@Ekenedil I wonder how intellectually dishonest npage85 really is. The guy is smart enough to not take crap from sloppy arguments, yet he seems to be convinced by very stupid and naive arguments that not even his fellow believers would take seriously.
You can imagine an identity non existing for sure, but you can't imagine an infinite state of non consciousness as you would need to be conscious to imagine something. So the very tools you would need for imagining it, actually disqualify you from imagining it. Maybe that's what he meant. I don't know.
I think it's weird that you went after the second premise, and you didn't even understand it properly. I think the second premise is true how he meant it, which is that you can't imagine the condition of non-existence, so that condition cannot ever be real. However there is no sensible way to back up the first premise. Unless he's positing the universe was created the day he was born, then he knows that for billions of years, he didn't exist, which creates a contradiction given the 2nd premise.
Npage also said he calls this one object that created all of us "God." But it could just as easily have been a unicorn... or a space pixie... it's the same mistake theists make all the time: they get to an all-powerful entity, but they can't prove that this entity is indeed THEIR god. Zeus has a mind, too, right? Why couldn't it be Zeus?
hahaha ridiculous argument that I probably thought of after smoking some really good weed. Your physical brain is what allows you to think of not existing, if your brain didn't exist, neither would your imagination. Also, if I can imagine existing as someone else, does that mean I also exist as other people? O_o
Also, when I imagine being someone else, I don't exist.
Nonwinnable debate. Too many terms and ideas to sift through in order to gain a coherent argument for either side. It is way too vague and indefinite to make a productive discussion. Speculations and Possibilities have too many directions as well.
@helldogas2 I agree with you. But he could argue that you infinities do exist. You can't imagine the end of time so therefore time must be infinites. Although you can´t imagine infinites, you can't imagine a finite amount of time. I don't agree with him, but I'm just saying that's something you should perhaps bear in mind.
Yeah, I'd like to understand the little graph he makes in a response to Npage85 after this one regarding Occam's razor. It was quite complex. I'd also like to learn about Hume's problem of induction that he was talking about when he pwned mikecampochiaro.
@nylonhead116 Yeah, I agree. You know, to have someone with knowledge of philosophy point out things they think all people should know about philosophy.
Actually, going over his Ockham's razor chart, it actually makes sense to me now. You just have to rewatch it once or twice to listen to what he says in order to apply the logic needed to understand what he's doing and how he actually made his point.
then I quickly came to realize that there's nothing "rational" about this guy whatsoever. He bases his entire case for theism on some supposed experiences he had in the past; one of those being lucid dreaming; the other being some strange happenings at a "haunted house." So, it became very obvious very quickly that this guy was all vocabulary and no logic. His very first premise, about "if an event is impossible to imagine...." is defeated by two words; Quantum Physics. What a dolt.
Great video - I tried reasoning with this clown earlier, npage, when I saw his argument against evolution (pathetic.) We got into a brief debate in his comments section (in which he felt the need to constantly remind me of how intellectually superior he is, rofl), and then he began to ignore my comments when it became too much for him to handle (not much.) I was still curious about his supposed "rational theism," so I watched a few of his other videos, including this one,...
haha his argument fails from the get go for a simple reason. You can't imagine yourself being knocked-out or unconscious, therefore you can't get knocked out or become unconscious. But we know that these things happen. How could he overlook something so simple. logic my ass
Using Ockham's Razor to try to declare the existance of a perfect, Universe-creating deity. I can't imagine a better display of fail in using Ockham's Razor.
Holy shit! Does Npage95 remind anyone else of VenomFangX? I think I found his father! Anyway,ToolTime9901, you could have just used the Lego Castle scenario and he would have been Pwned. That guy is a moron.
This npage85 is just another idiot. The mind is just the function of our brains. When our brain is dead, so are our minds. Its not that hard to figure out.
a skitzophrenic person that takes on a seperate personality could imagine their own non existance during their "episode".what i mean is taht during the period in which their personality is inert they wouldnt exist as the dominant personlity in their own mind, thus allowing them to "not exist"
Schizophrenia isn't about taking on another personality. It's usually just intense paranoia and hearing non-existant voices. I think you're referring to Dissociative Identity Disorder. In which case, your point makes some sense. Except, their mind still exists, it's just been moved from the foreground while the other personality "fronts". So even though it isn't dominant, it's still there.
The idea that reality can be derived by a process of pure reason can be attributed to Aristotle (making him the darling of the medieval Church).
However, it is worth noting that Galileo took an example of Aristotle's beautiful reasoning and refuted it with a single, ugly observed FACT.
It took a while for The Church to advance its ability to perceive reality beyond the medieval, but they have, at least to some extent, managed to do it.
Your arguement at 9:01 - 09:14 is an arguement Venomfangx repeatedly uses ( see this laptop, you can say it was created or accidentily started to exist ) it's a non-convincing arguement you should not use.
Your argument is, of course, correct. However, Mr. Moron's argument is easier refuted very simply: His argument is based on the premise "I cannot imagine myself not existing,.." and he somehow thinks it's unimaginable to not exist. In fact, it's very to imagine yourself not existing: Just think of, say, a small village on the Faroe Islands. For all intents and purposes you don't exist in the village. That's how easy it is.
I'm sure this was just his weird way of saying you can't experience things without subjective relativity. That there is no objective sense of how to observe things. Which does make sense.
He's just defined "self" as the quality of subjective interpretation.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! He said "if an event is impossible to imagine happening, then it cannot happen". That means he has to reject Quantum Theory as NOBODY can imagine it happening. His argument is flawed from the very first premise.
The peple that are turned to atheism I seriously doubt that they were atheists to begin with. It's like realising Santa isn't real due to lack of evidence and reason. Then to realise 'wait a minute, I take it back, he is real, people have said so'.
Noooooo-no more Occam's razor please! It's become so mythologized, we need to lock it away and lose the key.
a) Occam was a a cleric - he specifically said that his rule didn't apply when it came claims made about "proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture"
b) he didn't say that the causal chain requiring the "fewest steps" is the preferred; he said that an explanation that requires the fewest "plugs" for what's unknown, aka suppositions, is superior.
