The big bang theory was proposed by a Belgian priest. Whatever in his mind was, it wasn't disproving God's existence. "In 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the Universe. In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time ..."
@PhilipPedro2112 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.2Tim.3:16,17
The complete diametrical opposite. Nowadays movies are political and trying to reach certain demographics, mere activism and fan service. This scene here is built to suit all humanity. @@nickvie71
@@nickvie71The complete diametrical opposite. Nowadays movies are political and try to reach certain targets, mere activism and fan service. This scene here is built to suit all humanity.
you can actually prove that God exist. i didn't believe in God untill i read classical philosophers who did. and every modern objection against them. not saying you shouldn't believe in God unless you can understand complicated philosophical arguments. in a way God's existence is self-evident, in certain unprovable, materially irreducible things we all accept like the experience of Beauty or Consciousness.
Yup. He's saying that KNOWLEDGE OF GOD is like KNOWLEDGE OF LOVE. It's a sensation that can't be described by the same words we use for other things. It's filial.
Great movie. A spin off sequel of sorts would be cool if intelligent life found one of the voyager probes, studied it, understood it, and replied to us in a way we obviously would be able to understand and some how fit matthew, Jodie, the space pod, and mind blowing science into it. Wish I was a writer.
Finding the voyager probes in space is more unlikely to find a specific grain of sand on a beach. Just to speak about the scales. Even if Hollywood would like your idea.. what would an alien intelligence read about the messages we sent? We are vunerable. We are weak. We hand out our coordinates to aliens, much more efficient and enhanced to our primitive technilogies than we ever could imagine. And the rest of the story is told in 10 minutes with or without out Will Smith.. But I like your approach. And why just wish to be a writer instead of beeing or becoming one? Write your stories. Be creative. Just let your fantasy flow but always do your homework and rersearch.,too.
This scene is cool because at the end she is the one who doesnt have proof and ask people to belive her, thats the irony of the movie, beautifull. About the subject ...there r no material proof of something that doesnt belong to the material world, but it doesnt mean it is no real, the ¨proof¨ in this issue is personal
Not entirely. Sure the question is not worth asking because there's far better questions to occupy our time with, but it's certainly not a ridiculous question.
@@S3SSioN_Solaris Asking somebody to prove that they love or loved somebody is a ridiculous demand. Perhaps you had Stockholm syndrome.. ehh go prove that too? That has nothing to do with science, but emotions are exploited to max. This was likely inserted as an emotional and dramatic moment to catch your attention. Things escalated rather quickly from "Occam's razor" to "do you love your dad". That was a douchbag move in the movie and legit statement that scientists are only human (on this planet at least) and have emotions too. EDIT: So if Carl Sagan was still among us today he probably would say.. Well it is a ridiculous question. You don't have to prove that you love your loved ones. Whereas you have to fight flat-earthers every day nowadays. Go figure stupidity.
Ellie isn't trying to propose a scientific hypothesis but asking rhetorically how a worldview would change by revelations of knowledge of the natural world.
Michael Mobey wrote, "There are people all over the world who do not and can not know of his existence because they are not close to other Christians. Wouldn't any God who is selfish enough to want his children to worship him make himself known to each and every human on the planet? Something doesn't add up here...." You need to check out the Catholic view of such things. Protestantism *isn't* the equivalent of Christianity. The Catholic Church was around for 1500 years before Protestantism came about, and the Church teaches that those who've never heard of the Name of Jesus, but who are good-willed, live by the natural law, and seek God, MIGHT be saved (and if they are, they are saved by the grace of Christ alone). It's a major pet peeve of mine to see folks, at least in the United States, go on about problems in the Protestant world and Protestant theology and then write off Christianity altogether, as if Protestantism=Christianity. That can't be further from the Truth. The Catholic and Orthodox have been around for two thousand years and aren't into things like worshiping the country of Israel, thinking that anyone who's never heard the Name of Jesus is necessarily damned, that people who suffer or are poor or sick are in that state because they've sinned and deserve it, thinking that all a person has to do is say "Jesus, forgive me my sins and come into my heart" once and they're automatically saved, etc. See FishEaters.com for more information about Catholicism.
^ with your prayer that Jesus is Lord. Look up what Jesus said to "Doubting Thomas" in the Gospels Jesus: Thomas, because you have seen me you have believed. blessed are those who haven't seen me, yet have believed
There are biometric tools (heart rate, pupil dilation, phallometric assessment, respiration, etc etc) , brain scans, and chemical analyses (oxytocin etc) that could be said to demonstrably “prove” love. But I’m a cynic. I know, because I’ve been tested.
All those tools, they prove your reaction to love, not love itself. Or said other way, you can say that certain consequences of an hypothetical status prove that status...then again all those consequences can be caused by a different set of conditions altogether. For instance, you can feel ill, check your temperature and find out you've got fever. You could say that "proves" that you've got an infection. Then again, that fever can be caused by a bad case of food poisoning. Or maybe you've spent too much under a very strong sun, or maybe it's some metabolism issues that have messed up your body temperature regulation. Your fever means you're likely suffering from an infection...yet doesn't prove it. finding certain things can help you establish a hypothesized cause as highly likely to exist...but that alone doesn't prove it at all. This is particularly true in the case of science. Case in point, black holes were theorized and generally assumed as extant for decades in great part because their gravitational influence was detected, yet it wasn't until quite recently that their existence was proven and confirmed. Their effects alone weren't enough to prove they existed.
@@ufodeath so…this is a year after you asked the question but I’ll answer now! Sorry! Basically by the end of the series, after his experiences he says that he knew, without a doubt, that his dead daughter and father were with him at his darkest moment. When he was near death. It’s not so much that he believes in a specific God or religion. It’s that he realizes there is something else out there and his life is not a mistake (like he believed early in the series). My favorite line in the whole show is when he talks about how there is only one story; light vs dark. Woody Harellson looks up at the night sky and says that it seems the dark has a lot more territory. To which Cole replies “Once it was only dark. If you ask me, the light’s winning” Signaling his character change. Man, that’s a well written show.
Here's the thing. On the "provability" scale, there are so many things you could debate. Some things are definitely harder to prove than others, and some may be impossible to prove. I get that. Point taken. But let's focus on two very different things: 1) Emotion and 2) Existence. Proving your love is a very difficult thing to do (short of perhaps measuring brain activity and pulse monitoring). Proving existence, on the other hand, is quite measurable. Do we have proof that something exists (or ever existed)? Elle is coming at this from an existence perspective - she's effectively pushing Palmer on this basic concept. Yet, he smoothly side-steps the focus and changes the equation to emotion. Extremely different thing. Not apples to apples. This is not acknowledged. And he "ping-pongs" it back to Elle as if it's the same thing. Why? Because Elle was never asking Palmer to prove his love of God. Only the existence. So when he converts the discussion to emotion, this is called a non sequitur. You could also call it a false equivalency. It makes for a slick Hollywood script, but it misleads the audience (and it puts Elle in a completely unfair position). I love this movie. LOVE it. But this "gotcha" moment - where the movie thinks it's crossed some kind of epiphany tipping point - really disables viewers from critical thinking. Elle intellectually cornered Palmer, and the natural defense mechanism is to "broaden up" the topic so that you can avoid addressing the specific premise put in front of you. This happens all the time, so keep an eye out for these "mic-drop" moments. I have no problem with anyone's belief system. I just wish these important conversations weren't so misleading and tinged with arrogance.
You're making a fundamental mistake on the nature of the questions. The set of questions considering belief and faith and the nature of questions that science asks of natural phenomena belong to different categories of questioning. Which is the point of the conversation.
I guess by points clashing, yes he really didn't stand a chance. But by tactically winning a debate, he might have won - at least if he had audiences watching, he would've won their hearts.
On first viewing this was a wrenching scene. I'd previously had this one used on me and it caught me off guard. It's a cheap and fallacious play for Palmer to use.
The obvious fault with Palmer Joss' point is that the consequences of not believing one claim (that someone loved their dead father) are not nearly the same as the purported consequences of not believing the claim implied by many religious folk (that we will burn in eternal hellfire for not believing in their 'saviour'). In fact, I couldn't give two shits if someone doesn't believe I loved my dead mother, and nor will I make direct or implied threats that they will be eternally tortured for not sharing my belief. Now, I know Palmer Joss didn't even imply such things to Ellie Arroway in the movie, and I think his character was not a zealot of any kind, but it is the logical conclusion of the vast majority of similar arguments made by real life religious people, that eternal damnation deservedly awaits the non-believer.
The simple point you missed is that dismissal of religious claims, in particular those of monotheistic, Abrahamic religions is met with scripturally supported threats of eternal damnation. The dismissal of somebody’s claims to have loved their father has no major implied consequence. There’s an infinitely bigger burden of proof which rests with those who make religious truth-claims. How could you miss that?
until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence
He made multiple covenants in stated in the Bible where he cannot interfere with human life, mainly due to free will. Also, anyone can experience God if you open yourself to believing and listen for Him. He will not be able to save someone or do something in your life, since He cannot interfere, but you will know it is Him when you experience His presence. Similarly to how Ellie has the experience with the aliens at the end of the movie.
