I THINK that what Matt means by "logical absolutes" is the patterns we observe in the universe. E.g. a rock is a rock. A rock is never NOT a rock. That's what I THINK he means.
first i want to say... whoa... hawt, then, what is your facebook page, what is your twitter name, and 3rd are you on google plus, logically id use the 4th or 5th or , cant remember right now, i guess numbers dont exist right now, those ideas escape me,, actually they dont, Theists IDEAS ESCAPE ME, as they should, 2+2=4 FACT God or gods have always changed to their "subjects" specification
I don't get why people like slick even try to demonstrate that a god exists in general.
Just grant him (for the sake of argument) that he's correct.
If someone did prove that some kind of god HAS to exist, they still have all their work ahead of them.
If you can demonstrate that your particular god exists (which is the next step after proving that a general god exists), you prove both points. Skip the first one.
I think they're just hiding behind this out of fear of talking about christianity.
TBS - don't you feel like you are kicking a puppy when you respond to Matt this way? It really does feel like he's incapable of defending himself here.
@cottreau Well, yeah Matt is defenseless here, but he's anything but a puppy. He's more like an arrogant, intellectually dishonest prick. I can't stand Matt Slick because of his intellectual dishonesty.
@snarky77005 Haha - yeah, can't really argue that one. :) I still feel sorry for him though, since, try as he might, he just can't reach the top shelf. AND, he doesn't know he can't. He's like Bernard in "The Squid and the Whale" - the resemblance to that character are striking!
Still - it's hard to feel too bad, since he is such a dick. Haha.
@skywize "I would really love to see Scott in a live debate with someone who basically knows what he's talking about." LOL! Then you would not like to see him in a debate with a theist, since none of them have a clue about what they are talking about. Every time a theist spit the word "god", you know for shure that they are lost. Please note that this is an opinion shared by theists too, since they all say that their god is unknowable and his actions can´t be understanded or evaluated by us.
@lfzadra Before a theist tells me how obvious it is that there is a higher power, I'd like them to demonstrate what makes their higher power any different than...all of the others, lol. The only truly unique higher power ever conceived (save from the first idiot who thought up the word 'god'...and I hope he was stoned for it...) is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It doesn't matter whether or not it's believable... at least it's different, lol
Two things came out of watching this video... one, I wish I could spend hours talking to you so I could learn from you and have deep conversations, and two, I think I got a little turned on.
So, since the question is one of philosophy, not of theology, I feel perfectly comfortable letting you produce your own definition and list of logical absolutes. Perhaps you can consult a systematic philosophy for that definition. Like I already said, unless you can show a compelling argument for a specific logical absolute to which God must submit, I do not feel compelled to respond to your logical argument.
To be honest, I do not personally really care how you classify logical absolutes. This is a philosophical not a theological question. I believe that God is not subject to these absolutes, or at least not to all of them. In fact it is his creation which created these logical absolutes in the first place. I will stick to this idea until you can give me an example of a logical absolute to which God is subject.
Outside of a created universe, I believe time does not have the absolute meaning it has for us. The same applies to your carbon atom example. If God had not created the universe, carbon atoms would not have existed, and it is really questionable that the idea “carbon atom” even means anything outside a universe like ours which has the requisite properties for carbon atoms to exist.
Time is like an arrow. Time determines the meaning of cause and effect. Time is, I think, a logical absolute. Life precedes death. Yet, if I understand the big bang theory correctly, before our universe existed, not only did space not exist, time itself did not exist. God created time and at least in a sense he created the absolute, or at least he created the universe within which this absolute exists.
These logical absolutes are something like a-priori truth or Kant’s hard-wired knowledge which he believes are in a 1 to 1 correspondence with the world as it actually is. You say the law of identity is not contingent on anything—not even on God. This is an assumption. I do not know how one can prove such a thing. Besides, I can think of some logical absolutes which I believe only exist because God’s creation made them logical absolutes. Take the idea of time.
I do not question whether or not logical absolutes exist, although I am sure you know that many philosophers do question this. Given that it is debatable (at least according to some) whether logical absolutes even exist as a real “thing,” it clearly can be a bit on thin ice to come up with a definite answer to your question. Nevertheless, I will do what little I can, remembering that I am not a PhD Philosopher.
3:27 Great example. That is irrefutable. However, I would love to hear Matt's, or any theist for that matter, attempt "explain" such a gross inconsistency.
Utilizing Slick's flawed rebuttal, I can declare that I too am omnipotent. Being all-powerful, I can do all things -- except that which is inconsistent with my nature. My nature is such that I cannot fly, disappear, accurately predict the future, so on and so forth; however, the inability to perform these actions should not be confused with a lack of ability. On the contrary, I *am* all-powerful; these acts are simply inconsistent with my nature as a human.
Scott, I know this is an older video but I hope you still read the comments on it. I would just like to say that the way you speak is absolutely beautiful.
TheoreticalBullshit - I'm not a Christian, but I was wondering how you would respond if a Christian said this:
"If it is true that 'logical absolutes' are just concepts that we use to accurate describe the way we have seen existence behave, then one must ask WHY existence does, indeed, behave the way it does."
Basically, what happens when a Christian says that the reason things behave the way we observe them to behave is because "God designed existence to behave like that."
I think I said something similar to this in the comments of your video response, but...
As long as God "exists", He couldn't have "designed existence". Any God which exists is *subject* to the way existence behaves, not responsible for it. If you like, watch my videos, "Lord Logic" and "Slick Logic", in which I go into more detail about this.
Every worldview, once you peel all layers away, begins with the assumption that existence behaves the way it does inexplicably. Theism is no exception.
@TheoreticalBullshit The one issue I can possibly see with this is that, since we haven't been able to observe any kind of existence besides physical, how can we be sure that a "spiritual" type of existence is subject to laws of logic? I know that we have no logical reason to, which is your main point. Also, I know this doesn't point towards any specific religion being true. It's just stuff to chew on.
@matt0198922 one would need to prove that such a "spiritual" type of existence even exists to determine whether Laws of Logic would or would not apply to it. Furthermore, if the laws did not apply to this realm of existence, they would not be absolute, and therefore LA's could not be transcendent as TAG claims they are.
@TheoreticalBullshit" As long as God "exists", He couldn't have "designed existence". Any God which exists is *subject* to the way existence behaves"
Ha!....I'm am currently using this very rebuttal on a CARM video. What's even more ironic, I think it's on a Matt Sllck rebuttal of your critique of TAG, which I hadn't seen.
It's strangely reassuring to realize it's not unique to my creativity, or that Slick made so little impression on your arguments, that it is still a potent rebuttal to him!
You blew me away with the brilliance of your reasoning man. You say what I want to say to all Christians. If only Christians were able to really think critically about all sides..
Talking about theoretical ; this guy waxes absolutely eloquent that logical absolutes do not not exist. Do they absolutely not exist or subjectively not exist? And to say that this concept does not exist in academia is simply . Aristotle was right to prove the law of non-contradiction all the other person must do is open their mouth. Dude god does not exist find something better to do besides fighting windmills, Don.
nobody kno we came rom everybody wants to quess but no1 really kno cool as for me i look at it this nature is there a god i ant say yes or no i have no idea.i kno there man i belive what i see..scoot u the man.. ps kick Rex u and gigi al the way
A minor quibble. Walking on water and turning water into wine are not examples of logically impossible things. Water striders do the former, and wineries do the latter.
A man who walks on the sea unaided and turns water into wine with magic are examples of irrational, magical acts known as miracles.
You either have to accept reality as an absolute or invent a god, and claim it as absolute.
The laws of logic are descriptions of reality derived from our observations. If a god existed, and it had the power to change reality whenever it pleased, no law of nature or logic could ever be formulated.
Truth as you describe it could be interchanged with logical absolutes in the TAG argument and the argument would still fail for the same reasons. Before the theist can employ TAG, they must cogently demonstrate that there is such a thing as absolute truth. Even if it were to exist, neither side can account for it, and that is nonproblematic, since it has not been demonstrated that such truths exist or that we can know what statements these absolute truths are.
Whenever you make an argument you assume that absolute truth exists. Is it an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn't exist? To deny that absolute truth exists is to assert its existence. Therefore, absolute truth transcends our natural existence, since matter, time, and energy are not absolute. Also, if logic does not transcend, it is impossible to use it to debunk transcendence. The existence of a divine, absolute, objective being would very much account for the existence of absolutes.
A divine being would account for logic and absolutes if it existed, but the existence of absolutes would not necessarily imply that such a being exists. 'God' can apparently create beings which violate his morality, so if logic and truth were contingent on him, he should be able to create beings which violate his logic. Conveniently, there is no evidence that this has ever happened. TAG is unable to bridge the gap from the existence of absolutes to necessitating God's mind to give them meaning.
Also, using logic in a conversation or argument does not mean that I assume the existence of absolute truth, at least not in a way that we can know. I assume logic is an accurate and consistent model of reality because that is what has been my experience for my entire life, and presumably, everyone else's. This is not the same as believing that logic is objectively true. It is a set of assumptions that help make sense of reality, not an absolute statement of some truth.
