I have noticed that so many Creationists start with one reasonably acceptable point, like this guy "What do you call a god?" it is somewhat trivial if one would call the forces of physics a god but still, is a reasonably rational question. When their points get shot down, they throw a load of superficial bullshit where they either throw out the same awful questions that all creationists do, or say things that simply don't make sense and/or are completely coincidental
"2" and "4" are concepts created by humans. No other creature recognizes "2" or "4". "God" did not tell humans to create those words or concepts. Humans create new words all of the time, to describe concepts that are important to them. No god required.
Obviously this guy is stating one of the arguments of a creative power " that is ordered " in that laws exist; any organised structure would have certains laws applicable it is fair to assert from a Philosophical point of view; whether one buys into it or not; these laws exist.
2 + 2 = 4 is a bad argument... for the very reason you have brought forward... it is human expression of reality. however, I do not understand where the laws of physics and chemistry and their interaction with life, and its complexity could have happened by chance. does it not take a high level of belief to think that all of the laws of the world came about by random chance as it does to believe in intelligent design? what is your belief? thank you for any time you take to respond.
Classic ID argument... the universe has structure, therefore, there is underlying intelligence. It is essentially the ontological existence of god "I see intelligence, which means it must exist."
@weisschr here is what i do not understand... how the entire complexity of the world could exist by chance. 2 + 2= 4 because of mathematics... but what are numbers? really what are they? however if you go to the laws of physics and chemistry and the complexity of life there is NO way that it was generated by chance.
@sk8er4god737 You are assuming the "laws of physics" were generated from something or created. This is the sophistry of believers. There is no proof that physics, time, existence, has a beginning or an end. Even the big bang only refers to the known universe.
The difference between a believer and an empiricist is that the empiricist is comfortable with "we don't know." Saying physics and mathematics require a generating intelligence begs the question. The right answer is we don't know.
@weisschr The Big Bang is generally accepted by science as the creation of time; all we have comes from that point; time and motion etc; the accepted view of cosmolgy and astronomy is the BB theory and this leads to evolution as being part of that motion; if the BB is regarded as the prime mover. But to end by saying "we don't know" is like saying full explanation is a mystery...wouldn't you agree ?
@no1hoopsman No, the BB is not considered as the "creation of time," but the beginning of time as we understand it. There is a difference. No one knows what initiated the Big Bang.
There are two competing perspectives on the big bang as well. There are physicists and astronomers who support the idea that the known universe is like an expanding balloon with all matter existing on its surface expanding from the singularity, while others claim it is a topological sphere. We don't know.
@weisschr Beginning or creation of it; it is still the same, just as the laws of physics came into being in this cosmos/creation.... whatever it was before the BB it is not what we know and understand (?) today; all prior to the BB is mystery therefore, so you agree on that point.
@no1hoopsman No..it is not the same. We don't know what was before the BB, and the laws of physics might have existed previously. We are talking about a state of the *known* universe. We don't know if our BB is local, universal, part of something else, etc. There are models such as string theory which predict a muiltiverse, but nothing is confirmed.
The problem with the BB is that it creates a complete absence of data for anything else. Is it local or more??? We don't know.
@weisschr I disagree with you there; I suggest you are also going against what is generally accepted as the model; that time as we understand it began with the Big Bang. I'm aware of the parallel universe theories and other worlds etc; but in reference to our existence and our universe, the time we are part of commenced at the beginning of our universe
Funny thought about the last bit about the stone tablet. Didn't societies exist before the tablets were created? Moses got the tablets, but before that there were the jews, the egyptians et.c. who all managed to create societies and not kill eachother. How is it then an eternal rule, if not even the jews were aware of it until LONG after their own society was built.
these guy just attack people who talk with them , and insulting other believes , once they get sick or close to death , they look for this god and ask for help/forgivness
AH i had hopes for this guy. HE started off intelligent by claiming that one needs to define god before claiming whether it exists or not. and then him claiming intelligence behind everything wasnt too bad. I mean that was the god of Darwin and the god of Einstein (a god of natural order and harmony) but then claiming that 2+2=4 is proof of that? is absurd. I had hopes and he shattered it.
He started talking about math, and when they began to refute his claims, he backtracked and said it was time to go back to his other point. I wonder why!
You also seem to neglect that while you tried to use the computer and youtube as a mark against me, in reality the only reason you are able communicate with me is because a) science has allowed us to progress and b) science is (generally) championed by atheists. So, our 'inconsistent' worldview accounts for the luxuries and overall improvement of your life while religion's/thecreator's influence is non-existant; ever heard the adage 'don't bite the hand that feeds'?
@sdmac21 YouTube assumption: When you write the message and send it, there is a minuscule amount of time where all the information passes through wires/the air/landlines. You are assuming that should the information successfully get to the wires, and the wires are working properly, certain scientific laws won't change, because if they did, your information would never get to me. Yet your atheist worldview cannot say with justification that the information will get into my hands.
@HeWillPrevail you still haven't explained what my world-view is - how is my lack of belief in some supernatural Kim jung-il relate to this retarded 'assumption' ploy you grasp at so pathetically? You can not present anything of 'substance' because it doesn't exist. As an earlier comment asked, how does math have anything to do with a creator? In a world which wasn't designed, 2+2 wouldn't equal 4? How do you know? prove it - it seems the only person assuming anything is you
@sdmac21 I don't know you very well, but I know partially what your worldview is. This would be my guess: You are an atheist, and believe we are animals. We don't really have a meaning to live except for reproduction, and morals are strictly for survival benefit. Correct me if I am wrong. Before, though, please look up the definition of a worldview. Atheism may not be a religion (depending on how you look at it), but is most definitely a worldview.
@HeWillPrevail I don't need a 'rescuing device' for poorly presented, illogical statements; you haven't yet explained why your statement is right, nor provided any evidence for this claim. You attack my 'world-view' as if you are right (not the other way around), which is the typical position of any faith-based opinion; if you were to present evidence as to why I am wrong, I would gladly consider it - I feel that if the situation is reversed though, you would not do the same.
@sdmac21 My arguments are that If you are right, and you fully lived by your belief, you wouldn't 'do' science since there is no guarantee that scientific laws will stay constant in the future. Yet you live as if the future will reflect the past. But in your worldview, this is an arbitrary assumption. My argument is that because 2+2=4, an atheist wouldn't study mathematics, since they have no good guarantee, or even good idea, that in two minutes the same mathematical laws will be true.
@HeWillPrevail it sounds as if you are trying a rehashed version of the 'argument' one caller brought up (ie: the design from trees). Atheism might be a worldview, but you are attaching your own definition to it - you are the one assuming things (to make it fit within your little retarded attack). Basically, what I've gathered from your terrible logic is that, math and physical laws indicate a designer - show us proof of that. That is purely your opinion, one I'm tired of hearing.
@HeWillPrevail all you have done, thus far, is repeat the same stupid 2 points which have no bearing on the discussion at all. I've explained that by studying our surroundings, we have determined that (yes) some physical processes are more or les constant - explain why that indicates a designer? How does a lack of religious belief encompass '[living] as the if the future will reflect the past'? It doesn't whatsoever...
@sdmac21 My point is this: If atheism was true, we would have no reason to do science. There is no guarantee the future will reflect the past, and thus no basis for 'doing' science. The Bible can explain and guarantee this. So, for an atheist to argue against the Bible, they must assume the future will reflect the past- ARBITRARILY. Thus, they must borrow fro ma biblical worldview to argue against the Bible. If you think this is wrong, please show me where my logic is erred.
@HeWillPrevail ahh it finally comes full circle - your logic is wrong first of all, from the very get go: atheist (lack of a belief in a god) does not then equal 'no reason to do science'. You are imparting that moronic postulate without any reasonable explanation - the bible does not count as credible evidence. I finally got you to mention it though, which more or less undermines whatever useless drivel you were attempting to pass off as an 'argument'.
@sdmac21 let's do a little thought problem for fun though: If atheism is wrong, why is the bible right anyways? Why not the Quran, or the 4 Vedas of Hinduism? They all 'guarantee the future will reflect the past' (even though you never explain this, I take it you mean that creation implies we have a structure and purpose in the universe?). How do you know the bible is the correct book?
