Debating a Creationist

Check out my podcast rss.com/podcas... or open.spotify.c...
Support me on Patreon / planetpeterson
Support me on Venmo: account.venmo....
Be sure to follow me on social media!
Instagram: / planetpeterson
TikTok: @planet_peterson

[@jasonOfTheHills]

"I am going to make up a bunch of special rules for god." "Cool, I will do the same for X." "Whoa! Hold on there pal!!!"

[@EricusXIV]

Him using Occams razor is hilarious.

[@Andy_Babb]

Isn’t it adorable how creationists actually think there’s a debate to even be had? They _really_ think they’re making these earth shattering points by questioning science with no concept of how absolutely ignorant and/or biased they are. Nooo clue how utterly clueless they are. THIS kinda sh!t is why our country is going backward. How can you grow and advance if your solution to every problem is “god did it”?

[@CascadeGamer]

Well its all they got. They know religious explanations have been getting demolished every step in our journey with the scientific method. As of right now..there are few things that science doesnt have an explanation for and religions capitalize on those very few remaining mysteries and claim "SEE? science cant explain everything therefore its not an explanation for anything!". One thing is clear and that is...every scientific model could be made void tomorrow...and that STILL does not prove a god did it. They refuse to accept that. They believe their position is the default whereas gods were created as explanations of natural phenomena! Gods are an archaic version of the scientific method!

[@JTfromVT]

He goes on to say that the Bible is historical but then says the earth is 6000 years old. He's no smarter than any other creationist. He's just better spoken

[@abdullahshahj7194]

he doesn’t agree with me on two things rather than one, omg very dumb

[@JTfromVT]

@@abdullahshahj7194 it's not even about agreeing one one or 2 things. Calling being dismissed for saying the earth is 6000 years old as fascism is one of the dumbest things I've heard. Just because you have an idea doesnt mean it should be taken seriously

[@WilbertLek]

I was gonna say, "finally a worthy opponent", you mean he stays calmer when claiming magicdunit...

[@JTfromVT]

@@WilbertLek that's literally all it devolves into. The first bit he at least sounded cohearent, then took a complete turn calling science fascists because they don't take young earth creationists seriously

[@hunterhall1575]

I actually did an interesting math yesterday, and basically, if Noahs Ark is true, that means that the techtonic plates seperated over the course of just 1000 years without destroying everything. Despite the fact that tiny movements almost destroy cities.

[@slightlyaboveaveragebutaverage]

I love when a dunce smirks after thinking he just said the smartest thing ever.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

If we can assert a timeless super being beyond the universe for creating the universe for creating the universe, I can assert evil shapeshifters are responsible for all unsolved murders for the same reason. It's just simpler to think evil shapeshifters did it, than a bunch of complex naturalistic causes, Right? Right?

[@Evolved_Primate]

Dunning Kruger is a hell of a drug.

[@johnferry7778]

@@Evolved_PrimateI thought it was a fine wine!

[@Virtualblueart]

Says "The problem with dark matter is you can't test it." Also says "God just made stuff and you can't test that".

[@porkramen]

TFW when apologists attack their own arguments

[@noahnorigin2020]

To be fair, he said that they both have that same problem

[@thomasb7347]

"He just can do it" "I dont understand how the world works."

[@Andy_Babb]

“God made the universe and everything so he could make humans” “HOW?” “Magic”

[@amihartz]

It's always funny how the religious and mystical types talk about magic but then if you use the word "magic" they get offended.

[@Andy_Babb]

@@amihartz it is rather ironic, isn’t it? God created the universe out of nothing using _not_-magic??

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

Atheists be like. EMERGENT PROPERTIES EVERWHWRE WE SEE EFFECTS WE DONT CARE ABOUT CAUSE WE HAVE PROBABILITY THEORIES THAT ARE LITERALLY MAGIC.

[@Andy_Babb]

@@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ Um, atheists generally trust in science, math, fact and logic and are constantly seeking answers to the most difficult questions of the universe and life as a whole while working to create solutions to existential problems we all face, be it medical, cultural or literally any other issue the world faces. Conservative Christians ONLY care about what’s best for conservative Christians. I’m not even an atheist but I think yall need to keep your fcking preaching to your church bc nobody else wants to hear about your distorted takes on reality. Saying “sky daddy did it” is not an answer or a solution to any question. It’s a cop out that proves you have no clue.

[@amihartz]

@@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ Funny how you know you have no argument so you just have to make things up.