Fakar said, "until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a 'primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence'". Wow, that must have been one really dense and heavy atom (of what element was this magical atom, I wonder. I also wonder where it came from!). And then -- what? Magic happened to make it all go boom! What could that magic have been? What could have precipitated that change? And WHY? LoyalSeraph wrote that "Richard Dawkins say everything is by chance, but is just a result of a large time frame that humans can not comprehend" (and he disagreed with that sentiment). Time is one of those magical elements in the thinking of materialists. Referring to that "single point" mentioned above that, apparently came from nowhere and, for no reason whatsoever, exploded, it's just a matter of time passing before you come up with Beethoven and the great cathedrals. It's as if empiricists think that *because* it all began with a TINY little singularity, they can just write off, totally ignore, the question of where that singularity came from -- nevermind what caused it to explode and, somehow, form into galaxies, stars, planets, and, eventually, primordial life forms which came from inorganic material (though life coming from non-life has never been seen by science). That's just more Magic! Razzle-dazzle! A singularity that came from nowhere, being acted on (or somehow acting within itself) with no prime mover moving things along, such that it exploded and formed galaxies, etc., life springing forth from non-life (which any scientist would tell you doesn't happen in the real world), plus the sparkly fairy dust of that magical element called Time -- and bam! You've got alllllllllllllllll your answers. Even though it's bullshit on its face. And even though alllll those answers can't begin to answer any question involving what is Good and what is Beautiful. The Good and the Beautiful don't involve scientific answers (aside from, in the second case, measuring what people consider to be "beautiful"), so therefore, the Good (and the Bad) and the Beautiful don't exist. The things that make life meaningful and rich and worth living simply don't exist to Science, and that's how it should be. Science wasn't developed to answer such questions; it doesn't have the right tools. But the problem is that folks think that if Science can't measure something, then it either doesn't exist or isn't important. Science is ONE TOOL among many we humans have to figure shit out. It isn't god. But too many people treat it as such. What the people afflicted with "scientism" (as opposed to a wonderful scientific mind) are saying is that, yes, if you put 12 monkeys in a room with 12 typewriters and just wait long enough, you WILL get Shakespeare. And if you give 30 monkeys musical instruments and just chill for a long enough time, they *will* come up with Mozart's Requiem Mass (or Snoop's "Murder Was the Case," if you prefer)! Talk about magical thinking! That's just so intelligent, eh? What a load o' crap. And how sickening for our world that materialist empiricism is treated as the only worldview worthy of man -- especially scientists, who should be smart enough to know better.
Yes, we do not know what caused the big bang. That doesn't mean a sentient entity created it. Our ignorance does not automatically mean that it must be God, no more than lightning can only be explained by God (instead of by friction causing an inbalance in electrons between the air and the ground). As for the distain toward the idea that anything as unlikely as us was random, we are biased. If we shuffle a deck of cards enough times it will, by complete chance, be completely sorted by number and suit. Sure it's extremely unlikely, but it would happen eventually. We are that completely sorted shuffle, and you are claiming that it simply cannot be random. It can. All evidence that we can find says that it is random. I know that the idea is uncomfortable, but it simply is. I actually think that this makes us more special, not less. I think that the fact that we are not intentional should make us stare in awe of the improbability of ourselves! We were not inevitable, and thus we are fragile and unprotected by fate. No one will save us if we screw things up, and in that way, we are extremely precious.
There was not any amount of energy "just before" the moment before the big bang. Think of it as, at that moment, 0 (zero) amount of energy resulted in +X amount and -X amount. Where, of course the negative energy is the energy of the bound systems (the thing you learn as the "potential" energy in high school)..All in all, a "kick" is not needed for a universe to be created.
Unfair conditions. He claims to have the love of his personally chosen dad (an immaginary god - oho) while she must struggle in this question by not being able to prove her love to her physical dad, because she grew up without immaginary role models but with living people. What if she asked him why he did not loved his non-physical god-dad as much when he easily were able to change things to not losing his faith before he went to far? Sure.. there will be so many excuses for if's and what's... but at the end.. Allie just slept with a bloody liar.
There's no need to go so far as to make the hard to prove claim that love is a chemical reaction in the brain to answer this argument. We know love exists in ourselves because of what we see ourselves say and do. And we know love exists in others by what they say and do and by analogy to ourselves. Love is a part of the hermeneutic circle of intentionality.
im sure if you believe in god this is a great scene, just makes so much sence. If you dont its hogwash, and the argument is so bad and easily dismissed its painful to listen to.
William of Ockham -- the author of "Ockham's Razor" -- firmly believed in the existence of God. What's more likely? The universe popped into existence from nothing or that creation implies a creator?
@Giovanni Doria So, you admit that it's more likely creation implies a creator....not that the universe pops into existence out of nothing. The latter is stupid to believe in. At least the former is logically consistent. What is more likely? That a omnipotent celestial being created illness, death, pain, viruses, bacteria, decay, famine, disasters and shaped his best creation alone in a humongous almost infinite space, cursed to be alone forever, and also so flawed and fragile that millions of people and even babies die young and innocent? So, your argument is, "Because I don't understand it, therefore God doesn't exist." Is that it? Well, that's not a good argument. What if those babies go to Heaven for eternity? Since your argument supposes the existence of an all-powerful being, couldn't the all-powerful being take care of those who die young and innocent in a perfect place forever? Do you see how your incredulity could backfire on you?
Not that difficult to prove that one loves his own father… I liked him, I was nice to him, I enjoyed spending time with him, I felt good when I was helping him, I missed him when he was away, etc etc big fucking deal
It would be more accurate to speak of the sciences. They're disciplines based upon a particular epistemology. They're good for answering the questions they address. But this epistemology is not equipped to answer questions like, what is meaning? What is beauty? What is goodness? How should I lead my life? It can't actually establish the truthfulness of its epistemology under its own terms. What the sciences are, are limited in their scope and thus no substitute for the ways we deal with other questions, including faith, literature, philosophy, and art.
In my opinion, she broke her relationship with the divine because her father's death. In her youth, being a racional person, believe in the untouched is totally incomprehensibl.
Curious how atheists specifically want to disprove the existence of the Christian God. Whether they realize it or not, they act like Christian Atheists.
Even if a God existed, he doesn't seem to be all that interested in being worshiped. I mean, if he actually did all these terrible things in the past according to the Old Testament, why does he not want to show his face anymore to keep us all in line? There are people all over the world who do not and can not know of his existence because they are not close to other Christians. Wouldn't any God who is selfish enough to want his children to worship him make himself known to each and every human on the planet? Something doesn't add up here....
+Michael Mobley God is beyond Christianity. It's just that Christianity most well represents him at this point in time, whereas other religions or spiritual traditions are less correct, less representative of the Creator. There is a reason for that, but it's a long and complex story. God's son Jesus did leave behind relevant teachings, which anyone can pick up and learn. Those teachings are still as relevant as they were when they were first spoken. As to God angrily destroying humanity, that ties into the complex story, and requires you to delve deeply into human history, most of it not recorded. What has been put together so far is that, other beings not of this world, who themselves were already corrupted from some other event, came to our world and mated with humanity. Polluting our DNA and teaching us things for which humanity was not ready for. Kinda like handing kids explosives, knives, matches, keys to the car and so forth. You know that they will hurt themselves. Possibly kill themselves. The hybrids which were then walking the Earth were destroying everything and everyone who was not on their side. God tried to protect those people who had not mated with the corrupted fallen beings. But because they were in the majority, it was difficult to control the situation, without infringing the free will of everyone and being very heavy handed in interfering to set everything right. The spiritual laws of balance of the universe require that corrupted civilizations are destroyed. Otherwise their corruption spreads to others. And thusly the corrupted humanity brought the flood and all sorts of other evils upon itself. The universe does this out of self-preservation. The universe is objective, it is not compassionate like God. It is a system, designed to keep balance and promote harmonious growth of all life. God tried to find another way, and thusly was the plan for redemption created. He sent Jesus to essentially "buy" the world back from the fallen beings. His death would bring balance back to the universal law, which required that humanity be destroyed because of their polluted nature. In dieing and resurrecting Jesus showed humanity that there was a way out, through him and through living righteously. That's about the short of it. The nature of reality seems to be far more complex, than our daily lives allow us to investigate and know about and APPLY to our lives. Perhaps that is why our society has been engineered that way, over time, to get people to look less and less at the things that truly and ultimately matter, but to focus solely on the immediate and the temporal.
Nima Kamali I can tell that you have a little bit of wisdom, but also hate, lack of culture and many interesting biases, whilst claiming to not be biased at all. Please mature a little bit, before handling these difficult subjects. You sound all over the place. Begin by not swearing. Jesus came to provide salvation to humanity. What about that is so difficult to understand? What about incarnating on Earth, to carry out an important mission, is so difficult to understand? Islam is a perversion of Jewish and Christian teachings, and it in no way represents God accurately. The Koran directly promotes violence and is not in any way the wholesome religion of peace it claims. Do you even know what you are saying????!!!!! In fact right at this time, Jesus pulling many people out of Islam. People are leaving it for Christ. Buddhism on the other hand, like Hinduism is demonic/fallen angel doctrine, pretending to be useful, for the development of self. In actual fact, it is utterly useless, as far as eternal life. True Christianity, has nothing to do with religion, this shows you have no understanding of what you are talking about. As to religion being a problem, that is pretty much the only thing you got right, but if you got that right, then why are you a Buddhist? How can you say religion is a problem, whilst potentiating Buddhism and Islam. You contradict yourself, on so many levels, that you end up sounding simply confused and filled with hateful ideas. Whilst you have no real world understanding. And substitute that with enormous generalizations. As to God not being a human, of course he is not. Who said he was? But he can incarnate a part of himself, that too is not impossible to him. Also, when you say one of the religions most controlled by the devil is Christianity, you are wrong. That would be Catholicism, which is a hijacked version of Christianity. Catholicism has nothing to do with true Christianity. "Your beliefs makes me vomit everyday cause you are indirectly insulting God and making him look like a human and I'm sick of it." That's your problem, and you are the one who is going to have to clean up that vomit. Many of the things I know, have been told to me directly by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, if you want to challenge them, you are invited to it. But perhaps it is you who is insulting God, by pretending to speak for him.
