Since we do not know anything about "outside of time" we cannot say anything about it. You cannot say if timelessness even exists, or what, if anything, can exist in a space without time. Therefore your 'evidence' is nothing but a guess.
I said I would watch your other videos, even though I read the transcript instead. "atheist would have to prove EITHER"... That is where you are wrong. Atheism can be easily said to mean, "I don't believe your claim". The reason the atheist in question doesn't believe you can depend on the person, but you strawman them into only 2 possibilities that you made up. A third reason, my reason, is that you provide as much proof that god MUST exist as another might that String Theory MUST be true.
First of all, this video should be re-named AN INDIRECT PROOF OF GOD (that I think destroys Atheism, but in reality doesn't do shit but piss people off)
Second of all, next time you make a video, turn off that stupid echo effect. It sounds horrible, and I can barely understand what you're saying (although I probably don't have to anyway, because from your comment bubbles it looks like your argument is exactly the same as every other self-important theist's)
This is one of those arguments that's designed to "win" an argument rather than to convince a listener. Don't get bogged down in it. It doesn't even lead to the conclusion of a God existing even if you accept all of its assertions.
Just click the little thumbs-down button and move on.
Your argument boils down to this: The universe exists - therefore it was created. This is a logical fallacy. Just because an intrinsic property of the universe is that effects have causes does not mean that intrinsic properties can be applied to origins.
There are four or five possibilities that explain origin. None of them make logical sense, none of them are comprehensible, and none of them work.
I would argue that the definition of existence must include existing in space/time. If God is said to exist outside of space time then that is the same as telling me that he does not exist.
(continuing) some way of separating the goats from the sheep. That's observation. If we can't say "my model of the universe precludes the existence of aardvarks, hey, there's an aardvark, I must be wrong" then there is no basis for moving from guesswork to knowledge. Reasoning from these specifics to the general is deductively impossible, so we substitute statistical induction. Our senses are flawed, but they are connected to reality, and the only means we have of identifying specifics.
I won't mirror the common comments about burden of proof, assumptions, etc. Instead, I'll explain the importance of observation. Analytical logic alone cannot show all specifics to be true, because any specific conclusion must be based on a specific premise. We need to know something before logic tells us something else. We can come up with a million contradictory theoretical models of how the universe functions, but if we want a sense of which if any is true, then we need (more)
Why are you pushing the burden of proof off onto non-believers who require proof? Qualified judges understand that even if an argument is logically consistent it still requires proof to be a sound argument. Simple validity doesn't provide enough weight for acceptance, esp blind acceptance.
Sounds alot like Pseudo science which is just a series of philisophical backflips to try and prove something that can't be proven with Basic Logic. Why is Athiesm Absurd? I'm surprised the only way thiests can only attempt to prove a God is through complex hoops. If you have to do loops and tip toe around the real issues, then you're absurd, not people who don't believe in your God because theirs no logical evidence for it.
1. "observation" doesn't (necessarily) mean "using our senses". most of modern science is based on observing phenomena that is not observable directly by our senses.
2. logic is a good tool, but christians violate logic even on the beginning, with their "prove that god doesn't exist" request, therefore it is pretty silly to hear them reference logic and claim that they are able to use it. they are (mostly) not. and from my personal experience i know that the more logical/reasonable person is, the more difficulty they have to explain and defend religion, which is an interesting (at least) corellation.
@MidnightSt "observation" doesn't (necessarily) mean "using our senses"."
Yet we must eventually "observe" it as data as some point ... such as with mathematics, or logic. My point in making this video was to demonstrate through logic that not everything need not be observable in the physical sense. For instance, a logical proof is method of demonstration and is observable. Correct?
Your point 2 is a rant not worthy of comment, and your correlation doesn't exist - you just wish that it did
@namesameasu logical proof is NOT EVIDENCE of existence, nor of "subsistence", nor of reality. Logic is useless and pointless without FACTS. Observable, Testable, Independently Verifiable Facts.
We do not know what caused the universe and your wild, unfounded, assertions are not justified. Some of them dont even make sense. You are making an ### of yourself in these videos then trying to defend them.
"You're not being mean, just wrong" -good job on being cheeky. Its easy for anyone to just say your wrong. so I will now engage in saying to you. YOU ARE WRONG SIR. I can tell your a smart guy, I sincerely hope you look up skepticism and give it a shot sometime.
@namesameasu Then start over and try again because you completely screwed up the first time. And you make assertions left and right about things you couldn't possibly know. Like what happened during or before the big bang. The fact that you don;t see them as assertions is a major part of the problem. You keep telling others to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate. Time to follow ones own advice.
There's an old saying out there, "Smart people are very good at rationalizing beliefs they've come to believe for irrational reasons."
The problem with your argument is the assertion of multiple invalid premises which seem logically valid but are utterly flawed. The universe is not constrained by just space and time, cause and affect do not necessarily apply outside the 3rd dimension and you cannot assert knowledge outside of the observable universe (just to name a few flaws)
@namesameasu "But it is constrained by space-time... correct?"
No... the universe most likely exists in a higher dimension... our observable universe is most likely confined by that dimension... but we don't know the constraints on that dimension.
"Sure, but an effect may very well be the dimensions themselves, the cause of which would be eternal." You can't make that assertion.
"one can't assert with applied logic?"
Nope... not outside the observed universe. i.e. singularities.
@namesameasu You are still making assertions. You need to go back to the drawing board, read what everyone says to you and fix the fallacies. I offered up a review and pointed a few problems... get them fixed and the conversation can continue.
I want to assure you that...you're not a christian.
I know you think you are, and I know that you consider yourself to be, but you're not. Absolutely none of this can be shown to be the god of the bible without doing some severe mental backflips to get there. Semantical contortions the lieks of which making it seem like the Bhagavad Gita knew about the big bang would be required to show that the god of the bible was responsible for the big bang. you're a deist...who likes Jesus, and that's it
I believe Christ as our savior ... so I'm a Christian.
"none of this can be shown to be the god of the bible"
It's perfectly consistent with everything in the BIble. "Pure reason" would be a jealous God, because God is meaningful in space-time through our faith, will and abilities.
lol i agree with your video! your god is a non-entity that exists outside space-time. and if he exists outside of space-time how could he influence space-time especially if hes a non-entity. there may have been a pre-existing state before the universe, but your wild assumptions on what it is can't be proven and they have nor reason to consider them over another explanation. like your other video its and argument from incredulity with some special pleading mixed in. sorry not trying to be mean.
Through us, naturally. The unity of opposite: Transcendence = Imminence. External = internal, etc.
"special pleading"
Special pleading is on the part of the atheist: Nothing physcial comes from nothing, except the universe; everything phsyical is caused by something, except the universe, etc. The fact that God doesn't have a cause is justified: non-physical. "sorry not trying to be mean."
@namesameasu Sir, you need to turn that re-verb/effect off your mic... its unbearable... I mean WTF?! wtf were you thinking when making this video with that audio? or did you record this on a carrot?
you're obviously laying out a very convoluted path to where you assert that atheists are supposed to somehow prove how the human mind can "mirror and conceive of all reality" (which the human mind cannot possible do & any qualified expert will tell you that) and "yet wasn't intelligently designed", which is where you push the burden of proof for disproving existence of a 1st Cause / Intelligent Designer. >FAIL<
Your halting speech pattern and crappy sound effects don't help either.
At 43 seconds your bias takes over and you lose any credibility regarding logic. By the time you have finished you have proven something... you have proven that no one knows what is beyond space and time. You then magically jump to the assumption that because no one knows, it must therefore be an invisible sky daddy. Your argument is a fallacy; an argument from ignorance. This is basic college freshman material here; logic 101.
@namesameasu I can see that any intelligent thought is going to be lost on you so let me dumb this down for you. Your argument is old and tired and all over YT in various form, the only thing new you bring is the echo to your voice which is funny since you are merely echoing what others have already said so many times before. Logical arguments cannot proof the super-natural because logic relies on what is natural and hence real. Take more logic classes & fewer philosophy classes.
Wait a second! Is that it? Is there more video? I thought there was going to be proof!
