Democracy does not imply the existence of the state. Democracy is simply a method of decision-making. You can have democracy in a business, a trade union, or a club; none of these are (inherently) statist.
A cylinder half the height of its diameter, with a cylindrical hole punched through its center with a diameter equaling the radius of the cylinder. It's rational to call the result a square circle. This does not prove God exists, just saying...
@blapgat Everything in the universe is connected so an object can be of itself and is itself. Everything came from the same point in space aka "The Big Bang."
Everything you and I know is through perception. Everything.
@blapgat Yes a thing is both itself and our own perception of it. When you talk about an object you are talking about your perception of such a thing. If we were talking about a orange and you perceived it as a banana you would not understand how I describe it.
@blapgat You are trying to say you see an object you believe is an orange. It can be a small grapefruit, a fake orange, a holographic projection, a figment of your imagination, ect.
The mind effects the body so belief in somthing effects are reactions,
@blapgat If you were in a black hole looking outward things seam to fly about as time inside a black hole is slowed. If you saw a man inside a black hole his body would quikly be stretch for miles. Perspective is a huge factor in life. I look on an object and say its square and you look on an object from a different angle and say is a circle. Yet both of us are correct from are point of views.
@blapgat Perspective effects everything in reality. We conceive reality through each our own perspectives. A perspective can make somthing not to a certain exent.
@blapgat Not true, it's all about perspective. Just like a man in a rocket points down to the Earth and says "Down" and I point upward toward the rocket and say, "Up."
@stefbot nobody denies the fact that "atoms" "electrons" "quarks" and possibly "strings" exist although technically they all fall under the same classification as the dragon. They can only be inferred through logic, metaphor and experience (experiment) much like people's belief in God. I'm not saying that there aren't delusional beliefs about God. Just why is this any different? When theists say God is infinite or eternal they are talking about God in a qualitative sense not quantitative.
I don't think that matter can exist without conciousness. I think they both have to exist for either of them to do so. Conciousness must exist for matter to exist as it does now.
All that is, is experience. Atoms cannot percieve themselves - conciousness percieves them. Conciousness makes the brain behave as it does. So without any concious brains in the Universe, there would be only unpercieved energy in the form of waves. No atoms, thus no brains.
The biggest thing I'm taking away from this video is that common sense points to religion being created and still used as another form of social control.
As far as I'm concerned, anybody can belief or disbelief anything they want. They can belive anything they want, as long as they have nothing to do with me.
People can believe in God or not, that's their business. As long as they have nothing to do with me.
All beliefs, are to be respected. I'm out of religion myself. God out whle the going was good, before the popiola and his clerics made a scandal, more of a scandal than ever.
--it is not the simplest thing imaginable. Of course, the automobile wheel has evolved in the past and may continue to evolve in the future; and so it's not surprising that it is somewhat complex. But imagine that the automobile wheel were to stop evolving completely. Then, it would not be able to evolve but nevertheless be complex. So, to bring it back to bear on the kind 'God', God may not evolve but nevertheless be very complex.
The problematic premise of this argument is P5. It is false because something's kind may not be able to evolve but it may still be very complex. That is, just because a thing's kind doesn't change over time does not mean it is simple. For instance, consider the kind 'automobile wheels'. Automobile wheels seem to not have evolved very much--we still use the same type of wheels as we did say 50 years ago. Nevertheless, the automobile wheel is at least somewhat complex--it is not the
P1) x exists if and only if x can be detected by material means, either directly or indirectly.
P2) God cant be detected by any material means, either directly or indirectly.
C1) Therefore,God doesnt exist.
The problematic premise is P1. P1 is false since numbers exist but are not detectable by material means, either directly or indirectly. Abstract objects are not detectable by material means either directly or indirectly; but, this does not mean that they don't exist.
P1) God is omnipotent and omniscient.[by definition]
P2) If a god knows what will happen tomorrow, he will be unable to change it.
P3) God knows what will happen tomorrow.[omniscience]
C1) God will be unable to change it. [P2 and P3]
P4) But God is able to change it.[omnipotence]
C2) Contradiction.[C1 and P4]
The problematic premise is P4. God is not able to change what will happen tomorrow. This doesnt imply impotence on God's part. Omnipotence does not imply that the omnipotent
Your second argument that God is self-contradictory.
P1) Human consciousness is an effect of matter (specifically, the brain).
P2) God is a human consciousness without matter.
C1) Therefore, God cannot exist.
The problematic premise is P2. God's consciousness is not necessarily the same as human consciousness. Thus, God's consciousness may not require matter.
I don't know if its right to lump agnostics and theists together, and there is different types of agnosticism, but it can be as simple as the statement "I don't know", and maybe you're over complicating it? regardless I found this book fantastic
i really dont like the argument you make that agnosticism implies that, because it might be an altern dimension, it cancels or diminish or renders inconsequent, the reality of our universe, just as the comunist laws of cuba dont cancel the laws of a democratic country. AND i am not saying that im an agnostic, or that i believe in this dimention X, just that believing in its existance or that its laws might be different dont require us to forfeit our moral and phisical reality.
@Plebiak, the laws of Cuba, USA and any observed Dimension X are all logically consistent. "God" is not, by definition. Like I said to the gentleman below, if you are referring to simply another rational yet-to-be-discovered natural law, please use a different word than "god". Stop spreading confusion. (What 99.999% of people think of when they use the word "god" is self-contradictory balderdash.)
You argue that Gods cannot exist because consciousness cannot exist without matter. The fact that all consciousness modern biology currently recognizes occurs in conjunction with matter does not prove this.
@saxmanmax, sigh, no, that is not why "Gods" cannot exist. Why they cannot exist is for the reason I mentioned just 2 lines below! And for the multitude of reasons given in the video. None of which you care to know. So, bye.
@dennisne I do care to know the reasons why gods cannot exist. I agree with most of the reasons presented in the video. My comment was in response to the specific argument about consciousness and matter. Your response did not address my comment, so I'll repeat it: Molyneux has not proven that consciousness and lack of matter are contradictory. At best, he's shown that they probably are because all forms of consciousness we currently recognize are a result of matter.
@saxmanmax, no, your comment claimed that Stef's reason for the non-existence of gods was because of matter-consciousness -- which completely misses 99% of the video, and the explicit reasons he gives why "gods" cannot exist. (I even said one version of it yesterday -- is it that you cannot read, or do not care?)
If you ever witness a logical non-contradictory matterless consciousness, please do not call that "god". "god" is a specific term, almost always referring to something omnipotent.
Just because something is invisible, untouchable and/or unmeasurable (in regards to the scientific standard of today) that does not automatically imply it doesn't exist. For instance, 150 odd years... ago there was no way of proving the existence of subatomic particles, which of course existed. Had I told you back then that subatomic particles may exist (contrary to your BELIEF), would you have accused me of making an absolute claim that absolute claims are invalid? I hope not.
In science there will never be absolute certainty. Subsequently, there can't possibly be absolute claims. Trying to dismiss the argument because it is absolute makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I don't believe in there being some deity in another realm, but I cannot possibly rule it out, for if I did I'd imply that science was absolute. Without that premise the atheist argument cuts no ice. Subsequently, atheism really is some kind of a creed of its own. A belief without absolute scientific proof! Agnosticism on the other hand admits that it knows nothing (I know that I don't know), therefore is the only true structure of non-belief.
To be honest I have watched about a half an hour. But Stefan's argument isn't new to me. My argument remains: Simply because we cannot possibly prove that there are no square circles or purple unique-horns in another dimension, we cannot possibly rule it out. Everything else is a believe structure and nothing but. Stefan BELIEVES such realm can't exist, whereas I don't believe anything. BTW, most of his ideals I hold dear! But on subjects such as theism and 9/11 we clearly part ways.
@Info4People, do you realize how foolish you look now? You don't even know his argument, but somehow feel capable of addressing/refuting it. This is quite shocking.
