorically" or "symbolically. A win/win scenario for Xians! 😄

[@phrozenwun]

GR gives way to QM and energy becomes not smooth: As energy becomes localized space-time gets more curved - viola! gravity "evolved" SMH

[@brucebakken5687]

Really enjoying this series a great deal. I love the format, and I am learning so much! Thanks yet again.

[@GizzyDillespee]

A creator deity is a god of the gaps, because we don't really know what we're living in. We could've evolved inside of a black hole that was created 14 billion years ago inside of another universe, that is itself inside of a black hole in another universe that's inside a black hole in ano... It's another "turtles all the way down" or "gods all the way up" type of story. Even your friend's theory of an hourglass shaped (in entropic terms) universe, or oscillating between low and high entropy... We don't know, because of that informational choke point (big bang or low entropy point or God's magic words or ??). There's also the possibility that we're characters in a simulation, a bunch of sims trying to learn about the game universe. But if that's so, then doing science, and learning how to build better stuff, is part of the game. Until someone figures out a real way to test for any aspect of simulation theory or deities, then you can't really use the scientific method with them. There are scientists with religious beliefs. The clash only exists when the religion insists upon beliefs which can be proven to be untrue. There still are plenty of gaps for God to thrive in those places.

[@lesmiserable-f7m]

An author of many books dealing in Astral travelling etc by Lobsang T Rampa made a reference to multi universes using Professor Carl Sagan's "more suns in the universe than sand on our beaches" but exchanging "suns" with "universes" that was back in the 70's makes one wonder if this bloke WAS a ancient monk whom inhabited a body not some British plumber, a gifted writer with an incredible imagination.

[@pjosephlthewonder5082]

I have a friend that would love this book. She said 'When you can show me something that supports your silly ideas, I will do all those things we teased each other about!. I showed her this and her statement was this, 'Till I read this the bet still stands. You only may have won the first two parts, but I said all three parts!' When I get the copy and send it to her I will post here the results. I have awaited a book like this. I have used several different books to prove this to her. I at lease won the flat earth and Evolution parts. Peace

[@markwarner327]

I hereby offer you a hypothesis - If the universe is finite then it would have a geometric center for the singularity even if it all expands uniformly. And if it is finite, it would have an event horizon or edge. Since the event horizon would be literally absolute empty space then the nearby space would stretch to an infinitesimal low density. This means matter would accelerate to a maxitesimal velocity and as Einstein tells us that if you reach that point time would go backwards. So, Space and time would be antispace-antitime and gravity would also be antigravity and matter would become all antimatter. Thus an antiverse. In an antiverse; space would contract instead of expanding. Thus it would be in the process of a big crunch. So, it would eventually contract to a singularity and then it's spacial density would become infinite and time would cross the zero point and would invert back to the universe. That is to say the universe would be preceded by an antiverse. The process would be an expanding big bang universe followed by a big crunch antiverse over and over again. Not exactly super symmetry because some of the universe and some of the antiverse would have remnants of the other in each cycle.

[@ironsausage808]

Think about entropy. If you look at the cosmic microwave background radiation the temp is almost even. That says that the universe was at a maximum entropy state at the Big Bang. But gravity became a thing and and and temps became higher across the universe. Thus entropy was broken. Penrose.

[@longcastle4863]

I always wonder if the laws pertaining to the four forces exist in a kind of ratio and/or influence with one another, so that if, for example, the weak force is a certain strength, it limits or influences the range within what the other forces can be. Like, for example, if you put four fingers inside a rubber band (representing the four forces), the way each finger stretches the rubber band influences the range within which each of the other fingers can stretch the rubber band.. Because somewhere along the line I remember reading that the four forces were once just one force.. I promise I’m not high 😊

[@stephenhill8790]

That's an interesting hypothesis, but you would need some research and experiments to prove it, but that's how science worked, an idea is tested and you try to get the results you hypothesis predict

[@thekaxmax]

They mostly don't interact with each other in any way. At the point of the big bang it was so hot the four were effectively one.

[@alanhilder1883]

It almost sounds like something to do with rings... ;-) I kinda get what you are saying, the fact that they don't interact doesn't mean that there is no effect, just not enough to be measured by our primitive tools. I'm thinking how different colour wavelengths can pass through each other without affecting the other but if you are looking at it at that point, the colour gets changed. ( not enough science to explain myself better. Still doing better than the creationist )

[@brianmonks8657]

I hate to say it, but I have to agree that I don't know of any scientific method for gravity to evolve. I don't even know what it could even mean for gravity to evolve,. Does he think gravity is alive? Or that gravity has changed over time? I am not aware of any evidence that either of those is true. Infinity doesn't exist as a number in reality, so the universe could not have started as infinitely anything, there is no actual dispute about that.

[@vintologi]

Intertel isn't a part of mensa and they accept top 1%, not that exclusive.

[@Gandhi_Physique]

A Minecraft server I had was way more exclusive, it was 0.0000098% of the world (estimated) lol

[@monkerud2108]

So the point of the rant, was just that people with very high iqs sometimes just think they are smart enough to do it all over, but no, there is so many details to consider, and it usually turns into goo, or some completely ad hock arguments that cover up ignorance or point towards a desired conclusion. The problem of logically deriving what exists and how it works from an armchair with your eyes closed, is a task way beyond any humanly possible iq. So 59 or 400, doesn't make a bit of difference, if the reasoning isn't done with some humility and guidence from nature. And that i get annoyed when people just make shit up.