Isn't it convenient that the religious make their god unobservable? It's worth mentioning that all other imaginary things are also unobservable. This isn't proof, it's a copout.
We define "cause and effect" as a chain of events, where one event is called the "cause" of another, which is called the "effect". An effect then is itself the cause for at least one other effect.
Does that mean that the universe follows our definition and must have a cause for every event? - Of course not. Our definition is just practical for what we want to do with it.
The universe can very well have a first state that doesn't have a cause. Why not?
@namesameasu Let's just say that if you try to turn in a term paper to a professor in comic sans he would give it back. Because if you did that you would be an idiot. Just like you would be an idiot if you added cheezy reverb effects on your tired god argument. Do you really think this makes you sound better? It makes you sound hard to take seriously. Maybe MLK should've put an echo on. I have a dream-eam-eam-eam.......
I'm referring to the first big bang, not necessarily our big bang. I'm already assuming mulitverse because there's been more than one singularity. The claim above, though, has never been disproven. All physics claims to discredit it fail logically.
@namesameasu you have no idea what you're talking about
WHAT FIRST BIG BANG? the big bang theory only covers what occured after it happened, not before or during.
is there any evidence for a multi singularity? do you even know what those are? of course you don't you're just bending real science so it fits your agenda, and guess what...
@namesameasu Thats not the point, there isn't any indirect or observable evidence for the multiple singularities that occurred before hand.
And no, looking it up only leads to speculations on what happened before hand, Stephen Hawking already said that the theory should only include that it happened and what happened after.
second statement, I have no idea where you were going on this so I'm simply going to say give a more relevant answer
I was going to say that this is one of the most intellectually dishonest videos I've seen for a long time, but I won’t waste my breath as the masses have already spoken. Ooops, too late.
@namesameasu I don't want to enter into a debate relating to the various hypothesis aiming to favour one point of conjecture over another. I take issue with the fact you're asserting a 'proof' of something other than ones ability to 'guess'. We can all guess. Some of us are more intellectually honest and admit we don't know, while others claim a position of all knowing arrogance claiming to conveniently know all the answers, often involving some variation of a God'. I'd rather know HOW?!
Your failed logic can be simplified as ' I don’t know (humans don’t know) so God dunnit'.
That failed logic is one of the reasons why humans invented religion in the first place, to fill in the gaps in our knowledge with supernatural explanations. So let’s not try to use science (the study of nature) as the basis to explain the supernatural (outside of nature).
@namesameasu It’s often the blatantly obvious logical facts that get people such as yourself so wound up about when the masses point out your failings isn’t it ? Logic fails, everyone tells you your logic is fundamentally flawed, yet you’re unable to accept facts are facts. Keep burying your head in the sand my friend. That logic and rational thinking can be scary for some, to others its simply referred to as ‘common sense’.
@venomfanex Thanks for your voice of superiority, but your "logic" fails. You see, your comment is filled with metaphysical claims, yet you seem to reject metaphysics.
"Facts are facts" -- Isn't this the law of excluded middle?
Why you prioritize "common sense" over logical reasoning is anybody's guess.
Your logic is fundamentally flawed, using metaphysics where standard model physics already exists, filling the gaps in your knowledge with a God, assumptions, conjecture and several leaps of faith is a very weak argument, and arguments from ignorance are always doomed to fail, as illustrated by the overwhelming number of negative comments and thumbs down to your video.
@namesameasu Metaphyscis - a term often misused by someone in the belief they're putting forward a rational argument for an irrational claim. Logic fail. Again.
@namesameasu Because you're filling the gaps in your/our knowledge with assumptions and conjecture. There are also some very good hypothesis in relation to the 'cause' behind the rapid expansion of the universe. Filling a gap in ones knowledge with something else outside of our realms of knowledge isn't logical, at best it's a guess, and yours is a far fetched. I'm not saying you're wrong - but there are an infinite other potential possibilities that are far more likely that 'God dunnit'.
Do you reduce the use of logic as being nothing more than assuming and guesswork? Do you only accept the physical for that which is real?
"some very good hypotheses"
Do they account for consciousness: how our brain unthinkingly became a thinking thing that thinks itself (i.e, absurdity conclusion #2)? If not, then these hypotheses are insufficient.
@namesameasu Logic is the process of reasoning, and I don’t see any reasoning in your logic. All you have is a gap in your (our) knowledge & you're filling the void with a supernatural entity that's outside of your knowledge of understanding. A double whammy!
As for 'they' accounting for consciousness you'd need to talk to a biologist who can demonstrate (as can most good drug dealers) that consciousness is a biochemical process. Outside of this - again conjecture that you're filling with God.
"smart people can be really good at finding reasons to believe in non-smart things." -hitchens
this is a weak attempt to use physics to prove god. if you could prove god then there would be no faith necessary to believe in him, so you are contradicting yourself. nice try.
In conclusion, your video could hardly chink any argument, the fact that it is a video to disprove Atheists arguments, and then later becomes a discussion on why Atheists are wrong at doing such and such makes it cave in on it's self.
This might offend you, but your video lacks a lot of logic to go in with out any cited evidence in your transcript and then ask your viewers to take a leap of faith is like going against a army with guns trying to defeat them with a knife and wits.
The second conclusion is asinine, because if you want to say it in another point of view it's "Humans are able to use logic to survey their surroundings and realize what is going on around them, even though they were not originally designed that way" evolution has all ready prove this, passing genes on over thousands and billions of years to get where we are to day (call me an Atheist if you want) and when I say evolution, I mean changing as a whole and not individually... (finishing up)
The first conclusion assumes that observation can be the only way to prove evidence, when observation can be using all the of the 5 senses and other evidence such as rocks, animals, corpses, and other objects can be used as evidence to prove the validity of something....(on and on I go)
A good example of the contradictions is the video is "AN INDIRECT PROOF OF GOD" yet you try to be direct with your non-cited/credible "evidence, another would be the conclusions you have made (from what I expect to be assumption, and very broad ones at that).... (still going on)
The problem your video mostly has is it claims in many places to disprove Atheist arguments when you do not prove your sources and information asking all your, a lot of your content is also too expansive which can make it hard to keep up with your argument. Too much of the "evidence" is contradicting and irrelevant, and your not even saying what your argument is truly pointing to (i.e. This disproves that god doesn't exist, or Atheists go about how they prove others wrong)... (going on)
My point of view, is this video is very irrelevant and bias. Atheist/Scientists (I am not implying they are the same) would not just use observation, there must be further evidence and testing, and steps must be used to make the investigation or "evidence" valid or credible (whichever would fit in the situation)... (continuing on to the next part)
1. tell me how you know the system at work needs a reason outside of itself to "begin" (at well just say the big bang). 2. how is it that you picture anything existing outside of spacetime, when all that exists is space-time? 1. the system perpetuates itself and runs for its own purpose. 2. both things and immaterial things are included inside existence, nothing is outside of what is, what you see right before you. i wont say im an aethist but you can never prove god buddy. nice try
@DCampy324 "tell me how you know the system at work needs a reason outside of itself to "begin"
Because if we accept physics' "atheist" answer that virtual particles pop into existence without cause -- what they mean is that an effect SEEMS to appear spontaneously AFTER the cause. Logically, I ask: how can an effect exist without a cause? Defies logic. For me, logic trumps physics. Also, the explanation offered by physics says more about our limits of observation than it does reality.
@DCampy324 "how is it that you picture anything existing outside of spacetime"
By asking myself, what would be beyond measurement?
"both things and immaterial things are included inside existence"
Even the well-known atheist Bertrand Russell accepted ideas outside of existence. He did this regarding universal concepts (such as "tableness"). They seem to exist as foundational concepts. He called this :subsisting." God would just be the foundation for everything.
@patataton There's nothing necessary about the culinary arts except a clean kitchen. Unfortunately, your noodle ingredients is filled with stubble left over from Ockhams razor of "mutiplying entities beyond necessity."
Get off the starches and diet upon some chemical-free pure reason for a while.
"the same way he choose not to leave any evidence of his existence"
Apparenly, there's no trace of pure reason to be found in your ideas.
