I'm surprised that theists respond so negatively to the concept of a magical man in the sky - but that is the concept in the Bible and in many, many other systems
No, Moses actually told people God had no image, was not made of flesh, was was within us all, Jesus also told people the kingdom of God comes not by observation and is "within you"
Only the foolish (atheistic) say that God is a "man in the sky" because they watch TV and paintings, I don't know if atheists are actually human in terms of intelligence, maybe slightly more intelligent than a chimpanzee
- to say the least, science has a standard that must be followed in order to reach a theory, like the theory of gravity... that same standard is used in the theory of evolution.
If the same standard that has allowed all of modern science and technology to exist, that was used in testing the theory of evolution, was incorrect... then how is it we live in the modern electrified world that we do today? and by we, that includes you, itsnobody.
I understand how science and logic works, unlike most atheists, they don't know what empirical testability and that science makes no claim regarding anything untestable
I don't know what you're referring to in regards to evolution, I hadn't claimed anything about evolution being true or false
The modern electrified world came from highly religious Theists gaining understanding of electromagnetism (Faraday and Maxwell)
- in many cases they weren't really religious, but minor, or moderate... they didn't believe what the congregation did, much like most archbishops do.
Think of the artist of Sistine Chapel, was he really that religious? or was it the extremely high pay he got for painting it? Not only that, jobs for artists back then were scarce to begin with.
I know plenty of great artists that draw religious work but aren't religious.
No, Michael Faraday was highly religious, coming from the Sandemanian Church, his religious beliefs are what motivated him to do science, believing that all forces were unified instead of divided, he believed that the universe had a systematic order
Faraday is of course the reason we have all electrical technology today, his accomplishments and discoveries are vast and innumerable
- Besides... electricity doesn't deny God's existence, nor does mathematics.
It's biology that really made science start to seperate from religion.
If you research magnetism, in what way would that science give you any more or less reason to believe in God? ... there's not much in the bible on such topics, but there is A LOT(of BS) on biology in the bible.
Right, the change started with biology, but the greatest benefactor Louis Pasteur, the one who started finding cures and vaccines, was highly religious saying "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator"
After atheists finally took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s then all of a sudden we stopped finding cures for things
There really is no greater threat to science than the emergence of atheism
- well... that and he got it wrong... God doesn't look like an old man on a cloud, he looks like the correct version... spaghetti, meatballs, and two eyestalks.
What? God has never been defined as an old man in the clouds, except by the foolish and disgusting, does Moses, Mohommad, Jesus, Krishna, or any monotheistic teacher ever define God as an old man in the cloud?
Highly religious Theists have to invent the scientific method, classical physics, electromagnetic theory, and quantum theory for the ungrateful atheists
Thank highly religious Theists for nearly all of a science
Most Christians in the past were naturalists until atheists took over everything with their foolishness
It was believed that God created nature, and studying nature (doing science) was a good thing
Atheists have held science back for years with their subhuman level of intelligence and non-existent level of creativity and imagination, history clearly shows that as soon as atheists took over science we immediately stopped finding cures, and all of science started growing slower
hey fool (atheist), God is never defined as "a man in the sky" except by the foolish (atheistic)
What you described was the spitting image of an argument from ignorance, I guess from your reasoning I can conclude that all things that lack evidence like free will, abiogenesis, multiple universes, gravitons, the string theory, etc...are all nonsense myths right?
Again, God is not a "magical man in the sky" I don't know why you keep using that false straw man definition
Next, you're right about free will and abiogenesis, but wrong about God, God is just like multiple universes, it's outside of empirical testability so there's no evidence for or against
Nope, again God is never actually defined as a magic man in the sky, that's why Moses told his followers God had no image, and no to make images and idols
All these concepts of gods are as super humans with magic powers, and usually with a pretty loud voice too. In the Bible El and his sons even meet and divide up the land. Pretty transparent myth.
@itsnobody, maybe there is a god, gods, goddesses, fairies, goblins, ghosts, demons, unicorns, Loch Ness monster, and countless other ideas that people have thought up. Maybe these do exist in reality. But until there's valid evidence, please explain why I should believe they exist?
Well again you're using a non-sequitur, the existence of God doesn't have anything to do with fairies, unicorns, the loch ness monster or whatever
using your reasoning I guess I can falsify the string theory by saying I don't believe in the loch ness monster, lol
atheists arguments are like a joke, but then again atheists are subhuman in terms of intelligence, they just try to pretend to be smart for some reason
Well you're using circular reasoning (concluding God is delusional by assuming God is delusional)
And gods and goddesses that have different attributes, properties, characteristics, and definitions are all different, so how can you claim it's the same?
That's like saying gravitons and the many-worlds interpretation are the same claims
What? It's not shown to be delusional because it's outside of empirical testability, just like the string theory, gravitons, multiple universe, or anything else outside of empirical testability
You've not shown it to delusional you've only used your own distorted straw man definition of a "man in the sky" (even though no major monotheistic religion ever defines God as a man in the sky)
Moses and his cronies were apparently told they couldn't see the Big Guy's face or they would die , but "thou shalt see my back" . Then the Big Guy spoke to Moses face to face - clearly playing favourites, and lying!.
itsnobody says "...the actual truth, has no origin, is eternal, unborn, unmade, unchangeable", and "Similarly, it is with God since he is the absolute truth"
More foolish incoherence. So what exactly is the "truth" and why is it unchanging? Things clearly change in the universe - once there were no stars then there were stars, no life then life, no Taj Mahal then a Taj Mahal. Reality changes and hence truth.
And is your God a personal God? If so, is there a scripture associated with your God?
@itsnobody, as shown a year ago, truth does change - once it was true to say "there is no planet Earth", and later it was true to say "there is a planet Earth".
Positing a god or gods means you are making claims about how the universe - which can be tested. So let's see a definition of your particular version.
Oh well, there are 1000s of concepts of gods - seems they're all true.
Hypotheses are hypotheses until they are tested against evidence. As your god is untestable, it's useless.
Truth does not change, all the Earth not existing in the past indicates is that the statement "The Earth always existed is false", the statement "The Earth did not always exist" would be true
If I were to say "during this time period the Earth exists" it would be a true statement
So truths do not change, there is no true statement that is not unchangeable
Saying there are 1000s of concepts of gods does not refute my God concept anymore than saying there are 1000s of theories
itsnobody says "Atheists have no problem accepting that energy is causeless". Fair enough, it's rational to accept that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
But itsnobody equivocates on "complexity". 1) heterogeneity of parts, 2) difficult to understand, 3) amount of information. The analogy with energy is dangerous. It's not consistent with a divine intelligence.
So exactly what God does itsnobody want? Spinozan (sans intelligence), deist (sans personal) or theist (the works)?
So you accept that things like energy can be causeless? Well then you've ruined the causeless God argument, haven't you?
How is dangerous to compare with God? I stated that God is not complex as in being made up of many parts, but difficult to understand, I had stated God didn't contain information but was the origin of information itself
So where's the problem?
There's no contradictions or any problems with any of my arguments, you've just built false straw man refuted nothing
itnobody continues to commit a number of logical fallacies in his argument. It is bad enough that (1) he originally claimed that his God is "untestable", (2) he then claims that his God is complex and difficult to understand, yet (3) he claims to KNOW so much about this untestable, difficult to understand concept.
What's the point of hiding behind an Argument from Unintelligibility - how can the theist justify saying anything about their God? All the theist's assertions are in vain.
1) God is untestable, like the string theory, multiple universes, gravitons, etc...
2) I had claimed God is difficult to understand but not "complex" as in made up of many parts
3) Right, how did all those physicists in history know about their theories and hypotheses before they were proven true during the time when they were untestable? How do physicists today speak of multiple universes and gravitons?
Think of how the truth, the actual truth, the way things really are, the true nature of reality, maybe difficult to understand, know, comprehend, etc...
