Yes readers, here we have the typical closeminded theist who hates the idea that atheists are using the very means by which they could bury dawkins. As Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation") said "let's be brutally honest, science must bury all gods. “A scientific discovery is also another magnificent discovery of our natural world. Our knowledge of all gods has buried every god to date” J Taylor,Nobel Prize in Physics
To not believe in God requires faith that goes against reason. It requires illogical faith in mindless matter & chance. When, however, we observe the exquisite design of creation and beauty of nature; the universal search for transcendence & sense of morality, the desire for perfection and consciousness of God; and the witness of personal testimony and power of the Bible, then we know that believing in God is supported by reason. Faith in Greek means trust & trust in God is logical faith.
Oxford Nobel Prize scientist (&atheist) sir Peter Medawar,'That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer & that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer It is not to science, but to metaphysics, imaginative literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things.'
oh dear some posters have just given themselves up by continually posting through a large window of doubt.if they truly had faith,there would be no need to post. some deluded fools are just not worthy of debate when they continually throw the toys out of the pram.que further cherry picking moments from the kids.
@kram83au Oh dear indeed! So "Atheists have nothing to prove"? If u reject an ultimate source of creativity, morality, intelligence & omnipotence, the cynic has to become a materialitic reductionist. Such a worldview believes that mindless matter is the sole origin of such intelligibility. Unfortunately (4 u), "an infinite past exists nowhere in reality, it remains solely that of an idea." •The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
@Gericho49 look at all your posts,its smacks of major insecurity in your faith kid ,but you being the afflicted cant see it. shame on you letting down the side, your faith cant withstand a little reasoning, im sure your care worker will explain it to you. you can never win the argument kid, superstition is on the run from reason suck it up, again refer to your care worker if your having any problem with the post. get well soon kid.
@kram83au If u want to comment or challenge what I have written above u will need to provide a facts based, point by point rebuttal. Anyone can resort to ad hominem, insults & unsubstaniated opinions. Perhaps u should tell us if u really are a materialistic reductionist & refute what Sir Peter Medawar has said about "scientism". Or maybe u have never thought what naturalism really implies.
if only I were a "kid", but then there was a time when like u, I did think I knew everything.
@Gericho49 challenge?. the only challange is when you grow up to be a big boy someday and can apply some rational thought ,then you will find that there are no gods and the delusion will be like snow being blown off a dyke ,its really that simple, most of your rationality is probably sound until the god glassess slip on yer heed. btw, im probably twice your age with a 2nd grandson on the way, but if bigging yourself up puts a shine on your ego, knock yourself out son.
its amazing the lengths that some of the deluded go to ,to keep their delusion afloat. its a pity they dont apply such urgency when trying to use their brains,but hey,theve got faith, belief without evidence, oh how humbling. lol
@kram83au Totally agree. Faith in mindless matter a.k.a "naturalism." How could anyone think that a supremely intelligent being would be required to create time itself as well as existence from non-existence and "man from the dust of the earth". Our rationally intelligible universe that astrophysicists say is on a knife edge came about by blind forces, mindless processes & chance, right?. Atheists dont believe nothing they believe anything! ultimate chaos Vs fine-tuning & design.
@Gericho49 Fine-tuning & design are arguments from ignorance. ie: The only explanation I can think of for phenomenon X is hypothesis Y. Therefore hypothesis Y is correct. This is a logical fallacy, regardless of how many times you repeat it, Gerry. Atheists don't claim anything about the origin of the universe - they simply don't buy your unsubstantiated claim about it. Demonstrate it to be true, and we'll believe it. But not with logical fallacies.
@BailiffQuimby As I've said time&time again 2u Baffy. There are only THREE possible explanations for Fine-tuning & design- chance, physical necessity or design itself. Are u accusing all the Nobel laureates & emininet scientists of arguing from ignorance? Or r u telling us that the Creation hypothesis is less plausible than chance or necessity when science is saying that the latter are absurdly unlikely? Tell us what logical fallacy is committed & why?
Robert Andrews Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics “To me it is unthinkable that a atheist could be a scientist.” “Religion and science, then, in my analysis are the two great sister forces which have pulled, and are still pulling, mankind onward and upward.”
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”–Lord William Kelvin,
CHTownes, Nobel Prize in Physics-“Science with logic, tries to understand the structure of the universe. Religion, with its theological inspiration tries to understand the purpose or meaning of the universe. These two are cross-related. Purpose implies structure which ought to be interpretable in terms of purpose.” The uncertainty is how many of the rules God himself has permanently ordained & how many are caused by your own mental inertia E.Schroedinger Nobel Prize in Physics
@BailiffQuimby says " CHTownes, Nobel Prize in Physics" Argument from authority.
Indeed they are arguments from authority which are valid when 1) they come from experts in their field 2) they are unchallenged by other experts in the same field.
Baffy's "there could be 14 other possible (natural) explanations" but not one scientist has seen evidence for them. Now that IS a "science of the gaps" argument from ignorance if ever there was one!
@Gericho49 "Indeed they are arguments from authority which are valid when 1) they come from experts in their field 2) they are unchallenged by other experts in the same field."
Nope. Argument from authority is invalid because it is based on the claimant and not on the claim. Don't care if it's Jesus himself who you attribute the claim to. If the expert has a good argument for his claim, share that. You haven't, thus far.
@Gericho49 "Now that IS a "science of the gaps" argument from ignorance if ever there was one! "
Methinks you don't know what an argument from ignorance is. Argument from ignorant doesn't mean you don't know something - it means you don't know something, but claim you do. For instance, you don't know how many possible explanations for the intelligability of the universe, but you pretend to know for sure that there are only three.
@Gericho49 "As I've said time&time again 2u Baffy. There are only THREE possible explanations for Fine-tuning & design"
And as I've said to you, that is by definition an argument from ignorance. How do you know there aren't seventeen explanations and you haven't thought of fourteen of them?
"Are u accusing all the Nobel laureates & emininet scientists of arguing from ignorance?"
I'm accusing you of arguing from ignorance. I'm not arguing with them...
@BailiffQuimby "when science is saying that the latter are absurdly unlikely?"
Science isn't saying anything on this matter. You are. And some scientists are. But you and they are not using science to conclude this - they're using desperation.
"Tell us what logical fallacy is committed & why?"
I've told you many times. Once more: claiming that there are only X number of possible explanations for a phenomenon is an argument from ignorance.... TBC
@BailiffQuimby No Baffy, the most hardened voice of atheim is saying the greatest challenge facing science today is to explain the "apparent" design of the universe.I havent said its absolute proof for an intelligent Creator but it is compelling evidence!. Ask urself if atheism were true would u expect a rationally-intelligible law-abiding universe or one of ultimate chaos? Oh yes, we have to be in such a universe to be able to exist & say the universe is absurdly fine-tuned!
@Gericho49 ".I havent said its absolute proof for an intelligent Creator but it is compelling evidence!. "
Obviously not, as I am not compelled.
"Ask urself if atheism were true would u expect a rationally-intelligible law-abiding universe or one of ultimate chaos?"
I would expect a law-abiding universe, because if there was a chaotic universe, you and I wouldn't be here discussing it. But this does not indicate that a magic man made it, no matter how many times you claim it does.
@BailiffQuimby Derr! The 3 options are categories not numbers. Which one r u in? The one that believes "a troupe of monkeys could type out a shakespearian sonnet given infinite time & chance" (Hawking) or reject outright the hypotheses that "a Superintellect has monkeyed with physics & chemistry''-Hoyle Or "It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe"-Davies Wasnt science supposed to bury the need for an ultimate source of intelligence?
@BailiffQuimby ....And leaning on the word of scientists for a conclusion without giving supporting reasons for that conclusion is an argument from authority. Both are fallacious.
@Gericho49 I'd further remind you that many of the scientists you quote have NOT concluded that a god must exist. You extrapolate that from things they have concluded.
"Or r u telling us that the Creation hypothesis is less plausible than chance or necessity"
While I suspect it is for a variety of reasons, that is not a relevent point to my argument.
@BailiffQuimby In fact if u go to godevidence. C O M there are 100s of such scientists of various degrees of agnosticism/atheism who find no evidence to support chance or necessity. You havent provided any authorative citations to support naturalism or DENY the God hypothesis. To not believe in God requires faith that goes against reason. It requires illogical faith that science can&will explain everthing.
"a superintellect has monkeyed with physics & chemistry Sir Fred Hoyle.
@Gericho49 Are you not reading what I write to you or do you not understand it? Every time you resort to telling me what some scientist believes without providing their rationale, you are committing a fallacy by authority. Any time you pretend to know that the only explanations are god, chance, or necessity, you are committing a fallacy by ignorance. And yet you refuse to give me anything but these, over and over again.
@BailiffQuimby Do YOU not understand or r u not reading what scientists are saying -blind forces, unguided processes, mindless matter & chance dont result in a FINITE universe that exudes intelligibility nor one that is defined by abstract math so complex that it baffles our greatest theotretical physicists like Michio Kaku.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because only God could've created it."
@Gericho49 And we're back to authority and ignorance. I'm done talking to you until you give me SOMETHING that isn't an argument from authority or an argument from ignorance. Because now we're just going in circles. I'll keep an eye open in case you say something of substance one day. Ciao.
@BailiffQuimby Sorry u cant invoke let alone substantiate the "ignorance" claim. The 3 "options" to account for design I quoted are from eminent scientists not me. When numerous scientists look at the evidence that refutes "naturalism" they are entitled to draw theistic conclusions. I'll keep an eye in case u say something different from "I have no idea why the universe is rationally intelligible but I am certain that God couldnt have done it."
An example of deductive reasoning George Greenstein, award winning astronomer: "As we survey ALL THE EVIDENCE, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
BTW profMTH why do u feel the need to comment on ur videos using multiple aliases?
Yes readers, here we have the typical closeminded atheists who hate the idea that theists are using the very means by which they could bury God. As Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation") said "let's be brutally honest, science must bury God."
