Return of the God Hypothesis, Dr. Stephen Meyer

Worship Playlist
1st/2nd
• 1st/2nd Worship 1/22
3rd
• 3rd Worship 1/22
This is the Sunday session of the Southland seminar God's Sovereign Plan Through His Creation by Dr. Stephen Meyer.
‪@DrStephenMeyer‬ ‪@DiscoveryScienceChannel‬

[@dontworrybehappy6507]

I don’t usually comment but I have to thank you Dr Meyer. I’ve been wrestling with the things scientists say about God being a proven myth for a long time. The way you explain things in an educated way makes the concept of God so much more sensible. I’m sure your helping more people than you can ever imagine. I just wish there were more people like you trying to reach the general public.

[@alenkratohvil6479]

If you like this, you might like tom campbell also.

[@tedgrant2]

He's being rewarded now.

[@wellingtonsc75]

@@alenkratohvil6479 pllll

[@Polynuttery]

Great presentation. The God Hypothesis is back in force !

[@walkergarya]

No it is not.

[@MultiSky7]

@@walkergarya Yes, it is, and it's coming with science.

[@walkergarya]

@@MultiSky7 You god is a fairy tale and it is the antithesis of science.

[@MultiSky7]

@@walkergarya The odds of getting even ONE FUNCTIONAL protein of modest length (150 amino acids. NOTE: the average protein length for a human cell is between 450-500 amino acids) by chance, from a prebiotic soup, is no better than 1 in 10^164. A minimally complex cell needs at least 250 proteins of, on average, 150 amino acids and that the probability of producing just one such protein is 1 in 10^164, then the probability of producing all the necessary proteins needed to service a MINIMALLY COMPLEX CELL is 1 in 10^164 multiplied by itself 250 times =1 in 10^41,000. Probability, or better said UNprobability, first calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle (ATHEIST) in 1983. When your odds are 1/10 to the power of 41, meaning, 1/1 with 41 THOUSEND ZEROS, to create a MINIMALLY COMPLEX CELL, there is no faith and belief strong enough to make your BS work. I just gave you verified science, you anti science indoctrinated moron.

[@nataliyagregory2911]

Thank you for your work. To be an atheist : you must have a very strong belief without a logical conclusion. The uUniverse and man are proof of design.👍🏻

[@isaiahceasarbie5318]

I just finished all three videos. Thank you Church of Southland for making these available.

[@nataliyagregory2911]

Thank you for your work. To be an atheist , you must have a very strong belief without a logical conclusion. The Universe and man are proof of design.

[@walkergarya]

I am an atheist, my strong belief is that belief in god(s) has no logical foundation and no evidence. There is NOTHING about the Universe or our bodies that is evidence, let alone "proof" of design. Further, it was proven, in a court of law, that the concept of "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than the warmed over corpse of "Creation Science", it is entirely fraudulent in it's origin.

[@geofry642]

Stephen Meyer is very well read and smart. He is able to communicate his ideas quickly, yet these terse answers are filled with the most relevant research and opinion

[@charlesdarwin-bt6uv]

He's also a demostrable liar with a religious fundimentalist agenda who has made a career out of conning the scientifically illiterate with pseudoscience and fallacious arguments.

[@thomashussman3790]

Perfect !

[@geofry642]

Three videos from this conference? What a treat! I’m going to watch all three

[@walkergarya]

You like being lied to?

[@candeffect]

@@walkergarya Give examples of some of the lies. Anti-God people believe life evolved from nonlife with no physical evidence. Anti-God people have a perverse need to prove God and eternal life do not exist for themselves.

[@walkergarya]

@@candeffect Anti-science people believe "god did it" is a rational answer to almost any question.

[@MultiSky7]

@@walkergarya The odds of getting even ONE FUNCTIONAL protein of modest length (150 amino acids. NOTE: the average protein length for a human cell is between 450-500 amino acids) by chance, from a prebiotic soup, is no better than 1 chance in 10^164. A minimally complex cell needs at least 250 proteins of, on average, 150 amino acids and that the probability of producing just one such protein is 1 in 10^164, then the probability of producing all the necessary proteins needed to service a MINIMALLY COMPLEX cell is 1 in 10^164 multiplied by itself 250 times =1 in 10^41,000. Probability, or better said UNprobability, first calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle (ATHEIST) in 1983. When your odds are 10 to the power of 41, meaning, 1/1 with 41 THOUSEND ZEROS, there is no faith and belief strong enough to make your BS work. Not to even start with the evolution that has to have matching PAIR to work at all (male / female; xY & xx). If one of them is imperfect, your materialistic Darwinian BS is GONE!! Cry harder materialistic troglodytes, with no clue about science.