Theism is not antithetical to logic. Not by a long shot. If you have any doubt about this, read a little Thomas Aquinas, Averroes, Scotus, and yes, William of Ockham-- oft cited Occams razor. All brilliant and logical Theists.
The Atheist vs Theist debate is not about logic at all, its about tribalism. With which tribe do you side?
Are you just accepting as given that 'mind' exists as a separate entity from the physical for the sake of argument? Or was it something that you had already covered with this individual? I only ask because I saw some serious judo chops missed on that premise alone.
Good video, except every time I hear someone utter the erroneous word, "irregardless", it just makes me crazy! Please use irrespective or regardless, not the double negative of irregardless.
If only there was a theist at there that critiqued pure reason a few hundred years ago to make that point really fucking pointless. I'll ask Cropper if there is such a person.
I can imagine myself not existing. I just remember the good old days about 20+ years ago before I existed. Oh wait, I can't really remember those days since I didn't exist.... That means that I did exist!
1. That which is impossible to imagine happening cannot happen.
2. It is impossible to imagine a being existing who has no cause. (Although many people claim to believe in such a being, no one can actually imagine it, the same way one cannot imagine one's own non-existence)
1. That which can't be imagined to happen can't happen.
2. No one can imagine eternal existence. (Although some people believe in eternal life, they can't actually imagine how long eternity is.)
3. Heaven and hell, and their occupants, supposedly exist forever.
Conclusion: Heaven, hell, and eternal afterlife cannot exist.
Using npage's "logic," I have proven that I am God, that God cannot exist, and that the afterlife can't exist. Fortunately for theists everywhere, his premises are laughable.
Tooltime writes in his vid description, "I can quite easily imagine Npages85s non-existence, so clearly it is imaginable."
I was going to make this same point, but I guess it would now be redundant.
So I'll make another point. If all the world were blind, it would be impossible for anyone to imagine the sunrise. Npage says that which cannot be imagined to happen cannot happen. Therefore, if it weren't for our eyesight, the earth would stop revolving around the sun.
Saying that the mind cannot imagine itself not existing is like saying that a computer cannot emulate a state in which it is not running. Both are true, but they don't prove anything. Neither the brain nor a computer can simulate its own inactivity, because to do so would imply activity. It's kind of a dumb argument, if you think about it.
The apologist to whom you are responding is using an argument so tautologically stupid, I don't know why you're even wasting your time responding to him.
I think you made an error, too, though. You granted that the mind is not a physical object. In way, I can understand that, since it's actually the state of a physical object (i.e., the brain), but that doesn't mean it's not physical. It's physical in the way a wave is physical.
You don't need to grant any premise put forth by these pop-philosophical apologists, especially when you have someone trying to use a tautology to support a crappy design argument.
so, if I understand this correctly, his argument is: "I can't imagine myself not existing, therefore it must be true that I will exist forever."
So my question is, how can one be so stupid, think they are so rational, and function in daily life without letting on how mentally challenged one is?
He can't imagine himself being wrong, and he can't imagine that any of his arguments are flawed. He also believes that what is possible and what is imaginable are one and the same. Therefore, he believes, he can't possibly be wrong and his arguments are necessarily sound.
Anyone who has to continuously bill himself as "rational", as he does here and throughout his channel (see video entitled "I'm a Rational Theist... get over it already") is someone whose rational credibility should be immediately brought into question.
If you're rational, you don't need to preface your argument with the fact. The whole point of positing an argument is to test its rationality.
Npage should be careful that he doesn't break his own arm patting himself on the back.
Here is what is going to happen now. Actually it already has. He will change the meaning of what he said or the context in which he said it or the reason for why he said it. These are his usual tricks of the trade. Then he posts a video response. Hoping you would respond. He has that troll characteristic to him and wants you to feed him. It is by engaging you in a conversation that he attracts attention to himself. It does not matter that he is spouting non-sense. As long as you respond...
....he attracts both theists and non-theists into his channel and attracts people to his particular message. If you do not respond, he claim victory. It is a win-win either way. The only way around it is of course, proclaim that he is indeed doing that and use his own videos and responses as evidence. It would not bother him much, I think. He still gets the attention, that is the name of the game. It does not matter what you say as long as lot of people hear it.
Two things: one, "irregardless" is a word, it's in the dictionary and spell check doesn't say it's wrong, it is a nonstandard word that is a synonym of "regardless." It may not be proper, but it is a word.
Two, this guy is a complete fool who makes a mockery of logic and since I base my life on logic and reason, i find him personally offensive (I mean Npage85 of course).
In addition, I think his first premise is absurd... I can only imagine the operation of a computer in the abstract, I can't imagine the operation of a whole computer in all its details. Does that mean that the only things that exist are the handful of things I can hold in my attention at a given time? Besides, there's nothing it would be like to not exist, so it would be just like not imagining it.... the easiest thing possible to imagine.
Great vid, tooltime.This Npage85 seems to me like another case of a person afraid of dying trying to overcome his mortality with his imagination. I'm not saying it's wrong to be afraid of dying, I am sometimes too, but coming up with all sorts of bs with flawed logic to try and 'prove' that we can never die is simply wasting our limited time. Btw, it's funny that you should bring up lego castles, As a kid I actually asked my grandma if there are lego castles in heaven, true story lol!
Now that I think about it, I can't imagine my existence as a mind without a physical body either; and I'd like to hear how npage imagines that. Your sensory input is, after all, determined by your fleshy parts. We wouldn't be able to see, hear, smell, touch or taste anything.
And this is generously allowing for the idea of a mind existing without a brain in the first place.
I hate theists who claim their 'rational'...because they never, NEVER are. They just make themselves look more deluded than regular theists because at least they don't claim their beliefs to be ruited in logic and science.
Great vid, 5 stars and faved. One little nag, and its not about the video per se, just in the info box- you said, 'with all do respect' and it 's 'with all DUE respect' . Haha sorry- I'm a grammar nerd.
I'm still not sure what existence has to do with imagination. I doubt the reality gives a shit whether or not we can imagine it before something happens.