What a pity it is when “A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science&religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” J Taylor,Nobel Prize in Physics
@Gericho49 "I'll keep an eye in case u say something different from "I have no idea why the universe is rationally intelligible but I am certain that God couldnt have done it.""
I never said god couldn't have done it. I said you weren't justified in saying he did.
"George Greenstein, award winning astronomer"
argument from authority
"BTW profMTH"
Who?
"As Sam Harris"
Sam Harris speaks for Sam Harris, not for atheists.
@Gericho49 "You havent provided any authorative citations to support naturalism or DENY the God hypothesis"
And that's because this is not my goal. My goal is to show that you have not demonstrated the point you've been arguing. And I've done this multiple times, but you seem incapable of understanding why you've given no evidence in support of your god hypothesis.
"It requires illogical faith that science can&will explain everthing."
While i appreciate the truth of what you are saying in you comment as a Christian. Do you think Jesus might refer some of these nice seekers of truth to the parable of the Good Seed? The one talking about good seed faling on diffrent kinds of soils. Thnks for your concideration :)
@TheTitaBIGTITTY DId u read what design is actually referring to ?? It is not about the weather on earth pluto or Pandora or the mortality of life. It is about the initial conditions of the BB, the immutable laws of physics & all the independent physical constants ¶meters that create 112 elements, allow galaxies& stars to form & when everthing is just perfect a planet like earth to be life-permitting.. Next question?
My response to people who say this is that I'm not trying to convince the person I'm debating - I'm trying to convince the audience. The debater has a dog in the fight and he has his ego invested in being correct. Meanwhile the audience sits quietly by and many of them will be thinking.. "Hey, he had a good point there and my guy's answer to it was pretty weak. You know, maybe he has something there." People are convinced by religious arguments - just not the people you're arguing with.
@disturbedking8 It's true that Christian apologetics will only convince a Christian but that is simply because they are very poor arguments. (If they were good arguments, I'd happily be a Christian.) To demonstrate this to a Christian, simply use the apologetic to prove a religion he doesn't believe in like Scientology, Greek Mythology or Islam. On the other hand (humbly) most atheist arguments are rock solid. Sometimes a Christian will actually accept the validity of an atheist argument.
@kram83au which society would that be? The one that is financially, morally & spiritually bankrupt where dishonesty greed corruption, violence rascism are entrenched?
If there are no objective moral standards what should dictate social moral standards-your bunch of selfish genes or mine?
Atheist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre:"Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance."
I agree with how the more central a person's beliefs are, the less likely they are to give them up. Since it seems to be so deeply ingrained in christians, I can only think that perhaps for whatever reason, despite my parents efforts, it did not become a core belief with me as a child. I know that my position as an atheist is unreachable, the only thing that could possibly convince me of the existence of a god is if he were to stand in front of me and perform a miracle. No evidence, no belief
@8698gil If there is absolutely no evidence for a God that gives ur life, meaning, joy hope fulfilment & destiny shouldnt u be spending whats left of ur ultimately meaningless life trying to find meaning rather than trying to convince urself that there is no proof for the God u dont believe in? Have u honestly thought thru what atheism actually implies? "that ur just a slave to a bunch of selfish genes fighting for survival in a world of pitiless indifference."
@Gericho49 why post,if you have faith[belief without evidence] perhaps the great god zeus has the answer. lol. still, religion is a backward condition that has well outlived its self, its only through mans desperation and social disadvantage that religion exploits the weakness. shameless really
Can I recommend my video "The Teleological Argument for God's Existence." I look at the consensus of modern science quoted mostly agnostic and atheists' findings. I also look at the 3 possible explanations for that "apparent" design 1) chance 2) physical necessity and 3) Design. I also raise 6 objections to the 9 Multiverse theories.
@kram83au cut & paste from atheism 101 for Dummies?
The only thing faith has to account for is evil & suffering, atheism has to account for everything else like our FINITE, rationally intelligible, life-permitting universe that is defined by an absurdly complex, ABSTRACT set of scientific laws & math equations. Did man invent these immaterial laws or did he discover them? In your Godless worldview did matter invent these laws or did the laws define matter into existence?
@kram83au Richard Dawkins thinks exactly that . Aliens seeded the earth called "directed panspermia." What could be a better theory for how life came from non-life?
Funny thing though. Life apparently couldnt have evolved on earth naturally but did so somewhere else in the universe. Then who seeded the aliens who seeded the aliens who seeded us?
What is the purpose of life for an atheist? Simple. Treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Caring for our families and friends. Enjoying our lives, they are short and should not be wasted on meaningless drivel. Doing the best we can, recognizing that we will make mistakes but that we can learn from them. People are much more important to us than imaginary friends with superpowers.
@8698gil Pardon the world is financially, morally and spiritually bankrupt. Clearly, the Golden rule has become "do unto others before they do it to you." Morality according to atheism is subjective & arbitrary, it has evolved from sociobiological conditioning. If atheism is true we're just a bunch of selfish genes whose sole purpose is survival. Ultimately, it matters not whether u live a life as Ghandi, Gengis Khan, Martin Luther King or Mother Teresa. Or does it?
I detest the smug arrogance of theists. They actually believe that they are so special, so unique, so beloved of some invisible allpowerful being, that they are never going to die, even though every other living thing on the earth does. They can live with the starving children that their god obviously doesn't think are important enough to deserve a little help, by saying inane things like "god is mysterious, we cannot know him, blah, blah, blah."
@8698gil I recommend my video "The Teleological Argument for God's Existence." I look at the consensus of modern science quoted mostly agnostic and atheists findings. I also look at the 3 possible explanations for that "apparent design 1) chance 2) physical necessity and 3) Design. I also raise 6 objections to the 6 Multiverse theories.
Our planet Earth is just a speck of insignificant dust in the vastness of this universe, and most of the universe is a very hostile place. Even most of this planet we can't live on. So how is it so finely tuned? Why do we have earthquakes and tsunamis if this world is perfect and finely tuned? Its not. It happened to be in the habitable zone of an ordinary star with reasonable conditions for life and we're probably not the only life, considering the billions of galaxies and stars out there
@8698gil "the universe is a very hostile place" This is a typical claim of the ill-informed atheist who undersatnds little science. It is not about the weather on earth pluto or Pandora for that matter. It is about the initial conditions of the BB, the immutable laws of physics & all the independent physical constants ¶meters that create 112 elements, allow galaxies& stars to form & when everthing is just perfect a planet like earth to be life-permitting.. Next question?
@Gericho49 In your opinion, are people like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking ill-informed atheists who understand little about science? On the contrary, it is brilliant men like these who do understand science and that the universe does not need a creator, and people like you who don't. The universe is huge, and it was not created just for us.
@8698gil Degrasse Tyson is not an atheist and Hawkings 1st book is full of deistic/theisitic assumptions & conclusions .Sorry but the consensus of modern science is that the unierse is finetuned for life to occur. It doesnt support anything like chance or physical necessity the only options to Design. see my video
Even though I was raised in a protestant church going home, I have never had faith. I remember my parents trying to convince me that god was real, but they couldn't give me any satisfactory answers to my questions. Theists say they just know that god exists, and that it is part of our human nature to believe. Well, I can testify it is not. I am just as sure there is no god as a theist is sure there is one.
@8698gil of course u have faith. u've just never thought thru what atheism implies. "that ur just a slave to a bunch of selfish genes fighting for survival in a world of pitiless indifference." u must believe that ultimate reality is just mindless reactions in a brain evolved from ancient chemicals by blind forces & unguided processes, which are defined by immaterial immutable laws that cant exist in an all physical world. Such is the blind faith that atheists must have in Naturalism.
One of the saddist points lost by atheists amongst all the ridicule, profanities & insults is the fact that they have never even thought about what they actually believe in. I've seen no one try to support "naturalism" or any evidence that science supports an atheistic worldview. No one has any explanation for how our finite universe is absurdly fine-tuned to be rationally intelligible, law-abiding or life-permitting in terms of mindless matter & energy. And they call be ME a coward!!
Psychology demonstrates much better, or so I believe, with research what Faust tries to argue with concept alone. There is fascinating research in psychology, such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, confirmation bias, or the fundamental attribution error that show very common irrational ways of thinking we all participate in. I think another issue here is the true strength of a counter-argument; it's hard to be objective and neutral on what is a damning or just plain weak argument.
@Sickopath333 what is a "damning or just plain weak argument" is that our finite, rationally-intelligible, life-permitting, immaterial law-abiding universe came about by purely random, mindless processes. When matter& energy are the only game in town for the atheist, they wont believe in nothing they'll believe anything- anything that doesnt contradict their all material worldview .
My problem with believers... Yes, they shrug off arguments and don't understand logic. And when they have an actual religious experience, which is very abstract and personal thing, they only interpret it in terms of ancient dogma, even though none of that really fits. No angels, devils or whatever, yet they take it as evidence that Bible is true and accurate. No, theism is not a mental disorder, it's more like an imposed mind growth deformation or mental injury.
@MiracleWitness I dont accept ur totally unsupported claims for an instance but even if one concedes them, many people believe in an ultimate transcendent reality without reference to Scripture. “The deeper one penetrates into nature’s secrets, the greater becomes one’s respect for God.” (Einstein, as cited in Brian 1996, 119). It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". astrophysicist PCW Davies
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible abstract mathematics becausse God created it."(such maths dont exist in a material world) Drs. Zehavi&Dekel "This type of universe require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
@Gericho49 : I have no problem with a transcendent reality, ultimate or not. But I have a great problem with a primitive Iron age opinion on that transcencent reality, that is imposed on us today. Einstein believed in an impersonal Spinoza's God of natural laws, not in the bloodthirsty Yahweh who created many silly rules for barbaric desert tribes. Transcendent reality yes, but seen in the light of modern sciences.
