Well, I think you will agree then that a watch requires a watchmaker,a house requires a builder so then logically a human requires a Creator. That is simple mechanics...and to take it one step further, the makers of all these things have the right to set standards of their creation. Humans were given freewill to use only in a way that would please the maker who has the right to set those standard, so anything contrary to the standards of the maker is imperfect.
Design as we know it is something that is only recognizable in comparison to observable phenomenon that could not have been designed. The only thing humans have experienced with design are things not designed by God, you can't apply it to the universe. Keep in mind humans have never created anything, only modified what already exists to create something that appears new. I think this shows why this argument is fallacious, it's a false analogy.
All the many extraordinary designs in the universe proves the existence of a designer just by the fact that they exist. God is the originator of design, so yes we only modify was already exists. The obvious is all around us, it's quite inexcusable not to see God through his wonderous creation.
As I'm sure you know, this is a faulty premise. There's nothing about the universe that points to a God as you would likely define him. Even if you defined him ONLY as the creator it still wouldn't do much because arguing for a deistic God is pretty pointless.
Seriously, ...the blind are leading the blind in this quest to defraud the one and only Creator..whose design is so flawless and perfect that the entire universe runs itself. How does that happen? Not by chance friend. WOW
Ugh. Playing a little fast and loose with the ethics references aren't we? Okay. Mill was not a social contractarian. At all. Mill was a utilitarian, like Bentham.
TAG isn't so much an argument as it is a series of petty semantic squabbles. The TAG proponent will simply ask you a series of questions about what you believe and then attack you when you inevitably fail to properly account for every little nook and cranny of reality. And they'll just keep changing the subject until they find what they want.
The Transcendental ARGUMENT for God is a misnomer. It's not an argument nor even a debate tactic. it's just straight-up confrontation.
Thank you. I'm surrounded by atheists among my friends and family. They are good moral people that I would trust with MY life. To use the moral argument, to even imply that those who don't share my belief in God can't be moral, is as offensive to me as it is absurd. There are some arguments for God that I will call out as nonsense.
It's strange how many religious people think that without an awareness of God and his laws, we'd immediately start killing each other. Do ants (within the same colony, at least) kill each other? How about owls? Deer? Orangutans?
What "godless" animal goes around killing others of the same species. You can point to praying mantises or black widow spiders for some one-off accounts, but that is certainly not the norm, and none of these animals "have religion". Why should we?
John's right, theologica quote mined, he took a quote out of context in order to further his argument. His argument that he made a few videos back totally misrepresents the text from which he got it. He's a quote miner/hypocrite. i can see through Theologicas lies. ha. i win. lol
Matt Dillahunty on the Atheist Experience show demolished this argument. You can YouTube search it.
Theologica is fecal matter, but to the credit of feces, at least it doesn't lie.
I mean, I feel like vomiting just thinking that this person is owed any sort of response. If I want to be as dumb as him, I'll beat my head with a hammer.
If a person is going to be ignorant, that's their own fault. It's no responsibility of DeistPaladin's to rebut bullshit. Read a book.
I think Anselm's ontological argument is a greater fail than TAG. God exists because the greatest being imaginable cannot not exist. I just read that and laughed.
John, hope your wife gets better. Google Acid vs Alkaline. A dis-ease can only live in ACID. Our PH is suppose to be ~7.3. Most of the food we eat is acidic(7.0). The food is killing us. Get some alkaline water, and a lot of alkaline food.
emajoronline, you just left a bizarre comment, a pH of 7.0 is neutral, and I'm sure that most medical issues cannot be casually linked to pH of the body...
I have pulmonary problems and some ancillary reactions from Diabetes since they used severe high doses of steroids on me in the hospital it made my Diabetes much worse as an after affect. Which I am now trying to get back under control It has nothing to do with my PH levels. I don't have a viral disease.
It's a documentary called RAW FOR 30 DAYS which takes 12 people with Diabetes and cures them using an all vegan diet(alkaline). They have doctors there on the spot that proves that the PH alkaline diet cured them from Diabetes. PLEASE GOOGLE CURED IN 30 DAYS!!! All disease must live in acid to survive. Rid the body of ACID, cure the disease.
Oh don't tell me you bought into this scam? For just $50 we'll send you bullshit on a CD. Of course eating NOTHING but raw vegetables will 'in essence' keep blood sugar levels low, but seriously what a BORING way to live. I'd much rather take a shot and eat a nice bit of grilled chicken than gnaw on a uncooked turnip root.
Of course it's sceintifically proven, if you eat no carbs and raw vegetable your blood sugar will lower. It is not a cure, you would have to maintain that diet forever. You would also have to take protein, b-12 and other amino acids in tablets too or suffer other issues from this sort of radical diet. It's a FAD. Plain and simple. Too far to the left and I fail to see any other peer reviews on this other than the bias dr. in the video itself.
Good vid. Keep spreading rational thought ... plain and simple. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I'm right, but I feel like it is of the utmost importance that people combat the forces of insanity and irrationality in this world i.e. organized religion. It looks as though a huge impact is being made upon a growing number of people. Morality cannot exist without god? Wtf?!