[@jwonderfulsuccess]

Its evident the hand of God is ubiquitous

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, it keeps slapping the brain out of the brain cavity of believers. ;-)

[@tiffanymagee2700]

Dr. Meyer is such a powerful voice of truth and reason. Thank you for helping to restore science to what it should be- the discovery of all God created.

[@garywalker447]

Meyer, like all his buddies at the Discovery Institute, is a fraud.

[@mcmanustony]

He's a liar. His one appearance in the professional literature was dropped as the review process was cheated to sneak it in. Why do creationists lie so much>

[@makaylahollywood3677]

I am an artist and creator, observer of life- I can't imagine this world as just unfolding, naturally- without a designer- the design is too magnificent to be an accident. If natural, what does that mean, God is natural or in nature.

[@garywalker447]

"magnificent design"? Tell that to all the women who died in childbirth because the baby was too big for the birth canal.

[@candeffect]

@@garywalker447 Maybe the women ate too much or consuming alcohol had adverse effects. I never blame the Tooth Fairy for bad teeth because the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. So why do atheists blame God when they believe God doesn't exist? Non-religious people and fake believers create evil every day. Atheists never mention that.

[@hextoken]

Meyers and Tour are rising to the public ranks of William Lane Craig

[@candeffect]

Craig defines God down by believing his understanding of the beginning proves God could not have created in 6 literal days. God can.

[@tedgrant2]

"The pillars of the earth are the LORD's and he hath set the world upon them." (1st Samuel 2:8) If any pesky scientists say that isn't true, I will be very upset indeed.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

Romans 1:20 "... his invisible attributes ..... have been clearly seen...." Yes, that´s biblical logic.

[@candeffect]

"Nothing is something because the law of gravity created the universe from nothing." - eternally pathetic atheistic logic. God's unseen abilities obviously created creation because nothing cannot create something.

[@Melodicblue42]

Jehovah= "He causes to become." Jehovah is the Creator. i have concluded in my search for spiritual truth, that Jehovah's Witnesses are Gods chosen people.

[@schmetterling4477]

How much alcohol did you use to come to that conclusion? ;-)

[@rickved]

Even faith cannot verify the existence of God, but I have directly experienced God during my Transcendental Meditation technique. I experience God is an eternal light brighter than a million Suns, and is infinite bliss, love, peace, and knowledge. It is identical to what Maharishi described his whole life. The experience is far more real than what I experience right now in waking state. And that is a valid argument. The ancient Vedic texts describe this experience of the Light of God identically and were written independently by various Seers who never met each other. The experience is open to anyone willing to learn the technique. It does not require faith. One can argue the existence of God eternally, but after having the experience, there is no more argument. Near-death experiences offer something similar.

[@CarterM54]

Satan certainly is patient, isn't he?

[@tedgrant2]

Why are we still trying to prove God exists ? The ancient Greeks did this thousands of years ago. Job done !

[@georg7120]

How? Didn't the Greeks believe in a multitude of gods?

[@tedgrant2]

@@georg7120 Yes, but the proof was only worked out for the Prime Mover. It is generally accepted that this theoretical entity is God. There are many mothers, but you only had one !

[@alenkratohvil6479]

They didn't prove anything they made up a bunch of different gods

[@tedgrant2]

@@alenkratohvil6479 Yes, but they all point to Jesus. As we all know the Old Testament is not good enough. But at least it points to Jesus, so we'll keep it, for now.

[@axisofbeginning]

I was raised as a Christian. Therefore, I accepted the Gospels as historical records. However, what the Genesis narrative tells us of the beginning aligns differently with what science teaches. So, as a result, I accepted the story of creation on faith. Later, as an adult, I read a popular science magazine article about the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and how its data reveals that our Earth and solar system may be cosmically aligned. Then came the Planck satellite confirming the WMAP data. Could this be evidence that the book of Genesis is based on historical events? Perhaps, but unfortunately, I am not a scientist and can only understand about one percent of the science. Nevertheless, According to cosmologists, one thing is evident: the alignments somehow exist! Moreover, because the data does not fit the Standard Model of Cosmology, scientists dubbed it the Axis of Evil. But, according to Genesis, the alignments would be the Axis of Beginning. So why are theologians and scientists so silent concerning these alignments? Isn't it worth investigating? Could this data be relative to the book of Genesis, a possible cosmic model of Intelligent Design?