Rejecting absolute truth does not imply some access to absolute truth. I reject absolute truth for the simple reason that its existence has never been demonstrated to me. I have not rejected the existence of absolutes because of some knowledge or argument, only because it has not been verified. Transcendence is therefore a meaningless thing for me to account for, because no sound evidence has been provided that it even exists.
So, basically your argument is "God would account for absolutes, he would solve the problem, but I think it's more sensible to live with the problem than adopt the notion that God exists"?
Actually, the existence of absolute truth is very much essential to the use of logic. If your truth does not apply to my truth, your logic holds no weight with me whatsoever.
Absolute truth is demonstrated every day. Is it absolutely true that you reject absolute truth? If it's not, I can ignor you.
Also, you stated that you believe in logic because you experienced its accuracy. How do you define what is accurate? By what is logical? You should then say "I believe in logic because I experience my own logic." This is circular and self-defeating.
My argument, if you want to paraphrase it is, "While you can postulate God to account for logical absolutes, you have not even shown that logical absolutes exist and thus have made no case for God in your argument."
As for the circularity of my "belief" in logic, I don't feel that you've accurately represented what I said. When I debate people, I assume that A implies not A. I assume that because in all of the places I could have seen a counterexample, I never have. It is not a syllogistic belief. One of the inherent limitations of logic is its inability to prove anything absolutely, something is true conditionally on the assumptions one makes.
You cannot avoid this pitfall of logic by postulating the existence of absolutes or by arguing that God explains these absolutes. If you claim that my "belief" in the Axiom of Non-contradiction is circular because I must employ some logical framework to confirm its accuracy, you've shot yourself in the foot. Your belief in that axiom is based on your assumption that it is true absolutely and that God gives it its truth. Whose assumption is best supported by evidence?
I don't think you understand logic. Circular logic is not self-defeating. It is self-reinforcing, which is the exact opposite. The issue with circular logic is that it cannot be used to convince someone who doesn't already agree with the premise, not that it is self-defeating, which it isn't.
1. "Physical", not "physiological." Matter, energy and time may change in some loose sense, but the speed of light is absolute.
2. Yes. There are truths by definition and tautologies. These are absolute truths, but they don't have the profound metaphysical implications you think they do.
The argument boils down to atheists accounting for the "logical absolutes." First of all, there is no substantiated argument that demonstrates that these absolutes "exist." The TAG argument states the atheist cannot account for why existence is the way that it is, and not the way that it is not, therefore the theistic interpretation is supposedly validated. It's another rhetorical mess, that even if it was granted as sound, still wouldn't bring you any closer to the nature of God.
The mathematical axioms along with the mathematical definitions is a non contradictory system we humans made up as a tool for describing the reality. It is impossible to prove that reality follows the system or any system. Science is the method of using this tool for describing the reality throw theories.
Matt is a man who believes man & dinos lived together. Now that's just pure scientific illiteracy.
A skeptic asks him What type of God would kill the firstborn of Egypt.
His answer (summed up): "It was a proof of God's superiority & a representation that Jesus would later die for the sins of the world and that all who are covered by the blood of Christ will be saved. "
People like him have become moral degenerates, to the point that they'll try to justify child murder. Sad indeed.
Then you don't know the background of the arguments.
The argument from reason and the calvinist/presuppositional apologetic are different in metaphysical positions, construct, history and scope of argument.
"Logical absolutes" as he means it is an abstract noun (Like the words nothing, everything, always and biggest) that refers to the extreme ubiquity and commonness of particular axioms. In other words, he's deifying certain axioms, then claiming that they're evidence or proof of God.
All Slick is demonstrating is that people can deify things just by granting them superlative properties.
It still boggles my mind that apologists would need to go through such convoluted rhetorical gymnastics to substantiate their claims about a deity, which is supposed to be obviously existing...
What's even more baffling is that even if TAG or any other philosophical arguments were sound, they wouldn't support the existence of a particular account of a god or gods...
In other words, any theist could use these philosophical arguments to support their own flavor of religion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The bottom line is that Christianity is based on empirical evidence; all non-Christian positions are based on blind faith. This is what I have found to be true so I have to be rational and be a Christian as it is the only rational explanation of reality.
"The bottom line is that Christianity is based on empirical evidence"
once again, please provide this evidence = non corrupted or tainted, and please do not submit anything that exists within any other religion i.e. (and I think you need the assistance of an example) if you say the bible's evidence is based on predictions, or eye witness testimonty, please do not submit this as equal opposing evidence appears in other religious text ...so ...please.... submit your evidence: (we are waiting)
As a matter of evidence, the Christian faith has predicted exactly what we see in reality. Science is suppose describe reality and the Bible has confirmed many of the findings of science.
Darwinians now have proof man did not come from Apes. Ardi has demonstrated to the Darwinians that they have been wrong all along.
I suspect rather than turning to evidence, you will begin to imagine something else in your mind as a type of wish fulfillment. It is really delusional.
If you are talking about Ardipithecus ramidus, then once again, you demonstrate to everyone that you don't grasp very basic and simple concepts. Nothing about A. ramidus disproves common ancestry, you nitwit. The debate over A. ramidus is whether or not it is in the lineage which led to chimpanzees, or the lineage which led to humans. Either possible conclusion does not refute common ancestry, it supports it. You're such an imbecile you don't even understand your own propaganda.
That makes no sense. Where's the logic? So you're saying if Ardi turns out to be on a different lineage from humans, and not a direct ancestor, this would refute common ancestry between apes and humans? Do you know how to draw a family tree? Your "logic" is the equivalent of saying because your first cousin is on a different branch of your family tree, you could not have had any shared grandparents. This is so basic and elementary that it can be explained to a four year old, but not to you.
And this is even leaving out that your sad joke of a "refutation" of evolution required you to premise that Ardi evolved. You had to undermine your own YEC position just to make a completely failed argument against evolution.
Someone needs to give you one of those Phenomenally Dumb certifications...preferably from one of those unaccredited backwater Christian correspondence schools that run out of Kent Hovind's garage.
dude... Kent Hovind's garage.... I don't think even a creationists desverves that kind of torment!! hahahah ... to be honest, zdenny and him would probably get on v well... they can both just go round in circles repeating themselves in the face of blind rebutting facts - they could call it a "spiral party" and have all their friends over!
you Zd by default r forced to love a fairlytale more than your kids/wife so don't come here & preaching garbage purely to deflect rebuttals below. Nor can u respond to simple problems that contradict what u r saying... first you have to A) discredit evolution & B) prove god which you have shown incapable of doing before you can even comment on love.
Sadly, the irony here is evolution crafted need to follow higher authority for the good of genepool, the shit sandwich it came with is religion.
Darwinian evolution has not been proven. Theist believe that what looks like evolution merely shows how God perform the miracle of life. The Bible predicts skips between species which is exactly what we see.
In fact, humans have 250 unique genes. There is no evolutionary basis for this. On top of that, there is no partial ladder among races. We all have the same genes.
The Bible prediction have all came true which proves that the Bible is true.
"In fact, humans have 250 unique genes. There is no evolutionary basis for this. On top of that, there is no partial ladder among races. We all have the same genes"
You have already been corrected on this nonsense, numerous times. Repeating false information to pass it off as true after you've already been informed that it is false is called lying. You are a liar.
I already gave you the article. I guess you would rather stick your head in the sand. I think you are simply scared that your indoctrination is not solid.
Your article has been addressed, Mr. Self-Proclaimed High IQ. You apparently didn't read or understand the article you provided. In addition to the article giving different numbers than yours, it does not back you up on your "logic" in inferring that unique genes negates common ancestry. If your reasoning were true, we'd have to conclude men and women don't have common ancestry because men have an entirely unique chromosome. You've really thought that one through, halfwit.
I personally think that your programming is being challenged. I understand how insecure you can be when your life is based on faith rather than evidence.
1) here we go again, so I have to ask you agian (yet again) please show (based on the list below I gave of our ancestral homonids back to our considered ancestral ape family how we have the same 250 unique genes .. if you can't show this you can only be lying.
2a) predictions in bible are all true?, are you 100% sure or do I need to teach you some lessons? 2b) 'predictions' in koran have also 'come true' so by you logic is Allah also true? if so who is right?
I hope this is my post zdennyfamily: if you want to cry yourself to sleep claiming atheism & evolution is an religion/indoctrination thats fine.. but until you realise there is no advantage in that you'll always be a bitter man.
& u think u respect & god gives you love..... The fact that u can say to us that we can't love our wives more than a cookie shows you, like many YT christians, are just a nasty arrogant fool burning with hate and resentment & have shown as much respect as a maggot
It is true in atheism. Love is merely a pleasant feeling in atheism. Loving your wife and pedofilia are even the same thing in atheism because the individuals gains a sense of pleasure and satisfaction from the act.