To the contrary, our very existence proves a creator. Life in all it's earthly forms is magnificently designed and didn't all appear (evolve) by chance.
Even if intelligent design is true, that doesn't prove the Christian god is real. And if you read the bible, any sane rational person wouldn't want that god to be real.
A person can believe there is a God, and a person can believe there is no God. These beliefs determine how you see the world. Following that, how you see the world is also determined by what you choose to believe and trust in - from the theories of man - including science and religion - to other ideas you may form on your own. I choose to believe in God, that He created the world, and sent His Son Jesus to redeem it. That is my choice. For me I see God's design in every living thing.
I very much love this scene and I understand what it is meant to represent but unfortunately there are some flaws in Palmer's argument. Asking someone to prove their love for someone else is not the gotcha that will win any arguments unfortunately. For starters, you can actually prove that you love someone. You can show your love with gifts, or time spent together or the way you talk about your loved one. In the case of Ellie, she is actually at a disadvantage because her dad is dead, so she can't really show that she loves her dad, but if her a dad had been alive, she could have used many examples of her being there for her dad or doing something for him out of love. So in essence Palmer's argument rests on the fact that Ellie's dad is dead which is really a low blow. But let's move on from that to talk about what seems to be the center of Palmer's argument which is that if one thing cannot be proven, then it is not necessary to prove the other thing. In this case, the existence of God or not. This is a major flaw in Palmer's argument and a pretty bad one too. The existence of God does not rely on someone else being able to prove that they love someone or not. Those two things are completely unrelated. Each assertion needs to be proven independently which Palmer hasn't done for his. Ellie's failure to prove that she loves her dad, does not make Palmer's case stronger. If he had been intellectually honest, he should have said something like: "i can't prove that God exists and you can't really prove that you love your dad so why don't we just call this a draw". But before moving on, we also need to look at each of the statement's magnitude and importance. By that, I mean simply that each assertion has different consequences for everyone on the planet and therefore the threshold to accept that a statement is true will change depending of the what the statement entails. If Ellie lies and says that she can actually prove that she loves her dad(assuming that she can't actually do so) and somehow fabricate evidence, what are the consequences then? If she does that then she basically lies potentially to herself and to Palmer and maybe to a few other people who know her. In essence this lie does not change anything for us as a species. Now if we look at the consequences of god's existence being proven true, then things get dicey. The whole world would be altered forever, wars would be fought to assert which god actually is real and who his/her rightful followers are. These two statements therefore require different levels of proofs. Ellie's proof could be birthday card she has written for her dad before he passed away or a few other things like that and that could probably be acceptable enough for the majority of people. But Palmer's statement is so life changing, species altering that it would need to clear a really high threshold to be proven true. If you ask many people what evidence would convince them that a higher being exists, then you would probably get a lot of different and sometimes conflicting answers. That seems like a problem at first glance but if we base the idea of god as a being who is all-knowing, then god should be able to present to each one of us the proof that will convince us that he/she is real. Just like in a trial where we require that the prosecution presents a case where we know without a reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime, in this case, the case of god, considering the nature of the statement and considering that we are talking about and extraordinary claim, then the evidence to prove this claim itself would be extraordinary. And that is where we are today. So far every major religion on this planet has failed time and time again to prove their case. Science is not the enemy of god. Science tries to explain natural phenomena and tries to predict them by following the scientific method. Religion likes to assert things but refuses to accept that it has and still is wrong about many things. Until religions around the world start doing mea culpas for all the things that they got wrong as well as all the suffering that they inflicted on those who dared to question their views, then religions will continue to loose their appeal because they have not mean their burden of proof.
You want proof of God? I understand. I've been there too. I've learned to be careful & revere with what I don't fully understand. Never know when God will...
Palmer's proposal doesn't make sense IMO. If Ellie can't prove she loved her father, that only means that she can't give proof of it so nobody has any reason to believe her( apart from doing it just because of trust or faith, but faith IS NOT proof of anything) which is exactly Ellie's point. I adore this movie but there are a number of proposals about science vs belief in it that I think are nonsensical.
It makes a great point. All we have is faith and personal experience. But the good news is, that's all we need. Non-believers don't wanna accept the fact that we (believers and non-believers) really are no different.
@@darinwaynec One thing is to give proof that something exists, and other completely different thing is to believe in something just because you want to (faith). To say that these 2 things are the same doesn't make sense.
@@TylerDurden-id6yp But can you really prove anything exists? If I were to ask you, do you believe that you're spouse loves you with %100 certainty and no doubt whatsoever?....if you say yes, then I follow up with, then prove it to me with absolute certainty. Can you?
@@darinwaynec Nobody said someone can prove anything. Who said that? The thing under discussion here is that if you want to convince someone that something exists, you need proofs of its existence. If you don't have them, you simply can't prove it to the world, no matter it does exist or not. On the example you put there, I simply can't prove to you my spouse loves me, so you don't have any reason whatsoever to believe me. As simply as that. In the movie, Ellie can't prove to the world she made contact with the aliens since she didn't have proofs of that. On the other hand, Palmer chooses to believe in Ellie's testimony simply because she wants to (i.e. he trusts her). That's the difference: believing by proofs or believing by faith.
@@TylerDurden-id6yp So, we're in agreement? Christians and atheists are in the same boat despite what some think. There is no more proof for what I believe than anything that they believe either. The most important thing in your life (I'm assuming the love of your spouse and children) can't be proved, so is it so hard then to accept that God is real?
"Did you love your father? Prove it" Alright, I'll need some way to measure hormones like dopamine and other hormones, as well as a heart rate monitor, thermal sensors, and a scanner that measures brain activity. Then, you will play back recordings of me interacting with strangers as a child, and then recordings of me interacting with my dad. If you are not satisfied with that difference in readings, try sampling a larger population size. There is evidence for love, though it is a subjective experience. Unless you are saying that your God is literally a mood or a feeling, you just used a non sequitur. You also used a topic which you know is a special sore spot for her in order to shut her down. This character went from mildly charming, to the subject of intense distain in a matter of seconds. Don't get me wrong, I adore this movie, but these kinds are arguments are tiresome non sequiturs at best, and I hate dignifying them with an answer, let alone seeing that argument being treated as a good point in such an otherwise great movie.
@Ben Baxter That was a very ambiguous statement. I think what you meant was either "we cant see emotion without our expressing it outwardly, we cant explain why we get feelings, nor can we describe them, thus science is flawed" or "We cannot yet accurately feel other people's subjective experiences (like emotions). Therefore we cannot communicate them or weigh feelings against each other. Therefore science is flawed". Addressing 'we cant see emotion without our expressing it outwardly' once again get a brain scanner and I'll bet that with enough data on what the brain looks like when its angry, you could probably figure out if someone is angry by the way their brain lights up on a scanner. Thus we can "measure feelings" to an extent. Addressing 'we cant explain why we get feelings' I'm sure that there are probably dozens of hypotheses floating around the scientific community, and they probably have some evidence to back them up. If we haven't already, we will figure out why we have emotions. if you are talking in the more immediate sense of 'oh, why am I angry right now?', or 'why am I depressed?' Most emotions have a cause, whether it is us reacting to the world and our experiences, or whether it is a hormone imbalance in the brain. I recommend seeing a therapist, because they can usually help you figure out why you feel stuff pretty accurately. Thus we can 'explain our feelings'. Addressing 'we cannot communicate our feelings' what is poetry? What is art? I think that these are mediums which ask people to feel what we do, and empathize. So I think we can and do communicate our feelings frequently. Addressing 'We cannot yet accurately feel other people's subjective experiences': I think that emotion is rather like a color, you can definitely describe what causes the reaction in your brain, and you can describe how the brain lights up, and you can even have the person try to explain their subjective experience of that color, but we cannot give a blind person an accurate depiction of what the color red (for example) is really like. I think that the day will come when we will be able to stimulate our brains with another persons experience of something. That's in the far future hopefully, because its rather ethically challenging, but I believe it will be possible one day. So I think that if we cant "measure feelings and explain them in perfect detail" we will be able to do so in the future. I also think that even if science cant explain everything right now, it will eventually.
Fully agree for the most part. Although a non-sequitur is more like an abrupt subject change. This is more like an unfair analogy. Proof of existence and proof of love are not apples to apples. Like you, I love this movie, but his “prove it” retort is dangerously misleading for viewers. She is not asking him to prove his love of God; rather, only God’s existence. If this comparison were truly apples to apples, he would have asked her to prove her father existed, for which she could have easily shown evidence.
Read the Old Testament. Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38 are about to be fulfilled. Don’t believe me? Read it and wait. In case you don’t read it here’s it is in a nutshell. Isaiah 17 describes the complete destruction of Damascus Syria. It will be uninhabitable. Ezekiel 38 talks about a coalition against Israel. An alignment of nations. Which ones you ask? Turkey, Iran and Russia. Guess what? All 3 are in alignment. Never happened in the history of the world. Where are they right now? To the north of Israel. War is about to start this fulfilling bible prophecy. There’s your proof.
"I cannot imagine a world where God did not exist. I wouldn't want to." That was exactly her point. He does not want to confront a reality where he does not have an imaginary friend so he makes one. As for his point, Love is emotional attachement. You can form emotional attachement to abstract or artificial things that do not really exist, like I love Star Wars. I know it is a made up story and still deeply care about it. Problem with religious folk is not that they care about most probably unreal thing, it is that they refuse to even consider the possibility and require the rest of us to conform to their standards.
