Does God Exist? - Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 4)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 січ 2022
- In part 4, David C Pack continues examining scientific facts, quotes and amazing evidence from the natural world that proves God's existence beyond all doubt... or does he?
Does God Exist?-Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 4)
• Does God Exist?-Many A...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
"This is The Bible interpreting itself."
*Gives an interpretation I have never heard in 30 years.*
right?!?
Aye, hearing it my mind went: "Wait what!! He can't mean that right?" xD
I had to back up and listen to him three times to grasp what he was claiming. WTH
I've heard stuff along those lines before - the whole idea that there's an indeterminate amount of time in between a couple verses in Genesis and that accounts for the age of the Earth... There's a name for the idea but I forget what it is.
I believe it's called 'pulled-out-of-my-fundament-ism'
"Scientific atheists" is something someone says when they misunderstand both science and atheism.
funnily, something called "scientific atheism" was part of the bolshevik ideology, i still remember "the institute of scientific atheism" to be part of the academy of sciences in czechoslovskia in 80ies.
I get your point and in this context I agree, but it doesn't have to be that. I would call myself a scientific atheist, but one of my exes would be a very much not scientific, while still being an atheist. But when someone like him says it that way, yeah, he's missing the point completely.
"Just as OFF is not a TV channel"
Thank you Paul! This is much better than "Non-Stamp collecting!"
If you want a similar analogy that intentionally makes some creationists uncomfortable, use “Just as abstinence is not a sex position.”
I'm partial to "bald is not a hair color" but everyone has their non-favorites!
I don't know what you're talking about. "Off" IS my favourite channel. I never watch anything else
Amazing to me that our society and government think that work from ministries like this are so important that they ought not to be taxed. Ergo, we desperately need people like Paul to fight them… and yet he has to pay taxes.
I love how creationists point to how science has shown how predictable nature is and think that's evidence for a god. Yet if their god was able to affect outcomes in our reality, we would constantly be observing unpredictable actions as they meddle with things.
"Look how predictable nature is"
Evolution
"No not like that!!"
That's a good point. God would make himself detectable by throwing curveballs in our universe.
@@rodneymclachlan7883 if it's not a curveball, it's definitely not a miracle.
Most egregiously, there are some parts of scripture, where a supposed miracle occur that should normally be noticed by virtually everyone, but apparently did not get noticed, such as the alleged resurrection of dead saints, an earthquake and a solar eclipse as soon as a messianic figure got crucified.
@@chewxieyang4677 apparently the solar eclipse was recorded in China
Well, I don't know about anybody else but I was **absolutely** convinced in the first episode. I'm not even sure why David is still making episodes.
😂
🤣
David makes episodes because he desires money.😉
@@samf7192 ironic that people espousing "Christian ideals" lie cheat and steal to satiate their greed and lust for worldly desires
Sigh, sorry Flying Spaghetti Monster...this Pack man is convincing, I'll have to give up eating pasta
The guy was born packed. There was no possibility of any out of the box thinking.
Underrated comment
Well since he runs a cult, there is no reason for him to allow any thought outside the box.
My favorite creator for this "sector" of the internet. Your ability to use their own words to help drive your point is amazing and I see you get more proficient in this style (and more clever!) each video.
Appreciate that
Agreed. And you are getting under their skin more and more. Nice work Paul
Paulogia is essentially an "enemy agent" who was turned lol. He knows their tactics because they trained him 🥷
@@Paulogia you've said you cut down hours of commentary. Just go ahead and post a couple without working as hard on cutting down. You say too little when we wanna hear more. You get your point across beautifully. You and dark matter 2525 got what I like. But man gimme a 3 hour uncut Paul rant and I'll watch it boo.
@@Paulogia *HOW* does the pseudoscience of abiogenesis *get past THE FOLLOWING FACTS, BELOW ?:*
I have a hard time believing that this David C. Pack guy is _not_ a cartoon character, although competently rendered (but with a very limited set of animation templates) 🤔
Exactly what I thought, like 1950's Disney created an InCel used car salesman..
