Jesus VS. Aliens! | Talk Heathen: Throwback

[@God-ld6ll]

time, space, even physical mass and me. My lizardfolk wife controls them all. 😅

[@kinss1]

This is an amazing discussion, and I listened to lots of atheist/religious podcasts

[@ARoll925]

Jonathan always seems like a friendly nice dude, while at the same time promoting and saying utter nonsense

[@DAYSE368]

Eric's simply fantastic.

[@ernesthastie-gg7kn]

The same old thing if a createor exists what created the createor

[@101Mant]

And if the creator doesn't need to be created you have decided that something doesn't have to follow the rule of needing to be created. So then why do other things? If God doesn't need to be created by does the universe?

[@kitchencarvings4621]

Creationists are foisting a package deal on us. The concept 'create' refers to the process of taking existing materials and rearranging them into new combinations that didn't exist before, such as when you take wool from a sheep, spin it into yarn, and then use that yard to knit a sweater. But that's not what the Creationists mean by the word create. They mean that some consciousness essentially wishes the sweater to exist from nothing. We don't have a single example of this second, smuggled-in meaning of 'creation.' It is just arbitrarily inserted into the referents of the concept. This is enough to invalidate the idea, but there is a much bigger and more fundamental problem: The assumption of the primacy of consciousness, the view that reality has its source in and is dependent on a form of consciousness resulting in a stolen concept fallacy. Too bad for Creationists.

[@101Mant]

I've been thinking about something very similar. I keep hearing from theists about things having a beginning, usually in the context of the cosmological argument. However all these "beginnings" are just rearranging or transforming existing things either through natural processes or deliberate action. These 'beginnings" seem fundamentally different from the hypothetical beginning of the universe if you believe it came into existence somehow. On top of that beginning refers to time. Time is a property of the universe, things in the universe experience time. I don't think k it's even meaningful to talk about the beginning or creation of the universe as until it exists there is no time. You can't have an action before it that begins or creates it.

[@kitchencarvings4621]

@@101Mant, I think you're right. The problem is their view and everyone's view of causality as event-based. Hume made the same error, which led to his skeptical conclusion about induction. I see causality not as a connection between events and, therefore, temporal but as a connection between an entity and its own actions. The nature of an entity determines the actions that it can take. The big band does not actually say that the universe banged from nothing. It says there was an (infinitely?) small ball or energy particle that was unimaginably hot and dense. Space was infinitely curved; therefore, there was no time. I have a different view of time as well. I think of time not as metaphysical but epistemological. Time is a measurement of change or motion, such as the rotation of the Earth on its axis or the Moon's revolution around the Earth. On the events-based understanding of causality, the Big Bang was an event. Therefore, something must have existed before the event to cause it. Whereas on the identity of actions view, it was the nature of whatever expanded that was the cause of the big bang. Before it expanded, 1 sec. Was equal to infinity. But as soon as space started to unfold, there was a change, and that change marks the beginning of time but not existence as such. It marks the beginning of the current state we observe, i.e., planets, stars, black holes, etc., but not existence as such. So what we have is something that existed, changing into all the stuff we observe including us. And since everything that exists has an identity, a specific set of attributes, and can act in certain ways and only in those ways, the creationists' false dichotomy of "it was either God or random chance" is moot. There is no "random chance". There are only entities acting and interacting lawfully.

[@VildhjartaFanGurl]

I love you deeply and personally.

[@Folkstone1957]

Jonathan spends most of his time backtracking from what he previously said in every video he’s been in.

[@roguebotanist]

Johnathan had such a weak argument coming in that it was so sad watching his explanation fall apart the more he tried to justify them.

[@canderson5098]

Nazarenomorph

[@eklektikTubb]

Strange that they never explain The Null Hypothesis in depth. Is there anyone who understands the logic behind it? And furthermore, IS there even some logic behind it?

[@Mouth-of-Spaghetti]

Did jesus die for Spocks sins?