Yet the actual truth, the absolute truth, isn't "complex" as in having many parts, like say a machine
Think of how the actual truth, has no origin, is eternal, unborn, unmade, unchangeable
Similarly, it is with God since he is the absolute truth
- you should really look into the science known as "Quantum Physics" in which hard-science attempts to explain how the very simply can be so complex and vice versa.
As well, we accept the theories of energy because it has been tested and put to practical use. That is how science usually works, if it did not work in such a way, then you would not be able to reply to this comment.
All science works in that same way, including evolution, via scientific method.
Think of how the truth, the actual truth, the way things really are, the true nature of reality, maybe difficult to understand, know, comprehend, etc...
Yet the actual truth, the absolute truth, is "complex" as in having many parts, like say a machine
Think of how the actual truth, has no origin, is eternal, unborn, unmade, unchangeable
Similarly, it is with God since he is the absolute truth
itsnobody might want to consider that complexity of something is related to amount of information defining it. Such as (1) the amount of information contained in a person's DNA.
Now consider (2) the information contained in a being that is the "origin of all the innumerable universes...the highest truth...the system in itself, etc".
itsnobody, please show how (2) is less complex than (1) and, if so, why does (1) need a designer but not (2)? These will surely be simple questions for you.
Ok you fuckin idiot, let me explain this clearly so it might penetrate that thick atheistic skull
God doesn't "contain" information, rather God is the origin of information in itself, the source of all the innumerable realities, the highest truth, the way in itself, the truth in itself
God is "complex" as in having many parts
But God is "complex" as in being difficult to understand, comprehend, know, etc...
Looks like itsnobody has a bit of an anger-management problem. Maybe if he calmed down a bit, took a couple of deep breaths, and actually thought about what he's saying, he may wonder about his grasp on logic.
itsnobody makes the grandiose claim that his God is "the origin of information in itself, the source of all the innumerable realities, the highest truth, the way in itself, the truth in itself", but...
He then says that his God "doesn't contain information". Sorry - non sequitor.
itsnobody's claims his God as "the origin of all the innumerable universes..., the highest truth...the system in itself, etc" is "simple". But such a concept is the very opposite of simple. Adding "etc" proves beyond doubt how flawed his claim is.
If we need a designer to explain complexity in the universe, then itsnobody's concept of God as "unmade" is self-contradictory because his God is complex by definition, and hence would need to designed
Poor itsnobody is in a state of utter confusion. First he says that his God is "the origin of all the innumerable universes" and now he says he "never claimed God was a 'designer'". Maybe when he comes up with a more coherent argument we'll be able to take him more seriously.
Right...a designer and being the origin of all innumerable universes are two separate things, I thought that would be easy for any human to understand, but for a subhuman (atheist) I understand it may be difficult
Designer refers to designing and engineering things like a human does, The Supreme Being does not design things, rather all the innumerable universes emanate from him automatically, it's not designed in the same way that humans design things
God has never been defined as a "man in the sky" only the foolish (atheistic) say so, it is true that anything untestable is useless in science, but everything in modern science in the past was untestable (atoms, quarks, electromagnetism, etc...)
You're a subhuman because atheists have done nearly nothing for science and technology
The reason it took a year is because I forgot about this and had other things to do, only after someone else recently replied did I come back
@itsnobody, if it's about "truth" then the religious beliefs of a scientist is irrelevant.
Science can test the past.
At the time that the Earth did not exist, it was true that the Earth did not exist. When Earth existed, the earlier truth was then false. Hence truth can change.
itsnobody comes across as such a delightful person, who clearly thinks that if he can be insulting enough no one will realise how empty headed his arguments are.
With all his vulgar references to sexual intercourse he's clearly trying to compensate for something. (A curse from his God for not putting together a better argument for his existence.)
itsnobody's applies the fallacy of 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' to claims against God, but he completely misrepresents the situation. There is little POSITIVE evidence for a God, but there is plenty of NEGATIVE evidence against. So the fallacy doesn't apply. And he still hasn't refuted Montague's argument for 'Dawkins' Infinite Regress' which disproves the possibility of a supernatural intelligent designer.
There's enough naturalistic evidence to justify that the default position should be 'natural explanation'. To do otherwise would be to commit the fallacy of 'slothful induction'. That is the relevance of the analogy with fairies. If itsnobody wants to equate the rationality of superstring theory with the rationality of fairies, it simply shows his inability to examine the basis for different claims.
itsnobody says "Well give me a hypothetical condition that can indicate there is some type of God that exists", which perfectly illustrates the bizarre state of his mental processes. It's up to him to define his concept of God - he's the one who appears to believe in a God. But even worse does he really think tha if something can't be proven either way, then either position is EQUALLY likely?
"Unfortunately, religious belief of all kinds shares the same intellectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality as belief in the existence of fairies." AC Grayling.
Wow you gave a muthafuckin quote with no logic to back it up...nice appeal to authority
Using your reasoning people who believe in the superstring theory have the same rationality as people who believe fairies...you can't prove fairies exist and you can't prove the superstring theory is true, doesn't that make them equally probable and the same in rationality?
Man fucking up these fuckboy atheists is too easy for me, I mean I'm simply the best
2) itsnobody requires me to 'set up an experiment to detect whether God does or does not exist'. But why is an 'experiment' required? Why not see how well a particular concept of God fits with the available evidence? He hypocritically demands 'substance in [my] argument' yet he's incapable of seeing that I supported my position in the Montague article, which sinks the concept of a supernatural intelligent designer.
itsnobody, be a good boy and do your homework. Or go and believe in fairies.
you also left out that atheism IS an argument from ignorance...assuming that something false until proven true is an argument from ignorance as well as assuming something is true until proven false...
So these atheistic arguments:
"You can't prove God exists, so God doesn't exist"
"There's no evidence God exists, so God doesn't exist"
"Its been thousands of years and no one can prove God's existence"
ALL are arguments from ignorance...haha stupid fuckboy atheists
Although one or more atheists may, express and/or not express any number of arguments; may make and/or not make any particular assertion or more; may assume and/ or not assume one or more ideas to be correct ideas; -
- may assume and/ or not assume one or more ideas to be incorrect ideas, and/or may hold and/or not hold any number of beliefs IN ADDITION TO his or, her, or their being an atheist or atheists, atheism is ONLY the lack of having the theistic belief that there is an (or any) 'God'.
actually the most common definition of atheism is "belief that there is no God" found in most dictionaries still today
modern atheists have been trying to re-define the actual definition to "lacking belief in God" in order to gain converts and escape their irrationality
They try to use exact literal Greek derivatives to re-define the words and play semantics
I was going by the actual real definition of "belief that there is no God"
You claimed: " the most common definition of atheism is "belief that there is no God" found in most dictionaries still today"
That any given definition of a word is or has been - at any given time - most commonly accepted as being an accurate definition of that word does not mean that given definition is absolutely correct.
Even if the same definition of a word was given in ALL dictionaries, that still would not mean that definition was necessarily absolutely correct. Presenting an argument from authority is presenting a logically fallacious argument.
In regard to who defines the word atheism, you might consider this: If any theist - who, in addition to being a theist - also has the belief not just that he or she BELIEVES that there is a 'God', but that he or she KNOWS that there is a 'God' - and if he or she were to attempt to define what atheism is, do you not think that what definition he or she gave to that word would be influenced by the bias of his or her having the perspective of believing that he or she KNOWS that there is a 'God'?
No I think the definition is defined by the dictionary, since you're arguing that the dictionary doesn't matter, I can't know what you mean
so all words don't mean anything and the dictionary and modern society should be thrown anyway and everyone should constantly re-define every word and say the dictionary doesn't matter right?