@@errolshervey565 What is this "InCel" meme that seems to have populated the internet over the last few days?
@@roqsteady5290 we're probably seeing it more due to Emma Thorne's recent growth, one of the things she covers (check her channel out if you haven't yet!). INvoluntarily CELibate, the youtube variety are mostly toxic millenials that blame everything on women..
@Das Bus. He's real---and a real megalomaniac. I went to college with the fool.
@@rbtree Damn. That's both remarkable and scary. But I guess the guy has to come from somewhere after all... and yes he still seems to show some megalomaniacal tendencies from all I can see.
Can we challenge the first incorrect term "evolutionist"?
The term is "informed"
I don't care for it... call me an evolutionist all you want, but can I call you a breathist? For believing you need to breath air to live?
Just to note you can be informed and not correct.
@@SilverMKI You can be informed and incorrect. All it requires is for you to interpret the information incorrectly. You can see a few notable educated people do this sort of thing. Jordon Peterson for example, constantly redefining what "God" means in order to make him exist.
@@SimonWoodburyForget how? He is so vague about his reglious beliefs. I don't even understand how you think he changed the definition of God. Even then he isn't even saying that. Yes his justification is weak to you and me. So we don't accept it. But that doesn't mean he isn't justified. But he is obviously some type of Christian. But I never herd him redefine crap. If anything he is using what actually christian phiolosphers use. Which is fine. And can be argued whether its rational or not. Or convincing to you. But he isn't exactly defining him into existence. If anything he tries to make him more understandable. And actually logically consistent. Which the God youre probably thinking about isn't. Because it's a very easy God to show that it's not rational or logical.
@@ReformedThe Sorry but... do you have a point? No it is absolutely clear, these people redefine God to make him exist. Clearly you've never heard Jordon Peterson say "atheists believe in God even if they don't know it". Assuming a diety is what we call a God, then yes by definition Jordon redefined our word "God" to another word "God". That's what a redefinition is by definition. He defines god as "good" and claims that anyone who believes in "good" believes in his God. That's not called proving God exists... it's called claiming good exists... and then subsequently claiming that this is God and somehow linking it to some other unrelated properties. The reason Jordon Peterson sounds confusion, is because of all the word salad he puts between everyone of his points.
I mean, if William Lane Craig doesn't believe in the literal Garden of Eden story, then what does he think that Jesus was sacrificed for?
A Klondike bar.
Just speculating here, since I've not seen the original that the clip was taken from.
My guess was that he was expressing incredulity at the story mostly as a way to connect with people who would tend to doubt the story, and prime them for a bit of "but that's why it's all so amazing that it's true" or something.
But it's also possible to read the creation myth and not take the whole thing literally, but still believe it represents some figurative version of the origin of the world - in which case "original sin" might be considered a valid concept, while not literally coming from the first two people ever disobeying their god.
Presumably all the other bad things people have done.
@@tapiocaweasel that's what I would do for one.
He believes Adam and Eve would have been Homo heidelbergensis. If I recall right this is based on his belief that Neanderthals and Denisovans were humans.
Since we carry their DNA...logical. After that he loses me. Either I am too stupid to follow his logic or he makes no sense. Philosophy has never been my strong suit so I can accept "too stupid" but suspect he arguments are flawed.
I just love David C. Pack. I genuinely thought he was part of some Comedy Sketch Show. Everything he says is absolute comedy Gold. His nonsense is a pure joy. I could listen to him for hours on end. His delivery technique and stupidly make for a real Hoot. Sit back with friends and settle-down to watch this loon make all his silly assertions. Pack is a Laugh Riot.
He takes deadpan a bit far, imo.
What astounds me is that some people find him convincing...
@@Akira-jd2zr I'm still waiting for a god to come tell us that religion was just a big joke, a prank if you will. But that will never happen.