I thank you for this video. I hate it so much when creationists use Occams razer to justify a god.. It's fucking retarded.. Thank you and keep up the great work!
Npage85's first premise (nothing can exist unless it can be imagined) is also flawed: reality doesn't care about the limits of our imagination.
We can't quite imagine the magnitude of the forces present in a supernova, but they do exist. Since all his other arguments follow, more or less, from this one, the rest of his argument goes down with this false premise.
I like how no apologetic presents evidence for their premises. It makes their arguments so easy to debunk.
The only thing that is created is our own personality, perception and intelligence and yet that is not shaped by god; it is shaped by us, our own actions and our willingness (or lack thereof) to accept the truth.
I think what he may have been getting at is what a pastor at a church near my house states... "The belief in god will not alone save you, nor will it at all; it will however give you you a more spiritual closeness to god, but that is all the belief does."
Even if he was right and you can't imagine yourself not existing, and that was proof of anything, it's not my fault for YOUR lack of imagination.
I could imagine myself not existing, my sperm fucked up so someone else would exist, or my parents didn't have sex then they'd be richer, they'd have about a 15 year old daughter due to a certain medical condition... yadda yadda. I imagine it... therefore it's a possibility.
I always find it difficult to follow the ramblings of a religious nut. It seems like you have to revert yourself back to a child-like train of thought in order to have any hopes of understanding what they're trying to say.
I love it how npage85 is like venomfangx, but coming from a different angle. Still the same kind of completely made up bullshit being paraded around as fact.
I am anit-logic: I find the conclusion that best suits my needs, then build my argument to support said conclusion.
I know why you do it Peter, but don't you ever get tired of trying to shout down the Moon? Sure, at dawn the Moon is usually gone, but come nightfall it usually comes back. Trying to convince people that the central tenant of their World-view is faulty is nigh-on impossible, as it forces them to acknowledge that it's all built around bullshit. Who wants to be told that?
You may be right, as a general rule, about the futility of trying to convince a theist that their worldview is faulty. Nevertheless, it is still a good thing to do (especially on YouTube) if for no other reason than that others, who perhaps aren't as locked into theistic dogmatism, or are undecided, get exposed to well reasoned opposing arguments, which gives them a broader perspective upon which they can then form a more reasoned view themselves.
Very true, but the 'swing voters' will forever be shifting their support, depending on which 'side' has the better arguement. You can't change people's minds, you can only give them reasons to. If people are intellectually up to understanding the arguement that is presented here, then they are more than capable of choosing for themselves what to believe. So as I've said for a long time: it comes down to debating what colour of car you want to get hit by. Religion is the true enemy, not god.
"You can't change people's minds, you can only give them reasons to."
Precisely. And that is why it is a good thing for people, such as Peter, to do this. For some entrenched theists, these well reasoned responses do become a catalyst for a more objective inquiry, which then, sometimes, does lead to self-change with regard to theistic views. It did for me. That's why I hope Peter, and others, continue to do this.
No disrespect to Peter, but he is not presenting any new ideas, so anyone with an inquiring mind is able to read about these ideas/philosophies. What he, or any other intellectual, cannot do is present emperical evidence for the non-existence of god, so it simply becomes a semantic arguement, with both sides refusing to give ground. So, instead of debating the colour of the car that's going to hit you, why not talk about ways of not getting hit by said car. I have no problem with god...
...my problem is with organised religion, and how they try and control not just their converts, but with those of us who aren't shackled by such Stone Age fairytales. Live and let live, as one day we'll all find out who was right (and more importantly, who was wrong). I've nearly unsubbed from Peter many times as it sometimes seems like Groundhog Day, but without the promise of a night with Andi McDowell. I feel he could be using his obvious intellect on something more productive.
Ideas are new when you first encounter them, either through your own thoughts or those of others. As a formerly entrenched theist, many of these very kinds of ideas were completely new to me. That's why they were a catalyst for me to embark on as objective an inquiry as I could. It wasn't, and isn't, about empirical evidence for the NON-existence of god. Indeed, for me, it was more the opposite: an honest, critical objective assessment of any empirical and ...(cont.)
verifiable evidence FOR the existence of a god; and I didn't, and still haven't found any, hence my self-change to atheism. You couldn't give empirical evidence that there aren't non-physical, immaterial purple unicorns in my carpet. But if I asserted that there were, I suspect you'd want empirical, verifiable evidence before you believed it. Thus, it's not about the color of the car, but whether there is a car there in the first place.
I appreciate you sharing your views with me. it's clear we won't agree and I'm okay with that. I don't have a problem with theists who don't try to use their beliefs to control other people, and I am glad to hear you're not like that. I wish you all the best! :)
Your point about the colour of the car is spot-on, and is why I bring it up when theist start trying to 'convert' me. We should be spending our time here trying to make life better for our fellow man (and, by extention, ourselves). I'm a confirmed atheist (if such a thing is even possible), but like I've said previously, these arguements can never be won.
I'll finish with a proverb: when arguing with an idiot, make sure people can tell the difference (this is not aimed at you BTW).
@tooltime Thank you for schooling that dim unlettered fucking Moron.
Ekenedil 4 months ago
@Ekenedil I wonder how intellectually dishonest npage85 really is. The guy is smart enough to not take crap from sloppy arguments, yet he seems to be convinced by very stupid and naive arguments that not even his fellow believers would take seriously.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
You can imagine an identity non existing for sure, but you can't imagine an infinite state of non consciousness as you would need to be conscious to imagine something. So the very tools you would need for imagining it, actually disqualify you from imagining it. Maybe that's what he meant. I don't know.
Ayatron34 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
one ugly mother fucker
urbman29 9 months ago
God made the mind, not matter...
kbawesome101 11 months ago
This guy entered existentialism ass backwards
35TCK 1 year ago
10:50 "If that is the best evidence for the existence of gawd then, I don't think it was possible but I think I've become MORE of an Atheist."
:) Phuxing Awesome! TT FTW!
SycorTheosPhilos 1 year ago
Here is the way Npage's hubris is justified: He did a WAY better job of pwning himself than you did of pwning him. No offense.