Just so you know, he addresses all your points explicitly and answers them perfectly. If you bothered to actually listen to it, you could have saved us all this *stupid* waste of time and energy.
(In brief, the "square-circle", just like the popular definition of "God" is an absurdity of definition/language right from the start!)
@dennisne, I will pre-emptively lay out a few subsequent babysteps for you, to avoid you bothering me with more of your asininity in the future.
A circle *by definition* (aka. logic) is NOT a square.
An omniscient god *by definition* (aka. logic) cannot be omnipotent. (And, actually, as is explained in the videobook, omnipotence itself is an illogical thing. Omnipotence is just as sensical as a square-circle.)
Now, if you abandon logic, then yes, EVERYTHING goes! Including YOUR arguments!!
I've told you that I know all of Stefs argumentations. Listened to countless hours of him talking on the subject matter. If half an hour didn't bring up anything new, why would I waste my time?
Who says that in a different realm circles aren't square? You as well as Stef operate based on the logic of our realm/diminsion without considering that logic may not be universal. Again, that is something that cannot be proven as right or wrong in a state of relative science.
@Info4People, *Obviously* you don't understand the arguments then! First understand what a "self-detonating" argument (as Stef calls them) is -- and realize you are making one! You are invalidating your own argument here! If you refuse to accept "logic" -- why are you using logic now? If you think that a circle, a polygon with an infinate number of sides, is equal to a polygon with 4 sides -- aka 4 = infinity, then you must also think murder=life, good=bad, your arguments=false. Nonsense.
@Info4People said: "Who says that in a different realm circles aren't square?"
That pretty much sums up the agnostic (asinine) position perfectly!
Statement 1: A Square is NOT a circle.
Statement 2: A Square is a circle.
Agnostics are so "open-minded", they aren't willing to "reject" these two logically contradictory statements. Statement 2 can't be false (billions of people say it's true). It must be *logic* that is broken!
Fantastic!!!!!!! Thanks a million stef! I sent you a donation a month ago of $100 and wen I have another buck I will send some more for all your hard work and all my education.
Sorry, my last note... just like water has 3 forms...liquid, solid and gas...isn´t this a square circle??? My point is that a square has the "potential" of becoming a "circle" and so forth...you can do this with a rubber band! hahaha. bye.
or..say you have a glass filled with water...and you drop a square ice cube into it.. and as you look into the glass...would it be fair to say that hydrogen and oxygen has formed into a square circle? hahaha.
One last note...Humans have used the laws of the universe to create technology. 30 years ago the "iphone" would have been seen as an extra terrestrial device. The though of human flight during the 15th century was just a dream... The point is that there are infinate discoveries and the idea that there are no square circles...is limiting your horizon of the possibilities that are potentially possible with working with the laws of this universe.
Isn't not believe in god on the premise of theists still falling into the definition they define? I mean could we not describe god as a principle of logic judgment or a way in which the brain works? The problem i have with atheism is exactly the first definition, this is a reliance on the absences of others beliefs. I mean god is a term for things that exist that are connect with some type of purpose. That last statement is in a sense a theistic one. I am agnostic but dont believe in a omni
When we talk about the origin of the universe..there is no way for us to determine why, how and what. The laws we see in this universe had an origin. All the mathematical laws in our universe were caused by time space origin. And everything we see today is the cause of these laws. Why, what, when, and how...these are questions even you can´t answer... and it will be foolish for any human to think he knows everything about everything.
Hi stefbot, I think you are a very bright man. I agree with most of what you say...But if we go back to the big bang theory..or the origin of the universe..Then we both don´t really know what there was before this... or... what is the ultimate origin of things. Something must have caused the universe to appear. I believe, like you, that this universe has laws and we cannot go beyond our reality to determine these things. But cosmic origin?..even you can´t know why or what caused our universe.
Can't an agnostic say that there are infinite alternate universes (not just one Dimension x) and that our universe is not prioritized over another. Our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, each with its own specific conditions and properties, and an absolute truth in one universe is unaffected by the conditions of another universe (universality is on a per universe scale). One of these universes could be like ours but have a god?
@helltrackrider nobody denies the fact that "atoms" "electrons" "quarks" and possibly "strings" exist although technically they all fall under the same classification as the dragon. They can only be inferred through logic, metaphor and experience (experiment) much like people's belief in God. I'm not saying that there aren't delusional beliefs about God. Just why is this any different? When theists say God is infinite or eternal they are talking about God in a qualitative sense not quantitative.
Oh well...for what its worth; what "qualities" does God have?...none of his "qualities" can be shown as truth emperically or mathematecially or through any route conceivably possibly ... heck - one cannot even attempt to propose a thesis of his (or her) "Qualities"...
Given this, any thought that such a thing exists is strictly faith; nothing more...like unicorns, fairies, santa claus and a hot woman that can cook excellent meals...all false
@helltrackrider I don't know why I addressed you. Probably because you made a Chuck Norris joke and Chuck Norris IS God. Anyway, you seem like a logical guy and I can respect that however, not all truth is empirical or mathematical. There's truth in metaphor and in dreams and in myths. It's just that I think sometimes people get way too literal about that shit and it becomes childish. Some people grow out of it and some people grow with it. But even truth can seem like the dragon sometimes. cont
@helltrackrider As far as "God qualities" are concerned, I guess certain qualities which have traditionally been called "good" have been assigned to God. But I just think it's like more of a "direction" telling us which way to go in or "bad" things happen. In other words, instead of "don't do this" or don't do that" it's more like, "don't do this" OR that will happen. My main problem with Stef is that he puts off people with similar political (outward) beliefs because of their inward beliefs. :O
1939, age 85 — Benjamin Tucker died in Monaco, in the company of his lover Pearl Johnson and their daughter, Oriole, who reported, "Father's attitude towards communism never changed one whit, nor about religion.... In his last months he called in the French housekeeper. 'I want her,' he said, 'to be a witness that on my death bed I'm not recanting. I do not believe in God!
@BrainInSkull A biblical god is totally illogical, simple :o)
If you believe in a biblical god then you must have immense faith in man to have delivered the words unaltered.....and you must deny everything science.
If you're a scientist then you must have total total faith in...for want of a better word....God. You must believe that there are answers out there to find otherwise why even bother?
I'm not saying I believe in a 'creator' but until you can disprove it how can you discount it?
@IronmanUK2 Well, as you say if all laws are breakable then it's no problem to deny everything in science and if your open minded then perhaps the words are unaltered.
Surely you know that science is open to answers out there but that has nothing to do with a deity. If you define deity as all knowing and all powerful then it's impossible.
@BrainInSkull Given enough money and resources then...probably. The fact that such ideas came from a Sci-Fi author should make you digest his notions with a large pinch of salt :o)
I can't see why a deity should be all knowing & powerful...As I stated before, if man ever did learn how to alter the laws of physics then it wouldn't mean he could control the effects of, or comprehend the consequences.
My main tenancy away from total denial of a deity is that the universe had a beginning.. cont
as specified by all the best scientific minds on the planet.....So if it had a beginning then all the energy (that cannot be created or destroyed by any known means) must have come from outside the universe.
@IronmanUK2 I see but why the jump to deity as opposed to a yet to be discovered natural law? Perhaps we are defining it differently. It's usually presented with a human personality with all the traits of an abusive parent.
@BrainInSkull well said! God, by every definition that I have heard (as said earlier in the comments, and many times in the video itself!) is something *illogical*. (Ie. very often both omniscient and omnipotent.) I suppose the greatest confusion results from this sloppy use of language. If you (RE)define "god" as some unknown yet-to-be-discovered natural (and logical) law, then I guess everyone is a theist by definition! (And still agnosticism will make no sense!)
ok... so the task of a definition in addition to showing the characteristics of a term is also to differentiate it from other like terms. The etymology of the term links it to the question of the existence of god(s). If atheist simply meant the denial of the existence of imaginary things, then a theist that did not believe in leprechauns might claim himself atheist even though he ardently believed in a god, for to him a god would not be imaginary. I read "a" not to mean "one" so much as "any".