[@noone3216]

27:44 if youre Richard Turner? 100%, if thats what you wanted. Thats not being silly either. If you dont know who richard turner is, watch his appearance on penn and teller For the sake of piquing interest, he takes a deck, riffles it, riffles it, cuts it, riffles it, cuts it, cuts it, and then fans the deck out, and he's 'shuffled' them into perfect order. Oh, and he's blind.

[@Sergiu.antifascist]

gravity to evolve? that is loonie talk, you'd say. however, gravity must appear, must be born, must consist. is not since forever. is not without consistence. you don't only assert gravitation, you explain it. explanation is not a static formula, must be a dynamic formula. and everything came from nothing

[@jacobgray3112]

I think you both really blundered this response. 12:50 I get how the disagreement arose, basically Phil is saying that there are too many unknows to make any kind of claims about what did or didn't happen, and Aron is pushing the idea that logically it is only sensible that the universe had to have existed by the definition of 'having properties' before the expansion at the time of the big bang. At least that is the counter point as I understand it. The resolution to this conflict, that you both landed on was 'it doesn't matter anyway, which while true regarding the topic at hand- really doesn't do anything to dispute a number of creationist arguments. I think the more convincing resolution would be, to concede that we can't say for certain what happened before the moment of expansion at the big bang, however to we have many theories about what could have happened, which do comport with our observed reality- and a divine creator god certainly doesn't make the list.

[@Seticzech]

"what happened before the moment of expansion at the big bang" This doesn't make any sense because *before* requires time and time didn't exist until Big Bang started. It is possible singularity had properties like gravity and that was the reason universe exists. Like Stephen Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." BTW by nothing he meant no spacetime and no matter, just to be clear.

[@Seticzech]

Aron I admire your ability to listen to that creationistic stupldity. I simply can't. After minute or so I was so full of that $hit I had to turn it off.

[@petersage5157]

One potential solution to conserving energy on cosmic scales is that entropy feeds dark energy. I don't have the higher math skills to prove this, but I think a mathematical proof is possible and would include i and j dimensions perpendicular to each of the "real" dimensions of spacetime. Of course, whether a mathematical proof leads to a falsifiable hypothesis is another matter.

[@monkerud2108]

I wrote a summery of my thoughts on philosophy and theory of knowledge as it relates to science. Was gonna write something shorter, but i figured its better to finish the point :). Just because you said you don't care much for philosophy, and i feel differently, but also the same, i think philosophy is just verh varied and sometimes very unprincipled and incoherent, but there are a lot of clear nice thinkers as well. The way i like to engage with it is sort of historical, reading kant and being critical, reading hume and berkley to see why he took the turn he did, and what kind of objections i could come up with or problems i have reading the conclusions and reasoning. Wittgenstein is also interesting, but its not about answers for me, its about being exposed to reasoning, to find fault or virtue with an open mind, ultimately understanding that informal reasoning can only take you to a place of better intuitions about knowledge, and only the True answers about what exists to shaoe our reasoning and the object reasoned about could put it all in any sort of real objective perspective. Hope thats okey 😊. There are a lot of super high iq claimants that are sloppy and arrogant, i'm not one of those clowns, i think sometimes veing given status goes straight to peoples heads and they become completely uncritical of the way they reason, and when i meet such a person i feel extremely humian all of a sudden, which is funny. Reasoning with humility trumps any inate cognitive ability every time, because you can come up with extremely complicated ways to sooth your own preconceptions. Like the content dude, keep it up :).

[@BioshockChicken]

I’ve heard a lot on the channel, but I really wasn’t expecting “gravity can’t evolve.” Jaw droppingly ignorant.

[@monkerud2108]

I get very annoyed soemtimes when people claim the contrary, but thats a character flaw of mine. It is still true that theorems derived from formal properties of models are never proveably applicable to nature. But tyat doesn't mean the work is shoddy in any way its just thought of in a wrong way if it is assumed to determine exactly what nature does in regimes we have no tests of. Its more of a problem of thinking the mathematics is final in current work, its just like applying a theorem derived from Newtonian gravity to the orbit of mercury or something, it just doesn't apply, but before you really test it properly it doesn't make any practical differences. Essentially theorems habe to be tested in physics just as much as theories.

[@OmegaWolf747]

The beginning of the universe is so fascinating. Are we part of an eternally inflating multiverse, or a universe that has existed before, collapsed on itself, then re-expanded?

[@DeconvertedMan]

Always ask how many laws of thermodynamics when they bring it up... they don't know the answer. ((this shows they dont know what the bleep they are talking about)) (its four) and the first is number zero. :)

[@ThomasMuirAudionaut]

Gravity is only a word for the fact stuff hits the ground and down is inward toward the center of mass. there is no up, only out, no above and below, just outward, and inward, that's the scary part for those invested in bible-gibberish, no above.

[@monkerud2108]

For the gravity coming into being thing. Its just a misunderstanding of induction, induction of the laws of nature is a given, its circularly baked into the concept in a sense. Or it should be for the purposes of using language, but environments can change under the same law. If gravity changes with time or space, or comes into being, or stops existing in some sense, then yes there is no eternal induction principle associated with it, but all you need and you do need it in this case, is a law that describes the change in gravity as an effective law, or a law subject to another law, there is no difficulty there except complete knowledge of what happens to exist, whether we know it or not. Has nothing to do with the scientific method, it is just a description of trying ti formulate ideas and trsting them against what you study in nature. It has nothing to do with what can or cannot exist, just the basics of how we should go about trying to find out.

[@Sergiu.antifascist]

"fluctuations of the vacuum"?! children! what vacuum? there was no vacuum to begin with!