[@jounisuninen]

After years of observing the battle between the evolution theory and the intelligent design, which both I have studied, I have become to the conclusion that here we have a battle between atheism and science. This is revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Dawkins) So atheism per se has nothing to do with science, but atheists are happy if they feel like getting support from science. Here we talk of a worldview, not of the scientific approach.

[@holytrinity2510]

The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own. Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own. If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity. And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago. Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time. Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God. Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us. Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, that was a lot of bullshit. ;-)

[@alenkratohvil6479]

Space is a simulation and time is the outer loop. The precedent is a vast consciousness system aka God.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@alenkratohvil6479 That was bullshit, too. ;-)

[@alenkratohvil6479]

@@schmetterling4477 And you might want to counter the argument and point out the bs with something better or contrary in it otherwise shut up.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@alenkratohvil6479 Relativity. :-)

[@garywalker447]

God is not a hypothesis, god is a fairy tale.

[@candeffect]

Science is nothing more than methods for dealing with physical creation. Methods don't answer questions. Anti-God beliefs are proof of anti-God lifestyles.

[@schmetterling4477]

So how do you explain the talking donkey? ;-)

[@ralphreinert]

What?! Through all my 16+ years of school, I have never had any teacher tell me that God didn't exist. That's some eight years in public schools and then over eight years in private schools until I got my B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics in 1989. Indeed, although I had pretty good ideas that some of my instructors were quite religious while others seemed to be rather atheistic, I don't think any of them tried to influence their students on religious matters. And I took courses in mathematics, physics, history, English, engineering and many other subjects as well includes college courses on Philosophy and World Religions. However, one of my best friends in college who was a devout Catholic was rather troubled that I was taking a course titled The Bible as Literature. Although I can't state definitively that the creator of this video is lying when they told the story of the girl who said "professors would constantly lecture that based on the evidence they had provided. . .there should be no way that anyone in the class could could believe in God," I CAN say I am doubtful that a significant portion of their college professors actually argued in class that God was a myth. I admit that education in the U.S. may have changed a lot in the past 35 years or so, but I am highly doubtful that story about the hostility to religion in schools today is factual.

[@MultiSky7]

"I admit that education in the U.S. may have changed a lot in the past 35 years or so, but I am highly doubtful that story about the hostility to religion in schools today is factual." It has changed and it is factual. You can see it in public - through the hostility towards Christians (from the 40-45yo, younger generations especially), and that's result (predominantly) of "education". At universities students openly advocate for socialism and communism (this is not a joke), but it started with "the science" and Darwin.

[@ralphreinert]

@@MultiSky7 said 'It has changed and it is factual. You can see it in public - through the hostility towards Christians (from the 40-45yo, younger generations especially), and that' result (predominantly) of "education". At universities students openly advocate for socialism and communism (this is not a joke), but it started with "the science" and Darwin.' Yes, I have no doubt that many students openly advocate for socialism and communism. And I personally support that. As part of their education, I feel students SHOULD consider concepts that challenge their current assumptions. That is exactly why I, who was raised in a mostly non-religious household, chose to take courses in religion and philosophy. One of my best friends in my undergraduate days was a devout catholic, and we had several discussions about god, religion, and morals. But I never had a teacher categorically say that god either did or did not exist. Indeed, I only got vague impressions about any of my teachers religious views. And I seriously doubt "it started with 'the science' and Darwin. For example if I recall correctly, the Greek philosopher Socrates was accused of corrupting his students with unorthodox concepts of the gods of his time. Education has been challenging the religious of the youth for millennia. And I am thankful that I have learned and continue to learn a lot about religion, especially the Abrahamic god.