Imagine that far off in the future, if man has not destroyed himself, his questioning nature has led him to fully understand the laws of physics and develop the ability to change them or even create his own. Would he not then be able to call himself a 'god'? Maybe this is why the universe was created, as a reproductive vessel.
@CalgaryAlpineStyle Say that out loud, if you proncouce 10 (in base 4). "Ten", then you should go find out what a Mathematical base is. 10 (in base 4) is still "four" because it still represents four things. Two plus two is four under all circumstances, and writing that in a different way doesn't create square circles.
@CalgaryAlpineStyle After your study of Basic Mathematics, study basic Logic and the learn to distinguish between Axiom and Reality. A discipline is only "reality" if it's axioms apply to reality. "Gauss–Bolyai–Lobachevsky space" doesn't apply to any concept in realty.
@CalgaryAlpineStyle 1 + 1 = 10 in base two, is pronounced "one plus one equals two", because it represents the concept two, the representation is irrelevant.
@CalgaryAlpineStyle Two plus two is ALWAYS four, under all circumstances. It's not an axiom, it's the definitive result of an Axiom that applies in all situations. There can't be a square circle, it's a contradctary definition, like a black white thing. It's not that it's a difficult to find thing, it just doesn't mean anything by definition.
You make good points but the analogies are overbearing - demonstrating that x and not x at the same time is a contradiction is all well and good, but on about the 30th analogy you've hopefully made that clear.
If I could make a recomendation, I would write it like Economics in One Lesson - start off with the lesson and then apply it to a series of propositions. That would greatly reduce the length and clutter.
very well done...I too must admit that I have taken the cowardly stance of agnosticism in the past for the sole purpose of dodging the anger of the fundamentally religious
At 2:05:00 or so you mention the parents choosing God over the children. In the old testament this is reaffirmed in the story of Isaac. I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption.
You know Steph I really enjoy listening to this because you cause me to question my beliefs. I want to challenge some of your claims but, to be honest, I think you would make me look stupid.. lol.
hostile to the idea of gravity in absence of mass??? hostile to a idea? what is that? the absence of mass is an idea that has no reality to it at all. The outerspace is not defined by absence of mass or so, it is based on certain perceptions of mass (planets). But it is only a perception from a human, not from a deity or marsian or whatever if they excist. Furthermore there is no live based on carbon, it is all based on water; the main component of every manifestations of life.
@stefbot While i agree with most of your conclusions, I don't like your writing. An archetype of why is calling Dimension X incomprehensible static. You are equating the unknown with the incomprehensible. When you stop doing this dimension X becomes more like an unmarked DVD, which may contain Wolly Bully lyrics.
Hearing you talk about UPB make me think you may be on to something, but your UPB writing is painful and full of errors like this one. But your work is important, I hope you continue.
Why is God a self-contradictory entity? You keep repeating the same thing over and over again, yet you offer not real objective evidence, or empirical logic to back your claims.
Your funny analogies are just as assumptive as the belief of God. A computer programmer can replicate a world of it's own, with it's own laws of physics, with "conscious" beings with distinct personalities. Over that world, the designer is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Picturing this is not as far fetched.
@SunBeamsan If you are all knowing of the future then how can you change these events that you already know will happen? As soon as you change them it becomes an event that you didn't know about. If you can't change these events then you can't be all powerful.
Doesn't god already know who will reject him? If so why create a creature that you already know will be doomed for hell?
@BrainInSkull You're statement is not phrased properly.
Again, if i am a computer programmer, i can "know" the future because i'm actively forming it, if i wish to change something, i can also go back and change it.. I'm neither "here", nor "there", nor objectively provable by the limited means and scoop of my "creations". I am not bound or limited to my virtual cybernetic universe.
And again, I can grant free will, and personality to my creations. I can input "randomness" built in.
@SunBeamsan You say "know" meaning as far as the way things are presently programmed. As long as there is a possibility of change then we can't use "Know".
@BrainInSkull Thats exactly why i put "know" in parenthesis...
He is making an asserted claim about reality, yet utterly and equally unable to provide any evidence against the existence of a supreme being as muslims. It's irrational, the mere attempt is paradoxical.
How could my creation in a little town on a computer simulation be able to scientifically prove my existence with the "natural" laws of that world when im not bound by them? Technically i dont "exist" - in that* plane, but i do.
@BrainInSkull Would they pick up a ruler, or a weight and try to measure me by their limited means within the computer? Since they could not by their available means, does that automatically mean i don't exist??
Technically, in that plane of existence i don't. But then again I do, and i am master of their realm. - btw Ever heard of Trans-humanism??
"Atheist" here. That was a very nice argument for the existence of the "non-existent" - perhaps the best I have ever heard. Not saying "God is real," but now people know why they should stop saying "God definitely is not."
@SunBeamsan Then anyone can say anything about another plane of existence and be just as valid or invalid. In fact they do which is why there are 10,000 gods. So either they all exist in this unknown universe or their own unknown universes or they are projections of man in this universe. If there's no way to measure. Why assume it's there?
@SunBeamsan God is self-contradictory based on the definition of God. God is defined as a supernatural being, i.e. a being which is immaterial. There is your contradiction. Put another way: A thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. The word "being" connotes existence; the word "immaterial" connotes non-existence.
Surely you run into the problem of infinite regression; a computer simulation within a computer simulation, within a computer simulation. Your creator may be knowing and powerful over his own creation, like a programmer, but then he is not "all powerful" or "all knowing" because he can't know where he came from and can't detect his programmer.
@spudboyspud Exactly. But within our frame of reference, he is "all powerful", and "all knowing", because he just is.
A computer programmer is himself subject to the laws that govern him within that reality. However, within his virtual reality world, he is in total control of it's laws. We're in the same pickle. We are driven to try to prove "God" with our limited means in vain not realizing our laws and restrictions may not apply, or help us prove anything. And because of this, may conclude
@spudboyspud Exactly. But to our frame reference, he is all powerful, and all knowing.
The computer programmer will be free from limitation of his virtual world, but he is still subject to those of his "real" world. There's computer programmer who made an experiment names Karl Sims. He created mall cubic creatures who were able to evolve. Those that were the fastest got the right to procreate, but there was random change built in those creatures, and the results were startling.
I've always called my self an agnostic, but used it as a general admitting that anything that is possible, is in fact possible. So I am agnostic to the possibility of unicorns existing, since they might very well exist somewhere, but I do not find it probable. I have called myself this, while using many of the same arguments against in particular the god of christian bible as used in this video. Now I don't know if I should start calling myself atheist, a ridiculous term, or continue as agnostic
The fact that human beings observe randomness at the quantum level is proof that events at the quantum level do affect events at the macroscopic, human observer scale. Since those observations are events, themselves...
So quantum randomness does not always cancel out, or disappear when one increases the length scale.
@lnd3005 While this is still an open scientific debate, I'm fairly positive the most widely accepted theory is that quantum randomness actually does effectively disappear when dealing with macro objects. Perhaps a quantum theorist would be so kind as to clarify?
We know that the speed of light is fix but there are places in the unierse were this fact does not work because we found places were light can travle double our interpretation of lightspeed .... We do not know anything, but we always try to explain everything with our little understanding of something we not understand.
everything you say is your interpretation of words. What is good inetrpretation of god/gods? What is a god? Waht are gods? Or lets mix the letters ... What is a dog, what are dogs? What are cats, what is a cat? We use a word because we dont know what it means but we believe in tellings of tellings ... Why we dont think outside of our little boxes? What do you think means water? What can the word rain mean?
@PoiGhost You are confusing the word dog and dog-proper (aka that which our term dog is referring to). The fact that different people call dog-proper by different names has no impact on the objective existence of dog-proper.
