>>12
I watched the video you linked, and it contains zero references to what you call "downright lies, like psychs". I'm not sure what that refers to. Psychology? I can assure you that while there are conflicting models of human psychology, not all of psychology is a "downright lie".
Psychic powers? Those have little to no acceptance by science. But here's my reaction to the video:
Oh wow, a VenomFangX video. Didn't he delete his YouTube account after getting into legal trouble for donation fraud in his videos a year or two ago? But let's avoid the genetic fallacy and look at the content of the video.
>However, energy is reliant upon time, so if time didn't always exist, neither could energy. (01'45")
Is it really? Let's ask Wikipedia:
>In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity that is often understood as the ability of a physical system to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.
Hmm, no mention of time here. It's true that you cannot actually exert pulls or pushes along a path without time to do so in, but the ability to exert them could still exist at any given moment without time passing, couldn't it?
Moving on.
>It is impossible for eternity not to exist, and I'll show you why. Let's say that there was nothing, at a point in ... not time, but let's just say before time there was nothing. So, nothing, no time, no matter, no space, no eternity ... nothing. Zero times anything is nothing ... zero. Zero times zero is nothing. Nothing can only create ... nothing. So something must have always existed, and it couldn't have been matter, couldn't have been time, and it couldn't have been space. [Going on to claim that this something was an eternal and unchanging creator god]
First of all, there is a difference between the mathematical concept of zero and the philosophical concept of nothing. I can have a zero amount of money in my bank account, and it will accrue zero interest, but this doesn't mean my bank account has nothing in it.
Multiplication should also not be casually confused with creation.
Furthermore, a statement like "before time there was ..." makes no sense, as the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. Cosmologists have said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Scientific_positions; see also http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html)
Quoting Wikipedia again:
>Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.
Our most precise estimate, based on observation of cosmic microwave background radiation, puts a value of 4.339 ± 0.035 ×10^17 seconds on that finite amount of time since the beginning of time (or at least since the end of the Planck epoch, up to 10^–43 seconds after the Big Bang) and now.
Now, infinite density is easy to get by putting either any amount of mass into a volume of zero, or infinite mass into a nonzero volume. Note that for there to be any mass does not necessarily require the existence of matter, thanks to mass–energy equivalence. Just as energy cannot be created or destroyed, neither can mass. Infinite temperature is trickier. (continued in another reply, as I've hit the character limit)
>>12
continued from >>13:
Temperature refers to the mean kinetic energy of particles, and for there to be kinetic energy, there needs to be motion within space–time. However, before the end of the Planck epoch is where several current laws of physics break down, and gravity was presumably unified with the other fundamental forces, so it could be argued that the kinetic energy was in fact potential energy caused by the immense gravity of all that mass in an either zero or infinitesimal volume. I have not studied physics beyond A Level (which I finished eight years ago), though, so I'm not exactly an authority on cosmogony. This is also why I had to refer to Wikipedia a lot—I sold my old physics textbooks years ago.
>Now, you might already believe in God, but you just don't believe in the Christian God—or maybe I've just convinced you that there is possibly a god, but how does that prove it's the God of the Bible? Well, although the Bible itself is proof enough that it is from God, how can I prove that just from what we're talking about here, without using the Bible, that the Christian God is the true and living god? Well, surely, the god that gave you eyes is the god that sees, surely the god that gave you ears is the god that hears, and surely the good that gave you a sense of morality is moral himself. So, that sounds a lot like the Christian God, and if you don't know about the Christian God, pick up a Bible and start reading. (07'23")
Oh dear, where to begin? Using the Bible as proof of god is a nice bit of circular logic, but thankfully he decides not to refer to it after the first mention. So is he trying to say that no deities other than that of Christianity ever had eyes, ears or morals? That's pretty much as if I were to point to a grizzly bear and say "Look at this animal. It has a nose, a mouth, lots of fur, and can walk around on either two or four legs. That sounds a lot like a gorilla to me, so clearly this must be a gorilla."
>So, if you still believe that you are the result of blind chance, that this universe was created by not a god, but just always existed or just that it was a cosmic birth from nothingness, um ... you have more faith than I do. (08'02")
Again with the blind chance argument. Assuming this is a potshot at evolution, I'll just refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html and be done with that part. And even if the universe did come from "nothingness", that could be perfectly sound. (See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html)
The video goes on to restate the cosmological argument in floating 3D text, which I've already dealt with above. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html, a more detailed response can be found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html)
I feel like I've lost a few IQ points just for listening to that video enough times to transcribe the parts I take issue with. Finally returning to the point of your post.
>I don't have trouble understanding that, I have trouble with science because it accepts downright lies, like psychs
As stated above, I don't know what you mean by "downright lies, like psychs". Please elaborate.