@longhornman: I wouldn't put Wikipedia down so much. It's a great source for most basic information - if you want to find out how many states there are in the U.S. or find out more information on the Big Bang. Although it's not good to use for a thesis paper, for a YouTube video, it seems appropriate most of the time.
Anyway, I'm not disputing what you say. You're probably right. But Wikipedia still isn't bad.
It is futile with argue with irrational people whose brains have been hijacked by religion. It's not worth the time or energy OR frustration. It's the same as arguing with a person with schziophrenia. I have a lot of experience with this since my mother has this awful disease. When she is having an "episode" and starts spewing her crazy thoughts, no amount of reasoning will get through to her. Her thoughts are REAL to her. It's her reality. It's the same with Christians. It's futile.
If Theologica's argument is indeed as you describe it, then I have to say I am taken aback that he actually has the sparking power in his lobes to make one foot go in front of the other in time to make it to the loo... not even worth the time to engage such a waster in any level of discussion as basic reason and logic must completely escape them...they would fail even secondary school level philosophy were their such a thing...pathetic. Can you get an F in Sunday School?
Utilitairnism? Utility ≠ Ethics, and is an appeal to consequences. It's total lack of respect for individual freedom makes it anything but a moral theory. In fact, it's a secular excuse for tyranny, completely and totally bankrupt of all moral considerations.
The only way to truly understand morality is through naturalistic explanations from evolution.
I don't claim that Untilitarianism is the perfect way to understand morality. I simply was presenting different ways of understanding morality that I've learned of, none of which depend on there being a Creator.
DP Because God leaves no physical evidence of his existence at the level an atheist understands doesn't mean he doesn't exist. He exists, but just not proven at the atheist level.
"at the atheist level"... wft? I'm not an atheist by choice. I was brought up a Christian, and truly believed the tales of the Bible... but then I started investigating.
So, the non-atheist level is the subjective one? For an omniscient, omnipotent god, that's pretty weak: "Oh, I'll make the evidence for my existence indistinguishable from a neurological flux and/or mental illness. What a fantastic idea!".
Yeah, the evidence is all in your head. Some people call that schizophrenia.
I can look up at the night sky,see the moon, study astronomy to learn about its specialized orbit and try to imagine this just happened in a godless universe. But it is easier to accept that it was put there for a purpose and also for beauty. So I have a basis for believing in God, whether the God of theBible or not. In the meantime, someone who cannot understand the logic of the moon I consider to be demented in some way.
But as I said, maybe God doesn't want atheists to believe in him
No. That's just ONE REASONABLE CONCLUSION. When things have purpose we usually assume it was purposed. If I see a new car I presume someone made it, I don't think of it as being found in some wilderness site.
That does not say there are no other reasonable explanations. I'm just saying God is reasonably assumed when you consider the Moon's complex orbit, it's beauty and function, etc. vs an accident.
Or if you said aliens from an unknown galaxy did it, then I'd say that makes sense
Yes, if all the holes are perfect squares or pentagrams I'd say there was intelligent design. Furthermore, it is obvious the road is of intelligent design as well.
So that doesn't work since where did the road come from?
The road is an irrelevant part of the metaphor. The hole represents the universe, not the road.
The point is that the world isn't designed for us, but that we have evolved to fit into our environment.
Exactly what follows this pattern of "square and pentagrams"?
Things are the way they are. I've yet to see you make an argument as to why any of it should have been created by an intelligence, let alone with us in mind.
And regarding your "where did the [hole] come from" question: I don't know. I'm not as presumptuous and arrogant as the theists to say I know. Why not do the honest thing and leave that as a question mark, instead of going around and claiming knowledge of something we have absolutely no data on?
Well, I'm sort of an exception because I'm an X-Jehovah's Witness. That's the cult God deals with as a "temple" so more supernatural things happen in this group that are perceived to come from God. So we have MORE than just the Bible or the universe to deal with the denial of God.
I know for a FACT there's a God, but that's my database, not that of the common person. Those with my database can't deny God. Those who don't have it might still wonder. It's that simple.
As long as you understand that your perception is subjective, then it's fine with me; but I fear that you extrapolate well beyond then scope of the data.
Do you also look at the moons of Saturn and Jupiter and find that they /must/ have been made by a god? It's somewhat near the old is-ought problem. Just because certain things act in a certain way (the Moon), can you say it's made with us in mind? I don't see how you can reach that conclusion.
Actually, I don't have to convince you of my subjective interpretation of the facts. You look at the moon as I do and we come to different conclusions. I can understand why someone would be an atheist. Maybe I lack enough imagination for a godless solution?
what has any of this to do with TAG? even as a refutation of the moral argument it was as shallow as the shallow end of the local pool for small children
I think for most religious people who like TAG they think of morality as "rules from god", making it make sense but also being wrong.
Now to blurb out some crap because I am looking at this in my philosophy course right now: I would say that rules from a god can't be part of morality except by coincidence because morality is synthetic but supposedly the rules from god would be analytical.
This is precisely the issue. Once again, due to your shoddy research, I can't even have a meaningful dialogue with you because I have to correct you first.. just as in your past videos attempting to mount an argument against scripture.
Surely after your previous short comings you would learn to CITE YOUR SOURCE. Where is You didn't give A SINGLE CITATION. NOT ONE.