@@weldabar True enough. You are not wrong. His authoritative, earnest sincerity can become a bit tiresome. He is a one-trick pony. Generally, we watch his stupid apologetic propaganda in 15 minute chunks. His punchline is always the same "god did it".
Wait, it's NOT satire?
A new Paulogia?! Praise the lord!
I hit Translate to English. It put a space after Paulogia... that's it that's all I'm commenting for. Figured you might get a giggle out of it too.
Praise Be Lord Atheismo!
Ramen
Praise the FSM, ramen.
btw ramen in Swedish is 'the frame' in English.
Hey, wait-we’ve been shifted from “evolutionists” to “anti-creationists”. Sneaky, sneaky.
reality lover, lies haters, the same thing right? :V
In a sense, the term 'anti-creationist' is better than 'evolutionist'. In too many cases the word evolutionist is used when attacking cosmological phenomena, while evolution has absolutely nothing to say about cosmology. At least the term anti-creationist covers both cosmology and evolution through natural selection.
Sneaky like a drunk elephant wearing a unitard covered in bells dancing through a glassware shop having a clearance sale.
I suppose it's better then just calling them "they". You can't be too specific when making a strawman, otherwise the strawman might turn around and beat you to death. That's why they use such general terms instead of specifically quoting anyone.
Anti God
"Watch to the end" is the best indicator that either someone has failed to prioritize their points or failed to make them. This series is a rare case of both being true. Thanks, Paul!
But why bother. Pack said everything in the first 10 minutes... of his first episode.
They haven't failed to prioritize their points. They've successfully prioritized viewing time.
It's the one single tiny piece one could say shows self-awareness; Pack must know on some instinctual level that his bullshit is the opposite of compelling, so he has to _compel_ his cult victims to listen to the end.
I pity that lonely singular functional brain cell trapped with the rest of Pack's mind.
"if you think I've gone off the deep end currently, you must watch to the end where I completely lose my marbles"
So ironic that the religious have to accuse others of being religious as a tactic to discredit.
"Evolutionism is just based on faith!"
"So you're agreeing faith is poor reason to believe anything?"
Them: *angry silence as they realize they told on themselves*
Hmm, I didn't know that "absolute" was a synonym for "extremely dubious"
Somehow, subatomic particles appearing from dense energy is magic, but a god willing everything into existence is not. What is his definition of magic?
"Magic" is something that people made up to explain the unexplainable, usually by invoking the supernatural. What God does is called a "miracle", and it's 100% completely not the same thing. Pinky-swear.
@@jeleeson Creation by a god, is precisely that; something people made up, to explain what they couldn't explain, by invoking the supernatural.
@@jeleeson magic is something that appears to have no cause for the effect. That it just is. But reality is its slight of hand. We know of nothing that comes from exnilo. .
@@duaneholcomb8408 Just because we don't know of anything that comes from nothing doesn't mean it can't happen
@@MrChiangching I suppose so. Then god is even more probable then. Under such terms science is not needed to explain Somthing. It just all comes from,nothing.
Oh yeah this guy he basically runs a cult in my home state of Ohio. AronRa tore him a new one.
That is by far the most unique interpretation of Genesis I've ever heard, and honestly it's an interesting way to reconcile the clearly old universe with the Genesis account...
It's still 1,000% obviously fucking wrong though
Any time I arrive at what seems to be an entirely unique interpretation of something, that sets off red flags i need to check my work.
Spoiler, its always been wrong, for reasons someone else has already figured out.
Having a theory is all fine and great, but ffs let's fact check ourselves!!
I've been conversing with a Muslim apologist and in our last exchange, he explained that we live two lives at the same time. We are aware of only one and we may flip between the two. It was part of the explanation for an all knowing god. When I read that, I thought, how would Paul respond? It was so far out in left field, I still haven't grasps how anyone could possibly believe this stuff. Thanks for what you do Paul. It's enjoyed and appreciated.
