BASE

:::::::: SELECT * FROM DAvidKanal WHERE Chan="UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw"

#~~~~# SELECT * FROM DAvidKanal WHERE Chan="UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw"

#~++~# UPdate DAvidKanal SET tsl ="1719948129" , tsc ="1720034129" WHERE Chan="UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw"

#~~~~# http://chegu.de/Ausgabe.php?URL=https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw

**34806

**?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> feed xmlns:yt="http://www.youtube.com/xml/schemas/2015" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"> link rel="self" href="http://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw"/> id>yt:channel:zNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/id> yt:channelId>zNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Paul Ross/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2009-10-11T01:34:08+00:00/published> entry> id>yt:video:8lxbwd4Gn5E/id> yt:videoId>8lxbwd4Gn5E/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Science, God & Philosophy/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lxbwd4Gn5E"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2024-06-17T04:06:51+00:00/published> updated>2024-06-23T20:42:49+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Science, God & Philosophy/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/8lxbwd4Gn5E?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/8lxbwd4Gn5E/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="5" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="30"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:sua2ui1WGOU/id> yt:videoId>sua2ui1WGOU/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Famous Atheists vs Darth Dawkins/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sua2ui1WGOU"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2024-06-15T21:34:43+00:00/published> updated>2024-06-22T21:35:24+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Famous Atheists vs Darth Dawkins/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/sua2ui1WGOU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i4.ytimg.com/vi/sua2ui1WGOU/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>In this video, Darth chats with several of the world's most renowned atheists and concludes with a short debate with Atheist Junior./media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="6" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="223"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:kWwJqyk_B9E/id> yt:videoId>kWwJqyk_B9E/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Lack of a Belief Scam/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWwJqyk_B9E"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2024-04-09T22:28:57+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-26T09:14:20+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Lack of a Belief Scam/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/kWwJqyk_B9E?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i4.ytimg.com/vi/kWwJqyk_B9E/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>There is a prevailing trend amongst atheists to insist that atheism is not a worldview but merely the lack of a belief in a God. This is done to evade the burden of struggling to defend a universal negation as many atheists have learned this is an untenable position to defend, therefore resort to a mere lack of a belief in God claim to dodge and sidestep defending their own worldview position. Many donâ€™t want to give a defence of their worldview; they donâ€™t want their worldview critiqued and cross-examined. -Paul/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="5" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="53"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:B2ZbtEcJfVg/id> yt:videoId>B2ZbtEcJfVg/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Destiny Cross-Examined/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2ZbtEcJfVg"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2024-03-14T23:18:56+00:00/published> updated>2024-06-14T12:57:50+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Destiny Cross-Examined/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/B2ZbtEcJfVg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i3.ytimg.com/vi/B2ZbtEcJfVg/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, known online as Destiny, is an American live-streamer and political commentator that has been defending his atheistic ideas over the years. In this debate, Destiny, when cross-examined, concedes that he is violating a fundamental principle and acknowledges that his position of atheism is irrational in that regard. In short, when the atheist is asking for observational proof of God, he is asking for proof of that which is ultimate and personal. Paradoxically, the atheist is holding onto a model of reality that is ultimate and impersonal. Where's his proof for that? Most are not aware that this is a violation of their own principle of having empirical proof for a position, and are thus guilty of having a double standard. In short, the atheist demands that we prove our personal absolute without proving his impersonal absolute and has therefore violated his own central principle of having empirical proof for belief. â€” Paul/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="6" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="60"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:1uzdFdotWJA/id> yt:videoId>1uzdFdotWJA/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>How It Will End/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uzdFdotWJA"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-10-27T11:00:31+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-27T03:30:54+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>How It Will End/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/1uzdFdotWJA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i2.ytimg.com/vi/1uzdFdotWJA/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="11" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="82"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:w0ka43zCpNs/id> yt:videoId>w0ka43zCpNs/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Killing Believers in The Name of Atheism/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ka43zCpNs"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-10-22T07:29:00+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-22T07:59:20+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Killing Believers in The Name of Atheism/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/w0ka43zCpNs?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i4.ytimg.com/vi/w0ka43zCpNs/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>Most atheists these days distance themselves from the horrendous barbarities perpetrated by atheistic regimes in the recent past. They further distance themselves by saying those in power were not really atheists, when in fact, they were. Their policies, doctrines, and rulings clearly referenced atheistic ideology. Of course, it is a little different when atheists are not ruling the world. In our contemporary times, atheists champion human rights and all kinds of values and virtues that were stolen from the Christian worldview. After all, humanism is essentially an outgrowth of Christianity's influence upon western culture. But history has shown us that when atheistic rulers are given absolute power, things are not so pretty. â€”Paul/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="5" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="70"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:Dlo0Tbt3QfQ/id> yt:videoId>Dlo0Tbt3QfQ/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>A Little Reminder/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlo0Tbt3QfQ"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-10-17T08:58:39+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-29T05:14:37+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>A Little Reminder/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/Dlo0Tbt3QfQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Dlo0Tbt3QfQ/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>It's easy to say you're seeking God when you're pursuing everything but God. The cost is high for a life lived in the empty path of your own independent existence. We were not created to be alone. God is here. You ask where is God? But God is asking where are you. â€”Paul/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="7" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="95"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:4pElEnUXk7M/id> yt:videoId>4pElEnUXk7M/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Is Atheism a Thing?/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pElEnUXk7M"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-10-14T06:54:58+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-27T17:05:43+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Is Atheism a Thing?/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/4pElEnUXk7M?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/4pElEnUXk7M/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="5" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="702"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:IN3PQLTPY80/id> yt:videoId>IN3PQLTPY80/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>The Conservation of Energy & God/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN3PQLTPY80"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-10-08T01:49:36+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-29T10:36:14+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>The Conservation of Energy & God/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/IN3PQLTPY80?