In atheism, the only thing that exists is the bubble of self. Nothing else is meaningful. Atheism confer meaning on things existentially so nothing has value outside the bubble unless value is conferred.
... where is YOUR evidence for god making the earth?!! where is a single scientic study on it seeing as your such a keen bean for empiracle evidence!?
So while science works on showing mechanisms of abiogenesis and is showing positive results please stop repeating your boring comments that is a faith!
you sad sad man, you know nothing of love at all, love is when you would die for a person, when their life is worth more than yours it has nothing to do with self pleasure THATS THE POINT
Atheism 101 = no belief in deity, it both starts & stops before the comma. That's it, that's the entire "ideology." When you realize why it would be silly to categorize people by the belief or lack of belief in smurfs, you realize why referring to atheism as if it were a system of beliefs is inane. BTW Love /= sexual pleasure, & no they're not confused in humanism, or any modern secular philosophies. What you do say is creepy, eerily striking as a matter of your own personal projection.
"What you do say is creepy, eerily striking as a matter of your own personal projection."
I thought the same thing. It was a really bizarre comparison... maybe he's psychologically compensating for some perversion by taking the whole God thing to the Nth degree.
Vick: Darwinian belief that life came from non-life is the illustion. Your belief that all of the matter in the material universe came from an atom is ludricious. I believe the only reason you have faith that it is true is to justify your personal moral acts.
zdenny, do you believe in black holes? If so, what do you think happens to all the matter that gets sucked into it? How would YOU quantify the "size" of this singularity? Or are black holes just theistic myths, too?
I don't think you understand my argument. My argument is based on evidence. You are talking about an unknown when speaking about black holes.
The fact is that we have a known which include the resurrection, the universe having a beginning as predicted and the order of creation being predicted by Scripture found in the fossil record.
We have nothing on black holes; in fact, they are still just theoretical at this point and posited to explain the action of objects in space.
As a matter of speculation, I do believe that blacks holes exists. If God created the universe, the Bible predicts there would be a black hole at the center of every galaxy. The reason for this is that the light from the stars did not appear on the surface of the earth until the fourth day.
As such, when God spoke His Word into existence, the speed difference between infinity and finite is drasmatic. I would predict that as dark energy spread across space like a wave.
Ok, after filtering out all the nonsense, you basically answered my first question that you believe in black holes. Now, answer the next two. What do you think happens to all the matter that gets sucked into it, and what "size" would YOU say it is? How small is TOO small for the oh so intelligent and enlightened zdenny?
As the wave fell on itself (collaspsed), it would warp space resulting in the release of concentrated energy creating a galaxy with the warping of space or knot being so great that it would become a hub for the galaxy.
I have put a lot of time into this as it is fascinating to think about. The discovery of dark energy has really transformed the debate.
Here's your idea of "putting a lot of time into it"... you take some very general statement from the bible and then cherry pick little bits of scientific info here and there that might corroborate it. You then claim you're using the scientific method and that science supports the bible! At the same time, you reject the science that refutes the things you believe in the bible, and turn around and call it faith-based theism. There's a term for this behavior... it's called "intellectual dishonesty"
Btw, I'm curious... your bible says that God commanded that no witches (or sorcerers, depending on which version of the bible you're reading) be allowed to live. Does this mean you believe witches exist(ed), too? Or is this something you just chalk up to metaphor or mistranslation?
So uh, does that mean you believe in witches or not? Btw, since you're such an expert in logic, can you explain how God can be omnibenevolent and yet call for the death of people? And after you write down your ridiculous excuse to rationalize it, explain why it is that God requires people to kill on his behalf instead of just poofing them out of existence or not allowing them to live at all? Or is that his way of testing people's faith? What about "thou shalt not kill?"
I hope you can understand why Christians are always talking about the love of God. It is the center and heart of Christianity! You can't understand God without understanding His love.
Once you have participated in the love of God, your faith becomes certain and you never even desire to leave. His love is like gravity that is always drawing you back.
Heh, in other words, you interpreted THAT particular piece as metaphor. How typical. So everyone gets to have their own little interpretation of the bible, heh. Yeah man, I totally see how you could see the content of this book as rock solid, 100% empirical evidence.
Scripture has to interpret Scripture. The definition of words have to come from Scripture. The only definition I am aware of for witch is given in 1 Samuel 15:23
Here's what 1 Samuel 15:23 *actually* says: "For rebellion is AS the sin of witchcraft"
You conveniently left out the "as," assuming I wouldn't bother to check the passage, so as to imply that witchcraft was just another word for rebellion.
This is EXACTLY the type of intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about. It's actually worse in this case, you're not just being a hypocrite and twisting... you're downright lying and being deceitful.
You're a disgrace to even your own religion. Sad.
I am the one that gave you the reference. The word 'as' does not change anything. Rebellion is the central thrust of the passage as is the passage in Exodus. Read both text in fulll and you see the common thread easily.
We were talking about witchcraft, not rebellion. You tried to dodge the question of whether you believe in witchcraft by distorting the actual passage you cited by claiming that witchcraft is just another word for rebellion: "As such, everyone that rebels against God is guilty of the sin of witchcraft."
Look, I'm done talking with you. It's a complete waste of time to try to have any sort of productive conversation when you're not only going to be intellectually dishonest, but outright lie, too
Congrats vick, you have beaten all records. You have been able to sustain a conversation with one of the most irrational, biased, blind, repetitive, dishonest xchristian I have ever met without blowing your brains up. You deserve to go in the guiness book of recors. One question though.
@vickmackey24 Scott Clifton is an actor, and he loves to act. He most likely uses the youtube forum to vent his unreached aspirations between shoots for his gigs on various Soap Operas. I first saw him as the too fat, Dillon Q., on "General Hospital".
He now plays Liam Cooper on "The Bold and The Beautiful". If his career would actually take-off, he might not need to 'act' "intellectually dishonest" and "outright lie", as you say, in his never-ending youtube 'acting' tirades!
@justanote7 Clearly you're not intellectually capable to comprehend his videos. "unreached aspirations" anybody with any sense loves these videos, because scott is an incredibly intelligent articulate person who expresses his views in well thought out ways.
He has 20k subscribers, acts and teaches, what have you done with your life?
@peteyfrancis101 "Anybody with any sense loves these videos"? You are making an extremely unfounded generalization ... which cannot be supported by any matter of fact! However, I do enjoy Scott's videos when I'm in the right mood. I guess I was not in the 'right mood' four months ago! LOL
I absolutely love talking with you. The discussion has really been to a lot of places. I find that most are not able to discuss things on this level for very long; however, it has been fun.
The bottom line is that Christianity is based on empirical evidence; all non-Christian positions are based on blind faith. This is what I have found to be true so I have to be rational and be a Christian as it is the only rational explanation of reality.
1 Samuel 15:23 states that the sin of witchcraft is rebellion against God. As such, everyone that rebels against God is guilty of the sin of witchcraft.
When looking at Exodus 22:20, you can see how death is knocking at the door of a person who has decided to reject God. It doesn't really matter when they die because their decision has been made to reject God.
You have to accept the love of God in order to live within the life of God for eternity.
Vick: This is the basic idea in both the OT and NT. God is Love; however, he is perfect love and cannot have anything that is non-love in His presence.
Once you have rejected the love of God, you can no longer be part of the eternal life of God. Only God is eternal and only those things which participate in His nature.
Jesus came in order to make you perfect. You become perfect in Christ because Christ was perfect. Jesus participated in the love of God perfectly while on the earth.
Vick: At this time, love is not real for you since you have rejected God. You can cross the bridge to the love of God by being in Christ. The righteousness of Christ covers your sin for eternity so that you can participate in the love of God for eternity.
The bottom line is you need the love of God that was made possible through Jesus in order to experience the perfect love of God for eternity.
I am making a prediction that can be falsified. If it is demonstrated that Black Holes don't exist, then this would invalidate my view. This is how we do science. You just may not be famaliar with the process.
I've seen some fairly thorough rebuttals of the TAG argument, some more eloquently articulated than others, but this is by far the the strongest that I have come across. Excellent!
What I find most interesting about Christianity is the love is real.
I use to get tired of the atheist arguments that love is only a feeling. The feeling only exists for the individual in the bubble of selfish desire.
Selfishness and love are two different things; however, not in atheism. When you love, it is because you have something to gain for yourself. As a result, all actions are for selfish reasons.
Loving your wife is the same as loving a cookie in atheism.
"Loving your wife is the same as loving a cookie in atheism. "
You are clearly a bitter bitter man... you know absolutely nothing about love. that coment is retarded as me saying Christains are all peodophiles because of over 10,000 cases of child abuse in the church..... how dare you label something
why don't you start looking at bare facts than making things up you don't understand. Explain please why god of love results higher divorce rates within chritsians than atheist/humanists???
Billy: Here is what is scary about atheism idea of love. Loving your wife is the same as pedofilia.