I only wish that was true. There's an alternate life I'd love to flip to right now.
A bigger question is, how can one tell that there's just another one? I don't see anything preventing us from having more than two lives...
He probably has his wife fooled with that one, whenever he goes to the bordello! Maybe he has multiple personality disorder! (
@@Bob-of-Zoid It's the usual answer, my holy book suggests this. They've had 1400 years to figure out answers after all.
Is there any evidence that we live 2 lives flipping between the two ?
Pack just loves the sound of his own voice, doesn't he
What scientists are actually claiming about the origins of life is that many different necessary organic molecules were forming under various conditions, some in shallow pools,
some in warm vents in the ocean, some on volcanic rock at the sea shore, alternately getting wet and drying in the hot sun. Natural selection was already happening long before life,
with non-living organic molecules, because products in a reaction chain have been found to have catalytic properties on the precursors in it's own reaction chain.
There's a blurry line between complex organic chemistry and simple life, but evolution happened long before that line was crossed.
All you need is incoming energy, a pile of stuff, and imperfect replicators. From that comes the whole spectrum of things we've come to know as Earth.
That's a very neat summary
That just seemed like a weird sequence from him. Let's see, scientists used to think life started in a primordial ooze. But now here's a guy who thinks it started in underwater vents. Take that, atheists!
The fact that we can even have life in underwater sea vents is a pretty good sign that life finds a way and does not need "fine tuning." At least that seems like a more obvious interpretation.
Yet, it is always creationists arguing that evolutionists claim "Nothing created Everything". When in reality it is their claim, not vica versa. Nothing aka gawd - with zero origin, or foundation, besides being stolen, and altered from pagan mythologies, proceeds to magically poof everything 1 by 1, from wince his nothingness came. Gawd starts from nothing, thus is nothing.
Gawd creates nothing at all, arguably to "create" requires existing materials, foundations, and a fore-knowledge of what is to be created. not just yelling "Poof Dere it iz!" as gawd does.
Rarely have a I seen such a closed mind as David C Pack! No hope of him changing his mind.. ever!
God exists as a concept in the mind.
There are as many ideas of god as there are people who have thought about it.
All of those ideas include untestable, ineffable, or impossible attributes.
All ideas that cannot be replicably tested are indistinguishable from fiction and should be treated accordingly.
Still waiting for an actual proof of God in this series. He drones on and on about evolution. But, even if he managed to overturn all we know about evolution that would still not be a proof of his (or any) god. The column that's supposed to be filled in with the supporting evidence that leads solely and necessarily to that conclusion remains empty.
Especially considering all the alternatives that sit in the "special creation" tree. There's a very large box of alternatives to this, so while he plays it like if he would "win by default", this is absolutely not the case.
There is also a gigantic difference between some nebulous "Being" who created the Universe, the Earth, and human beings, and the Christian God. Even if something supernatural "created" the singularity, dispersed the cosmic dust in such a way that it formed the Earth in the precise position and orbit it occupies, and "caused" all of the mutations that led to us, that does not mean that "being" also led ancient judeans out of slavery in Egypt, incarnated as a human named Jesus, was resurrected, and will judge every person after they die!
@@bludfyre I always am amused at the idea that a god who created a universe with sextillions of stars, giant galaxies, supernovae, black holes and star-forming nebulae and a planet with millions of species from blue whales and elephants to spiders and bacteria would want to be worshipped by one species of ape and threaten to destroy the whole of his creation if said apes failed to do so.
"Wow, all of this nature, man. I mean, it's like _really_ _really_ _really_ _really_ _really_ complicated. _Really_ complicated. Like, spectacularly complicated. Like, so complicated that modern science can't explain it all."
"Yeah, it's complicated stuff. What's your point?"
"Well, I mean, this stuff is so complicated that really there's only one _logical_ explanation."
"Go on."