LanceDirk 1 year ago 2
@LanceDirk LOL Seriously. :)
SycorTheosPhilos 1 year ago
I think it's weird that you went after the second premise, and you didn't even understand it properly. I think the second premise is true how he meant it, which is that you can't imagine the condition of non-existence, so that condition cannot ever be real. However there is no sensible way to back up the first premise. Unless he's positing the universe was created the day he was born, then he knows that for billions of years, he didn't exist, which creates a contradiction given the 2nd premise.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
real Latino women here** rockmycity.info**
gfurtu 1 year ago
Npage also said he calls this one object that created all of us "God." But it could just as easily have been a unicorn... or a space pixie... it's the same mistake theists make all the time: they get to an all-powerful entity, but they can't prove that this entity is indeed THEIR god. Zeus has a mind, too, right? Why couldn't it be Zeus?
CHamlin86 1 year ago
Is it possible to imagine walking in the 4th dimension? Does that make it impossible?
Daruqe 1 year ago
hahaha ridiculous argument that I probably thought of after smoking some really good weed. Your physical brain is what allows you to think of not existing, if your brain didn't exist, neither would your imagination. Also, if I can imagine existing as someone else, does that mean I also exist as other people? O_o
Also, when I imagine being someone else, I don't exist.
Some peoples children, sheesh!
ReignbowSmite 1 year ago
He said irregardless. PWNED!
Sqigley 1 year ago
uhg! too much fail!
shrikechan 1 year ago
Wow... he's so wrong... like, he's wrong in the big picture, but if you focus on any one of his premises, they're just as wrong.
wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. Npage85. your wrongness is a fractal. you are fractally wrong.
blackplatypus 1 year ago 2
Hehe, you're a breath of fresh air, tooltime9901. Lego castle, heh.
vitriolicscott 1 year ago
Minds are self created? A is created by A? wow good logic.. (sarcasm)
RaubeeTM 1 year ago
Nonwinnable debate. Too many terms and ideas to sift through in order to gain a coherent argument for either side. It is way too vague and indefinite to make a productive discussion. Speculations and Possibilities have too many directions as well.
Stitchman3875 1 year ago
Thanks for Pwning Npage85, I hate that guy's eyebrows
bluequiltedness 1 year ago
5 thumbs!!!
lipoicacid 1 year ago
5 thumbs!!!
lipoicacid 1 year ago
Gieco???
lipoicacid 1 year ago
Npage85 claims God is infinite yet we can't imagine infinity therefore infinity doesn't exist in his logic.
helldogas2 2 years ago 21
God will throw you in the bottomless pit, where you keep falling forever
MrUndertaker170 1 year ago
@helldogas2 I agree with you. But he could argue that you infinities do exist. You can't imagine the end of time so therefore time must be infinites. Although you can´t imagine infinites, you can't imagine a finite amount of time. I don't agree with him, but I'm just saying that's something you should perhaps bear in mind.
MetalSwitch95 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry stooltime, no pwnage here.
Iamajanitor01 2 years ago
I think Tooltime should teach his users about Philosophy. We would benefit and be able to pwn creationists. I would love to learn from him.
UncomfortableSilence 2 years ago 4
Yeah, I'd like to understand the little graph he makes in a response to Npage85 after this one regarding Occam's razor. It was quite complex. I'd also like to learn about Hume's problem of induction that he was talking about when he pwned mikecampochiaro.
nylonhead116 2 years ago
@nylonhead116 Yeah, I agree. You know, to have someone with knowledge of philosophy point out things they think all people should know about philosophy.
UncomfortableSilence 2 years ago
Actually, going over his Ockham's razor chart, it actually makes sense to me now. You just have to rewatch it once or twice to listen to what he says in order to apply the logic needed to understand what he's doing and how he actually made his point.
nylonhead116 2 years ago
I loved every second of this...except the time it took to say irregardless. :)
2DGorillaz192000 2 years ago
then I quickly came to realize that there's nothing "rational" about this guy whatsoever. He bases his entire case for theism on some supposed experiences he had in the past; one of those being lucid dreaming; the other being some strange happenings at a "haunted house." So, it became very obvious very quickly that this guy was all vocabulary and no logic. His very first premise, about "if an event is impossible to imagine...." is defeated by two words; Quantum Physics. What a dolt.
xx13moons 2 years ago 5
Great video - I tried reasoning with this clown earlier, npage, when I saw his argument against evolution (pathetic.) We got into a brief debate in his comments section (in which he felt the need to constantly remind me of how intellectually superior he is, rofl), and then he began to ignore my comments when it became too much for him to handle (not much.) I was still curious about his supposed "rational theism," so I watched a few of his other videos, including this one,...
xx13moons 2 years ago 3
LOL he said irregardless.
GOPEGOPEGOPE 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tooltime I am sorry but you Pwned nothing here!
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
Brock. his argument was a calamity. the fact that it happens to be a pro-theist argument is irrelevant. no one with any sense should by it.
by the lights og Npages argument, dreamless sleep is impossible and thus we all time travel at night into the future.
tooltime9901 2 years ago 15
i often do not dream. But i have insomnia....so i do not sleep to often
Razile18 2 years ago
Lol great vid Tooltime!!
bananabread119 2 years ago 3
Npage85 is one of those guys who thinks that, because he wears glasses, his logic must be infallible.
army103 2 years ago
haha his argument fails from the get go for a simple reason. You can't imagine yourself being knocked-out or unconscious, therefore you can't get knocked out or become unconscious. But we know that these things happen. How could he overlook something so simple. logic my ass
cubumber 2 years ago
we already went through nonexistance before we were even born so yeah we can imagine our nonexistance because we already been though it.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
Using Ockham's Razor to try to declare the existance of a perfect, Universe-creating deity. I can't imagine a better display of fail in using Ockham's Razor.
darkchiron 2 years ago
I think he's an (oxy)Moron.
thatmansonkid 2 years ago
What about the Pillars of Enoch?
adznruses 2 years ago
I am glade someone finally shot down his video with a video that makes sense
Kenneth1238 2 years ago
actually the lego castle was built by a person using a pile of legos.
just throwing that out there.
qqqqqqqq4 2 years ago
Interesting debate. Do you have a background in philosophy?
chickNchoke 2 years ago
"This is a Lego castle ; It was built from a pile of Legos, not another Lego castle" I like that rebuttal xD
coolbeens21 2 years ago
That was brilliant, are you a philosophy major?
cubumber 2 years ago
Holy shit! Does Npage95 remind anyone else of VenomFangX? I think I found his father! Anyway,ToolTime9901, you could have just used the Lego Castle scenario and he would have been Pwned. That guy is a moron.