Both begin within the the bubble of selfish desires.
The only way to control those desires is by force of law or by the love of God. The force of law doesn't always work especially if the person doesn't think they will get caught.
zd: atheism has very dangerous consequences! .. please name a single war in the name of atheism? then thets look at the countless wars thanks to religion. Religion = Sept 11th by the way
Loving someone is an innate emotion, it's not a gift from god at all. this is shown in divorce rates being higher in Christian marriages for a start!
Evolution crafted love for all of us to benefit replication.... go read about the selfish gene, and you'll realise that its not about being selfish at all.
hahahahah no that wasn't the question, it was who has gone to war in the name of atheism... not create a list of nations built on extreme indoctricnation which by the way IS EXCATLY THE SAME AS RELIGION .... but nice try!!!
Indoctrinations are justified by secular atheism. Communism is atheism and built on atheism. Have you ever heard of communist Russia or China. Both of killed Millions!
You send me to an atheist website for your numbers. :) When you talk about Theism, are they talking about Christians who live by the Scripture? In order to murder someone, you have to be godless to start with so it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not if you are acting in a godless manner.
and there we have it... no one is a true scotsman. Wow I can see how easily you feed and nurture your delusion.
There is no way in hell that President bush would have invaded Iraq if he wasn't a Christian.... but of course he's not a 'true Christian'
your caveats are mind blowing and childish
Secondly, what the hell is wrong with an atheist website! All your "evidence" is coming from a dusty old book called the bible with no verification at all.. none! you total utter hypocrite
It's a parody, yes... but I'm curious how you account for the obvious design flaws in humans. God works in mysterious ways? Humans were actually "perfect" before Adam & Eve sinned and we've simply deteriorated through "microevolution" as punishment?
I'm curious how you'll explain away all the imperfections in humans and the universe if everything was, in fact, "designed" by a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being.
Vick: Thanks for the video; however, we are observing humanity after the curse was applied. In addition, the atmosphere has changed so we don't really know what the original was like.
Ironically, humans have all the same genes. The other thing that has changed for humans in genetic expressions which affect skin color, tooth size and other minor changes where bodies adapt to new environments.
Only God is perfect and good. You have to participate in the life of God to have goodness.
"only way to control those desires is ... by the love of God." - yet priests of all types & churchs have molested girls & boys so they are Not following law OR despite having God on speeddial they still cant control themselves!!
Any religious zealot can never respect life or love a wife properly because your values r placed on afterlife & god. i.e. This life & my wife by definition will therefore mean more to me than yours ever could to you! fact!
Priests who engage in this activity are not acting in the love of God. They are acting out of selfish desire. This is condemned by the Bible. The fact is that some priest got caught; however, most people engaged in pedofilia are secularists and not mature Christians.
Priests who engage in this activity are not acting in the love of God - well boo hoo... I though you said being atheist was dangerous? ... every checked the statistics on lower crime in atheist groups, communities, nations, etc... I think the statistics speak for themselves.
In the words of a moron that I know "Just use your mind my friend. I know it is hard to think past your indoctrination."
Atheists have been indoctrinated in colleges so they have been educated and generally are able to get jobs. Atheism isn't practical for uneducated people. Atheism isn't even practical for Atheist; however, the indoctrination you got sticks because you put your faith in the probabilities of white coats instead of in reality.
holly crap, billy, in the name of youtube sanity. Give it up, bro. it is futile. his mental disorder condition is irreversible and the worst is he wants to take all of us with him.
I THINK that what Matt means by "logical absolutes" is the patterns we observe in the universe. E.g. a rock is a rock. A rock is never NOT a rock. That's what I THINK he means.
Venaloid 3 weeks ago
Well played, sir. Just...wonderful. A sound, logical argument...Matt Slick? What. A. Chump.
420morozco 1 month ago
first i want to say... whoa... hawt, then, what is your facebook page, what is your twitter name, and 3rd are you on google plus, logically id use the 4th or 5th or , cant remember right now, i guess numbers dont exist right now, those ideas escape me,, actually they dont, Theists IDEAS ESCAPE ME, as they should, 2+2=4 FACT God or gods have always changed to their "subjects" specification
zq2k1 1 month ago
"Junkyard of confused rhetoric"... I'm so gonna use that phraze at some point.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj
i waz going to thumbz up thiz -- until i realised your phazology waz in love with z's.
Educ8orDie 1 month ago
@Educ8orDie Why what'z up with tha zentence? It zeemz fine to me???
p.z. what doez phazology mean?
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
I don't get why people like slick even try to demonstrate that a god exists in general.
Just grant him (for the sake of argument) that he's correct.
If someone did prove that some kind of god HAS to exist, they still have all their work ahead of them.
If you can demonstrate that your particular god exists (which is the next step after proving that a general god exists), you prove both points. Skip the first one.
I think they're just hiding behind this out of fear of talking about christianity.
Zentz29 4 months ago
TBS - don't you feel like you are kicking a puppy when you respond to Matt this way? It really does feel like he's incapable of defending himself here.
cottreau 6 months ago
@cottreau Well, yeah Matt is defenseless here, but he's anything but a puppy. He's more like an arrogant, intellectually dishonest prick. I can't stand Matt Slick because of his intellectual dishonesty.
snarky77005 3 months ago
@snarky77005 Haha - yeah, can't really argue that one. :) I still feel sorry for him though, since, try as he might, he just can't reach the top shelf. AND, he doesn't know he can't. He's like Bernard in "The Squid and the Whale" - the resemblance to that character are striking!
Still - it's hard to feel too bad, since he is such a dick. Haha.
cottreau 3 months ago
Every knee must bow before JESUS CHRIS, the only and true GOD of universe and every tongue must confess HIM as LORD
neda2605 7 months ago
@neda2605 Evidence please!
hairychris444 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neda2605 Every knee must bow before General Zod, the only and true Lord of universe and every tongue must confess HIM as LORD!
skywize 3 months ago
I would really love to see Scott in a live debate with someone who basically knows what he's talking about.
skywize 8 months ago
@skywize "I would really love to see Scott in a live debate with someone who basically knows what he's talking about." LOL! Then you would not like to see him in a debate with a theist, since none of them have a clue about what they are talking about. Every time a theist spit the word "god", you know for shure that they are lost. Please note that this is an opinion shared by theists too, since they all say that their god is unknowable and his actions can´t be understanded or evaluated by us.
lfzadra 3 months ago
@lfzadra Before a theist tells me how obvious it is that there is a higher power, I'd like them to demonstrate what makes their higher power any different than...all of the others, lol. The only truly unique higher power ever conceived (save from the first idiot who thought up the word 'god'...and I hope he was stoned for it...) is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It doesn't matter whether or not it's believable... at least it's different, lol
skywize 3 months ago
Two things came out of watching this video... one, I wish I could spend hours talking to you so I could learn from you and have deep conversations, and two, I think I got a little turned on.
Seraph821 8 months ago
How can I prove that my imaginary friend is real ? Oh wait - i can't - ROFL
Rahn127 9 months ago
@Rahn127 Hey, that doesn't sounds like a christian at all. If you're gonna mock em, at least do it right.
"How can I prove that my imaginary friend is real? Prove to me that he isn't."
Seraph821 8 months ago
@Seraph821 LOL
Rahn127 8 months ago
Ok i went off on a tangent and idk if this belongs on here :\
Poxlajetik 9 months ago
So, since the question is one of philosophy, not of theology, I feel perfectly comfortable letting you produce your own definition and list of logical absolutes. Perhaps you can consult a systematic philosophy for that definition. Like I already said, unless you can show a compelling argument for a specific logical absolute to which God must submit, I do not feel compelled to respond to your logical argument.
Poxlajetik 9 months ago
To be honest, I do not personally really care how you classify logical absolutes. This is a philosophical not a theological question. I believe that God is not subject to these absolutes, or at least not to all of them. In fact it is his creation which created these logical absolutes in the first place. I will stick to this idea until you can give me an example of a logical absolute to which God is subject.
Poxlajetik 9 months ago
Comment removed
Poxlajetik 9 months ago
Outside of a created universe, I believe time does not have the absolute meaning it has for us. The same applies to your carbon atom example. If God had not created the universe, carbon atoms would not have existed, and it is really questionable that the idea “carbon atom” even means anything outside a universe like ours which has the requisite properties for carbon atoms to exist.
Poxlajetik 9 months ago
Time is like an arrow. Time determines the meaning of cause and effect. Time is, I think, a logical absolute. Life precedes death. Yet, if I understand the big bang theory correctly, before our universe existed, not only did space not exist, time itself did not exist. God created time and at least in a sense he created the absolute, or at least he created the universe within which this absolute exists.
Poxlajetik 9 months ago
These logical absolutes are something like a-priori truth or Kant’s hard-wired knowledge which he believes are in a 1 to 1 correspondence with the world as it actually is. You say the law of identity is not contingent on anything—not even on God. This is an assumption. I do not know how one can prove such a thing. Besides, I can think of some logical absolutes which I believe only exist because God’s creation made them logical absolutes. Take the idea of time.