@MiracleWitness "Spinoza's God" “I’m not an atheist, and I cant call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the books but doesn’t know what it is. That is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”
So u CAN believe in a transcendence (a non-physical reality) as an explanation for why our finite universe obeys absurdly complex, immutable & immaterial laws defined by abstract maths? But u cant believe in a personal God with the power to act in that universe to create a sentient being capable of sharing in his glory? Perhaps u should read ALL the Bible including the NT. "You have read an eye for an eye, but I say to u love ur enemies, bless those who curse you"
@Prodigalfather1 : Define non-physical reality, how can something be non-physical and yet still real? All reality we know of is physical. All persons we know of are or were physical and had a brain. Unless you provide actual definitions comprehensible within the framework of science, a person with no matter, brain and body is a a fantasy. No vague iron age quotes can change that. We use technical data, not prophetic ramblings.
@Prodigalfather1 : As for Spinoza, libraries, books and writing are human inventions. We build libraries and write books. And we may use them as metaphors. But there is yet no evidence that the universe was really built and written like a library or needs an actual writer.
@MiracleWitness What logic, what arguments?? The sadist point lost by atheists amongst all their ridicule, profanities & insults is the fact that they have never even thought about what they actually believe in. No one tries to support "naturalism" or any evidence that science leads to an atheistic worldview. The God-denier has no explanation for how our finite universe is absurdly fine-tuned to be rationally intelligible, law-abiding or life-permitting in terms of mindless matter & energy.
@Prodigalfather1 : I can not speak for all atheists, neither can you. But typically, losing a faith involves a great deal of thinking and asking the toughest questions. As for naturalism, it's self-evident, the question is, what more is there beyond that. As for our universe, it's not fine-tuned, unless to kill us. It's almost completely full of deadly cold vacuum and deadly hot plasma. And there are no other universes in sight to compare.
@MiracleWitness "Define non-physical reality, how can something be non-physical and yet still real?" Is this a trick question?
r u trying to assert that abstract laws, maths & logic are material? Where would I find a molecule for hope, wisdom, love beauty, imagination? Such is the stupidity of a Godless worldview that refuses to accept an ultimate source for a reality that brings hope meaning & destiny to all things.
@Gericho49 : I'll ask it differently, where would I find a hope, wisdom, love, beauty and imagination without molecules? There may or may not be an ultimate source of reality, but so far nothing of what we found tell us that there is a god. As far as we know, gods don't exist and aren't necessarily nice. Specially Christian god does not fit the description, just read the Old testament. If anything, he's a source of illogic, wrath, bloodlust, xenophobia and so on.
@MiracleWitness Show me a molecule for logic, abstract immutable laws & mathematics that make our finite universe rationally intelligible? Your blind faith in scientism is appalling but predictable. There are numerous eminent scientists & Nobel Laureates who draw theistic inferences concerning the wealth of data proving fine-tuning & design. That data does NOT in any way support naturalism. See my channel videos but I know u wont b/c it destroys ur faith in materialism.
@Gericho49 : What happened with your argument of god creating good human qualities? Now you shifted to abstract immutable laws? I never said these depend on material (i.e. molecular) basis. There are things like energy, space, fields, information, etc. Neither they depend on faith, religions tend to be the worst and the last in knowing and using these laws. God gives us no good, true and useful knowledge. U don't know my faith, this is about basic facts. Can't discuss in shifting terms.
Could this be one? "that our finite, rationally-intelligible, life-permitting, immaterial law-abiding universe came about by purely random, mindless processes"
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair How does "Meaningless tragedies" prove atheism is true? It is atheism not theism, that has to justifiy evil in human nature beyond Darwinian necessity. Would u prefer to live in a world where we're just God's puppets, no evil, no good, no freewill, and no pain or suffering? It is man who chooses to reject the inner voice of conscience & worships the false gods of ego, power, wealth, drugs, gambling sex etc as evidenced by our morally & spiritually bankrupt world.
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair "Meaningless tragedies are exactly what one would expect" Derr! These are the words of atheist guru Dawkins! Would u really expect God to create a world without joy, pain, death, suffering and free will? Would u really like to lead life as a puppet forced to obey His every command? But this is what Dawkins is saying "we r just a bunch of selfish genes, slaves to our DNA which neither knows nor cares & we dance to its music." Russell says much the same
Ironically enough, I wouldn't be surprised if you, upon having your request granted, started demanding citations and evidence for his views, which is exactly what he is doing right now.
"God put in us, as humans, the desire to know him."
No. Humans, being physically less robust than other animals evolved with a survival ability to think ahead and envisage future events to avoid them. in other words a tendency to look at our evironment and try to make sense of it. A side effect of this was, that we invented spirits and gods to explain the things we couldn't understand.
As knowledge grows, and we find true explanations for mysteries, belief in gods declines.
I think is a well presented argument that makes sense but it is essentially wrong because it misunderstands persuasion. Cognitive dissonance is what causes a reorganization of paradigms. I have seen a fair number of deconversions and some conversions (I used to evangelize). Resolving these conflicts take time and won't happen in the context of a confrontation, but the dissonance is created by the argument. Set a persons beliefs against each other and eventually something will give.
If atheism is true, the universe is product of blind forces & mindless matter having no purpose or design. Why should it exists at all? It would be without immaterial laws, a random, chaotic mess of noxious swirling gases; Since it has no meaning, no mind would evolve to ever deduce it has no meaning. If any life were possible it would evolve thru blind chance as molecules & selfish genes. Meaningless tragedies are exactly what one would expect. There would be no meaning no hope no escape
If theism is true, 1)the universe has been created for a purpose 2)it would be finite in the past, exhibiting incredible design & predictability 3) an intelligent creature would emerge to observe the universe 2be rationally intelligible 4)Such a creature would be blessed with free will&reason, ability to grieve, dream, hope & to love 5) the issue of a personal God & transcendent meaning would be the most compelling issue dominating all human history. 6)life would have ultimate meaning & destiny
Even if true, so what? That doesn't establish anything about whether atheism is true or not true. You might not like the (purported) results if there is no god, but an appeal to consequences doesn't establish whether X is true or not. Truth isn't always warm and fuzzy.
@Prodigalfather1 You have an anthropic bias to shun the mindless and assume the primacy of the minded. But it's a feat of reverse engineering. "Without laws." In the common parlance laws must come from a thinker, but that is not what is meant by laws of physics. "Noxious." Yes it is very noxious. Most stuff in the universe can kill us. "It has no meaning" The philosophy of meaning is a tricky subject. "Would evolve through blind chance" Nature selects for intelligence.
@Prodigalfather1 I dont know how many people are victims of rape per day, lets say 7 people a day. It its good or bad?. You can argue over that, you can hear countless orguments over that. But the fact its that it is "true" no matter if it is good or bad, 2 + 2 = 4 its true no matter if its good or bad. SO many things are true no matter if they are "good" or "bad", there are just people that says "OMG that cant be true because i think its bad"
@Airhyl Sorry! Abstract maths (that define immaterial laws) dont exist in ur all material worldview. Anyway what has math' proofs got to do with whether rape is objectively evil? Your reasoning is devoid of logic.
I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will - and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.
Excellent as always. I was led here from a comment u left on theologyfromtheXside's vid. The whole idea of revising at the periphery rather than the core is very interesting. When someone starts to chip away at the validity of a source of information, ie the bible, eventually like a judge in court that has caught a witness in several lies, I dismiss the whole thing as unreliable. But a xtian reformer merely reconciles the bare minimum to keep his faith intact.
What it basically boils down to is: if u don’t believe that an immaterial, non-contingent. supremely intelligent reality we call God designed the UNIVERSE, u have to believe it was built on numbers. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanism & all scientific laws are defined by universal immutable complex & abstract math’ formulae. The Atheist then must explain how immaterial, non-contingent, absurdly complex realities like maths EXIST AT ALL in a world consisting only of matter & energy.
@dashan091 "The Atheist then must explain how immaterial, non-contingent, absurdly complex realities like maths EXIST AT ALL"
Atheists don´t have to explain anything. This is a call for an argument of ignorance "I can´t explain math, therefore, God exists". Bullshit. If math exists as a non-contingent platonic object (something that I don´t agree), then it would exist even in the abscence of God. The same with all laws of nature. Now, go pray for gravity or electromagnetism.
@lfzadra "Atheists don´t have to explain anything." What? Arent u a materialistic reductionist? Perhaps we were wrong in assuming atheists believe all reality is reducble to mindless matter & energy, that our universe is not finite in the past or will eventually run out of energy.
And here was me thinking that they dont believe nothing, they actually believe anything.
@Gericho49 Atheism is the position that there´s no evidence for gods. I don´t have to explain lack of evidence of something. If you claim something exists, give me the evidence. The belief in materialism is irrelevant to the question. Buddhists, for example, are atheists but not materialists. The fact that our universe is finite in any way is not evidence for god, just evidence for our ignorance. If you need to cure your ignorance and fear of death with your myths, fine. I don´t need to.
Heard of the "Spyware Protection" extortion scheme? Those guys know all about "bypassing the intellect" It's a fake "antivirus" that takes over your OS and flashes messages that a virus is downloading kiddie porn to your computer.(?)
Even though the messages are comically stupid (like the option to either "block attack" or "allow"), it's hard to think straight. And people who fuck up and buy the "protection" don't report it, 'cause they don't want to feel like they've been had. Sound familiar?
I conveted from my birth religion to another, and I can't say that any arguments were part of it; I just felt a tug. Since then, I've conducted an informal study off and on about why people convert, and there seem to be two main reasons. First, a feeling of acceptance among the believers of the new religion greater than that felt among the old ones. Second, the inspiration of a particular person or a number of people that makes the convert be like that person. [cont.]
I think core beliefs are rarely defeated by a single argument and never in a debate. They require a weight of evidence, reasoning, and experience to change. They also have an emotional component to them as well.
I suspect most atheists no longer believe principally because of the moral outrage and the problem of evil. These two things rob religion of its emotional comfort and leave it only its rational underpinnings. Which are fairly easy to knock down.
@RPR1983 I would suspect that many atheists dont belive is because that some people just need more evidence than others in order to belive, me being one of them since i dont see any evidence to belive in any god/gods.