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i2.ytimg.com/vi/IN3PQLTPY80/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>When Darth asked Florida Man if it was universally true that energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Florida Man said yes. When asked if he knew that by induction or deduction, Florida Man had no idea. When it came down to it, Florida Man confessed he knew very little about science and philosophy and therefore was not even in a position to engage on the topic. Darth was fully aware that in science past and current experiences could not be used to conclude things in the future. Just because we have experienced certain phenomena in the past or present does not ensure that we will continue to experience the same states in the future. The fact is, no inductive generalization â€“ such as, A causes B â€“ can ever be proven by experience-unless one makes an infinite number of observations and experiments and hence, we have the problem of induction. In short, statements about universal phenomena cannot be proven from statements about particular instances because of our finite data base and limited spectrum. According to the laws of thermodynamics and physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed. It holds that the total energy of the universe remains constant; it just transforms from one form to another. Atheists often quote this law to highlight that God is unnecessary and superfluous. However, itâ€™s a bad argument because the law is only referring to our universe and has no way of knowing anything about things beyond our observable universe. In short, conservation of energy applies to physical processes in this universe. It is merely based upon empirical observation but there is no evidence to show that the Laws of Thermodynamics hold true at all times and in all places. It does not necessarily apply outside of this universe, nor does it apply to the singular event marking this universe's beginning or the initial event of its existence. After all, if energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed how was this universe created in the first place? Moreover, we have not even developed a theory that explains the origin of energy or what it is so Iâ€™m at a loss to how the atheist knows that it rules out God. Science cannot tell us the intrinsic nature of energy, nor can it tell us the intrinsic nature of matter, space, time, gravity, life, consciousness, the atom, the electron, or any of the other great mysteries of existence. Einstein knew a little more than Florida Man, so I will leave you with his words. â€œAfter years of thought, study and contemplation, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one thing in the universe and that is energy â€” beyond that is a Supreme Intelligence.â€ â€” Albert Einstein/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="7" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="223"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:7V-eslAvlgY/id> yt:videoId>7V-eslAvlgY/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Atheistic Infiltration of Science/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V-eslAvlgY"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-10-02T04:00:16+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-22T09:40:07+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Atheistic Infiltration of Science/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/7V-eslAvlgY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i4.ytimg.com/vi/7V-eslAvlgY/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>Did you know that modern science is underpinned by an atheistic presupposition and this presupposition is bound to only atheistic interpretations? Did you know that the materialistic infiltration of science was a modern hijacking? Its roots can be traced back to the Enlightenment period wherein certain intellectuals wanted all talk of God eliminated from the realm of explanation. Following the Enlightenment period, agnostics and atheistic thinkers did everything they could to remove theological terminology from scientific pronouncements, and this resulted in atheists and agnostics making statements that reflected atheistic philosophy as opposed to theological terminology. For example, it was the famed agnostic Carl Sagan who said, â€œThe earth is just a pale blue dot lost in a cosmos of incomprehensible dimensions.â€ As you can see here, Sagan is merely superimposing his own state of lostness upon the whole cosmos. Notice how individuals that have already adopted a purely naturalistic interpretation of existence cannot help but evangelize the rest of us with their unproven assertions and conclusions. How does Carl Sagan know that the Earth is just a pale blue dot lost in a cosmos of incomprehensible dimensions? The answer is, he doesnâ€™t. Heâ€™s simply making that up. You can thank God, Sagan, and all those who share his purely naturalistic interpretation of reality have zero evidence for their assertions. Like many other agnostics, atheists and skeptics, Sagan is merely interpreting reality through a materialistic paradigm and in a purely materialistic paradigm you cannot have meaning and purpose, therefore the Earth is lost in a cosmos of incomprehensible dimensions; itâ€™s a given in a purely materialistic interpretation of reality. Itâ€™s dogma, its doctrine, and itâ€™s one of the major pillars of their faith. The Fathers of the Scientific Revolution were not atheistic in their reasoning and therefore did not subscribe to an accidental random universe that resulted from a bizarre set of inexplicable events happening for no reason and purpose whatsoever. Unlike the Founding Fathers of the Scientific Revolution these Enlightenment thinkers despised any notion of intelligent causation, rationality and purpose in the universe because they regarded such talk as coded references to God. They did not want a universe underpinned by a rational moral lawgiver and therefore they replaced God, purpose, rationality and meaning with haphazard randomness, purposeless and pointless inexplicable impersonal forces. These God deniers knew that randomness renders the universe pointless, meaningless, and purposeless, and turns it into a bizarre set of inexplicable events happening for no reason at all and that suited them perfectly. They also knew that randomness is not an explanation but an avoidance of explanation. Randomness is itself wholly non-empirical. No scientific advocate of randomness has ever perceived a random event. Despite what scientists say, all of these claims are philosophical, not scientific. I ask, where does the randomness itâ€™s predicated on originate and how is it possible? How is it different from using magic as an explanation? After all, randomness is not observable, it's not seen, only inferred hence not empirical, but they did not care about that because randomness renders the universe fundamentally irrational rather than intelligible and thus erases God. Invoking randomness was simply an inference, an inference whose philosophical task was to deny the alternative inference of rational agency. In short, to avoid the God problem these intellectuals were forced to adopt illogical, irrational explanations for the existence of the universe. For them, all explanations are good as long as purpose, meaning and teleology are rejected at the outset. Its always a good idea to look into the history of a thing and learning how Enlightenment reasoning infiltrated the scientific way of interpreting the world goes a long way to understanding how we got to this place. - Paul/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="345" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="1632"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:b5JkxKdz2zE/id> yt:videoId>b5JkxKdz2zE/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Stephen Hawking's Atheism/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JkxKdz2zE"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-10-01T07:06:43+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-26T06:15:53+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Stephen Hawking's Atheism/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/b5JkxKdz2zE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i3.ytimg.com/vi/b5JkxKdz2zE/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>We all know that the beliefs of popular and famous people have a tremendous influence. No mystery here. After all, if so-and-so announced it, then it must be true. Case in point, many individuals love Stephen Hawking, even though most have not read any of his books. I've come across a few individuals who do not believe in God because of what he said. It appears that Stephen Hawking's last words shook a few people up. Hawking, in his final words told us that â€œThere is no God, and that no one directs the universe.â€ This is total nonsense. None of these statements has Hawking proven, he merely asserted these things based upon his own confused speculations. It appears that his atheistic presuppositions heavily influenced his reasoning. It is no secret that before Stephen Hawking died, he began to express more and more atheistic pronouncements. He began to conclude definitive and conclusive statements about the nature of reality, wherein God was rejected. Thatâ€™s right, He became an atheist evangelist. However, when one looks at the particular words made by Hawking to conclude his Godless interpretation, one discovers his whole case is anchored in philosophical confusion, equivocation, and contradiction, and thatâ€™s not a good look. As most people are aware, Hawking flatly declared that the universe created itself out of NOTHING and if the universe created itself out of NOTHING, then God was unnecessaryâ€”hence atheism. What did Hawking actually write? Hawking wrote that â€œBecause there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from NOTHINGâ€. But I askâ€¦ if gravity already existed, as declared in his statement, how is the universe creating itself out of NOTHING? If there is a law like gravity already presentâ€”as Hawking asserted, then the claim that the universe created itself out of NOTHING is blatantly false. Where did this mysterious law of gravity come from? How is the law of gravity NOTHING? What is its purpose? Does it have a lawgiver? Did it exist forever, or was it brought into existence? Atheist Lawrence Krauss also asserted that the universe came from nothing, but then mysteriously spends the rest of his book explaining how nothing is a lot of something, such as things like gravity and quantum fluctuations. So, I ask. In what way is the pre-existence of gravity and quantum fluctuations NOTHING? Itâ€™s a good thing that other scientists and philosophers came forward and pointed out the fallacy of equivocation and misleading double-talk in the pronouncements of Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss. Now this is old news, so why am I pointing this out? I am pointing this out because many people are influenced by big names in science and accept whatever they say as an indisputable truth. The fact is, none of these popular scientists know what existence really is. Stephen Hawking understood this when he pointed out, â€œEven if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?