Poxlajetik 9 months ago
I do not question whether or not logical absolutes exist, although I am sure you know that many philosophers do question this. Given that it is debatable (at least according to some) whether logical absolutes even exist as a real “thing,” it clearly can be a bit on thin ice to come up with a definite answer to your question. Nevertheless, I will do what little I can, remembering that I am not a PhD Philosopher.
Poxlajetik 9 months ago
Ask Matt to show you the laws of logic non-verbally. He can't, because they don't exist outside of the human mind, any more than numbers do.
panterguy 10 months ago
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Rapture092011Repent 11 months ago
3:27 Great example. That is irrefutable. However, I would love to hear Matt's, or any theist for that matter, attempt "explain" such a gross inconsistency.
CertainUncertainty 1 year ago
matt slick got pwnd
ApertureSciEmployee 1 year ago
"Matt Matt Matt....your being glib...."
stereojam77 1 year ago
Utilizing Slick's flawed rebuttal, I can declare that I too am omnipotent. Being all-powerful, I can do all things -- except that which is inconsistent with my nature. My nature is such that I cannot fly, disappear, accurately predict the future, so on and so forth; however, the inability to perform these actions should not be confused with a lack of ability. On the contrary, I *am* all-powerful; these acts are simply inconsistent with my nature as a human.
RefutingStupidity 1 year ago 13
@RefutingStupidity Brilliant. I love it.
thesparitan 3 weeks ago in playlist Logic, Matt Slick, and the Infamous "TAG"
TheoreticalBullshit, just thought I'd blame you for my extremely high expectations of men >.<
CelestiaalTeapot 1 year ago
Bravo!!! well put. I'm just saying... Matt Slick was begging for someone to point this out.
FevoIsGod 1 year ago
Scott, I know this is an older video but I hope you still read the comments on it. I would just like to say that the way you speak is absolutely beautiful.
miamikin9 1 year ago
Awesome, as usual Scott.
DogOfTheSpag 1 year ago
It seems to me that 'logical absolutes' is just a fancy term for fundamental laws of physics that govern our universe.
GravitonEmissions 1 year ago
I think he could save himself time by simply saying that since atheists cannot account for god, god must exist.
WiwuX 1 year ago
@WiwuX
Yes, God & Smurfs!!
Cootabux 1 year ago
Awesome stuff xD I'm glad you're around to disprove people such as Matt Slick.
FortuneInLies 1 year ago
YouTube is recommending ventriloquism videos to me because I watched this. Seriously.
jsbrown193 1 year ago
This sounds sort of self-refuting, but maybe I'm wrong. Are you saying logical truths are properties? Because if that is the case:
1. Logical laws are properties.
2. No one has demonstrated that these properties exist.
3. Therefore logical laws don't exist.
if that is the case then how can you really refute TAG in the first place being that you can't use any fallacies on it?
f you are saying that these properties do exist, then how do you account for them? As essential qualities of existence
plexi121 1 year ago
TheoreticalBullshit - I'm not a Christian, but I was wondering how you would respond if a Christian said this:
"If it is true that 'logical absolutes' are just concepts that we use to accurate describe the way we have seen existence behave, then one must ask WHY existence does, indeed, behave the way it does."
Basically, what happens when a Christian says that the reason things behave the way we observe them to behave is because "God designed existence to behave like that."
Any rebuttals?
matt0198922 1 year ago
I think I said something similar to this in the comments of your video response, but...
As long as God "exists", He couldn't have "designed existence". Any God which exists is *subject* to the way existence behaves, not responsible for it. If you like, watch my videos, "Lord Logic" and "Slick Logic", in which I go into more detail about this.
Every worldview, once you peel all layers away, begins with the assumption that existence behaves the way it does inexplicably. Theism is no exception.
TheoreticalBullshit 1 year ago 30
@TheoreticalBullshit The one issue I can possibly see with this is that, since we haven't been able to observe any kind of existence besides physical, how can we be sure that a "spiritual" type of existence is subject to laws of logic? I know that we have no logical reason to, which is your main point. Also, I know this doesn't point towards any specific religion being true. It's just stuff to chew on.
matt0198922 1 year ago
@matt0198922 one would need to prove that such a "spiritual" type of existence even exists to determine whether Laws of Logic would or would not apply to it. Furthermore, if the laws did not apply to this realm of existence, they would not be absolute, and therefore LA's could not be transcendent as TAG claims they are.
Logicalanalysis 1 year ago
@matt0198922
So, in ths spiritual realm, where logic doesn't apply, God could be not God?
RPFS2008 1 year ago
@TheoreticalBullshit" As long as God "exists", He couldn't have "designed existence". Any God which exists is *subject* to the way existence behaves"
Ha!....I'm am currently using this very rebuttal on a CARM video. What's even more ironic, I think it's on a Matt Sllck rebuttal of your critique of TAG, which I hadn't seen.
It's strangely reassuring to realize it's not unique to my creativity, or that Slick made so little impression on your arguments, that it is still a potent rebuttal to him!
Tobytrim 11 months ago
You blew me away with the brilliance of your reasoning man. You say what I want to say to all Christians. If only Christians were able to really think critically about all sides..
ilov3pinkx 1 year ago 2
Talking about theoretical ; this guy waxes absolutely eloquent that logical absolutes do not not exist. Do they absolutely not exist or subjectively not exist? And to say that this concept does not exist in academia is simply . Aristotle was right to prove the law of non-contradiction all the other person must do is open their mouth. Dude god does not exist find something better to do besides fighting windmills, Don.
nihlism4u 1 year ago
"...junkyard of confused rhetoric.."
High caliber verbal ammunition for the win!
*****
LordSlag 1 year ago 2
Great stuff Scott.
I would have loved to see you debate/destroy Matt. His cognitive dissonance is colossal!
Are public debates something you do regularly?
Think4Yourselves 2 years ago 2
nobody kno we came rom everybody wants to quess but no1 really kno cool as for me i look at it this nature is there a god i ant say yes or no i have no idea.i kno there man i belive what i see..scoot u the man.. ps kick Rex u and gigi al the way
kwame094 2 years ago
A perfect being is incapable of an imperfect creation.
Events that are logically impossible are not possible. e.g. Walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.
Laws of logic are derived from the nature of existence. Existence exists, and it is all that exists. There is nothing outside of it that created it.
Ataensic 2 years ago
A minor quibble. Walking on water and turning water into wine are not examples of logically impossible things. Water striders do the former, and wineries do the latter.
Cafeeine 2 years ago
A man who walks on the sea unaided and turns water into wine with magic are examples of irrational, magical acts known as miracles.
You either have to accept reality as an absolute or invent a god, and claim it as absolute.
The laws of logic are descriptions of reality derived from our observations. If a god existed, and it had the power to change reality whenever it pleased, no law of nature or logic could ever be formulated.
Ataensic 2 years ago
The examples you gave violate the laws of nature, not the laws of logic, that was my point.
Logically impossible is for example the claim that someone is both fully god and fully man at the same time.
Cafeeine 2 years ago
Or that a man is both water strider and winery. :)
Ataensic 2 years ago
"Logical absolutes" refers to the absolute foundation upon which logic rests. The argument goes like this:
1. The physiological universe is not absolute in that matter, energy, and time are always changing.
2. There are absolutes since truth is absolute and logic depends on the existence of truth.
3. Therefore, logic depends upon something a materialist's worldview can not account for.
It is not your fault the argument was misrepresented, I just thought I'd try to correct what I could.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
Truth as you describe it could be interchanged with logical absolutes in the TAG argument and the argument would still fail for the same reasons. Before the theist can employ TAG, they must cogently demonstrate that there is such a thing as absolute truth. Even if it were to exist, neither side can account for it, and that is nonproblematic, since it has not been demonstrated that such truths exist or that we can know what statements these absolute truths are.
ryuusel 2 years ago
Whenever you make an argument you assume that absolute truth exists. Is it an absolute truth that absolute truth doesn't exist? To deny that absolute truth exists is to assert its existence. Therefore, absolute truth transcends our natural existence, since matter, time, and energy are not absolute. Also, if logic does not transcend, it is impossible to use it to debunk transcendence. The existence of a divine, absolute, objective being would very much account for the existence of absolutes.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
A divine being would account for logic and absolutes if it existed, but the existence of absolutes would not necessarily imply that such a being exists. 'God' can apparently create beings which violate his morality, so if logic and truth were contingent on him, he should be able to create beings which violate his logic. Conveniently, there is no evidence that this has ever happened. TAG is unable to bridge the gap from the existence of absolutes to necessitating God's mind to give them meaning.
ryuusel 2 years ago
Also, using logic in a conversation or argument does not mean that I assume the existence of absolute truth, at least not in a way that we can know. I assume logic is an accurate and consistent model of reality because that is what has been my experience for my entire life, and presumably, everyone else's. This is not the same as believing that logic is objectively true. It is a set of assumptions that help make sense of reality, not an absolute statement of some truth.
ryuusel 2 years ago
Rejecting absolute truth does not imply some access to absolute truth. I reject absolute truth for the simple reason that its existence has never been demonstrated to me. I have not rejected the existence of absolutes because of some knowledge or argument, only because it has not been verified. Transcendence is therefore a meaningless thing for me to account for, because no sound evidence has been provided that it even exists.
ryuusel 2 years ago
So, basically your argument is "God would account for absolutes, he would solve the problem, but I think it's more sensible to live with the problem than adopt the notion that God exists"?