[@datgsguy]

‘Specified complexity’ is literally smuggling the conclusion into the premise.

[@porkramen]

Right? These goofballs never make the same complexity claim about rocks or air but they still think they were all created.

[@datgsguy]

@@porkramen it’s a classic sharpshooter fallacy. That grain of sand being at that angle on that beach, on that continent, on that planet, etc is beyond calculation. But they have assigned no importance to the grain of sand. They have assigned importance to themselves, drawing a target around where the arrow landed then being amazed at the accuracy of the shot.

[@Rosskles]

​@@datgsguy So well said!

[@dansmith7009]

The laws of physics tell us that whatever created the universe can’t be bound by the laws of physics. And that thing would have to be intelligent because only intelligent things make complexity (when acting within the bounds of the laws of physics). I wonder if he even *could* see the issue there…

[@Rosskles]

@@dansmith7009 I have an extremely probable assumption that you do NOT understand the laws of physics 🤣🤣

[@bgiv2010]

"We're violating Ockham's Razor if the universe is uncaused. God being uncaused gets around it, though."

[@keyboardoracle1044]

Occams razor is just a concept anyway not a law. The simplest explanation is not always the explanation, so Occams razor is just a cute phrase really.

[@fulcanostwyr6852]

It's Occam guys.

[@porkramen]

Inevitably, creationists think BBT is about an explosion

[@smaakjeks]

An explosion from nothing, no less

[@kcarter2958]

And then Kent Hovind says we think life came from rocks. And then a pine tree gave birth to a mosquito which at some point then gave birth to a whale.

[@HisZotness]

It's a cliche well past its best by date. Even better, this guy said he believes matter can come from non-matter, whatever that means.

[@cliveadams7629]

He makes a good argument. His god would have to exist outside of time and the universe we occupy and be able to create something from nothing. None of which is explainable, testable or falsifiable nor in any way interacts with our universe. So therefore it can be dismissed. He has refuted his own god. Nice one.

[@VerdeDrums]

This is every single Christians rationale when you drill down into the root of their arguments. “ god is responsible for everything and is TOTALLY REAL, but also he can’t be falsified or tested because I’m presupposing it so be true. “ WHY IS IT ALWAYS PRESUPPOSITIONALISM EVERY SINGLE TIME??? WHY IS IT JUST VIBES?? EVERY TIME???!!!

[@gametime2473]

This isn't his argument. He's just copying William Lane Craig's version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[@DorianSwain]

@@VerdeDrumsi was on a live and had this exact thing happen to me, i asked “what proof or evidence do you have for god?” and was told “i’m not trying to, NOR can i prove god. i’m just making an argument that he is possible in your world view” like?????

[@BryanBrooks]

Top down, bottom up. sounds like a fun evening.

[@1981bdt]

13:10 "I think at this point, we're violating Occam's Razor" . Buddy, you tossed that out the window when you started this call

[@SchiwiM]

The cause of the universe doesn't need to be conscious, intent is not necessary to create something. Wind for example has no consciousness and still creates sand dunes without intention

[@radonaccount4454]

Genuine question, how do you explain intelligence/consciousness from non-intelligence and non-consciousness

[@catpoke9557]

@@radonaccount4454 It's probably just an emergent property. When you give something with senses the ability to think, you get consciousness as a result.

[@rhogal8310]

@@radonaccount4454 I think that what a lot of people do wrong when thinking about consciousness is the assumption that it is akin to a physical "property" of matter, like some kind of energy. Consciousness is just an emergent process, derived from systems that are complex enough. That's why we do not consider rocks or trees conscious, they do not have the capacity (brains or other such 'biological computers') to percieve and process information in a self aware way. There is no particular 'magic' to intelligence, it is just a very big system that at some point gains the ability to process information in complex ways. Everything boils down to matter, your neurons are made of matter that is subject to chemistry and ultimately to laws physics, you can 'alter' your consciousness by using drugs, through surgery, through physical trauma all of this influences the underlying matter of your brain.

[@Kildergcowboy]

There is an infinite amount of numbers between 1 & 2, there it is impossible to count from 1 to 2 because of infinite regress.

[@gowdsake7103]

Good explains why 3 is so tricky

[@eukaryote-prime]

How could a being be both timeless and take actions?

[@porkramen]

"Magic"

[@radonaccount4454]

Not a concept that can be understood. But it makes sense that it doesn’t make sense

[@michaelandrew677]

Any creationist statement about "God can do this" or "God can do that" is a just baseless assertion worthy of zero consideration whatsoever. This guys entire argument is "Anything I don't understand is something God did by magic".