â€ On this topic, science has nothing to say.â€ In this statement, Hawking confesses that he does not know what ultimately caused our universe and its laws. As he said, â€œOn this topic, science has nothing to say.â€ The truth is that observationally based, human centered based interpretation, operating out from incomplete data, will always remain in a state of infinite empirical ignorance because limited human senses can never have an omniscient pansophical view of reality. There is no getting beyond this. Only God knows what reality and existence is. I suspect Stephen Hawking will know a little bit more now. - Paul Ross/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="11" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="856"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:bop8HSe9fUo/id> yt:videoId>bop8HSe9fUo/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Atheistic Make-Believe/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bop8HSe9fUo"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-09-30T05:54:20+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-22T03:28:58+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Atheistic Make-Believe/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/bop8HSe9fUo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i3.ytimg.com/vi/bop8HSe9fUo/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>As a young boy when I found out that Santa Claus did not exist, I was melancholy but when I later discovered that the atheistic presuppositions, assumptions, and presumptions that were smuggled into every facet of my state education were simply made up, I was happy again./media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="6" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="47"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:mqNX9EyKGIU/id> yt:videoId>mqNX9EyKGIU/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>The Atheistic Alternative/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqNX9EyKGIU"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-09-29T04:59:41+00:00/published> updated>2024-06-01T02:23:37+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>The Atheistic Alternative/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/mqNX9EyKGIU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i2.ytimg.com/vi/mqNX9EyKGIU/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>Atheists inordinately focus on the destruction of the God model of reality, but when it comes to providing evidence for the truth of their Not-God model of reality they have a lot less to say. Join me as I discuss this unusual mysteryâ€¦/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="4" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="55"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:-eGeuEuRD_0/id> yt:videoId>-eGeuEuRD_0/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Atheist Junior Vs. Darth Dawkins/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGeuEuRD_0"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-09-24T08:01:35+00:00/published> updated>2024-06-30T09:44:22+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Atheist Junior Vs. Darth Dawkins/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/-eGeuEuRD_0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i2.ytimg.com/vi/-eGeuEuRD_0/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>Most atheists only believe in what is empirically provable. Anything not empirically provable, anything not detected in our world, not detectable through some scientific instrument is doubted, dismissed, and counted as non-existent. However, most of reality is not detectable through some scientific instrument. The origin of our universe, what preceded it. Why are its laws this way as opposed to another? Why does it exist in the first place? What is its reason and purpose are all questions not discoverable through any scientific instrument. Science can only ever describe the world, by observing the patterns within it, but can never know where they came from or why they behave this way as opposed to that way. A scientist can stare at the patterns forever and never know the answers to these fundamental questions. Science is confined to secondary causes, to things that can be dissected, counted, measured, and quantified. Everything else is beyond its scope. Stephen Hawking understood this when he pointed out, â€œEven if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?â€ On this topic, science has nothing to say.â€ Physicist Paul Davies has asked many of his physicist colleagues the answers to the biggest questions, but none are able to answer even the most fundamental question of why the laws of physics are what they are. Davies says their favourite reply is, â€˜There is no reason for the way they are what they areâ€”they just are.â€ Fact: Senses detect sensory events, not their causes, which are inherently undetectable by the senses. If we could observe causes with our senses, there would be no debate about how our world operates. The fact is that we cannot observe whatâ€™s going on behind the scenes, hence we must infer, via some means or other, the nature of that which is unobserved and unobservable. In short, science tells us nothing about the underlying nature of reality, only about our interface. We simply cannot transcend the limits of sensory observations to see the ultimate cause of our sensory observations and therefore the observational phenomenon of natural things does not in any way demonstrate that these things exist independently of God. When an atheist declares there is nothing outside the domain of scientific detection, the atheist is making a statement of FAITH which cannot be tested with tools and methods from inside the domain of science. There is no â€œseeing is believingâ€ when it comes to anything ultimate, even the atheistic position that the ultimate grounding of reality is impersonal is not anything known from empirical observation because there can be no empirical observation of anything that precedes the existence of our space-time dimension. The atheistic position that the ultimate metaphysical bedrock of reality is impersonal is a philosophical belief-based position and has nothing whatsoever to do with empirical science. In fact, we cannot see 94% of the observable universe and 0% percent of the unobservable universe. The atheistic argument that â€œwe cannot see God; so, he does not exist,â€ is fallacious as far as it assumes that something unobserved is confused with something non-existent. The bottom line is science cannot answer questions that are beyond the reach of its empirical and experimental techniques and therefore cannot answer the fundamental questions of existence and that is why when an atheist says that there is no God, you know that they are totally making that up. The truth is that observationally based, human centred based interpretation, operating out from incomplete data, will always remain in a state of infinite empirical ignorance because limited human senses can never have an omniscient pansophical view of reality. Science deals with the quantifiable. That which can be measured and dissected. It deals with mass, weight, shape, and space but God is in the domain of the non-empirical. God is not a material, physical thing. God is not made up of atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons, and electrons. God is not part of the universe but transcends the physical universe as far as God existed prior to our physical world and therefore is beyond the scope of the physical sciences. The physical sciences can measure and experiment with secondary causes but have no access to anything primary. The atheist rejects God because God is not detectable through some scientific instrument, but neither are our subjective experiences detectable through any scientific instrument, or most of reality for that matter. God cannot be found in material properties, such as in atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, things, and stuff. God is a Spiritâ€”a person, a presenceâ€”and, thus, can only be experienced. God cannot be observed directly, but we can indirectly experience his existence through his presence and effects in our lives. to be continued... â€”Paul/media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="13" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="789"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> entry> id>yt:video:Qu4PEE5UHzo/id> yt:videoId>Qu4PEE5UHzo/yt:videoId> yt:channelId>UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/yt:channelId> title>Fake Professor Dave Farina vs. Professor of Chemistry James Tour/title> link rel="alternate" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu4PEE5UHzo"/> author> name>Paul Ross/name> uri>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNG1VIV2Km6uC4ekliD4Gw/uri> /author> published>2023-05-23T10:28:35+00:00/published> updated>2024-05-29T13:38:28+00:00/updated> media:group> media:title>Fake Professor Dave Farina vs. Professor of Chemistry James Tour/media:title> media:content url="https://www.youtube.com/v/Qu4PEE5UHzo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390"/> media:thumbnail url="https://i2.ytimg.com/vi/Qu4PEE5UHzo/hqdefault.jpg" width="480" height="360"/> media:description>When the pretend Professor Dave Farina took on the distinguished Professor of Chemistry, James Tour, sparks and fireworks ensued. Throughout the debate, Farina conducted himself like a rebellious juvenile teenager. He was vile, disgusting and arrogant while he hurled invectives and cynical mockery at James Tour. Here are some highlights. I've removed Farina's insults, which comprised most of the debate./media:description> media:community> media:starRating count="67" average="5.00" min="1" max="5"/> media:statistics views="2374"/> /media:community> /media:group> /entry> /feed>