Actually, the existence of absolute truth is very much essential to the use of logic. If your truth does not apply to my truth, your logic holds no weight with me whatsoever.
Absolute truth is demonstrated every day. Is it absolutely true that you reject absolute truth? If it's not, I can ignor you.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
Also, you stated that you believe in logic because you experienced its accuracy. How do you define what is accurate? By what is logical? You should then say "I believe in logic because I experience my own logic." This is circular and self-defeating.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
My argument, if you want to paraphrase it is, "While you can postulate God to account for logical absolutes, you have not even shown that logical absolutes exist and thus have made no case for God in your argument."
ryuusel 2 years ago
As for the circularity of my "belief" in logic, I don't feel that you've accurately represented what I said. When I debate people, I assume that A implies not A. I assume that because in all of the places I could have seen a counterexample, I never have. It is not a syllogistic belief. One of the inherent limitations of logic is its inability to prove anything absolutely, something is true conditionally on the assumptions one makes.
ryuusel 2 years ago
You cannot avoid this pitfall of logic by postulating the existence of absolutes or by arguing that God explains these absolutes. If you claim that my "belief" in the Axiom of Non-contradiction is circular because I must employ some logical framework to confirm its accuracy, you've shot yourself in the foot. Your belief in that axiom is based on your assumption that it is true absolutely and that God gives it its truth. Whose assumption is best supported by evidence?
ryuusel 2 years ago
If we are to continue this conversation, I think we should switch to private messaging to avoid bogging down this video with comments.
ryuusel 2 years ago
I don't think you understand logic. Circular logic is not self-defeating. It is self-reinforcing, which is the exact opposite. The issue with circular logic is that it cannot be used to convince someone who doesn't already agree with the premise, not that it is self-defeating, which it isn't.
AdHocRationalizing 2 years ago
watch?v=C1Ry2tmWWQY
thundercl00ne 2 years ago
I've seen this before.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
1. "Physical", not "physiological." Matter, energy and time may change in some loose sense, but the speed of light is absolute.
2. Yes. There are truths by definition and tautologies. These are absolute truths, but they don't have the profound metaphysical implications you think they do.
3. From 1. and 2. above, fail.
AdHocRationalizing 2 years ago
yeah, Matt. wtf
zach9899 2 years ago
Wow are you related to Joebot????TheoreticalBullshit......
LOL.............
ClarksonsinUSA 2 years ago
Can someone help me out here...?
It seems to me the TAG argument pretty much boils down to the atheist having to prove his brain is NOT in a jar....right?
csaver 2 years ago
The argument boils down to atheists accounting for the "logical absolutes." First of all, there is no substantiated argument that demonstrates that these absolutes "exist." The TAG argument states the atheist cannot account for why existence is the way that it is, and not the way that it is not, therefore the theistic interpretation is supposedly validated. It's another rhetorical mess, that even if it was granted as sound, still wouldn't bring you any closer to the nature of God.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
Outstanding... keep up the great debate..
usapegasus007 2 years ago
G'day Scott, thanks for uploading. See u on the boards mate.
supercrevolution 2 years ago
The mathematical axioms along with the mathematical definitions is a non contradictory system we humans made up as a tool for describing the reality. It is impossible to prove that reality follows the system or any system. Science is the method of using this tool for describing the reality throw theories.
GrassEating 2 years ago
OUCH! totally pwn'D 3:30! How does God created flawed being if he's unable to be flawed himself??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago
"logical absolutes" dont exist in academia? WOW, I never thought of that, boy have I been blindsighted and fooled
funwjoshnjenn 2 years ago
Yeah, type "logical absolutes" into google and every single link is about christianity.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
Matt is a man who believes man & dinos lived together. Now that's just pure scientific illiteracy.
A skeptic asks him What type of God would kill the firstborn of Egypt.
His answer (summed up): "It was a proof of God's superiority & a representation that Jesus would later die for the sins of the world and that all who are covered by the blood of Christ will be saved. "
People like him have become moral degenerates, to the point that they'll try to justify child murder. Sad indeed.
TheInvaderBN 2 years ago
Then you don't know the background of the arguments.
The argument from reason and the calvinist/presuppositional apologetic are different in metaphysical positions, construct, history and scope of argument.
Theologica37 2 years ago
"Logical absolutes" as he means it is an abstract noun (Like the words nothing, everything, always and biggest) that refers to the extreme ubiquity and commonness of particular axioms. In other words, he's deifying certain axioms, then claiming that they're evidence or proof of God.
All Slick is demonstrating is that people can deify things just by granting them superlative properties.
paulmarko 2 years ago 5
Oh, pwned.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
Comment removed
OneForTheTeams 2 years ago
Comment removed
OneForTheTeams 2 years ago
Comment removed
OneForTheTeams 2 years ago
It still boggles my mind that apologists would need to go through such convoluted rhetorical gymnastics to substantiate their claims about a deity, which is supposed to be obviously existing...
What's even more baffling is that even if TAG or any other philosophical arguments were sound, they wouldn't support the existence of a particular account of a god or gods...
In other words, any theist could use these philosophical arguments to support their own flavor of religion.
wynd2007 2 years ago 4
Well done.
Matt Slick is an idiot.
Theologica37 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The bottom line is that Christianity is based on empirical evidence; all non-Christian positions are based on blind faith. This is what I have found to be true so I have to be rational and be a Christian as it is the only rational explanation of reality.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"The bottom line is that Christianity is based on empirical evidence"
once again, please provide this evidence = non corrupted or tainted, and please do not submit anything that exists within any other religion i.e. (and I think you need the assistance of an example) if you say the bible's evidence is based on predictions, or eye witness testimonty, please do not submit this as equal opposing evidence appears in other religious text ...so ...please.... submit your evidence: (we are waiting)
billymatronics 2 years ago
As a matter of evidence, the Christian faith has predicted exactly what we see in reality. Science is suppose describe reality and the Bible has confirmed many of the findings of science.
Darwinians now have proof man did not come from Apes. Ardi has demonstrated to the Darwinians that they have been wrong all along.
I suspect rather than turning to evidence, you will begin to imagine something else in your mind as a type of wish fulfillment. It is really delusional.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
If you are talking about Ardipithecus ramidus, then once again, you demonstrate to everyone that you don't grasp very basic and simple concepts. Nothing about A. ramidus disproves common ancestry, you nitwit. The debate over A. ramidus is whether or not it is in the lineage which led to chimpanzees, or the lineage which led to humans. Either possible conclusion does not refute common ancestry, it supports it. You're such an imbecile you don't even understand your own propaganda.
AdHocRationalizing 2 years ago
Ardi is human like and apes came from human like ancestors. We did not come from apes. That is what the Ardi discovery is all about.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
That makes no sense. Where's the logic? So you're saying if Ardi turns out to be on a different lineage from humans, and not a direct ancestor, this would refute common ancestry between apes and humans? Do you know how to draw a family tree? Your "logic" is the equivalent of saying because your first cousin is on a different branch of your family tree, you could not have had any shared grandparents. This is so basic and elementary that it can be explained to a four year old, but not to you.
AdHocRationalizing 2 years ago 2
And this is even leaving out that your sad joke of a "refutation" of evolution required you to premise that Ardi evolved. You had to undermine your own YEC position just to make a completely failed argument against evolution.
Someone needs to give you one of those Phenomenally Dumb certifications...preferably from one of those unaccredited backwater Christian correspondence schools that run out of Kent Hovind's garage.
AdHocRationalizing 2 years ago 2
dude... Kent Hovind's garage.... I don't think even a creationists desverves that kind of torment!! hahahah ... to be honest, zdenny and him would probably get on v well... they can both just go round in circles repeating themselves in the face of blind rebutting facts - they could call it a "spiral party" and have all their friends over!
billymatronics 2 years ago
you Zd by default r forced to love a fairlytale more than your kids/wife so don't come here & preaching garbage purely to deflect rebuttals below. Nor can u respond to simple problems that contradict what u r saying... first you have to A) discredit evolution & B) prove god which you have shown incapable of doing before you can even comment on love.
Sadly, the irony here is evolution crafted need to follow higher authority for the good of genepool, the shit sandwich it came with is religion.
billymatronics 2 years ago
Darwinian evolution has not been proven. Theist believe that what looks like evolution merely shows how God perform the miracle of life. The Bible predicts skips between species which is exactly what we see.