@Sweddude You wont find evidence for God in a test tube or by a journey into space(as a Russian astronaut declared), nor will u find any at websites like infidelsdotorg. I suggest u listen to debates involving eminent opponents. u also really need to take athiesm to its logical absurdity like all reality is just matter& energy and can be known thru the hard science. (scientism). u need to ask why the world is rationally intelligible defined by universal abstract immutable laws. Hope that helps.
@Sweddude Consider the abundance of scientific evidence for our finite, rationally-intelligible, life-permitting, law abiding universe (at godevidence . com) Yes, atheism is logicaly absurd b/c it claims all reality must be ultimately reducible to mindless matter. Tell me what are the scientific models for beauty, wisdom, truth, & numerous other metaphysical realities.
"Nature has been kinder to us than we have any right to expect" Yes Steve Wynberg but only if u reject a personal Creator
@Gericho49 Life-permiting universe you say?....... i stronfly sugest you redifine your definition of life permiting.
And indeed all of reality is reducible to mindless matter, what is a human made of? cells- what are cells made of? organelles- what are the organelles made of? chains of proteins, lipids and such- what are those parts made of? Molecules.
Also, beauty and wisdom are concept created by humans, truth is a definition of facts.
@RPR1983 Before u reject religion u should really look at the abundance of evidence from modern science for theism: godevidence . com). If u start with the premise that God doesnt of course religion is delusional. But u cant argue in circles a la Chris Hitchens.
BTW, evil beyond Darwinian necessity is a far greater problem for atheism. Nature is amoral. Lions may kill for food but they dont kill all deer.
William Lane Craig's and his likes' reasoning is just ridiculous. 'Belief exists, therefore God exists?' It's stupid. If anyone from any other religion came up to them and told them 'I believe in Allah and that belief in itself is enough evidence to tell me Jesus wasn't the Messiah and no-one can convince me otherwise' they wouldn't accept it. It's indoctrination, not revelation, that creates the most followers and then keeps them with threats of punishment and hel. I prefer investigation.
It's been my experience that religious arguments are more like ads whose aim is to get me to eat a certain breakfast cereal. They want to you to start fearing something (like not getting enough fiber or going to hell). When you fear something, you gut reaction is less likely to tell you, "Hey, this stuff is crap!"
@ProfMTH The analogy goes further. First you establish the fear or need in this case lack of dietary fiber or perhaps stinky arm pits. Secondly you supply a solution - Yummy Nom Noms or Happy Pit brand deodorant. Thirdly you up the motivation by creating a limited time offer.
In xianity the formula is:
1-You are a dirty rotten sinner and you're going to hell.
2-You need to get right with Salvation-Man.
3-You better hurry because the second coming is at hand.
@txvoltaire Aldus Huxley declared "With God out of the way, I am free for all my erotic pursuits." Isnt that the real reason why atheists are taunted by God's existence - ACCOUNTABILITY?
Would u rather live in a world devoid of honesty, compassion, mutual respect, tolerance & love or the one we now find ourselves in, which is morally, spiritually & now financially bankrupt?
not a backhanded compliment, they're all excellent.
the whole voices in one's head is not always seperate from religion, but is part of a different topic all together. I've heard voices in my head as a kid and have a clean bill of mental health from therapists. It's another interesting topic, and is very common amongst both believers and non-believers. I wish I knew that book on it, they promoted it once on the Colbert Report I believe... lol rant over
the "inner testimony" that someone has is actually a result of that persons subjective experience with the world most likely linked to a religious upbringing. that is what people are really expressing when they say it is in our nature to believe in god.
where hearing voices in your head is usually caused by a physiological disorder which most certainly not a requirement for religious belief.
As for the hearing voices bit, it's not my contention that religious belief entails a psychological disorder of any kind. Perhaps, however, you're familiar with the biblical notion of the "still small voice" of the biblical god leading a believer and confirming him or her in faith. It was to this sort of thing that my comment referred.
The point is that there is evidence, from neuroscience, that the human brain is "programmed to believe". It is not only a matter of "a blank page" on which adults pour in their own faith into children brains. It is something deeper. It is the fact that human groups, even if in cultural isolation from other groups, will tend to re-create the concept of supernatural entity, or entities.
Belief is the natural stance. Unbelief is the unnatural condition that require effort, as any former believer kn
"s anyone who has participated in or even just watched various religious arguments being presented and debated knows, religious arguments tend to be persuasively inert and, usually, are found compelling only by those who already accept the conclusion of such arguments. " (from the description of the video).
Coincidence [IF this is true] that it happens exactly the same with atheists? :)
@marteco Check out the definition of 'religious arguments' that is offered in the video and watch part 2. Always best to watch the entire video before commenting and giving away the fact that you haven't.
Typically, as all hard atheists, you are confusing God and religion...God knowledge and religious belief are not the same thing, though those with God Knowledge will bring that objective experience into their relative and or subjective perspective.
@Mortaryan Belief in God is by definition religious. And all experiences are by definition subjective. There is no such thing as an "objective experience", as you can only ever experience something from YOUR point of view. In other words, any and all "God knowledge" is the subject's own interpretation of an experience, and inevitably shaped by how willing he is to interpret it in precisely that direction.
This video has been featured on a blog called Common Sense athiesm. I used to mention prof's channel from time to time over there. Perhaps it has paid off. Or perhaps the blog owner found the channel on it's own. Either way I'm a happy person.
Probably the worst video you have made to date. Atheists are just as giulty, if not more so, of using emotion rather than socratic debate to establish fundamental metaphysical views. How many times have we seen Hitchens moan about how his reason for rejecting God is that he does not want to live under a "celestial dictatorship"? Furthmore this video would only apply to someone in a North-America context. You have a lot more to learn about how religion works outsides your country.
@ProfMTH Because clearly non-christian religions outside North America contain rich traditions of socratic debate. We see this with hindus, buddhists, muslims and various others. Christianity, being a holy spirit said so therefore it is true faith, has much less to offer in this department
God is real. Who do you think created us?
followgood 2 days ago
@followgood "God is real. Who do you think created us?"
No one.
Do you have anything to say that's actually relevant to this video series?
ProfMTH 12 hours ago
Yes readers, here we have the typical closeminded theist who hates the idea that atheists are using the very means by which they could bury dawkins. As Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation") said "let's be brutally honest, science must bury all gods. “A scientific discovery is also another magnificent discovery of our natural world. Our knowledge of all gods has buried every god to date” J Taylor,Nobel Prize in Physics
kram83au 1 week ago
To not believe in God requires faith that goes against reason. It requires illogical faith in mindless matter & chance. When, however, we observe the exquisite design of creation and beauty of nature; the universal search for transcendence & sense of morality, the desire for perfection and consciousness of God; and the witness of personal testimony and power of the Bible, then we know that believing in God is supported by reason. Faith in Greek means trust & trust in God is logical faith.
Gericho49 1 week ago
Science can never answer "why" questions.
Oxford Nobel Prize scientist (&atheist) sir Peter Medawar,'That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer & that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer It is not to science, but to metaphysics, imaginative literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things.'
Gericho49 1 week ago
oh dear some posters have just given themselves up by continually posting through a large window of doubt.if they truly had faith,there would be no need to post. some deluded fools are just not worthy of debate when they continually throw the toys out of the pram.que further cherry picking moments from the kids.
kram83au 1 week ago
@kram83au Oh dear indeed! So "Atheists have nothing to prove"? If u reject an ultimate source of creativity, morality, intelligence & omnipotence, the cynic has to become a materialitic reductionist. Such a worldview believes that mindless matter is the sole origin of such intelligibility. Unfortunately (4 u), "an infinite past exists nowhere in reality, it remains solely that of an idea." •The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)
Gericho49 1 week ago
@Gericho49 look at all your posts,its smacks of major insecurity in your faith kid ,but you being the afflicted cant see it. shame on you letting down the side, your faith cant withstand a little reasoning, im sure your care worker will explain it to you. you can never win the argument kid, superstition is on the run from reason suck it up, again refer to your care worker if your having any problem with the post. get well soon kid.
kram83au 1 week ago
@kram83au If u want to comment or challenge what I have written above u will need to provide a facts based, point by point rebuttal. Anyone can resort to ad hominem, insults & unsubstaniated opinions. Perhaps u should tell us if u really are a materialistic reductionist & refute what Sir Peter Medawar has said about "scientism". Or maybe u have never thought what naturalism really implies.
if only I were a "kid", but then there was a time when like u, I did think I knew everything.
Gericho49 6 days ago
@Gericho49 challenge?. the only challange is when you grow up to be a big boy someday and can apply some rational thought ,then you will find that there are no gods and the delusion will be like snow being blown off a dyke ,its really that simple, most of your rationality is probably sound until the god glassess slip on yer heed. btw, im probably twice your age with a 2nd grandson on the way, but if bigging yourself up puts a shine on your ego, knock yourself out son.
kram83au 5 days ago
its amazing the lengths that some of the deluded go to ,to keep their delusion afloat. its a pity they dont apply such urgency when trying to use their brains,but hey,theve got faith, belief without evidence, oh how humbling. lol
kram83au 2 weeks ago
@kram83au Totally agree. Faith in mindless matter a.k.a "naturalism." How could anyone think that a supremely intelligent being would be required to create time itself as well as existence from non-existence and "man from the dust of the earth". Our rationally intelligible universe that astrophysicists say is on a knife edge came about by blind forces, mindless processes & chance, right?. Atheists dont believe nothing they believe anything! ultimate chaos Vs fine-tuning & design.
Gericho49 1 week ago
@Gericho49 Fine-tuning & design are arguments from ignorance. ie: The only explanation I can think of for phenomenon X is hypothesis Y. Therefore hypothesis Y is correct. This is a logical fallacy, regardless of how many times you repeat it, Gerry. Atheists don't claim anything about the origin of the universe - they simply don't buy your unsubstantiated claim about it. Demonstrate it to be true, and we'll believe it. But not with logical fallacies.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@BailiffQuimby As I've said time&time again 2u Baffy. There are only THREE possible explanations for Fine-tuning & design- chance, physical necessity or design itself. Are u accusing all the Nobel laureates & emininet scientists of arguing from ignorance? Or r u telling us that the Creation hypothesis is less plausible than chance or necessity when science is saying that the latter are absurdly unlikely? Tell us what logical fallacy is committed & why?