++++ UPdate DAvidKanal SET tsc=1719948135 WHERE Cid="21217"

02.07.2024 21:22

01.01.1970 01:00

Paul Ross

04.06.2024 · 01:42:16 ···
01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ···
21.07.2023 · 20:22:44 ··· 8 ··· ··· 39 ···
02.07.2024 · 21:22:15 ···
02.07.2024 · 21:22:09 ···
21.07.2023 · 20:22:44 ··· 8 ··· ··· 41 ···

1:: Science, God & Philosophy

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 17.06.2024 · 04:06:51 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

2:: Famous Atheists vs Darth Dawkins

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 15.06.2024 · 21:34:43 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· In this video, Darth chats with several of the world's most renowned atheists and concludes with a short debate with Atheist Junior.

3:: Missionary Travels May 2024

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 21.05.2024 · 09:32:30 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

4:: Heading off to the Mall of Asia to find a Karoke Machine

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 20.05.2024 · 12:48:25 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· I went looking for a portable karaoke device in the Mall of Asia today and after that, I caught up with my friend Joel from the United States who came to meet me at the Mall of Asia with his family.

5:: Intramuros May 2024

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 11.05.2024 · 13:10:47 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· Really enjoyed my time in Intramuros Manila, in the Philippines today. Intramuros is one of the oldest fortifications of Manila. It was built on June 12, 1571, by the Spanish as commissioned by Miguel López de Legazpi. It is bound on all sides by moats and thick, high walls, with some over 6 metres high. -Paul

6:: Lack of a Belief Scam

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 09.04.2024 · 22:28:57 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· There is a prevailing trend amongst atheists to insist that atheism is not a worldview but merely the lack of a belief in a God. This is done to evade the burden of struggling to defend a universal negation as many atheists have learned this is an untenable position to defend, therefore resort to a mere lack of a belief in God claim to dodge and sidestep defending their own worldview position. Many don’t want to give a defence of their worldview; they don’t want their worldview critiqued and cross-examined. -Paul

7:: Destiny Cross-Examined

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 14.03.2024 · 23:18:56 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, known online as Destiny, is an American live-streamer and political commentator that has been defending his atheistic ideas over the years. In this debate, Destiny, when cross-examined, concedes that he is violating a fundamental principle and acknowledges that his position of atheism is irrational in that regard. In short, when the atheist is asking for observational proof of God, he is asking for proof of that which is ultimate and personal. Paradoxically, the atheist is holding onto a model of reality that is ultimate and impersonal. Where's his proof for that? Most are not aware that this is a violation of their own principle of having empirical proof for a position, and are thus guilty of having a double standard. In short, the atheist demands that we prove our personal absolute without proving his impersonal absolute and has therefore violated his own central principle of having empirical proof for belief. — Paul

8:: How It Will End

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 27.10.2023 · 11:00:31 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

9:: Killing Believers in The Name of Atheism

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 22.10.2023 · 07:29:00 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· Most atheists these days distance themselves from the horrendous barbarities perpetrated by atheistic regimes in the recent past. They further distance themselves by saying those in power were not really atheists, when in fact, they were. Their policies, doctrines, and rulings clearly referenced atheistic ideology. Of course, it is a little different when atheists are not ruling the world. In our contemporary times, atheists champion human rights and all kinds of values and virtues that were stolen from the Christian worldview. After all, humanism is essentially an outgrowth of Christianity's influence upon western culture. But history has shown us that when atheistic rulers are given absolute power, things are not so pretty. —Paul

10:: A Little Reminder

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 17.10.2023 · 08:58:39 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· It's easy to say you're seeking God when you're pursuing everything but God. The cost is high for a life lived in the empty path of your own independent existence. We were not created to be alone. God is here. You ask where is God? But God is asking where are you. —Paul

11:: Is Atheism a Thing?

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 14.10.2023 · 06:54:58 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

12:: The Conservation of Energy & God

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 08.10.2023 · 01:49:36 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· When Darth asked Florida Man if it was universally true that energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Florida Man said yes. When asked if he knew that by induction or deduction, Florida Man had no idea. When it came down to it, Florida Man confessed he knew very little about science and philosophy and therefore was not even in a position to engage on the topic. Darth was fully aware that in science past and current experiences could not be used to conclude things in the future. Just because we have experienced certain phenomena in the past or present does not ensure that we will continue to experience the same states in the future. The fact is, no inductive generalization – such as, A causes B – can ever be proven by experience-unless one makes an infinite number of observations and experiments and hence, we have the problem of induction. In short, statements about universal phenomena cannot be proven from statements about particular instances because of our finite data base and limited spectrum. According to the laws of thermodynamics and physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed. It holds that the total energy of the universe remains constant; it just transforms from one form to another. Atheists often quote this law to highlight that God is unnecessary and superfluous. However, it’s a bad argument because the law is only referring to our universe and has no way of knowing anything about things beyond our observable universe. In short, conservation of energy applies to physical processes in this universe. It is merely based upon empirical observation but there is no evidence to show that the Laws of Thermodynamics hold true at all times and in all places. It does not necessarily apply outside of this universe, nor does it apply to the singular event marking this universe's beginning or the initial event of its existence. After all, if energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed how was this universe created in the first place? Moreover, we have not even developed a theory that explains the origin of energy or what it is so I’m at a loss to how the atheist knows that it rules out God. Science cannot tell us the intrinsic nature of energy, nor can it tell us the intrinsic nature of matter, space, time, gravity, life, consciousness, the atom, the electron, or any of the other great mysteries of existence. Einstein knew a little more than Florida Man, so I will leave you with his words. “After years of thought, study and contemplation, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one thing in the universe and that is energy — beyond that is a Supreme Intelligence.” — Albert Einstein