@patataton Your analogy still doesn't work. The God of the Bible is without physical description, except as Jesus Christ. The Word is translated from the term LOGOS (reason).
I would say nice try, but I believe your sauce is borrowed and passed the expiration date.
@TLSlayer1 I would say thanks for watching my video, but it doesn't seem that you actually had watched it before you rated it, negatively.
Supposedly, theists have the "burden of proof." So I provide one here. Likewise, atheists have the "burden of cooperating" since they accept that title of athiest only because of a rejection. An atheist needs to demonstrate a willingness to listen to diverse views in order to be as open-minded as many claim to be, as opposed to stubborn and hard-headed.
Sorry but FAIL ! You see when choosing your axioms you have to be very carefull that they can really be used as one. One of your axioms is everything but an axiom. You think everything needs a cause, but that is not so. We know of many things that happen without a casue, for example particle decay.
@namesameasu which is due to instability and uncertainty more than due to eternity.
Could you please explain what you mean by that ? It may be the language barrier, but i dont think you are making sense here.
Back to the argument : even if that where really the only thing we know of that happens without a cause that is allready enough to utterly destroy your argument. Your axiom mustnt have any exceptions, having even one makes it invalid and thereby knocks away your base
@MrRichardQED Virtual particles are said to derive spontaneously, and that's why they're "without cause."
But how is a "spontaneous process" synonymous with "without cause"? I never understood these claims from science. I'm supposing you do since you brought it up.
Also, "decaying" is a process. Processes ultimately begin from some cause, as they occur in space-time. How, in this case, would a process be without an initial cause, besides just saying its spontaneous?
@namesameasu To really understand how and why you need to understand the basics of quantummechanics, quantumelectrodynamics, quantumchromodynamics and a lot of other stuff concerning particle physics. Not on a professional level, but at least on a popular science level if not even a bit deeper. I will PM you on this, cause this definitly needs more space ^^
@namesameasu I think now that you know your argument is invalid you should take the video down. Keeping it up would be dishonest dont you think ?
btw did you really think philosophy somehow overlooked that argument and that you really could singlehandedly destroy a philosophy that exists for thousands of years allready ? Thats a bit arrogant dont you think ? Many great minds have wrestled these questions. If you are really interested in them you should read what they found out.
@namesameasu But i must admit you really gave that some thought and tried to apply logic and reason instead of dogmatism and bible quotes. I wish more christians would do that, it would really change the debate and make it much more constructive. If you want to we can discuss your argument further, but then i would like to do it outside the comment section. Here we are restricted to too few words for a philosophical debate, we cant link properly etc.etc.etc. Just PM me if you like a challenge ^^
How do you know that the only thing that can exist outside of space-time is God? Do you have evidence for this assertion. Couldn't there be more than 1? Or none at all? How do you know God exists outside of space-time at all. If you can know anything about it then it exists partially IN this universe and therefore subject to our physical laws.
@adam3251 "How do you know that the only thing that can exist outside of space-time is God?"
Because more than one thing would be quantifative and would conceptually imply space-time.
"How do you know God exists outside of space-time at all"
Becuz then God would require a cause. This isn't special pleading becuz only God would be absolute and only one absolute would ultimately subsist -- otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. If you don't believe in absolutes, then how could you assert it?
@namesameasu "Because more than one thing would be quantifative and would conceptually imply space-time."
I don't know what you mean here. 'Quantifative' is not a word and the whole sentence hinges on it. This statement is inherently, and quite literally meaningless.
"Becuz then God would require a cause."
This is special pleading but that doesn't matter. My question goes to epistemology. How do you KNOW what the qualities of this 'god' thing are?
@adam3251 Quantitative - having to do with quantities
This isn't special pleading because only one thing CAN be truly absolute by the definiton of absoluteness. God and pure "absoluteness" would be isomorphic. This is why most atheists likewise don't believe in absolutes. But if you deny absolutes altogether there couldn't be any certain propositions. God is just a label for absolute reason: all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful - representing the 3 most important goals of any truthseeker
@namesameasu Actually you are using 'absolute' to mean two different things here. There is no absolute time. If you want to dispute me on this then dig up Einstein and argue with him. Your argument here is viciously circular and a poor attempt at mixing the Ontological and Cosmological arguments. I'll ask you again. How do you know what qualities this god has? Are you just assuming them? You don't seem to lack an elementary grasp of basic cosmology.
Who claims there was? Eternal just means neither space nor time would be factors relating to such a "thing" as God. There's nothing circular about defining God as absolute reason and then consistently using that definition. If you disagree with it, then you may say I'm begging the question. But then I would like to know how you would define God. If you simply say a "myth", then I would ask for a more thorough account. What is it about God do you reject?
@namesameasu I would define God as a theoretical construct, or a fictional character. Imagine Peter Pan, in your head. That character is real in the same sense your God is real. Back to the topic at hand. If you are defining god as existing outside of space and time then you have no reason to believe this thing exists. If it is also logically consistent then it must be in reality to exist. I can accept this definition entirely because then the God you believe in is just as real as mine.
Peter Pan flies. How would Peter fly without space-time? You're comparing apples to oranges.
"then you have no reason to believe this thing exists"
According to the atheist Bertrand Russell, universal ideas such as beauty and justice are said to beyond space-time, yet such ideas motivate us to do things. Should we doubt these constructs, as well?
@namesameasu Russell was wrong. If this thing exists outside of space and time how can you know anything about it? You can't just make things up and then assert that it exists. If it doesn't interact with reality then it has all the properties of non-existence. If you can know anything about it then it must have some element that is in this Universe and is subject to its laws. Can you demonstrate the existence of this entity? If not then it doesn't exist in any useful sense.
@adam3251 For every concept there's an opposite. If we didn't know a concept's opposite, we wouldn't know the concept. Imagine if day consisted only of light, and everything would appear as though it was 1PM 24 hours a day, would we have any observable concept of daytime? No. Observable concepts all consist of a unity of opposites. In regards to God that unity would be transcendence = imminence / external = internal. Although God has no opposite, God's presence does within ourselves.
@namesameasu This is where your arguments have now gone off the deep end. There is NOT an opposite for every concept. Take for example Red. What is red's opposite? So does your god exist outside of space and time or does it sometimes exist "within ourselves"? This is a glaring and blatant contradiction. You have finally gone off the deep end here.
@adam3251 There's no deep end. The opposite or red would be any other color in which it's relative to. How would you know a concept if it wasn't relative to something else? If you can answer this, then you've made your point.. But any concept is most relative to it's known opposite. If it's a concept made up of other concepts (red, for instance, is a combination of brown and yellow, I believe), it's opposite is any other among its category for which it's not. Black/white are the basic colors
@adam3251 "So does your god exist outside of space and time or does it sometimes exist "within ourselves"?"
Both: Transcendence and imminence refer to the same concept. Imminence is as directly inaccessible as transcendence. Has consciousness ever been directly observed in a laboratory as the phenomenon is perceived first-hand in another? No. Does that mean consciousness of others doesn't exist? No.
@namesameasu If this 'god' sometimes exists with in space and time then where is the evidence for this unsupported assertion? Ill will ask you one more time and then I will disengage. Your refusal to address your epistemology is dishonest and dishonorable. How do you know anything about this god? I have asked you several times and you refuse to answer this simple fact. I see three possibilities: voices in your head, a dusty old myth book, or you are just making shit up. Which is it?
@namesameasu "The epistemology is the unity of opposition and foundationalism." IE You are making this shit up, nice work sir. That is the great thing about the western world is that you can make up whatever batshit theory, have no evidence or reasoned arguments to back it up and then just wave your hands and demand attention.
"in order to protect and maintain your automatic pilot of atheist linearity"
You have no idea what my opinions are as I have not stated them.
@adam3251 "have no evidence or reasoned arguments"
I gave you a reasoned argument.. I don't know if you noticed it, but your criticism of the unity of opposition idea failed: "red" is a composite concept, as I told you. "Foundationalism" is a well-established epistemic theory. It's not "made-up" by me.