[@MultiSky7]

@@ralphreinert "Yes, I have no doubt that many students openly advocate for socialism and communism. And I personally support that. As part of their education, I feel students SHOULD consider concepts that challenge their current assumptions. That is exactly why I, who was raised in a mostly non-religious household, chose to take courses in religion and philosophy." I was born and raised in ex socialist/communist country (Yugoslavia), we were surrounded with the countries that were under the Russia and since Yugoslavia was the only country with the sea coast, with the same ideology as was in USSR, Yugoslavia was the only country they could go on a vacation, but they've had to report the exact date when they are going, where they are going, where they are staying (city, hotel, tourist camp), how many days will they stay, which border crossing will they go through, and they had to come back at the exact date - when said, through the same border crossing. This is only one aspect of it, not to dig deeper. Point is, we knew very well how they've been living under the Soviet Russia. Communism and socialism have infiltrated US "education" system and it is very dangerously romanticised through "equality/equity", "freedom", "rights" and other shiny, nicely wrapped semantic BS. In communism there's high class (communist elites) like in capitalism (corporate elites/oligarchs). It is the same BS with the different name. The big difference is that in the US you are at least allowed to question corporations and bring them to the court, in communism - THERE'S NO QUESTIONING of the communist elites, generals, government & so on. Questioning is punishable and always hidden behind "infiltrated foreign enemies that want to destroy us". For even minor political JOKES, there was an island in Yugoslavia called Goli Otok (Bare island), and persons who dared to joke were considered POLITICAL PRISONERS. UDBA equivalent of the NSA, CSS, DIA in the US, literally had private families infiltrated with informants to snitch on each other. There's a documentary about it - Bare Island (2012) ... If that's not enough of the evidence and the fact that all of what is written above is the first hand information, check out the documentary from the former KGB (propagandist), Soviet dissident, Yuri Bezmenov, who flew to Canada - Yuri Bezmenov lectures on ideological subversion or psychological warfare full la lecture 1983. Communistic infiltration is soft and goes through "education" (science is mostly amplified in the school (appeal to authority) - that's why I said that it goes through "education", "science" and Darwin, because in schools it is taught as a scientific FACT) and that's why I mentioned universities (education in general) in the US, unaware of you not having a clue what's been done to your country and what's going on right now. Please, be smart, and if you want the best for your children, you will teach them how to recognize patterns of communism and socialism and fight these parasites and their BS "education" through indoctrination camps, with every cell of your being and with all of your might, because I know the devil when I see it - I saw it upclose and personal, and you dangerously close to it. You have no clue how important your 1st amendment and your Constitution is to all of us - the whole rest of the world. If you go down, the rest of the world goes down. I'm not joking. Socrates was accused for corruption of the youth for teaching them to ask questions, but it was NEVER about gods, it was about questioning the people at power that were hiding behind these gods and interpreting what gods want and what they say. So did the church and every organized religion (politics/governments) that led wars "in the name of god". Catholic church (in the beginning) didn't let anyone else read (and interpret) the Bible, it was forbidden for anyone to read it in private, because with literacy (popes and priests (churches)) they've start to loose their power. Information is the mightiest of all weapons, because by controlling information, you control minds!! You subjugate people without a bullet being fired. But God has nothing to do with it, on the contrary, God wants us to learn. Knowledge is the might and knowledge brings us closer to Him. In Hosea 4:6, God said: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

[@gregjones2217]

What return? Religion has fallen off by a third since 1950.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

The demon in sunshine movie is Jesus. It's not reality but people's perceptions. The churches have failed Jesus. Fighting over the star makes more sense than the horrible prophecy fighting over who knows what.:⁠‑⁠X

[@hellerart]

To me nonduality is the best concept of god - vedanta or there is also a youtube channel nondual christianity. I don‘t think god is somewhere else. I like the vedanta image of god being a spider and the world a net. The net does not change the spider, the spider is independend of the net, but the net is nothing but the spider. A nondual god does not have any seperate substance to create. So he created everything there is out of himself, insode of him, just like a dream, maya. And the big bang happened. That would make sense to me, god being eternity, everything, existence itsself. Vedanta tells it this way. A nondual god can not change. And therefore can not begin or end. And therefore knows no time. It solves the problem who created god. God is nonduality, mother/father of time and parts. But he/she has no parts. And therefore has no gender. So she (god) is everywhere and everything from our point of view. Non the less god is not touched of our unperfection, as we are only dream images in him - maya. I bet this vedanta philosophy could get perfectly integrated with science and quantum mechanics. The biblical image pf god is way too male most of the time… We need to start talking of the godess.