That syllogism is completely foreign to me. All academic philosophers who would defend this argument would die laughing at this John.
5:05: FINALLY.. 5 minutes into the video and you bring up an actual academic inquiry-- I will be posting a destruction of Utilitarian ethics as a response; unlike your sloppy semantics, I actually cite academic sources.
:34 John, using a Catholic translation of scripture and reading the surrounding verses to you (which directly contradicted your false interpretation) is not lying.
I have even begun to get messages from prominent atheists telling me to not waste my time with you because of your whining and false accusations. I suggest you cease these sort of tactics if you wish to be taken seriously.
I read you the surrounding verses; I am a Catholic so I used an orthodox translation. And then you were, for whatever ignorant reason, surprised that this translation wasn't on a protestant website.
Again, I am running out of palms to dig my face into.
Think through your responses John. This is getting ridiculous.
These accusations are childish and abhorrent, it is not my fault you used an unacademic source that only listed single verses.
2) You need to correct the lighting in your room there is too much reflection on your face.
3) My best wishes for your wife's recovery
lastly, a small question-
in the same vein as today topic when you use the statement "god's gift of reason" how are you so sure its "gods" gift & what are you attributing "god" to be in that statement ?
Hi, I'm not too sure you've got the TAG argument right. Though morality can be used as a transcendental concept, logical absolutes are usually the premise.
Have you read Matt Slick's formulation of the TAG argument? I think he does a little bit better with defending premise 1, nevertheless, the argument is still crappy. And moreover, Christians ought not be so enthralled with it because it does not prove the CHRISTIAN god, but simply some type of absolutely perfect mind which may very well not even perform miracles.
Which arguments for Gods existence do you find most convincing that drive you towards Deism rather than Atheism John?
There are alot of em these days. Would you say you're more drawn to the argument sof physicists like Paul Davies for example? How about fine tuning? Or the idea that God is the sum of and/or overaching law governing the laws of the natural universe, that these contain some sort of calculating, creative intelligent essense to them, a intelligent but natural God.
Sorry, I tried to post earlier and it didn't take apparently.
For me, the argument for God is the universe, its dramatic beginning and how things came together in the development of the human mind. The atheist's counter-argument to this is the Law of Infinate Probability.
As we explore the universe, we may find indications as to who's right by how much intelligent life we find out there. For the deist model to work, I'd expect we wouldn't be the only "project" in a vast cosmos.
Thanks. Allthough the argument is kinda vague. Are there specific phlosophical and scientific arguments that cause you're leaning? Physics{macro or micro/quantum}? Certain classical or modern philosophical arguments{which ones?}.
I'm still not clear on which arguments it is that convinced you. I'm guessing what you're saying in your post here is an indication towards life beeing fine tuned into the cosmological contants or somethin?
I pointed out to Slick that his argument was based on entirely different premises in his video's comments, and he spent some time calling me an idiot and reasserting his assertions as if he'd accomplished something.
TAG fails even sooner, because it actually goes like this:
Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: God made everything else.
Premise 3: Things exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, god exists.
It's a false premise silently snuck in there and accepted as fact.
To those bible worshipers that think humans are incapable of coming up with laws of morality ourselves, I must ask in which bible verse do we find drunk driving, and speed limit laws?
In which Bible verse does it forbid a 40 year old from having sex with a ten year old kid? Look long and hard, but the bible did not forbid adults having sexual relationships with children. So please tell me where our society has come up with the idea that having sex with children is wrong, since Yahweh didn't?
Right, and my one regret on this video is not going into the strange taboos religions sometimes create. The kibosh on dabbling in other religions or blaspheming against your own is a given. Then there are others like the "love is evil when the body parts are similar" or "teaching about condoms is worse than the spread of AIDS".
And the purity balls? Disturbing on so many levels.
At my school we were taught an abstinence-only sex education program. Even the teacher in charge of teaching our class didn't want to teach it because he thought people should learn about SEX and CONTRACEPTION, not scare tactics.
With all respect to DeistPaladin, this was just a bad video. I mean I think TAG is an awful argument, but this video doesn't even address TAG, it addresses the moral argument. And, even as a response to the moral argument, this video missed the mark.
I know this sounds weird and please don't take this answer seriously but if you respond that would be pretty boss: What if when you die you found out that the TAG argument was true- except instead of crazy bible God, it was someone like.... I dunno, Hanuman? What would you do if you were faced with a Happy Monkey God?
Yeah. If there has to be a god, much better a plump, happy Buddha or a warm and friendly Aphrodite; rather than a psychotically vengeful Yahweh or the crucified carcass of his dead hippy son.
Seriously, if heaven ended up being this big never ending bollywood dance scene- it would be a dream come true. Jesus could be there if he wants. I think the Christians tarnished his image of being a badass rock star.
