>>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.