[@leerass]

Seeing this converstion now after I have seen the debate between professor Dave and James Tour and the assessment of the dispute between Tour and Dave from this guy did not age well. I would be embarrassed to bring up the name of Tour if I was a creationist 😅

[@nicholasbanton]

The fundamental flaw with a "God created X" argument is that the basis of the claim is indistinguishable from one's imagination.

[@lesleytodd3586]

William Lane Craig 😂😂😂

[@rylee9086]

This isn’t really related to the debate, but I love your content and hope it eventually gets the views/interaction it deserves!

[@danieldelanoche2015]

WLC has already shown that he blatantly misunderstands the scientists, as Lawrence Krauss proved literally in their debate, with the scientists' own words.

[@Eraser18574]

Here is a guy who really thinks James Tour has a clue what he is talking about? It was shown that Tour lied and misrepresented things, so much for that. This guys whole argument is ob the other hand is, god did it with magic, duh… 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@lubrew5862]

Tour likes to take a scientific paper and question it on things that were outside of the scope of the paper, but a similar topic. Then proudly state that since it didn’t address this thing outside of the scope of the paper that he wanted it must be wrong and we are all clueless. Tour has wrote and read enough scientific papers to know what he is doing is dishonest and misleading. But I guess it is okay to lie if it is for the Jebus.

[@Bunny99s]

This was actually quite civil from both sides. Though it's still hard for YECs to stick to their own standards and stay consistent. The claim about people cited by Dave Farina is kinda reversed. Tour claimed to have talked to some of them while afaik it was only one and it was only an email conversation. Dave actually spoke with several of them in an actual video chat to clarify certain points and their stances. It's kinda funny how different different people can observe the same things...

[@danpettinger1353]

A god so powerful he needs to be defined into existence and hidden behind a wall of philosobabble. So dishonest.

[@steventhompson399]

Lol 😄 ... what I hear when presuppers talk...

[@jr-pn1dt]

there does not have to be a first parent when you understand evolution and biology at an elementary level

[@towerofpower7462]

The second someone Mentions "Existing outside of time" the conversation needs to end, this person is deluded and is talking utter trash!

[@datfly3034]

Creationists love to make insubstantiated claims about their god as if it’s a statement of pure fact - like “God exists outside the laws of physics, so can do anything “

[@Virtualblueart]

"There is an anti supernatural bias in science" Not really. Science looked into supernatural things loads of times in the past just to see if there was anything in it. They simply couldn't find anything substantial or testable. Thats not bias.

[@Ithinkjustzelda]

Of course there is an Amit supernatural bias in science. Science is a naturalistic process. The second science finds an explanation for something supernatural, it ceases to be supernatural. It's by design.

[@Profato]

"Universe had a beginning" - well we can trace back to the thing we call the "Big Bang" - but we have no idea if our local representation of the universe is the totality of existence, it probably isnt. Theist wrong in the first argument.

[@lollard]

“Everything in the universe is contingent, therefore the universe is contingent.” is a composition fallacy.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

We have no clue if the universe had a beginning or not

[@Will_Plotegher]

This caller was a refreshing change to some of the others. Was really interesting hearing the discussion, even though he is completely wrong. Great video.

[@monodescarado]

About the 30-minute mark, the conversation moves to James Tour and Lee Cronin. It's funny listening to this with the now hilarious image of Tour sat at a table at harzard being basically mocked and ignored by actual scientists from different fields. He looked like a fifth-grader that had found his way into a high-school dance.

[@wolfgangbeeber2086]

It always cracks me up anytime someone says God is the more likely explanation for anything! We’ve never seen anything supernatural so it’ll never be the more likely explanation for anything

[@michaelvout7813]

The Kalam cosmological argument (the essence of his argument) has been demonstrated to be a non sequitur thousands of times.

[@dansmith7009]

Yep. The KEY question, even IF you accept the premises, is whether whatever cause started the universe was a person. Which is not at all addressed by the Kalam. For example, an immaterial eternal force that mindlessly creates universes would meet all the stated requirements of the kalam, and require less assumptions than adding on intentionality.

[@Slum0vsky]

'I learned my science from WLC'. Oh well, I learned about the Bible from someone who never studied it, so listen to me prattle endlessly and pointlessly...

[@ClayManIon]

It is hillarious every time I hear "matter from none matter" like none matter as in nothing? Looool

[@drg8687]

All creationists sound certifiably insane to me, and this dud is no different.

