I think you understand that this doesn't address his argument. He was merely pointing out that when people ask atheists to account for the laws of logic and we say, they just happen to be this way, Christians also believe they just happen to be the way they are independent of God. It's not an argument against Christianity but rather it's an argument against the Christian argument that Christianity account for logical laws more than atheism does.
You have have fully logically argued for the possibility of a deistic god
I challenge you to make a equally correct video about your said religion
And also, I was so blown away by the fact that this is the first time I've heard a religious person who's reasoning did not degenerated into a series of unsound claims, that I favored it
I'd love to accept your challenge, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean... You want me to make a video arguing for Christianity? That's very broad. You want me to argue logically in favor of the resurrection? Or some kind of Fundie Biblical factuality? Or what?
Ok, so assuming that there is a god, what makes him the Christian god and not (for example) the flying spaghetti monster?
One could say that he is Christian if and only if he has all the attributes described in the bible.
But then again, if you only see the bible as not necessarily god's word, but rather a man-made interpretation, it's ok to make him your Christian god (for example "god doesn't care whether I eat shellfish or not")
I can't prove the flying spaghetti monster exists but you can't prove it doesn't. We both believe existence exists, I don't think existence beyond self is proven.
For any existence to exist including himself, God is subject to a thing being itself.
I won't say there could be no God, but for him to be or do anything he must have properties. With out defining what God is or isn't he is anything everything and nothing.
God is Nature if he created existence based on your definition.
The point TBS makes is actually that theist don't account for the laws of logic as it was stated in the video he responded to. If the nature of god JUST is, then the laws of logic JUST are. It is the same thing Atheists, like myself, say "they just are". The nature of the universe behaves the way it behaves with no reason. And theists would say "so you can't account for the laws of logic" when they can't either, since it JUST is like it is.
Nice try. But the quoted description of the pre-creation deity is a consciousness. There is no reliance on the natural universe. A theistic creator god would have to be AT LEAST conscious by the broadest definition. If theo did not have something like consciousness, something like preference & will... then it COULD NOT have intentionally created anything. TBS's point was that if someone wants to say something, i.e. god, doesn't need explanation then neither do alternative explanations.
You've actually swallowed the bait perfectly. The video you are responding to is all about showing that the theist tactic of asking "why is there anything and how can you account for the consistent characteristics of nature?" in no way makes a case for god. The video shows that by turning the question back on theists and asking "why is there a god and how can you account for the consistent characteristics of god?" All your answers to the second question could as aptly be applied to the first.
I wanted to ask this question, you say god Created time. How does anything create time, since the action being done requires time. The defining characteristic, and the tool we use to determine a creation event is time. An example, a Merlin (I am not being sarcastic, the creating agent needs to be supernatural in some way.) creates an apple out of nothing. How do we know an apple was created? There was a time before the apple and a time after the apple and at zero is the moment of creation.
God doesn't exist on any plane of existence even close to ours. We can't even begin to understand how something could create time because we are limited to existing within time. I talked about the blind man trying to fathom color. In a world of blind people, there'd simply be no way to understand color. Same with God. God is entirely supernatural, and does not exist within time, space, or physics.
I can't directly perceive of electrical resistance as I do color but I am aware of it as a property of existence. I can measure its variation. Like wise if I couldn't see color but I could still note it's interactions like generating heat or not I would be able to extrapolate the property. Like wise it may be possible to the nature of Gods existence through his indirect interactions. Still it could be unknowable. Still I will try to know.
I can't directly perceive of electrical resistance as I do color but I am aware of it as a property of existence. I can measure its variation. Like wise if I couldn't see color but I could still note it's interactions like generating heat or not I would be able to extrapolate the property. Like wise it may be possible to the nature of Gods existence through his indirect interactions. Still it could be unknowable. Still I will try to know.
On that note, I have no idea how one creates time because I can't even begin to fathom what an existence outside of time is like. I understand your breakdown of how a thing is created, and I suppose we could end up quibbling about how to most accurately describe the "creation" of time if creation can't be an accurate descriptive term, but I'm completely willing to believe that there is a perfectly sound explanation existing in a place that far supercedes my perception.
You completely missed the point of the first question. The argument he is responding too in short is. Either god does or doesn't exists, this is a dichotomy invalidating one validates the other. Atheists cannot account for Logical absolutes therefore god exists. If this is true then the argument cuts both ways and invalidates the argument. If the logical absolutes are of God's nature and you cannot account for why god is then you cannot account for the absolutes.