"Well, logically the only explanation is the Big Sky Guy."
"Of course! How could scientists have overlooked that?"
"I know, right?"
- David C Pack in slightly summarised form.
I have have never heard that the (alledged) war between satan and god were the cause of the dinosaur extinction, etc. Based on this and all the many proofs, I am back to being a fully vested christian. Oh why did it take me so long! If only I watched his tapes long ago! 🤣🤣
Science can't falsify God in the same way that the heavyweight champion of MMA can't beat me in a tournament: neither God nor I are qualified to enter the ring.
I didn't realize that "absolute proof" means the same thing as "baseless assertions."
If man came from God, then why is there still god? Checkmate theists
LOL
In the immortal words of George Takei: Oh my!
Man's chief end is to glorify God
@@samuelcalderwood1379 Are you sarcastic or just brainwashed?
@@freddan6fly yes l am being serious.
Wait, what? There are whole chapters of information we're supposed to read from between the lines of the first two verses in the bible? If god is supposed to be omniscient and have inspired the writing of the bible, why is it so bad at it?
Ah, it's refreshing to see David doing your work for you, Paul. He's such a considerate guy 🤣
That was the weirdest creationist theory I’ve ever heard
He's really all over the place in this one. Not that he's ever terribly focused
When I do a little epistemology I like to point out that if God is in all things, then God is in all terms in the equation; which means the first thing is to simplify God out of those equations.
God would be an identity operator in comparison to the entire universe. The entire universe apparently works the same with the God term and without the God term in the math.
His definition of an open mind is someone who will agree with everything he says. Seems fun.
This guy (Pack) gives me the willies. Seems like the exact kind of monster that would burn a heretic.
They would of they could without major consequences.
When I left Christianity, it was to move towards Deism. The belief that some god created the universe... then left it to it's own device. 'Good luck... don't burn the place down.'
Problem was... what was the point of believing in a god you can't interact with?
Like Conan: I pray to Crom, but he doesn't answer me.
'Then what good is he?'
I love how Pack literally shoves an entire second "creation" story between verses one and two of the Bible, with literally no justification or appeal to any kind of tradition or authority (other than his own, of course).
20:54
"Most people cling, at all costs, to long held beliefs with this stubbornness, more applicable to religious beliefs than any others."
Does Pack not see the irony of accusing others of doing what is standard for him and virtually all believers? He is criticizing people who "think", given credible evidence that a given scientific theory is "true", yet somehow sees no problem with young Earth creationists accepting the bible creation account with NO scientifically credible evidence. Then he states "this series is for the open minded", yet I'm sure he will not entertain the possibility that the bible could be wrong, or his interpretation of it flawed, or maybe there are ancient missing books that didn't make it into the bible that could have changed his interpretation and understanding of the books that are in the bible.
I really enjoy how triggered a lot of fame seeking religious apologists get by atheists using avatars instead of their real faces. As though that somehow undermines the atheist counterpoints and corrections to their false claims.
”off is not a tv channel“ : I love that!
At least one apologist thinks you are just a “cartoon character” now. I guess like Roger Rabbit you live in cartoon land with Bugs Bunny and Popeye. 🤣🤪
I still can't get past the part where one of Paul's eyes is a pentagon and the other is a hexagon.
Whoo Hoo 🙋🏼♀️ a new Paulogia video.
Your Translate to English button doesn't do anything. :-D
Videos debunking this guy seem to be pretty entertaining. Aron Ra's series on him was amazing also.
I swear that these arguments almost always end up with a vague deity rather than the Christian God. The arguments that do end up with a Christian God tend to be even worse than the more vague ones and never point to their exact interpretation of the bible. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard an argument that points to Christianity without using the holy book.
That's because the best you can do with zero evidence is to get to the possibility of a deistic god. Anything after that is just wishful thinking. And that's another worry - who the hell wishes for a psychopathic, lying, manipulative tyrant. I really don't think that "he loves me" makes it any better, and if you love him - you have some weird views on relationships.