13:: Atheistic Infiltration of Science

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 02.10.2023 · 04:00:16 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· Did you know that modern science is underpinned by an atheistic presupposition and this presupposition is bound to only atheistic interpretations? Did you know that the materialistic infiltration of science was a modern hijacking? Its roots can be traced back to the Enlightenment period wherein certain intellectuals wanted all talk of God eliminated from the realm of explanation. Following the Enlightenment period, agnostics and atheistic thinkers did everything they could to remove theological terminology from scientific pronouncements, and this resulted in atheists and agnostics making statements that reflected atheistic philosophy as opposed to theological terminology. For example, it was the famed agnostic Carl Sagan who said, “The earth is just a pale blue dot lost in a cosmos of incomprehensible dimensions.” As you can see here, Sagan is merely superimposing his own state of lostness upon the whole cosmos. Notice how individuals that have already adopted a purely naturalistic interpretation of existence cannot help but evangelize the rest of us with their unproven assertions and conclusions. How does Carl Sagan know that the Earth is just a pale blue dot lost in a cosmos of incomprehensible dimensions? The answer is, he doesn’t. He’s simply making that up. You can thank God, Sagan, and all those who share his purely naturalistic interpretation of reality have zero evidence for their assertions. Like many other agnostics, atheists and skeptics, Sagan is merely interpreting reality through a materialistic paradigm and in a purely materialistic paradigm you cannot have meaning and purpose, therefore the Earth is lost in a cosmos of incomprehensible dimensions; it’s a given in a purely materialistic interpretation of reality. It’s dogma, its doctrine, and it’s one of the major pillars of their faith. The Fathers of the Scientific Revolution were not atheistic in their reasoning and therefore did not subscribe to an accidental random universe that resulted from a bizarre set of inexplicable events happening for no reason and purpose whatsoever. Unlike the Founding Fathers of the Scientific Revolution these Enlightenment thinkers despised any notion of intelligent causation, rationality and purpose in the universe because they regarded such talk as coded references to God. They did not want a universe underpinned by a rational moral lawgiver and therefore they replaced God, purpose, rationality and meaning with haphazard randomness, purposeless and pointless inexplicable impersonal forces. These God deniers knew that randomness renders the universe pointless, meaningless, and purposeless, and turns it into a bizarre set of inexplicable events happening for no reason at all and that suited them perfectly. They also knew that randomness is not an explanation but an avoidance of explanation. Randomness is itself wholly non-empirical. No scientific advocate of randomness has ever perceived a random event. Despite what scientists say, all of these claims are philosophical, not scientific. I ask, where does the randomness it’s predicated on originate and how is it possible? How is it different from using magic as an explanation? After all, randomness is not observable, it's not seen, only inferred hence not empirical, but they did not care about that because randomness renders the universe fundamentally irrational rather than intelligible and thus erases God. Invoking randomness was simply an inference, an inference whose philosophical task was to deny the alternative inference of rational agency. In short, to avoid the God problem these intellectuals were forced to adopt illogical, irrational explanations for the existence of the universe. For them, all explanations are good as long as purpose, meaning and teleology are rejected at the outset. Its always a good idea to look into the history of a thing and learning how Enlightenment reasoning infiltrated the scientific way of interpreting the world goes a long way to understanding how we got to this place. - Paul

14:: Stephen Hawking's Atheism

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 01.10.2023 · 07:06:43 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· We all know that the beliefs of popular and famous people have a tremendous influence. No mystery here. After all, if so-and-so announced it, then it must be true. Case in point, many individuals love Stephen Hawking, even though most have not read any of his books. I've come across a few individuals who do not believe in God because of what he said. It appears that Stephen Hawking's last words shook a few people up. Hawking, in his final words told us that “There is no God, and that no one directs the universe.” This is total nonsense. None of these statements has Hawking proven, he merely asserted these things based upon his own confused speculations. It appears that his atheistic presuppositions heavily influenced his reasoning. It is no secret that before Stephen Hawking died, he began to express more and more atheistic pronouncements. He began to conclude definitive and conclusive statements about the nature of reality, wherein God was rejected. That’s right, He became an atheist evangelist. However, when one looks at the particular words made by Hawking to conclude his Godless interpretation, one discovers his whole case is anchored in philosophical confusion, equivocation, and contradiction, and that’s not a good look. As most people are aware, Hawking flatly declared that the universe created itself out of NOTHING and if the universe created itself out of NOTHING, then God was unnecessary—hence atheism. What did Hawking actually write? Hawking wrote that “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from NOTHING”. But I ask… if gravity already existed, as declared in his statement, how is the universe creating itself out of NOTHING? If there is a law like gravity already present—as Hawking asserted, then the claim that the universe created itself out of NOTHING is blatantly false. Where did this mysterious law of gravity come from? How is the law of gravity NOTHING? What is its purpose? Does it have a lawgiver? Did it exist forever, or was it brought into existence? Atheist Lawrence Krauss also asserted that the universe came from nothing, but then mysteriously spends the rest of his book explaining how nothing is a lot of something, such as things like gravity and quantum fluctuations. So, I ask. In what way is the pre-existence of gravity and quantum fluctuations NOTHING? It’s a good thing that other scientists and philosophers came forward and pointed out the fallacy of equivocation and misleading double-talk in the pronouncements of Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss. Now this is old news, so why am I pointing this out? I am pointing this out because many people are influenced by big names in science and accept whatever they say as an indisputable truth. The fact is, none of these popular scientists know what existence really is. Stephen Hawking understood this when he pointed out, “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” On this topic, science has nothing to say.” In this statement, Hawking confesses that he does not know what ultimately caused our universe and its laws. As he said, “On this topic, science has nothing to say.” The truth is that observationally based, human centered based interpretation, operating out from incomplete data, will always remain in a state of infinite empirical ignorance because limited human senses can never have an omniscient pansophical view of reality. There is no getting beyond this. Only God knows what reality and existence is. I suspect Stephen Hawking will know a little bit more now. - Paul Ross

15:: Atheistic Make-Believe

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 30.09.2023 · 05:54:20 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· As a young boy when I found out that Santa Claus did not exist, I was melancholy but when I later discovered that the atheistic presuppositions, assumptions, and presumptions that were smuggled into every facet of my state education were simply made up, I was happy again.