No that movie was Son Goku the Japanese Monkey King in the Old Legend Gensumaden Saiyuki. 3 Demons and a Shinto Monk walk into a bar... LOL No, Hanuman is the Hindu Monkey God not the same dude. 2 different monkey god legends. :)
Oh and Son Goku is also more commonly known as SANNO Shinto Tendai sect.... It's complicated. There's a god for everything and lots of monkey gods in Shintoism but for this case, the one played by Jet Li for clarification is Sanno/Son Goku The Monkey King. :)
When the justification for action is god, then anything can be justified
Tiwaking 2 years ago
subscribed (thank NonStampCollector for plugging you)
I have used something analogous to the veil of ignorance for some time, thanks for giving me more of a philosophical base for it.
ejstaats 2 years ago
Understanding mechanics you say?
Well, I think you will agree then that a watch requires a watchmaker,a house requires a builder so then logically a human requires a Creator. That is simple mechanics...and to take it one step further, the makers of all these things have the right to set standards of their creation. Humans were given freewill to use only in a way that would please the maker who has the right to set those standard, so anything contrary to the standards of the maker is imperfect.
FairNskware 2 years ago
flawed premise.
johngeetar 2 years ago
Explain then?
FairNskware 2 years ago
@ FairNskware
Design as we know it is something that is only recognizable in comparison to observable phenomenon that could not have been designed. The only thing humans have experienced with design are things not designed by God, you can't apply it to the universe. Keep in mind humans have never created anything, only modified what already exists to create something that appears new. I think this shows why this argument is fallacious, it's a false analogy.
theycallmebobFOO 2 years ago
@theycallmebobFOO
All the many extraordinary designs in the universe proves the existence of a designer just by the fact that they exist. God is the originator of design, so yes we only modify was already exists. The obvious is all around us, it's quite inexcusable not to see God through his wonderous creation.
FairNskware 2 years ago
@ FairNskware
Now you're just moving the goalpost.
As I'm sure you know, this is a faulty premise. There's nothing about the universe that points to a God as you would likely define him. Even if you defined him ONLY as the creator it still wouldn't do much because arguing for a deistic God is pretty pointless.
theycallmebobFOO 2 years ago
@theycallmebobFOO
Seriously, ...the blind are leading the blind in this quest to defraud the one and only Creator..whose design is so flawless and perfect that the entire universe runs itself. How does that happen? Not by chance friend. WOW
FairNskware 2 years ago
@FairNskware
Sorry but as far as I'm concerned this debate is over until you can come up with an argument that isn't based on mere assertion.
theycallmebobFOO 2 years ago
Ugh. Playing a little fast and loose with the ethics references aren't we? Okay. Mill was not a social contractarian. At all. Mill was a utilitarian, like Bentham.
anrchyvk 2 years ago
I prayed that your wife would get better and she is getting better. Pretty compelling proof for God.. Tag you're it !
z2153 2 years ago
so..what was wrong with her? shes better? is she ok? do u have a picture i bet shes a pretty nice lady
2boddah 2 years ago
TAG isn't so much an argument as it is a series of petty semantic squabbles. The TAG proponent will simply ask you a series of questions about what you believe and then attack you when you inevitably fail to properly account for every little nook and cranny of reality. And they'll just keep changing the subject until they find what they want.
The Transcendental ARGUMENT for God is a misnomer. It's not an argument nor even a debate tactic. it's just straight-up confrontation.
Neilsama 2 years ago
Brilliant stuff!!!
afroschlan 2 years ago
Nice vid. Yeah, the old "God exists because... well, God exists! Cause I want him to!" I just don't know what to say about it anymore.
LooseOnTheLonghorn 2 years ago
WTF, John, aren't you a deist?
Y'know what, I'm not even going to ask. You're a fucking badass.
I'd trust you with my life, this kind of honesty is worthy of a badge of honor.
Redfingers 2 years ago
Thank you. I'm surrounded by atheists among my friends and family. They are good moral people that I would trust with MY life. To use the moral argument, to even imply that those who don't share my belief in God can't be moral, is as offensive to me as it is absurd. There are some arguments for God that I will call out as nonsense.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
It's strange how many religious people think that without an awareness of God and his laws, we'd immediately start killing each other. Do ants (within the same colony, at least) kill each other? How about owls? Deer? Orangutans?
What "godless" animal goes around killing others of the same species. You can point to praying mantises or black widow spiders for some one-off accounts, but that is certainly not the norm, and none of these animals "have religion". Why should we?
Rationalific 2 years ago
Kant said it didn't he?
unassumption 2 years ago
John's right, theologica quote mined, he took a quote out of context in order to further his argument. His argument that he made a few videos back totally misrepresents the text from which he got it. He's a quote miner/hypocrite. i can see through Theologicas lies. ha. i win. lol
mcuwe1 2 years ago
Matt Dillahunty on the Atheist Experience show demolished this argument. You can YouTube search it.
Theologica is fecal matter, but to the credit of feces, at least it doesn't lie.
I mean, I feel like vomiting just thinking that this person is owed any sort of response. If I want to be as dumb as him, I'll beat my head with a hammer.
If a person is going to be ignorant, that's their own fault. It's no responsibility of DeistPaladin's to rebut bullshit. Read a book.
highwind8124 2 years ago
TAG- The argument from retardation.