Edit = the who wishes for - just remembered the more vocal people who support trump. And yes it is still a worry.
This has always been the thing hardest to point out. What they argue for their god anyone theist could use for their god. It’s so vague. They prove “a god” and then try and Trojan horse all the miracles stuff. They say “wel if a god can exist, then all the stuff in the Bible can be real”
It’s so insane how people can’t see this… is it not obvious?
@@Joemamahahahaha821 It's very easy to convince the mind to ignore obvious things. It's very hard to unlearn decades of reinforced ideas that serve as the foundation for your understanding of the world. It's unfortunate, but once an idea has set, new ideas are usually going to bounce off rather than move the foundation, at least in the uncritical mind. It's kind of genius the way religion spreads and inserts itself in a place that is very hard to remove, or even examine. It's like a computer virus infecting system files and becoming part of the operating system.
@@Joemamahahahaha821 well yes it is obvious, and they can see it . in every other religion but theirs.
It's even worse than that, it doesn't even prove the existence of a single god let alone a specific single god. Even if it were possible to demonstrate that creation is true it goes nowhere towards proving a single god acting alone.
That account of demons destroying the earth sounded pretty epic. Ripped almost straight out of the Silmarillion, but still pretty epic.
You are an expert at coming up with simple analogies that excellently make a point. Great work, Paul!
I think I know where this David guy falls on the Dunning-Kruger graph.
On the peak of mount stupid of course.
I think he impaled himself on the y axis
“Author of 80 books and booklets, and sticky notes and other small pieces of paper attached to the refrigerator with magnets.”
Impressive.
Actually Roger Penrose use that notation for a reason. It is a good method to work with large number and probabilities. You missed the opportunity to make a deep-penrose-math-crowd joke by saying 10^11^123 rather than 10^10^124.
When movies fantasize gods better than the real God/s that holy-books claim into existence, one must ponder if this ancient incompetence was a limitation of the humans of time in representing their fantasies, or a perpetual limitation of the gods...
I always wondered why if God wanted us to remember him, he didn't give us a good memory, he didn't give us a good visual memory, he didn't give us the ability to reproduce what we've seen in good detail.... everything we use computers for today could have essentially be implanted into the brain. It really shouldn't have taken much work if he was able to "create" a brain to begin with, he should have been capable of giving us at least 1 GB of fully reliable memory. The mere fact that ancient books are the only way for him to communicate is what makes it especially absurd.
As to the general "fine-tuning" argument; it may well be the case that life is an emergent property that always arises naturally in the universe wherever and whenever conditions are favorable, and even that other forms of life may possibly exist in conditions where no lifeforms from Earth could survive. After all, there are many extremophiles on this world found to live in conditions we previously believed to be uninhabitable.
As someone who has studied Physics, I can dismantle the 'fine-tuning' argument pretty much from the 2nd line.
"There are a series of physical constants that govern the way this universe behaves." Ok, following you so far.
"If any of these constants were changed, the universe would cease to exist." No, it would just exist differently.
Almost no life on earth currently would be able to survive in the conditions of the early earth when life first emerged.
@@SilverMKI how do you know what that was like
@@reubenmanzo2054 well for example if we were closer to the sun, would you exist?
@@samuelcalderwood1379 How much closer?
Like flat earthers, when creationists say "open minded" it's a euphemism for suppressing critical thinking. And David, although it's spelled "von Braun", it's pronounced "von Brown".
The first soundbyte of WLC that made sense to me...
As always, thank you sir for your fantastic work. Good to see you again!
Edit: I missed the canadian pronunciations of 'about' 💜 good to have that back in my life
It's starting to rain so I'm a-boat to go inside my hoce. When the sun returns I'll come back oat.
@@ericpierce3660 that blessed me, thank you 💜
Imagine being David Pack and accusing *other* people of being shallow.