16:: The Atheistic Alternative

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 29.09.2023 · 04:59:41 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· Atheists inordinately focus on the destruction of the God model of reality, but when it comes to providing evidence for the truth of their Not-God model of reality they have a lot less to say. Join me as I discuss this unusual mystery…

17:: Atheist Junior Vs. Darth Dawkins

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 24.09.2023 · 08:01:35 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· Most atheists only believe in what is empirically provable. Anything not empirically provable, anything not detected in our world, not detectable through some scientific instrument is doubted, dismissed, and counted as non-existent. However, most of reality is not detectable through some scientific instrument. The origin of our universe, what preceded it. Why are its laws this way as opposed to another? Why does it exist in the first place? What is its reason and purpose are all questions not discoverable through any scientific instrument. Science can only ever describe the world, by observing the patterns within it, but can never know where they came from or why they behave this way as opposed to that way. A scientist can stare at the patterns forever and never know the answers to these fundamental questions. Science is confined to secondary causes, to things that can be dissected, counted, measured, and quantified. Everything else is beyond its scope. Stephen Hawking understood this when he pointed out, “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” On this topic, science has nothing to say.” Physicist Paul Davies has asked many of his physicist colleagues the answers to the biggest questions, but none are able to answer even the most fundamental question of why the laws of physics are what they are. Davies says their favourite reply is, ‘There is no reason for the way they are what they are—they just are.” Fact: Senses detect sensory events, not their causes, which are inherently undetectable by the senses. If we could observe causes with our senses, there would be no debate about how our world operates. The fact is that we cannot observe what’s going on behind the scenes, hence we must infer, via some means or other, the nature of that which is unobserved and unobservable. In short, science tells us nothing about the underlying nature of reality, only about our interface. We simply cannot transcend the limits of sensory observations to see the ultimate cause of our sensory observations and therefore the observational phenomenon of natural things does not in any way demonstrate that these things exist independently of God. When an atheist declares there is nothing outside the domain of scientific detection, the atheist is making a statement of FAITH which cannot be tested with tools and methods from inside the domain of science. There is no “seeing is believing” when it comes to anything ultimate, even the atheistic position that the ultimate grounding of reality is impersonal is not anything known from empirical observation because there can be no empirical observation of anything that precedes the existence of our space-time dimension. The atheistic position that the ultimate metaphysical bedrock of reality is impersonal is a philosophical belief-based position and has nothing whatsoever to do with empirical science. In fact, we cannot see 94% of the observable universe and 0% percent of the unobservable universe. The atheistic argument that “we cannot see God; so, he does not exist,” is fallacious as far as it assumes that something unobserved is confused with something non-existent. The bottom line is science cannot answer questions that are beyond the reach of its empirical and experimental techniques and therefore cannot answer the fundamental questions of existence and that is why when an atheist says that there is no God, you know that they are totally making that up. The truth is that observationally based, human centred based interpretation, operating out from incomplete data, will always remain in a state of infinite empirical ignorance because limited human senses can never have an omniscient pansophical view of reality. Science deals with the quantifiable. That which can be measured and dissected. It deals with mass, weight, shape, and space but God is in the domain of the non-empirical. God is not a material, physical thing. God is not made up of atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons, and electrons. God is not part of the universe but transcends the physical universe as far as God existed prior to our physical world and therefore is beyond the scope of the physical sciences. The physical sciences can measure and experiment with secondary causes but have no access to anything primary. The atheist rejects God because God is not detectable through some scientific instrument, but neither are our subjective experiences detectable through any scientific instrument, or most of reality for that matter. God cannot be found in material properties, such as in atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, things, and stuff. God is a Spirit—a person, a presence—and, thus, can only be experienced. God cannot be observed directly, but we can indirectly experience his existence through his presence and effects in our lives. to be continued... —Paul

18:: Fake Professor Dave Farina vs. Professor of Chemistry James Tour

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 23.05.2023 · 10:28:35 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· When the pretend Professor Dave Farina took on the distinguished Professor of Chemistry, James Tour, sparks and fireworks ensued. Throughout the debate, Farina conducted himself like a rebellious juvenile teenager. He was vile, disgusting and arrogant while he hurled invectives and cynical mockery at James Tour. Here are some highlights. I've removed Farina's insults, which comprised most of the debate.

19:: Aron Ra Challenges Philosopher

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 22.03.2023 · 21:47:05 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

20:: Joe Rogan's Atheism Refuted

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 12.11.2022 · 20:28:03 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· I have turned my latest article into an audio file so that you can listen to it at your convenience instead of reading the full article. What follows is my comprehensive refutation of Rogan's atheistic assertion. Don't expect Rogan to respond. It's out of his depth. Some may ask, why do I even bother addressing Rogan's atheistic assertion? Well, that's simple. I'm addressing his position because the ideas used by him are not original and because he has an immense audience base and a widespread sphere of influence. Sadly, I cannot post the article here, as it's too long for YouTube and they won't allow it. So, the audio is the best I can do. Kind Regards, Paul Ross #JoeRogan #Atheism #PaulRoss

21:: Atheistic Double Standard Exposed

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 06.11.2022 · 20:22:40 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· The atheist claims to be an atheist because he is of the opinion that there is no evidence for God, however, when asked for the evidentiary support that atheism is true, the atheist has none. Furthermore, when the atheist is asked how is it that God is impossible, he comes up there short as well. In short, when the atheist is asked if he has evidence that the fundamental grounding of reality is impersonal, he has zero evidence and therefore violates his own criteria of having evidentiary support for a position and demonstrates a an underlying double standard, revealing that his adoption of an atheistic position is dishonest and hypocritical. In other words, the atheist will reject the God model of reality because they say there is no evidence for it, but then retreat into a not God model of reality that has no evidence for it and as such violate their own principle of having evidential support for a position and as such their atheism is standing on a violation of their own central principle, that a position must be empirically proven. Paradoxically, the atheist completely flip-flops and abandons their central principle to assert their atheism and demonstrate that their position is dishonest and hypocritical.

22:: Atheistic Law Professor Challenges Darth

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 29.10.2022 · 23:29:32 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· In this brief discussion you'll hear prominent atheistic law professor, Stephen Law, challenge Darth Dawkins.

23:: Darth School's Ex Pastor Who Became an Atheist

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 23.10.2022 · 02:44:45 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

24:: Carlos Vs Darth Dawkins

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 23.10.2022 · 02:06:57 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

25:: Atheistic Sludge Pit (feat Darth Dawkins)

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 23.10.2022 · 02:02:38 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

26:: Is God an Explanation?