Gericho49 1 week ago
Robert Andrews Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics “To me it is unthinkable that a atheist could be a scientist.” “Religion and science, then, in my analysis are the two great sister forces which have pulled, and are still pulling, mankind onward and upward.”
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”–Lord William Kelvin,
Gericho49 1 week ago
CHTownes, Nobel Prize in Physics-“Science with logic, tries to understand the structure of the universe. Religion, with its theological inspiration tries to understand the purpose or meaning of the universe. These two are cross-related. Purpose implies structure which ought to be interpretable in terms of purpose.” The uncertainty is how many of the rules God himself has permanently ordained & how many are caused by your own mental inertia E.Schroedinger Nobel Prize in Physics
Gericho49 1 week ago
@Gericho49 "CHTownes, Nobel Prize in Physics"
Argument from authority.
"E.Schroedinger Nobel Prize in Physics"
Argument from authority.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@BailiffQuimby says " CHTownes, Nobel Prize in Physics" Argument from authority.
Indeed they are arguments from authority which are valid when 1) they come from experts in their field 2) they are unchallenged by other experts in the same field.
Baffy's "there could be 14 other possible (natural) explanations" but not one scientist has seen evidence for them. Now that IS a "science of the gaps" argument from ignorance if ever there was one!
Gericho49 1 week ago
@Gericho49 "Indeed they are arguments from authority which are valid when 1) they come from experts in their field 2) they are unchallenged by other experts in the same field."
Nope. Argument from authority is invalid because it is based on the claimant and not on the claim. Don't care if it's Jesus himself who you attribute the claim to. If the expert has a good argument for his claim, share that. You haven't, thus far.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@Gericho49 "Now that IS a "science of the gaps" argument from ignorance if ever there was one! "
Methinks you don't know what an argument from ignorance is. Argument from ignorant doesn't mean you don't know something - it means you don't know something, but claim you do. For instance, you don't know how many possible explanations for the intelligability of the universe, but you pretend to know for sure that there are only three.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gericho49 "Robert Andrews Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics..."
Argument from authority.
“Lord William Kelvin,"
Also argument from authority. Since you can't seem to keep track of all your logical fallacies, I've decided to point them out to you one at a time.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@Gericho49 "As I've said time&time again 2u Baffy. There are only THREE possible explanations for Fine-tuning & design"
And as I've said to you, that is by definition an argument from ignorance. How do you know there aren't seventeen explanations and you haven't thought of fourteen of them?
"Are u accusing all the Nobel laureates & emininet scientists of arguing from ignorance?"
I'm accusing you of arguing from ignorance. I'm not arguing with them...
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@BailiffQuimby "when science is saying that the latter are absurdly unlikely?"
Science isn't saying anything on this matter. You are. And some scientists are. But you and they are not using science to conclude this - they're using desperation.
"Tell us what logical fallacy is committed & why?"
I've told you many times. Once more: claiming that there are only X number of possible explanations for a phenomenon is an argument from ignorance.... TBC
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@BailiffQuimby No Baffy, the most hardened voice of atheim is saying the greatest challenge facing science today is to explain the "apparent" design of the universe.I havent said its absolute proof for an intelligent Creator but it is compelling evidence!. Ask urself if atheism were true would u expect a rationally-intelligible law-abiding universe or one of ultimate chaos? Oh yes, we have to be in such a universe to be able to exist & say the universe is absurdly fine-tuned!
Gericho49 1 week ago
@Gericho49 ".I havent said its absolute proof for an intelligent Creator but it is compelling evidence!. "
Obviously not, as I am not compelled.
"Ask urself if atheism were true would u expect a rationally-intelligible law-abiding universe or one of ultimate chaos?"
I would expect a law-abiding universe, because if there was a chaotic universe, you and I wouldn't be here discussing it. But this does not indicate that a magic man made it, no matter how many times you claim it does.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@BailiffQuimby Derr! The 3 options are categories not numbers. Which one r u in? The one that believes "a troupe of monkeys could type out a shakespearian sonnet given infinite time & chance" (Hawking) or reject outright the hypotheses that "a Superintellect has monkeyed with physics & chemistry''-Hoyle Or "It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe"-Davies Wasnt science supposed to bury the need for an ultimate source of intelligence?
Gericho49 1 week ago
@Gericho49 "The 3 options"
fallacy by ignorance
"Hawking...Hoyle......Davies"
fallacy by authority
"Wasnt science supposed to bury the need for an ultimate source of intelligence"
Nope - that has never been the goal of science. What made you think it was? Persecution complex?
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@BailiffQuimby ....And leaning on the word of scientists for a conclusion without giving supporting reasons for that conclusion is an argument from authority. Both are fallacious.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@Gericho49 I'd further remind you that many of the scientists you quote have NOT concluded that a god must exist. You extrapolate that from things they have concluded.
"Or r u telling us that the Creation hypothesis is less plausible than chance or necessity"
While I suspect it is for a variety of reasons, that is not a relevent point to my argument.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@BailiffQuimby In fact if u go to godevidence. C O M there are 100s of such scientists of various degrees of agnosticism/atheism who find no evidence to support chance or necessity. You havent provided any authorative citations to support naturalism or DENY the God hypothesis. To not believe in God requires faith that goes against reason. It requires illogical faith that science can&will explain everthing.
"a superintellect has monkeyed with physics & chemistry Sir Fred Hoyle.
Gericho49 1 week ago
@Gericho49 Are you not reading what I write to you or do you not understand it? Every time you resort to telling me what some scientist believes without providing their rationale, you are committing a fallacy by authority. Any time you pretend to know that the only explanations are god, chance, or necessity, you are committing a fallacy by ignorance. And yet you refuse to give me anything but these, over and over again.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@BailiffQuimby Do YOU not understand or r u not reading what scientists are saying -blind forces, unguided processes, mindless matter & chance dont result in a FINITE universe that exudes intelligibility nor one that is defined by abstract math so complex that it baffles our greatest theotretical physicists like Michio Kaku.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because only God could've created it."
Gericho49 1 week ago
@Gericho49 And we're back to authority and ignorance. I'm done talking to you until you give me SOMETHING that isn't an argument from authority or an argument from ignorance. Because now we're just going in circles. I'll keep an eye open in case you say something of substance one day. Ciao.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@BailiffQuimby Sorry u cant invoke let alone substantiate the "ignorance" claim. The 3 "options" to account for design I quoted are from eminent scientists not me. When numerous scientists look at the evidence that refutes "naturalism" they are entitled to draw theistic conclusions. I'll keep an eye in case u say something different from "I have no idea why the universe is rationally intelligible but I am certain that God couldnt have done it."
Gericho49 1 week ago
An example of deductive reasoning George Greenstein, award winning astronomer: "As we survey ALL THE EVIDENCE, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
BTW profMTH why do u feel the need to comment on ur videos using multiple aliases?
Gericho49 1 week ago
Yes readers, here we have the typical closeminded atheists who hate the idea that theists are using the very means by which they could bury God. As Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation") said "let's be brutally honest, science must bury God."
What a pity it is when “A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science&religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” J Taylor,Nobel Prize in Physics
Gericho49 1 week ago
@Gericho49 "Sorry u cant invoke let alone substantiate the "ignorance" claim."
I did invoke it and I substantiated it by explaining why it is relevant to your claim. Therefore your complaint over my invoking it is refuted.
"When numerous scientists..."
argument by authority
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gericho49 "I'll keep an eye in case u say something different from "I have no idea why the universe is rationally intelligible but I am certain that God couldnt have done it.""
I never said god couldn't have done it. I said you weren't justified in saying he did.
"George Greenstein, award winning astronomer"
argument from authority
"BTW profMTH"
Who?
"As Sam Harris"
Sam Harris speaks for Sam Harris, not for atheists.
"J Taylor,Nobel Prize in Physics "
argument by authority
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
@Gericho49 "You havent provided any authorative citations to support naturalism or DENY the God hypothesis"
And that's because this is not my goal. My goal is to show that you have not demonstrated the point you've been arguing. And I've done this multiple times, but you seem incapable of understanding why you've given no evidence in support of your god hypothesis.
"It requires illogical faith that science can&will explain everthing."
Nope.
BailiffQuimby 1 week ago
Comment removed
Gericho49 1 week ago
Comment removed
followgood 2 weeks ago
@followgood LOL! Your invective betrays your lack of any argument.
ProfMTH 2 weeks ago
@followgood See the words attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:22: "And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."
superblee325 1 week ago
While i appreciate the truth of what you are saying in you comment as a Christian. Do you think Jesus might refer some of these nice seekers of truth to the parable of the Good Seed? The one talking about good seed faling on diffrent kinds of soils. Thnks for your concideration :)
star22us 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTitaBIGTITTY DId u read what design is actually referring to ?? It is not about the weather on earth pluto or Pandora or the mortality of life. It is about the initial conditions of the BB, the immutable laws of physics & all the independent physical constants ¶meters that create 112 elements, allow galaxies& stars to form & when everthing is just perfect a planet like earth to be life-permitting.. Next question?
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
My response to people who say this is that I'm not trying to convince the person I'm debating - I'm trying to convince the audience. The debater has a dog in the fight and he has his ego invested in being correct. Meanwhile the audience sits quietly by and many of them will be thinking.. "Hey, he had a good point there and my guy's answer to it was pretty weak. You know, maybe he has something there." People are convinced by religious arguments - just not the people you're arguing with.
templarart 1 month ago
@templarart The only people who are convinced by religious arguments are religious people, and vice versa.
disturbedking8 1 month ago
@disturbedking8 It's true that Christian apologetics will only convince a Christian but that is simply because they are very poor arguments. (If they were good arguments, I'd happily be a Christian.) To demonstrate this to a Christian, simply use the apologetic to prove a religion he doesn't believe in like Scientology, Greek Mythology or Islam. On the other hand (humbly) most atheist arguments are rock solid. Sometimes a Christian will actually accept the validity of an atheist argument.
templarart 1 month ago
all religions should be made to come in line and not dictate the social order of society..
kram83au 2 months ago
@kram83au which society would that be? The one that is financially, morally & spiritually bankrupt where dishonesty greed corruption, violence rascism are entrenched?