"You have no idea what my opinions are"
You display your opinion every time you respond subjectively to my replies, rather than objectively. It's your will not to believe in God.
1) Turn off that horribly annoying special effect. 2) Cause cannot occur outside of time. Cause and effect require time.
Defining your god as being outside of verification does not refute the argument for holding evidence-based beliefs. The human mind is not physically capable of conceiving all of reality, which is why we create MODELS of reality.
@namesameasu "like God?" No. God is not a model. God is a magical explanation with no actual evidence to support it. A model represents something that exists.
"How many atheists speak against Buddhism?" I think you missed the point.
Sure, a good logical argument can be a form of evidence but in many cases it is insufficient. Ex: logically, big foot can exist, but having logical consistency doesn't make it true. Do you know what I'm saying?
@namesameasu "God wouldn't exist, but subsist." Explain.
The point was disproving atheism (which I don't agree that you did) does not logically mean that theism is correct.
What does that matter? Again, you missed the point. The point being, being logical does not necessitate existence. The thing in question must be logical but being logical is not sufficient to exist.
@namesameasu Cause and effect is a temporal event. You have to have one prior to the other. If you remove time, you remove the link between the two, therefor time is a necessary characteristic of existence. Nothing can be "outside" of time.
@kubush " time is a necessary characteristic of existence"
Nobody's removing time in regards to existence. Existential things are not in doubt. But God would subsist -- meaning God would be a founation of existence, beyond existence itself. A "cause" wouldn't be known as a cause until linked with cause-effect. Such an initial factor, however, may just as well be a state of affairs as opposed to an event, similar to how an epiphany is distinguishable from a thought.
@namesameasu Saying something exists beyond existence is illogical. Do you admit that a cause and effect relationship requires time? Two events occurring in the same "moment" cannot be caused one by the other. A progression of time is required. Of course we also know that time is inherently part of space itself. Making it even more obvious that it is a necessary condition of existence.
@namesameasu buddism, taoism and other such eastern cultures are a way of life compared to chrisianity and other western cultures attempt to force their own beliefs on others. Buddists do not.
im not saying all christians do. i met a priest today who is a very happy man and very easy to talk to. you are not, attempting and failing to prove that god exists.
I was going to point out how weak and self-contradictory this "argument" is, but then I realised the sound effect that makes him sound like he's speaking in an echo chamber bolsters the reasoning and makes it irrefutable.
So, essentially, everything requires a cause, and one cannot be its own cause. So, in order for the universe to exist, there then must be something that is eternal.
Ahem. Matter is eternal. There. I just solved that problem.
@BigLundi Well, since matter is typically defined as the general term for physical substances, in order to not be a strict physicalist, you're better off designating such an external state of affairs as "substance" itself. What you then come up with is a whole pandora's box that much of Western philosophy consists of, including the key theories offered by the Christian scholastics of Medieval times (e.g, Scotus, Ockham, etc.).
@BigLundi Well, if the big bang created space-time, then where and when was matter without space-time, and how did it exist? A "transcendent physicality," or even "non-space-time matter" seem to be oxymorons, since everything physical is said to have boundaries.
@namesameasu Matter itself can exist without space, or time. Space is the nonexistence of matter, and Time is relative to space existing. So matter existing without space and time is entirely plausible. And don't get me wrong, that's not the only issue I have with your little video here. You've named what you term to be 'axioms' that not everyone agrees on, in fact, your title is very misleading. Nothing about this is a proof for God, indirect or otherwise. It's just violation of Occam's Razor.
@BigLundi How could matter not occupy space? Do you have an example? You're also implying that matter isn't necessarily quantitative. Your reduction to avoid God-talk seems to redefine "matter" for the special purpose of eliminating God. I can say that everything is matter, too, but it won't mean much unless I define what I mean by "matter."
Ockham's razor warns not to multiply entities beyond necessity. Still seems to me that God is necessary.
@namesameasu I'm not redefining matter. I've been using it colloquially this entire time. Yes, I can give an example of matter existing without space. It's called quantum mechanics. Several things Quantum Mechanics can show is is that matter, at its very basic form, exists without space. The space around it is what exists, but the matter itself contains no space. It also shows us that, on a quantum level, things can literaly 'come into being'. randomly.
@BigLundi "The space around it is what exists, but the matter itself contains no space"
The space around what? Defies logic. Virtual particles exist for a limited amount of space-time. How could a process occur without space-time by your account?
"on a quantum level, things can literaly 'come into being'. randomly."
... because we're unable to observe the order: Indeterminacy.
@namesameasu The creation of space time was a spontaneous thing. There was no space, and there was no time, but there was matter. I can't see how you don't understand this concept.
The fact is, the argument says that something has to be eternal in order for everything to exist. And the fact remains that nothing about science demonstrates any sort of proof for a god, including the knowledge of the Big Bang.
@BigLundi "I can't see how you don't understand this concept"
The question is: Do you? If you cannot explain it, why should I believe you understand it?
"And the fact remains that nothing about science demonstrates any sort of proof for a god"
Science is a field that studies quantifiable data. So why should we even expect science to come up with any proof, for or against? However, science indirectly proves the existence of God by its inability to fully explain consciousness.
@namesameasu I did explain it. You're repeating yourself in ignoring my explanation that matter does not require space nor time to exist, due to space being a lack of matter, and time being relative to space.
Science doesn't prove ANYTHING about god's existence, intentionally or unintentionally. You literally just came up wit ha huge argument from ignorance, right there, "Can science explain consciousness?" "No" "Muahaha, God exists."
@BigLundi "matter does not require space nor time to exist, due to space being a lack of matter"
So this matter, then, lacks any kind of dimensionality? According to your statement, matter couldn't exist in space via exclusion. Yet it does. In fact, even voids are said to have density.
@namesameasu The Big Bang didn't have a void, it didn't have space, it didn't have time, prior to its occurence. So that's completely irrelevant. Matter CAN exist without either, that's what matter is.
@BigLundi "You literally just came up wit ha huge argument from ignorance"
The argument right here is more like: "Can science explain consciousness?" "No" Therefore, science isn't yet a field capable of determining whether God is reason itself. The full indirect argument is exactly as it's listed above in the description column, and in my indirect proof part 2 video.
@namesameasu And it's still an argument from ignorance. It does nothing to prove god. What it DOES is it says God's a POSSIBIITY, which nobody is denying. When you assert that it's proof for a god, you're just plain wrong, because there's nothing about science's inabiity to explain ANYTHING that would prove god. An inability to explain an occurence does not then require any existence of a deity as any sort of default.
@namesameasu No, it's a logical fallacy, and logical fallacies are asinine.
And besides, if you're making an argument for the existence of god, it had better be logically valid and sound, and when I CAN poke holes in the argument? Then it's not a proof.
@BigLundi The fallacy is your strawman argument: preferring to overemphasize a single comment, than the video itself.. I admit if all I had was that one comment I would be fallacious. The indirect proof is the video, not a single comment. The comment was a response to your scientism, and to that extent, not fallacious. Understand now?
"it had better be logically valid and sound"
It is. Thanks. An indirect proof of reductio ad absurdum is used very often in logic.
@namesameasu It's not a strawman. An inability to explain something, even if only temporary, is not a proof for anything else, it is simply a nonexplanation. This is how it works.
And reducto ad absurdum is used to DISprove, not prove.
Since we do not know anything about "outside of time" we cannot say anything about it. You cannot say if timelessness even exists, or what, if anything, can exist in a space without time. Therefore your 'evidence' is nothing but a guess.
30 seconds.
Nidair 3 weeks ago
what the fuck is wrong with your voice?
icedmetal81 1 month ago
I couldn't understand a single word you said
theElectr0ne 1 month ago
YouTube should have a flag for "Idiocy"
hardinmichael1981 1 month ago
the reverb makes it sound like robots want me to believe in god
unkledanbot 1 month ago
You're a parrot....and a dolt! Try thinking for yourself instead of quoting Craig (badly).....
speerdali 1 month ago
@speerdali Craig came up with a reductio ad absurdum?
namesameasu 1 month ago
I can´t hear cuz of the echo
piturantonio 1 month ago
I said I would watch your other videos, even though I read the transcript instead. "atheist would have to prove EITHER"... That is where you are wrong. Atheism can be easily said to mean, "I don't believe your claim". The reason the atheist in question doesn't believe you can depend on the person, but you strawman them into only 2 possibilities that you made up. A third reason, my reason, is that you provide as much proof that god MUST exist as another might that String Theory MUST be true.
jaekae8 2 months ago
This has got to be the most intelligent and non-fallacious video I have ever seen in my entire life.