JOKERSFREAK 2 years ago 4
This npage85 is just another idiot. The mind is just the function of our brains. When our brain is dead, so are our minds. Its not that hard to figure out.
melowar78 2 years ago 2
'irregardless' dude
espadakatsuki 2 years ago 4
a skitzophrenic person that takes on a seperate personality could imagine their own non existance during their "episode".what i mean is taht during the period in which their personality is inert they wouldnt exist as the dominant personlity in their own mind, thus allowing them to "not exist"
mj1903ikjshdj 2 years ago
Schizophrenia isn't about taking on another personality. It's usually just intense paranoia and hearing non-existant voices. I think you're referring to Dissociative Identity Disorder. In which case, your point makes some sense. Except, their mind still exists, it's just been moved from the foreground while the other personality "fronts". So even though it isn't dominant, it's still there.
nickyg 2 years ago 2
Did Npage85 just steal St. Anselm's idea?
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
The idea that reality can be derived by a process of pure reason can be attributed to Aristotle (making him the darling of the medieval Church).
However, it is worth noting that Galileo took an example of Aristotle's beautiful reasoning and refuted it with a single, ugly observed FACT.
It took a while for The Church to advance its ability to perceive reality beyond the medieval, but they have, at least to some extent, managed to do it.
Clearly, some people have not.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 2 years ago
Your arguement at 9:01 - 09:14 is an arguement Venomfangx repeatedly uses ( see this laptop, you can say it was created or accidentily started to exist ) it's a non-convincing arguement you should not use.
Mizelei1991 2 years ago
@Mizelei1991 What does that have to do with parts?
MetalSwitch95 1 year ago
4:38 - 5:03 PURE OWNAGE
very strong arguments!
Mizelei1991 2 years ago 3
Your argument is, of course, correct. However, Mr. Moron's argument is easier refuted very simply: His argument is based on the premise "I cannot imagine myself not existing,.." and he somehow thinks it's unimaginable to not exist. In fact, it's very to imagine yourself not existing: Just think of, say, a small village on the Faroe Islands. For all intents and purposes you don't exist in the village. That's how easy it is.
radbarij 2 years ago
Oh and thank you for fighting against the stupids of the world. :D
radbarij 2 years ago
"you can't imagine a scenario without yourself"
I'm sure this was just his weird way of saying you can't experience things without subjective relativity. That there is no objective sense of how to observe things. Which does make sense.
He's just defined "self" as the quality of subjective interpretation.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
npage85 probably bores his imaginary friends too.
kaduisaui 2 years ago 4
great pwnage
and awesome lego castle :D
cyborgvampire 2 years ago
Why haven't I subscribe to you earlier?
lupocephalic 2 years ago
Is it just me, or does Npage85 sound eerily similar to VenomFangX? (Just their voices, not their arguments.)
gremlinn7 2 years ago
Yes, I noticed that too.
Drynae 2 years ago
Whoa, whoa, whoa! He said "if an event is impossible to imagine happening, then it cannot happen". That means he has to reject Quantum Theory as NOBODY can imagine it happening. His argument is flawed from the very first premise.
califoniania 2 years ago
so are you saying the mind go on forever????
chrisparties 2 years ago
The peple that are turned to atheism I seriously doubt that they were atheists to begin with. It's like realising Santa isn't real due to lack of evidence and reason. Then to realise 'wait a minute, I take it back, he is real, people have said so'.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Noooooo-no more Occam's razor please! It's become so mythologized, we need to lock it away and lose the key.
a) Occam was a a cleric - he specifically said that his rule didn't apply when it came claims made about "proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture"
b) he didn't say that the causal chain requiring the "fewest steps" is the preferred; he said that an explanation that requires the fewest "plugs" for what's unknown, aka suppositions, is superior.
Geodge 2 years ago
Did he start with the premise "If an event is impossible to imagine happening, then it can not happen"?
Did he REALLY just state as a proposed premise a fallacy? Did he REALLY just try an argue from a FALLACY to a conclusion?
puellanivis 2 years ago
I thought it was "hyoo-bree"
Good one, tooltime. npage is an easy target, but he doesn't know it.
BENY0HAMA 2 years ago
Theism is not antithetical to logic. Not by a long shot. If you have any doubt about this, read a little Thomas Aquinas, Averroes, Scotus, and yes, William of Ockham-- oft cited Occams razor. All brilliant and logical Theists.
The Atheist vs Theist debate is not about logic at all, its about tribalism. With which tribe do you side?
notonewhit 2 years ago
thanks tooltime, npage85 is in dire need of pwnage.
MercifulMing 2 years ago
This guy should take logic 101, then epistimology/theory of knowledge. His arguement was pathetic.
daswann14 2 years ago
You should get paid for slapping scrubs like Npage85
MetalsirenIXI 2 years ago
Such a lousy argument. We all didn't exist before we were born.
djosephallen 2 years ago
Subscribed!
Keep Pwning 'em
ThinkNClick 2 years ago
Are you just accepting as given that 'mind' exists as a separate entity from the physical for the sake of argument? Or was it something that you had already covered with this individual? I only ask because I saw some serious judo chops missed on that premise alone.
cehbeach 2 years ago
Comment removed
MonMccooI123 2 years ago
Good video, except every time I hear someone utter the erroneous word, "irregardless", it just makes me crazy! Please use irrespective or regardless, not the double negative of irregardless.