Wow I thought this would a pure panel of uuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh some kind of understanding at least realizing that there are things that we cannot physically show or measure the exact amount that shefelt nor could anyone ever do that. Let say a mimic, duplicate, replicate or a clone would have a similar or equal experience to the original but it is not the original Bottom line people don't want to believe and the Bible for that sake alone is the reason no man would conjure that up. Let us make a bible that's makes us feel better but not really because if we don't do the things we have the ability but refuse to do, those things like LUST OR GREED ...etc there is not a good ending ? No it would be more like the bad printed, purposely misprinted books that state there is are no repercussions for anything? THAT IS WHAT WE MAKE, THAT IS COMFORTING, THERE IS NO GOOD, NO BAD UNTIL ... WE FEEL THE PAIN THAT ONLY DEATH OR LOSS CAN BRING!!! But remember it's to make us feel good by implementing a penalty,. oh not mention there's no way that GOD is a scientist, because scientist creates something and stay around to correct his creation constantly because there's no reason to create something that works or is capable of doing a task on its own. I love when I drive my car and the creator is alway at hand!!! But hey, Parallel worlds, Wicca, movies about evil when there is no GOOD makes sense. Funny we don't have world peace with all our knowledge and science, GOD IS A/THE SCIENTIST BTW!!! That would be to scary to think about sssoooooo no and Pluto is a planet no it's a... our science is never wrong until it is wrong. Rage typos everywhere, SORRY and GODBLESS!!!
@@Danleesixoneonetwofive If you refuse to believe anything that cant be proven by science then it's very easy to dismiss god. It's a piece of cake for me. But thats not the only thing, there are multiple different religions wich tell different stories. Whats that all about? Ancient Egypt had strong believes, but were they right or wrong? Always the answer is its not so easy to say, they just saw it differently. Greeks? Romans? All the other gods that people believed in in different places of earth before the world got more connected and larger religions could manifest themself with books and preachers. And now what up? Islam, the peaceful religion, has two different sides and people kill eachother over it all the time. It's a lot of fun to believe in supernatural things. Today it is Alternate Reality Games. The backrooms and scp or whatever. People want to believe but the reality is not like that. Its is boring science papers. How can billions of people believe in something huge like god but at the same time almost none of the care about leaning astronomy? Like, name some starts from the local group. It is other stars that are close to our sun. This is very larger than life thing and its also real and proven true so why is it ignored? Most people don't know/care about it but they do believe in god and consider their faith very important part of their life buts it really not, they just believe something that is not real. You must care about real proven things before you can start to have faith in something that would like to be true. It is a waste of time for humanity, it is not enough to base a civilisation on. And why are flat earthers considered nuts? It is not that different, they have faith too.
Science, ever primitive, is still catching up with the reality of God and just hasn't yet developed instrumentation sensitive enough to detect him/her/it/them/zhe.
Science, ever primitive, is still catching up with the reality of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and just hasn’t yet developed instrumentation sensitive enough to detect him/her/it/them/zhe.
@@rogergamble7880 How do you know? Maybe some people actually do… regardless, you can delete the FSM, replace it with pretty much anything you want in that sentence and the analogy still stands.
god is just a symbol. don't fall in mistAke. it is a symbol of something that exists in everyone's belief. it's not being Christian or muslim or what ever else will make you rest in peace. it's decisions you make good or bad. everyone knows deep in his heart ehat is badand what is good. there is one road. if you walk on it, you walk in the truth. if you get out of it you are lost.
+TheIronnia Well when you experience possession, psychic attack and various other paranormal phenomenon, and when you involuntarily call out the name of Jesus and all that stuff stops, then you KNOW that God is real and that we humans know jack shit when we think we have the ultimate truth. The funny thing is, people say there is no God, until they experience Him, then their life changes and it's not just something in their mind, there is a real and tangible improvement. You can't prove he exists via direct evidence, because we are attempting to prove something for which we do not even have the right tools. But the fact that millions upon millions of lives have changed because of him, for the better, throughout history, says everything it needs to say.
+Observer Of Life i don't say that god doesn't exist. it still is a symbol, I mean no one knows him for what he really is. but everyone has it in his own symbolism. religious atheists, even agnostics they know god. they are just not agreeing with religions representations. I beleive that god is too big to be at the side of Christians or any religion. he is the biggest but no one knows in their mind what it is. representations are still representations. religions are still religions. sorry for English
I'm gonna pray for her. And that God will make her heterosexual again, and that we will meet and fall in love, and I will get to quit my job and finally get to be a kept man.
By the way, brainwashing people with movies and not a thorough, complete, strong and convincing argument is not a good way of proving God does not exist.
I think its the other way around. The church brainwashing/persecuting/torturing/stealing/burning people alive etc is not a good way to promote the idea of a god or proof of. A God would not be connected to the Vile Greedy church
I think it would be funny if when you Atheists die and then wake up and Buddha or Shiva is staring at you and says....."Yo ass is MINE now Sucka!!!"...
My love do not judge you when you die, my love cant read you thought and my love do not answer your prayers, my love do not interact with the rest of the world. comparing it to the Christian god it stupid.
Your beliefs create your reality. You likely will see no indication of God in your life if your belief is there is no God. The rest of us who very much believe get definative proof on a regular basis.
I love how they nestle into each other on the terrace. Metaphorical opposites but so comfortable with each other.
This scene is so beautiful.
They had great chemistry. And she’s not even attracted to him lol
The big bang theory was proposed by a Belgian priest. Whatever in his mind was, it wasn't disproving God's existence. "In 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the Universe. In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time ..."
Let's talk about Fred Hoyle for a while, shouldn't we?
Big Bang and Abrahamic creation myth go hand-in-hand.
@PhilipPedro2112
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.2Tim.3:16,17
One of the top best scenes ever.
I think it is too much constructed to suit a certain public.
The complete diametrical opposite.
Nowadays movies are political and trying to reach certain demographics, mere activism and fan service.
This scene here is built to suit all humanity. @@nickvie71
@@nickvie71The complete diametrical opposite.
Nowadays movies are political and try to reach certain targets, mere activism and fan service.
This scene here is built to suit all humanity.
Such genius! Only a brilliant scientist could shut down another scientist so quickly! Carl Sagan was absolutely brilliant!
Reading the original story it was so much more than this "nice" movie.
Agreed.
I doubt he could "shut down" Fred Hoyle.
The point he makes is not whether love can be measured! His argument is simply that some things you just can't explain!
you can actually prove that God exist. i didn't believe in God untill i read classical philosophers who did. and every modern objection against them. not saying you shouldn't believe in God unless you can understand complicated philosophical arguments. in a way God's existence is self-evident, in certain unprovable, materially irreducible things we all accept like the experience of Beauty or Consciousness.
Lots cant be explained, that doesnt equal an explanation given by other men (bible etc)
@@youneedonlyknowthenameofgo7786 what a weak argument, sorry lol
@@youneedonlyknowthenameofgo7786 It's the people that think they're above everyone else who deny the existence of God, like J here
Yup.
He's saying that KNOWLEDGE OF GOD is like KNOWLEDGE OF LOVE.
It's a sensation that can't be described by the same words we use for other things.
It's filial.
God is everything. The source of vibrational frequency that is in everything and which everything is created.
God, I hope Interstellar doesn't end w/ meeting Jodie Foster's dad the alien.
hahaha.. best comment on youtube for a while
+Robert Kurtz
Murph's ghost ended up being her dad, so yes its comparable.
Rick LeRoy It's worse. Matthew McConaughey finds his dead daughter in a space black hole through the power.... of love
Robert Kurtz lmaooooo
@@1vaultdweller As if we could have ever imagined a worse ending. Why does Hollywood suck so bad at Sci Fi? It drives me crazy.
Great movie. A spin off sequel of sorts would be cool if intelligent life found one of the voyager probes, studied it, understood it, and replied to us in a way we obviously would be able to understand and some how fit matthew, Jodie, the space pod, and mind blowing science into it. Wish I was a writer.
Sammy Sam this was the plot of the original Star Trek movie, minus Jodie and Matthew.
Finding the voyager probes in space is more unlikely to find a specific grain of sand on a beach. Just to speak about the scales. Even if Hollywood would like your idea.. what would an alien intelligence read about the messages we sent? We are vunerable. We are weak. We hand out our coordinates to aliens, much more efficient and enhanced to our primitive technilogies than we ever could imagine. And the rest of the story is told in 10 minutes with or without out Will Smith..
But I like your approach. And why just wish to be a writer instead of beeing or becoming one? Write your stories. Be creative. Just let your fantasy flow but always do your homework and rersearch.,too.
Great scene and tone to subject.
This scene is cool because at the end she is the one who doesnt have proof and ask people to belive her, thats the irony of the movie, beautifull. About the subject ...there r no material proof of something that doesnt belong to the material world, but it doesnt mean it is no real, the ¨proof¨ in this issue is personal
But still not the same thing
They smashed 100%
you mean the characters or the actors? or both?
I’m just connecting this scene and the scene before the Senate.
"What if science simply reveals he never existed in the first place?" Any real scientist would know that's a ridiculous question/supposition.
Get over it Boomer.
Not entirely. Sure the question is not worth asking because there's far better questions to occupy our time with, but it's certainly not a ridiculous question.
@@S3SSioN_Solaris Asking somebody to prove that they love or loved somebody is a ridiculous demand. Perhaps you had Stockholm syndrome.. ehh go prove that too? That has nothing to do with science, but emotions are exploited to max. This was likely inserted as an emotional and dramatic moment to catch your attention. Things escalated rather quickly from "Occam's razor" to "do you love your dad". That was a douchbag move in the movie and legit statement that scientists are only human (on this planet at least) and have emotions too.