In fact, humans have 250 unique genes. There is no evolutionary basis for this. On top of that, there is no partial ladder among races. We all have the same genes.
The Bible prediction have all came true which proves that the Bible is true.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"In fact, humans have 250 unique genes. There is no evolutionary basis for this. On top of that, there is no partial ladder among races. We all have the same genes"
You have already been corrected on this nonsense, numerous times. Repeating false information to pass it off as true after you've already been informed that it is false is called lying. You are a liar.
AdHocRationalizing 2 years ago
I already gave you the article. I guess you would rather stick your head in the sand. I think you are simply scared that your indoctrination is not solid.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Your article has been addressed, Mr. Self-Proclaimed High IQ. You apparently didn't read or understand the article you provided. In addition to the article giving different numbers than yours, it does not back you up on your "logic" in inferring that unique genes negates common ancestry. If your reasoning were true, we'd have to conclude men and women don't have common ancestry because men have an entirely unique chromosome. You've really thought that one through, halfwit.
AdHocRationalizing 2 years ago 4
I personally think that your programming is being challenged. I understand how insecure you can be when your life is based on faith rather than evidence.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
1) here we go again, so I have to ask you agian (yet again) please show (based on the list below I gave of our ancestral homonids back to our considered ancestral ape family how we have the same 250 unique genes .. if you can't show this you can only be lying.
2a) predictions in bible are all true?, are you 100% sure or do I need to teach you some lessons? 2b) 'predictions' in koran have also 'come true' so by you logic is Allah also true? if so who is right?
simple questions for u 2 respond
billymatronics 2 years ago 3
wow, what a sweet ending for the video! =D
lassieronen 2 years ago
Yeah well umm.... Your mom is an inconsistent absolute devoid of coherent logic. So there!
garytheagnostic 2 years ago
I hope this is my post zdennyfamily: if you want to cry yourself to sleep claiming atheism & evolution is an religion/indoctrination thats fine.. but until you realise there is no advantage in that you'll always be a bitter man.
& u think u respect & god gives you love..... The fact that u can say to us that we can't love our wives more than a cookie shows you, like many YT christians, are just a nasty arrogant fool burning with hate and resentment & have shown as much respect as a maggot
billymatronics 2 years ago
It is true in atheism. Love is merely a pleasant feeling in atheism. Loving your wife and pedofilia are even the same thing in atheism because the individuals gains a sense of pleasure and satisfaction from the act.
In atheism, the only thing that exists is the bubble of self. Nothing else is meaningful. Atheism confer meaning on things existentially so nothing has value outside the bubble unless value is conferred.
Welcome to Atheism 101
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
... where is YOUR evidence for god making the earth?!! where is a single scientic study on it seeing as your such a keen bean for empiracle evidence!?
So while science works on showing mechanisms of abiogenesis and is showing positive results please stop repeating your boring comments that is a faith!
you sad sad man, you know nothing of love at all, love is when you would die for a person, when their life is worth more than yours it has nothing to do with self pleasure THATS THE POINT
billymatronics 2 years ago
Atheism 101 = no belief in deity, it both starts & stops before the comma. That's it, that's the entire "ideology." When you realize why it would be silly to categorize people by the belief or lack of belief in smurfs, you realize why referring to atheism as if it were a system of beliefs is inane. BTW Love /= sexual pleasure, & no they're not confused in humanism, or any modern secular philosophies. What you do say is creepy, eerily striking as a matter of your own personal projection.
Slip819 2 years ago
"What you do say is creepy, eerily striking as a matter of your own personal projection."
I thought the same thing. It was a really bizarre comparison... maybe he's psychologically compensating for some perversion by taking the whole God thing to the Nth degree.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
Vick: Darwinian belief that life came from non-life is the illustion. Your belief that all of the matter in the material universe came from an atom is ludricious. I believe the only reason you have faith that it is true is to justify your personal moral acts.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
zdenny, do you believe in black holes? If so, what do you think happens to all the matter that gets sucked into it? How would YOU quantify the "size" of this singularity? Or are black holes just theistic myths, too?
vickmackey24 2 years ago
I don't think you understand my argument. My argument is based on evidence. You are talking about an unknown when speaking about black holes.
The fact is that we have a known which include the resurrection, the universe having a beginning as predicted and the order of creation being predicted by Scripture found in the fossil record.
We have nothing on black holes; in fact, they are still just theoretical at this point and posited to explain the action of objects in space.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
As a matter of speculation, I do believe that blacks holes exists. If God created the universe, the Bible predicts there would be a black hole at the center of every galaxy. The reason for this is that the light from the stars did not appear on the surface of the earth until the fourth day.
As such, when God spoke His Word into existence, the speed difference between infinity and finite is drasmatic. I would predict that as dark energy spread across space like a wave.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Ok, after filtering out all the nonsense, you basically answered my first question that you believe in black holes. Now, answer the next two. What do you think happens to all the matter that gets sucked into it, and what "size" would YOU say it is? How small is TOO small for the oh so intelligent and enlightened zdenny?
vickmackey24 2 years ago
As the wave fell on itself (collaspsed), it would warp space resulting in the release of concentrated energy creating a galaxy with the warping of space or knot being so great that it would become a hub for the galaxy.
I have put a lot of time into this as it is fascinating to think about. The discovery of dark energy has really transformed the debate.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Here's your idea of "putting a lot of time into it"... you take some very general statement from the bible and then cherry pick little bits of scientific info here and there that might corroborate it. You then claim you're using the scientific method and that science supports the bible! At the same time, you reject the science that refutes the things you believe in the bible, and turn around and call it faith-based theism. There's a term for this behavior... it's called "intellectual dishonesty"
vickmackey24 2 years ago
Btw, I'm curious... your bible says that God commanded that no witches (or sorcerers, depending on which version of the bible you're reading) be allowed to live. Does this mean you believe witches exist(ed), too? Or is this something you just chalk up to metaphor or mistranslation?
vickmackey24 2 years ago
Exodus 22:20 states that any person in the Isrealite community should not be allowed to live.
These are specific rules that were given to the nation of Isreal prior to Christ's resurrection.
The law was fulfilled in Christ who has taken your death sentence. You just need to come to Him in faith.
The law was given to demonstrate that we are all sinners in need of Savior.
As the Bible says, the punishment for sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
So uh, does that mean you believe in witches or not? Btw, since you're such an expert in logic, can you explain how God can be omnibenevolent and yet call for the death of people? And after you write down your ridiculous excuse to rationalize it, explain why it is that God requires people to kill on his behalf instead of just poofing them out of existence or not allowing them to live at all? Or is that his way of testing people's faith? What about "thou shalt not kill?"
vickmackey24 2 years ago
There is only One God; however, there is also a spirit world that we cannot see.
Since you reject God at this time, I do not expect you to believe in a spiritual reality to live so this is not really pertinent to the discussion.
People end their life when they rejected the love of God. A life without love is Hell.
For the Christian, death is a new beginning.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Thou shalt not kill is really translated Thous shalt not murder.
You don't have the right to take the life of a person who has done no wrong against you.
We all deserve death because we have rejected His love. The opposite of love. Don't reject His love vick!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I hope you can understand why Christians are always talking about the love of God. It is the center and heart of Christianity! You can't understand God without understanding His love.
Once you have participated in the love of God, your faith becomes certain and you never even desire to leave. His love is like gravity that is always drawing you back.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Ok, one more time, do you or do you not believe in witches?
vickmackey24 2 years ago 3
The Bible talks about witches as those who have rejected the love of God who seek to have the power of a god.
The Hebrew is focused on women specifically who have rejected the love of God.
I am not sure how to answer the question because the Bible does not define a witch.
The Bible does teach that their are spiritual realities such as God and eternal life for those who believe.
We also know that those who reject the love of God will live eternally without His love.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Heh, in other words, you interpreted THAT particular piece as metaphor. How typical. So everyone gets to have their own little interpretation of the bible, heh. Yeah man, I totally see how you could see the content of this book as rock solid, 100% empirical evidence.
vickmackey24 2 years ago 3
Scripture has to interpret Scripture. The definition of words have to come from Scripture. The only definition I am aware of for witch is given in 1 Samuel 15:23
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Here's what 1 Samuel 15:23 *actually* says: "For rebellion is AS the sin of witchcraft"
You conveniently left out the "as," assuming I wouldn't bother to check the passage, so as to imply that witchcraft was just another word for rebellion.
This is EXACTLY the type of intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about. It's actually worse in this case, you're not just being a hypocrite and twisting... you're downright lying and being deceitful.
You're a disgrace to even your own religion. Sad.
vickmackey24 2 years ago 4
I am the one that gave you the reference. The word 'as' does not change anything. Rebellion is the central thrust of the passage as is the passage in Exodus. Read both text in fulll and you see the common thread easily.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
We were talking about witchcraft, not rebellion. You tried to dodge the question of whether you believe in witchcraft by distorting the actual passage you cited by claiming that witchcraft is just another word for rebellion: "As such, everyone that rebels against God is guilty of the sin of witchcraft."