In any case, in regard to your claim that atheism is an argument, you wrote: "I was going by the actual real definition of "belief that there is no God" ", but belief that there is no 'God' " is NOT an argument. That definition of atheism does, therefore , NOT support your claim that atheism is an argument.
Neither 'I believe that there is' nor 'I believe that there is not' are logically arguable claims. Eg.- If I were to say that I believe that there is not any 'God', then that would not be a logically arguable claim made by me - because no one (who is NOT myself, and) who might argue against that claim could logically claim to know whether I do - or whether I do not - believe that there is not any 'God'. The claim of having a belief is not a logically arguable claim.
In contrast to this, both 'I know that there is' and 'I know that there is not' are arguable claims. Eg. - If I were to say that I KNOW that there is not any 'God', then that would be an arguable claim made by me - because any number of people who might argue against that claim could claim that I do not know that (even if I believe that I do know that - and , indeed even if I do know that). The claim of knowing IS a logically arguable claim.
Saying you know and you believe is just playing semantics again. Giving an argument to support your beliefs or claims or what you "know" is possible. I don't know why you're playing semantics with what you believe vs what you know.
Likewise, those theists who do ONLY hold the belief that there is a 'God', but who do not hold the belief that they do KNOW that there is a 'God' are also NOT presenting an arguable claim, when asserting that they do believe that there is a 'God'.
It is not the claim of atheists nor is it the proposal of atheism that there is not any God, even if some atheists do make the claim that there is not any God.
Atheism is not having the belief that there is not any God (even though some number of atheists may ALSO have that belief IN ADDITION TO their being atheists).
Atheism is LACKING having the belief that there is any God.
Actually it is possible to prove that "God doesn't exist". Something can be proved not to exist if it's shown to be self-contradictory (e.g. "a four sided triangle"). In the case of God, it is, of course, necessary to define the concept before assessing whether it is self-contradictory. The classical God of theism, the God of the Bible, sets up a very good case for falsifiability.
Also, look up an article by Roger Montague on "Dawkins' Infinite Regress" for an interesting demonstration.
No you can't prove God does exist or God doesn't exist...the existence of God is an untestable hypothesis, you can't falsify or prove an untestable hypothesis...so since its untestable, you can't gather evidence of presence nor evidence of absence
itsnobody, you certainly show a charming side to yourself in your response to Void890123. Such a mature way to debate. So well done.
Void890123's position is, in a more expanded form, that 'God' is a hypothesis put forward to explain something. That's how the idea of 'God' came about. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me. And, in fact, HUNDREDS of 'Gods' have been disproved. So your position is starting to look a bit foolish.
Firstly, you need to define the 'God' you are talking about.
maturity or immaturity doesn't refute anything I said, haha, what a lame argument
"sounds like a testable hypothesis", well ok then, tell me what experiment can you setup to detect whether God does or does not exist?
Also you're using a non-sequitur argument, the existence of hundreds of other Gods being falsified doesn't falsify the existence of another God...it would be like someone saying "The superstring theory must be false, in the past people believed in lots of incorrect theories"
itsnobody, you certainly show a charming side to yourself in your response to Void890123. Such a mature way to debate. So well done. Void890123's position is, in a more expanded form, that 'God' is a hypothesis put forward to explain something. That's how the idea of 'God' came about. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me. And, in fact, HUNDREDS of 'Gods' have been disproved. So your position is starting to look a bit foolish. Firstly, you need to define the 'God' you are talking about.
itsnobody, to expand on Void890123's position, time and time again, TESTABLE supernatural claims for events have proven to be false. Evil spirits cause disease? Thunder and earthquakes sent by gods?
So do you believe in fairies? You seem happy for the concept of God to be on the same level of fairies - fair enough!
I say again: it's possible to prove the non-existence of something by showing it to be contradictory. The classic God of theism is self-contradictory and doesn't exist.
the fact that other supernatural claims have been falsified doesn't falsify another, different supernatural claim dumbass, still using a non-sequitur argument
a similar argument would be someone saying "lots of scientific theories in the past have been falsified, so the superstring theory must also be false, I mean we're all non-believers to hundreds of theories"
God isn't self-contradictory at all, and repeatedly saying so doesn't show how, try to have some substance in your argument
1) itsnobody thinks his immaturity has no bearing on his arguments. However, he should spend more time reading comments and attempting to understand them. Instead, he ignores criticisms of his odd claims, and goes off at tangents accusing others of non-sequitors which are his own assumptions.
He appears to accept that many Gods have been disproven, which refutes his naive claim that 'you can't prove God does exist or God doesn't exist', yet he seems unable to define his concept of God
What an idiot, its still not penetrating that thick atheistic skull...so let me explain it slowly
The fact that other God concepts have been disproven and falsified doesn't falsify another different God concept fool, an equivalent argument would be "well oh fuck I don't believe in the geocentric theory, so abiogenesis must not be true"
Back to itsnobody's original foolish claim that 'God is untestable'. He continues to miss two obvious points (well, obvious to a 5-year old):
(1) 100s of Gods have been disproven, so therefore it IS possible for a concept of God to be testable (or does he believe in Zeus, Thor etc? ) -- I didn't say that EVERY concept of God is testable, and this is not necessary to refute his absurd claim; (2) it's pointless to use the term "God" without defining which concept. But he's too scared to do so.
dbes02, I understand your anger because of my ad hominems, but you're still not getting anything I stated
1) The fact that other gods have been disproven or falsified doesn't show that another different God concept can be testable. It would be like someone saying "other theories are testable so the superstring theory is testable"
2. Ok, God is the origin of all the innumerable universes (many-worlds style), the highest truth, unmade, unborn, unchangeable, the system in itself, etc...
itsnobody, 1) I didn't claim that all concepts of God are untestable. I showed a fallacy in your absolute claim of untestability. 2) But testablitiy is not limited to formal experimentation. It's also possible to test on logic with reference to observed deata (eg the Problem of Evil). Your concept of God requires a complex intelligence to simply exist as a first cause of the universe and complexity. This leads to a regress because you are committed to explaining this initial complexity.
itsnobody's theistic argument has turned into a farce! His concept of God as creator is "not complex at all...rather its very simple". This reasoning is both devious and fallacious, an intellectual dishonesty that sounds like the last gasp of a dying man.
itsnobody risks committing a fallacy of equivocation where human 'intelligence' is considered complex, and hence needs a designer, but God's 'intelligence' is NOT complex, and needs no designer.
Man all these atheists are lame, they simply mimick the exact same arguments they've heard from other atheists, where as my arguments are original and authentic, coming from my own independent mind
I just makes me wonder if atheists really have any independent mind at all, since its empirically observed that they mimick the same atheistic arguments
itsnobody likes being a bit of a comedian. (Fair enough - YouTube is not the most serious forum.) But does itsnobody want his arguments taken seriously? They're certainly not new. An argument isn't poor simply because it's old (or new). And if we could never say anything first thought up by someone else, there would be practically no comments being made anywhere! So presumably this is simply another of itsnobody's comic airings.
But itsnobody's concept of God is, yet again, self contradictory.
itsnobody, on a point of order, don't claim that you're quoting me when the quotation is something you made up. Not that I can expect you to follow any reasonable rules of debate.
Please tell me again how "easily" you solved the contradictions in your position. I can't find your solution anywhere.
A conclusion from your position is that humans are more advanced and complicated than your God. Is this what you want?
He was providing an example. It wasn't a straw man, either. When Christians say, "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist," then they're using argument from ignorance.
You used a negative premise, as indicated by "not". You syllogism is:
All men are mortal.
All things that are this are not mortal.
Conc: All things that are this are not men.
Your form is AEE-2, which is valid, but not necessarily sound.
Lemme form the latter part of the this reply over again. Posted in a bit of haste.
The syllogism:
All men are mortal.
No things that are this are mortal.(This thing is not mortal.)
Conc.: No things that are this are men.