Wait a moment, does this mean that the spaghetti monster created the universe? Shit, I thought is was a fictional figure.
I wonder if we started calling scientist "Prophets of science" theists would have an easier time of understanding science? I mean scientist have made many predictions or "prophecies" about the natural world that have actually come true: planetary movement, dark matter, CBR, Higgs-Boson, etc. I always find it amazing that theists can ignore all of the corroborating fields of science that go to support the science that they deny.
I've been calling myself that for years. :)
And for the same reason -- science is the only way to predict the future.
Theists already understand science through a religious lens. I've seen many theists here arguing that Darwin is the Prophet of "Evolutionism", They think that all they need to show is that Darwin doubted, or was a bad person. This then shows Darwin was a false Prophet and thus "Evolutionism" must be false.
An excellent source of entertainment. Listening to this guy get cut down to size is music to my ears.
"Not human interpretation. This is the bible interpreting itself".
Did he just make the claim that the bible can be understood without human interpretation?
That sure sounds to me like he's vastly over reaching his capabilities to exaggerate his authority.
And it would still be a "for the bible tells me so".
"'Once ze rockets are up, who cares vere ze come down? Zat's not my department,' Says Wernher von Braun."
-Tom Lehrer, in a song by the name Wernher von Braun from the 60's.
Another Paulogia!!
Translate to English = a space after Paulogia apparently. 😀
Scientists are certainly not afraid to put any
god/creator being in their theories.
However, it will be put through the same tests, the same experiments, and the same general scientific rigor that any other part of a theory has to go through. No special exceptions will be made. And I think that's where the religious have their problem. They want their god to be real so badly, they will cherry pick, overlook, and single out science in whatever way they can, to to afford their conclusion.
It is a fascinating example of self imposed delusion.
The devil has caused delusion
Woohoo! A new Paulogia video! This has been as fun series. Really enjoying it.
I have never heard a scientist or science educator say that I should not read something.
"Hey! David watches my show." That made me laugh far more than it probably should have.
I still can't get over David's voice. I can't discribe it just feels wrong.
He's got that kinda grimy "fast-talking used car salesman" vibe of someone who knows he's lying but is determined to Gish-gallop past your sensibiities.
Its not far off a text-to-speech program, but with added sharp intakes of breath.
William Lame Craig
God is almighty and powerful and yet God fails to speak for himself.
I love how you compare your former thinking to this man. It is so relatable to so many people. Love ya.
12:26 Science classes don't teach *possibilities,* they teach what has been demonstrated. At least, they shouldn't. There isn't even enough time to fully cover in depth all the facts that have been demonstrated, let alone every random idea that may or may not even be true. Leave testing new ideas to the scientists, but don't teach them until they are confirmed. The fact that creationists keep trying to skip this step shows that they don't care about the scientific process, they just want their religion to be taught as fact.
Only Christians and Sith deal in absolutes
Which one are you, then?
17:17 I just want to acknowledge how funny his pronunciation of "light atoms" is. He makes it sound like light is made of atoms, instead of the original text describing atoms with few mass.
The twist at the end! That was of Shammalamacamolot levels!
wait! science changes when there is new information available? 🧐who knew?
If I comment, there should be a thing by my name. (Hey, it worked !) I love Paul, I love his videos. I'm gonna watch this ASAP and I'm gonna love it. Thanks for everything you do.
There is a thing by your name.
I too see the thing by the name.
How’d you get the thing by your name? Is it a Patreon thing?
Thing name see
@@sarahallegra6239 Its a UA-cam membership click the join button pick a level of membership.
It never gets old. Hearing you refute his arguments simply by correctly pointing out the fallacious assumptions they make, or even agreeing with the argument while pointing out what makes the point irrelevant. I aspire to be able to do this in (civil!) conversation someday with as much ease as you seem to here.
If science was as stuck as creationists think it should be, we wouldn't have things like the printi g press, air planes and youtube.