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 19.09.2022 · 11:17:57 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

27:: The Curious Case of Georges Lemaître & Albert Einstein

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 18.09.2022 · 09:25:19 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· I didn't make this video to support the Big Bang Theory, but simply to highlight the drama behind it. What are my views? I don't know; I have no idea. — Paul #GeorgesLemaître #AlbertEinstein #BigBangTheory

28:: Mr. Roberts Simple Belief

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 18.09.2022 · 07:01:31 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· Mr. Roberts is a simple man, what he sees directly in front of him shapes his view of reality. As far as he is concerned, what is empirically observable is all that is real. It's the real world. It probably never occurred to him that his observations and experiences have their basis in rules and laws that make his observations and experiences possible in the first place. For example, when Mr. Roberts is buying his groceries at the local supermarket, he doesn't see the underlying laws and informational mathematical structures that make the universe and his experience of grocery shopping possible in the first place. He doesn't see the cosmic microwave background. He doesn't see dark matter, unknown particles, neutrinos, electrons, and vacuum energy. He doesn't see gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force. In short, he gives little to no consideration to the fact that all of his day-to-day experiences are anchored in the harmony and regularity of laws and finely tuned constants that serve as the foundation to making the world and his physical senses possible. Is Mr. Roberts aware that observable things do not exist in isolation? Has it ever come into his mind that all that he sees and experiences exist contingently and dependently upon unseen fundamental principles, laws and factors that anchor his perceptions? In his childlike seeing is believing view of the world, he assumes that everything perceptible is as it appears. Nobody has told him, or he was not listening when it was explained, that what caused the universe is not perceptible and what formed his senses and perceptions is not observable. Anyway, what does Mr. Roberts care about such things? Surely, what he sees through the bus window on his way home from the supermarket is what it is. Trees, rocks, mountains, and the sky are not complicated. They are simple facts that Mr. Roberts has seen since a child. Don't try to talk to Mr. Roberts about unseen things. Don't try to explain what allows for his perceptions, and definitely do not tell him that everything that he sees, and experiences are merely contingent byproducts of the unobservable and imperceptible. You see, Mr. Roberts is not easily fooled. He wasn't born yesterday. You won't be able to pull the wool over his eyes that easily. That's right, Mr. Roberts is a true believer in seeing is believing. Mr. Roberts is a matter man, he only believes in matter and matter is simple. Of course, physicists have a much more difficult time understanding the simple facts that Mr. Roberts takes for granted. That’s right Mr. Roberts has a childlike belief that what he sees with his eyes is what reality is. He assumes that his sense-based appearance of things is what they are in reality. However, physicists know that his simplistic understanding of the world is rooted in ignorance. That's right, his simplistic belief about matter is not even remotely close to what is understood in the departments of contemporary physics. In fact, his simplistic view goes all the way back to the ancient Greek materialist Democritus. Democritus believed that matter is nothing more than lumps of hard, solid stuff. Democritus believed that matter was nothing more than indivisible atoms bumping into one another and forming complicated compositions that we call the material world. These days, physicists don't really know what matter is. Is it quarks, or superstrings? They don't know. Is it dark energy, or the result of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum? They don't know. Is it an unreal simulation that is run by mathematical code? They don't know. In short, there is no easy answer for what matter actually is, but whatever it is, they at least know it's not what Democritus thought it was. Or what the common person in the street thinks it is. Physicist Paul Davies, in his book The Matter Myth, argues that matter is a sort of illusion or appearance produced by some mysterious and unknown substratum in interaction with the human mind and Roger Penrose, the Oxford mathematician, even thinks that the laws of physics may need to be radically revised so that they take account of the important role of consciousness in the nature of the world. And philosopher Keith Ward tells us that creativity and mind, value, purpose and meaning, have to be included in any final explanation of the universe, or it is not a final and complete explanation. Anyway, modern physics suggests that the nature of reality is very different from what we see and that it is possibly unimaginable and inexplicable. So, the next time a person says to you that they only believe in matter, ask them to explain what they are talking about. After all, if they don't know what matter actually is, then their beliefs about matter really do not matter. - Paul

29:: A Rational Production

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 14.09.2022 · 19:08:46 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· The universe is not written in any human language. It’s not written in English, Spanish, or Mandarin. The universe has its own language. It communicates in the language of rationality. A language that far transcends the chaos of human conflict, disharmony, and confusion. David Hill said it well when he said, Mathematics knows no races or geographic boundaries; for mathematics, the cultural world is one country. And Galileo said it beautifully when he said, Nature is written in mathematical language. But James Joseph Sylvester said it profoundly when he said, Mathematics is the music of reason. Yes, everything about this universe is a mathematical rational production and that’s why it is so elegant and precise. And it's good news that our universe is written in the language of rational mathematics because if the grounding of reality was not mathematical it would not be rational, and the universe would have ended as quickly as it began. Let me help you understand what I mean with a true story. In 1986 the Space Shuttle Challenger blew apart 73 seconds after liftoff, killing everyone on board. Tons of money and some of the greatest minds worked together to get the calculations, equations, and science right, but one error proved fatal to the whole system. One error proved catastrophic, and the Space Shuttle Challenger was no more. Now, what can we learn from this disaster and how can we relate it to the unfolding of the universe? Simply put, if things were not precise at the foundational level of the universe, the errors and contradictions would have caused the whole system to self-destruct as the Space Shuttle Challenger did. Just one error, one inaccuracy, one contradiction, and the error would have been fatal to the whole system, and we would have chaos instead of a cosmos. The fact that there exists a cosmos tells us that the fundamental and foundational calculations were mathematically precise. One error, one miscalculation, and the error would spread throughout the whole system, resulting in rapid self-destruction. Now, we can learn from this that whatever caused the cosmos, one thing is clear: It was accurate, precise and produced no fatal error. Maybe this is why Paul Dirac, one of the most significant physicists of the 20th century, said, if there is a God, he is a great mathematician. - Paul