09:20 claims that there is no water in space. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and oxygen is made in stars. These two mix in star-forming clouds and form large amounts of water, so there is actually water in space. However, this water is clearly not something that a putative unicorn can make use of for life-sustaining purposes, so it wasn't totally incorrect.
Very interesting. I've never been able call my self agnostic because to me, I always thought that it was a cowards position. Kind of like a statement made by a politician in a vein attempt to not offend anyone.
It's nice to see that you have clearly in my mind, validated my opinion with logic and reason.
Well I am a non-theist who believes there is a God holding together the fabric of the material universe, but that's as far as I go. That God does not exist. We exist. We are the eyes and ears and hands and feet of God. But there is no such thing as a moral God. God cannot take sides. If he did, the whole universe would implode upon itself as if it never happened.
Some times I wish the people that are in my family and my friends that aren't educated could read this in understand but they probably never will! Do you think its possible that I can get this on a fifth grade reading level with a lot of pictures so I can pass the knowledge!
Stef, a simple question. Why did they teach us in metaphysics that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of god? I thought that it could be a personal choice if this is indeed the case. Please explain your view on this. Thanks
@aghoranathi I guess u would say that the idea is self contrary and therefore cannot possibly exist. But do u think the common hindu belief that all is "god" is similar to basically being an atheist in that nothing descriptive is said by this?
@aghoranathi The Hindu idea that there is a subtle volition or sense of "I"ness through out all dimensions is called ahamkara. It is this will/ volition that they have called Brahman. All deities in Hinduism are an explanation/ metaphor for this shared Consciousness. ie, Consciousness is not viewed as a psychological by-product of energy but the basis that energy arises in. What are the problems with this argument?
@aghoranathi It is hard to rebut belief in god/ existence of god as there are thousands of slightly different beliefs in what that may mean. Stef, could you please rebut the philosopher Adi Shankara's "Advaita Vedanta" (similar to Spinoza)?
Link to book is broken.
Undeterminism 1 month ago
Democracy does not imply the existence of the state. Democracy is simply a method of decision-making. You can have democracy in a business, a trade union, or a club; none of these are (inherently) statist.
QuatFax 2 months ago
A cylinder half the height of its diameter, with a cylindrical hole punched through its center with a diameter equaling the radius of the cylinder. It's rational to call the result a square circle. This does not prove God exists, just saying...
randytate 2 months ago
@blapgat Sombody built the lego house.
Damnationization 8 months ago
@blapgat So you do not believe in "The Big Bang," then what do you believe?
Damnationization 8 months ago
@blapgat Everything in the universe is connected so an object can be of itself and is itself. Everything came from the same point in space aka "The Big Bang."
Everything you and I know is through perception. Everything.
Damnationization 8 months ago
@blapgat Yes a thing is both itself and our own perception of it. When you talk about an object you are talking about your perception of such a thing. If we were talking about a orange and you perceived it as a banana you would not understand how I describe it.
Damnationization 8 months ago
@blapgat You are trying to say you see an object you believe is an orange. It can be a small grapefruit, a fake orange, a holographic projection, a figment of your imagination, ect.
The mind effects the body so belief in somthing effects are reactions,
Damnationization 8 months ago
@blapgat A object is what it is but perspective effects what the object is.
Damnationization 9 months ago
@blapgat If you were in a black hole looking outward things seam to fly about as time inside a black hole is slowed. If you saw a man inside a black hole his body would quikly be stretch for miles. Perspective is a huge factor in life. I look on an object and say its square and you look on an object from a different angle and say is a circle. Yet both of us are correct from are point of views.
Damnationization 9 months ago
@blapgat Perspective effects everything in reality. We conceive reality through each our own perspectives. A perspective can make somthing not to a certain exent.
Damnationization 9 months ago
@blapgat Not true, it's all about perspective. Just like a man in a rocket points down to the Earth and says "Down" and I point upward toward the rocket and say, "Up."
Damnationization 9 months ago
Sorry your wrong, if you can bend space time then it's possible to have a squared circle. Black holes have the ability to bend space time.
Damnationization 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
copy / pasting is cool. I´m on 20 min mark or something and I had to comment already. :P
/watch?v=DCk2iRdzkb8
711e47 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
copy / pasting is cool. I´m on 20 min mark or something and I had to comment already. :P
/watch?v=DCk2iRdzkb8
711e47 10 months ago
Comment removed
711e47 10 months ago
Did you have to type all of the captions?
SmellyJunkie 11 months ago
Stefan, I do not know everything and have not observed everything, therefore I believe there may be a God.
Aryaba 1 year ago
You assume no mirrored infinite universes Stefan, which M-theory suggests may exist.
Aryaba 1 year ago
@stefbot nobody denies the fact that "atoms" "electrons" "quarks" and possibly "strings" exist although technically they all fall under the same classification as the dragon. They can only be inferred through logic, metaphor and experience (experiment) much like people's belief in God. I'm not saying that there aren't delusional beliefs about God. Just why is this any different? When theists say God is infinite or eternal they are talking about God in a qualitative sense not quantitative.
crazycatlady667 1 year ago
I don't think that matter can exist without conciousness. I think they both have to exist for either of them to do so. Conciousness must exist for matter to exist as it does now.
All that is, is experience. Atoms cannot percieve themselves - conciousness percieves them. Conciousness makes the brain behave as it does. So without any concious brains in the Universe, there would be only unpercieved energy in the form of waves. No atoms, thus no brains.
I know this is controversial but imo true.
holm81 1 year ago
The biggest thing I'm taking away from this video is that common sense points to religion being created and still used as another form of social control.
Paralyt1c 1 year ago
As far as I'm concerned, anybody can belief or disbelief anything they want. They can belive anything they want, as long as they have nothing to do with me.
People can believe in God or not, that's their business. As long as they have nothing to do with me.
All beliefs, are to be respected. I'm out of religion myself. God out whle the going was good, before the popiola and his clerics made a scandal, more of a scandal than ever.
Same for jews. And islam.
DOWN WTH RELIGIONS!
EarthaKit2 1 year ago
1st argument part 2
--it is not the simplest thing imaginable. Of course, the automobile wheel has evolved in the past and may continue to evolve in the future; and so it's not surprising that it is somewhat complex. But imagine that the automobile wheel were to stop evolving completely. Then, it would not be able to evolve but nevertheless be complex. So, to bring it back to bear on the kind 'God', God may not evolve but nevertheless be very complex.
Jville445 1 year ago
1st argument
The problematic premise of this argument is P5. It is false because something's kind may not be able to evolve but it may still be very complex. That is, just because a thing's kind doesn't change over time does not mean it is simple. For instance, consider the kind 'automobile wheels'. Automobile wheels seem to not have evolved very much--we still use the same type of wheels as we did say 50 years ago. Nevertheless, the automobile wheel is at least somewhat complex--it is not the
Jville445 1 year ago
Here is ur 1st argumn
P1) God is eternal.[by definition]
P2) God is complex.
P3) If x is eternal, then it cannot die and reproduce.
P4) If x cannot die and reproduce, then its kind cannot evolve.
C1) Therefore, if x is eternal , then its kind cannot evolve.[P3 and P4]
C2) God's kind cannot evolve. [P1 and C1]
P5) If x's kind cannot evolve, then it is the simplest thing conceivable.
C3) Therefore, God is the simplest thing conceivable. [C2 and P5]
C4) Contradiction [P2 and C3]
Jville445 1 year ago 4
@Jville445 thanks so much, great work!
stefbot 1 year ago
4th argument.
P1) x exists if and only if x can be detected by material means, either directly or indirectly.
P2) God cant be detected by any material means, either directly or indirectly.
C1) Therefore,God doesnt exist.
The problematic premise is P1. P1 is false since numbers exist but are not detectable by material means, either directly or indirectly. Abstract objects are not detectable by material means either directly or indirectly; but, this does not mean that they don't exist.