The conclusion is E because that's the only valid conclusion you can derive from AE-2 premises. This statement doesn't commit the aff. conc. from neg. prems. or neg. conc. for aff. prems. fallacies, which is relevant to what Pat is explaining.
He's telling us that those Christians who say, "You can't disprove God, therefore, he exists," are committing an argument from ignorance. There's no misrepresentation of position. He's not trying to knock down every Christian's argument, only those who use this one.
He's telling us that we cannot derive an affirmative conclusion from neg. premises (or vice versa) which is a common logical rule. You have a negative premise in your argument, so you can have that neg. conclusion.
proud: " "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist," then they're using argument from ignorance."
Absolutely true. The difficulty is in setting that up as a claim about the argumentative form of not just christians, but anyone.
'doesn't commit..etc.'
If 'Pat' was explaining something different, then forgive me, but if his claim is 'no proof can come from negative premises' then it's clearly wrong: mutual exclusion is a prime example.
"The difficulty is in setting that up as a claim about the argumentative form of...anyone."
Oh, I've had the fallacy used on me before (didn't matter because I'm Christian anyway). But even if no Christian has used it before, it's good people with examples of fallacies within debate -- whether or not the opposition has used the fallacy, but just in case.
Nooo, no no no. He's mentioning that no affirmative proof can come from negative premises, nor vice versa. But you are correct about Mut Exc.
proud: "Oh, I've had the fallacy used on me before"
Exactly: so let's keep the examples neutral. Instead of "like Christians/Jews/etc. say" -- all we need are examples of something as bad form, and neutral examples to compliment it.
"no affirmative proof can come from negative premises"
If you mean purely negative premises (a double 'not', for instance) then yes.
Parrot: "everything else in this world could well be an illusion!!!!!"
Not quite: Arguing for Descartes' rock is the product of, let's say, 'unfamiliarity' with his works.
The Cogito was the basis of Cartesian metaphysics, where everything that could be doubted would be rejected. By doing so, we would find that one, immutable point of knowledge: our own existence.
From this, and clearness and distinctness, the truth rule is drawn, and (consequently) all other knowledge of the universe.
I know,just started a Ph.D program lol either of two things must happen...1.I have too quit my job or 2.I'll comit selfdestruction...anyways,hope ya passed
I'm surprised that theists respond so negatively to the concept of a magical man in the sky - but that is the concept in the Bible and in many, many other systems
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
No, Moses actually told people God had no image, was not made of flesh, was was within us all, Jesus also told people the kingdom of God comes not by observation and is "within you"
Only the foolish (atheistic) say that God is a "man in the sky" because they watch TV and paintings, I don't know if atheists are actually human in terms of intelligence, maybe slightly more intelligent than a chimpanzee
So foolish (atheistic) are these atheists (fools)
itsnobody 1 year ago
Moses and Jesus are fictional as well.
dbes02 1 year ago
Personal experience counts nought as evidence.
dbes02 1 year ago
@itsnobody
- to say the least, science has a standard that must be followed in order to reach a theory, like the theory of gravity... that same standard is used in the theory of evolution.
If the same standard that has allowed all of modern science and technology to exist, that was used in testing the theory of evolution, was incorrect... then how is it we live in the modern electrified world that we do today? and by we, that includes you, itsnobody.
HypnoPants 2 years ago
@HypnoPants
I understand how science and logic works, unlike most atheists, they don't know what empirical testability and that science makes no claim regarding anything untestable
I don't know what you're referring to in regards to evolution, I hadn't claimed anything about evolution being true or false
The modern electrified world came from highly religious Theists gaining understanding of electromagnetism (Faraday and Maxwell)
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
- in many cases they weren't really religious, but minor, or moderate... they didn't believe what the congregation did, much like most archbishops do.
Think of the artist of Sistine Chapel, was he really that religious? or was it the extremely high pay he got for painting it? Not only that, jobs for artists back then were scarce to begin with.
I know plenty of great artists that draw religious work but aren't religious.
HypnoPants 1 year ago
@HypnoPants
No, Michael Faraday was highly religious, coming from the Sandemanian Church, his religious beliefs are what motivated him to do science, believing that all forces were unified instead of divided, he believed that the universe had a systematic order
Faraday is of course the reason we have all electrical technology today, his accomplishments and discoveries are vast and innumerable
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
- Besides... electricity doesn't deny God's existence, nor does mathematics.
It's biology that really made science start to seperate from religion.
If you research magnetism, in what way would that science give you any more or less reason to believe in God? ... there's not much in the bible on such topics, but there is A LOT(of BS) on biology in the bible.
HypnoPants 1 year ago
@HypnoPants
Right, the change started with biology, but the greatest benefactor Louis Pasteur, the one who started finding cures and vaccines, was highly religious saying "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator"
After atheists finally took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s then all of a sudden we stopped finding cures for things
There really is no greater threat to science than the emergence of atheism
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
- well... that and he got it wrong... God doesn't look like an old man on a cloud, he looks like the correct version... spaghetti, meatballs, and two eyestalks.
HypnoPants 1 year ago
@HypnoPants
What? God has never been defined as an old man in the clouds, except by the foolish and disgusting, does Moses, Mohommad, Jesus, Krishna, or any monotheistic teacher ever define God as an old man in the cloud?
Highly religious Theists have to invent the scientific method, classical physics, electromagnetic theory, and quantum theory for the ungrateful atheists
Thank highly religious Theists for nearly all of a science
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody, that's fine, we can thank theists for proving naturalism.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
Most Christians in the past were naturalists until atheists took over everything with their foolishness
It was believed that God created nature, and studying nature (doing science) was a good thing
Atheists have held science back for years with their subhuman level of intelligence and non-existent level of creativity and imagination, history clearly shows that as soon as atheists took over science we immediately stopped finding cures, and all of science started growing slower
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody, the common, defining atheist position is that there's no evidence for a magic man in the sky, hence no argument from ignorance.
And as scientific evidence has made nonsense of creation myths, such as in Genesis, theistic scientist have sunk their own position. Fair enough.
dbes02 1 year ago
Comment removed
itsnobody 1 year ago
A magic man in the sky - that's the concept in the Bible and from many many other systems. Bad luck.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
hey fool (atheist), God is never defined as "a man in the sky" except by the foolish (atheistic)
What you described was the spitting image of an argument from ignorance, I guess from your reasoning I can conclude that all things that lack evidence like free will, abiogenesis, multiple universes, gravitons, the string theory, etc...are all nonsense myths right?
itsnobody 1 year ago
No argument from ignorance - science is built on evidence.
Evidence contradicts free will.
Evidence supports abiogenesis.
Multiple universes are not contradicted by evidence.
The various strands of string theory are really hypothesies - but supported mathematically, and starting to set up testable predictions.
But claims associated with magical men in the sky have been contradicted by evidence - hence nonsense.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
Again, God is not a "magical man in the sky" I don't know why you keep using that false straw man definition
Next, you're right about free will and abiogenesis, but wrong about God, God is just like multiple universes, it's outside of empirical testability so there's no evidence for or against
itsnobody 1 year ago
Meanwhile, the god character of the Bible was smelling the burnt offerings, supping and wrestling down below, seen face to face on Mt Sinai.
Indeed, the concept of a magical man in the sky fits perfectly.
Claims made by delusional humans for fairies and gods are testable - and have failed miserably.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
Nope, again God is never actually defined as a magic man in the sky, that's why Moses told his followers God had no image, and no to make images and idols
itsnobody 1 year ago
All these concepts of gods are as super humans with magic powers, and usually with a pretty loud voice too. In the Bible El and his sons even meet and divide up the land. Pretty transparent myth.
dbes02 1 year ago
@itsnobody, maybe there is a god, gods, goddesses, fairies, goblins, ghosts, demons, unicorns, Loch Ness monster, and countless other ideas that people have thought up. Maybe these do exist in reality. But until there's valid evidence, please explain why I should believe they exist?