Look, I'm done talking with you. It's a complete waste of time to try to have any sort of productive conversation when you're not only going to be intellectually dishonest, but outright lie, too
vickmackey24 2 years ago 12
Congrats vick, you have beaten all records. You have been able to sustain a conversation with one of the most irrational, biased, blind, repetitive, dishonest xchristian I have ever met without blowing your brains up. You deserve to go in the guiness book of recors. One question though.
How is your nervous system?
jrev37 2 years ago 2
@vickmackey24 Scott Clifton is an actor, and he loves to act. He most likely uses the youtube forum to vent his unreached aspirations between shoots for his gigs on various Soap Operas. I first saw him as the too fat, Dillon Q., on "General Hospital".
He now plays Liam Cooper on "The Bold and The Beautiful". If his career would actually take-off, he might not need to 'act' "intellectually dishonest" and "outright lie", as you say, in his never-ending youtube 'acting' tirades!
justanote7 1 year ago
@justanote7 Clearly you're not intellectually capable to comprehend his videos. "unreached aspirations" anybody with any sense loves these videos, because scott is an incredibly intelligent articulate person who expresses his views in well thought out ways.
He has 20k subscribers, acts and teaches, what have you done with your life?
peteyfrancis101 10 months ago
@peteyfrancis101 "Anybody with any sense loves these videos"? You are making an extremely unfounded generalization ... which cannot be supported by any matter of fact! However, I do enjoy Scott's videos when I'm in the right mood. I guess I was not in the 'right mood' four months ago! LOL
justanote7 10 months ago
I absolutely love talking with you. The discussion has really been to a lot of places. I find that most are not able to discuss things on this level for very long; however, it has been fun.
The bottom line is that Christianity is based on empirical evidence; all non-Christian positions are based on blind faith. This is what I have found to be true so I have to be rational and be a Christian as it is the only rational explanation of reality.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
1 Samuel 15:23 states that the sin of witchcraft is rebellion against God. As such, everyone that rebels against God is guilty of the sin of witchcraft.
When looking at Exodus 22:20, you can see how death is knocking at the door of a person who has decided to reject God. It doesn't really matter when they die because their decision has been made to reject God.
You have to accept the love of God in order to live within the life of God for eternity.
That is the bottom line.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Vick: This is the basic idea in both the OT and NT. God is Love; however, he is perfect love and cannot have anything that is non-love in His presence.
Once you have rejected the love of God, you can no longer be part of the eternal life of God. Only God is eternal and only those things which participate in His nature.
Jesus came in order to make you perfect. You become perfect in Christ because Christ was perfect. Jesus participated in the love of God perfectly while on the earth.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Vick: At this time, love is not real for you since you have rejected God. You can cross the bridge to the love of God by being in Christ. The righteousness of Christ covers your sin for eternity so that you can participate in the love of God for eternity.
The bottom line is you need the love of God that was made possible through Jesus in order to experience the perfect love of God for eternity.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I am making a prediction that can be falsified. If it is demonstrated that Black Holes don't exist, then this would invalidate my view. This is how we do science. You just may not be famaliar with the process.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
You can read about my cosmological speculation at zdenny . c o m
Type in "How Old is the Universe"
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Comment removed
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I've seen some fairly thorough rebuttals of the TAG argument, some more eloquently articulated than others, but this is by far the the strongest that I have come across. Excellent!
sackman11 2 years ago
What I find most interesting about Christianity is the love is real.
I use to get tired of the atheist arguments that love is only a feeling. The feeling only exists for the individual in the bubble of selfish desire.
Selfishness and love are two different things; however, not in atheism. When you love, it is because you have something to gain for yourself. As a result, all actions are for selfish reasons.
Loving your wife is the same as loving a cookie in atheism.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"Loving your wife is the same as loving a cookie in atheism. "
You are clearly a bitter bitter man... you know absolutely nothing about love. that coment is retarded as me saying Christains are all peodophiles because of over 10,000 cases of child abuse in the church..... how dare you label something
why don't you start looking at bare facts than making things up you don't understand. Explain please why god of love results higher divorce rates within chritsians than atheist/humanists???
billymatronics 2 years ago
Billy: Here is what is scary about atheism idea of love. Loving your wife is the same as pedofilia.
Both begin within the the bubble of selfish desires.
The only way to control those desires is by force of law or by the love of God. The force of law doesn't always work especially if the person doesn't think they will get caught.
Atheism has some very dangerous consequences.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
zd: atheism has very dangerous consequences! .. please name a single war in the name of atheism? then thets look at the countless wars thanks to religion. Religion = Sept 11th by the way
Loving someone is an innate emotion, it's not a gift from god at all. this is shown in divorce rates being higher in Christian marriages for a start!
Evolution crafted love for all of us to benefit replication.... go read about the selfish gene, and you'll realise that its not about being selfish at all.
billymatronics 2 years ago
Communism, Marxism, and Socialism are all nations built on the philosophy of secular atheism. They have killed millions.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
hahahahah no that wasn't the question, it was who has gone to war in the name of atheism... not create a list of nations built on extreme indoctricnation which by the way IS EXCATLY THE SAME AS RELIGION .... but nice try!!!
billymatronics 2 years ago
Indoctrinations are justified by secular atheism. Communism is atheism and built on atheism. Have you ever heard of communist Russia or China. Both of killed Millions!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
hahahah type in google and read a study on this: Death Toll: Theism Vs. Atheism
"So how do the scores match up?
Theism has managed to kill an estimate of 2,229,074,100 people.
Atheism has managed to kill an estimate of 95,000,000 people."
and even then th guy in study answers your patheric comments trying desperately to link cause and effect
billymatronics 2 years ago
You send me to an atheist website for your numbers. :) When you talk about Theism, are they talking about Christians who live by the Scripture? In order to murder someone, you have to be godless to start with so it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not if you are acting in a godless manner.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
WRONG, because apparently God has allowed it, so apparently he's alright with it.
reiverdaemon 2 years ago
and there we have it... no one is a true scotsman. Wow I can see how easily you feed and nurture your delusion.
There is no way in hell that President bush would have invaded Iraq if he wasn't a Christian.... but of course he's not a 'true Christian'
your caveats are mind blowing and childish
Secondly, what the hell is wrong with an atheist website! All your "evidence" is coming from a dusty old book called the bible with no verification at all.. none! you total utter hypocrite
billymatronics 2 years ago
zdenny, watch this video: /watch?v=ghe_3ghiKX0
It's a parody, yes... but I'm curious how you account for the obvious design flaws in humans. God works in mysterious ways? Humans were actually "perfect" before Adam & Eve sinned and we've simply deteriorated through "microevolution" as punishment?
I'm curious how you'll explain away all the imperfections in humans and the universe if everything was, in fact, "designed" by a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
Vick: Thanks for the video; however, we are observing humanity after the curse was applied. In addition, the atmosphere has changed so we don't really know what the original was like.
Ironically, humans have all the same genes. The other thing that has changed for humans in genetic expressions which affect skin color, tooth size and other minor changes where bodies adapt to new environments.
Only God is perfect and good. You have to participate in the life of God to have goodness.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Way to dodge the question... not that I'm surprised or anything.
vickmackey24 2 years ago
Billy: Are you referring to the gay catholic priest? That was the result of homosexuality and not Christianity.
The Bible says that these people should have a milsone hung over their heads and dropped into the sea.
Secular atheism is responsible for these acts...not the Bible which condemns it.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
hahaha so here you contradict yourself!
"only way to control those desires is ... by the love of God." - yet priests of all types & churchs have molested girls & boys so they are Not following law OR despite having God on speeddial they still cant control themselves!!
Any religious zealot can never respect life or love a wife properly because your values r placed on afterlife & god. i.e. This life & my wife by definition will therefore mean more to me than yours ever could to you! fact!
billymatronics 2 years ago
Priests who engage in this activity are not acting in the love of God. They are acting out of selfish desire. This is condemned by the Bible. The fact is that some priest got caught; however, most people engaged in pedofilia are secularists and not mature Christians.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Priests who engage in this activity are not acting in the love of God - well boo hoo... I though you said being atheist was dangerous? ... every checked the statistics on lower crime in atheist groups, communities, nations, etc... I think the statistics speak for themselves.
In the words of a moron that I know "Just use your mind my friend. I know it is hard to think past your indoctrination."
billymatronics 2 years ago
Atheists have been indoctrinated in colleges so they have been educated and generally are able to get jobs. Atheism isn't practical for uneducated people. Atheism isn't even practical for Atheist; however, the indoctrination you got sticks because you put your faith in the probabilities of white coats instead of in reality.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
holly crap, billy, in the name of youtube sanity. Give it up, bro. it is futile. his mental disorder condition is irreversible and the worst is he wants to take all of us with him.
lol
jrev37 2 years ago 2