And on the topic of the first question: I'll give you that. I'm realizing more and more that this video isn't really so much of a response to Scott's video as it was a nice excuse to self-indulge in a tangent (three of them, actually). But hey, live and learn.
Clearly you missed my original wording of this example.
Given what you appear to be claiming, a conversation would go like this:
"There is life on other planets." "No, there isn't." "Why not?" "Because there isn't." "Yes there is." "Prove it." "Well, you can't DISprove it, therefore I win."
What? That's ridiculous. Stating that we're in the matrix does not make us in the matrix by default. You have challenged a convention (ie, that we are not in the matrix), and now we must deliberate to uncover the real truth.
The way you'd have it: "Why isn't there life on other planets?" "Because there isn't." "Well, there is." "Can you prove it?" "You can't DISprove it!"
Take life on other planets: If I believe, I must to accountable for why I believe that. If I don't believe, I'm likewise accountable for my belief. I'm not exempt from having a justifiable perspective on an unverifiable issue simply because it hasn't been demonstrated to the contrary. "Why don't you believe in life on other planets?" "I don't need to answer that, because you haven't proven to me that there IS life on other planets." THAT is asinine.
To answer your question: Yes, I would totally need to account for why I don't believe we're in the matrix.
You're already assuming the truth of your perspective. In a world where there is no God, we don't need to account for His non-existence. But that's not the world we live in. We don't know for sure one way or the other, therefore both must be explored before we can take a stance on believing in one or the other.
This was TBS and zkeuker's conversation. It has very little to do with my video. My video is a tangent of the original argument, because I wanted to respond to Scott's ideas on who God is and the logic of His existence.
Then it follows that it's also asinine to expect a Christian to account for why God does exist.
I understand that Scott's video culminated in talking about accounting for logic, but I wanted to respond to just his opening rhetoric, which was about accounting for God's existence.
"We as humans existing within nature, and having no concept of what exists outside nature, we cannot possibly fathom what God is, or the preconditions of his existence."
Assuming that you hold to Christian faith, which attempts to authoritatively make predications upon God's character, If God's character is unfathomable, would it be possible for Christianity to be incorrect in its predications, and other religions to be correct in such, simultaneously?
@violentlygraceful "...what God is, or the preconditions of His existence" is not in reference to His character (empathetic, hateful, etc), but His being (animal, vegetable, mineral, etc). Scott asserted that God was some mystical consciousness. That is an incorrect assertation.
As per your question, however, all humans are errant, so there is always the possibility that we've got it wrong, on any and every topic.
Job well done. I've noticed neither one deals with the unspoken question. If we exist, and if we are made in the image of God, does our participation alter the preceived existance of God? Unlike animals, we use words and concepts to understand the world about us. But in the act of understanding do we not then alter the very world we are trying to understand? Great vid, hope you post more.
@MrPanetela No, I don't think our perception of truth changes what that truth is. I do, however (and I believe TBS would agree) that there is considerable danger in believing that anybody can inerrantly understand all the truths about the world. Being errant creatures, we must always be open to debate and correction. If you can hoist your flag and say "I've found the answer to everything," you've missed it. I think I'll make a video on this topic sometime.
@pumpkinheadedmf Actually, I do believe that that part of truth we perceive is only just a small part of the overview of that truth, so we do agree on that point. It would be like stepping outside at night to star gaze, we would only see just a tiny fraction of what's out there. Looking forward to your next vid.
I think you understand that this doesn't address his argument. He was merely pointing out that when people ask atheists to account for the laws of logic and we say, they just happen to be this way, Christians also believe they just happen to be the way they are independent of God. It's not an argument against Christianity but rather it's an argument against the Christian argument that Christianity account for logical laws more than atheism does.
ExSaint1379 8 months ago
You have have fully logically argued for the possibility of a deistic god
I challenge you to make a equally correct video about your said religion
And also, I was so blown away by the fact that this is the first time I've heard a religious person who's reasoning did not degenerated into a series of unsound claims, that I favored it
DavidMadsen 9 months ago
@DavidMadsen
Wow! Thank you so much!