EDIT: So if Carl Sagan was still among us today he probably would say.. Well it is a ridiculous question. You don't have to prove that you love your loved ones. Whereas you have to fight flat-earthers every day nowadays. Go figure stupidity.
Ellie isn't trying to propose a scientific hypothesis but asking rhetorically how a worldview would change by revelations of knowledge of the natural world.
Michael Mobey wrote, "There are people all over the world who do not and can not know of his existence because they are not close to other Christians. Wouldn't any God who is selfish enough to want his children to worship him make himself known to each and every human on the planet? Something doesn't add up here...." You need to check out the Catholic view of such things. Protestantism *isn't* the equivalent of Christianity. The Catholic Church was around for 1500 years before Protestantism came about, and the Church teaches that those who've never heard of the Name of Jesus, but who are good-willed, live by the natural law, and seek God, MIGHT be saved (and if they are, they are saved by the grace of Christ alone).
It's a major pet peeve of mine to see folks, at least in the United States, go on about problems in the Protestant world and Protestant theology and then write off Christianity altogether, as if Protestantism=Christianity. That can't be further from the Truth. The Catholic and Orthodox have been around for two thousand years and aren't into things like worshiping the country of Israel, thinking that anyone who's never heard the Name of Jesus is necessarily damned, that people who suffer or are poor or sick are in that state because they've sinned and deserve it, thinking that all a person has to do is say "Jesus, forgive me my sins and come into my heart" once and they're automatically saved, etc. See FishEaters.com for more information about Catholicism.
You get proof of God when you seek Him with all of your heart.
Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.
lmao
LOL, did you just make that shit up?
Brandon there can be no ounce of doubt
^ with your prayer that Jesus is Lord.
Look up what Jesus said to "Doubting Thomas" in the Gospels
Jesus:
Thomas, because you have seen me you have believed.
blessed are those who haven't seen me, yet have believed
@Brandon C yes i read what you said very very clearly.
You're doing something wrong.
Read Gods word daily. And be STILL.
If God is love, then his question is doubly brilliant
Great scene
She’s like I don’t have to . I just told you:)
:) great scene
She was gorgeous ❤
Every time he takes his jacket off, I get scared he's abot to knock over the champagne!
Excellent film making: it throws a bone to both atheists and believers and makes the movie enjoyable for both
from 0:39 till the end no cuts
WHO GIVES A SHIT
@@erickabbar-ducrocq7373 fantastic acting.
There are biometric tools (heart rate, pupil dilation, phallometric assessment, respiration, etc etc) , brain scans, and chemical analyses (oxytocin etc) that could be said to demonstrably “prove” love.
But I’m a cynic. I know, because I’ve been tested.
All those tools, they prove your reaction to love, not love itself. Or said other way, you can say that certain consequences of an hypothetical status prove that status...then again all those consequences can be caused by a different set of conditions altogether.
For instance, you can feel ill, check your temperature and find out you've got fever. You could say that "proves" that you've got an infection. Then again, that fever can be caused by a bad case of food poisoning. Or maybe you've spent too much under a very strong sun, or maybe it's some metabolism issues that have messed up your body temperature regulation. Your fever means you're likely suffering from an infection...yet doesn't prove it.
finding certain things can help you establish a hypothesized cause as highly likely to exist...but that alone doesn't prove it at all. This is particularly true in the case of science. Case in point, black holes were theorized and generally assumed as extant for decades in great part because their gravitational influence was detected, yet it wasn't until quite recently that their existence was proven and confirmed. Their effects alone weren't enough to prove they existed.
Funny that McConaughey in "True Detective" plays a character that totally does not believe in the existence of a god.
. . . So? What does that have to do with the part/role he played in THIS movie?
Until the end.
Because he's acting. You do realize that right?
@@toufexiselias Spoil it for me, what do you mean "until the end"?
@@ufodeath so…this is a year after you asked the question but I’ll answer now! Sorry!
Basically by the end of the series, after his experiences he says that he knew, without a doubt, that his dead daughter and father were with him at his darkest moment. When he was near death.
It’s not so much that he believes in a specific God or religion. It’s that he realizes there is something else out there and his life is not a mistake (like he believed early in the series).
My favorite line in the whole show is when he talks about how there is only one story; light vs dark.
Woody Harellson looks up at the night sky and says that it seems the dark has a lot more territory. To which Cole replies
“Once it was only dark. If you ask me, the light’s winning”
Signaling his character change.
Man, that’s a well written show.
Both of them is true
you can.
@lewisbreland simplicity going to the essential
I can only smile sometimes when my teeth align right . Sometimes they align better.
Everything else being equal, would you be incapable of love without believing in God?
I can hear Paul giggling.
Here's the thing. On the "provability" scale, there are so many things you could debate. Some things are definitely harder to prove than others, and some may be impossible to prove. I get that. Point taken.
But let's focus on two very different things: 1) Emotion and 2) Existence. Proving your love is a very difficult thing to do (short of perhaps measuring brain activity and pulse monitoring). Proving existence, on the other hand, is quite measurable. Do we have proof that something exists (or ever existed)? Elle is coming at this from an existence perspective - she's effectively pushing Palmer on this basic concept.
Yet, he smoothly side-steps the focus and changes the equation to emotion. Extremely different thing. Not apples to apples. This is not acknowledged. And he "ping-pongs" it back to Elle as if it's the same thing. Why? Because Elle was never asking Palmer to prove his love of God. Only the existence. So when he converts the discussion to emotion, this is called a non sequitur. You could also call it a false equivalency.
It makes for a slick Hollywood script, but it misleads the audience (and it puts Elle in a completely unfair position). I love this movie. LOVE it. But this "gotcha" moment - where the movie thinks it's crossed some kind of epiphany tipping point - really disables viewers from critical thinking.
Elle intellectually cornered Palmer, and the natural defense mechanism is to "broaden up" the topic so that you can avoid addressing the specific premise put in front of you. This happens all the time, so keep an eye out for these "mic-drop" moments. I have no problem with anyone's belief system. I just wish these important conversations weren't so misleading and tinged with arrogance.
You're making a fundamental mistake on the nature of the questions. The set of questions considering belief and faith and the nature of questions that science asks of natural phenomena belong to different categories of questioning. Which is the point of the conversation.
I guess by points clashing, yes he really didn't stand a chance. But by tactically winning a debate, he might have won - at least if he had audiences watching, he would've won their hearts.
On first viewing this was a wrenching scene. I'd previously had this one used on me and it caught me off guard. It's a cheap and fallacious play for Palmer to use.
Why are they so close?
This guy is in this movie and interstellar both are scifi movies
Yea but this movie is good.
The obvious fault with Palmer Joss' point is that the consequences of not believing one claim (that someone loved their dead father) are not nearly the same as the purported consequences of not believing the claim implied by many religious folk (that we will burn in eternal hellfire for not believing in their 'saviour'). In fact, I couldn't give two shits if someone doesn't believe I loved my dead mother, and nor will I make direct or implied threats that they will be eternally tortured for not sharing my belief.
Now, I know Palmer Joss didn't even imply such things to Ellie Arroway in the movie, and I think his character was not a zealot of any kind, but it is the logical conclusion of the vast majority of similar arguments made by real life religious people, that eternal damnation deservedly awaits the non-believer.
The simple point you missed is that dismissal of religious claims, in particular those of monotheistic, Abrahamic religions is met with scripturally supported threats of eternal damnation.
The dismissal of somebody’s claims to have loved their father has no major implied consequence.
There’s an infinitely bigger burden of proof which rests with those who make religious truth-claims.
How could you miss that?
No. Explaining simple ideas to those who don’t seem to understand simple ideas.
I do loves me a smart woman.🤩
until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence
👍 if Joe Rogan & Matthew M. Podcast brought you here
Matthew mconahey
you're here by chance, Ms.
Or you are just here...and chance is one of the many things we ponder
God is science & science is of God.
I can prove I loved my father at his funeral. I am a terrible actor.
He just told you
The proof is all around us Doctor that is what science can teach us.
Yea sure theres a God an all powerful all knowing God that loves everyone but just happens to be very very very very quiet about it
He made multiple covenants in stated in the Bible where he cannot interfere with human life, mainly due to free will. Also, anyone can experience God if you open yourself to believing and listen for Him. He will not be able to save someone or do something in your life, since He cannot interfere, but you will know it is Him when you experience His presence. Similarly to how Ellie has the experience with the aliens at the end of the movie.
And only shows it to the corrupt greedy and wealthy lol
Is it time for Contact 2?
Interstellar felt in a lot of ways like some kind of quasi-sequel to Contact.
Interstellar is interstellar. Contact is contact. I want Contact 2.
Fakar said, "until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a 'primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence'". Wow, that must have been one really dense and heavy atom (of what element was this magical atom, I wonder. I also wonder where it came from!). And then -- what? Magic happened to make it all go boom! What could that magic have been? What could have precipitated that change? And WHY?