[@robertvirnig638]

Is it more reasonable that God came from nothing or has always existed, or if the matter and energy that make up all we know came from nothing or has always existed? There are some other ways to look at it such as something might exist somewhere without time or other state that we really can't comprehend. No matter how you look at it we have little doubt that matter and energy actually exist and no evidence for God at all, so Occam's Razor favors matter and energy being an uncaused cause.

[@tpoy1274]

If we grant the possibility that some things exist for no reason, then we lose any grounds for distinguishing things which exist for reasons from things which exist for no reason. In fact, maybe nothing exists for any reason and the very notion of reasons and causes is an artifact of a poorly evolved brain. That would eliminate science - unless we define science as merely our description of the way things appear to us now, but remove from it any causal explanatory logic. Would that still be science?

[@DriverGuy23]

Same thing with Theists all the time, there must have been something that created all of this, therefore “gods”. My rebuttal to that, is why not “robots” or “3 headed stink weasels” or “Fluffy Tribbles” like on Start Trek? All of those could have been responsible for all of this just as much as a man-created god could be responsible.

[@Childfree_Forever]

Exactly. The theist concept of Gods as described by religious texts is completely unacceptable to me due to the absurdity of the weak human emotions they are written to display. Jehovah/Yahweh and Allah are so absurd it is incredible that people don't see them for what they are: MAN MADE.

[@LOwens-xf8yo]

The cause of the universe must be supernatural! Why? Why not believe matter & energy are eternal, instead of god?

[@fcbaker]

The more I watch Eric's episodes the more I realize he is just bad at this. He asks the wrong questions and allows callers claims to go unchallenged.

[@DriverGuy23]

I see that also all the time. It’s like he gets lost in the conversation. Dude has some great conversations, but needs to challenge these callers when they say stupid crap.

[@2Timothy42-tl6lh]

Repent of your sins, believe in Jesus Christ for salvation and become a new person in this life. Luke 24:47 KJV And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. John 3:16 KJV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:3 KJV Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

[@albaniahenry-franklin2829]

Why do you ANGRILY deny the existence of your creator and the one TRUE God Unkulunkulu!?? You are a willful child of Unkulunkulu that wants to live a life of debauched SIN! Your anger toward your creator has blinded you to His divine spiritual perfection and lead you to believe in a FALSE "God" and it's demonic cult of believers. Release your anger and accept the warm embrace of your TRUE creator and only God worthy of worship Unkulunkulu. Merciful Unkulunkulu is the TRUTH and will save you from your sins before it is too late with His everlasting love. REPENT!

[@Ghalaghor_McAllistor]

Do you think that slavery is wonderful? *Leviticus 25:44-45 KJV* Both thy bondmen (archaic for male slaves), and thy bondmaids (archaic for female slaves), which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. This bible verse tells you that it's okay to buy slaves from other nations as well as foreigners who live among you. Do you think that slavery is moral? If no, then why didn't your god simply say "Thou shalt not own humans like property"?

[@Ghalaghor_McAllistor]

There were young women and girls kept as war trophies by your god's "chosen" people. *Numbers 31:9 KJV* And the children of Israel *took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones,* and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. *Exodus 21:2 KJV* If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. *Non-Hebrew "servants" were kept for life instead of freeing them.* And since when can you *BUY servants instead of hiring* them? Why doesn't *Leviticus 25:44-45 KJV* talk about servants and instead mentions bondmen/bondmaids (archaic for slaves)? In which reality are servants your money as if they belong to you like property? *Exodus 21:20-21 KJV* And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: *for he is his money.* Why should servants fear their employ- er, I mean master? *Ephesians 6:5 KJV* "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, *with fear and trembling,* in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;" Why should servants fear god if he is loving and good? *Colossians 3:22-4:1 KJV* Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, *fearing God;*

[@loomspace]

The wacky double thought callers with kids in the background are especially sobering.

[@Paolo8772]

Bleep blop bloop blop to you too, invisible sky dictator zombie bot.