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
Well again you're using a non-sequitur, the existence of God doesn't have anything to do with fairies, unicorns, the loch ness monster or whatever
using your reasoning I guess I can falsify the string theory by saying I don't believe in the loch ness monster, lol
atheists arguments are like a joke, but then again atheists are subhuman in terms of intelligence, they just try to pretend to be smart for some reason
itsnobody 1 year ago
Gods and goddesses all in the same bin as fairies and unicorns - delusional claims.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
Well you're using circular reasoning (concluding God is delusional by assuming God is delusional)
And gods and goddesses that have different attributes, properties, characteristics, and definitions are all different, so how can you claim it's the same?
That's like saying gravitons and the many-worlds interpretation are the same claims
itsnobody 1 year ago
Shown to be delusional.
I'm not claiming they're all the same, other than that they belong in the same bin.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
What? It's not shown to be delusional because it's outside of empirical testability, just like the string theory, gravitons, multiple universe, or anything else outside of empirical testability
You've not shown it to delusional you've only used your own distorted straw man definition of a "man in the sky" (even though no major monotheistic religion ever defines God as a man in the sky)
itsnobody 1 year ago
Claims made - empirically tested - fail.
They all have their various versions of magic men and women in the sky.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
What? How have the claims been tested if they're empirically untestable?
Well I declare myself the winner of this debate, all you can do is use non-sequitur logic, an argument from ignorance, and straw man definitions
I feel bad for ruining atheists arguments
itsnobody 1 year ago
They are empirically testable (eg, 6-day creation), and philosophically testable (eg problem of evil).
My logic is impeccable, based on evidence and reason.
dbes02 1 year ago
Moses and his cronies were apparently told they couldn't see the Big Guy's face or they would die , but "thou shalt see my back" . Then the Big Guy spoke to Moses face to face - clearly playing favourites, and lying!.
Your position is such an incoherent mess.
dbes02 1 year ago
Your so cool! I'm totally subscribing to you.
That wasn't sarcasm.
RoulfYelrab 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is win.
JamesJimRaynor 3 years ago
Are you talking to a pen cap?
socratalk 3 years ago
itsnobody says "...the actual truth, has no origin, is eternal, unborn, unmade, unchangeable", and "Similarly, it is with God since he is the absolute truth"
More foolish incoherence. So what exactly is the "truth" and why is it unchanging? Things clearly change in the universe - once there were no stars then there were stars, no life then life, no Taj Mahal then a Taj Mahal. Reality changes and hence truth.
And is your God a personal God? If so, is there a scripture associated with your God?
dbes02 3 years ago
Comment removed
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody, as shown a year ago, truth does change - once it was true to say "there is no planet Earth", and later it was true to say "there is a planet Earth".
Positing a god or gods means you are making claims about how the universe - which can be tested. So let's see a definition of your particular version.
Oh well, there are 1000s of concepts of gods - seems they're all true.
Hypotheses are hypotheses until they are tested against evidence. As your god is untestable, it's useless.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
Truth does not change, all the Earth not existing in the past indicates is that the statement "The Earth always existed is false", the statement "The Earth did not always exist" would be true
If I were to say "during this time period the Earth exists" it would be a true statement
So truths do not change, there is no true statement that is not unchangeable
Saying there are 1000s of concepts of gods does not refute my God concept anymore than saying there are 1000s of theories
itsnobody 1 year ago
itsnobody says "Atheists have no problem accepting that energy is causeless". Fair enough, it's rational to accept that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
But itsnobody equivocates on "complexity". 1) heterogeneity of parts, 2) difficult to understand, 3) amount of information. The analogy with energy is dangerous. It's not consistent with a divine intelligence.
So exactly what God does itsnobody want? Spinozan (sans intelligence), deist (sans personal) or theist (the works)?
dbes02 3 years ago
Comment removed
itsnobody 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dbes02
So you accept that things like energy can be causeless? Well then you've ruined the causeless God argument, haven't you?
How is dangerous to compare with God? I stated that God is not complex as in being made up of many parts, but difficult to understand, I had stated God didn't contain information but was the origin of information itself
So where's the problem?
There's no contradictions or any problems with any of my arguments, you've just built false straw man refuted nothing
itsnobody 1 year ago
itnobody continues to commit a number of logical fallacies in his argument. It is bad enough that (1) he originally claimed that his God is "untestable", (2) he then claims that his God is complex and difficult to understand, yet (3) he claims to KNOW so much about this untestable, difficult to understand concept.
What's the point of hiding behind an Argument from Unintelligibility - how can the theist justify saying anything about their God? All the theist's assertions are in vain.
dbes02 3 years ago
@dbes02
Wrong again, I had committed no fallacies
1) God is untestable, like the string theory, multiple universes, gravitons, etc...
2) I had claimed God is difficult to understand but not "complex" as in made up of many parts
3) Right, how did all those physicists in history know about their theories and hypotheses before they were proven true during the time when they were untestable? How do physicists today speak of multiple universes and gravitons?
itsnobody 1 year ago
Like how energy may be difficult to understand, yet energy is not complex as in having many parts
Atheists have no problem accepting that energy is causeless
itsnobody 3 years ago
Think of how the truth, the actual truth, the way things really are, the true nature of reality, maybe difficult to understand, know, comprehend, etc...
Yet the actual truth, the absolute truth, isn't "complex" as in having many parts, like say a machine
Think of how the actual truth, has no origin, is eternal, unborn, unmade, unchangeable
Similarly, it is with God since he is the absolute truth
itsnobody 3 years ago
@itsnobody
- you should really look into the science known as "Quantum Physics" in which hard-science attempts to explain how the very simply can be so complex and vice versa.
As well, we accept the theories of energy because it has been tested and put to practical use. That is how science usually works, if it did not work in such a way, then you would not be able to reply to this comment.
All science works in that same way, including evolution, via scientific method.
HypnoPants 2 years ago
Think of how the truth, the actual truth, the way things really are, the true nature of reality, maybe difficult to understand, know, comprehend, etc...
Yet the actual truth, the absolute truth, is "complex" as in having many parts, like say a machine
Think of how the actual truth, has no origin, is eternal, unborn, unmade, unchangeable
Similarly, it is with God since he is the absolute truth
itsnobody 3 years ago
itsnobody might want to consider that complexity of something is related to amount of information defining it. Such as (1) the amount of information contained in a person's DNA.
Now consider (2) the information contained in a being that is the "origin of all the innumerable universes...the highest truth...the system in itself, etc".
itsnobody, please show how (2) is less complex than (1) and, if so, why does (1) need a designer but not (2)? These will surely be simple questions for you.
dbes02 3 years ago
Ok you fuckin idiot, let me explain this clearly so it might penetrate that thick atheistic skull
God doesn't "contain" information, rather God is the origin of information in itself, the source of all the innumerable realities, the highest truth, the way in itself, the truth in itself
God is "complex" as in having many parts
But God is "complex" as in being difficult to understand, comprehend, know, etc...
itsnobody 3 years ago
yo I meant to say God is NOT "complex" as in having many parts, but "complex" as in being difficult to understand, know, comprehend, etc...
itsnobody 3 years ago
Looks like itsnobody has a bit of an anger-management problem. Maybe if he calmed down a bit, took a couple of deep breaths, and actually thought about what he's saying, he may wonder about his grasp on logic.
itsnobody makes the grandiose claim that his God is "the origin of information in itself, the source of all the innumerable realities, the highest truth, the way in itself, the truth in itself", but...
He then says that his God "doesn't contain information". Sorry - non sequitor.
dbes02 3 years ago
itsnobody's claims his God as "the origin of all the innumerable universes..., the highest truth...the system in itself, etc" is "simple". But such a concept is the very opposite of simple. Adding "etc" proves beyond doubt how flawed his claim is.