LoyalSeraph wrote that "Richard Dawkins say everything is by chance, but is just a result of a large time frame that humans can not comprehend" (and he disagreed with that sentiment). Time is one of those magical elements in the thinking of materialists. Referring to that "single point" mentioned above that, apparently came from nowhere and, for no reason whatsoever, exploded, it's just a matter of time passing before you come up with Beethoven and the great cathedrals. It's as if empiricists think that *because* it all began with a TINY little singularity, they can just write off, totally ignore, the question of where that singularity came from -- nevermind what caused it to explode and, somehow, form into galaxies, stars, planets, and, eventually, primordial life forms which came from inorganic material (though life coming from non-life has never been seen by science). That's just more Magic! Razzle-dazzle! A singularity that came from nowhere, being acted on (or somehow acting within itself) with no prime mover moving things along, such that it exploded and formed galaxies, etc., life springing forth from non-life (which any scientist would tell you doesn't happen in the real world), plus the sparkly fairy dust of that magical element called Time -- and bam! You've got alllllllllllllllll your answers. Even though it's bullshit on its face. And even though alllll those answers can't begin to answer any question involving what is Good and what is Beautiful. The Good and the Beautiful don't involve scientific answers (aside from, in the second case, measuring what people consider to be "beautiful"), so therefore, the Good (and the Bad) and the Beautiful don't exist. The things that make life meaningful and rich and worth living simply don't exist to Science, and that's how it should be. Science wasn't developed to answer such questions; it doesn't have the right tools. But the problem is that folks think that if Science can't measure something, then it either doesn't exist or isn't important. Science is ONE TOOL among many we humans have to figure shit out. It isn't god. But too many people treat it as such.
What the people afflicted with "scientism" (as opposed to a wonderful scientific mind) are saying is that, yes, if you put 12 monkeys in a room with 12 typewriters and just wait long enough, you WILL get Shakespeare. And if you give 30 monkeys musical instruments and just chill for a long enough time, they *will* come up with Mozart's Requiem Mass (or Snoop's "Murder Was the Case," if you prefer)! Talk about magical thinking! That's just so intelligent, eh?
What a load o' crap. And how sickening for our world that materialist empiricism is treated as the only worldview worthy of man -- especially scientists, who should be smart enough to know better.
Yes, we do not know what caused the big bang. That doesn't mean a sentient entity created it. Our ignorance does not automatically mean that it must be God, no more than lightning can only be explained by God (instead of by friction causing an inbalance in electrons between the air and the ground).
As for the distain toward the idea that anything as unlikely as us was random, we are biased. If we shuffle a deck of cards enough times it will, by complete chance, be completely sorted by number and suit. Sure it's extremely unlikely, but it would happen eventually. We are that completely sorted shuffle, and you are claiming that it simply cannot be random. It can. All evidence that we can find says that it is random.
I know that the idea is uncomfortable, but it simply is. I actually think that this makes us more special, not less. I think that the fact that we are not intentional should make us stare in awe of the improbability of ourselves! We were not inevitable, and thus we are fragile and unprotected by fate. No one will save us if we screw things up, and in that way, we are extremely precious.
There was not any amount of energy "just before" the moment before the big bang. Think of it as, at that moment, 0 (zero) amount of energy resulted in +X amount and -X amount. Where, of course the negative energy is the energy of the bound systems (the thing you learn as the "potential" energy in high school)..All in all, a "kick" is not needed for a universe to be created.
Or so you are lead to believe
We'll probably never know. I like to think it was Big Compression and it's all an infinite cycle an explosion that collapses back upon itself.
Prove it
Unfair conditions. He claims to have the love of his personally chosen dad (an immaginary god - oho) while she must struggle in this question by not being able to prove her love to her physical dad, because she grew up without immaginary role models but with living people. What if she asked him why he did not loved his non-physical god-dad as much when he easily were able to change things to not losing his faith before he went to far? Sure.. there will be so many excuses for if's and what's... but at the end.. Allie just slept with a bloody liar.
There's no need to go so far as to make the hard to prove claim that love is a chemical reaction in the brain to answer this argument. We know love exists in ourselves because of what we see ourselves say and do. And we know love exists in others by what they say and do and by analogy to ourselves. Love is a part of the hermeneutic circle of intentionality.
And?
And you still can't prove it. WITH physical evidence. So his case stands.
That sounds a lot like faith to me
@@JHolt_88 Emotions can be scanned
im sure if you believe in god this is a great scene, just makes so much sence. If you dont its hogwash, and the argument is so bad and easily dismissed its painful to listen to.
😀👍. I just love to trick chatgpt with this...
What a weak argument ..." Did you love your dad? ...Prove it" but her dad was there her whole life
You and me can’t “prove” that God exist and we love God. Can she really really prove, that she loves her dad? That was his point.
she didn't pause long enough before "meaning"
1:09
William of Ockham -- the author of "Ockham's Razor" -- firmly believed in the existence of God. What's more likely? The universe popped into existence from nothing or that creation implies a creator?
@00111 00001111 Time comes into being (this is a fact). By definition, whatever created time is eternal.
@Giovanni Doria
So, you admit that it's more likely creation implies a creator....not that the universe pops into existence out of nothing. The latter is stupid to believe in. At least the former is logically consistent.
What is more likely? That a omnipotent celestial being created illness, death, pain, viruses, bacteria, decay, famine, disasters and shaped his best creation alone in a humongous almost infinite space, cursed to be alone forever, and also so flawed and fragile that millions of people and even babies die young and innocent?
So, your argument is, "Because I don't understand it, therefore God doesn't exist." Is that it?
Well, that's not a good argument.
What if those babies go to Heaven for eternity? Since your argument supposes the existence of an all-powerful being, couldn't the all-powerful being take care of those who die young and innocent in a perfect place forever? Do you see how your incredulity could backfire on you?
Giovanni Doria , ❤️ you for that amazing and logical comment. Succinctly put and my sentiments exactly 🇬🇧🤪🏴🔰🔰🔰🔰🔰
Then you get caught in the circular "Who created the creator" loop.
@@PhilipPedro2112 Nope.
Not that difficult to prove that one loves his own father…
I liked him, I was nice to him, I enjoyed spending time with him, I felt good when I was helping him, I missed him when he was away, etc etc big fucking deal
some people say the same things about God
@@osalcido85 well, in their mind though… cause none of them has ever seen him or interacted with him
Christian: "What's it like being an atheist?"
Me: "Do you believe in, Lono, the Polynesian sky god?"
Christian: "No."
Me: "Like that."
The "one less God than you do" thing is an exceedingly silly dodge.
Perfect
@@bushidocrusader actually its pretty on point
That was a really good way to put it.
It would be more accurate to speak of the sciences. They're disciplines based upon a particular epistemology. They're good for answering the questions they address. But this epistemology is not equipped to answer questions like, what is meaning? What is beauty? What is goodness? How should I lead my life? It can't actually establish the truthfulness of its epistemology under its own terms. What the sciences are, are limited in their scope and thus no substitute for the ways we deal with other questions, including faith, literature, philosophy, and art.
The whole definition of faith means NO PROOF, but belief anyway.
Well. Shes stuck
It's all one ghettoo, man!
Evolution.
In my opinion, she broke her relationship with the divine because her father's death. In her youth, being a racional person, believe in the untouched is totally incomprehensibl.
0:34 😔
God created science to cover His tracks.
Sometimes, atheists in pursuit of disproving God do not notice how religiously they go about it.
Curious how atheists specifically want to disprove the existence of the Christian God. Whether they realize it or not, they act like Christian Atheists.
I'm non-religious and I have no intention of disproving anything. The burden isn't on me. It's on the religious.
@@Sebastian-hg3xc it’s okay, I feel no burden for you to save yourself. Do or do not, there is no try 😂
There's no way to disprove it. That's the genius of the church's scam. Why would atheists be religiously devoted to something that is impossible?
I wonder if this the prequel to Interstellar? Lol
Even if a God existed, he doesn't seem to be all that interested in being worshiped. I mean, if he actually did all these terrible things in the past according to the Old Testament, why does he not want to show his face anymore to keep us all in line? There are people all over the world who do not and can not know of his existence because they are not close to other Christians. Wouldn't any God who is selfish enough to want his children to worship him make himself known to each and every human on the planet? Something doesn't add up here....
+Michael Mobley God is beyond Christianity. It's just that Christianity most well represents him at this point in time, whereas other religions or spiritual traditions are less correct, less representative of the Creator. There is a reason for that, but it's a long and complex story. God's son Jesus did leave behind relevant teachings, which anyone can pick up and learn. Those teachings are still as relevant as they were when they were first spoken.
As to God angrily destroying humanity, that ties into the complex story, and requires you to delve deeply into human history, most of it not recorded. What has been put together so far is that, other beings not of this world, who themselves were already corrupted from some other event, came to our world and mated with humanity. Polluting our DNA and teaching us things for which humanity was not ready for. Kinda like handing kids explosives, knives, matches, keys to the car and so forth. You know that they will hurt themselves. Possibly kill themselves.
The hybrids which were then walking the Earth were destroying everything and everyone who was not on their side.
God tried to protect those people who had not mated with the corrupted fallen beings. But because they were in the majority, it was difficult to control the situation, without infringing the free will of everyone and being very heavy handed in interfering to set everything right. The spiritual laws of balance of the universe require that corrupted civilizations are destroyed. Otherwise their corruption spreads to others. And thusly the corrupted humanity brought the flood and all sorts of other evils upon itself. The universe does this out of self-preservation. The universe is objective, it is not compassionate like God. It is a system, designed to keep balance and promote harmonious growth of all life.
God tried to find another way, and thusly was the plan for redemption created. He sent Jesus to essentially "buy" the world back from the fallen beings. His death would bring balance back to the universal law, which required that humanity be destroyed because of their polluted nature. In dieing and resurrecting Jesus showed humanity that there was a way out, through him and through living righteously.
That's about the short of it.
The nature of reality seems to be far more complex, than our daily lives allow us to investigate and know about and APPLY to our lives. Perhaps that is why our society has been engineered that way, over time, to get people to look less and less at the things that truly and ultimately matter, but to focus solely on the immediate and the temporal.