@HeWillPrevail as I'm tired of reading your retarded preachings over and over again, this will be my last response (unless you say something truly unintelligent and I just have to come back). A 'biblical worldview' does not encompass science or physical laws. The bible makes no reference to physics or chemistry (except for alchemy and the water-wine bs). In fact, the description of a geocentric solar system and complete misrepresentation of the earth and it's atmosphere discredit it completely.
@sdmac21 Why not the Quran, it gives no reason as to why we have laws of logic. Atheism doesn't either. As for Hinduism, I'm not very familiar with the beliefs, but if you really care, I can look it up. Please tell me where my logic is erred. It seems all you can do is insult. Please answer me: How do you know that in the future, scientific laws will be constant as they have in the past? You cannot answer this. All you can do is insult.
@HeWillPrevail 'laws of logic'? Ofcourse Atheism doesn't - all it means is a lack of belief in the retarded drivel you continually spout. Atheism is not science; nor is it an investigation into why the world works the way it does. You don't have any logic (so perhaps you aren't 'erring' after all - you're just plain stupid). If your issue is with science - science has observed and determined what laws govern our world just fine without immaculate Big-Bro up in the sky. Try again next time though
@sdmac21 I misspoke-An atheistic worldview doesn't have an explanation for logic. As for the science thing you said- atheistic science has proven we have laws of logic, but not WHY we have them.
@HeWillPrevail so now you've back-peddled once more, and we arrive at an overly irrelevant heading: 'atheistic science' - this is science different from say, 'biblical science'? What exactly do you mean by atheistic science? There are religious scientists, who practice proper scientific methods (ie: not being so ignorant to assume knowledge of 'why' certain observations are made, without proper analysis and investigation - something which you, it seems do, on an hourly basis).
@sdmac21 By atheistic science, I simply meant science done from an atheistic worldview/view point. When I study science, I study it from a biblical worldview, and you from an atheistic worldview. When I say atheistic science, I mean science done from an atheistic view point. But once again, an atheistic worldview cannot say WHY we have laws of logic.
...so your 'science' starts with (to not mince words here) a premise which is actually a conclusion...that would be 'biblical science' - as you already have all the 'answers'. Or what I like to call being a self-righteous D-bag. If you want to argue that because we can't explain why we came to be: thus god - go right ahead. That is no different than me saying big bang happened: thus giant pizza monster.
You hold on dear to that frail god, which hides in the nooks and cranies.
unfortunately though, the fallacy of every typical christian is to then jump from 'non-involved gap-filler' god to personal, 'answers my crazy-talk god', something which cannot be substantiated and shows the hole in every bit of religious reason.
@sdmac21 You failed to address the question. I am afraid you were so focused on insulting me that you forgot to explain why we have universal laws of logic, the basis of what you are using to argue against me.
@HeWillPrevail ofc logic can be explained without a god. It's a human invention, which we have found works at our scale of reference. having certain rules of logic can be explained from the POV of getting to some truth. They can rationally be deducted.
@tristbjorn If logic is human invention, then you can't criticize me for not using logic, since I can just say I invented new ones. I could simply say God is true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it was inspired by God. This may defy your logic, but if logic is just a human invention, then your logic may be different then mine, making debating impossible. In your words, laws of logic aren't universal, so they aren't really laws.
If the laws of logic aren't universal, then 2+2=4 is not necessarily 4.
Logic is a form of studies performed in multiple ancient civilizations but as far as I recall, was not brought into the actual light of day until Aristotles joined the scene.
In general you can say that logic is used to study various arguments / statements and the result of these studies relies on 2 things: The validity of the argument and the truth of the premises.
@HeWillPrevail I just told you why they existed, they were thought up by mankind in old civilizations. As to why these men thought them up? You'd have to ask them.
The main thing of note is that unlike theists, we have no need to find the answer right away, we can test and validate our finds rather than go "I don't understand it, therefor god did it."
@luedieniel 2+2=Fish. What if my logic doesn't call for evidence? If logic was thought up by ancient people, then they aren't necessarily universal. With this view, I could say 2+2=Fish because some ancient philosopher said so. Evidence this is true? I don't need any, since my logic doesn't require it. The idea that logic isn't universal would make debating impossible.
@HeWillPrevail The purpose of logic is to determine wether something is correct or not. I however did not use the 2+2= fish example so you may take that up with MGX890 who was the originator of that statement.
@luedieniel Right, but what if our definition of 'determine' is different? Maybe in my logic circular reasoning is okay. Laws of logic must be universal, and an atheistic worldview cannot make sense of UNIVERSAL laws of logic.
@luedieniel Not impossible, but arbitrary. One simple question: Why are there universal laws of logic? An atheist must answer this without appealing to a higher intelligent source (I.E God), which I believe they cannot do.
But that is what I've been trying to say: Atheists can not account for the laws of logic, but neither can you. Here is the prime kicker tho: Atheists do not claim to have an answer for everything, Theists on the other hand will instantly play out the "God did it" card if the're incapable of explaining something.
@luedieniel Theists can account for logic. We reflect God's thinking, God cannot contradict Himself. I can go into more detail if you want. One question: How do you know that God isn't the answer for logic? As of now, I have provided a basis for logic while you haven't, so it seems theism is more feasible than atheism.
The only thing you have done, is exactly what I wrote any theist would do, play the 'God' card. You've yet to provide any reasonable evidence as to why logic would be a work of god.
I have however, brought to your attention the fact that logic as a philosophy began at roughly the same time all over the planet in numerous civilizations.
@luedieniel I've given you my idea of how logic came about. You have yet to disprove it, and you have yet to explain atheistically why logic came about. It seems as if my 'God card' is winning. How do you know that logic didn't come about from God? I've disproved your idea of where logic came from, yet you fail to disprove mine.
@HeWillPrevail May I please remind you of Russel's teapot? The burden of proof falls apon the claimant. You need to prove your claim, not me disproving your claim.
Anyway, I'd try to show my idea for the origin of logic, if I could find the origin point of the argument and figure out what you mean by "logic."
@flametitan100 What I mean by logic is basically reasoning. Take the Law of Non-Contradiction. Why do we feel inclined that this is true? Where does our reasoning come from? You have yet to provide an answer.
I have not proven my belief as of yet, but I have made it more feasible than atheism. Since I can account for logic, and you can't, my idea has already become more feasible.
@HeWillPrevail I'm not well versed in the subject of human evolution, so I'd rather wait until I have researched into it more before I provide my evidence and my hypothesis for it.
However, can you prove your God in another subject? And actually give evidence for it?
@HeWillPrevail No, you have not made any feasible claim yet, you've stated that hey, god did it.
If I were to state that logic is the work of 14 blackeyed fishes who could fly 5.000.000 years ago, it'd be equally absurd and equally feasible as we've got no proof for either one. Until you present any form of proof that your "belief" is correct, there is nothing feasible at all about your version.
@luedieniel My idea on the resurrection is this: We have Christianity today. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, why did the disciples say he did, and then allow themselves to be tortured and killed for something they would've known to be a lie? People do not die for something they know to be a lie. There is no reason for the disciples tolerance of torture and death except for one thing: The resurrection actually happened.
@HeWillPrevail Altho I disagree that Luk and Mat would be different sermons, as they both refer to Jesus 'First' sermon, I'll simply throw another one your way:
Samuel 24,13 and Chronicles 21,11.
As far as I recall, there were noone with Jesus in the tomb at the supposed ressurrection.
@luedieniel I think the best explanation would be one verse is a paraphrased version and another is the specific version. However, I will look more into this and try to get a better answer. As for the resurrection, what do you mean? If Romans soldiers were caught away from their guarding post, they were killed. I'm pretty sure the Romans wouldn't abandon their post. None were present? The guards? Plus, the disciples saw Jesus afterwards. They wouldn't have died for a known lie.
@HeWillPrevail The guards, according to the tales did not abandon their post but rather struck a deal with the disciples who moved jesus body out of the cave. What I'm saying is this: Can you say with absolute certainty that the romans did not simply torture the disciples to death to prevent the religion from spreading? That would in turn lead to someone else spreading the word that they 'saw' him and thus further advancing the religion.
@luedieniel I don't believe the guards would risk their life for money. If they were caught they would die. If the Romans didn't want the religion to spread, they would torture the disciples. But they would also want to get a statement saying that the disciples lied about Jesus rising from the dead. That did not happen. Why? Because the disciples were firmly convinced they saw Jesus rise from the dead.
@HeWillPrevail The alleged deal involved the removal of the body from the tomb, no coinage.