If we need a designer to explain complexity in the universe, then itsnobody's concept of God as "unmade" is self-contradictory because his God is complex by definition, and hence would need to designed
So his argument is an illogical mess.
dbes02 3 years ago
I never claimed God was a "designer" fool..God is not a "designer", rather God is the non-doer, being unchangeable
All things that potential exist, all the innumerable realities, rest upon God, have their origin in God
itsnobody 3 years ago
Poor itsnobody is in a state of utter confusion. First he says that his God is "the origin of all the innumerable universes" and now he says he "never claimed God was a 'designer'". Maybe when he comes up with a more coherent argument we'll be able to take him more seriously.
dbes02 3 years ago
@dbes02
Right...a designer and being the origin of all innumerable universes are two separate things, I thought that would be easy for any human to understand, but for a subhuman (atheist) I understand it may be difficult
Designer refers to designing and engineering things like a human does, The Supreme Being does not design things, rather all the innumerable universes emanate from him automatically, it's not designed in the same way that humans design things
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
As your magic man in the sky is not testable, you have a pointless argument.
If I'm "sub human" for not believing in your magic man, then you're "sub human" for not believing in someone else's magic men.
Clearly a year has not be long enough for you to come back with a coherent position, and some evidence.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02
God has never been defined as a "man in the sky" only the foolish (atheistic) say so, it is true that anything untestable is useless in science, but everything in modern science in the past was untestable (atoms, quarks, electromagnetism, etc...)
You're a subhuman because atheists have done nearly nothing for science and technology
The reason it took a year is because I forgot about this and had other things to do, only after someone else recently replied did I come back
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
Fine, so don't come back with any evidence for your magic man.
dbes02 1 year ago
@itsnobody, if it's about "truth" then the religious beliefs of a scientist is irrelevant.
Science can test the past.
At the time that the Earth did not exist, it was true that the Earth did not exist. When Earth existed, the earlier truth was then false. Hence truth can change.
dbes02 1 year ago
itsnobody comes across as such a delightful person, who clearly thinks that if he can be insulting enough no one will realise how empty headed his arguments are.
With all his vulgar references to sexual intercourse he's clearly trying to compensate for something. (A curse from his God for not putting together a better argument for his existence.)
dbes02 3 years ago
itsnobody's applies the fallacy of 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' to claims against God, but he completely misrepresents the situation. There is little POSITIVE evidence for a God, but there is plenty of NEGATIVE evidence against. So the fallacy doesn't apply. And he still hasn't refuted Montague's argument for 'Dawkins' Infinite Regress' which disproves the possibility of a supernatural intelligent designer.
dbes02 3 years ago
There's enough naturalistic evidence to justify that the default position should be 'natural explanation'. To do otherwise would be to commit the fallacy of 'slothful induction'. That is the relevance of the analogy with fairies. If itsnobody wants to equate the rationality of superstring theory with the rationality of fairies, it simply shows his inability to examine the basis for different claims.
dbes02 3 years ago
itsnobody says "Well give me a hypothetical condition that can indicate there is some type of God that exists", which perfectly illustrates the bizarre state of his mental processes. It's up to him to define his concept of God - he's the one who appears to believe in a God. But even worse does he really think tha if something can't be proven either way, then either position is EQUALLY likely?
dbes02 3 years ago
itsnobody might want to consider...
"Unfortunately, religious belief of all kinds shares the same intellectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality as belief in the existence of fairies." AC Grayling.
dbes02 3 years ago
Wow you gave a muthafuckin quote with no logic to back it up...nice appeal to authority
Using your reasoning people who believe in the superstring theory have the same rationality as people who believe fairies...you can't prove fairies exist and you can't prove the superstring theory is true, doesn't that make them equally probable and the same in rationality?
Man fucking up these fuckboy atheists is too easy for me, I mean I'm simply the best
itsnobody 3 years ago
2) itsnobody requires me to 'set up an experiment to detect whether God does or does not exist'. But why is an 'experiment' required? Why not see how well a particular concept of God fits with the available evidence? He hypocritically demands 'substance in [my] argument' yet he's incapable of seeing that I supported my position in the Montague article, which sinks the concept of a supernatural intelligent designer.
itsnobody, be a good boy and do your homework. Or go and believe in fairies.
dbes02 3 years ago
Well give me a hypothetical condition that can indicate there is some type of God that exists...and then it would be testable, dumbass
Fairies again is non-sequitur dumbass, the existence of God has nothing to do with the existence of fairies
itsnobody 3 years ago
haha this video is funny
you also left out that atheism IS an argument from ignorance...assuming that something false until proven true is an argument from ignorance as well as assuming something is true until proven false...
So these atheistic arguments:
"You can't prove God exists, so God doesn't exist"
"There's no evidence God exists, so God doesn't exist"
"Its been thousands of years and no one can prove God's existence"
ALL are arguments from ignorance...haha stupid fuckboy atheists
itsnobody 3 years ago
@itsnobody ,
You wrote: " atheism IS an argument from ignorance...assuming that something false until proven true..."
That assertion is false. Atheism is not an argument. Nor is atheism an assertion, an assumption, a belief, or a claim.
MENCADO 1 year ago
@itsnobody ,
Although one or more atheists may, express and/or not express any number of arguments; may make and/or not make any particular assertion or more; may assume and/ or not assume one or more ideas to be correct ideas; -
MENCADO 1 year ago
@itsnobody ,
- may assume and/ or not assume one or more ideas to be incorrect ideas, and/or may hold and/or not hold any number of beliefs IN ADDITION TO his or, her, or their being an atheist or atheists, atheism is ONLY the lack of having the theistic belief that there is an (or any) 'God'.
MENCADO 1 year ago
@MENCADO
actually the most common definition of atheism is "belief that there is no God" found in most dictionaries still today
modern atheists have been trying to re-define the actual definition to "lacking belief in God" in order to gain converts and escape their irrationality
They try to use exact literal Greek derivatives to re-define the words and play semantics
I was going by the actual real definition of "belief that there is no God"
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
You claimed: " the most common definition of atheism is "belief that there is no God" found in most dictionaries still today"
That any given definition of a word is or has been - at any given time - most commonly accepted as being an accurate definition of that word does not mean that given definition is absolutely correct.
MENCADO 1 year ago
@itsnobody
Even if the same definition of a word was given in ALL dictionaries, that still would not mean that definition was necessarily absolutely correct. Presenting an argument from authority is presenting a logically fallacious argument.
MENCADO 1 year ago
@MENCADO
What? Are you claiming that we shouldn't use the dictionary to get definitions?
So then by your reasoning anyone can re-define the meaning of any word and say the dictionary doesn't matter , haha
itsnobody 1 year ago
In regard to who defines the word atheism, you might consider this: If any theist - who, in addition to being a theist - also has the belief not just that he or she BELIEVES that there is a 'God', but that he or she KNOWS that there is a 'God' - and if he or she were to attempt to define what atheism is, do you not think that what definition he or she gave to that word would be influenced by the bias of his or her having the perspective of believing that he or she KNOWS that there is a 'God'?
MENCADO 1 year ago
@MENCADO
No I think the definition is defined by the dictionary, since you're arguing that the dictionary doesn't matter, I can't know what you mean
so all words don't mean anything and the dictionary and modern society should be thrown anyway and everyone should constantly re-define every word and say the dictionary doesn't matter right?
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
In any case, in regard to your claim that atheism is an argument, you wrote: "I was going by the actual real definition of "belief that there is no God" ", but belief that there is no 'God' " is NOT an argument. That definition of atheism does, therefore , NOT support your claim that atheism is an argument.