JesusSavesAtCitibank 2 years ago
If only there was a theist at there that critiqued pure reason a few hundred years ago to make that point really fucking pointless. I'll ask Cropper if there is such a person.
Spalg 2 years ago
there kant be such a person
tooltime9901 2 years ago 3
If there be such a person, then I be a pirate.
Yarggh! Shiver me timbers I are a pirate!
Nay have I ever seen a day when th' nobl'st of philosophers have nigh uttered the word ye spoke in ye movin picture with werds.
There ain't be nuthin wr'ng with a one time usage of ye said word "irrespective".
justinatorator 2 years ago
hehe
brittanymlove 2 years ago
I can imagine myself not existing. I just remember the good old days about 20+ years ago before I existed. Oh wait, I can't really remember those days since I didn't exist.... That means that I did exist!
ubergossen 2 years ago 3
I still have my lego's too.
Dall5000 2 years ago
Brilliantly argued. Your a smart man!
ndjm00 2 years ago
You're a smart motherfucker
EstebanCambiassoARG 2 years ago
loved the lego castle comment.
pato2909 2 years ago
another fantastic pwnage video tooltime.
pato2909 2 years ago
Comment removed
Neilsama 2 years ago
1. That which is impossible to imagine happening cannot happen.
2. It is impossible to imagine a being existing who has no cause. (Although many people claim to believe in such a being, no one can actually imagine it, the same way one cannot imagine one's own non-existence)
3. God is a being with no cause.
Conclusion: God does not exist.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
1. That which can't be imagined to happen can't happen.
2. No one can imagine eternal existence. (Although some people believe in eternal life, they can't actually imagine how long eternity is.)
3. Heaven and hell, and their occupants, supposedly exist forever.
Conclusion: Heaven, hell, and eternal afterlife cannot exist.
Using npage's "logic," I have proven that I am God, that God cannot exist, and that the afterlife can't exist. Fortunately for theists everywhere, his premises are laughable.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Tooltime writes in his vid description, "I can quite easily imagine Npages85s non-existence, so clearly it is imaginable."
I was going to make this same point, but I guess it would now be redundant.
So I'll make another point. If all the world were blind, it would be impossible for anyone to imagine the sunrise. Npage says that which cannot be imagined to happen cannot happen. Therefore, if it weren't for our eyesight, the earth would stop revolving around the sun.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Saying that the mind cannot imagine itself not existing is like saying that a computer cannot emulate a state in which it is not running. Both are true, but they don't prove anything. Neither the brain nor a computer can simulate its own inactivity, because to do so would imply activity. It's kind of a dumb argument, if you think about it.
The apologist to whom you are responding is using an argument so tautologically stupid, I don't know why you're even wasting your time responding to him.
Neilsama 2 years ago
I think you made an error, too, though. You granted that the mind is not a physical object. In way, I can understand that, since it's actually the state of a physical object (i.e., the brain), but that doesn't mean it's not physical. It's physical in the way a wave is physical.
You don't need to grant any premise put forth by these pop-philosophical apologists, especially when you have someone trying to use a tautology to support a crappy design argument.
Neilsama 2 years ago
1.That which cannot be imagined to happen cannot happen.
2. I can't imagine myself not existing.
3. Therefore, I have never NOT existed, nor can I ever not exist. I am immortal and have always existed.
4. God is the only being that is immortal and has always existed.
5. Therefore, I am God.
Thanks, npage85. I needed the self-esteem boost. Now serve me, lowly mortal, or I'll send you to hell!
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
so, if I understand this correctly, his argument is: "I can't imagine myself not existing, therefore it must be true that I will exist forever."
So my question is, how can one be so stupid, think they are so rational, and function in daily life without letting on how mentally challenged one is?
crimsonfist3 2 years ago
He can't imagine himself being wrong, and he can't imagine that any of his arguments are flawed. He also believes that what is possible and what is imaginable are one and the same. Therefore, he believes, he can't possibly be wrong and his arguments are necessarily sound.
He's a genius in his own mind.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Anyone who has to continuously bill himself as "rational", as he does here and throughout his channel (see video entitled "I'm a Rational Theist... get over it already") is someone whose rational credibility should be immediately brought into question.
If you're rational, you don't need to preface your argument with the fact. The whole point of positing an argument is to test its rationality.
Npage should be careful that he doesn't break his own arm patting himself on the back.
Neilsama 2 years ago 3
HAHAHA rational theist???
Thats the biggest OXYMORON out there....
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago 3
Here is what is going to happen now. Actually it already has. He will change the meaning of what he said or the context in which he said it or the reason for why he said it. These are his usual tricks of the trade. Then he posts a video response. Hoping you would respond. He has that troll characteristic to him and wants you to feed him. It is by engaging you in a conversation that he attracts attention to himself. It does not matter that he is spouting non-sense. As long as you respond...
venompangx 2 years ago
....he attracts both theists and non-theists into his channel and attracts people to his particular message. If you do not respond, he claim victory. It is a win-win either way. The only way around it is of course, proclaim that he is indeed doing that and use his own videos and responses as evidence. It would not bother him much, I think. He still gets the attention, that is the name of the game. It does not matter what you say as long as lot of people hear it.
venompangx 2 years ago
gr8 pwnage except 4 the irregardless thing LOL
Apryll0001 2 years ago
Two things: one, "irregardless" is a word, it's in the dictionary and spell check doesn't say it's wrong, it is a nonstandard word that is a synonym of "regardless." It may not be proper, but it is a word.
Two, this guy is a complete fool who makes a mockery of logic and since I base my life on logic and reason, i find him personally offensive (I mean Npage85 of course).
DoctorKwack 2 years ago
npage85 doesn't understand what logic is. Religion is the suspension of logic. Hence faith.
Logic dictates that all physical evidence must be consistent. The idea of a supernatural intervention defies all logic.
Logic = consistency of the physical reality
Supernatural = the defiance of what is physically possible
SlckJwdBtnk 2 years ago
"Irregardless" is not a real word. If it were though, it would mean the opposite of "regardless".