Jville445 1 year ago
@Jville445 numbers dont exist you dont go outside and say oh i stepped on a number again. they are a figment of our imagination.
nbonasoro 2 months ago
the omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible. For instance, an omnipotent being cannot create a square circle.
Jville445 1 year ago
P1) God is omnipotent and omniscient.[by definition]
P2) If a god knows what will happen tomorrow, he will be unable to change it.
P3) God knows what will happen tomorrow.[omniscience]
C1) God will be unable to change it. [P2 and P3]
P4) But God is able to change it.[omnipotence]
C2) Contradiction.[C1 and P4]
The problematic premise is P4. God is not able to change what will happen tomorrow. This doesnt imply impotence on God's part. Omnipotence does not imply that the omnipotent
Jville445 1 year ago
Your second argument that God is self-contradictory.
P1) Human consciousness is an effect of matter (specifically, the brain).
P2) God is a human consciousness without matter.
C1) Therefore, God cannot exist.
The problematic premise is P2. God's consciousness is not necessarily the same as human consciousness. Thus, God's consciousness may not require matter.
Jville445 1 year ago
The easiest way I've found to stop any arguments from religious people towards "atheism", is to ask them to define "what is god?"
That usually either goes to some meaningless bible quotations, or ends the conversation entirely.
I've yet to meet someone who could give me a satisfactory answer to that question.
Other than using the word "god" an as abstract, in which case you may as well ask if I beleive in kamgbvcde.
Paralyt1c 1 year ago
I don't know if its right to lump agnostics and theists together, and there is different types of agnosticism, but it can be as simple as the statement "I don't know", and maybe you're over complicating it? regardless I found this book fantastic
EnergizerBunny804 1 year ago
too much coverage on agnoticism
lolofdoom 1 year ago
So this guy just finished this book and he posts it for free on YouTube?? Oh my GOD!!
FDRspanish 1 year ago
@FDRspanish This is not the first place he posted it for free.
OldWhig1688 1 year ago
i really dont like the argument you make that agnosticism implies that, because it might be an altern dimension, it cancels or diminish or renders inconsequent, the reality of our universe, just as the comunist laws of cuba dont cancel the laws of a democratic country. AND i am not saying that im an agnostic, or that i believe in this dimention X, just that believing in its existance or that its laws might be different dont require us to forfeit our moral and phisical reality.
Plebiak 1 year ago 2
@Plebiak, the laws of Cuba, USA and any observed Dimension X are all logically consistent. "God" is not, by definition. Like I said to the gentleman below, if you are referring to simply another rational yet-to-be-discovered natural law, please use a different word than "god". Stop spreading confusion. (What 99.999% of people think of when they use the word "god" is self-contradictory balderdash.)
dennisne 1 year ago
This was just brilliant. So many times I was in tears with laughter.
Kyuslydian 1 year ago
You argue that Gods cannot exist because consciousness cannot exist without matter. The fact that all consciousness modern biology currently recognizes occurs in conjunction with matter does not prove this.
saxmanmax 1 year ago
@saxmanmax, sigh, no, that is not why "Gods" cannot exist. Why they cannot exist is for the reason I mentioned just 2 lines below! And for the multitude of reasons given in the video. None of which you care to know. So, bye.
dennisne 1 year ago
@dennisne I do care to know the reasons why gods cannot exist. I agree with most of the reasons presented in the video. My comment was in response to the specific argument about consciousness and matter. Your response did not address my comment, so I'll repeat it: Molyneux has not proven that consciousness and lack of matter are contradictory. At best, he's shown that they probably are because all forms of consciousness we currently recognize are a result of matter.
saxmanmax 1 year ago
@saxmanmax, no, your comment claimed that Stef's reason for the non-existence of gods was because of matter-consciousness -- which completely misses 99% of the video, and the explicit reasons he gives why "gods" cannot exist. (I even said one version of it yesterday -- is it that you cannot read, or do not care?)
If you ever witness a logical non-contradictory matterless consciousness, please do not call that "god". "god" is a specific term, almost always referring to something omnipotent.
dennisne 1 year ago
Great topic, especially considering the approaching the holidays.
nocoercion 1 year ago
Well done. Thanks for the reload of intellectual ammo. Just in time for the holidays.
NAVYGOLDEIGHTFOUR 1 year ago
(1/2)
Just because something is invisible, untouchable and/or unmeasurable (in regards to the scientific standard of today) that does not automatically imply it doesn't exist. For instance, 150 odd years... ago there was no way of proving the existence of subatomic particles, which of course existed. Had I told you back then that subatomic particles may exist (contrary to your BELIEF), would you have accused me of making an absolute claim that absolute claims are invalid? I hope not.
Info4People 1 year ago
(2/3)
In science there will never be absolute certainty. Subsequently, there can't possibly be absolute claims. Trying to dismiss the argument because it is absolute makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Info4People 1 year ago
(3/3)
I don't believe in there being some deity in another realm, but I cannot possibly rule it out, for if I did I'd imply that science was absolute. Without that premise the atheist argument cuts no ice. Subsequently, atheism really is some kind of a creed of its own. A belief without absolute scientific proof! Agnosticism on the other hand admits that it knows nothing (I know that I don't know), therefore is the only true structure of non-belief.
Info4People 1 year ago
@Info4People, are you an aleprechaun, or a leprechaun-agnostic? (And, be honest, what % of the video did you see -- and how much did you skip over?)
dennisne 1 year ago
@dennisne
To be honest I have watched about a half an hour. But Stefan's argument isn't new to me. My argument remains: Simply because we cannot possibly prove that there are no square circles or purple unique-horns in another dimension, we cannot possibly rule it out. Everything else is a believe structure and nothing but. Stefan BELIEVES such realm can't exist, whereas I don't believe anything. BTW, most of his ideals I hold dear! But on subjects such as theism and 9/11 we clearly part ways.
Info4People 1 year ago
@Info4People, do you realize how foolish you look now? You don't even know his argument, but somehow feel capable of addressing/refuting it. This is quite shocking.
Just so you know, he addresses all your points explicitly and answers them perfectly. If you bothered to actually listen to it, you could have saved us all this *stupid* waste of time and energy.
(In brief, the "square-circle", just like the popular definition of "God" is an absurdity of definition/language right from the start!)
dennisne 1 year ago
@dennisne, I will pre-emptively lay out a few subsequent babysteps for you, to avoid you bothering me with more of your asininity in the future.
A circle *by definition* (aka. logic) is NOT a square.
An omniscient god *by definition* (aka. logic) cannot be omnipotent. (And, actually, as is explained in the videobook, omnipotence itself is an illogical thing. Omnipotence is just as sensical as a square-circle.)
Now, if you abandon logic, then yes, EVERYTHING goes! Including YOUR arguments!!
dennisne 1 year ago
@dennisne
Dude
I've told you that I know all of Stefs argumentations. Listened to countless hours of him talking on the subject matter. If half an hour didn't bring up anything new, why would I waste my time?
Who says that in a different realm circles aren't square? You as well as Stef operate based on the logic of our realm/diminsion without considering that logic may not be universal. Again, that is something that cannot be proven as right or wrong in a state of relative science.
Info4People 1 year ago
@Info4People, *Obviously* you don't understand the arguments then! First understand what a "self-detonating" argument (as Stef calls them) is -- and realize you are making one! You are invalidating your own argument here! If you refuse to accept "logic" -- why are you using logic now? If you think that a circle, a polygon with an infinate number of sides, is equal to a polygon with 4 sides -- aka 4 = infinity, then you must also think murder=life, good=bad, your arguments=false. Nonsense.
dennisne 1 year ago
@Info4People said: "Who says that in a different realm circles aren't square?"
That pretty much sums up the agnostic (asinine) position perfectly!
Statement 1: A Square is NOT a circle.
Statement 2: A Square is a circle.
Agnostics are so "open-minded", they aren't willing to "reject" these two logically contradictory statements. Statement 2 can't be false (billions of people say it's true). It must be *logic* that is broken!