Glacies12 2 years ago
I think Anselm's ontological argument is a greater fail than TAG. God exists because the greatest being imaginable cannot not exist. I just read that and laughed.
mancrushonhanksnow 2 years ago
John, hope your wife gets better. Google Acid vs Alkaline. A dis-ease can only live in ACID. Our PH is suppose to be ~7.3. Most of the food we eat is acidic(7.0). The food is killing us. Get some alkaline water, and a lot of alkaline food.
emajoronline 2 years ago
emajoronline, you just left a bizarre comment, a pH of 7.0 is neutral, and I'm sure that most medical issues cannot be casually linked to pH of the body...
ainefairygoddess 2 years ago
bellow 7.0 is what i meant. but don't take my word for it. google acid vs alkaline.
emajoronline 2 years ago
I have pulmonary problems and some ancillary reactions from Diabetes since they used severe high doses of steroids on me in the hospital it made my Diabetes much worse as an after affect. Which I am now trying to get back under control It has nothing to do with my PH levels. I don't have a viral disease.
fablespinner 2 years ago
It's a documentary called RAW FOR 30 DAYS which takes 12 people with Diabetes and cures them using an all vegan diet(alkaline). They have doctors there on the spot that proves that the PH alkaline diet cured them from Diabetes. PLEASE GOOGLE CURED IN 30 DAYS!!! All disease must live in acid to survive. Rid the body of ACID, cure the disease.
emajoronline 2 years ago
Oh don't tell me you bought into this scam? For just $50 we'll send you bullshit on a CD. Of course eating NOTHING but raw vegetables will 'in essence' keep blood sugar levels low, but seriously what a BORING way to live. I'd much rather take a shot and eat a nice bit of grilled chicken than gnaw on a uncooked turnip root.
fablespinner 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it's not a scam. it's been scientifically proven. Well RIP(Rot In Peace)
emajoronline 2 years ago
Of course it's sceintifically proven, if you eat no carbs and raw vegetable your blood sugar will lower. It is not a cure, you would have to maintain that diet forever. You would also have to take protein, b-12 and other amino acids in tablets too or suffer other issues from this sort of radical diet. It's a FAD. Plain and simple. Too far to the left and I fail to see any other peer reviews on this other than the bias dr. in the video itself.
fablespinner 2 years ago
Good vid. Keep spreading rational thought ... plain and simple. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I'm right, but I feel like it is of the utmost importance that people combat the forces of insanity and irrationality in this world i.e. organized religion. It looks as though a huge impact is being made upon a growing number of people. Morality cannot exist without god? Wtf?!
ThawtProcess 2 years ago
This is totally different from the TAG argument I'm familiar with. I thought it was about logical absolutes?
agnosticman77 2 years ago 2
The versions I've heard discuss logic, reason and morality. I only focused on morality because that was the focus of my exchange with Theo.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Morality is not part of TAG. It's about logical absolutes. Agman is right.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
That's odd, when I googled TAG, the websites (including Wikipedia) were uniform on this matter.
If I am wrong, the moral arguement still needed to be addressed which was the intent of this video.
That's what Theo and I have been debating. Ergo, that's what I wanted to address.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Wikipedia?!?!?!? Come on.... it's wikipedia.... Never use that as a source.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Fair enough. Theo mentioned it as a source I should use for basic research but you're right that I should have dug deeper.
If I owe a clarification, I'll still keep this video as a response to the morality argument (which was the focus of my exchange with Theo anyway).
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
That works for me.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
@longhornman: I wouldn't put Wikipedia down so much. It's a great source for most basic information - if you want to find out how many states there are in the U.S. or find out more information on the Big Bang. Although it's not good to use for a thesis paper, for a YouTube video, it seems appropriate most of the time.
Anyway, I'm not disputing what you say. You're probably right. But Wikipedia still isn't bad.
Rationalific 2 years ago
I love the veil of Ignorance, one of the most interesting philosophies imo.
I like the route you took with this arguement, can't say i have ever seen it put this way.
I wonder, why you did not bring up the disproving of gods omnipotence if he is the source of morality?
3rdworlds 2 years ago
It is futile with argue with irrational people whose brains have been hijacked by religion. It's not worth the time or energy OR frustration. It's the same as arguing with a person with schziophrenia. I have a lot of experience with this since my mother has this awful disease. When she is having an "episode" and starts spewing her crazy thoughts, no amount of reasoning will get through to her. Her thoughts are REAL to her. It's her reality. It's the same with Christians. It's futile.
prostock69 2 years ago
If Theologica's argument is indeed as you describe it, then I have to say I am taken aback that he actually has the sparking power in his lobes to make one foot go in front of the other in time to make it to the loo... not even worth the time to engage such a waster in any level of discussion as basic reason and logic must completely escape them...they would fail even secondary school level philosophy were their such a thing...pathetic. Can you get an F in Sunday School?
madfidr 2 years ago
All due respect, if you got nothing better to do on Sunday then sewing you really ought to feel shame (^.o)
myjizzureye 2 years ago
Excellent video! Thanks again, and I hope the best for your wife and you.
Mitchy9901 2 years ago
Utilitairnism? Utility ≠ Ethics, and is an appeal to consequences. It's total lack of respect for individual freedom makes it anything but a moral theory. In fact, it's a secular excuse for tyranny, completely and totally bankrupt of all moral considerations.
The only way to truly understand morality is through naturalistic explanations from evolution.