Heathenfidel 2 years ago
In addition, I think his first premise is absurd... I can only imagine the operation of a computer in the abstract, I can't imagine the operation of a whole computer in all its details. Does that mean that the only things that exist are the handful of things I can hold in my attention at a given time? Besides, there's nothing it would be like to not exist, so it would be just like not imagining it.... the easiest thing possible to imagine.
Valefarous 2 years ago
My God is dead. Frank Zappa was his name
WKaliber1 2 years ago
Well pwnd, but irregardless? :P
SpookyFan 2 years ago
Great vid, tooltime.This Npage85 seems to me like another case of a person afraid of dying trying to overcome his mortality with his imagination. I'm not saying it's wrong to be afraid of dying, I am sometimes too, but coming up with all sorts of bs with flawed logic to try and 'prove' that we can never die is simply wasting our limited time. Btw, it's funny that you should bring up lego castles, As a kid I actually asked my grandma if there are lego castles in heaven, true story lol!
junka22 2 years ago
LEGO castle FTW!
Boy, the leaps in logic that he makes there require that we not call it "logic"!
KingHeathen 2 years ago
can we imagine a vacuum.
Ishta5 2 years ago
GINGER! Don't see those kind too often. Well, at least he tried! Failed, but tried.
rekojehtmai 2 years ago
Npage85: "I've already turned some Atheists to Theism."
I doubt that.
But if it's true, you can have them.
Anyone so intellectually feeble as to find these arguments compelling is someone I would be embarassed to call a Skeptical Atheist.
AlmightyAtheismo 2 years ago
"Anyone so intellectually feeble as to find these arguments compelling is someone I would be embarassed to call a Skeptical Atheist."
Exactly
MetalsirenIXI 2 years ago
He does miss one very important thing.
There is no such thing as a soul.
All you thought and memory are related to chemical procceses in the brain.
You are your brain.
qanazir 2 years ago
That was one bad argument for an afterlife.
Just because you don't have the fantasy to imagine something doesn't make it false.
That's a pure argument from ignorance.
Self-pwnage.
qanazir 2 years ago
I've heard many attempts by Theists to argue God into existence.
This is by far the weakest.
"I can't imagine it, so it can't be real."
Seriously?
AlmightyAtheismo 2 years ago
i like your lego castle
lukeeeh92 2 years ago
Now that I think about it, I can't imagine my existence as a mind without a physical body either; and I'd like to hear how npage imagines that. Your sensory input is, after all, determined by your fleshy parts. We wouldn't be able to see, hear, smell, touch or taste anything.
And this is generously allowing for the idea of a mind existing without a brain in the first place.
BrianTheGoldfish 2 years ago
I hate theists who claim their 'rational'...because they never, NEVER are. They just make themselves look more deluded than regular theists because at least they don't claim their beliefs to be ruited in logic and science.
Great vid, 5 stars and faved. One little nag, and its not about the video per se, just in the info box- you said, 'with all do respect' and it 's 'with all DUE respect' . Haha sorry- I'm a grammar nerd.
dollhouseDISASTER 2 years ago
LOL! I love Batman logic.
tecnoblix 2 years ago
you also can't imagine what the universe as a whole is, and yet it exists.
TheCakeAintNoLie 2 years ago
Theist logic once again provides much lulz.
GoldenRatio 2 years ago
I'm still not sure what existence has to do with imagination. I doubt the reality gives a shit whether or not we can imagine it before something happens.
Denamic 2 years ago
Can't you become a partner yet? I'd like to see some longer videos.
MrMontagne 2 years ago
Holy leap of logic bat man....!LMAO
JoMariebentzler 2 years ago
I thank you for this video. I hate it so much when creationists use Occams razer to justify a god.. It's fucking retarded.. Thank you and keep up the great work!
kallelej 2 years ago
With regards to Npage85's seconds point does he forget what happens to people who suffer from brain damage or are lobotomised!
LucianELaveris 2 years ago
what a moron, how can he prove that something we cannot imagine won't happen?
seriously stupid
yuksh 2 years ago
nice pwnage
but please don't say "iregardless"
BornUnderABadSign89 2 years ago 2
irregardless? tut tut tut
thestuproject 2 years ago
Npage85's first premise (nothing can exist unless it can be imagined) is also flawed: reality doesn't care about the limits of our imagination.
We can't quite imagine the magnitude of the forces present in a supernova, but they do exist. Since all his other arguments follow, more or less, from this one, the rest of his argument goes down with this false premise.
I like how no apologetic presents evidence for their premises. It makes their arguments so easy to debunk.
Vidar33 2 years ago
what a moron. i can imagine myself not existing. from an outsider's perspective. :)
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
Well I can't imagine my mind existing without a brain. Can't imagine what it did before I was born either...
CauchySchwarz 2 years ago
I feel retatred, i gave you a 1 but I meant to give you a five, sorry!
lostvirtue 2 years ago
5*, but REMEMBER "irregardless" is NOT A WORD... don't give them an inch.
spikesmth 2 years ago
Holy Cow!
Npage85 makes me look sane!
venomfangxsite 2 years ago
I think there is a gold in the ownage olympics coming your way!
You got to be a favourite.
DanC9189 2 years ago
Seems that npage85 has used occam's razor incorrectly for a lot of his videos.
Great Video!
Wag2 2 years ago
The only thing that is created is our own personality, perception and intelligence and yet that is not shaped by god; it is shaped by us, our own actions and our willingness (or lack thereof) to accept the truth.
I think what he may have been getting at is what a pastor at a church near my house states... "The belief in god will not alone save you, nor will it at all; it will however give you you a more spiritual closeness to god, but that is all the belief does."
I do however agree with that
IamtheVOICE123 2 years ago
my mother doesnt have a penis but she made me...
idontbelievereligion 2 years ago
FINALLY, after 5 hours my sound is fixed and I can watch the video :) lol.
MyPisceanNature 2 years ago
PWNED !!!
JBandKG 2 years ago
Even if he was right and you can't imagine yourself not existing, and that was proof of anything, it's not my fault for YOUR lack of imagination.