He may be C Pack, but he ain't C#
I got glasses, that's why I can C#.
More of a C Lyin'.
'One of the primary assumptions of science is uniformitarianism'. Actually incorrect: this was one of the primary assumptions _of philosophers_ as well as that of early naturalists.
Scientists however, did not have to assume that: the uniformity of the observable universe was transparent in each and every data point gathered. It's not so much a working assumption as it is a mere observation that our theories have to take into account in their explanations.
'Uniformitarianism' is a geological principle promoted and popularized by geologists James Hutton ("The Father of Modern Geology") and Charles Lyell. They did not coin the term. William Whewell coined the term 'Uniformitarianism' in a review of Charles Lyells books 'Principles of Geology' which was and is a very important book.
@@whatabouttheearth A doctrine which was put forth in the late 18th century, yes, back in the days when people viewed scientific inquiry to be the work of _naturalists_ as mentioned. And the book you talk about was published in 1830. A principle that is - again - rendered unnecessary and obsolete by the overwhelming evidence available nowadays. We need not assume it, in geology or anywhere else for that matter.
Where is the rest of it? This was very informative and enjoyable!
Your thoughtful approach is appreciated. Your respectful tone in replying to even the most ridiculous claims is effective. I can share your work with my born again family without worrying about offending them. Thanks Paulogia!
I wish you would make appearances on children's cartoons, you cartoon character you!
This guy must be a real charmer on a first date. He clearly doesn't listen to the stuff he says because he contradicts it in then ext video. That said not a chance in hell he even asks for your name before telling you about himself
I hit an ad before the vid started and I swear it started off EXACTLY like the Ham & AiG News jingle. I was so confused 😂
His video should be "Does God exist? - Many absolute misrepresentations (part 4)"
(Atheist Here) I love your videos!!! They've helped me contemplate the universe as a whole, and realize the misunderstandings that many christians have about evolution and science in general. Your voice is also relaxing 😎
David C. Pack-a-lies
~'Atheism isn't a religion just as Off isn't a TV channel'. What a fantastic retort!. Wonderful!
David has the the amazing capacity to make me embarrassed on his behalf while he himself remains blissfully self unaware.
80 books and booklets answering.............. nothing at all really.
All you have to do is watch the intro to "The World to Come" to understand the absolute ego of David Pack. The man is not ignorant or misinformed. Pack is a liar, pure and simple.
The multiverse actually _reduces_ the number of assumptions when dealing with quantum interpretations. Instead of dealing with collapsing wave functions and observers, etc., the multiverse emerges from the math when your only assumption is the wave function.
I strongly recommend you listen to Sean Carroll talk about this.
"Dr. Werner Von Braun (recall he was the father of the American space program)"
Uh yeah that definitely raised an eyebrow from me. Like is that really the _only_ thing he recalls about Werner Von Braun?
Yeah ... like he was a senior officer in the _Schutzstaffel_ and he _knowingly_ worked POWs to death in the construction of his V2 rockets.
A real lovely dude ...
Whoooo early!
Imagine you and I dine at a greasy spoon restaurant. After a meal of expected quality, the cook comes out from the kitchen to inform us that not only have we enjoyed the finest meal we have ever eaten, but that it is in fact the finest meal possible. To prove his point, he produces a number of mined quotes from second-, third- and fourth-hand sources as unassailable proof that his claim is true.
A roadhouse cook comparing himself to a haute chef is a reasonable approximation of David C. Pack comparing himself to a scientist. To buttress his (apparently) fourth grade science education, he then quote mines not only scientists, but reviews of books written for lay persons regarding the actual published science.
Proof again that if I don’t understand something, that thing is wrong, and my disinterest in learning about it is unassailable proof of its falsity.
The bible is first hand accounts and God inspired
Great work Paul! I’ve really enjoyed this series.
Love the "TV channel" reference! I'm gonna steal that one fair and square -lol