Assholes.
dennisne 1 year ago
Fantastic!!!!!!! Thanks a million stef! I sent you a donation a month ago of $100 and wen I have another buck I will send some more for all your hard work and all my education.
jaminunit 1 year ago
lol, this vid is so long stef....
I cannot believe i dont know because i dont know.... swa! I am agnostic, i just got to your agnostic section.... still listening...
jwiska 1 year ago
Sorry, my last note... just like water has 3 forms...liquid, solid and gas...isn´t this a square circle??? My point is that a square has the "potential" of becoming a "circle" and so forth...you can do this with a rubber band! hahaha. bye.
sfumato1002 1 year ago
or..say you have a glass filled with water...and you drop a square ice cube into it.. and as you look into the glass...would it be fair to say that hydrogen and oxygen has formed into a square circle? hahaha.
sfumato1002 1 year ago
One last note...Humans have used the laws of the universe to create technology. 30 years ago the "iphone" would have been seen as an extra terrestrial device. The though of human flight during the 15th century was just a dream... The point is that there are infinate discoveries and the idea that there are no square circles...is limiting your horizon of the possibilities that are potentially possible with working with the laws of this universe.
sfumato1002 1 year ago
Isn't not believe in god on the premise of theists still falling into the definition they define? I mean could we not describe god as a principle of logic judgment or a way in which the brain works? The problem i have with atheism is exactly the first definition, this is a reliance on the absences of others beliefs. I mean god is a term for things that exist that are connect with some type of purpose. That last statement is in a sense a theistic one. I am agnostic but dont believe in a omni
jwiska 1 year ago
@jwiska You're Simply Saying That,God Is Life and Life is God.
mathema3x 1 year ago
When we talk about the origin of the universe..there is no way for us to determine why, how and what. The laws we see in this universe had an origin. All the mathematical laws in our universe were caused by time space origin. And everything we see today is the cause of these laws. Why, what, when, and how...these are questions even you can´t answer... and it will be foolish for any human to think he knows everything about everything.
sfumato1002 1 year ago
Hi stefbot, I think you are a very bright man. I agree with most of what you say...But if we go back to the big bang theory..or the origin of the universe..Then we both don´t really know what there was before this... or... what is the ultimate origin of things. Something must have caused the universe to appear. I believe, like you, that this universe has laws and we cannot go beyond our reality to determine these things. But cosmic origin?..even you can´t know why or what caused our universe.
sfumato1002 1 year ago
@sfumato1002 No Existent Life In This Planet Can Say How It All Began.(Religious Sheeple Included)
mathema3x 1 year ago
Can't an agnostic say that there are infinite alternate universes (not just one Dimension x) and that our universe is not prioritized over another. Our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, each with its own specific conditions and properties, and an absolute truth in one universe is unaffected by the conditions of another universe (universality is on a per universe scale). One of these universes could be like ours but have a god?
betchmode 1 year ago
Stefan...you are a Bad Ass...not even Chuck Norris can deny this.
helltrackrider 1 year ago 20
@helltrackrider nobody denies the fact that "atoms" "electrons" "quarks" and possibly "strings" exist although technically they all fall under the same classification as the dragon. They can only be inferred through logic, metaphor and experience (experiment) much like people's belief in God. I'm not saying that there aren't delusional beliefs about God. Just why is this any different? When theists say God is infinite or eternal they are talking about God in a qualitative sense not quantitative.
crazycatlady667 1 year ago
@crazycatlady667
Why is this response to me?
Oh well...for what its worth; what "qualities" does God have?...none of his "qualities" can be shown as truth emperically or mathematecially or through any route conceivably possibly ... heck - one cannot even attempt to propose a thesis of his (or her) "Qualities"...
Given this, any thought that such a thing exists is strictly faith; nothing more...like unicorns, fairies, santa claus and a hot woman that can cook excellent meals...all false
helltrackrider 1 year ago
@helltrackrider I don't know why I addressed you. Probably because you made a Chuck Norris joke and Chuck Norris IS God. Anyway, you seem like a logical guy and I can respect that however, not all truth is empirical or mathematical. There's truth in metaphor and in dreams and in myths. It's just that I think sometimes people get way too literal about that shit and it becomes childish. Some people grow out of it and some people grow with it. But even truth can seem like the dragon sometimes. cont
crazycatlady667 1 year ago
@helltrackrider As far as "God qualities" are concerned, I guess certain qualities which have traditionally been called "good" have been assigned to God. But I just think it's like more of a "direction" telling us which way to go in or "bad" things happen. In other words, instead of "don't do this" or don't do that" it's more like, "don't do this" OR that will happen. My main problem with Stef is that he puts off people with similar political (outward) beliefs because of their inward beliefs. :O
crazycatlady667 1 year ago
1939, age 85 — Benjamin Tucker died in Monaco, in the company of his lover Pearl Johnson and their daughter, Oriole, who reported, "Father's attitude towards communism never changed one whit, nor about religion.... In his last months he called in the French housekeeper. 'I want her,' he said, 'to be a witness that on my death bed I'm not recanting. I do not believe in God!
IndividualNihilist 1 year ago
what is said at 0:59:18 kinda demonic
livefastdieyoung26 1 year ago
Comment removed
IronmanUK2 1 year ago
Comment removed
IronmanUK2 1 year ago
@IronmanUK2 If you're open minded about a deity and all laws are breakable what makes a biblical god stupid?
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull A biblical god is totally illogical, simple :o)
If you believe in a biblical god then you must have immense faith in man to have delivered the words unaltered.....and you must deny everything science.
If you're a scientist then you must have total total faith in...for want of a better word....God. You must believe that there are answers out there to find otherwise why even bother?
I'm not saying I believe in a 'creator' but until you can disprove it how can you discount it?
IronmanUK2 1 year ago
@IronmanUK2 Well, as you say if all laws are breakable then it's no problem to deny everything in science and if your open minded then perhaps the words are unaltered.
Surely you know that science is open to answers out there but that has nothing to do with a deity. If you define deity as all knowing and all powerful then it's impossible.
Can you disprove Xenu?
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull Given enough money and resources then...probably. The fact that such ideas came from a Sci-Fi author should make you digest his notions with a large pinch of salt :o)
I can't see why a deity should be all knowing & powerful...As I stated before, if man ever did learn how to alter the laws of physics then it wouldn't mean he could control the effects of, or comprehend the consequences.
My main tenancy away from total denial of a deity is that the universe had a beginning.. cont
IronmanUK2 1 year ago
as specified by all the best scientific minds on the planet.....So if it had a beginning then all the energy (that cannot be created or destroyed by any known means) must have come from outside the universe.
IronmanUK2 1 year ago
@IronmanUK2 I see but why the jump to deity as opposed to a yet to be discovered natural law? Perhaps we are defining it differently. It's usually presented with a human personality with all the traits of an abusive parent.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull well said! God, by every definition that I have heard (as said earlier in the comments, and many times in the video itself!) is something *illogical*. (Ie. very often both omniscient and omnipotent.) I suppose the greatest confusion results from this sloppy use of language. If you (RE)define "god" as some unknown yet-to-be-discovered natural (and logical) law, then I guess everyone is a theist by definition! (And still agnosticism will make no sense!)
dennisne 1 year ago
ok... so the task of a definition in addition to showing the characteristics of a term is also to differentiate it from other like terms. The etymology of the term links it to the question of the existence of god(s). If atheist simply meant the denial of the existence of imaginary things, then a theist that did not believe in leprechauns might claim himself atheist even though he ardently believed in a god, for to him a god would not be imaginary. I read "a" not to mean "one" so much as "any".
jjaggers 1 year ago
I love that it memorizes where I was when I closed the page and now when I came back, it starts from that point. Really great.
Thanks for the audio book(,That's what I think it is). Great points you raise here.
Keep up with the good work!. . .and greetings from Romania. . .