If there are no objective moral standards what should dictate social moral standards-your bunch of selfish genes or mine?
Atheist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre:"Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance."
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
I agree with how the more central a person's beliefs are, the less likely they are to give them up. Since it seems to be so deeply ingrained in christians, I can only think that perhaps for whatever reason, despite my parents efforts, it did not become a core belief with me as a child. I know that my position as an atheist is unreachable, the only thing that could possibly convince me of the existence of a god is if he were to stand in front of me and perform a miracle. No evidence, no belief
8698gil 3 months ago
@8698gil If there is absolutely no evidence for a God that gives ur life, meaning, joy hope fulfilment & destiny shouldnt u be spending whats left of ur ultimately meaningless life trying to find meaning rather than trying to convince urself that there is no proof for the God u dont believe in? Have u honestly thought thru what atheism actually implies? "that ur just a slave to a bunch of selfish genes fighting for survival in a world of pitiless indifference."
Gericho49 2 months ago
@Gericho49 why post,if you have faith[belief without evidence] perhaps the great god zeus has the answer. lol. still, religion is a backward condition that has well outlived its self, its only through mans desperation and social disadvantage that religion exploits the weakness. shameless really
kram83au 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kram83au "Just show me the evidence"
Can I recommend my video "The Teleological Argument for God's Existence." I look at the consensus of modern science quoted mostly agnostic and atheists' findings. I also look at the 3 possible explanations for that "apparent" design 1) chance 2) physical necessity and 3) Design. I also raise 6 objections to the 9 Multiverse theories.
/watch?v=ivKvj8xVl9Y
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
@kram83au cut & paste from atheism 101 for Dummies?
The only thing faith has to account for is evil & suffering, atheism has to account for everything else like our FINITE, rationally intelligible, life-permitting universe that is defined by an absurdly complex, ABSTRACT set of scientific laws & math equations. Did man invent these immaterial laws or did he discover them? In your Godless worldview did matter invent these laws or did the laws define matter into existence?
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
@Gericho49 it was invented by aliens, you deluded fool, dont you know anything. [wink]
all i said was jehovah. lol
kram83au 2 weeks ago
@kram83au Richard Dawkins thinks exactly that . Aliens seeded the earth called "directed panspermia." What could be a better theory for how life came from non-life?
Funny thing though. Life apparently couldnt have evolved on earth naturally but did so somewhere else in the universe. Then who seeded the aliens who seeded the aliens who seeded us?
Gericho49 1 week ago
What is the purpose of life for an atheist? Simple. Treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Caring for our families and friends. Enjoying our lives, they are short and should not be wasted on meaningless drivel. Doing the best we can, recognizing that we will make mistakes but that we can learn from them. People are much more important to us than imaginary friends with superpowers.
8698gil 3 months ago
@8698gil Pardon the world is financially, morally and spiritually bankrupt. Clearly, the Golden rule has become "do unto others before they do it to you." Morality according to atheism is subjective & arbitrary, it has evolved from sociobiological conditioning. If atheism is true we're just a bunch of selfish genes whose sole purpose is survival. Ultimately, it matters not whether u live a life as Ghandi, Gengis Khan, Martin Luther King or Mother Teresa. Or does it?
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
I detest the smug arrogance of theists. They actually believe that they are so special, so unique, so beloved of some invisible allpowerful being, that they are never going to die, even though every other living thing on the earth does. They can live with the starving children that their god obviously doesn't think are important enough to deserve a little help, by saying inane things like "god is mysterious, we cannot know him, blah, blah, blah."
8698gil 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@8698gil I recommend my video "The Teleological Argument for God's Existence." I look at the consensus of modern science quoted mostly agnostic and atheists findings. I also look at the 3 possible explanations for that "apparent design 1) chance 2) physical necessity and 3) Design. I also raise 6 objections to the 6 Multiverse theories.
/watch?v=ivKvj8xVl9Y
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
Our planet Earth is just a speck of insignificant dust in the vastness of this universe, and most of the universe is a very hostile place. Even most of this planet we can't live on. So how is it so finely tuned? Why do we have earthquakes and tsunamis if this world is perfect and finely tuned? Its not. It happened to be in the habitable zone of an ordinary star with reasonable conditions for life and we're probably not the only life, considering the billions of galaxies and stars out there
8698gil 3 months ago
@8698gil "the universe is a very hostile place" This is a typical claim of the ill-informed atheist who undersatnds little science. It is not about the weather on earth pluto or Pandora for that matter. It is about the initial conditions of the BB, the immutable laws of physics & all the independent physical constants ¶meters that create 112 elements, allow galaxies& stars to form & when everthing is just perfect a planet like earth to be life-permitting.. Next question?
Gericho49 2 months ago
@Gericho49 In your opinion, are people like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking ill-informed atheists who understand little about science? On the contrary, it is brilliant men like these who do understand science and that the universe does not need a creator, and people like you who don't. The universe is huge, and it was not created just for us.
8698gil 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@8698gil Degrasse Tyson is not an atheist and Hawkings 1st book is full of deistic/theisitic assumptions & conclusions .Sorry but the consensus of modern science is that the unierse is finetuned for life to occur. It doesnt support anything like chance or physical necessity the only options to Design. see my video
/watch?v=ivKvj8xVl9Y
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
Even though I was raised in a protestant church going home, I have never had faith. I remember my parents trying to convince me that god was real, but they couldn't give me any satisfactory answers to my questions. Theists say they just know that god exists, and that it is part of our human nature to believe. Well, I can testify it is not. I am just as sure there is no god as a theist is sure there is one.
8698gil 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@8698gil of course u have faith. u've just never thought thru what atheism implies. "that ur just a slave to a bunch of selfish genes fighting for survival in a world of pitiless indifference." u must believe that ultimate reality is just mindless reactions in a brain evolved from ancient chemicals by blind forces & unguided processes, which are defined by immaterial immutable laws that cant exist in an all physical world. Such is the blind faith that atheists must have in Naturalism.
Gericho49 2 months ago
One of the saddist points lost by atheists amongst all the ridicule, profanities & insults is the fact that they have never even thought about what they actually believe in. I've seen no one try to support "naturalism" or any evidence that science supports an atheistic worldview. No one has any explanation for how our finite universe is absurdly fine-tuned to be rationally intelligible, law-abiding or life-permitting in terms of mindless matter & energy. And they call be ME a coward!!
Prodigalfather1 4 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 See my vid' on fine-tuning
/watch?v=ivKvj8xVl9Y
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
Psychology demonstrates much better, or so I believe, with research what Faust tries to argue with concept alone. There is fascinating research in psychology, such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, confirmation bias, or the fundamental attribution error that show very common irrational ways of thinking we all participate in. I think another issue here is the true strength of a counter-argument; it's hard to be objective and neutral on what is a damning or just plain weak argument.
Sickopath333 5 months ago
@Sickopath333 what is a "damning or just plain weak argument" is that our finite, rationally-intelligible, life-permitting, immaterial law-abiding universe came about by purely random, mindless processes. When matter& energy are the only game in town for the atheist, they wont believe in nothing they'll believe anything- anything that doesnt contradict their all material worldview .
Gericho49 5 months ago
Comment removed
Sickopath333 5 months ago
My problem with believers... Yes, they shrug off arguments and don't understand logic. And when they have an actual religious experience, which is very abstract and personal thing, they only interpret it in terms of ancient dogma, even though none of that really fits. No angels, devils or whatever, yet they take it as evidence that Bible is true and accurate. No, theism is not a mental disorder, it's more like an imposed mind growth deformation or mental injury.
MiracleWitness 5 months ago
@MiracleWitness I dont accept ur totally unsupported claims for an instance but even if one concedes them, many people believe in an ultimate transcendent reality without reference to Scripture. “The deeper one penetrates into nature’s secrets, the greater becomes one’s respect for God.” (Einstein, as cited in Brian 1996, 119). It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". astrophysicist PCW Davies
Gericho49 5 months ago
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible abstract mathematics becausse God created it."(such maths dont exist in a material world) Drs. Zehavi&Dekel "This type of universe require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Gericho49 5 months ago
@Gericho49 : I have no problem with a transcendent reality, ultimate or not. But I have a great problem with a primitive Iron age opinion on that transcencent reality, that is imposed on us today. Einstein believed in an impersonal Spinoza's God of natural laws, not in the bloodthirsty Yahweh who created many silly rules for barbaric desert tribes. Transcendent reality yes, but seen in the light of modern sciences.
MiracleWitness 5 months ago
@MiracleWitness "Spinoza's God" “I’m not an atheist, and I cant call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the books but doesn’t know what it is. That is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”
Prodigalfather1 4 months ago
So u CAN believe in a transcendence (a non-physical reality) as an explanation for why our finite universe obeys absurdly complex, immutable & immaterial laws defined by abstract maths? But u cant believe in a personal God with the power to act in that universe to create a sentient being capable of sharing in his glory? Perhaps u should read ALL the Bible including the NT. "You have read an eye for an eye, but I say to u love ur enemies, bless those who curse you"
Prodigalfather1 4 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 : Define non-physical reality, how can something be non-physical and yet still real? All reality we know of is physical. All persons we know of are or were physical and had a brain. Unless you provide actual definitions comprehensible within the framework of science, a person with no matter, brain and body is a a fantasy. No vague iron age quotes can change that. We use technical data, not prophetic ramblings.
MiracleWitness 4 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 : As for Spinoza, libraries, books and writing are human inventions. We build libraries and write books. And we may use them as metaphors. But there is yet no evidence that the universe was really built and written like a library or needs an actual writer.
MiracleWitness 4 months ago
@Prodigalfather1
Go to a libraray we can say people wrote thoes books.
Choose a religion we can say people created thoes religions.