MENCADO 1 year ago
Comment removed
itsnobody 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was referring to the common atheistic argument "you can't prove God exists, so God doesn't exist" this is an argument from ignorance
Claiming "there is no God" is a claim, just like claiming "there is no lumiferious aether" is claim
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
Neither 'I believe that there is' nor 'I believe that there is not' are logically arguable claims. Eg.- If I were to say that I believe that there is not any 'God', then that would not be a logically arguable claim made by me - because no one (who is NOT myself, and) who might argue against that claim could logically claim to know whether I do - or whether I do not - believe that there is not any 'God'. The claim of having a belief is not a logically arguable claim.
MENCADO 1 year ago
@MENCADO
Yes it is, just like claiming "there is no lumiferous aether" or "there are no multiple universes" is a claim
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
In contrast to this, both 'I know that there is' and 'I know that there is not' are arguable claims. Eg. - If I were to say that I KNOW that there is not any 'God', then that would be an arguable claim made by me - because any number of people who might argue against that claim could claim that I do not know that (even if I believe that I do know that - and , indeed even if I do know that). The claim of knowing IS a logically arguable claim.
MENCADO 1 year ago
@MENCADO
Saying you know and you believe is just playing semantics again. Giving an argument to support your beliefs or claims or what you "know" is possible. I don't know why you're playing semantics with what you believe vs what you know.
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
Likewise, those theists who do ONLY hold the belief that there is a 'God', but who do not hold the belief that they do KNOW that there is a 'God' are also NOT presenting an arguable claim, when asserting that they do believe that there is a 'God'.
MENCADO 1 year ago
@MENCADO
the claim that "there is a God" or "there is no God" is arguable, it's irrelevant whether you "know" or "believe" this
itsnobody 1 year ago
@itsnobody
You wrote:" he claim that "there is a God" or "there is no God" is arguable..."
I did not state - nor did I suggest - that either of those claims is inarguable.
MENCADO 1 year ago
@itsnobody ,
It is not the claim of atheists nor is it the proposal of atheism that there is not any God, even if some atheists do make the claim that there is not any God.
Atheism is not having the belief that there is not any God (even though some number of atheists may ALSO have that belief IN ADDITION TO their being atheists).
Atheism is LACKING having the belief that there is any God.
MENCADO 1 year ago
Actually it is possible to prove that "God doesn't exist". Something can be proved not to exist if it's shown to be self-contradictory (e.g. "a four sided triangle"). In the case of God, it is, of course, necessary to define the concept before assessing whether it is self-contradictory. The classical God of theism, the God of the Bible, sets up a very good case for falsifiability.
Also, look up an article by Roger Montague on "Dawkins' Infinite Regress" for an interesting demonstration.
dbes02 3 years ago
No you can't prove God does exist or God doesn't exist...the existence of God is an untestable hypothesis, you can't falsify or prove an untestable hypothesis...so since its untestable, you can't gather evidence of presence nor evidence of absence
itsnobody 3 years ago
itsnobody, you certainly show a charming side to yourself in your response to Void890123. Such a mature way to debate. So well done.
Void890123's position is, in a more expanded form, that 'God' is a hypothesis put forward to explain something. That's how the idea of 'God' came about. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me. And, in fact, HUNDREDS of 'Gods' have been disproved. So your position is starting to look a bit foolish.
Firstly, you need to define the 'God' you are talking about.
dbes02 3 years ago
maturity or immaturity doesn't refute anything I said, haha, what a lame argument
"sounds like a testable hypothesis", well ok then, tell me what experiment can you setup to detect whether God does or does not exist?
Also you're using a non-sequitur argument, the existence of hundreds of other Gods being falsified doesn't falsify the existence of another God...it would be like someone saying "The superstring theory must be false, in the past people believed in lots of incorrect theories"
itsnobody 3 years ago
itsnobody, you certainly show a charming side to yourself in your response to Void890123. Such a mature way to debate. So well done. Void890123's position is, in a more expanded form, that 'God' is a hypothesis put forward to explain something. That's how the idea of 'God' came about. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me. And, in fact, HUNDREDS of 'Gods' have been disproved. So your position is starting to look a bit foolish. Firstly, you need to define the 'God' you are talking about.
dbes02 3 years ago
itsnobody, to expand on Void890123's position, time and time again, TESTABLE supernatural claims for events have proven to be false. Evil spirits cause disease? Thunder and earthquakes sent by gods?
So do you believe in fairies? You seem happy for the concept of God to be on the same level of fairies - fair enough!
I say again: it's possible to prove the non-existence of something by showing it to be contradictory. The classic God of theism is self-contradictory and doesn't exist.
dbes02 3 years ago
the fact that other supernatural claims have been falsified doesn't falsify another, different supernatural claim dumbass, still using a non-sequitur argument
a similar argument would be someone saying "lots of scientific theories in the past have been falsified, so the superstring theory must also be false, I mean we're all non-believers to hundreds of theories"
God isn't self-contradictory at all, and repeatedly saying so doesn't show how, try to have some substance in your argument
itsnobody 3 years ago
1) itsnobody thinks his immaturity has no bearing on his arguments. However, he should spend more time reading comments and attempting to understand them. Instead, he ignores criticisms of his odd claims, and goes off at tangents accusing others of non-sequitors which are his own assumptions.
He appears to accept that many Gods have been disproven, which refutes his naive claim that 'you can't prove God does exist or God doesn't exist', yet he seems unable to define his concept of God
dbes02 3 years ago
What an idiot, its still not penetrating that thick atheistic skull...so let me explain it slowly
The fact that other God concepts have been disproven and falsified doesn't falsify another different God concept fool, an equivalent argument would be "well oh fuck I don't believe in the geocentric theory, so abiogenesis must not be true"
Its still non-sequitur
itsnobody 3 years ago
Back to itsnobody's original foolish claim that 'God is untestable'. He continues to miss two obvious points (well, obvious to a 5-year old):
(1) 100s of Gods have been disproven, so therefore it IS possible for a concept of God to be testable (or does he believe in Zeus, Thor etc? ) -- I didn't say that EVERY concept of God is testable, and this is not necessary to refute his absurd claim; (2) it's pointless to use the term "God" without defining which concept. But he's too scared to do so.
dbes02 3 years ago
dbes02, I understand your anger because of my ad hominems, but you're still not getting anything I stated
1) The fact that other gods have been disproven or falsified doesn't show that another different God concept can be testable. It would be like someone saying "other theories are testable so the superstring theory is testable"
2. Ok, God is the origin of all the innumerable universes (many-worlds style), the highest truth, unmade, unborn, unchangeable, the system in itself, etc...
itsnobody 3 years ago
itsnobody, 1) I didn't claim that all concepts of God are untestable. I showed a fallacy in your absolute claim of untestability. 2) But testablitiy is not limited to formal experimentation. It's also possible to test on logic with reference to observed deata (eg the Problem of Evil). Your concept of God requires a complex intelligence to simply exist as a first cause of the universe and complexity. This leads to a regress because you are committed to explaining this initial complexity.
dbes02 3 years ago
No my concept does not require a "complex" intelligence to simply exist..
Its not "complex" at all...rather its very simple
itsnobody 3 years ago
Also my concept of God does not require a "first cause" (the false Creator)
itsnobody 3 years ago
itsnobody's theistic argument has turned into a farce! His concept of God as creator is "not complex at all...rather its very simple". This reasoning is both devious and fallacious, an intellectual dishonesty that sounds like the last gasp of a dying man.
itsnobody risks committing a fallacy of equivocation where human 'intelligence' is considered complex, and hence needs a designer, but God's 'intelligence' is NOT complex, and needs no designer.