FlowCell 2 years ago
I don't claim that Untilitarianism is the perfect way to understand morality. I simply was presenting different ways of understanding morality that I've learned of, none of which depend on there being a Creator.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
DP Because God leaves no physical evidence of his existence at the level an atheist understands doesn't mean he doesn't exist. He exists, but just not proven at the atheist level.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
Doh...
phaexus 2 years ago
"at the atheist level"... wft? I'm not an atheist by choice. I was brought up a Christian, and truly believed the tales of the Bible... but then I started investigating.
So, the non-atheist level is the subjective one? For an omniscient, omnipotent god, that's pretty weak: "Oh, I'll make the evidence for my existence indistinguishable from a neurological flux and/or mental illness. What a fantastic idea!".
Yeah, the evidence is all in your head. Some people call that schizophrenia.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
I can look up at the night sky,see the moon, study astronomy to learn about its specialized orbit and try to imagine this just happened in a godless universe. But it is easier to accept that it was put there for a purpose and also for beauty. So I have a basis for believing in God, whether the God of theBible or not. In the meantime, someone who cannot understand the logic of the moon I consider to be demented in some way.
But as I said, maybe God doesn't want atheists to believe in him
Larsinger58 2 years ago
So because you're unable to think of another way for things to come about, a god must have done it.
Well done larsinger. You're an imbecile.
And what on earth is the "logic of the moon"?
Aaberg123 2 years ago
No. That's just ONE REASONABLE CONCLUSION. When things have purpose we usually assume it was purposed. If I see a new car I presume someone made it, I don't think of it as being found in some wilderness site.
That does not say there are no other reasonable explanations. I'm just saying God is reasonably assumed when you consider the Moon's complex orbit, it's beauty and function, etc. vs an accident.
Or if you said aliens from an unknown galaxy did it, then I'd say that makes sense
Larsinger58 2 years ago
I sure you heard this argument before, but haven't really thought about it with an open mind.
Imagine yourself as water.
Imagine the world you live in as a hole in the road.
Does the fact that you fit perfectly in the hole mean that the hole was designed for you, or that you had adapted to the hole?
Natural selection is not accidental.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Yes, if all the holes are perfect squares or pentagrams I'd say there was intelligent design. Furthermore, it is obvious the road is of intelligent design as well.
So that doesn't work since where did the road come from?
Larsinger58 2 years ago
The road is an irrelevant part of the metaphor. The hole represents the universe, not the road.
The point is that the world isn't designed for us, but that we have evolved to fit into our environment.
Exactly what follows this pattern of "square and pentagrams"?
Things are the way they are. I've yet to see you make an argument as to why any of it should have been created by an intelligence, let alone with us in mind.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
And regarding your "where did the [hole] come from" question: I don't know. I'm not as presumptuous and arrogant as the theists to say I know. Why not do the honest thing and leave that as a question mark, instead of going around and claiming knowledge of something we have absolutely no data on?
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Well, I'm sort of an exception because I'm an X-Jehovah's Witness. That's the cult God deals with as a "temple" so more supernatural things happen in this group that are perceived to come from God. So we have MORE than just the Bible or the universe to deal with the denial of God.
I know for a FACT there's a God, but that's my database, not that of the common person. Those with my database can't deny God. Those who don't have it might still wonder. It's that simple.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
As long as you understand that your perception is subjective, then it's fine with me; but I fear that you extrapolate well beyond then scope of the data.
Do you also look at the moons of Saturn and Jupiter and find that they /must/ have been made by a god? It's somewhat near the old is-ought problem. Just because certain things act in a certain way (the Moon), can you say it's made with us in mind? I don't see how you can reach that conclusion.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
I know for a fact, according to my database, that there's an invisible pink unicorn that protects all of us.
Saying shit like this just means you're crazy. You belong in an institution.
JonO387 2 years ago
Actually, I don't have to convince you of my subjective interpretation of the facts. You look at the moon as I do and we come to different conclusions. I can understand why someone would be an atheist. Maybe I lack enough imagination for a godless solution?
But that might work both ways, right?
Larsinger58 2 years ago
Good news re wife.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
God's a big boy, he can take care of himself. Our duty is to one another.
Lohitaksha 2 years ago 5
what has any of this to do with TAG? even as a refutation of the moral argument it was as shallow as the shallow end of the local pool for small children
KnownNoMore 2 years ago 2
That was great.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
11 Minutes dedicated to tearing apart utilitarianism:
/watch?v=PmQvRm_4tmI.
... You really shouldn't have appealed to the pleasure principle. Especially with my having a readily loaded gun on this issue.
I challege you, AND LET THE READER MARK THIS CHALLENGE, to RESPOND to the video I've posted as a video response.
All of my sources are in the sidebar of that video.
Again, I challenge you to interact with the arguments and provide legitimate philosophical analysis.
I await your response ;)
Theologica37 2 years ago
@Theoliar:
How about you make a video that proves step 1 of TAG?
Maybe cite studies that show the pious have lower per capita rates of prison incarceration?
Maybe cite studies that show that pious societies have lower crime rates and are happier by other social indicators?
Maybe just explain why God is absolutely required for morality to exist?
That would impress me.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I think for most religious people who like TAG they think of morality as "rules from god", making it make sense but also being wrong.