Nima Kamali I can tell that you have a little bit of wisdom, but also hate, lack of culture and many interesting biases, whilst claiming to not be biased at all.
Please mature a little bit, before handling these difficult subjects. You sound all over the place. Begin by not swearing.
Jesus came to provide salvation to humanity. What about that is so difficult to understand?
What about incarnating on Earth, to carry out an important mission, is so difficult to understand?
Islam is a perversion of Jewish and Christian teachings, and it in no way represents God accurately. The Koran directly promotes violence and is not in any way the wholesome religion of peace it claims. Do you even know what you are saying????!!!!!
In fact right at this time, Jesus pulling many people out of Islam. People are leaving it for Christ. Buddhism on the other hand, like Hinduism is demonic/fallen angel doctrine, pretending to be useful, for the development of self. In actual fact, it is utterly useless, as far as eternal life.
True Christianity, has nothing to do with religion, this shows you have no understanding of what you are talking about.
As to religion being a problem, that is pretty much the only thing you got right, but if you got that right, then why are you a Buddhist?
How can you say religion is a problem, whilst potentiating Buddhism and Islam. You contradict yourself, on so many levels, that you end up sounding simply confused and filled with hateful ideas. Whilst you have no real world understanding. And substitute that with enormous generalizations.
As to God not being a human, of course he is not. Who said he was? But he can incarnate a part of himself, that too is not impossible to him.
Also, when you say one of the religions most controlled by the devil is Christianity, you are wrong. That would be Catholicism, which is a hijacked version of Christianity. Catholicism has nothing to do with true Christianity.
"Your beliefs makes me vomit everyday cause you are indirectly insulting God and making him look like a human and I'm sick of it."
That's your problem, and you are the one who is going to have to clean up that vomit. Many of the things I know, have been told to me directly by the Holy Spirit, and therefore, if you want to challenge them, you are invited to it. But perhaps it is you who is insulting God, by pretending to speak for him.
Observer Of Life holy shit. you are an idiot. I can prove it to you if you want
Did you love your Father?
Yes.
Prove it?
Why?
Why? Er...No, Can you prove you loved him?
I don’t need to.
Oh! That one's easy! C'mon!
To the contrary, our very existence proves a creator. Life in all it's earthly forms is magnificently designed and didn't all appear (evolve) by chance.
Yes it did. Get over it.
@@PowerofRock24 how the fuck do you know?
Your existence proves your existence ...not a different thing. Silly
Even if intelligent design is true, that doesn't prove the Christian god is real. And if you read the bible, any sane rational person wouldn't want that god to be real.
A person can believe there is a God, and a person can believe there is no God. These beliefs determine how you see the world. Following that, how you see the world is also determined by what you choose to believe and trust in - from the theories of man - including science and religion - to other ideas you may form on your own. I choose to believe in God, that He created the world, and sent His Son Jesus to redeem it. That is my choice. For me I see God's design in every living thing.
Well I don’t just believe it after 44 years , l know it.
God is the metaphor for the mystery we can not know that transcends the physical and mental.
You can't know that God exist or you would be God.
I very much love this scene and I understand what it is meant to represent but unfortunately there are some flaws in Palmer's argument.
Asking someone to prove their love for someone else is not the gotcha that will win any arguments unfortunately.
For starters, you can actually prove that you love someone. You can show your love with gifts, or time spent together or the way you talk about your loved one. In the case of Ellie, she is actually at a disadvantage because her dad is dead, so she can't really show that she loves her dad, but if her a dad had been alive, she could have used many examples of her being there for her dad or doing something for him out of love.
So in essence Palmer's argument rests on the fact that Ellie's dad is dead which is really a low blow. But let's move on from that to talk about what seems to be the center of Palmer's argument which is that if one thing cannot be proven, then it is not necessary to prove the other thing. In this case, the existence of God or not.
This is a major flaw in Palmer's argument and a pretty bad one too. The existence of God does not rely on someone else being able to prove that they love someone or not. Those two things are completely unrelated. Each assertion needs to be proven independently which Palmer hasn't done for his.
Ellie's failure to prove that she loves her dad, does not make Palmer's case stronger. If he had been intellectually honest, he should have said something like: "i can't prove that God exists and you can't really prove that you love your dad so why don't we just call this a draw".
But before moving on, we also need to look at each of the statement's magnitude and importance. By that, I mean simply that each assertion has different consequences for everyone on the planet and therefore the threshold to accept that a statement is true will change depending of the what the statement entails.
If Ellie lies and says that she can actually prove that she loves her dad(assuming that she can't actually do so) and somehow fabricate evidence, what are the consequences then? If she does that then she basically lies potentially to herself and to Palmer and maybe to a few other people who know her. In essence this lie does not change anything for us as a species.
Now if we look at the consequences of god's existence being proven true, then things get dicey. The whole world would be altered forever, wars would be fought to assert which god actually is real and who his/her rightful followers are.
These two statements therefore require different levels of proofs.
Ellie's proof could be birthday card she has written for her dad before he passed away or a few other things like that and that could probably be acceptable enough for the majority of people.
But Palmer's statement is so life changing, species altering that it would need to clear a really high threshold to be proven true. If you ask many people what evidence would convince them that a higher being exists, then you would probably get a lot of different and sometimes conflicting answers. That seems like a problem at first glance but if we base the idea of god as a being who is all-knowing, then god should be able to present to each one of us the proof that will convince us that he/she is real.
Just like in a trial where we require that the prosecution presents a case where we know without a reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime, in this case, the case of god, considering the nature of the statement and considering that we are talking about and extraordinary claim, then the evidence to prove this claim itself would be extraordinary.
And that is where we are today. So far every major religion on this planet has failed time and time again to prove their case. Science is not the enemy of god. Science tries to explain natural phenomena and tries to predict them by following the scientific method. Religion likes to assert things but refuses to accept that it has and still is wrong about many things.
Until religions around the world start doing mea culpas for all the things that they got wrong as well as all the suffering that they inflicted on those who dared to question their views, then religions will continue to loose their appeal because they have not mean their burden of proof.
You want proof of God? I understand. I've been there too. I've learned to be careful & revere with what I don't fully understand. Never know when God will...
He is so hot in this movie
Contact is a Christian movie plain and simple, lol. As a non believer the movie is still entertaining.
Palmer's proposal doesn't make sense IMO. If Ellie can't prove she loved her father, that only means that she can't give proof of it so nobody has any reason to believe her( apart from doing it just because of trust or faith, but faith IS NOT proof of anything) which is exactly Ellie's point.
I adore this movie but there are a number of proposals about science vs belief in it that I think are nonsensical.
It makes a great point. All we have is faith and personal experience. But the good news is, that's all we need. Non-believers don't wanna accept the fact that we (believers and non-believers) really are no different.
@@darinwaynec One thing is to give proof that something exists, and other completely different thing is to believe in something just because you want to (faith). To say that these 2 things are the same doesn't make sense.
@@TylerDurden-id6yp But can you really prove anything exists? If I were to ask you, do you believe that you're spouse loves you with %100 certainty and no doubt whatsoever?....if you say yes, then I follow up with, then prove it to me with absolute certainty. Can you?
@@darinwaynec Nobody said someone can prove anything. Who said that? The thing under discussion here is that if you want to convince someone that something exists, you need proofs of its existence. If you don't have them, you simply can't prove it to the world, no matter it does exist or not. On the example you put there, I simply can't prove to you my spouse loves me, so you don't have any reason whatsoever to believe me. As simply as that. In the movie, Ellie can't prove to the world she made contact with the aliens since she didn't have proofs of that. On the other hand, Palmer chooses to believe in Ellie's testimony simply because she wants to (i.e. he trusts her). That's the difference: believing by proofs or believing by faith.
@@TylerDurden-id6yp So, we're in agreement? Christians and atheists are in the same boat despite what some think. There is no more proof for what I believe than anything that they believe either. The most important thing in your life (I'm assuming the love of your spouse and children) can't be proved, so is it so hard then to accept that God is real?
"Did you love your father? Prove it"
Alright, I'll need some way to measure hormones like dopamine and other hormones, as well as a heart rate monitor, thermal sensors, and a scanner that measures brain activity. Then, you will play back recordings of me interacting with strangers as a child, and then recordings of me interacting with my dad. If you are not satisfied with that difference in readings, try sampling a larger population size.
There is evidence for love, though it is a subjective experience. Unless you are saying that your God is literally a mood or a feeling, you just used a non sequitur. You also used a topic which you know is a special sore spot for her in order to shut her down.
This character went from mildly charming, to the subject of intense distain in a matter of seconds.
Don't get me wrong, I adore this movie, but these kinds are arguments are tiresome non sequiturs at best, and I hate dignifying them with an answer, let alone seeing that argument being treated as a good point in such an otherwise great movie.
@Ben Baxter
That was a very ambiguous statement. I think what you meant was either "we cant see emotion without our expressing it outwardly, we cant explain why we get feelings, nor can we describe them, thus science is flawed" or "We cannot yet accurately feel other people's subjective experiences (like emotions). Therefore we cannot communicate them or weigh feelings against each other. Therefore science is flawed".
Addressing 'we cant see emotion without our expressing it outwardly' once again get a brain scanner and I'll bet that with enough data on what the brain looks like when its angry, you could probably figure out if someone is angry by the way their brain lights up on a scanner. Thus we can "measure feelings" to an extent.