ChurchofScientology5 2 months ago
Looks like someone forgot to graduate highschool.
NoxPally 2 months ago
First of all, this video should be re-named AN INDIRECT PROOF OF GOD (that I think destroys Atheism, but in reality doesn't do shit but piss people off)
Second of all, next time you make a video, turn off that stupid echo effect. It sounds horrible, and I can barely understand what you're saying (although I probably don't have to anyway, because from your comment bubbles it looks like your argument is exactly the same as every other self-important theist's)
RiskyCricket 2 months ago
This is one of those arguments that's designed to "win" an argument rather than to convince a listener. Don't get bogged down in it. It doesn't even lead to the conclusion of a God existing even if you accept all of its assertions.
Just click the little thumbs-down button and move on.
unforgivn81 2 months ago
Your argument boils down to this: The universe exists - therefore it was created. This is a logical fallacy. Just because an intrinsic property of the universe is that effects have causes does not mean that intrinsic properties can be applied to origins.
There are four or five possibilities that explain origin. None of them make logical sense, none of them are comprehensible, and none of them work.
This argument is ridiculous.
Orthrus 2 months ago
I would argue that the definition of existence must include existing in space/time. If God is said to exist outside of space time then that is the same as telling me that he does not exist.
itsjustameme 2 months ago
(continuing) some way of separating the goats from the sheep. That's observation. If we can't say "my model of the universe precludes the existence of aardvarks, hey, there's an aardvark, I must be wrong" then there is no basis for moving from guesswork to knowledge. Reasoning from these specifics to the general is deductively impossible, so we substitute statistical induction. Our senses are flawed, but they are connected to reality, and the only means we have of identifying specifics.
Reltzik 2 months ago
I won't mirror the common comments about burden of proof, assumptions, etc. Instead, I'll explain the importance of observation. Analytical logic alone cannot show all specifics to be true, because any specific conclusion must be based on a specific premise. We need to know something before logic tells us something else. We can come up with a million contradictory theoretical models of how the universe functions, but if we want a sense of which if any is true, then we need (more)
Reltzik 2 months ago
Why are you pushing the burden of proof off onto non-believers who require proof? Qualified judges understand that even if an argument is logically consistent it still requires proof to be a sound argument. Simple validity doesn't provide enough weight for acceptance, esp blind acceptance.
jamesejudy3 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sounds alot like Pseudo science which is just a series of philisophical backflips to try and prove something that can't be proven with Basic Logic. Why is Athiesm Absurd? I'm surprised the only way thiests can only attempt to prove a God is through complex hoops. If you have to do loops and tip toe around the real issues, then you're absurd, not people who don't believe in your God because theirs no logical evidence for it.
handsup48 3 months ago
Comment removed
handsup48 3 months ago
1. "observation" doesn't (necessarily) mean "using our senses". most of modern science is based on observing phenomena that is not observable directly by our senses.
MidnightSt 3 months ago
@MidnightSt
2. logic is a good tool, but christians violate logic even on the beginning, with their "prove that god doesn't exist" request, therefore it is pretty silly to hear them reference logic and claim that they are able to use it. they are (mostly) not. and from my personal experience i know that the more logical/reasonable person is, the more difficulty they have to explain and defend religion, which is an interesting (at least) corellation.
MidnightSt 3 months ago
@MidnightSt "observation" doesn't (necessarily) mean "using our senses"."
Yet we must eventually "observe" it as data as some point ... such as with mathematics, or logic. My point in making this video was to demonstrate through logic that not everything need not be observable in the physical sense. For instance, a logical proof is method of demonstration and is observable. Correct?
Your point 2 is a rant not worthy of comment, and your correlation doesn't exist - you just wish that it did
namesameasu 3 months ago
@namesameasu logical proof is NOT EVIDENCE of existence, nor of "subsistence", nor of reality. Logic is useless and pointless without FACTS. Observable, Testable, Independently Verifiable Facts.
hardinmichael1981 1 month ago
What is with the shit sound effects.
krissyeh 3 months ago
We do not know what caused the universe and your wild, unfounded, assertions are not justified. Some of them dont even make sense. You are making an ### of yourself in these videos then trying to defend them.
"You're not being mean, just wrong" -good job on being cheeky. Its easy for anyone to just say your wrong. so I will now engage in saying to you. YOU ARE WRONG SIR. I can tell your a smart guy, I sincerely hope you look up skepticism and give it a shot sometime.
MrAtheistGuy1 3 months ago
@MrAtheistGuy1 "your wild, unfounded, assertions are not justified"
Which ones?
"I sincerely hope you look up skepticism and give it a shot sometime."
That's where I started out when I realized not everything has to be necessarily physical.
namesameasu 3 months ago
@namesameasu Then start over and try again because you completely screwed up the first time. And you make assertions left and right about things you couldn't possibly know. Like what happened during or before the big bang. The fact that you don;t see them as assertions is a major part of the problem. You keep telling others to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate. Time to follow ones own advice.
MrAtheistGuy1 1 month ago
There's an old saying out there, "Smart people are very good at rationalizing beliefs they've come to believe for irrational reasons."
The problem with your argument is the assertion of multiple invalid premises which seem logically valid but are utterly flawed. The universe is not constrained by just space and time, cause and affect do not necessarily apply outside the 3rd dimension and you cannot assert knowledge outside of the observable universe (just to name a few flaws)
koolanator 3 months ago
@koolanator "The universe is not constrained by just space and time"
But it is constrained by space-time ... correct?
"cause and affect do not necessarily apply outside the 3rd dimension"
Sure, but an effect may very well be the dimensions themselves, the cause of which would be eternal.
"you cannot assert knowledge outside of the observable universe"
According to you, one can't assert with applied logic?
namesameasu 3 months ago
@namesameasu "But it is constrained by space-time... correct?"
No... the universe most likely exists in a higher dimension... our observable universe is most likely confined by that dimension... but we don't know the constraints on that dimension.
"Sure, but an effect may very well be the dimensions themselves, the cause of which would be eternal." You can't make that assertion.
"one can't assert with applied logic?"
Nope... not outside the observed universe. i.e. singularities.
koolanator 3 months ago
@koolanator "the universe most likely exists in a higher dimension"
So, then, you're saying the "universe" exists beyond space-time, and is eternal. So I gather then it's not physical?
" You can't make that assertion"
it may not sound to you physically possible, but it's still logically possible.
"i.e. singularities"
First of all, not every physicist agrees with the possibility of singularities. Secondly, singularities aren't all that illogical.
namesameasu 3 months ago
@namesameasu You are still making assertions. You need to go back to the drawing board, read what everyone says to you and fix the fallacies. I offered up a review and pointed a few problems... get them fixed and the conversation can continue.
koolanator 3 months ago
I want to assure you that...you're not a christian.
I know you think you are, and I know that you consider yourself to be, but you're not. Absolutely none of this can be shown to be the god of the bible without doing some severe mental backflips to get there. Semantical contortions the lieks of which making it seem like the Bhagavad Gita knew about the big bang would be required to show that the god of the bible was responsible for the big bang. you're a deist...who likes Jesus, and that's it
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi "you're not a christian"
I believe Christ as our savior ... so I'm a Christian.
"none of this can be shown to be the god of the bible"
It's perfectly consistent with everything in the BIble. "Pure reason" would be a jealous God, because God is meaningful in space-time through our faith, will and abilities.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu You need to read a specific book, "Why Christianity must Change, or Die." by Bishop Shelby Spong.