Now to blurb out some crap because I am looking at this in my philosophy course right now: I would say that rules from a god can't be part of morality except by coincidence because morality is synthetic but supposedly the rules from god would be analytical.
TimJMorrison 2 years ago
Euthyphro dilemma.
If we're able to cherry pick the teachings from the Bible, and judge the morality of said teachings, then the Bible cannot be the source of morality.
And seeing how the Bible is the supposed word of God, God cannot be the source of morality.
Aaberg123 2 years ago 2
Oh cool, thank you, I didn't know that idea was the "Euthyphro dilemma".
I'll have to remember that incase I can use it in the question about morality in my test in Jan :-)
TimJMorrison 2 years ago
Look up the dilemma for the accurate wording, but it articulates one of the best reservations regarding theistic absolutist morality.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
This is precisely the issue. Once again, due to your shoddy research, I can't even have a meaningful dialogue with you because I have to correct you first.. just as in your past videos attempting to mount an argument against scripture.
John, that is not "step 1 of TAG".
You didn't cite a single source for any of this.
Theologica37 2 years ago
As good as ever. You're a credit to the tubes!
All the best to your Mrs.
NonStampCollector 2 years ago 4
8:01 You conclude with nothing short of an argument from ignorance.
John, I am running out of palms to dig my face into.
Problems:
1 That is not that transcendental argument, I have studied this argument in depth and never seen that syllogism in any academic sources.
2 ..And due to not having cited ANYTHING for your special pleading, I cannot know where you got it.
3 Utilitarian ethics & the PP are untenable (see VR)
4 (Input any of the myriad of logical fallacies connecting incoherent rants)
Theologica37 2 years ago
Surely after your previous short comings you would learn to CITE YOUR SOURCE. Where is You didn't give A SINGLE CITATION. NOT ONE.
That syllogism is completely foreign to me. All academic philosophers who would defend this argument would die laughing at this John.
5:05: FINALLY.. 5 minutes into the video and you bring up an actual academic inquiry-- I will be posting a destruction of Utilitarian ethics as a response; unlike your sloppy semantics, I actually cite academic sources.
Theologica37 2 years ago
:34 John, using a Catholic translation of scripture and reading the surrounding verses to you (which directly contradicted your false interpretation) is not lying.
I have even begun to get messages from prominent atheists telling me to not waste my time with you because of your whining and false accusations. I suggest you cease these sort of tactics if you wish to be taken seriously.
Theologica37 2 years ago
You quote mined your own Bible.
That makes you a liar.
QED
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Are you that dim?
I read you the surrounding verses; I am a Catholic so I used an orthodox translation. And then you were, for whatever ignorant reason, surprised that this translation wasn't on a protestant website.
Again, I am running out of palms to dig my face into.
Think through your responses John. This is getting ridiculous.
These accusations are childish and abhorrent, it is not my fault you used an unacademic source that only listed single verses.
Your ignorance =/= my dishonesty.
Theologica37 2 years ago
Now you're lying about why you got busted for lying. I've already corrected you here and yet you persist.
It's not that you quoted the NAB.
It's that you QUOTE MINED the NAB.
That makes you a liar.
Now stop lying about why you got busted for lying.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Step 1.) Without The Flying Spaghetti Monster, pasta, meatballs, sauce or Italian Cuisine would not exist.
TheD0ded0de 2 years ago 3
Dear DeistPaladin,
1) Thank you for you enlightening videos.
2) You need to correct the lighting in your room there is too much reflection on your face.
3) My best wishes for your wife's recovery
lastly, a small question-
in the same vein as today topic when you use the statement "god's gift of reason" how are you so sure its "gods" gift & what are you attributing "god" to be in that statement ?
NiyaraKhalsa 2 years ago
Good stuff! I've missed you!
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
Very glad to hear that your wife is on the mend.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Hoping your wife gets better.
GRANDOVERLORD77 2 years ago
3.
Matt Slick from CARM argues this in a much more complicated form. Still can't see how this proves the christian god.
sinebass808 2 years ago
2.
There are some objective logical absolutes.
We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Concepts require a mind.
Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
That mind is God.
God exists.
sinebass808 2 years ago
1.
Hi, I'm not too sure you've got the TAG argument right. Though morality can be used as a transcendental concept, logical absolutes are usually the premise.
sinebass808 2 years ago
Have you read Matt Slick's formulation of the TAG argument? I think he does a little bit better with defending premise 1, nevertheless, the argument is still crappy. And moreover, Christians ought not be so enthralled with it because it does not prove the CHRISTIAN god, but simply some type of absolutely perfect mind which may very well not even perform miracles.
Ryansarcade9 2 years ago
Are you an atheist now or something? What happened to the whole deist thing?
happyhappy85 2 years ago
I'm still a deist but I recognize that some "proofs" for God are so dumb, I can't defend them.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Oh right ok, fair enough, just wondering.
I'm a big fan, keep up the good work. :)
happyhappy85 2 years ago
Which arguments for Gods existence do you find most convincing that drive you towards Deism rather than Atheism John?