VideoAudioDisco09 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VideoAudioDisco09 "Go to a libraray we can say people wrote thoes books.
Choose a religion we can say people created thoes religions."
By that stupid logic, books written on any subject like philosophy, ethics atheism(?) is false.
Perhaps u believe theres no such thing as absolute truth? I wonder if u belive then that this claim is absolutely true?
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
@MiracleWitness What logic, what arguments?? The sadist point lost by atheists amongst all their ridicule, profanities & insults is the fact that they have never even thought about what they actually believe in. No one tries to support "naturalism" or any evidence that science leads to an atheistic worldview. The God-denier has no explanation for how our finite universe is absurdly fine-tuned to be rationally intelligible, law-abiding or life-permitting in terms of mindless matter & energy.
Prodigalfather1 4 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 : I can not speak for all atheists, neither can you. But typically, losing a faith involves a great deal of thinking and asking the toughest questions. As for naturalism, it's self-evident, the question is, what more is there beyond that. As for our universe, it's not fine-tuned, unless to kill us. It's almost completely full of deadly cold vacuum and deadly hot plasma. And there are no other universes in sight to compare.
MiracleWitness 4 months ago
@MiracleWitness "Define non-physical reality, how can something be non-physical and yet still real?" Is this a trick question?
r u trying to assert that abstract laws, maths & logic are material? Where would I find a molecule for hope, wisdom, love beauty, imagination? Such is the stupidity of a Godless worldview that refuses to accept an ultimate source for a reality that brings hope meaning & destiny to all things.
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
@Gericho49 : I'll ask it differently, where would I find a hope, wisdom, love, beauty and imagination without molecules? There may or may not be an ultimate source of reality, but so far nothing of what we found tell us that there is a god. As far as we know, gods don't exist and aren't necessarily nice. Specially Christian god does not fit the description, just read the Old testament. If anything, he's a source of illogic, wrath, bloodlust, xenophobia and so on.
MiracleWitness 2 weeks ago
@MiracleWitness Show me a molecule for logic, abstract immutable laws & mathematics that make our finite universe rationally intelligible? Your blind faith in scientism is appalling but predictable. There are numerous eminent scientists & Nobel Laureates who draw theistic inferences concerning the wealth of data proving fine-tuning & design. That data does NOT in any way support naturalism. See my channel videos but I know u wont b/c it destroys ur faith in materialism.
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
@Gericho49 : What happened with your argument of god creating good human qualities? Now you shifted to abstract immutable laws? I never said these depend on material (i.e. molecular) basis. There are things like energy, space, fields, information, etc. Neither they depend on faith, religions tend to be the worst and the last in knowing and using these laws. God gives us no good, true and useful knowledge. U don't know my faith, this is about basic facts. Can't discuss in shifting terms.
MiracleWitness 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MiracleWitness What arguments do theists shrug off?
Could this be one? "that our finite, rationally-intelligible, life-permitting, immaterial law-abiding universe came about by purely random, mindless processes"
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Age Of The Earth: /watch?v=bFxGFEhK-5s
The Garden: /watch?v=Z04J9tm3cLw
Dragons(or ‘’dinosaurs’’) in History: /watch?v=sj99O-NS_oc
Lies In The Textbooks: /watch?v=cv__yQhtAb0
The Dangers Of Evolution: /watch?v=xhTsMLRRlVI
The Hovind ’’Theory’’: /watch?v=678tes82T88
Questions & Answers:
Part 1: /watch?v=PBkTnzbzGu8
Part 2: /watch?v=XwU2_TMwMbs
007thinkagain 6 months ago
I *really* liked the Persuasiveness-Soundness couple... do they do parties? ;)
SashaDrago 6 months ago
@SashaDrago lol I suspect they can be talked into doing one.
ProfMTH 6 months ago 3
@Prodigalfather1
"Meaningless tragedies are exactly what one would expect"
Right.....that's what we DO see in the world: natural disasters up the whazoo. So you are only proving atheists right.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 6 months ago
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair How does "Meaningless tragedies" prove atheism is true? It is atheism not theism, that has to justifiy evil in human nature beyond Darwinian necessity. Would u prefer to live in a world where we're just God's puppets, no evil, no good, no freewill, and no pain or suffering? It is man who chooses to reject the inner voice of conscience & worships the false gods of ego, power, wealth, drugs, gambling sex etc as evidenced by our morally & spiritually bankrupt world.
Gericho49 5 months ago
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair "Meaningless tragedies are exactly what one would expect" Derr! These are the words of atheist guru Dawkins! Would u really expect God to create a world without joy, pain, death, suffering and free will? Would u really like to lead life as a puppet forced to obey His every command? But this is what Dawkins is saying "we r just a bunch of selfish genes, slaves to our DNA which neither knows nor cares & we dance to its music." Russell says much the same
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
@spareaxe
Ironically enough, I wouldn't be surprised if you, upon having your request granted, started demanding citations and evidence for his views, which is exactly what he is doing right now.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 6 months ago
I've been told:
"God put in us, as humans, the desire to know him."
No. Humans, being physically less robust than other animals evolved with a survival ability to think ahead and envisage future events to avoid them. in other words a tendency to look at our evironment and try to make sense of it. A side effect of this was, that we invented spirits and gods to explain the things we couldn't understand.
As knowledge grows, and we find true explanations for mysteries, belief in gods declines.
HonestMan395 8 months ago
Dude...I thought you were going to present your own views. Instead, all you do is repeat other people's works. Boring.
spareaxe 8 months ago
@spareaxe "Dude, I thought you were going to present your own views. Instead, all you do is repeat other people's works."
So, I guess the part of the video where I said I would be primarily presenting Faust's argument got by you.
"Boring."
Go watch something else then.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
I think is a well presented argument that makes sense but it is essentially wrong because it misunderstands persuasion. Cognitive dissonance is what causes a reorganization of paradigms. I have seen a fair number of deconversions and some conversions (I used to evangelize). Resolving these conflicts take time and won't happen in the context of a confrontation, but the dissonance is created by the argument. Set a persons beliefs against each other and eventually something will give.
michalchik 9 months ago
"Faust." Ironic name!
RadarKat73080 9 months ago
I left the church because as I aged, all I saw and heard was just sorry "STUPID"! I can not follow hate, nor ignorance anymore.
jamswft 9 months ago
If atheism is true, the universe is product of blind forces & mindless matter having no purpose or design. Why should it exists at all? It would be without immaterial laws, a random, chaotic mess of noxious swirling gases; Since it has no meaning, no mind would evolve to ever deduce it has no meaning. If any life were possible it would evolve thru blind chance as molecules & selfish genes. Meaningless tragedies are exactly what one would expect. There would be no meaning no hope no escape
Prodigalfather1 10 months ago
If theism is true, 1)the universe has been created for a purpose 2)it would be finite in the past, exhibiting incredible design & predictability 3) an intelligent creature would emerge to observe the universe 2be rationally intelligible 4)Such a creature would be blessed with free will&reason, ability to grieve, dream, hope & to love 5) the issue of a personal God & transcendent meaning would be the most compelling issue dominating all human history. 6)life would have ultimate meaning & destiny
Prodigalfather1 10 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 "There would be no meaning no hope no escape."
Even if true, so what? That doesn't establish anything about whether atheism is true or not true. You might not like the (purported) results if there is no god, but an appeal to consequences doesn't establish whether X is true or not. Truth isn't always warm and fuzzy.
ProfMTH 10 months ago 7
@Prodigalfather1 You have an anthropic bias to shun the mindless and assume the primacy of the minded. But it's a feat of reverse engineering. "Without laws." In the common parlance laws must come from a thinker, but that is not what is meant by laws of physics. "Noxious." Yes it is very noxious. Most stuff in the universe can kill us. "It has no meaning" The philosophy of meaning is a tricky subject. "Would evolve through blind chance" Nature selects for intelligence.
baigandine 9 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 I dont know how many people are victims of rape per day, lets say 7 people a day. It its good or bad?. You can argue over that, you can hear countless orguments over that. But the fact its that it is "true" no matter if it is good or bad, 2 + 2 = 4 its true no matter if its good or bad. SO many things are true no matter if they are "good" or "bad", there are just people that says "OMG that cant be true because i think its bad"
Airhyl 5 months ago
@Airhyl Sorry! Abstract maths (that define immaterial laws) dont exist in ur all material worldview. Anyway what has math' proofs got to do with whether rape is objectively evil? Your reasoning is devoid of logic.
Gericho49 5 months ago
@Prodigalfather1
I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will - and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.
Gene Roddenberry
VideoAudioDisco09 2 months ago
Excellent as always. I was led here from a comment u left on theologyfromtheXside's vid. The whole idea of revising at the periphery rather than the core is very interesting. When someone starts to chip away at the validity of a source of information, ie the bible, eventually like a judge in court that has caught a witness in several lies, I dismiss the whole thing as unreliable. But a xtian reformer merely reconciles the bare minimum to keep his faith intact.
krunk1980 1 year ago
What it basically boils down to is: if u don’t believe that an immaterial, non-contingent. supremely intelligent reality we call God designed the UNIVERSE, u have to believe it was built on numbers. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanism & all scientific laws are defined by universal immutable complex & abstract math’ formulae. The Atheist then must explain how immaterial, non-contingent, absurdly complex realities like maths EXIST AT ALL in a world consisting only of matter & energy.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "The Atheist then must explain how immaterial, non-contingent, absurdly complex realities like maths EXIST AT ALL"
Atheists don´t have to explain anything. This is a call for an argument of ignorance "I can´t explain math, therefore, God exists". Bullshit. If math exists as a non-contingent platonic object (something that I don´t agree), then it would exist even in the abscence of God. The same with all laws of nature. Now, go pray for gravity or electromagnetism.
lfzadra 10 months ago
@lfzadra "Atheists don´t have to explain anything." What? Arent u a materialistic reductionist? Perhaps we were wrong in assuming atheists believe all reality is reducble to mindless matter & energy, that our universe is not finite in the past or will eventually run out of energy.
And here was me thinking that they dont believe nothing, they actually believe anything.