Manodragon 1 year ago
Imagine that far off in the future, if man has not destroyed himself, his questioning nature has led him to fully understand the laws of physics and develop the ability to change them or even create his own. Would he not then be able to call himself a 'god'? Maybe this is why the universe was created, as a reproductive vessel.
IronmanUK2 1 year ago
@IronmanUK2 Something tells me that you do not know what the phrase "laws of physics" means.
DreadLaw2 1 year ago
@DreadLaw2 All laws are breakable :o) Can you not comprehend the possibility?
IronmanUK2 1 year ago
Stef, 2 + 2 = 10 ( in base 4)
2 + 2 = 11 (in base 3) etc
I bet there is a way to define a square-circle, as well.
CalgaryAlpineStyle 1 year ago
@CalgaryAlpineStyle Check those premises!
RamandoDMag 1 year ago
@CalgaryAlpineStyle Say that out loud, if you proncouce 10 (in base 4). "Ten", then you should go find out what a Mathematical base is. 10 (in base 4) is still "four" because it still represents four things. Two plus two is four under all circumstances, and writing that in a different way doesn't create square circles.
DreadLaw2 1 year ago
@DreadLaw2
according to wikipedia, "although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it can be in Gauss–Bolyai–Lobachevsky space"
here you go!
and no, 10 in base 4 is not "still four", why?
1 + 1 in base 2 is 10, not "still two", right?
CalgaryAlpineStyle 1 year ago
@CalgaryAlpineStyle After your study of Basic Mathematics, study basic Logic and the learn to distinguish between Axiom and Reality. A discipline is only "reality" if it's axioms apply to reality. "Gauss–Bolyai–Lobachevsky space" doesn't apply to any concept in realty.
DreadLaw2 1 year ago
@CalgaryAlpineStyle 1 + 1 = 10 in base two, is pronounced "one plus one equals two", because it represents the concept two, the representation is irrelevant.
DreadLaw2 1 year ago
@DreadLaw2
My point is, Stef is using concepts such as "2 + 2 = 4"
to base his philosophical theories.
These aren't axioms.
It's like saying "water boils at 100 degree Centigrade"
This above statement is incomplete and even wrong except at the sea level
where atmospheric presure is 1 atm
The same can be extrapolated for other of Stef's "axioms" such as
"there can't be a squared circle" or "that saying nothing is true" is non-sense
Stef says at the end "leave ideas to the philosophers"
CalgaryAlpineStyle 1 year ago
@CalgaryAlpineStyle
no disrespect for Stef, but shouldn't he leave "mathematical issues to mathematicians"? (or on the same token to physicists, chemists, etc).
I'd say rather, "no!"
Let us layman deal with these issues, because in the end it is for the layman to grasp the concepts, right?
CalgaryAlpineStyle 1 year ago
@CalgaryAlpineStyle
when Stef says: "saying -nothing is true- is non-sense"
I say well, then Stef how do you define the very statement you made
considering there is "nothing" to begin with?
You see, it's a circular loop-hole that you or I cannot use in trying to
bring up certain axiomatic truths or principles.
Thus, relative to nothing, the statement "nothing is true" is ...true.
We cannot simply cherry pick an chose our "axioms of nature"
CalgaryAlpineStyle 1 year ago
@CalgaryAlpineStyle
Our Universe started from Nothing.
However, in the Multiverse, there were quantum fluctuations out of which bubble Universes started forming eternally...
CalgaryAlpineStyle 1 year ago
@CalgaryAlpineStyle Two plus two is ALWAYS four, under all circumstances. It's not an axiom, it's the definitive result of an Axiom that applies in all situations. There can't be a square circle, it's a contradctary definition, like a black white thing. It's not that it's a difficult to find thing, it just doesn't mean anything by definition.
DreadLaw2 1 year ago
You make good points but the analogies are overbearing - demonstrating that x and not x at the same time is a contradiction is all well and good, but on about the 30th analogy you've hopefully made that clear.
If I could make a recomendation, I would write it like Economics in One Lesson - start off with the lesson and then apply it to a series of propositions. That would greatly reduce the length and clutter.
603881 1 year ago
very well done...I too must admit that I have taken the cowardly stance of agnosticism in the past for the sole purpose of dodging the anger of the fundamentally religious
bondthewall 1 year ago
At 2:05:00 or so you mention the parents choosing God over the children. In the old testament this is reaffirmed in the story of Isaac. I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption.
Heallun 1 year ago
You know Steph I really enjoy listening to this because you cause me to question my beliefs. I want to challenge some of your claims but, to be honest, I think you would make me look stupid.. lol.
reikiflame 1 year ago
hostile to the idea of gravity in absence of mass??? hostile to a idea? what is that? the absence of mass is an idea that has no reality to it at all. The outerspace is not defined by absence of mass or so, it is based on certain perceptions of mass (planets). But it is only a perception from a human, not from a deity or marsian or whatever if they excist. Furthermore there is no live based on carbon, it is all based on water; the main component of every manifestations of life.
sowiesosso 1 year ago
This is quite a labor of love and well received here. Cheers.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@stefbot While i agree with most of your conclusions, I don't like your writing. An archetype of why is calling Dimension X incomprehensible static. You are equating the unknown with the incomprehensible. When you stop doing this dimension X becomes more like an unmarked DVD, which may contain Wolly Bully lyrics.
Hearing you talk about UPB make me think you may be on to something, but your UPB writing is painful and full of errors like this one. But your work is important, I hope you continue.
ashleyjohnston 1 year ago
you could do relaxation hypnosis tapes. your voice is soothing. also great book
badjer1785 1 year ago
Excellent work Stef! And what a generous act to share your insights for free
magician322 1 year ago
Really enjoyed this stef - Thanks
zalida100 1 year ago
Why is God a self-contradictory entity? You keep repeating the same thing over and over again, yet you offer not real objective evidence, or empirical logic to back your claims.
Your funny analogies are just as assumptive as the belief of God. A computer programmer can replicate a world of it's own, with it's own laws of physics, with "conscious" beings with distinct personalities. Over that world, the designer is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Picturing this is not as far fetched.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan If you are all knowing of the future then how can you change these events that you already know will happen? As soon as you change them it becomes an event that you didn't know about. If you can't change these events then you can't be all powerful.
Doesn't god already know who will reject him? If so why create a creature that you already know will be doomed for hell?
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull You're statement is not phrased properly.
Again, if i am a computer programmer, i can "know" the future because i'm actively forming it, if i wish to change something, i can also go back and change it.. I'm neither "here", nor "there", nor objectively provable by the limited means and scoop of my "creations". I am not bound or limited to my virtual cybernetic universe.
And again, I can grant free will, and personality to my creations. I can input "randomness" built in.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan You say "know" meaning as far as the way things are presently programmed. As long as there is a possibility of change then we can't use "Know".
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull Thats exactly why i put "know" in parenthesis...
He is making an asserted claim about reality, yet utterly and equally unable to provide any evidence against the existence of a supreme being as muslims. It's irrational, the mere attempt is paradoxical.
How could my creation in a little town on a computer simulation be able to scientifically prove my existence with the "natural" laws of that world when im not bound by them? Technically i dont "exist" - in that* plane, but i do.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull Would they pick up a ruler, or a weight and try to measure me by their limited means within the computer? Since they could not by their available means, does that automatically mean i don't exist??
Technically, in that plane of existence i don't. But then again I do, and i am master of their realm. - btw Ever heard of Trans-humanism??
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan
"Atheist" here. That was a very nice argument for the existence of the "non-existent" - perhaps the best I have ever heard. Not saying "God is real," but now people know why they should stop saying "God definitely is not."
MusicalAdrian 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan Then anyone can say anything about another plane of existence and be just as valid or invalid. In fact they do which is why there are 10,000 gods. So either they all exist in this unknown universe or their own unknown universes or they are projections of man in this universe. If there's no way to measure. Why assume it's there?