This is all still hearsay tho, people are convinced they see aliens on almost a daily basis but that doesn't make it true until proof has been presented.
@luedieniel What proof do you have that your theory is correct? Why would the guards allow the disciples to take the body? Even so, the disciples still preached Jesus' resurrection, and died for it. Why would they die for a lie if they had just stolen the body?
@HeWillPrevail But I'm not trying to prove any theories, I offered a equally valid thesis to your theory. However as to answering about why the guards did that or why they would die for a lie? I've answered the death part and as I'm unable to account for what any individual in that time were thinking, I can't tell you.
@HeWillPrevail I have infact offered you a valid reason, namely that they would have been killed by the romans to 'clean up the mess', they simply were killed because they were a nuisance to the current leaders.
That aside, everything regarding the ressurrection is and will remain hearsay, prove that your theory is correct and we're all set because we've strayed from the original discussion quite awhile ago.
@luedieniel Why did the Roman leaders kill the disciples? To get rid of the religion. You are saying that the Romans killed the disciples yet didn't release the disciples statement that they confessed they were lying? That doesn't make sense. Either the leaders didn't release a statement, of they never got one, since the disciples had seen the risen Jesus with their own eyes.
And since I've answered that in previous comments I'll simply sum it up from now on with:
Prove your theory.
It can be done with a simple formula tho: "If A = true then B = plausible if A = false End"
So we have A = God and B = logics, prove that A = true and you might be able to prove that logic originated from A, until A is proven to be true however, there is no logical conclusion to be drawn that B originated from A.
And as you've yet to provide any logical reason as to why a ressurrection would have occured other than 'why would they lie' wich is a psychological question rather than a logical one, neither of us can in a clear sense state how they reasoned and since we can not do that, there is no way for you to prove that in a logical sense the ressurrection would be even plausible.
@luedieniel You have yet to give an answer as to why they would lie other than the resurrection. Either they were insane, lying, or telling the truth. If you read the Bible it is safe to say they weren't insane. Keeping this is mind, they either told the truth or had a reason to lie. You have yet to provide a reason why they would lie, therefore the most plausible explanation is that they were telling the truth.
@HeWillPrevail I've given you an answer on that several times in the earlier comments, you've eithe failed to comprehend what I've said or chosen to ignore it. Either way I'm not an expert on ressurrections nor human behaviour and even if I were, I wouldn't be comfortable going around telling people "here is what these people were thinking some 2000 years ago" when I have no way of backing up my claims.
@HeWillPrevail Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of the claimed conspiracy between the stationed guards. That however does not dispute this particular point:
At the specific time of the ressurrection, noone was present. Everything regarding the event is simply hearsay and as for why people would withstand torture until death, well lets just say that I believe that it was nothing but politics, wiping out the remaining disciples as to prevent their faith from spreading.
Yes you have, you have blatantly stated that you know how logic came to be but you have yet to prove that you are correct.
I've presented you with the following verse: We made it so.
2 + 2 = 4 because that is simply what mankind decided that 2 + 2 should be.
There are books on this particular question at hand and some of them spend a couple of hundred pages on the subject, you clearly would rather just summarize it with "god did it" and provide nothing of value.
@luedieniel I cannot prove God exists, but I can prove that it is more probable than any other belief. I can show that the Bible has never been refuted by science, it never contradicts itself, and I can even logically prove that Jesus rose from the dead. This seems like this would be more probable than your fish idea, since that idea has no documentation (let alone trusted documentation) that those fishes even existed.
Here is the first problem with your claim: You claim that god created logic, and you claim that it is feasible, yet you clearly say that you cannot prove that any omnipotent being(read: god) even exists in the first place.
Anyhow, contradictions, yes, there are a ton of these in the bible and I'll present one to you: Mat 5:1-2 and Luk 6:17-20.
Also, humor me and prove that Jesus rose from the dead.
@luedieniel Please read your supposed contradiction. It is clear that the sermons are two different ones. There is content in Luke that is not in Matthew, and vice verse. The best explanation is they were two different sermons at two different times- thus, no contradiction/ As for the resurrection, I misspoke. I cannot prove he rose from the dead, but I can prove it highly probable.
@HeWillPrevail ok prove all of the stuff you just stated you could prove i would love to hear it, you fucking lying sack of shit. You can not prove any of these things. And it does contradict itself, try reading it and you will find them, or go to skepticsannotatedbible and you will find all of them. Just asserting stuff does not make it so, our "fish" idea has evidence, and if you choose not to look at the evidence. than you sir are a waste of my time.
The caller here uses an awesome potential argument horribly. What he should argue is that atheists don't have a basis to do science in. They can't say 2+2=4 tomorrow, and they can't say the law of gravity will remain constant tomorrow. Because they can't say this, the only reason atheists can 'do' science is because they are inconsistent with their worldview- They 'do' sciences because they assume the future will reflect the past, yet in an atheist case-this claim is arbitrary.
You are an absolute plug; your points are completely irrelevant in terms 'evidence' for an underlying intelligence. 2+2=4 is just a component of a language humans developed to understand their surroundings. Physical laws are known because we have observed them (ie: we can see the 'force' of gravity at work). In fact, the law of gravity is far from constant. We know gravity exists, but we barely understand it. Gravity at the quantum level is a work progress. So an incomplete theory = god? 0.o
@sdmac21 The law of gravity may be 'far from constant', but I wager you believe that in two minutes, things will have a gravitational push, instead of a pull. My point is: We as humans have an instinctive belief that the future will reflect the past. We base our lives around it. Yet an atheist has no basis for this uniformity, and thus cannot explain why it is so ingrained in our heads that the future will reflect the past.
@HeWillPrevail First of, gravity (on the macro-scale) is observed as a pull - you obviously have no scientific background whatsoever. Secondly, I certainly hope the future doesn't reflect the past (ie: slavery and the crusades and catastrophic asteriod impacts). You don't have a point; you've contrived this notion we all have this belief - but where is the evidence of this? You spouting it, doesn't make it true. Science learning to understand the world around us is not a 'belief'
As I have stated already; us learning to understand the laws that exist in nature, has nothing to do with an 'instictive belief' - if our observations described a world with a changing form and substance, and laws that aren't firm, but bendable and malleable, then that would be the scientific viewpoint. It has nothing to do with an innate belief (which also has nothing to do with proving an underlying intelligence). You sir, are miserably misguided in your claim.
@sdmac21 But humans live assuming the future reflects the past, but the atheistic worldview cannot say this. You just arbitrarily assume it, without reason. You assumed that if you sent a comment on YouTube, assuming all systems were in place, the message would get there. You didn't assume that the laws of science would change, preventing the message from reaching the website. Why not? Because you act inconsistently with your worldview.
@HeWillPrevail what is my worldview? - I am not assuming anything; I (unlike yourself) understand the constraints of this system and what actually occurs, thus I can trust it to work and transmit my message. That isn't an assumption, it's an understanding. If it didn't work, I would acknowledge something is wrong. Your attempt to pass off atheists as 'assumers' of truth is feeble at best and nothing you have said adds any weight to the point in the video - the underlying truth.
@sdmac21 for the last time as well; we have observed our world and made predictions, tested these, and concluded aspects of how our world (and universe works). Because of this, we know that some 'laws of science' are more or less constant and we can build of that knowledge. Ever heard of heat death? In reality, the universe is in a downward spiral of death and will eventually cease to function (that doesn't seem very constant to me); temporally, however, that is irrelevant for us
@sdmac21 I'm sorry, I mistyped. I meant that you probably believe that in a few minutes, things with gravity will pull, not suddenly change to pushing.When I say the future reflects the past, I mean that in the future, scientific laws will stay as they have in the past. You are mistaking my words and building straw mans out of them.If scientific laws changed randomly, there would be no point in studying science, since in two seconds the physics you learned about may no longer be true.
@HeWillPrevail no you aren't presenting anything of substance and I am picking apart your mindless points you brought up. As I just said, in the observations from scientific inquiry indicated a randomly changing world, that would be the scientific viewpoint (it would probably suck because yes, not much would be able to be found out though). Thankfully we don't exist in a chaotic, un-structured universe; how does that give credit to anything you've said?
@sdmac21 I cannot present 'substance' evidence and hope to convince you. You will just use a rescuing device. I may bring up the age length of comets, and you say the Oort Cloud, which has no evidence to back it up. And you do have a worldview, as of now, it seems you are convinced atheism is right. You interpret evidence around that point.