Are humans more advanced than his God?
dbes02 3 years ago
Man all these atheists are lame, they simply mimick the exact same arguments they've heard from other atheists, where as my arguments are original and authentic, coming from my own independent mind
I just makes me wonder if atheists really have any independent mind at all, since its empirically observed that they mimick the same atheistic arguments
itsnobody 3 years ago
itsnobody likes being a bit of a comedian. (Fair enough - YouTube is not the most serious forum.) But does itsnobody want his arguments taken seriously? They're certainly not new. An argument isn't poor simply because it's old (or new). And if we could never say anything first thought up by someone else, there would be practically no comments being made anywhere! So presumably this is simply another of itsnobody's comic airings.
But itsnobody's concept of God is, yet again, self contradictory.
dbes02 3 years ago
Wow you said something, and had no substance, "God is self-contradictory because I repeatedly say so"
Then after I easily solve your supposed "self-contradictions" you'll probably say something like "oh well there is no God" over and over again
itsnobody 3 years ago
itsnobody, on a point of order, don't claim that you're quoting me when the quotation is something you made up. Not that I can expect you to follow any reasonable rules of debate.
Please tell me again how "easily" you solved the contradictions in your position. I can't find your solution anywhere.
A conclusion from your position is that humans are more advanced and complicated than your God. Is this what you want?
dbes02 3 years ago
"If I make a claim it's up to me to prove it, not others to disprove it"
Not quite: the onus of proof is on whoever makes an assertion. Once an argument has been given, it's up to the opposition to disprove it.
"like the Christians say"
That's a straw man if there ever was one.
"positive premises"
Not really: you can argue "All men are mortal, this thing is not mortal" and so what conclusion is necessarily reached?
irpwny 3 years ago
You contradicted yourself.
He was providing an example. It wasn't a straw man, either. When Christians say, "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist," then they're using argument from ignorance.
You used a negative premise, as indicated by "not". You syllogism is:
All men are mortal.
All things that are this are not mortal.
Conc: All things that are this are not men.
Your form is AEE-2, which is valid, but not necessarily sound.
proudjester 3 years ago
Lemme form the latter part of the this reply over again. Posted in a bit of haste.
The syllogism:
All men are mortal.
No things that are this are mortal.(This thing is not mortal.)
Conc.: No things that are this are men.
The conclusion is E because that's the only valid conclusion you can derive from AE-2 premises. This statement doesn't commit the aff. conc. from neg. prems. or neg. conc. for aff. prems. fallacies, which is relevant to what Pat is explaining.
proudjester 3 years ago
proud: "It wasn't a straw man"
Not quite: it was meant as representative of supposedly Christian/bad argumentation. Hence "like Christians say"
"Your form...is valid"
Yes ma'am. And it's all that's necessary: it stands as a rebuttal of the claim that only positive premises yield proof.
'All men are mortal
'This thing is not mortal
"This thing is not a man
It's valid and sound. 'Men' is a subset of 'mortal', so whatever falls outside of mortal cannot fall within 'man.'
Try again :)
irpwny 3 years ago
He's telling us that those Christians who say, "You can't disprove God, therefore, he exists," are committing an argument from ignorance. There's no misrepresentation of position. He's not trying to knock down every Christian's argument, only those who use this one.
He's telling us that we cannot derive an affirmative conclusion from neg. premises (or vice versa) which is a common logical rule. You have a negative premise in your argument, so you can have that neg. conclusion.
Understand now?
proudjester 3 years ago
proud: "He's telling us that those Christians who say, "You can't disprove God, therefore, he exists," are committing an argument from ignorance"
Not quite: he gave an example of an argument from ignorance, and supplemented it with "like Christians say."
"He's telling us that we cannot derive an affirmative conclusion from neg. premises (or vice versa) which is a common logical rule"
Nah: the mutual exclusion rule again.
A v B
~A
:B
Get over it already :)
irpwny 3 years ago
proud: " "You can't prove God DOESN'T exist," then they're using argument from ignorance."
Absolutely true. The difficulty is in setting that up as a claim about the argumentative form of not just christians, but anyone.
'doesn't commit..etc.'
If 'Pat' was explaining something different, then forgive me, but if his claim is 'no proof can come from negative premises' then it's clearly wrong: mutual exclusion is a prime example.
A v B
~A
:B
irpwny 3 years ago
"The difficulty is in setting that up as a claim about the argumentative form of...anyone."
Oh, I've had the fallacy used on me before (didn't matter because I'm Christian anyway). But even if no Christian has used it before, it's good people with examples of fallacies within debate -- whether or not the opposition has used the fallacy, but just in case.
Nooo, no no no. He's mentioning that no affirmative proof can come from negative premises, nor vice versa. But you are correct about Mut Exc.
proudjester 3 years ago
proud: "Oh, I've had the fallacy used on me before"
Exactly: so let's keep the examples neutral. Instead of "like Christians/Jews/etc. say" -- all we need are examples of something as bad form, and neutral examples to compliment it.
"no affirmative proof can come from negative premises"
If you mean purely negative premises (a double 'not', for instance) then yes.
:)
irpwny 3 years ago
proud: And thanks for the replies that aren't the usual "you're gay stfu"
:)
irpwny 3 years ago
That'd be silly. I apologize for anyone that's done that to you. It's unnecessary to reply in that manner when it's totally unprovoked.
Thank you for being patient with me, instead of treating me in a demeaning way. It's a contrast to what I'm normally dealt. =)
proudjester 3 years ago
proud: "That'd be silly"
It is indeed :(
"Thank you for being patient..instead of treating me in a demeaning way"
Should've read this before my first post :/ I'm guilty of ad hominems.
Forgive me :(
irpwny 3 years ago
No problem, your cooperation is encouraging. I can't see why more people can't discuss in this fashion. =///
proudjester 3 years ago
proud: :)
irpwny 3 years ago
proud: My conscience has gotten to me. Sorry for the "get over it already" It was unnecessary :(
irpwny 3 years ago
Descartes famously said :
"I think therefore i am"..... everything else in this world could well be an illusion!!!!!
So can you prove the 'Schroedingers Cat' hypothesis?
If not, we are all perpetually arguing from ignorance.
ParrotingNanoBots 4 years ago
Parrot: "everything else in this world could well be an illusion!!!!!"
Not quite: Arguing for Descartes' rock is the product of, let's say, 'unfamiliarity' with his works.
The Cogito was the basis of Cartesian metaphysics, where everything that could be doubted would be rejected. By doing so, we would find that one, immutable point of knowledge: our own existence.
From this, and clearness and distinctness, the truth rule is drawn, and (consequently) all other knowledge of the universe.
irpwny 3 years ago
Great job . . . keep up the good work!!!
focus599012 4 years ago
WB to Youtube Patty.
SoapSoapCrayon 4 years ago
Glad to see you back! Its been a LONG time.
KasparHauser4 4 years ago
Good.
But here is a possible fallacy for you: All the Theists/Deists that watch this video will reject your claim that they argue from a fallacious point.
Slippery slope fallacy or slippery slope fact? You decide...
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Actually it's a straw-man.
Void890123 4 years ago
Go to the nizkor project (google search). There all the fallacies common to basic conversation is listed.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Personally I use Wikipedia, and I know Void does too, whether or not he ONLY uses it I don't know :).
SoapSoapCrayon 4 years ago
my main sources are wikipedia, and the skeptics dictionary.
Void890123 4 years ago
I was considering on saying Skeptics Dictionary as well, but I decided against it. I know you too well :/.
SoapSoapCrayon 4 years ago
I swear to the nizkor, its easier for base access. But wiki is very good as well.
GnosticAtheist 4 years ago
Yay a fellow fairy believer!
themagicalyperson 4 years ago
Pat,where were you?Thought you were banned...glad too see you back
Dalbert342 4 years ago
exams dude, they're a killer.
Void890123 4 years ago
I know,just started a Ph.D program lol either of two things must happen...1.I have too quit my job or 2.I'll comit selfdestruction...anyways,hope ya passed
Dalbert342 4 years ago