[@displacegamer1379]

11:42 even if we did have a creator that created this universe, it doesn't mean that the properties of the Creator have to be different from the properties of its creation. It could be that the properties are transitive. Meaning the creator transposes the properties of their grandeur reality within our reality. For example when I create a hammer, the hammer doesn't possess different properties from the universe that created the hammer. The hammer still has to follow the greater properties of the universe that it's within. So if our universe is within a grander reality then the properties of the grand reality would be tramposed onto this lesser reality of our universe.

[@displacegamer1379]

42:38 The more fun thing to do was to say that you're the prophet of Spanky and then you just write down anything that he needs to be written down and there you go. The written word of God Spanky from his prophet.

[@wj2036]

For the dishonest theist, god will always be a placeholder for the gaps in scientific knowledge. Religion is what happens when a species is intelligent enough to ask difficult questions, but not intelligent enough to answer them

[@stevengriffith414]

Great discussion...would like to see you two discuss more in the future.

[@planetpeterson2824]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5qof55omsRom5I

[@Baldie_Chris]

That was awesome and really interesting. A proper discussion hope you guys do another.

[@DemiImp]

I wouldn't call it that. The guy on the left refused to concede to his own arguments and then acted like he won.

[@porkramen]

"If i can dream it, it must be real"...what a self-deluded crank

[@LuigiMordelAlaume]

Also 53:42 just like you could potentially calculate if the light is on or off after you get to a "plank second", you can trace back the first single cell organism as the "first parent" to theoretically answer these questions rationally without a paradox or logical fallacy.

[@jolene6911]

“He spoke it into existence” … so … magic ?

[@derrickminion9874]

Who were the first two humans to speak modern-day English? This is not an answerable question because of the nature of ever changing languages..

[@BaronVonQuiply]

Not to mention, if you say "Old-English" to someone, they tend to think King James and Shakespeare rather than something they would mistake for German.

[@Andy_Babb]

What maybe amazes me the most is that these people NEEDS the Bible to be 100% _literally_ true for god to be real.

[@Sparkydr07]

How can you assign attributes to something timeless and spaceless?

[@greenplasticmoose8843]

Because God calls Himself those attributes

[@Sparkydr07]

@@greenplasticmoose8843 Does he/she/it ? Where ?

[@abdullahshahj7194]

attributes are spaceless and timeless, some attributes we know about by logical deduction and others by revelation

[@Sparkydr07]

@abdullah shahj What you just said is completely meaningless and not in anyway logical

[@greenplasticmoose8843]

@@Sparkydr07 Dont disrespect the pronouns He identifies as. Wow and also: God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12; Jeremiah 23:24) God is Spirit (John 4:24)God is the Creator (Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:16) I know youre not going to read these but here ya are

[@danielhamid5569]

I am going to download this to play at night when i cannot sleep, his voice is soooooo dull

[@Virtualblueart]

Creationist: "if you use a lot of logical fallacies, it doesn't look good" Oh really? You ever look in a mirror?

[@AlexPBenton]

It’s kinda funny, because he was using an ad homonym fallacy while complaining about his ad homonym 😂

[@David34981]

@@AlexPBenton *ad hominem (homonym is a totally different thing)

[@AlexPBenton]

@@David34981 Yeah, I found that out later 🤷‍♂️

[@arno_grnfld455]

It's impossible to conceive nothing, only the mere contradictory concept of it

[@RedPandaSquadron]

These debates really make me want to get into these debate scenes. I don't actually want to, but I just have expertise in what they talk about, and the ways in which creationists manipulate data and misunderstand words. Never gonna get into the scene, but man is this stuff frustrating.

[@anlacombe]

It used to be that religious people debating non-believers in the public eye would say, "God controls everything everywhere, it's not logical, it just is," but these days many theists want to use logic to prove must God exists. It's terrible what widespread teaching of intelligent design has done to people's heads; they will say contradictory things and get upset when people laugh at them out of frustration; I'm pretty sure this only drives them further into their belief since they view themselves as persecuted.

[@aiden2358]

Whenever I argue with a theist all I want is for them to acknowledge they don’t have proof or science on there side they just have faith

[@herbsofeden]

@@aiden2358 their* and it takes faith to believe your worldview as well. Evolution, old earth etc. none of it was observed.

[@montythebugman6308]

@herbsofeden I don't need faith for my worldview of naturalism, I merely rely on the evidence that is readily apparent for "those with eyes to see."