@HeWillPrevail - why is an understanding that the laws which governed the earth in the past are revelant today, arbitrary for an atheist? Explain your point - you called on the caller for presenting an awesome argument 'horribly', but you fared little better yourself. Why can't I say 2+2=4 tomorrow; how does this reflect my lack of belief in a divine creator? Believing a book which claims the earth is 6000 years old, seems like a much more inconsistent world-view than the lack of that belief...
@sdmac21 You assume the future will reflect the past arbitrarily. You have no reason to assume the laws of science will remain constant. But you live like you do. You only live this way because you are inconsistent with your worldview. If you lived completely atheistically, you wouldn't 'do' science since there is just as much reason to suggest the laws of science won't remain constant as there is that they will.
@HeWillPrevail wrong; the whole point of science is to make observations and predictions about these laws. In that way, we can DETERMINE (not assume) which laws (for the time-scale of human existence atleast) are 'constant'. There is nothing arbitrary in this process at all. Some things have been shown to change over time and some are so slow, that for us, they basically are constant. Thus, we can make further predictions and tests from that realization.
@sdmac21 This is opposite to the naive christian who holds faith in high esteem, which allows one to believe whimsical, un-observed/ un-documented fantasies which don't even fall within the physical laws we know exist. Believing the bible is even more redundant - an old, man-made book which presents 'truths' which routinely have to be changed or adapted to fit with the evidence science finds (ie: dinosaurs); this be should be a large, red flag to most intelligent humans.
The underlying intelligence is the frason there is an underlying structure to the physical universe-- as well as physical laws. If there is no God, where did these come from ? The tooth fairy ?
@bris1tol these laws are observed laws of nature and of the universe, what makes you think they have to be created by some supernatural deity?? they may have been for all we know, but there is simply no evidence for such claims. the possibilty that your god created the universe is equally as unlikely as any of the gods of human religion (present and past), or indeed, the tooth fairy, creating the universe.
@bris1tol The creation was God creating the world. Yes, he gave us free choice, in whether we reject him or believe in him, in whether we choose to sin, or choose to do good.
Wow. That was really sad. That guy's argument made no sense. He should have tried to explain it better rather than screaming "BUT 2+2 = 4 IT'S THAT SIMPLE THEREFORE THERE IS A GOD!"
If nothing exists theres no laws, nothing to state what is possible or impossible, although some things seem inconceivable to us, if no laws nor rules exist, nothing is impossible.
Nothing is impossible means two things.
1. Anything is possible
2. Nothing is impossible (what is persisting cannot persist)
If anything is possible then something can come from nothing and although the 2nd note is a contradiction it doesn't matter cause no rules exist to say its impossible in the first place.
@gerinja up to the caller to make that clear or have a choerent argument, if that was what eh was arguing then that is hwat he should have stated. That is not what he argued. We humans invented the number 2 and the numebr 4 and the adition to help us have meaningful numbers or amoutns for a number of objects that every one could agree too so that we could all have the same values for things. Its does not denote anything or mean anything about any other inteeligence other than our own
The people that insist on the vague description of god as an "underlying intellignce," I notice that they do not even bother to define intelligence, assuming that it can be equated to the human psychological structure. Like it would build things based on engineered purpose, or love, or aesthetic sentiment. Even if there is an underlying intelligence, what difference does it make? Why do you care? Do you think it gives a shit about your insignificant, infinitesimally short life, or your fears?
If we assume that nature is built on perfect intelligence it is exactly same as if there is no intelligence at all.
perfect god is exactly same as no god. it becomes just force of nature. and it is quite pointless to pray to gravity when you are falling from the window it wont make an exception for you if it is perfect.
There is the same number there, no matter what you CALL it. 1+3, 2 +2 or just 4, those are our representations for that amount of something, not really THAT THING in itself.
What he's really drifting into here is Plato's theory of forms, which states that the only reason humans can recognize different objects as similar, or recognize words as descriptions of objects is because in a collective subconscious there exists a perfect version of said object.
2+2 can equal any number things. depending on what BASE you use. it is commonly accepted to use Base 10. Although, and i know this is a sidetrack, base 12 makes more sense than base 10. But I digress.
I think this guy is trying to say "how do we get the intelligence to come up with 2+2=4.", or aka, he is asking "how did our brain evolved? Brain is too complicated for it to evolve without an external source to guide it". That's his claim. I think.
This is from Jason Lisle's "nuclear strength apologetics", and it goes like this: Fish for something that the non-deist will say is absolutely true. This must mean that the non-deist accepts absolute truth. But absolute truth is an abstraction not found in the observable Universe, so to accept that it exists requires the non-deist to have knowledge that could not be acquired by natural means. Hence, it requires supernatural means. Hence, God.
This has been flagged as spam show
if you want to know that God exist there is only one answer to you the holy Quran read the Holy Quran and you will see that God exist.
111111111111118314 1 day ago
"Do you believe in the unified field?"
Do..I...believe in an equation or set of equations that hasn't been found yet?
I'm not 40 seconds into the video and I can already tell that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
HomicidalDonut 1 day ago
I have noticed that so many Creationists start with one reasonably acceptable point, like this guy "What do you call a god?" it is somewhat trivial if one would call the forces of physics a god but still, is a reasonably rational question. When their points get shot down, they throw a load of superficial bullshit where they either throw out the same awful questions that all creationists do, or say things that simply don't make sense and/or are completely coincidental
RogerabbitGosu 2 days ago
2+2 = 10 in some mathematical systems.
tjhombs 3 days ago
"2" and "4" are concepts created by humans. No other creature recognizes "2" or "4". "God" did not tell humans to create those words or concepts. Humans create new words all of the time, to describe concepts that are important to them. No god required.
tjhombs 3 days ago
Theists mumble so much that even their mumbles have mumbles.
GdaleKing 5 days ago
Everything in our solar system, as far as we know, came from a single supernova explosion.
Thus we are all, quite literally, stardust.
The dust from a single star has assembled itself into us and in doing so, has gained the ability to question itself.
Noise509 5 days ago
@Noise509 I read that in Carl Sagan's voice and it made it so much cooler.
JamesHLanier 3 days ago
2+2=4 because Chuck Norris said so.
SinceretheGhost 1 week ago
3:55 "In order to make us communicate, there must be an underlying intelligence" What about human intelligence?
maximemeis111 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great page for atheists... go here and see all the contradictions in the Bible and how many times it is wrong. Dare to read. Amazingbibledotorg
spiegeltn 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obviously this guy is stating one of the arguments of a creative power " that is ordered " in that laws exist; any organised structure would have certains laws applicable it is fair to assert from a Philosophical point of view; whether one buys into it or not; these laws exist.
no1hoopsman 1 week ago
the bald guy is wonderful. i really like him.
TheStonedEngineer 1 week ago 10
Keep talking! Maybe you'll be right eventually.
Frequency404 1 week ago
2 + 2 = 4 is a bad argument... for the very reason you have brought forward... it is human expression of reality. however, I do not understand where the laws of physics and chemistry and their interaction with life, and its complexity could have happened by chance. does it not take a high level of belief to think that all of the laws of the world came about by random chance as it does to believe in intelligent design? what is your belief? thank you for any time you take to respond.
sk8er4god737 1 week ago
Classic ID argument... the universe has structure, therefore, there is underlying intelligence. It is essentially the ontological existence of god "I see intelligence, which means it must exist."
weisschr 1 week ago
@weisschr here is what i do not understand... how the entire complexity of the world could exist by chance. 2 + 2= 4 because of mathematics... but what are numbers? really what are they? however if you go to the laws of physics and chemistry and the complexity of life there is NO way that it was generated by chance.
sk8er4god737 1 week ago
@sk8er4god737 You are assuming the "laws of physics" were generated from something or created. This is the sophistry of believers. There is no proof that physics, time, existence, has a beginning or an end. Even the big bang only refers to the known universe.
The difference between a believer and an empiricist is that the empiricist is comfortable with "we don't know." Saying physics and mathematics require a generating intelligence begs the question. The right answer is we don't know.
weisschr 1 week ago
@weisschr The Big Bang is generally accepted by science as the creation of time; all we have comes from that point; time and motion etc; the accepted view of cosmolgy and astronomy is the BB theory and this leads to evolution as being part of that motion; if the BB is regarded as the prime mover. But to end by saying "we don't know" is like saying full explanation is a mystery...wouldn't you agree ?
no1hoopsman 1 week ago
@no1hoopsman No, the BB is not considered as the "creation of time," but the beginning of time as we understand it. There is a difference. No one knows what initiated the Big Bang.