There are alot of em these days. Would you say you're more drawn to the argument sof physicists like Paul Davies for example? How about fine tuning? Or the idea that God is the sum of and/or overaching law governing the laws of the natural universe, that these contain some sort of calculating, creative intelligent essense to them, a intelligent but natural God.
???
Iconoclastithon 2 years ago
Sorry, I tried to post earlier and it didn't take apparently.
For me, the argument for God is the universe, its dramatic beginning and how things came together in the development of the human mind. The atheist's counter-argument to this is the Law of Infinate Probability.
As we explore the universe, we may find indications as to who's right by how much intelligent life we find out there. For the deist model to work, I'd expect we wouldn't be the only "project" in a vast cosmos.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
No problem
: )
Thanks. Allthough the argument is kinda vague. Are there specific phlosophical and scientific arguments that cause you're leaning? Physics{macro or micro/quantum}? Certain classical or modern philosophical arguments{which ones?}.
I'm still not clear on which arguments it is that convinced you. I'm guessing what you're saying in your post here is an indication towards life beeing fine tuned into the cosmological contants or somethin?
: )
My best to Dana and you
: )
Iconoclastithon 2 years ago
I pointed out to Slick that his argument was based on entirely different premises in his video's comments, and he spent some time calling me an idiot and reasserting his assertions as if he'd accomplished something.
TAG fails even sooner, because it actually goes like this:
Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: God made everything else.
Premise 3: Things exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, god exists.
It's a false premise silently snuck in there and accepted as fact.
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
Best wishes to you and your wife. And, thanks for the excellent videos.
Samsaptaka 2 years ago
To those bible worshipers that think humans are incapable of coming up with laws of morality ourselves, I must ask in which bible verse do we find drunk driving, and speed limit laws?
In which Bible verse does it forbid a 40 year old from having sex with a ten year old kid? Look long and hard, but the bible did not forbid adults having sexual relationships with children. So please tell me where our society has come up with the idea that having sex with children is wrong, since Yahweh didn't?
exodus21v20 2 years ago 4
Dude do you drive a white van and carry a bottle of chloroform with you when ever you park out the front of schools?
myjizzureye 2 years ago
lol!!!
sinebass808 2 years ago
I think you have him confused with a priest!
PlainsofWar 2 years ago 2
ba doom tish
myjizzureye 2 years ago
Right, and my one regret on this video is not going into the strange taboos religions sometimes create. The kibosh on dabbling in other religions or blaspheming against your own is a given. Then there are others like the "love is evil when the body parts are similar" or "teaching about condoms is worse than the spread of AIDS".
And the purity balls? Disturbing on so many levels.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
At my school we were taught an abstinence-only sex education program. Even the teacher in charge of teaching our class didn't want to teach it because he thought people should learn about SEX and CONTRACEPTION, not scare tactics.
MarowakDidIt 2 years ago
i think the tag argument is one of the lamest arguments ,
freethinker3161 2 years ago
The Ontological is even dumber than TAG, IMHO.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Since when has morality been part of TAG?
longhornman99001 2 years ago
..This is precisely the problem.
He doesn't know what hes talking about.
Theologica37 2 years ago
With all respect to DeistPaladin, this was just a bad video. I mean I think TAG is an awful argument, but this video doesn't even address TAG, it addresses the moral argument. And, even as a response to the moral argument, this video missed the mark.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Glad to hear your wife is getting better.
Okay, now let's deal with Tag....
Here's a question Matt Slick needs to find an answer to: Why is it specifically Yahweh that is "required" to morality, et al, to exist?
And why Yahweh specifically?
Why not Krishna, Allah, Wotan or J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs...
would TAG not still work if it were some other deity? And if not, why not?
LordCustos3 2 years ago
The assertion that the TAG argument MUST support the idea of the Triune god is supported with just as much evidence as step 1.
They dismiss Islam and Buddhism, mentioning these religions by name, but don't say why.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I know this sounds weird and please don't take this answer seriously but if you respond that would be pretty boss: What if when you die you found out that the TAG argument was true- except instead of crazy bible God, it was someone like.... I dunno, Hanuman? What would you do if you were faced with a Happy Monkey God?
ddpl365 2 years ago
Yeah. If there has to be a god, much better a plump, happy Buddha or a warm and friendly Aphrodite; rather than a psychotically vengeful Yahweh or the crucified carcass of his dead hippy son.
LordCustos3 2 years ago 2
Seriously, if heaven ended up being this big never ending bollywood dance scene- it would be a dream come true. Jesus could be there if he wants. I think the Christians tarnished his image of being a badass rock star.
ddpl365 2 years ago
The god played by Jet-Li? That might be fun.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
No that movie was Son Goku the Japanese Monkey King in the Old Legend Gensumaden Saiyuki. 3 Demons and a Shinto Monk walk into a bar... LOL No, Hanuman is the Hindu Monkey God not the same dude. 2 different monkey god legends. :)
fablespinner 2 years ago
Oh and Son Goku is also more commonly known as SANNO Shinto Tendai sect.... It's complicated. There's a god for everything and lots of monkey gods in Shintoism but for this case, the one played by Jet Li for clarification is Sanno/Son Goku The Monkey King. :)
fablespinner 2 years ago
Twenty fourth!!!!
PoisonToothG 2 years ago