[@alejandrovallejo4330]

I would have argued a lot of the points differently, but you did good.

[@tonydorsett33]

The problem with the 1st mover argument is that even. If I grant you all of your premises and your conclusion it still doesn't lead us to a god. It simply leads us to a first cause what that first cause is we don't know. It could be that are localized version of the universe is all that we see, but there's much more out there. It could be that what we don't see is infinite. The point is we don't know and to assume a being that created the universe is just adding complexity to an already complex problem

[@kcarter2958]

Saying God can operate outside of the laws of physics is just another way to dip into the "Big 'Ol Bag 'O Bible Magic" whenever science, facts and logic have the creationist cornered.

[@Sparkydr07]

This guy should watch the debate with WLC and Sean Carrol

[@blackphoenixfamily8477]

@6:20 chatter @c0r0navi said "THE CREATOR IS NOT LIMITED BY HIS CREATION THEREFORE HE EXISTS OUTSIDE OF HIS CREATION" which, by this logic, means he cannot exist within his creation. Which should prompt the question "What proof, than, is there that such a being could exist, much less does exist?

[@FentonMulley-cz8pv]

Aw man. This fella is a hoot

[@urthosart]

love your content

[@BaronVonQuiply]

_"..An then a wolf is gonna be my mom, an we'll go on adventures, an superman will be my dad, and we'll invent a machine that makes billion dollar coins and buy an island made out of Sega Genesis"_ I'd compare the above to apologetics, but the Genesis by Sega is actually real so they don't compare.

[@komradjay5738]

Fascism is when your paper can't pass peer review 😂😂😂 This fuckin guy

[@homestarflyerify]

The thing he did where he said the claim of dark matter is the same as the claim of god is pretty stupid. One is the result of measurements, one is a superstition

[@SparkySteve.]

This is the most frustrating thing about apologists.....you literally walk them through the fact there's component's of life that aren't alive, and they still say no You literally can't reason with an apologist.....they are super brainwashed and its easier to say "nuh-hur" than admit you've been fooled

[@displacegamer1379]

27:57 Even that low of a likelihood is still a higher likelihood than God. You can't develop any measurable metric of probability for the God side. So if the god side can't even display a probabilistic number then you can't even use it in the comparison. It's as if I said that X has a likelihood of 5 and then Y has. Which has a higher likelihood X or Y?

[@ravioli6394]

This guy just swooned Eric into being a YEC

[@BaronVonQuiply]

08:09 No, Time is a piece of wax falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters - per Dr Beck's Certified Gold thesis in 1994

[@dougbelford4565]

The Big Bang vs. God Physics vs. Magic Reality vs. Philosophy Rules vs. No Rules Everything we know about the Universe vs. My Imagination ……I wonder who will win?

[@smaakjeks]

I define Nessie as the non-conscious thing that is required for gods to exist, but is in itself not contingent upon anything else. If a god exists, Nessie must exist. QED

[@lubrew5862]

Tour likes to take a scientific paper and question it on things that were outside of the scope of the paper, but a similar topic. Then proudly state that since it didn’t address this thing outside of the scope of the paper that he wanted it must be wrong and we are all clueless. Tour has wrote and read enough scientific papers to know what he is doing is dishonest and misleading. But I guess it is okay to lie if it is for the Jebus.

[@OrenArieli]

Something that "exists" outside of time doesn't exist by any definition we use. And for the metaphysical to interact with the physical world would leave physical clues, not philosophical ones. This is what you get when you conflate arguments with evidence.

[@Gdwmartin]

all he makes is bald assertions.

[@WilbertLek]

Assertions without hair?

[@leerass]

How can a disembodied mind speak? How can you speak without a mounth and before matter excisted. You need air to speak, since speaking is making air vibrate in patterened vibrations.

[@DoctorShocktor]

Exactly, that’s all physics - OOPS.

[@leerass]

@@DoctorShocktor outside of this context the word speaking has no meaning (well, maybe methophorically, but that does not help), especially not when it comes to creation. But in a non-sensical religion in which a word can be a person, it all might makes 'sense' somehow.

[@Nedarb69]

this was very refreshing. both parties spoke intelligently and conversed professionally.