There are two competing perspectives on the big bang as well. There are physicists and astronomers who support the idea that the known universe is like an expanding balloon with all matter existing on its surface expanding from the singularity, while others claim it is a topological sphere. We don't know.
weisschr 1 week ago
@weisschr Beginning or creation of it; it is still the same, just as the laws of physics came into being in this cosmos/creation.... whatever it was before the BB it is not what we know and understand (?) today; all prior to the BB is mystery therefore, so you agree on that point.
no1hoopsman 1 week ago
@no1hoopsman No..it is not the same. We don't know what was before the BB, and the laws of physics might have existed previously. We are talking about a state of the *known* universe. We don't know if our BB is local, universal, part of something else, etc. There are models such as string theory which predict a muiltiverse, but nothing is confirmed.
The problem with the BB is that it creates a complete absence of data for anything else. Is it local or more??? We don't know.
weisschr 1 week ago
@weisschr I disagree with you there; I suggest you are also going against what is generally accepted as the model; that time as we understand it began with the Big Bang. I'm aware of the parallel universe theories and other worlds etc; but in reference to our existence and our universe, the time we are part of commenced at the beginning of our universe
no1hoopsman 1 week ago
I'm not so sure it's a problem with the microphones working, it's just the callers aren't listening.
Coned93 2 weeks ago
5:37
PlzDunKilMe 2 weeks ago
Funny thought about the last bit about the stone tablet. Didn't societies exist before the tablets were created? Moses got the tablets, but before that there were the jews, the egyptians et.c. who all managed to create societies and not kill eachother. How is it then an eternal rule, if not even the jews were aware of it until LONG after their own society was built.
Something stinks, and it's religion.
Pinkaugust 2 weeks ago
"I'm putting you on hold for a second, there's something wrong with the microphone. For some reason you can't hear us when we try to ask a question."
I fucking LOL'd
Prophetbunny1 2 weeks ago
these guy just attack people who talk with them , and insulting other believes , once they get sick or close to death , they look for this god and ask for help/forgivness
Uaegnome 2 weeks ago
@Uaegnome
I hope that on your death bed you find out that you're going to Hell for being obnoxious.
pateroon 2 weeks ago
@pateroon and why is that?
Uaegnome 2 weeks ago
that caller just mind fucked me...
SonicTheHedgehog0222 2 weeks ago
If he's stuck at 2+2=4 Then he's gonna have a lot of trouble with long division
Grnvolpe 3 weeks ago 35
@Grnvolpe hahahaha
ladev91 1 week ago
Lol when he said "you understand what Im saying, right?" I did not expect it to be in that context
Grnvolpe 3 weeks ago 2
You guys are great, please keep up all the work you do.
MrBaxMusic 3 weeks ago
AH i had hopes for this guy. HE started off intelligent by claiming that one needs to define god before claiming whether it exists or not. and then him claiming intelligence behind everything wasnt too bad. I mean that was the god of Darwin and the god of Einstein (a god of natural order and harmony) but then claiming that 2+2=4 is proof of that? is absurd. I had hopes and he shattered it.
swinginman91 4 weeks ago
@swinginman91 He threw your hope over a barrel and bull fucked its brains into jelly.
Anthony13USA 3 weeks ago
He started talking about math, and when they began to refute his claims, he backtracked and said it was time to go back to his other point. I wonder why!
werebee 4 weeks ago
@werebee Don't you just love these guys? You start answering and they speak above you.
Basically, he's the only one talking.
fabaum22 2 weeks ago
those 16 just keep trying...
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
Matts expression at 5.38 is just priceless.
superwowie111 1 month ago
Funnily enough 2+2 is not necessarily 4 it depends on the group you are working in xD
nezrif27 1 month ago
stupid christian monkey
RoOXxR 1 month ago
Transcendental Argument...
Basically it's the "everything's constant therefor something that doesen't need to be constant is keeping it constant"-Argument.
And it's annoying.
d007ization 1 month ago
This show is pointless. In the hundreds of episodes of this show, no one was proved against religion, and no one proved god is real. Pointless...
TheBuckingFuffalo 1 month ago
You also seem to neglect that while you tried to use the computer and youtube as a mark against me, in reality the only reason you are able communicate with me is because a) science has allowed us to progress and b) science is (generally) championed by atheists. So, our 'inconsistent' worldview accounts for the luxuries and overall improvement of your life while religion's/thecreator's influence is non-existant; ever heard the adage 'don't bite the hand that feeds'?
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 YouTube assumption: When you write the message and send it, there is a minuscule amount of time where all the information passes through wires/the air/landlines. You are assuming that should the information successfully get to the wires, and the wires are working properly, certain scientific laws won't change, because if they did, your information would never get to me. Yet your atheist worldview cannot say with justification that the information will get into my hands.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail you still haven't explained what my world-view is - how is my lack of belief in some supernatural Kim jung-il relate to this retarded 'assumption' ploy you grasp at so pathetically? You can not present anything of 'substance' because it doesn't exist. As an earlier comment asked, how does math have anything to do with a creator? In a world which wasn't designed, 2+2 wouldn't equal 4? How do you know? prove it - it seems the only person assuming anything is you
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 I don't know you very well, but I know partially what your worldview is. This would be my guess: You are an atheist, and believe we are animals. We don't really have a meaning to live except for reproduction, and morals are strictly for survival benefit. Correct me if I am wrong. Before, though, please look up the definition of a worldview. Atheism may not be a religion (depending on how you look at it), but is most definitely a worldview.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail I don't need a 'rescuing device' for poorly presented, illogical statements; you haven't yet explained why your statement is right, nor provided any evidence for this claim. You attack my 'world-view' as if you are right (not the other way around), which is the typical position of any faith-based opinion; if you were to present evidence as to why I am wrong, I would gladly consider it - I feel that if the situation is reversed though, you would not do the same.
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 My arguments are that If you are right, and you fully lived by your belief, you wouldn't 'do' science since there is no guarantee that scientific laws will stay constant in the future. Yet you live as if the future will reflect the past. But in your worldview, this is an arbitrary assumption. My argument is that because 2+2=4, an atheist wouldn't study mathematics, since they have no good guarantee, or even good idea, that in two minutes the same mathematical laws will be true.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail it sounds as if you are trying a rehashed version of the 'argument' one caller brought up (ie: the design from trees). Atheism might be a worldview, but you are attaching your own definition to it - you are the one assuming things (to make it fit within your little retarded attack). Basically, what I've gathered from your terrible logic is that, math and physical laws indicate a designer - show us proof of that. That is purely your opinion, one I'm tired of hearing.
sdmac21 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail all you have done, thus far, is repeat the same stupid 2 points which have no bearing on the discussion at all. I've explained that by studying our surroundings, we have determined that (yes) some physical processes are more or les constant - explain why that indicates a designer? How does a lack of religious belief encompass '[living] as the if the future will reflect the past'? It doesn't whatsoever...
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 My point is this: If atheism was true, we would have no reason to do science. There is no guarantee the future will reflect the past, and thus no basis for 'doing' science. The Bible can explain and guarantee this. So, for an atheist to argue against the Bible, they must assume the future will reflect the past- ARBITRARILY. Thus, they must borrow fro ma biblical worldview to argue against the Bible. If you think this is wrong, please show me where my logic is erred.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail ahh it finally comes full circle - your logic is wrong first of all, from the very get go: atheist (lack of a belief in a god) does not then equal 'no reason to do science'. You are imparting that moronic postulate without any reasonable explanation - the bible does not count as credible evidence. I finally got you to mention it though, which more or less undermines whatever useless drivel you were attempting to pass off as an 'argument'.
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 let's do a little thought problem for fun though: If atheism is wrong, why is the bible right anyways? Why not the Quran, or the 4 Vedas of Hinduism? They all 'guarantee the future will reflect the past' (even though you never explain this, I take it you mean that creation implies we have a structure and purpose in the universe?). How do you know the bible is the correct book?
sdmac21 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail as I'm tired of reading your retarded preachings over and over again, this will be my last response (unless you say something truly unintelligent and I just have to come back). A 'biblical worldview' does not encompass science or physical laws. The bible makes no reference to physics or chemistry (except for alchemy and the water-wine bs). In fact, the description of a geocentric solar system and complete misrepresentation of the earth and it's atmosphere discredit it completely.