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan God is self-contradictory based on the definition of God. God is defined as a supernatural being, i.e. a being which is immaterial. There is your contradiction. Put another way: A thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. The word "being" connotes existence; the word "immaterial" connotes non-existence.
magician322 1 year ago
@magician322 What then, is "Nirvana"
buymycd 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan
Surely you run into the problem of infinite regression; a computer simulation within a computer simulation, within a computer simulation. Your creator may be knowing and powerful over his own creation, like a programmer, but then he is not "all powerful" or "all knowing" because he can't know where he came from and can't detect his programmer.
spudboyspud 1 year ago
@spudboyspud Exactly. But within our frame of reference, he is "all powerful", and "all knowing", because he just is.
A computer programmer is himself subject to the laws that govern him within that reality. However, within his virtual reality world, he is in total control of it's laws. We're in the same pickle. We are driven to try to prove "God" with our limited means in vain not realizing our laws and restrictions may not apply, or help us prove anything. And because of this, may conclude
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@spudboyspud Exactly. But to our frame reference, he is all powerful, and all knowing.
The computer programmer will be free from limitation of his virtual world, but he is still subject to those of his "real" world. There's computer programmer who made an experiment names Karl Sims. He created mall cubic creatures who were able to evolve. Those that were the fastest got the right to procreate, but there was random change built in those creatures, and the results were startling.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
I've always called my self an agnostic, but used it as a general admitting that anything that is possible, is in fact possible. So I am agnostic to the possibility of unicorns existing, since they might very well exist somewhere, but I do not find it probable. I have called myself this, while using many of the same arguments against in particular the god of christian bible as used in this video. Now I don't know if I should start calling myself atheist, a ridiculous term, or continue as agnostic
mortalisk 1 year ago
@stefbot
The fact that human beings observe randomness at the quantum level is proof that events at the quantum level do affect events at the macroscopic, human observer scale. Since those observations are events, themselves...
So quantum randomness does not always cancel out, or disappear when one increases the length scale.
lnd3005 1 year ago
@lnd3005 While this is still an open scientific debate, I'm fairly positive the most widely accepted theory is that quantum randomness actually does effectively disappear when dealing with macro objects. Perhaps a quantum theorist would be so kind as to clarify?
ericjonesy71 1 year ago
@ericjonesy71
Yeah, perhaps.
lnd3005 1 year ago
We know that the speed of light is fix but there are places in the unierse were this fact does not work because we found places were light can travle double our interpretation of lightspeed .... We do not know anything, but we always try to explain everything with our little understanding of something we not understand.
PoiGhost 1 year ago
@PoiGhost "We do not know anything, but we always try to explain everything with our little understanding of something we not understand"
Isn't that what you are doing here?
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@BrainInSkull ^^ indeed ;) iam not perfect ok you got me ;).
PoiGhost 1 year ago
everything you say is your interpretation of words. What is good inetrpretation of god/gods? What is a god? Waht are gods? Or lets mix the letters ... What is a dog, what are dogs? What are cats, what is a cat? We use a word because we dont know what it means but we believe in tellings of tellings ... Why we dont think outside of our little boxes? What do you think means water? What can the word rain mean?
PoiGhost 1 year ago
@PoiGhost You are confusing the word dog and dog-proper (aka that which our term dog is referring to). The fact that different people call dog-proper by different names has no impact on the objective existence of dog-proper.
TheEfkk 1 year ago
09:20 claims that there is no water in space. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and oxygen is made in stars. These two mix in star-forming clouds and form large amounts of water, so there is actually water in space. However, this water is clearly not something that a putative unicorn can make use of for life-sustaining purposes, so it wasn't totally incorrect.
TheEfkk 1 year ago
@TheEfkk Thanks, that is a great correction, I should've said "no drinkable water"
stefbot 1 year ago 3
@stefbot haha - Feckin brilliant. I can just see your face right now. - excellent stuff.
zalida100 1 year ago
@TheEfkk If you ask me, the jury is still way out on the water thing
buymycd 1 year ago
Nice redneck impression.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
Very interesting. I've never been able call my self agnostic because to me, I always thought that it was a cowards position. Kind of like a statement made by a politician in a vein attempt to not offend anyone.
It's nice to see that you have clearly in my mind, validated my opinion with logic and reason.
dyne313 1 year ago
Comment removed
dyne313 1 year ago
Agnosticism is is cosmic fail, LOL
dyne313 1 year ago 2
@ 0:46:09
No we would call the animal a veteranarian....LOL
Darkhorse21x 1 year ago
Omnipotence is self-contradictory, no need to bring omniscience into it. Can God make a taco so hot that even he can't eat it?
shen235 1 year ago 3
@shen235 lol so much funnier than a rock too heavy to lift.
N7a7v7i 1 year ago
The very fact that human beings have defined the properties of gods, is proof enough that gods do not and cannot exist.
fugimugim 1 year ago
Well I am a non-theist who believes there is a God holding together the fabric of the material universe, but that's as far as I go. That God does not exist. We exist. We are the eyes and ears and hands and feet of God. But there is no such thing as a moral God. God cannot take sides. If he did, the whole universe would implode upon itself as if it never happened.
vutEwa 1 year ago
@vutEwa THATS HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!
MrMandingus 1 year ago
@MrMandingus sometimes fact is fancier than fiction :)
vutEwa 1 year ago
@vutEwa
Sometimes fact is just something you made up on the fly.
lnd3005 1 year ago 2
Square Circle Land! It's possible!!! hahaha The gods have constantly retreated into imaginary realms as science has expanded. Interesting, eh?
TruthSurge 1 year ago
thanks for your efforts. I wish I was able to support myself and give away my efforts but I can't seem to make $1000/mo and pay my bills. :(
TruthSurge 1 year ago
Ahhh ... the hollow beliefs of agnostics left as a smoldering heap of ashes and dust.
RamandoDMag 1 year ago
Some times I wish the people that are in my family and my friends that aren't educated could read this in understand but they probably never will! Do you think its possible that I can get this on a fifth grade reading level with a lot of pictures so I can pass the knowledge!
timsharper 1 year ago
Stef, a simple question. Why did they teach us in metaphysics that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of god? I thought that it could be a personal choice if this is indeed the case. Please explain your view on this. Thanks
aghoranathi 1 year ago
@aghoranathi I guess u would say that the idea is self contrary and therefore cannot possibly exist. But do u think the common hindu belief that all is "god" is similar to basically being an atheist in that nothing descriptive is said by this?
aghoranathi 1 year ago
@aghoranathi The Hindu idea that there is a subtle volition or sense of "I"ness through out all dimensions is called ahamkara. It is this will/ volition that they have called Brahman. All deities in Hinduism are an explanation/ metaphor for this shared Consciousness. ie, Consciousness is not viewed as a psychological by-product of energy but the basis that energy arises in. What are the problems with this argument?
aghoranathi 1 year ago
@aghoranathi It is hard to rebut belief in god/ existence of god as there are thousands of slightly different beliefs in what that may mean. Stef, could you please rebut the philosopher Adi Shankara's "Advaita Vedanta" (similar to Spinoza)?
aghoranathi 1 year ago
Atheism and Christianity will be destroyed at the same time.
MrHappy702 1 year ago
Holy sh*t dude. I didn't know you were from MA! What town?
Milton over here.
rashawn770 1 year ago
@rashawn770 he IS an MA, not from MA. I think Mr. Molyneux resides in/near Montreal
cshah2 1 year ago
Thank God for this book.
andyissemicool 1 year ago
thank U
aerobique 1 year ago
Very Very nice!
yogonify 1 year ago
i like to listen not so much to read, (am not ashamed), am currently listening to The Moral Landscape - Sam Harris
sonofagunM357 1 year ago
I did hear it since day one :o
mimiritaferron 1 year ago
Thank you and I promise to purchase a hard copy when I get the money next. I like books, I like podcast, I like video best. :)
AngryHateMusic 1 year ago
Wow, The whole book.. Well done Stef..
xelenty 1 year ago 2