Gericho49 5 months ago
@Gericho49 Atheism is the position that there´s no evidence for gods. I don´t have to explain lack of evidence of something. If you claim something exists, give me the evidence. The belief in materialism is irrelevant to the question. Buddhists, for example, are atheists but not materialists. The fact that our universe is finite in any way is not evidence for god, just evidence for our ignorance. If you need to cure your ignorance and fear of death with your myths, fine. I don´t need to.
lfzadra 5 months ago
wow,you always include pictures of really attractive guys in your videos. Another reason to watch your brilliant videos..;-)
tarnicles 1 year ago
@tarnicles lol Glad you enjoy.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@tarnicles self praise is the worst form of egoism.
Gericho49 5 months ago
Heard of the "Spyware Protection" extortion scheme? Those guys know all about "bypassing the intellect" It's a fake "antivirus" that takes over your OS and flashes messages that a virus is downloading kiddie porn to your computer.(?)
Even though the messages are comically stupid (like the option to either "block attack" or "allow"), it's hard to think straight. And people who fuck up and buy the "protection" don't report it, 'cause they don't want to feel like they've been had. Sound familiar?
MrZardoz777 1 year ago
[cont.] What is interesting is how rarely doctrines are involved. It seems more sociology than religion.
This has been a very informal study, though, and there is probably much I've missed.
Naiant 1 year ago
I conveted from my birth religion to another, and I can't say that any arguments were part of it; I just felt a tug. Since then, I've conducted an informal study off and on about why people convert, and there seem to be two main reasons. First, a feeling of acceptance among the believers of the new religion greater than that felt among the old ones. Second, the inspiration of a particular person or a number of people that makes the convert be like that person. [cont.]
Naiant 1 year ago
I think core beliefs are rarely defeated by a single argument and never in a debate. They require a weight of evidence, reasoning, and experience to change. They also have an emotional component to them as well.
I suspect most atheists no longer believe principally because of the moral outrage and the problem of evil. These two things rob religion of its emotional comfort and leave it only its rational underpinnings. Which are fairly easy to knock down.
RPR1983 1 year ago
@RPR1983 I would suspect that many atheists dont belive is because that some people just need more evidence than others in order to belive, me being one of them since i dont see any evidence to belive in any god/gods.
Sweddude 1 year ago
@Sweddude You wont find evidence for God in a test tube or by a journey into space(as a Russian astronaut declared), nor will u find any at websites like infidelsdotorg. I suggest u listen to debates involving eminent opponents. u also really need to take athiesm to its logical absurdity like all reality is just matter& energy and can be known thru the hard science. (scientism). u need to ask why the world is rationally intelligible defined by universal abstract immutable laws. Hope that helps.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 Tell me, why is atheism logicaly absurd then?
Sweddude 1 year ago
@Sweddude Consider the abundance of scientific evidence for our finite, rationally-intelligible, life-permitting, law abiding universe (at godevidence . com) Yes, atheism is logicaly absurd b/c it claims all reality must be ultimately reducible to mindless matter. Tell me what are the scientific models for beauty, wisdom, truth, & numerous other metaphysical realities.
"Nature has been kinder to us than we have any right to expect" Yes Steve Wynberg but only if u reject a personal Creator
Gericho49 5 months ago
@Gericho49 Life-permiting universe you say?....... i stronfly sugest you redifine your definition of life permiting.
And indeed all of reality is reducible to mindless matter, what is a human made of? cells- what are cells made of? organelles- what are the organelles made of? chains of proteins, lipids and such- what are those parts made of? Molecules.
Also, beauty and wisdom are concept created by humans, truth is a definition of facts.
Sweddude 5 months ago
@RPR1983 Before u reject religion u should really look at the abundance of evidence from modern science for theism: godevidence . com). If u start with the premise that God doesnt of course religion is delusional. But u cant argue in circles a la Chris Hitchens.
BTW, evil beyond Darwinian necessity is a far greater problem for atheism. Nature is amoral. Lions may kill for food but they dont kill all deer.
Gericho49 5 months ago
William Lane Craig's and his likes' reasoning is just ridiculous. 'Belief exists, therefore God exists?' It's stupid. If anyone from any other religion came up to them and told them 'I believe in Allah and that belief in itself is enough evidence to tell me Jesus wasn't the Messiah and no-one can convince me otherwise' they wouldn't accept it. It's indoctrination, not revelation, that creates the most followers and then keeps them with threats of punishment and hel. I prefer investigation.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
It's been my experience that religious arguments are more like ads whose aim is to get me to eat a certain breakfast cereal. They want to you to start fearing something (like not getting enough fiber or going to hell). When you fear something, you gut reaction is less likely to tell you, "Hey, this stuff is crap!"
txvoltaire 1 year ago
@txvoltaire Interesting. Yes, like advertising, evangelism attempts to create a problem and then offer one a solution to it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 2
@ProfMTH The analogy goes further. First you establish the fear or need in this case lack of dietary fiber or perhaps stinky arm pits. Secondly you supply a solution - Yummy Nom Noms or Happy Pit brand deodorant. Thirdly you up the motivation by creating a limited time offer.
In xianity the formula is:
1-You are a dirty rotten sinner and you're going to hell.
2-You need to get right with Salvation-Man.
3-You better hurry because the second coming is at hand.
Thank you and send money.
claudiaquat 1 year ago
@txvoltaire Aldus Huxley declared "With God out of the way, I am free for all my erotic pursuits." Isnt that the real reason why atheists are taunted by God's existence - ACCOUNTABILITY?
Would u rather live in a world devoid of honesty, compassion, mutual respect, tolerance & love or the one we now find ourselves in, which is morally, spiritually & now financially bankrupt?
Gericho49 5 months ago
It is great her name is Faust! Perfect. Anyway, great video and presentation.
bartonim 1 year ago
@bartonim Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
it's a long a in faust.
good video :)
equallyeasilyfuqyou 1 year ago
@equallyeasilyfuqyou "it's a long a in faust."
"AU" is a diphthong. I've pronounced it correctly.
"good video"
Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
this is one of your better vids.
not a backhanded compliment, they're all excellent.
the whole voices in one's head is not always seperate from religion, but is part of a different topic all together. I've heard voices in my head as a kid and have a clean bill of mental health from therapists. It's another interesting topic, and is very common amongst both believers and non-believers. I wish I knew that book on it, they promoted it once on the Colbert Report I believe... lol rant over
Niveous23 1 year ago
@Niveous23 "this is one of your better vids. not a backhanded compliment, they're all excellent."
Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Faust- ironic name
TageSavage 1 year ago
@TageSavage Before this comment I got the reference but not the correlation. Thanks.
theclinger 1 year ago
Wow, interesting. How is "the inner testimony of the holy spirit" thing different from hearing voices in your head? :-P
KaraRvn 1 year ago 5
@KaraRvn It's not. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Actually it is very different:
the "inner testimony" that someone has is actually a result of that persons subjective experience with the world most likely linked to a religious upbringing. that is what people are really expressing when they say it is in our nature to believe in god.
where hearing voices in your head is usually caused by a physiological disorder which most certainly not a requirement for religious belief.
reply if you disagree.
ghjurx452 1 year ago
@ProfMTH good video
ghjurx452 1 year ago
@ghjurx452 "good video"
Thanks.
As for the hearing voices bit, it's not my contention that religious belief entails a psychological disorder of any kind. Perhaps, however, you're familiar with the biblical notion of the "still small voice" of the biblical god leading a believer and confirming him or her in faith. It was to this sort of thing that my comment referred.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
The point is that there is evidence, from neuroscience, that the human brain is "programmed to believe". It is not only a matter of "a blank page" on which adults pour in their own faith into children brains. It is something deeper. It is the fact that human groups, even if in cultural isolation from other groups, will tend to re-create the concept of supernatural entity, or entities.
Belief is the natural stance. Unbelief is the unnatural condition that require effort, as any former believer kn
barefootID 1 year ago
Hehe, that statement from that Craig-guy sounds like a total joke, a funny joke! Was he actually serious? Wow! : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
@winterstellar Oh, yeah, he's serious.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 2
"s anyone who has participated in or even just watched various religious arguments being presented and debated knows, religious arguments tend to be persuasively inert and, usually, are found compelling only by those who already accept the conclusion of such arguments. " (from the description of the video).
Coincidence [IF this is true] that it happens exactly the same with atheists? :)
marteco 1 year ago
@marteco Check out the definition of 'religious arguments' that is offered in the video and watch part 2. Always best to watch the entire video before commenting and giving away the fact that you haven't.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I disagree. what you say stands for opinions or views. These are not really arguments.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Typically, as all hard atheists, you are confusing God and religion...God knowledge and religious belief are not the same thing, though those with God Knowledge will bring that objective experience into their relative and or subjective perspective.
Mortaryan 1 year ago
@Mortaryan Belief in God is by definition religious. And all experiences are by definition subjective. There is no such thing as an "objective experience", as you can only ever experience something from YOUR point of view. In other words, any and all "God knowledge" is the subject's own interpretation of an experience, and inevitably shaped by how willing he is to interpret it in precisely that direction.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
This video has been featured on a blog called Common Sense athiesm. I used to mention prof's channel from time to time over there. Perhaps it has paid off. Or perhaps the blog owner found the channel on it's own. Either way I'm a happy person.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane Thanks for letting me know and for mentioning me on the blog. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH No problem.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
Probably the worst video you have made to date. Atheists are just as giulty, if not more so, of using emotion rather than socratic debate to establish fundamental metaphysical views. How many times have we seen Hitchens moan about how his reason for rejecting God is that he does not want to live under a "celestial dictatorship"? Furthmore this video would only apply to someone in a North-America context. You have a lot more to learn about how religion works outsides your country.
koroigetsuga 1 year ago
"Furthmore this video would only apply to someone in a North-America context."
Why is that?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Because clearly non-christian religions outside North America contain rich traditions of socratic debate. We see this with hindus, buddhists, muslims and various others. Christianity, being a holy spirit said so therefore it is true faith, has much less to offer in this department
koroigetsuga 1 year ago