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 Why not the Quran, it gives no reason as to why we have laws of logic. Atheism doesn't either. As for Hinduism, I'm not very familiar with the beliefs, but if you really care, I can look it up. Please tell me where my logic is erred. It seems all you can do is insult. Please answer me: How do you know that in the future, scientific laws will be constant as they have in the past? You cannot answer this. All you can do is insult.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail 'laws of logic'? Ofcourse Atheism doesn't - all it means is a lack of belief in the retarded drivel you continually spout. Atheism is not science; nor is it an investigation into why the world works the way it does. You don't have any logic (so perhaps you aren't 'erring' after all - you're just plain stupid). If your issue is with science - science has observed and determined what laws govern our world just fine without immaculate Big-Bro up in the sky. Try again next time though
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 I misspoke-An atheistic worldview doesn't have an explanation for logic. As for the science thing you said- atheistic science has proven we have laws of logic, but not WHY we have them.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail so now you've back-peddled once more, and we arrive at an overly irrelevant heading: 'atheistic science' - this is science different from say, 'biblical science'? What exactly do you mean by atheistic science? There are religious scientists, who practice proper scientific methods (ie: not being so ignorant to assume knowledge of 'why' certain observations are made, without proper analysis and investigation - something which you, it seems do, on an hourly basis).
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 By atheistic science, I simply meant science done from an atheistic worldview/view point. When I study science, I study it from a biblical worldview, and you from an atheistic worldview. When I say atheistic science, I mean science done from an atheistic view point. But once again, an atheistic worldview cannot say WHY we have laws of logic.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
...so your 'science' starts with (to not mince words here) a premise which is actually a conclusion...that would be 'biblical science' - as you already have all the 'answers'. Or what I like to call being a self-righteous D-bag. If you want to argue that because we can't explain why we came to be: thus god - go right ahead. That is no different than me saying big bang happened: thus giant pizza monster.
You hold on dear to that frail god, which hides in the nooks and cranies.
sdmac21 1 month ago
unfortunately though, the fallacy of every typical christian is to then jump from 'non-involved gap-filler' god to personal, 'answers my crazy-talk god', something which cannot be substantiated and shows the hole in every bit of religious reason.
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 You failed to address the question. I am afraid you were so focused on insulting me that you forgot to explain why we have universal laws of logic, the basis of what you are using to argue against me.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail ofc logic can be explained without a god. It's a human invention, which we have found works at our scale of reference. having certain rules of logic can be explained from the POV of getting to some truth. They can rationally be deducted.
tristbjorn 1 month ago
@tristbjorn If logic is human invention, then you can't criticize me for not using logic, since I can just say I invented new ones. I could simply say God is true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it was inspired by God. This may defy your logic, but if logic is just a human invention, then your logic may be different then mine, making debating impossible. In your words, laws of logic aren't universal, so they aren't really laws.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail
If the laws of logic aren't universal, then 2+2=4 is not necessarily 4.
Logic is a form of studies performed in multiple ancient civilizations but as far as I recall, was not brought into the actual light of day until Aristotles joined the scene.
In general you can say that logic is used to study various arguments / statements and the result of these studies relies on 2 things: The validity of the argument and the truth of the premises.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel Exactly. An atheistic worldview cannot account for laws of logic. Why do they exist? Atheists cannot explain.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevailthe account of laws of logic is that they work - find their expresion in evidence. If you say 2+2=Fish then show me your evidence.
MGX890 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail I just told you why they existed, they were thought up by mankind in old civilizations. As to why these men thought them up? You'd have to ask them.
The main thing of note is that unlike theists, we have no need to find the answer right away, we can test and validate our finds rather than go "I don't understand it, therefor god did it."
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel 2+2=Fish. What if my logic doesn't call for evidence? If logic was thought up by ancient people, then they aren't necessarily universal. With this view, I could say 2+2=Fish because some ancient philosopher said so. Evidence this is true? I don't need any, since my logic doesn't require it. The idea that logic isn't universal would make debating impossible.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail The purpose of logic is to determine wether something is correct or not. I however did not use the 2+2= fish example so you may take that up with MGX890 who was the originator of that statement.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel Right, but what if our definition of 'determine' is different? Maybe in my logic circular reasoning is okay. Laws of logic must be universal, and an atheistic worldview cannot make sense of UNIVERSAL laws of logic.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail
So elaborate, why would it be impossible for an atheist to accept any form of universal laws?
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel Not impossible, but arbitrary. One simple question: Why are there universal laws of logic? An atheist must answer this without appealing to a higher intelligent source (I.E God), which I believe they cannot do.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail
But that is what I've been trying to say: Atheists can not account for the laws of logic, but neither can you. Here is the prime kicker tho: Atheists do not claim to have an answer for everything, Theists on the other hand will instantly play out the "God did it" card if the're incapable of explaining something.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel Theists can account for logic. We reflect God's thinking, God cannot contradict Himself. I can go into more detail if you want. One question: How do you know that God isn't the answer for logic? As of now, I have provided a basis for logic while you haven't, so it seems theism is more feasible than atheism.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail You have provided nothing.
The only thing you have done, is exactly what I wrote any theist would do, play the 'God' card. You've yet to provide any reasonable evidence as to why logic would be a work of god.
I have however, brought to your attention the fact that logic as a philosophy began at roughly the same time all over the planet in numerous civilizations.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel I've given you my idea of how logic came about. You have yet to disprove it, and you have yet to explain atheistically why logic came about. It seems as if my 'God card' is winning. How do you know that logic didn't come about from God? I've disproved your idea of where logic came from, yet you fail to disprove mine.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail May I please remind you of Russel's teapot? The burden of proof falls apon the claimant. You need to prove your claim, not me disproving your claim.
Anyway, I'd try to show my idea for the origin of logic, if I could find the origin point of the argument and figure out what you mean by "logic."
flametitan100 1 month ago
@flametitan100 What I mean by logic is basically reasoning. Take the Law of Non-Contradiction. Why do we feel inclined that this is true? Where does our reasoning come from? You have yet to provide an answer.
I have not proven my belief as of yet, but I have made it more feasible than atheism. Since I can account for logic, and you can't, my idea has already become more feasible.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail I'm not well versed in the subject of human evolution, so I'd rather wait until I have researched into it more before I provide my evidence and my hypothesis for it.
However, can you prove your God in another subject? And actually give evidence for it?
flametitan100 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail No, you have not made any feasible claim yet, you've stated that hey, god did it.
If I were to state that logic is the work of 14 blackeyed fishes who could fly 5.000.000 years ago, it'd be equally absurd and equally feasible as we've got no proof for either one. Until you present any form of proof that your "belief" is correct, there is nothing feasible at all about your version.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel My idea on the resurrection is this: We have Christianity today. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, why did the disciples say he did, and then allow themselves to be tortured and killed for something they would've known to be a lie? People do not die for something they know to be a lie. There is no reason for the disciples tolerance of torture and death except for one thing: The resurrection actually happened.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail Altho I disagree that Luk and Mat would be different sermons, as they both refer to Jesus 'First' sermon, I'll simply throw another one your way:
Samuel 24,13 and Chronicles 21,11.
As far as I recall, there were noone with Jesus in the tomb at the supposed ressurrection.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel I think the best explanation would be one verse is a paraphrased version and another is the specific version. However, I will look more into this and try to get a better answer. As for the resurrection, what do you mean? If Romans soldiers were caught away from their guarding post, they were killed. I'm pretty sure the Romans wouldn't abandon their post. None were present? The guards? Plus, the disciples saw Jesus afterwards. They wouldn't have died for a known lie.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail The guards, according to the tales did not abandon their post but rather struck a deal with the disciples who moved jesus body out of the cave. What I'm saying is this: Can you say with absolute certainty that the romans did not simply torture the disciples to death to prevent the religion from spreading? That would in turn lead to someone else spreading the word that they 'saw' him and thus further advancing the religion.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel I don't believe the guards would risk their life for money. If they were caught they would die. If the Romans didn't want the religion to spread, they would torture the disciples. But they would also want to get a statement saying that the disciples lied about Jesus rising from the dead. That did not happen. Why? Because the disciples were firmly convinced they saw Jesus rise from the dead.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail The alleged deal involved the removal of the body from the tomb, no coinage.