[@tonydorsett33]

No, one person spoke intelligently. They both spoke eloquently, that doesn't mean it's intellectually. If you think the Bible and science "match up" you're indoctrinated and don't care about the facts of our universe

[@gowdsake7103]

Your kidding right ? Gawd gone an done it is intelligent James Tour is anything but a con man WLC is anything but a snake oil salesman

[@iSkulk]

I like this Christian. I''ll hope for more well-spoken debates. I think he's reallllly obviously missing a couple key ideas, but I think he's a genuine dude and what more could you ask for?

[@justinwatson1510]

Internal consistency and critical thought would be nice.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Well spoken, the guy was clueless. This guy is no different than any of the other bottom barrel derpy derps on this channel.

[@David34981]

To actually think about this? I doubt there are people who believe in god, who with an open mind think about it. They are either incapable of really thinking about it (...) or they are dishonest with themselves (and others). I don't see any other option.

[@smaakjeks]

Calling BS on Prof Dave's referenced experts going "lmao no I distance myself from what Dave said about me"

[@LanceHall]

Creationism is what happens when you have no real knowledge or comprehension of the real world.

[@moorejim13]

If you can’t know how the world works outside of the laws of physicis then why does anything out side of the laws of physics matter?

[@colinellicott9737]

Gobekli Tepe refutes this YEC.

[@iSkulk]

"Its better to have questions that we haven't answered yet, than to assume we have answers that can't be questioned." -PP sorry to spam

[@radonaccount4454]

As a Christian, I thought this was a tremendous debate

[@jetonbrogen9844]

This guy is better than the usual riffraff

[@amihartz]

Why do most physicalists state that consciousness is something entirely mysterious? He literally equates it to dark matter as if this "consciousness" thing is some new substance somehow exclusive to mammalian brains we haven't discovered yet. It's so bizarre. Obviously replicating the _function_ of brains is very difficult and we're nowhere near fully achieving that, but that is very different from claiming that mammalian brains can create some entirely new substance that is as far removed from traditional matter is as dark matter is. Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Yet physicalists seem to very often make pretty wild claims about consciousness without justifying it.

[@thefub101]

Special pleading over and over. This cant have happened cos of this rule but my magic friend did it cos the rules dont apply to him. 😂

[@qwertytrewq9870]

@16:58 I think it's pretty obvious that the creationist is saying that temporally there is not an instance of life proceeding non life... the sum of all processes within our body can be called "life" and non of the individual processes themselves are life, but that doesn't mean life proceeds non life, because you require parents to exist right... there is something akin to a fallacy of composition going on in your rebult

[@robertwhite1810]

The "universe" didn't have a "beginning".....spaceless, timeless, immaterial is exactly the same thing as non existent

[@jamierichardson7683]

Wondered if he has watched James Tours recent humiliating Harvard experience

[@BaronVonQuiply]

_"MIS-ter fa-RINA!"_

[@AlphaBeta-cf5wf]

Late to the party, but what the hell. "Nature is bound by the laws of physics" is a very imprecise way of phrasing. There is a sense where it is true, but it is very misleading. It would be more correct to say that the laws of physics are an aspect of nature, and even more correct to say that the laws of physics describe our current understanding of how nature operates. You could say that if we discovered a natural process that creates universes, then that would be a new law of physics.

[@Andy_Babb]

31:23 nothing he’s saying makes Tour any less absurd

[@spin.chicken]

34:00 "God has always existed" - Then why couldn't the universe always have existed? If he then says "God just popped into existence" - Then why couldn't the universe just pop into existence? It's just...baffling how they default to to God.

[@jacksonknock1833]

I wonder what this guy thinks about James Tour now

[@Astralmess]

bro thinks he's making any points by talking in a calm manner. literally, he's point is "it's all magic".

[@javierjara9538]

The only thing that these guys never "researched" is the answer in real science in "science journals", not the blog post "journals" of the "creationists"

[@Andy_Babb]

22:48 lmao 15 min later he answers the damn question

[@javierjara9538]

My glob... This guy doesn't know math, and only regurgitated "creationist" talking points.

[@LuigiMordelAlaume]

I hate people that assume our laws of physics encompass 100% of physical phenomenon - it could be that an unknown law of physics is that an empty void of a universe causes matter and energy to spontaneously exist but we have no way of observing or testing this. Talking about universal physics is really hard when we've only been generalizing physics outside of earth for maybe a century. We don't even know for a fact that the same laws apply outside our solar system or galaxy, we just know everything we see indicates it to be true.

[@Sparkydr07]

When God spoke things into existence, who was he/she/it speaking to ?

[@vestafreyja]

Perhaps an early version of Siri .

[@briannelson27]

The newly minted 4 person perspective: Chat