[@nlievense2]

The scientific evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning, therefore its cause must be outside of the material universe. Furthermore that cause must be timeless, immaterial and therefore infinite. Matter cannot create matter or matter would be infinite, which it is evidently not. In the Christian worldview the First Cause is the God of the Bible who is timeless, immaterial and infinite. He is also personal, holy and loving which explains why we are rational, moral beings who live on a beautiful planet which provides everything that we need. However the Bible also explains that one of God's angels or Satan rebelled and encouraged the first humans to do the same. As a result sin and therefore sickness and death entered the world. As the instigator of this Satan is really like a venomous spider whose web covers the whole Earth, and whose poison dims our view of the true Creator. Yet anticipating this outcome God sent his only Son Jesus Christ as the antidote to Satan's poison, to die in our stead and therefore absolve us of God's just and holy wrath as wretched sinners.

[@hellerart]

@@nlievense2 Yes you are correct: "The scientific evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning, therefore its cause must be outside of the material universe." The vedas tell "God" Brahman "outside" of the universe made the universe of himself. Vedanta understands the universe more as a Holodek oder Simulation, a dream, only a seamingly material world, not a real material world. "Furthermore that cause must be timeless, immaterial and therefore infinite." Yes you are correct, exactly like the vedas describe Brahman. Brahman is immaterial. And because he made the world out of himself the world is actually immaterial, too, although it APPEARS material to us. But is a dream at night material? Does a dream appear to be material? Well that's Vedanta philosophy... you can believe it or not. "Matter cannot create matter or matter would be infinite, which it is evidently not." Yes you are correct, I never said this. Brahman is immaterial. BUT there is nothing else as Brahman. Therefore teh vedas say the World, Maya is only a dream/projection inside of Brahman, that is not real. Only Brahman is real, a different order of reality, the immortal, infinite cause. ". In the Christian worldview the First Cause is the God of the Bible who is timeless, immaterial and infinite. " Yes exactly like the Hindus describe Brhaman in the Vedas, the same entity if you ask me. Brhaman = Jahwe. "He is also personal, holy and loving which explains why we are rational, moral beings who live on a beautiful planet which provides everything that we need." Yes you are correct again. Just read the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna - an aspect of Brahman - a bit like Jesus and Jahwe. Krishna = Christus, Brhaman = Jahwe. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita is very personal, a good friend, lobing, caring, the son of God. Just different name, same concept. I could go on just like this. The world religions are all telling the same in different words. All are right. And one in the one God.

[@hellerart]

@@nlievense2 "However the Bible also explains that one of God's angels or Satan rebelled and encouraged the first humans to do the same." Eyxactly like the beginning of the world is explained in Vedanta. The timeless, perfect Sattva, a perfect mirror of God, became rajassic and tamassic, meaning busy and sleepy. It made its own things. The perfect Sattva lost God and the mirror was scatterd into a million bits. These scattered mirror and millions scarfes are we as Humans in the world view of the Vedas. The Vedas also tell on the first try God made world without man und woman, without sexuality, and it took mankind only a few days to find home and to find enlightment. Next time God introduced sexuality, male and female (soudns a lot like adam and eve) and this time the world lasted. Mankind was kind of pushed out of Eden. Just like in the Bible.

[@hellerart]

@@nlievense2 "As a result sin and therefore sickness and death entered the world. As the instigator of this Satan is really like a venomous spider whose web covers the whole Earth, and whose poison dims our view of the true Creator. Yet anticipating this outcome God sent his only Son Jesus Christ as the antidote to Satan's poison, to die in our stead and therefore absolve us of God's just and holy wrath as wretched sinners." Only here we differ. In my opnion it was necessary to leave God. It was not a mistake we have fallen out of Heaven. It is not a penalty. It is good that we have fallen. It was inevitable. It is part of the human spiritual evolution in my opninion. Vedanta is a nondual philosophy. Only Brahman/God is real. Satan/the demons are not infinite in the Vedanta view. THey are meant be be overvome. They are actual like "teachers". We do NOT learn from demons, do not get me wrong. But the plyground of earth with all it's challanges, where souls can grow, would not exist without evil. Like Goethe expresses it in Faust, that evil brings good in the end. It is a necessary part of the game. In vedantic worldview this fall into sin is "good". Because now the fallen soul can evolve and discover itsself, it can grow home to god like a tree. This process of growing home to God is very important in my opinion. If we would have styed in paradise for ever we never would have grown up. Just look what you did learn on earth. So to me earth is a school for souls and I am very happy to have the opportunity to grow here.