This is all still hearsay tho, people are convinced they see aliens on almost a daily basis but that doesn't make it true until proof has been presented.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel What proof do you have that your theory is correct? Why would the guards allow the disciples to take the body? Even so, the disciples still preached Jesus' resurrection, and died for it. Why would they die for a lie if they had just stolen the body?
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail But I'm not trying to prove any theories, I offered a equally valid thesis to your theory. However as to answering about why the guards did that or why they would die for a lie? I've answered the death part and as I'm unable to account for what any individual in that time were thinking, I can't tell you.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel My theory has a great deal of logical validity. You have yet to reply why the disciples would die for a known lie.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail I have infact offered you a valid reason, namely that they would have been killed by the romans to 'clean up the mess', they simply were killed because they were a nuisance to the current leaders.
That aside, everything regarding the ressurrection is and will remain hearsay, prove that your theory is correct and we're all set because we've strayed from the original discussion quite awhile ago.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel Why did the Roman leaders kill the disciples? To get rid of the religion. You are saying that the Romans killed the disciples yet didn't release the disciples statement that they confessed they were lying? That doesn't make sense. Either the leaders didn't release a statement, of they never got one, since the disciples had seen the risen Jesus with their own eyes.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail
And since I've answered that in previous comments I'll simply sum it up from now on with:
Prove your theory.
It can be done with a simple formula tho: "If A = true then B = plausible if A = false End"
So we have A = God and B = logics, prove that A = true and you might be able to prove that logic originated from A, until A is proven to be true however, there is no logical conclusion to be drawn that B originated from A.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel I'm trying to prove Jesus' divinity using logic, not trying to prove logic is made from Jesus' divinity.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail
And as you've yet to provide any logical reason as to why a ressurrection would have occured other than 'why would they lie' wich is a psychological question rather than a logical one, neither of us can in a clear sense state how they reasoned and since we can not do that, there is no way for you to prove that in a logical sense the ressurrection would be even plausible.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel You have yet to give an answer as to why they would lie other than the resurrection. Either they were insane, lying, or telling the truth. If you read the Bible it is safe to say they weren't insane. Keeping this is mind, they either told the truth or had a reason to lie. You have yet to provide a reason why they would lie, therefore the most plausible explanation is that they were telling the truth.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail I've given you an answer on that several times in the earlier comments, you've eithe failed to comprehend what I've said or chosen to ignore it. Either way I'm not an expert on ressurrections nor human behaviour and even if I were, I wouldn't be comfortable going around telling people "here is what these people were thinking some 2000 years ago" when I have no way of backing up my claims.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail As I said before tho, this theory of yours has about equal validity to that of people in tinfoil hats who claim to have seen aliens.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of the claimed conspiracy between the stationed guards. That however does not dispute this particular point:
At the specific time of the ressurrection, noone was present. Everything regarding the event is simply hearsay and as for why people would withstand torture until death, well lets just say that I believe that it was nothing but politics, wiping out the remaining disciples as to prevent their faith from spreading.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail
Yes you have, you have blatantly stated that you know how logic came to be but you have yet to prove that you are correct.
I've presented you with the following verse: We made it so.
2 + 2 = 4 because that is simply what mankind decided that 2 + 2 should be.
There are books on this particular question at hand and some of them spend a couple of hundred pages on the subject, you clearly would rather just summarize it with "god did it" and provide nothing of value.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel I cannot prove God exists, but I can prove that it is more probable than any other belief. I can show that the Bible has never been refuted by science, it never contradicts itself, and I can even logically prove that Jesus rose from the dead. This seems like this would be more probable than your fish idea, since that idea has no documentation (let alone trusted documentation) that those fishes even existed.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail
Here is the first problem with your claim: You claim that god created logic, and you claim that it is feasible, yet you clearly say that you cannot prove that any omnipotent being(read: god) even exists in the first place.
Anyhow, contradictions, yes, there are a ton of these in the bible and I'll present one to you: Mat 5:1-2 and Luk 6:17-20.
Also, humor me and prove that Jesus rose from the dead.
luedieniel 1 month ago
@luedieniel Please read your supposed contradiction. It is clear that the sermons are two different ones. There is content in Luke that is not in Matthew, and vice verse. The best explanation is they were two different sermons at two different times- thus, no contradiction/ As for the resurrection, I misspoke. I cannot prove he rose from the dead, but I can prove it highly probable.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail ok prove all of the stuff you just stated you could prove i would love to hear it, you fucking lying sack of shit. You can not prove any of these things. And it does contradict itself, try reading it and you will find them, or go to skepticsannotatedbible and you will find all of them. Just asserting stuff does not make it so, our "fish" idea has evidence, and if you choose not to look at the evidence. than you sir are a waste of my time.
FAVREandREDD 1 month ago
so in a universe without an underlying intelligence 2+2 would not equal 4?
mrpayne123 1 month ago
So, since math exists therefore a magical sky daddy exists ? Does that mean since chemistry exists that unicorns must also exist ?
1misanthropist 1 month ago
The caller here uses an awesome potential argument horribly. What he should argue is that atheists don't have a basis to do science in. They can't say 2+2=4 tomorrow, and they can't say the law of gravity will remain constant tomorrow. Because they can't say this, the only reason atheists can 'do' science is because they are inconsistent with their worldview- They 'do' sciences because they assume the future will reflect the past, yet in an atheist case-this claim is arbitrary.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail
who will prevail?
siddharthjoshi91 1 month ago
@siddharthjoshi91 God will.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail
which god? I haven't seen one or heard one or touched one.
siddharthjoshi91 1 month ago
You are an absolute plug; your points are completely irrelevant in terms 'evidence' for an underlying intelligence. 2+2=4 is just a component of a language humans developed to understand their surroundings. Physical laws are known because we have observed them (ie: we can see the 'force' of gravity at work). In fact, the law of gravity is far from constant. We know gravity exists, but we barely understand it. Gravity at the quantum level is a work progress. So an incomplete theory = god? 0.o
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 The law of gravity may be 'far from constant', but I wager you believe that in two minutes, things will have a gravitational push, instead of a pull. My point is: We as humans have an instinctive belief that the future will reflect the past. We base our lives around it. Yet an atheist has no basis for this uniformity, and thus cannot explain why it is so ingrained in our heads that the future will reflect the past.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail First of, gravity (on the macro-scale) is observed as a pull - you obviously have no scientific background whatsoever. Secondly, I certainly hope the future doesn't reflect the past (ie: slavery and the crusades and catastrophic asteriod impacts). You don't have a point; you've contrived this notion we all have this belief - but where is the evidence of this? You spouting it, doesn't make it true. Science learning to understand the world around us is not a 'belief'
sdmac21 1 month ago
As I have stated already; us learning to understand the laws that exist in nature, has nothing to do with an 'instictive belief' - if our observations described a world with a changing form and substance, and laws that aren't firm, but bendable and malleable, then that would be the scientific viewpoint. It has nothing to do with an innate belief (which also has nothing to do with proving an underlying intelligence). You sir, are miserably misguided in your claim.
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 But humans live assuming the future reflects the past, but the atheistic worldview cannot say this. You just arbitrarily assume it, without reason. You assumed that if you sent a comment on YouTube, assuming all systems were in place, the message would get there. You didn't assume that the laws of science would change, preventing the message from reaching the website. Why not? Because you act inconsistently with your worldview.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail what is my worldview? - I am not assuming anything; I (unlike yourself) understand the constraints of this system and what actually occurs, thus I can trust it to work and transmit my message. That isn't an assumption, it's an understanding. If it didn't work, I would acknowledge something is wrong. Your attempt to pass off atheists as 'assumers' of truth is feeble at best and nothing you have said adds any weight to the point in the video - the underlying truth.
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 for the last time as well; we have observed our world and made predictions, tested these, and concluded aspects of how our world (and universe works). Because of this, we know that some 'laws of science' are more or less constant and we can build of that knowledge. Ever heard of heat death? In reality, the universe is in a downward spiral of death and will eventually cease to function (that doesn't seem very constant to me); temporally, however, that is irrelevant for us
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 I'm sorry, I mistyped. I meant that you probably believe that in a few minutes, things with gravity will pull, not suddenly change to pushing.When I say the future reflects the past, I mean that in the future, scientific laws will stay as they have in the past. You are mistaking my words and building straw mans out of them.If scientific laws changed randomly, there would be no point in studying science, since in two seconds the physics you learned about may no longer be true.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail no you aren't presenting anything of substance and I am picking apart your mindless points you brought up. As I just said, in the observations from scientific inquiry indicated a randomly changing world, that would be the scientific viewpoint (it would probably suck because yes, not much would be able to be found out though). Thankfully we don't exist in a chaotic, un-structured universe; how does that give credit to anything you've said?
