We are being programmed
A rather almost humorous statement to start a video off with that is titled "
The Signs of God's Existence" considering the level of indoctrination from an early age that religion employs.
The project is literally the secularization of the world. To completely strip the world of religious beliefs. Novus Ordo Seclorum, a new secular or worldly order...
Let's start with this phrase "
Novus Ordo Seclorum" From wiki "
The phrase Novus ordo seclorum (Latin for "New Order of the Ages"", "
The phrase is also mistranslated as "New World Order" by many people who believe in a conspiracy behind the design; however, it does directly translate to "New Order of the Ages" .", "
The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this context) generation, century, or age. Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through secularis. However, the adjective "secularis," meaning "worldly," is not equivalent to the genitive plural "seclorum," meaning "of the ages.""
In case you don't think wiki is reliable their citation for this information are,
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html and
Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary: Revised, Enlarged, and in Great Part Rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and Charles Short, LL.D. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1879, s. vv.
So it would seem we are starting right off the bat with conspiratory nonsense that isn't even true. And this is 1:21 minutes in and we haven't even gotten to anything yet, this is still just the intro.
Oh and on the part of stripping religion from the world.
The creationist were right the just didn't have the argumentative skills.
No what they don't have is the evidence on their side. You know one of those things we go by to evaluate a truth claim.
When this Big Bang model was first proposed in the early part of the 20th century, it was received with great skepticism by the scientific community. because the scientific community knew that the Big Bang opened up the possibility of having a beginning and a creator and someone who began it.
Okay we started off with the Big Bang and surprisingly it was described for the most part rather well. The part I'm quoting is where I start to take issue. The theory was rightly met with skepticism. At the start the evidence had only just been presented and hadn't been looked over as thoroughly at that time. Given the incredible nature of the claim it was deserving of skepticism and it of course required incredible evidence. Which it was able to pony up and thus allowing it to eventually become the leading theory. The resistance it faced had nothing to do with it opening up the possibility of there being a creator and it doesn't even suggest a "someone" starting it. Though to be fair Considering the guy who first proposed an expanding universe model was not only an astronomer and physics professor, but also priest. I wouldn't be that surprised if such a concept of a "someone" was far from his mind.
The only thing that really comes close to the rejection of the Big Bang model because of the implication of a god comes from the person who coined the name, Fred Hoyle. "
He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"" -wiki
In short what this video did was take one person's reason fro being skeptical (and possibility those who were directly working with him) and applied it to the entire scientific community of the time.
Moving on...
William Lane Craig is our next source? Really? >_> Okay I haven't even watched this part yet but I'm going to take a wild guess here and predict he will used the cosmological argument in this clip.
Oh wait we are doing clip show, skipping around to a bunch of people. This video has ADHD or something. Back to Craig, yep he is using the
cosmological argument. Craig goes on to call it an explosion (so we are slipping away from how well this started with describing the model) and mentions it started from nothing. Of course he isn't using the same definition of "nothing" as scientists use.
This is what nothing looks like. It's actually something.
We have no example of the sort of nothing Craig is implying. Further more if we were starting with a god/creator who acted on this sort nothing to create the universe, that would be a logical impossibility. Since that sort of nothing isn't a thing that can be acted upon.
Okay I'm only about 8 minutes into this but I'm going to have to stop here since I have other things I need to go do.