[@hellerart]

@@nlievense2 That's the only difference of our worldviews: You say Jesus already did everything for us. So what is left for us to do except for believing in him? Is this the sole purpose of life in the entire universe: Believing in Jesus? On any other alien planet? Did he visit any planet with intelleigent live and die there, too? In my opinion we grow like a soul tree home into god over many lives. And in the end when we as souls have outgrown a glory tree of light we return into the kingdom of the father and reunite with hime. Like it stands in the Gospel of Thomas for example, too. To me jesus is a speiritual teacher and not the Savior. THere we differ. 90% of the rest we actually see very simular. So coexist :) I love you. Dare to love my view, to.

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

I do NOT understand why the cause of the universe must be a god, the cause of the universe could be a physical event, an energy fluctuation is as good a candidate as god

[@mullahosk585]

What makes the energy fluctuate?

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

@@mullahosk585 changes in temperature probably

[@mullahosk585]

@@salvadoralvarado8685 That suggests an existent universe where energy can be dissapated into. Or some mechanism to increase the energy. In other words, everything in place. Remember, there is not meant to be any time, space or anything before the Big Bang.

[@salvadoralvarado8685]

@@mullahosk585 im not an expert, but some scientists talk about a multiverse, others say that the universe could be eternal, it is difficult to say

[@mullahosk585]

@@salvadoralvarado8685 Neither without evidence. They will say anything as long as it's not God.

[@rochellecaffee1417]

What if there only one real purpose…. To love others and serve them. All of the arguments are far way from this with time being spent on Who knows more than Who? Keeping people in a state of always trying to prove the “worthiness” of our humanness. Christ has already offered that to us when we receive His grace and mercy with the humility to recognize that we, humans, need God. Pride in OUR stuff, keeps from appreciating the truth of God’s “stuff”, that actually helps us STAY ALIVE and even love others. Christ told us there were 2 reasons to believe in God: to love God and (2) to love others. Paul brought down to (1) “love others as you love yourself”. Man, unfortunately, is very pompous and thinks that he is “more important” than he is when it comes to “running the world and /or the human race.” We have a Bible, and the true believers have the “mind of Christ” by His living Spirit within, as Christians. That is why Paul commanded Timothy, not to “argue” over words or the Law, or silly things. It just spreads controversy that grows like gangrene among believers, and disturbs the hearers. “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” (Paul in Corinthians) Paul also said, that if you think you know something, you should become a “fool” so that you will really know something. (My interpretation.) one way to “love others” is to learn from the Lord to “be present” with someone. That means you are not “future-tripping” while you are “listening” to your friend. Faith says that, in that situation, “ God’s got this, and God’s got tomorrow.” Listening to others is a “loving’ thing to do for someone who is sharing their “personal treasure of thoughts” (their heart) with you. That’s also “respect” and honoring the SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE, in one event of a relationship. “Giving and receiving” is what God does with us. (He would probably like more giving in “prayer talk” with Him, from us. He does an awful lot of “giving” toward us. ) The Tower of Babel proves the point of man wanting/coveting too much. Learning contentment is a valuable lesson and tool toward peacefulness and thankfulness, and an Rx against anxiety and ill health, letting or yielding to God as the Sovereign One. From your talk, Stephen, isn’t it 😊obvious that our Creator KNOWS what He is doing, so we probably don’t need to “fix” His work. I love your work and your enthusiastic description of REALITY.😅 enjoy your discovery and the faith He is growing in you. “The Lord confides in those who fear Him.” (Psalms)

[@schmetterling4477]

The book tells us to stone adulterers and disobedient children to death, though. ;-)

[@walkergarya]

"God" is not a hypothesis, it is a fairy tale and a lie.