BigLundi 4 months ago
lol i agree with your video! your god is a non-entity that exists outside space-time. and if he exists outside of space-time how could he influence space-time especially if hes a non-entity. there may have been a pre-existing state before the universe, but your wild assumptions on what it is can't be proven and they have nor reason to consider them over another explanation. like your other video its and argument from incredulity with some special pleading mixed in. sorry not trying to be mean.
MrAtheistGuy1 4 months ago
@MrAtheistGuy1 "how could he influence space-time "
Through us, naturally. The unity of opposite: Transcendence = Imminence. External = internal, etc.
"special pleading"
Special pleading is on the part of the atheist: Nothing physcial comes from nothing, except the universe; everything phsyical is caused by something, except the universe, etc. The fact that God doesn't have a cause is justified: non-physical. "sorry not trying to be mean."
You're not being mean, just wrong.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu Sir, you need to turn that re-verb/effect off your mic... its unbearable... I mean WTF?! wtf were you thinking when making this video with that audio? or did you record this on a carrot?
KissMyCarp 3 months ago
DAMN. it didn't work.
My Atheism must be invulnerable to your argument
and your annoying hypno-voice modulator!
jamesejudy3 4 months ago
@jamesejudy3 "My Atheism must be invulnerable to your argument"
Well, you have to come into the video being objective.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu
really? are you being "objective"? No. You're trying to justify your irrational belief system.
jamesejudy3 3 months ago
@jamesejudy3 "really? are you being "objective"? No. You're trying to justify your irrational belief system."
... and what point in the video did that happen? Nowhere?
namesameasu 3 months ago
@namesameasu
you're obviously laying out a very convoluted path to where you assert that atheists are supposed to somehow prove how the human mind can "mirror and conceive of all reality" (which the human mind cannot possible do & any qualified expert will tell you that) and "yet wasn't intelligently designed", which is where you push the burden of proof for disproving existence of a 1st Cause / Intelligent Designer. >FAIL<
Your halting speech pattern and crappy sound effects don't help either.
jamesejudy3 3 months ago
At 43 seconds your bias takes over and you lose any credibility regarding logic. By the time you have finished you have proven something... you have proven that no one knows what is beyond space and time. You then magically jump to the assumption that because no one knows, it must therefore be an invisible sky daddy. Your argument is a fallacy; an argument from ignorance. This is basic college freshman material here; logic 101.
whanethewhip 4 months ago
@whanethewhip "You then magically jump to the assumption that because no one knows,...."
Only one known thing could so subsist: pure mind.
" it must therefore be an invisible sky daddy""
Sky daddy? How can a sky subsist beyond space-time and get a woman pregnant? Aren't you really referring to the Mighty Strawman, here?
" logic 101"
You need to go back to school and restudy this course.
namesameasu 4 months ago
@namesameasu I can see that any intelligent thought is going to be lost on you so let me dumb this down for you. Your argument is old and tired and all over YT in various form, the only thing new you bring is the echo to your voice which is funny since you are merely echoing what others have already said so many times before. Logical arguments cannot proof the super-natural because logic relies on what is natural and hence real. Take more logic classes & fewer philosophy classes.
whanethewhip 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@namesameasu You are brainwashed.
nath147 4 months ago
Wait a second! Is that it? Is there more video? I thought there was going to be proof!
Isn't it convenient that the religious make their god unobservable? It's worth mentioning that all other imaginary things are also unobservable. This isn't proof, it's a copout.
O1OO11OO1O11O 5 months ago
We define "cause and effect" as a chain of events, where one event is called the "cause" of another, which is called the "effect". An effect then is itself the cause for at least one other effect.
Does that mean that the universe follows our definition and must have a cause for every event? - Of course not. Our definition is just practical for what we want to do with it.
The universe can very well have a first state that doesn't have a cause. Why not?
MadocDoyu 5 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von namesameasu
I thumbed you down because I got everything I needed to know about your argument from the fact you decided to use a echo voice effect.
How about a little professionalism.
jamesthesane 5 months ago 10
@jamesthesane "How about a little professionalism."
Professionalism is a matter of interpretation.
"I thumbed you down because I got everything I needed to know about your argument from the fact you decided to use a echo voice effect"
... of which you show none here.
namesameasu 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@namesameasu
"Professionalism is a matter of interpretation."
Not when it comes to such a huge blunder. Congratulations, you have just made your video impossible to listen to.
uvauva2 5 months ago in playlist More videos from namesameasu
@namesameasu Let's just say that if you try to turn in a term paper to a professor in comic sans he would give it back. Because if you did that you would be an idiot. Just like you would be an idiot if you added cheezy reverb effects on your tired god argument. Do you really think this makes you sound better? It makes you sound hard to take seriously. Maybe MLK should've put an echo on. I have a dream-eam-eam-eam.......
keeper253x 5 months ago
Not gonna bother with a step-by-step on this one.
The Stupid, it BURNS!
weirddudeonice 5 months ago
REVERB
SeanathenII 5 months ago
All I head was "something cannot come from nothing"
HOLY SHIT THE BIG BANG THEORY SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THAT, IT NEVER DID ASSERT THAT, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT AGAIN.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 5 months ago 2
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD ""something cannot come from nothing"
I'm referring to the first big bang, not necessarily our big bang. I'm already assuming mulitverse because there's been more than one singularity. The claim above, though, has never been disproven. All physics claims to discredit it fail logically.
namesameasu 5 months ago
@namesameasu you have no idea what you're talking about
WHAT FIRST BIG BANG? the big bang theory only covers what occured after it happened, not before or during.
is there any evidence for a multi singularity? do you even know what those are? of course you don't you're just bending real science so it fits your agenda, and guess what...
No one else believes this crap.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 5 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "is there any evidence for a multi singularity?"
The idea of there having been more than one singularity isn't a controversial idea in physics. Look it up.
"the big bang theory only covers what occured after it happened, not before or during"
Our universe is what happened after our big bang. So since our universe still exists, are you saying the big bang likewise continues to exist as well?
namesameasu 5 months ago
@namesameasu Thats not the point, there isn't any indirect or observable evidence for the multiple singularities that occurred before hand.
And no, looking it up only leads to speculations on what happened before hand, Stephen Hawking already said that the theory should only include that it happened and what happened after.
second statement, I have no idea where you were going on this so I'm simply going to say give a more relevant answer
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 5 months ago
@namesameasu Everyone claims that somthing comes from nothing.
Even theists.
Yahweigh 5 months ago
@Yahweigh "Everyone claims that somthing comes from nothing. Even theists."
No, theists believe in a foundation that all things derive from.
namesameasu 5 months ago
@namesameasu What did god create everything from?
Yahweigh 5 months ago
I was going to say that this is one of the most intellectually dishonest videos I've seen for a long time, but I won’t waste my breath as the masses have already spoken. Ooops, too late.
BumJungle 5 months ago
@BumJungle "I was going to say that this is one of the most intellectually dishonest videos I've seen for a long time"
How? Do you not have an argument in your favor?
namesameasu 5 months ago
@namesameasu I don't want to enter into a debate relating to the various hypothesis aiming to favour one point of conjecture over another. I take issue with the fact you're asserting a 'proof' of something other than ones ability to 'guess'. We can all guess. Some of us are more intellectually honest and admit we don't know, while others claim a position of all knowing arrogance claiming to conveniently know all the answers, often involving some variation of a God'. I'd rather know HOW?!
BumJungle 5 months ago 3
@BumJungle "I take issue with the fact you're asserting a 'proof' of something other than ones ability to 'guess'"
It's no longer a guess when only one assumption is possible: pure mind as God
namesameasu 5 months ago
@namesameasu I rest my case.
BumJungle 5 months ago
@BumJungle " I rest my case"
I prove my point, and yet this is your verdict? I appeal the court for a change of venue. This jury is biased!
namesameasu 5 months ago
Your failed logic can be simplified as ' I don’t know (humans don’t know) so God dunnit'.
That failed logic is one of the reasons why humans invented religion in the first place, to fill in the gaps in our knowledge with supernatural explanations. So let’s not try to use science (the study of nature) as the basis to explain the supernatural (outside of nature).
tafftastic 6 months ago 23
@tafftastic Please come up with an original criticism before commenting.