I'd love to accept your challenge, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean... You want me to make a video arguing for Christianity? That's very broad. You want me to argue logically in favor of the resurrection? Or some kind of Fundie Biblical factuality? Or what?
pumpkinheadedmf 9 months ago
@pumpkinheadedmf
Ok, so assuming that there is a god, what makes him the Christian god and not (for example) the flying spaghetti monster?
One could say that he is Christian if and only if he has all the attributes described in the bible.
But then again, if you only see the bible as not necessarily god's word, but rather a man-made interpretation, it's ok to make him your Christian god (for example "god doesn't care whether I eat shellfish or not")
DavidMadsen 9 months ago
@pumpkinheadedmf continued
Can you tell me anything about god, and then argue for why that must be true?
(I'm being purposely vague for you to be able to bring up whatever convinces you)
DavidMadsen 9 months ago
@DavidMadsen
I think I understand what you're asking for. I will put something together on the subject. :)
pumpkinheadedmf 9 months ago
I can't prove the flying spaghetti monster exists but you can't prove it doesn't. We both believe existence exists, I don't think existence beyond self is proven.
For any existence to exist including himself, God is subject to a thing being itself.
I won't say there could be no God, but for him to be or do anything he must have properties. With out defining what God is or isn't he is anything everything and nothing.
God is Nature if he created existence based on your definition.
ekpil2000 1 year ago
The point TBS makes is actually that theist don't account for the laws of logic as it was stated in the video he responded to. If the nature of god JUST is, then the laws of logic JUST are. It is the same thing Atheists, like myself, say "they just are". The nature of the universe behaves the way it behaves with no reason. And theists would say "so you can't account for the laws of logic" when they can't either, since it JUST is like it is.
Absortus 1 year ago
BWHAHAHAHA, dude god either exists or he does not exist he is subject to that. So yeah we can throw him in a box.
amarthishness 1 year ago
Nice try. But the quoted description of the pre-creation deity is a consciousness. There is no reliance on the natural universe. A theistic creator god would have to be AT LEAST conscious by the broadest definition. If theo did not have something like consciousness, something like preference & will... then it COULD NOT have intentionally created anything. TBS's point was that if someone wants to say something, i.e. god, doesn't need explanation then neither do alternative explanations.
akaei0 1 year ago
You've actually swallowed the bait perfectly. The video you are responding to is all about showing that the theist tactic of asking "why is there anything and how can you account for the consistent characteristics of nature?" in no way makes a case for god. The video shows that by turning the question back on theists and asking "why is there a god and how can you account for the consistent characteristics of god?" All your answers to the second question could as aptly be applied to the first.
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
I wanted to ask this question, you say god Created time. How does anything create time, since the action being done requires time. The defining characteristic, and the tool we use to determine a creation event is time. An example, a Merlin (I am not being sarcastic, the creating agent needs to be supernatural in some way.) creates an apple out of nothing. How do we know an apple was created? There was a time before the apple and a time after the apple and at zero is the moment of creation.
nospacesallowed 1 year ago
@nospacesallowed (1/2)
God doesn't exist on any plane of existence even close to ours. We can't even begin to understand how something could create time because we are limited to existing within time. I talked about the blind man trying to fathom color. In a world of blind people, there'd simply be no way to understand color. Same with God. God is entirely supernatural, and does not exist within time, space, or physics.
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
@pumpkinheadedmf
I can't directly perceive of electrical resistance as I do color but I am aware of it as a property of existence. I can measure its variation. Like wise if I couldn't see color but I could still note it's interactions like generating heat or not I would be able to extrapolate the property. Like wise it may be possible to the nature of Gods existence through his indirect interactions. Still it could be unknowable. Still I will try to know.
ekpil2000 1 year ago
@pumpkinheadedmf
I can't directly perceive of electrical resistance as I do color but I am aware of it as a property of existence. I can measure its variation. Like wise if I couldn't see color but I could still note it's interactions like generating heat or not I would be able to extrapolate the property. Like wise it may be possible to the nature of Gods existence through his indirect interactions. Still it could be unknowable. Still I will try to know.
Can God exist and not exist?
ekpil2000 1 year ago
@nospacesallowed (2/2)
On that note, I have no idea how one creates time because I can't even begin to fathom what an existence outside of time is like. I understand your breakdown of how a thing is created, and I suppose we could end up quibbling about how to most accurately describe the "creation" of time if creation can't be an accurate descriptive term, but I'm completely willing to believe that there is a perfectly sound explanation existing in a place that far supercedes my perception.