[@alexandernathanielruvalcab2411]

If you found fairy dust everywhere, people flying in particular cases, tiny little clothes, and many other evidences of fairies, then scientifically you MUST posit the possibility of fairies. The evidence of Design or Mind as an explanatory mechanism for phenomena in the present and the past, especially since it is the ONLY known scientific explanation/cause for the same phenomena today, IS THE TOP hypothesis at this time. Further evidence points to a being like “god”, therefore a God Hypothesis. Either you are for science where it takes you, or you are stuck in your passionate beliefs, can’t have both.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@alexandernathanielruvalcab2411 There is fairy dust in your closet? Dude... your closet must be really old and dirty. ;-)

[@garywalker447]

God is not a hypothesis, god is a fairy tale.

[@timid3000]

Says the guy who almost certainly believes that sea slugs randomly morphed into butterflies and dolphins. 👏💯

[@garywalker447]

@@timid3000 Evolution is a FACT, unlike your fairy tale of god.

[@mcmanustony]

@@timid3000 NO ONE believes "sea slugs randomly morphed into butterflies and dolphins"- You have not the remotest concept of what evolution is or the theory that explains it. Ask your doctor if reading books might be right for you.....

[@clivejenkins4033]

🤣🤣🤣

[@walkergarya]

"God" is not a hypothesis, it is a fairy tale and a lie.

[@garywalker447]

God is not a hypothesis, god is a fairy tale.

[@candeffect]

All gods are make-believe. God the Creator is real because nothing cannot create something. Something from nothing, as atheism leaders preach, is obviously stupid.

[@walkergarya]

"God" is not a hypothesis, it is a fairy tale and a lie.

[@mullahosk585]

And you know that because you don't see a reason for God?

[@walkergarya]

@@mullahosk585 The reason that god was invented was to divide people into "us" and "them" to make it easier for the priests and kings to command their people to make war on other people for often, no good reason.

[@garywalker447]

God is not a hypothesis, god is a fairy tale.

[@jounisuninen]

We have basically two worldviews against each other, the naturalistic and the creationist. The scientific methods used are basically similar in both cases, but the conclusions and the interpretations of obtained results often differ. I myself am a creationist so inevitably my observations are affected by my worldview. Evolution theory doesn't fit into my logical thinking and one reason for it is this: "A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. Evolution theory has been tested in laboratories for almost 100 years and no sign of evolution has been observed. A "too short time" is not an explanation, because flies and bacteria produce enough generations to simulate millions of evolutionary years in mammals. This is the core axiom of evolution: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor." Evolution (not adaptation) would need mind blowing changes in the basic anatomical structures (body plan) of any given organism. In the empirical tests even slightest changes in the anatomical structures have been impossible to produce except some deformed test organisms. There is not a single scientific evidence to prove evolution i.e. a species changing to another species with a different anatomical structure. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species ("dealing a deck of cards"). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. evolution. Impoverishing genomes do not make evolution. I have a very practical reason to believe in creationism because abiogenesis and evolution have both been scientifically proven impossible, at least as long as we believe that the laws of physics and the genetic realities are as they have always been.

[@blusheep2]

@@jounisuninen It doesn't eliminate directed evolution.

[@jyllianrainbow7371]

Evolution is not a theory, evolution is a fairy tale.

[@garywalker447]

@@jyllianrainbow7371Tens of thousands of working biologists say different. I believe them, not you.

[@garywalker447]

@@jounisuninen We have basically two worldviews against each other, the naturalistic and the creationist. The scientific methods used are basically similar in both cases, but the conclusions and the interpretations of obtained results often differ. I myself am a creationist so inevitably my observations are affected by my worldview. Evolution theory doesn't fit into my logical thinking and one reason for it is this: "A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. Evolution theory has been tested in laboratories for almost 100 years and no sign of evolution has been observed. A "too short time" is not an explanation, because flies and bacteria produce enough generations to simulate millions of evolutionary years in mammals. This is the core axiom of evolution: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor." Evolution (not adaptation) would need mind blowing changes in the basic anatomical structures (body plan) of any given organism. In the empirical tests even slightest changes in the anatomical structures have been impossible to produce except some deformed test organisms. There is not a single scientific evidence to prove evolution i.e. a species changing to another species with a different anatomical structure. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species ("dealing a deck of cards"). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. evolution. Impoverishing genomes do not make evolution. I have a very practical reason to believe in creationism because abiogenesis and evolution have both been scientifically proven impossible, at least as long as we believe that the laws of physics and the genetic realities are as they have always been.