30:: TJump's God Alternatives

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 12.09.2022 · 02:31:08 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· Atheist YouTuber, Tom Jump, is of the opinion that quantum fields are a better explanation than the existence of God. Tom needs to give an account for the existence of reality without God. ABG: Anything but God, so invariably must choose from the diverse options available to him, and Quantum Field Theory is good as any other. In fact, any hypothetical alternative theory and explanation of our world, one that does not include God, will always be better. In short, Tom has an array of various theories that he can invoke at any time in his musical chairs choices of hypothetical explanations. Who needs a Creator when we have quantum fields? Of course, Tom does not tell us that the quantum field theory is incontestably incomplete. Neither physicists nor mathematicians know exactly what makes a quantum field theory a quantum field theory, and there are many serious hard problems in this theory that have not been answered. Neither does Tom tell us that behind the equations of quantum field lies a tremendous amount of imagination. What’s more, the fields cannot be the most fundamental thing in nature because we know something that is even more basic, and that is the rules that these fields have to obey, and whatever these rules and laws are they are more fundamental and require an explanation. In fact there is no logical contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of quantum fields, and Tom does admit to this. The laws and rules of quantum fields could have their origin in a lawgiver, and quantum fields could be a direct manifestation of God's creative agency and therefore quantum fields or any other model of interpretation does not negate the existence of God. After all, God is not in competition with the explanation of mechanisms, laws, and principles. He is the explanation of personal agency in regard to the origin of these very mechanisms, laws, and principles and its simply absurd to demand that we are limited to only one level of explanation. There can be multiple levels of explanation to explain the reason, purpose, and existence of a thing. We do not have to choose between one or the other, for in doing so we can lose some aspect of the reality we are trying to explain, however, the atheist is limited in what explanations they can conclude because personal rational agency is excluded by decree. If Tom is remotely aware of the passionate and heated disagreements amongst physicists, he will know that we have no idea what the fundamental nature of reality is. He will also know that there is no such thing as an authorized version of reality. He will also be aware that unless we know 100% of reality, we will never have a final conclusive pansophical interpretation of reality. As desperate as Tom is to find God replacements in the departments of science and philosophy, none of the available models of interpretation can ever be ultimately verified and therefore the grasping after an atheistic accounting for reality will forever remain in the nebulous realm of unprovable speculation. Popular science writer, Jim Baggot informs us that there is no empirical evidence for any of the various models in physics. He tells us that there are always going to be gaps and things we do not understand, and this is why scientists will continue to indulge in metaphysical storytelling. After all, reality is a metaphysical concept and is beyond physics and therefore beyond science. No matter what science books, magazine articles, or news features, you have read or heard, and no matter how convincing the stories may have seemed at the time, be reassured that nobody can tell you what the fundamental nature of reality is and the reason they cannot tell you is because they do not know. German theoretical physicist, Dr. Alexander Unzicker, who has degrees in both physics and law and a Ph.D. in neuroscience, goes much further than Baggot and tells us that none of the fundamental questions and riddles that bothered the founding fathers of physics have been solved today. Dr. Alexander goes on to say that fundamental physics cultivates fancy speculation, without any data, any observation, and any experiment. Moreover, it postulates a litany of increasingly bizarre concepts and hypothetical models that border on the realm of fantasy and nonsense. It appears the atheist will seek any explanation for the existence of our world, no matter how bizarre or blatantly absurd as long as God is never invoked. ABG, anything but God. The atheist thought that in getting rid of God, he would have eradicated the miraculous, but only ended up with miracles without a miracle worker that happen for no purpose and reason whatsoever. The atheist has not explained miracles away, only replaced rational-caused miracles for miracles rooted in absurdity. The materialist, in his madness to escape from the existence of God, has backed into a corner of miracles and magic that far transcend anything in religion. -Paul #Tjump #Quantumfields #QFT

31:: I'm a Materialist

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 04.09.2022 · 08:06:38 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ···

32:: The Matter Myth

01.01.1970 · 01:00:00 ··· 01.09.2022 · 22:32:43 ··· ···
··· ··· ··· ··· I had a man tell me the other day that he does not believe in God because he is a materialist, and what he meant by this is that he only believes in matter and what he meant by that is that he only believes in what he can see with his eyes and experience with his senses. That's right, he had this childlike belief that what he sees with his eyes is what reality is. He assumed that his sense-based appearance of things is what they are in reality. However, physicists know that his simplistic understanding of the world around him is rooted in his ignorance. In fact, this simplistic view goes all the way back to the ancient Greek materialist Democritus. Democritus believed that matter is nothing more than lumps of hard, solid stuff. Democritus believed that matter was nothing more than indivisible atoms bumping into one another and forming complicated compositions that we call the material world. These days, physicists don't really know what matter is. Is it quarks, or superstrings? They don't know. Is it dark energy, or the result of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum? They don't know. Is it an unreal simulation that is run by mathematical code? They don't know. But whatever it is, (and they have no real idea) they at least know it's not what Democritus thought it was. Or what the common uniformed person in the street thinks it is. So, I say to the person that says they are a materialist, what do you mean by materialism if you don't exactly know what matter is? Yes, it is true, some people think that things are exactly as they appear to their senses, they have a childish simplistic understanding of the world around them. Saying you are a materialist and only believe in matter tells us nothing about nothing. These people are not aware that we don't have direct unfiltered experiences, only limited sense based interpretations. In fact, we don't have direct experience of the world around us. Everything we see and experience is experienced through the limited spectrum of our senses. These limited, finite senses only provide us with a partial, filtered human-sense based representation and therefore can never tell us anything with certainty about what we are seeing and experiencing. In fact, Kant concluded that “knowable” reality is our own construct, produced by our inbuilt mental “faculties” which force us to see reality in a certain, subjective, psychological way. In science, not everything is based upon mere appearances, there is much in science that is counterintuitive. For example, physicist Paul Davies, in his book The Matter Myth, argues that matter is a sort of illusion or appearance produced by some mysterious and unknown substratum in interaction with the human mind. Roger Penrose, the Oxford mathematician, even thinks that the laws of physics may need to be radically revised, so that they take account of the important role of consciousness in the nature of the world. And philosopher Keith Ward tells us that creativity and mind, value, purpose and meaning, have to be included in any final explanation of the universe, or it is not a final and complete explanation. Ward tells us that materialism is deficient as a philosophy because it cannot include them, and has to argue them out of existence and explain them away. Anyway, modern physics suggests that the nature of reality is very different from what we see, and that it is possibly unimaginable and inexplicable. Cosmologist and science writer, Max Tegmark informs us that no one has ever observed an electron or a neutrino, only the results of a measurement; in a sense these are imaginary objects that only serve the purpose of making it easier for us to visualize the mathematical entities we compute. In fact, if all the space between the atoms that make up our physical body were removed, a concentrated form of matter, the size of a grain of sand, would be left. As a result, 99.99 % of our body would be gone because 99.99 % of our body is made up of empty space. Tegmark goes on and tells us that beneath the appearance and illusion of solidity in matter lies information at the most fundamental level. In short, the universe really just consists of information, and this view is so far from what the early Greek philosophers believed. In fact, famed physicist Paul Davies tells us that explanations in physics are only getting more and more complicated and counter-intuitive every year and therefore, any plausible form of materialism will be exceedingly complex and mysterious. In short, a simplistic understanding of matter no longer has the alleged benefit of being the simplest explanation. So, the next time a person says to you that they only believe in matter, ask them to explain what they are talking about. After all, if they don't know what matter actually is, then their beliefs about matter really do not matter. - Paul