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
You completely missed the point of the first question. The argument he is responding too in short is. Either god does or doesn't exists, this is a dichotomy invalidating one validates the other. Atheists cannot account for Logical absolutes therefore god exists. If this is true then the argument cuts both ways and invalidates the argument. If the logical absolutes are of God's nature and you cannot account for why god is then you cannot account for the absolutes.
nospacesallowed 1 year ago
@nospacesallowed
And on the topic of the first question: I'll give you that. I'm realizing more and more that this video isn't really so much of a response to Scott's video as it was a nice excuse to self-indulge in a tangent (three of them, actually). But hey, live and learn.
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Clearly you missed my original wording of this example.
Given what you appear to be claiming, a conversation would go like this:
"There is life on other planets." "No, there isn't." "Why not?" "Because there isn't." "Yes there is." "Prove it." "Well, you can't DISprove it, therefore I win."
Do you see my objection to this line of thinking?
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
But, you started this conversation by claiming that it's asinine to ask an atheist to account for God's nonexistence.
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
What? That's ridiculous. Stating that we're in the matrix does not make us in the matrix by default. You have challenged a convention (ie, that we are not in the matrix), and now we must deliberate to uncover the real truth.
The way you'd have it: "Why isn't there life on other planets?" "Because there isn't." "Well, there is." "Can you prove it?" "You can't DISprove it!"
Do you see how silly your thinking is, here?
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Take life on other planets: If I believe, I must to accountable for why I believe that. If I don't believe, I'm likewise accountable for my belief. I'm not exempt from having a justifiable perspective on an unverifiable issue simply because it hasn't been demonstrated to the contrary. "Why don't you believe in life on other planets?" "I don't need to answer that, because you haven't proven to me that there IS life on other planets." THAT is asinine.
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
To answer your question: Yes, I would totally need to account for why I don't believe we're in the matrix.
You're already assuming the truth of your perspective. In a world where there is no God, we don't need to account for His non-existence. But that's not the world we live in. We don't know for sure one way or the other, therefore both must be explored before we can take a stance on believing in one or the other.
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
This was TBS and zkeuker's conversation. It has very little to do with my video. My video is a tangent of the original argument, because I wanted to respond to Scott's ideas on who God is and the logic of His existence.
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Then it follows that it's also asinine to expect a Christian to account for why God does exist.
I understand that Scott's video culminated in talking about accounting for logic, but I wanted to respond to just his opening rhetoric, which was about accounting for God's existence.
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
video well done!
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
Very nice!
jmcmahan15 1 year ago
Good response. I do have one question...
"We as humans existing within nature, and having no concept of what exists outside nature, we cannot possibly fathom what God is, or the preconditions of his existence."
Assuming that you hold to Christian faith, which attempts to authoritatively make predications upon God's character, If God's character is unfathomable, would it be possible for Christianity to be incorrect in its predications, and other religions to be correct in such, simultaneously?
violentlygraceful 1 year ago
@violentlygraceful "...what God is, or the preconditions of His existence" is not in reference to His character (empathetic, hateful, etc), but His being (animal, vegetable, mineral, etc). Scott asserted that God was some mystical consciousness. That is an incorrect assertation.
As per your question, however, all humans are errant, so there is always the possibility that we've got it wrong, on any and every topic.
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
Job well done. I've noticed neither one deals with the unspoken question. If we exist, and if we are made in the image of God, does our participation alter the preceived existance of God? Unlike animals, we use words and concepts to understand the world about us. But in the act of understanding do we not then alter the very world we are trying to understand? Great vid, hope you post more.
MrPanetela 1 year ago
@MrPanetela No, I don't think our perception of truth changes what that truth is. I do, however (and I believe TBS would agree) that there is considerable danger in believing that anybody can inerrantly understand all the truths about the world. Being errant creatures, we must always be open to debate and correction. If you can hoist your flag and say "I've found the answer to everything," you've missed it. I think I'll make a video on this topic sometime.
And I do plan to post more. :)
pumpkinheadedmf 1 year ago
@pumpkinheadedmf Actually, I do believe that that part of truth we perceive is only just a small part of the overview of that truth, so we do agree on that point. It would be like stepping outside at night to star gaze, we would only see just a tiny fraction of what's out there. Looking forward to your next vid.
MrPanetela 1 year ago