Addressing 'we cant explain why we get feelings' I'm sure that there are probably dozens of hypotheses floating around the scientific community, and they probably have some evidence to back them up. If we haven't already, we will figure out why we have emotions. if you are talking in the more immediate sense of 'oh, why am I angry right now?', or 'why am I depressed?' Most emotions have a cause, whether it is us reacting to the world and our experiences, or whether it is a hormone imbalance in the brain. I recommend seeing a therapist, because they can usually help you figure out why you feel stuff pretty accurately. Thus we can 'explain our feelings'.
Addressing 'we cannot communicate our feelings' what is poetry? What is art? I think that these are mediums which ask people to feel what we do, and empathize. So I think we can and do communicate our feelings frequently.
Addressing 'We cannot yet accurately feel other people's subjective experiences': I think that emotion is rather like a color, you can definitely describe what causes the reaction in your brain, and you can describe how the brain lights up, and you can even have the person try to explain their subjective experience of that color, but we cannot give a blind person an accurate depiction of what the color red (for example) is really like. I think that the day will come when we will be able to stimulate our brains with another persons experience of something. That's in the far future hopefully, because its rather ethically challenging, but I believe it will be possible one day.
So I think that if we cant "measure feelings and explain them in perfect detail" we will be able to do so in the future. I also think that even if science cant explain everything right now, it will eventually.
@Ben Baxter Basically my above argument boils down to "If science can't explain something right now, than wait a bit. It will explain it eventually".
Fully agree for the most part. Although a non-sequitur is more like an abrupt subject change. This is more like an unfair analogy. Proof of existence and proof of love are not apples to apples. Like you, I love this movie, but his “prove it” retort is dangerously misleading for viewers.
She is not asking him to prove his love of God; rather, only God’s existence. If this comparison were truly apples to apples, he would have asked her to prove her father existed, for which she could have easily shown evidence.
It ins't "not everything can be proved but "not everything needs to be proved" for instance love and for sure God in his opnion...I am not a believer.
Read the Old Testament. Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38 are about to be fulfilled. Don’t believe me? Read it and wait. In case you don’t read it here’s it is in a nutshell. Isaiah 17 describes the complete destruction of Damascus Syria. It will be uninhabitable. Ezekiel 38 talks about a coalition against Israel. An alignment of nations. Which ones you ask? Turkey, Iran and Russia. Guess what? All 3 are in alignment. Never happened in the history of the world. Where are they right now? To the north of Israel. War is about to start this fulfilling bible prophecy. There’s your proof.
Redundant
paradoxical ;)
"I cannot imagine a world where God did not exist. I wouldn't want to." That was exactly her point. He does not want to confront a reality where he does not have an imaginary friend so he makes one. As for his point, Love is emotional attachement. You can form emotional attachement to abstract or artificial things that do not really exist, like I love Star Wars. I know it is a made up story and still deeply care about it. Problem with religious folk is not that they care about most probably unreal thing, it is that they refuse to even consider the possibility and require the rest of us to conform to their standards.
That wasn't his argument, his point is that you can't prove that you love someone.
Wow I thought this would a pure panel of uuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh some kind of understanding at least realizing that there are things that we cannot physically show or measure the exact amount that shefelt nor could anyone ever do that.
Let say a mimic, duplicate, replicate or a clone would have a similar or equal experience to the original but it is not the original
Bottom line people don't want to believe and the Bible for that sake alone is the reason no man would conjure that up.
Let us make a bible that's makes us feel better but not really because if we don't do the things we have the ability but refuse to do, those things like LUST OR GREED ...etc there is not a good ending ?
No it would be more like the bad printed, purposely misprinted books that state there is are no repercussions for anything?
THAT IS WHAT WE MAKE, THAT IS COMFORTING, THERE IS NO GOOD, NO BAD UNTIL ... WE FEEL THE PAIN THAT ONLY DEATH OR LOSS CAN BRING!!!
But remember it's to make us feel good by implementing a penalty,. oh not mention there's no way that GOD is a scientist, because scientist creates something and stay around to correct his creation constantly because there's no reason to create something that works or is capable of doing a task on its own.
I love when I drive my car and the creator is alway at hand!!!
But hey, Parallel worlds, Wicca, movies about evil when there is no GOOD makes sense. Funny we don't have world peace with all our knowledge and science, GOD IS A/THE SCIENTIST BTW!!!
That would be to scary to think about sssoooooo no and Pluto is a planet no it's a... our science is never wrong until it is wrong.
Rage typos everywhere, SORRY and GODBLESS!!!
Proof god exists: impossible
Proof a person exists: possible
solved
But god can’t be proven in the way that I can prove that “I have an apple in my hand.” It’s much more subtle and poetic that that
@@Danleesixoneonetwofive If you refuse to believe anything that cant be proven by science then it's very easy to dismiss god. It's a piece of cake for me. But thats not the only thing, there are multiple different religions wich tell different stories. Whats that all about?
Ancient Egypt had strong believes, but were they right or wrong? Always the answer is its not so easy to say, they just saw it differently. Greeks? Romans? All the other gods that people believed in in different places of earth before the world got more connected and larger religions could manifest themself with books and preachers. And now what up? Islam, the peaceful religion, has two different sides and people kill eachother over it all the time.
It's a lot of fun to believe in supernatural things. Today it is Alternate Reality Games. The backrooms and scp or whatever.
People want to believe but the reality is not like that. Its is boring science papers.
How can billions of people believe in something huge like god but at the same time almost none of the care about leaning astronomy? Like, name some starts from the local group. It is other stars that are close to our sun. This is very larger than life thing and its also real and proven true so why is it ignored? Most people don't know/care about it but they do believe in god and consider their faith very important part of their life buts it really not, they just believe something that is not real. You must care about real proven things before you can start to have faith in something that would like to be true. It is a waste of time for humanity, it is not enough to base a civilisation on.
And why are flat earthers considered nuts? It is not that different, they have faith too.
More dirty tricks to avoid execution?..
XD
Science, ever primitive, is still catching up with the reality of God and just hasn't yet developed instrumentation sensitive enough to detect him/her/it/them/zhe.
Yet it gave us UA-cam.......
Science, ever primitive, is still catching up with the reality of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and just hasn’t yet developed instrumentation sensitive enough to detect him/her/it/them/zhe.
Did you just them/zhe God. What a tool lol
@@shelbyvillerules9962 sure but the problem with spagetti gods is nobody actually believes. Cool joke tho bro & stylish colander
@@rogergamble7880 How do you know? Maybe some people actually do… regardless, you can delete the FSM, replace it with pretty much anything you want in that sentence and the analogy still stands.
god is just a symbol. don't fall in mistAke. it is a symbol of something that exists in everyone's belief. it's not being Christian or muslim or what ever else will make you rest in peace. it's decisions you make good or bad. everyone knows deep in his heart ehat is badand what is good. there is one road. if you walk on it, you walk in the truth. if you get out of it you are lost.
+TheIronnia Well when you experience possession, psychic attack and various other paranormal phenomenon, and when you involuntarily call out the name of Jesus and all that stuff stops, then you KNOW that God is real and that we humans know jack shit when we think we have the ultimate truth. The funny thing is, people say there is no God, until they experience Him, then their life changes and it's not just something in their mind, there is a real and tangible improvement. You can't prove he exists via direct evidence, because we are attempting to prove something for which we do not even have the right tools. But the fact that millions upon millions of lives have changed because of him, for the better, throughout history, says everything it needs to say.
+Observer Of Life i don't say that god doesn't exist. it still is a symbol, I mean no one knows him for what he really is. but everyone has it in his own symbolism. religious atheists, even agnostics they know god. they are just not agreeing with religions representations. I beleive that god is too big to be at the side of Christians or any religion. he is the biggest but no one knows in their mind what it is. representations are still representations. religions are still religions. sorry for English
Theres no Resting in peace.. Where you at peace before you existed? No you just were not
That's His biggest problem. He thinks He's real.
Jodie Foster needs Jesus.
Jesus loves you Annabel.
But remember... he’s not _in_ love with you. I learned that the hard way.
I'm gonna pray for her. And that God will make her heterosexual again, and that we will meet and fall in love, and I will get to quit my job and finally get to be a kept man.
By the way, brainwashing people with movies and not a thorough, complete, strong and convincing argument is not a good way of proving God does not exist.
It cannot be proved that God does not exist. That's simple philosophy, which is still very relevant.
I think its the other way around. The church brainwashing/persecuting/torturing/stealing/burning people alive etc is not a good way to promote the idea of a god or proof of. A God would not be connected to the Vile Greedy church
She's right, it's total nonsense
'G*D'
is
BOTH
Creator AND Creation ~
Creatoration
I think it would be funny if when you Atheists die and then wake up and Buddha or Shiva is staring at you and says....."Yo ass is MINE now Sucka!!!"...
If you see the Buddha in the road, run him down.
"...decided not to give any proof of His existence..." How can anyone say such a stupid line with a straight face?!?
Why is it stupid?
How about just one decent miracle every hundred years or so to let us know He's still around?
That's not too much to ask of a supreme being.
My love do not judge you when you die, my love cant read you thought and my love do not answer your prayers, my love do not interact with the rest of the world. comparing it to the Christian god it stupid.
Can prove it with EKG scan. Debate over. God is still a fairy tale like a unicorn.
Zephius The Hallowed Prove it?
Zephius You don't know that.
he wanted to throw her over balcony, when he didn't have replies to her arguments.. typical religious :D
He loves her, he definitely did not.
Why bring religious nonsense into the debate? Religion has constantly failed to meet its burden of proof : an epic failure!
Your beliefs create your reality. You likely will see no indication of God in your life if your belief is there is no God. The rest of us who very much believe get definative proof on a regular basis.
Love can be proven with it's actions. God, nope. So there's no god. His example was crappy. lol
Very useless comparison.