Thanks.
namesameasu 6 months ago
@namesameasu
Please come up with an intelligent proof before uploading.
Thanks.
Kinin4 6 months ago 19
@namesameasu It’s often the blatantly obvious logical facts that get people such as yourself so wound up about when the masses point out your failings isn’t it ? Logic fails, everyone tells you your logic is fundamentally flawed, yet you’re unable to accept facts are facts. Keep burying your head in the sand my friend. That logic and rational thinking can be scary for some, to others its simply referred to as ‘common sense’.
venomfanex 6 months ago 3
@venomfanex Thanks for your voice of superiority, but your "logic" fails. You see, your comment is filled with metaphysical claims, yet you seem to reject metaphysics.
"Facts are facts" -- Isn't this the law of excluded middle?
Why you prioritize "common sense" over logical reasoning is anybody's guess.
namesameasu 6 months ago
@namesameasu
Your logic is fundamentally flawed, using metaphysics where standard model physics already exists, filling the gaps in your knowledge with a God, assumptions, conjecture and several leaps of faith is a very weak argument, and arguments from ignorance are always doomed to fail, as illustrated by the overwhelming number of negative comments and thumbs down to your video.
venomfanex 6 months ago 2
@venomfanex More metaphysics on your part.
Heres an example of a classic argument from ignorance: "God doesn't exist, because nobody has ever seen God."
"the overwhelming number of negative comments and thumbs down to your video"
Atheists tend to thumb-down videos correctly showing the faults of atheism.
namesameasu 6 months ago
@namesameasu Metaphyscis - a term often misused by someone in the belief they're putting forward a rational argument for an irrational claim. Logic fail. Again.
venomfanex 5 months ago 2
@namesameasu Your comment is proof positive that, 'if you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any religious people'.
I make no apology for the fact that I'm with the majority - your use of logic is appalling.
tafftastic 5 months ago 2
@tafftastic "your use of logic is appalling."
How?
namesameasu 5 months ago
@namesameasu Because you're filling the gaps in your/our knowledge with assumptions and conjecture. There are also some very good hypothesis in relation to the 'cause' behind the rapid expansion of the universe. Filling a gap in ones knowledge with something else outside of our realms of knowledge isn't logical, at best it's a guess, and yours is a far fetched. I'm not saying you're wrong - but there are an infinite other potential possibilities that are far more likely that 'God dunnit'.
tafftastic 5 months ago
@tafftastic "assumptions and conjecture"
Do you reduce the use of logic as being nothing more than assuming and guesswork? Do you only accept the physical for that which is real?
"some very good hypotheses"
Do they account for consciousness: how our brain unthinkingly became a thinking thing that thinks itself (i.e, absurdity conclusion #2)? If not, then these hypotheses are insufficient.
namesameasu 5 months ago
@namesameasu Logic is the process of reasoning, and I don’t see any reasoning in your logic. All you have is a gap in your (our) knowledge & you're filling the void with a supernatural entity that's outside of your knowledge of understanding. A double whammy!
As for 'they' accounting for consciousness you'd need to talk to a biologist who can demonstrate (as can most good drug dealers) that consciousness is a biochemical process. Outside of this - again conjecture that you're filling with God.
tafftastic 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheTlkloes 5 months ago
"smart people can be really good at finding reasons to believe in non-smart things." -hitchens
this is a weak attempt to use physics to prove god. if you could prove god then there would be no faith necessary to believe in him, so you are contradicting yourself. nice try.
ProjectSalvo 6 months ago 2
In conclusion, your video could hardly chink any argument, the fact that it is a video to disprove Atheists arguments, and then later becomes a discussion on why Atheists are wrong at doing such and such makes it cave in on it's self.
This might offend you, but your video lacks a lot of logic to go in with out any cited evidence in your transcript and then ask your viewers to take a leap of faith is like going against a army with guns trying to defeat them with a knife and wits.
CrimsonWar5 7 months ago
The second conclusion is asinine, because if you want to say it in another point of view it's "Humans are able to use logic to survey their surroundings and realize what is going on around them, even though they were not originally designed that way" evolution has all ready prove this, passing genes on over thousands and billions of years to get where we are to day (call me an Atheist if you want) and when I say evolution, I mean changing as a whole and not individually... (finishing up)
CrimsonWar5 7 months ago
The first conclusion assumes that observation can be the only way to prove evidence, when observation can be using all the of the 5 senses and other evidence such as rocks, animals, corpses, and other objects can be used as evidence to prove the validity of something....(on and on I go)
CrimsonWar5 7 months ago
A good example of the contradictions is the video is "AN INDIRECT PROOF OF GOD" yet you try to be direct with your non-cited/credible "evidence, another would be the conclusions you have made (from what I expect to be assumption, and very broad ones at that).... (still going on)
CrimsonWar5 7 months ago
The problem your video mostly has is it claims in many places to disprove Atheist arguments when you do not prove your sources and information asking all your, a lot of your content is also too expansive which can make it hard to keep up with your argument. Too much of the "evidence" is contradicting and irrelevant, and your not even saying what your argument is truly pointing to (i.e. This disproves that god doesn't exist, or Atheists go about how they prove others wrong)... (going on)
CrimsonWar5 7 months ago
My point of view, is this video is very irrelevant and bias. Atheist/Scientists (I am not implying they are the same) would not just use observation, there must be further evidence and testing, and steps must be used to make the investigation or "evidence" valid or credible (whichever would fit in the situation)... (continuing on to the next part)
CrimsonWar5 7 months ago
1. tell me how you know the system at work needs a reason outside of itself to "begin" (at well just say the big bang). 2. how is it that you picture anything existing outside of spacetime, when all that exists is space-time? 1. the system perpetuates itself and runs for its own purpose. 2. both things and immaterial things are included inside existence, nothing is outside of what is, what you see right before you. i wont say im an aethist but you can never prove god buddy. nice try
DCampy324 7 months ago
@DCampy324 "tell me how you know the system at work needs a reason outside of itself to "begin"
Because if we accept physics' "atheist" answer that virtual particles pop into existence without cause -- what they mean is that an effect SEEMS to appear spontaneously AFTER the cause. Logically, I ask: how can an effect exist without a cause? Defies logic. For me, logic trumps physics. Also, the explanation offered by physics says more about our limits of observation than it does reality.
namesameasu 6 months ago
@DCampy324 "how is it that you picture anything existing outside of spacetime"
By asking myself, what would be beyond measurement?
"both things and immaterial things are included inside existence"
Even the well-known atheist Bertrand Russell accepted ideas outside of existence. He did this regarding universal concepts (such as "tableness"). They seem to exist as foundational concepts. He called this :subsisting." God would just be the foundation for everything.
namesameasu 6 months ago
why did god give you a shitty microphone?
Nightwisher87 7 months ago
wow this video really proves that God exists!!!!!!
HAIL TO THE FLYING SPAGUETTI MONSTER, the only true god
and death to the infidels who believe in the magic space tea pot
patataton 7 months ago
@patataton Anything besides pure reason would go against Ockham's razor.
How would noodles exist beyond space-time? Tea leaves? They wouldn't. So why add them to the all-powerful?
namesameasu 7 months ago
@namesameasu why add them? because they're tasty
the FSM is not subject of the laws of physics, because he choose to not be. the same way he choose not to leave any evidence of his existence.
infidel, feel the power of his balls... of noodles
patataton 7 months ago
@patataton There's nothing necessary about the culinary arts except a clean kitchen. Unfortunately, your noodle ingredients is filled with stubble left over from Ockhams razor of "mutiplying entities beyond necessity."
Get off the starches and diet upon some chemical-free pure reason for a while.
"the same way he choose not to leave any evidence of his existence"
Apparenly, there's no trace of pure reason to be found in your ideas.
namesameasu 7 months ago
@namesameasu the FSM is all mighty so he can contradict any law of physics.
unlike the fake god of christians who claims to do the same, but is obviously false
one day you'll see the sauce too and be saved
patataton 7 months ago
@patataton Your analogy still doesn't work. The God of the Bible is without physical description, except as Jesus Christ. The Word is translated from the term LOGOS (reason).