I could imagine myself not existing, my sperm fucked up so someone else would exist, or my parents didn't have sex then they'd be richer, they'd have about a 15 year old daughter due to a certain medical condition... yadda yadda. I imagine it... therefore it's a possibility.
Bring on Yahweh!!!
Nice pwnage. I like your mind.
DblOSmith 2 years ago
Great video, tooltime!
Glad I discovered you. ....subscribed
ur2blind2c 2 years ago
"If an event is impossible to imaging happening, then in cannot happen"
lolol! orly?
This from a guy who claims that a non-physical, non temporal, unlimited person did some things.
bitbutter 2 years ago 4
coughlan, I would LOVE to see you make a video response to this guy (npage85)! please, please do it!
ur2blind2c 2 years ago 2
Npage85 got neckbearded!
Panman38 2 years ago
Npage85... what a moron. Nice pick, tooltime. Good call.
mandalastar 2 years ago
Hubris Npage85 shows signs of extremism - extreme stupidity.
hunga224 2 years ago
Aww, the theist is trying to be rational. That's adorable.
I just love it when people say they're going to use Occam's razor to PROVE something.
Itslvle 2 years ago 2
wooott lego dident creat lego??? NOOOO
InsaneClownPerv 2 years ago 3
He converted atheists?! WTF?
Well, if they are so stupid good riddance!
And what is the practical implication of his amorphous theism on anything anyway?
It's just a fucking label with no content behind it..
androgenik 2 years ago 3
I always find it difficult to follow the ramblings of a religious nut. It seems like you have to revert yourself back to a child-like train of thought in order to have any hopes of understanding what they're trying to say.
Myst936 2 years ago 2
DUDE lego castle!
0rcryst 2 years ago
tooltime: Does this mean you believe in souls? Being an Atheist, I don't, but I know many who do.
J4N15 2 years ago
well I don't think his argument proving a soul works, so no. i was trying to show how, if his argument works, it blows up in his face.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
All mental functions can be related to parts of the brain.
A "soul" would have no use.
qanazir 2 years ago
I hate when people edit their videos like Npage85.
jcrist 2 years ago
I love it how npage85 is like venomfangx, but coming from a different angle. Still the same kind of completely made up bullshit being paraded around as fact.
boburanus69 2 years ago 2
I am anit-logic: I find the conclusion that best suits my needs, then build my argument to support said conclusion.
I know why you do it Peter, but don't you ever get tired of trying to shout down the Moon? Sure, at dawn the Moon is usually gone, but come nightfall it usually comes back. Trying to convince people that the central tenant of their World-view is faulty is nigh-on impossible, as it forces them to acknowledge that it's all built around bullshit. Who wants to be told that?
MaximusVelocity 2 years ago
You may be right, as a general rule, about the futility of trying to convince a theist that their worldview is faulty. Nevertheless, it is still a good thing to do (especially on YouTube) if for no other reason than that others, who perhaps aren't as locked into theistic dogmatism, or are undecided, get exposed to well reasoned opposing arguments, which gives them a broader perspective upon which they can then form a more reasoned view themselves.
ur2blind2c 2 years ago
Very true, but the 'swing voters' will forever be shifting their support, depending on which 'side' has the better arguement. You can't change people's minds, you can only give them reasons to. If people are intellectually up to understanding the arguement that is presented here, then they are more than capable of choosing for themselves what to believe. So as I've said for a long time: it comes down to debating what colour of car you want to get hit by. Religion is the true enemy, not god.
MaximusVelocity 2 years ago
"You can't change people's minds, you can only give them reasons to."
Precisely. And that is why it is a good thing for people, such as Peter, to do this. For some entrenched theists, these well reasoned responses do become a catalyst for a more objective inquiry, which then, sometimes, does lead to self-change with regard to theistic views. It did for me. That's why I hope Peter, and others, continue to do this.
ur2blind2c 2 years ago
No disrespect to Peter, but he is not presenting any new ideas, so anyone with an inquiring mind is able to read about these ideas/philosophies. What he, or any other intellectual, cannot do is present emperical evidence for the non-existence of god, so it simply becomes a semantic arguement, with both sides refusing to give ground. So, instead of debating the colour of the car that's going to hit you, why not talk about ways of not getting hit by said car. I have no problem with god...
MaximusVelocity 2 years ago
...my problem is with organised religion, and how they try and control not just their converts, but with those of us who aren't shackled by such Stone Age fairytales. Live and let live, as one day we'll all find out who was right (and more importantly, who was wrong). I've nearly unsubbed from Peter many times as it sometimes seems like Groundhog Day, but without the promise of a night with Andi McDowell. I feel he could be using his obvious intellect on something more productive.
MaximusVelocity 2 years ago
Ideas are new when you first encounter them, either through your own thoughts or those of others. As a formerly entrenched theist, many of these very kinds of ideas were completely new to me. That's why they were a catalyst for me to embark on as objective an inquiry as I could. It wasn't, and isn't, about empirical evidence for the NON-existence of god. Indeed, for me, it was more the opposite: an honest, critical objective assessment of any empirical and ...(cont.)
ur2blind2c 2 years ago
verifiable evidence FOR the existence of a god; and I didn't, and still haven't found any, hence my self-change to atheism. You couldn't give empirical evidence that there aren't non-physical, immaterial purple unicorns in my carpet. But if I asserted that there were, I suspect you'd want empirical, verifiable evidence before you believed it. Thus, it's not about the color of the car, but whether there is a car there in the first place.
ur2blind2c 2 years ago
I appreciate you sharing your views with me. it's clear we won't agree and I'm okay with that. I don't have a problem with theists who don't try to use their beliefs to control other people, and I am glad to hear you're not like that. I wish you all the best! :)
ur2blind2c 2 years ago
Your point about the colour of the car is spot-on, and is why I bring it up when theist start trying to 'convert' me. We should be spending our time here trying to make life better for our fellow man (and, by extention, ourselves). I'm a confirmed atheist (if such a thing is even possible), but like I've said previously, these arguements can never be won.
I'll finish with a proverb: when arguing with an idiot, make sure people can tell the difference (this is not aimed at you BTW).
MaximusVelocity 2 years ago