well, first of all, i like to say i'm new to the site. i haven't been really active as of late, sadly. however,  i do want to contribute or post a blog whenever i can. it is nice to have a community like this.

having said that, i recently found a video on youtube by the name of  "atheist gets owned". for what i get the video is a debate between theist vs atheist. however, the video only shows one small part where the guy represeting the theist ask the other one the following question: " give me any empirical evidence for explosions producing  states containing more order an complexity"( i think that's the question. do excuse me if a made mistake or misunderstood the question. i can't understand the accent of the guy)?

the guy first answer was the bing bang. but the theist guy didn't accept that answer, so he got another answer.  which the theist guy took as an theist argument for the existence of god.

first of all, my intention by posting this blog is to know how would you had answer to the theist guy. and help to created a counter argument in that case.

i like to say that i really am interested in books about the bing bang, so if you have any recommendations they are welcome.

 to be sure, i don't know about such explosions, apart for the bing bang, i would have answered the guy. however that does not proof the existence of a god. because that's what science is about. hypothesis or theories that are only proved right when we have enough evidence. which means, nothing is absolute and new theories can be created and proved depending of the level of evidence and technology. the second answer, which the theist guys took for a theistic argument( you have to watch the video); well, a engine is designed by an intelligence, by us. but that doens't make us gods, us the human race. so that again, does not proof the exitence of a god.

please share your thoughts and feel free to criticize my counter argument, which i know is lacking. and i apologize in anticipation for any grammal mistakes.

( if anyone can tell me how to add the link of the video, i'll be grateful)

[Video added by moderator]

Views: 651

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

thanks, for the reply.

copy and paste the link - It's too hard to understand what the actual question is from this post.


thanks, again. i guess it was kind of hard to know my point without the video. need to learn to edit the post.

Kir, the missing reply link is an artifact of the Ning comment system. Once a thread reaches a certain depth of nested replies, the reply button stops appearing. It's one of the less-intuitive 'features' of the system.

I would have said "No, i don't know." simply because I don't know. Then I would have replied with "With me not knowing, how does this prove there is a god and also how does it prove your specific god of your religion is true?" 

In hyperphysics I found that entropy is defined such that "If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state."

If we look at the motion of all the atomic and subatomic and electromagnetic material in a star like our sun, we would notice that they are very random and multidirectional.  Now lets look at the same things shortly after it explodes.

1. All the EM radiation is traveling outwards in an orderly fashion.

2. The vast majority of the subatomic material has formed into organized atoms, a more orderly grouping.

3. All the organized atoms are traveling outwards in a more or less orderly fashion compared to the random and intense motions inside a star.

These conditions occur and make the result more orderly because thermodynamics only deals with heat, work and the internal energy of a system.  No where is potential energy, such as gravity, accounted for.

Is this an example he is asking about?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service