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 I cannot present 'substance' evidence and hope to convince you. You will just use a rescuing device. I may bring up the age length of comets, and you say the Oort Cloud, which has no evidence to back it up. And you do have a worldview, as of now, it seems you are convinced atheism is right. You interpret evidence around that point.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail - why is an understanding that the laws which governed the earth in the past are revelant today, arbitrary for an atheist? Explain your point - you called on the caller for presenting an awesome argument 'horribly', but you fared little better yourself. Why can't I say 2+2=4 tomorrow; how does this reflect my lack of belief in a divine creator? Believing a book which claims the earth is 6000 years old, seems like a much more inconsistent world-view than the lack of that belief...
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 You assume the future will reflect the past arbitrarily. You have no reason to assume the laws of science will remain constant. But you live like you do. You only live this way because you are inconsistent with your worldview. If you lived completely atheistically, you wouldn't 'do' science since there is just as much reason to suggest the laws of science won't remain constant as there is that they will.
HeWillPrevail 1 month ago
@HeWillPrevail wrong; the whole point of science is to make observations and predictions about these laws. In that way, we can DETERMINE (not assume) which laws (for the time-scale of human existence atleast) are 'constant'. There is nothing arbitrary in this process at all. Some things have been shown to change over time and some are so slow, that for us, they basically are constant. Thus, we can make further predictions and tests from that realization.
sdmac21 1 month ago
@sdmac21 This is opposite to the naive christian who holds faith in high esteem, which allows one to believe whimsical, un-observed/ un-documented fantasies which don't even fall within the physical laws we know exist. Believing the bible is even more redundant - an old, man-made book which presents 'truths' which routinely have to be changed or adapted to fit with the evidence science finds (ie: dinosaurs); this be should be a large, red flag to most intelligent humans.
sdmac21 1 month ago
If there is no God, then your must believe in the Tooth Fairy.
bris1tol 1 month ago
You say that the structure of the universe was created by "underlying processes."
Where did these come from -- the Tooth Fairy ?
bris1tol 1 month ago
@bris1tol God created the earth.
elibeth121 1 month ago
The underlying intelligence is the frason there is an underlying structure to the physical universe-- as well as physical laws. If there is no God, where did these come from ? The tooth fairy ?
bris1tol 1 month ago
@bris1tol these laws are observed laws of nature and of the universe, what makes you think they have to be created by some supernatural deity?? they may have been for all we know, but there is simply no evidence for such claims. the possibilty that your god created the universe is equally as unlikely as any of the gods of human religion (present and past), or indeed, the tooth fairy, creating the universe.
wati1992 1 month ago
Wati1992-- Lets go back to the basics. The very first creation was a distinction
in the nothing, creating numbers. That required either a prior or outside free choice.
The ability to make a free choice is called intelligence. So there had to be some
intelligence before the first creation in order for it to take place. I choose to
call thgat God, but you could call it "cosmic mind" or whatever name you prefer.
bris1tol 1 month ago
@bris1tol The creation was God creating the world. Yes, he gave us free choice, in whether we reject him or believe in him, in whether we choose to sin, or choose to do good.
elibeth121 1 month ago
It's so hard to watch these when both hots and callers talk at once. Drives me friggin' NUTS.
Tommyr 1 month ago
Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Someone is trying to tell you something. FFT
Aaron33860 2 months ago
Wow. That was really sad. That guy's argument made no sense. He should have tried to explain it better rather than screaming "BUT 2+2 = 4 IT'S THAT SIMPLE THEREFORE THERE IS A GOD!"
DjZephy 2 months ago
What was his point anyway? That you need to believe in god to do math?
rnalithe00 2 months ago
This caller needs to look up "deductive" and "inductive" reasoning on google.
wahay636 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
If nothing exists theres no laws, nothing to state what is possible or impossible, although some things seem inconceivable to us, if no laws nor rules exist, nothing is impossible.
Nothing is impossible means two things.
1. Anything is possible
2. Nothing is impossible (what is persisting cannot persist)
If anything is possible then something can come from nothing and although the 2nd note is a contradiction it doesn't matter cause no rules exist to say its impossible in the first place.
deanmullen10 2 months ago
Religion is the greatest troll of all.
archonlazarus 2 months ago
@archonlazarus Is that the best you can do ? Use insults ?
bris1tol 2 months ago
@archonlazarus wrong you are
elibeth121 1 month ago
Can you prove that anything at all exists ?
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Yes.
gzac95 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bris1tol Oh dear.
efrwar 2 months ago
@bris1tol yes i can and so can descartes, that is the point of the scientific method
Surroundyourbases 1 month ago
2+2 does not have to equal 4.
If you are working in a number system with the basis of 3, then 2 + 2 = 11, or with basis 4, then it's 2 + 2 = 10 :P
MatoVuc 2 months ago
@MatoVuc
Yes it does.
If you convert any of those bases to base 10 which is the one used in the example then the answer will always be 4.
DreddDwarf 2 months ago
@DreddDwarf you do realize that was a joke, right? :)
MatoVuc 2 months ago
@MatoVuc
Then why wasn't it funny?
DreddDwarf 2 months ago
i think what the caller here was trying to get at is the laws of logic. somehow these atheists don't see or don't want to see that. poor guys!
gerinja 2 months ago
@gerinja up to the caller to make that clear or have a choerent argument, if that was what eh was arguing then that is hwat he should have stated. That is not what he argued. We humans invented the number 2 and the numebr 4 and the adition to help us have meaningful numbers or amoutns for a number of objects that every one could agree too so that we could all have the same values for things. Its does not denote anything or mean anything about any other inteeligence other than our own
meleder 2 months ago
The people that insist on the vague description of god as an "underlying intellignce," I notice that they do not even bother to define intelligence, assuming that it can be equated to the human psychological structure. Like it would build things based on engineered purpose, or love, or aesthetic sentiment. Even if there is an underlying intelligence, what difference does it make? Why do you care? Do you think it gives a shit about your insignificant, infinitesimally short life, or your fears?
PachucoDesigns 2 months ago
@PachucoDesigns
Its not only that.
If we assume that nature is built on perfect intelligence it is exactly same as if there is no intelligence at all.
perfect god is exactly same as no god. it becomes just force of nature. and it is quite pointless to pray to gravity when you are falling from the window it wont make an exception for you if it is perfect.
deltaxcd 2 months ago
also, lay out 4 (four) items, like so:
| | | |
There is the same number there, no matter what you CALL it. 1+3, 2 +2 or just 4, those are our representations for that amount of something, not really THAT THING in itself.
3Sciencenut 2 months ago
What he's really drifting into here is Plato's theory of forms, which states that the only reason humans can recognize different objects as similar, or recognize words as descriptions of objects is because in a collective subconscious there exists a perfect version of said object.
3Sciencenut 2 months ago
2+2 can equal any number things. depending on what BASE you use. it is commonly accepted to use Base 10. Although, and i know this is a sidetrack, base 12 makes more sense than base 10. But I digress.
goaldhost 2 months ago
2:10 It's funny that the man on the left knows Stephen Weinberg and the man on the phone, twisting his ideas, doesn't even know his name.
Tyleriscoolx2 2 months ago
blah blah blah UNIFIED FIELD blah blah blah NOBEL PRIZE blah blah blah THEREFORE GOD!!
rarmst2 2 months ago
I think this guy is trying to say "how do we get the intelligence to come up with 2+2=4.", or aka, he is asking "how did our brain evolved? Brain is too complicated for it to evolve without an external source to guide it". That's his claim. I think.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Sounds about right.
buffdude623 2 months ago
This is from Jason Lisle's "nuclear strength apologetics", and it goes like this: Fish for something that the non-deist will say is absolutely true. This must mean that the non-deist accepts absolute truth. But absolute truth is an abstraction not found in the observable Universe, so to accept that it exists requires the non-deist to have knowledge that could not be acquired by natural means. Hence, it requires supernatural means. Hence, God.
puffin51 2 months ago