I would say nice try, but I believe your sauce is borrowed and passed the expiration date.
namesameasu 7 months ago
@namesameasu "except" is the key word that destroys your argument
so the god of the bible doesn't have a physical form, except when he does.
that has no sense
at least the FSM states that he choose to have have physical and/or ethereal form as he pleases
see the sauce brother
patataton 7 months ago
@patataton "that has no sense"
Why? Opposites are interrelated.
namesameasu 7 months ago
@TLSlayer1 I would say thanks for watching my video, but it doesn't seem that you actually had watched it before you rated it, negatively.
Supposedly, theists have the "burden of proof." So I provide one here. Likewise, atheists have the "burden of cooperating" since they accept that title of athiest only because of a rejection. An atheist needs to demonstrate a willingness to listen to diverse views in order to be as open-minded as many claim to be, as opposed to stubborn and hard-headed.
namesameasu 7 months ago
Sorry but FAIL ! You see when choosing your axioms you have to be very carefull that they can really be used as one. One of your axioms is everything but an axiom. You think everything needs a cause, but that is not so. We know of many things that happen without a casue, for example particle decay.
btw the voice sucks, to much halleffect
MrRichardQED 7 months ago
@MrRichardQED We know of possibly one thing without cause: particle decay -- which is due to instability and uncertainty more than due to eternity.
namesameasu 7 months ago
@namesameasu which is due to instability and uncertainty more than due to eternity.
Could you please explain what you mean by that ? It may be the language barrier, but i dont think you are making sense here.
Back to the argument : even if that where really the only thing we know of that happens without a cause that is allready enough to utterly destroy your argument. Your axiom mustnt have any exceptions, having even one makes it invalid and thereby knocks away your base
MrRichardQED 7 months ago
@MrRichardQED Virtual particles are said to derive spontaneously, and that's why they're "without cause."
But how is a "spontaneous process" synonymous with "without cause"? I never understood these claims from science. I'm supposing you do since you brought it up.
Also, "decaying" is a process. Processes ultimately begin from some cause, as they occur in space-time. How, in this case, would a process be without an initial cause, besides just saying its spontaneous?
(continued)
namesameasu 7 months ago
@namesameasu To really understand how and why you need to understand the basics of quantummechanics, quantumelectrodynamics, quantumchromodynamics and a lot of other stuff concerning particle physics. Not on a professional level, but at least on a popular science level if not even a bit deeper. I will PM you on this, cause this definitly needs more space ^^
MrRichardQED 7 months ago
@namesameasu I think now that you know your argument is invalid you should take the video down. Keeping it up would be dishonest dont you think ?
btw did you really think philosophy somehow overlooked that argument and that you really could singlehandedly destroy a philosophy that exists for thousands of years allready ? Thats a bit arrogant dont you think ? Many great minds have wrestled these questions. If you are really interested in them you should read what they found out.
MrRichardQED 7 months ago
@MrRichardQED Spontanaeity seems more to say about our perception than it does about reality.
If you can answer these questions, maybe I'll consider taking down the video, or adapting it.
Thanks.
"Here we are restricted to too few words for a philosophical debate"
However,as these questions only require scientific explanations, they require few words.
namesameasu 7 months ago
@namesameasu But i must admit you really gave that some thought and tried to apply logic and reason instead of dogmatism and bible quotes. I wish more christians would do that, it would really change the debate and make it much more constructive. If you want to we can discuss your argument further, but then i would like to do it outside the comment section. Here we are restricted to too few words for a philosophical debate, we cant link properly etc.etc.etc. Just PM me if you like a challenge ^^
MrRichardQED 7 months ago
How do you know that the only thing that can exist outside of space-time is God? Do you have evidence for this assertion. Couldn't there be more than 1? Or none at all? How do you know God exists outside of space-time at all. If you can know anything about it then it exists partially IN this universe and therefore subject to our physical laws.
adam3251 8 months ago
@adam3251 "How do you know that the only thing that can exist outside of space-time is God?"
Because more than one thing would be quantifative and would conceptually imply space-time.
"How do you know God exists outside of space-time at all"
Becuz then God would require a cause. This isn't special pleading becuz only God would be absolute and only one absolute would ultimately subsist -- otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. If you don't believe in absolutes, then how could you assert it?
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu "Because more than one thing would be quantifative and would conceptually imply space-time."
I don't know what you mean here. 'Quantifative' is not a word and the whole sentence hinges on it. This statement is inherently, and quite literally meaningless.
"Becuz then God would require a cause."
This is special pleading but that doesn't matter. My question goes to epistemology. How do you KNOW what the qualities of this 'god' thing are?
adam3251 8 months ago
@adam3251 Quantitative - having to do with quantities
This isn't special pleading because only one thing CAN be truly absolute by the definiton of absoluteness. God and pure "absoluteness" would be isomorphic. This is why most atheists likewise don't believe in absolutes. But if you deny absolutes altogether there couldn't be any certain propositions. God is just a label for absolute reason: all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful - representing the 3 most important goals of any truthseeker
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Actually you are using 'absolute' to mean two different things here. There is no absolute time. If you want to dispute me on this then dig up Einstein and argue with him. Your argument here is viciously circular and a poor attempt at mixing the Ontological and Cosmological arguments. I'll ask you again. How do you know what qualities this god has? Are you just assuming them? You don't seem to lack an elementary grasp of basic cosmology.
adam3251 8 months ago
@adam3251 "There is no absolute time"
Who claims there was? Eternal just means neither space nor time would be factors relating to such a "thing" as God. There's nothing circular about defining God as absolute reason and then consistently using that definition. If you disagree with it, then you may say I'm begging the question. But then I would like to know how you would define God. If you simply say a "myth", then I would ask for a more thorough account. What is it about God do you reject?
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu I would define God as a theoretical construct, or a fictional character. Imagine Peter Pan, in your head. That character is real in the same sense your God is real. Back to the topic at hand. If you are defining god as existing outside of space and time then you have no reason to believe this thing exists. If it is also logically consistent then it must be in reality to exist. I can accept this definition entirely because then the God you believe in is just as real as mine.
adam3251 8 months ago
@adam3251 "Imagine Peter Pan"
Peter Pan flies. How would Peter fly without space-time? You're comparing apples to oranges.
"then you have no reason to believe this thing exists"
According to the atheist Bertrand Russell, universal ideas such as beauty and justice are said to beyond space-time, yet such ideas motivate us to do things. Should we doubt these constructs, as well?
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Russell was wrong. If this thing exists outside of space and time how can you know anything about it? You can't just make things up and then assert that it exists. If it doesn't interact with reality then it has all the properties of non-existence. If you can know anything about it then it must have some element that is in this Universe and is subject to its laws. Can you demonstrate the existence of this entity? If not then it doesn't exist in any useful sense.
adam3251 8 months ago
@adam3251 For every concept there's an opposite. If we didn't know a concept's opposite, we wouldn't know the concept. Imagine if day consisted only of light, and everything would appear as though it was 1PM 24 hours a day, would we have any observable concept of daytime? No. Observable concepts all consist of a unity of opposites. In regards to God that unity would be transcendence = imminence / external = internal. Although God has no opposite, God's presence does within ourselves.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu This is where your arguments have now gone off the deep end. There is NOT an opposite for every concept. Take for example Red. What is red's opposite? So does your god exist outside of space and time or does it sometimes exist "within ourselves"? This is a glaring and blatant contradiction. You have finally gone off the deep end here.
adam3251 8 months ago
@adam3251 There's no deep end. The opposite or red would be any other color in which it's relative to. How would you know a concept if it wasn't relative to something else? If you can answer this, then you've made your point.. But any concept is most relative to it's known opposite. If it's a concept made up of other concepts (red, for instance, is a combination of brown and yellow, I believe), it's opposite is any other among its category for which it's not. Black/white are the basic colors
namesameasu 8 months ago
@adam3251 "So does your god exist outside of space and time or does it sometimes exist "within ourselves"?"
Both: Transcendence and imminence refer to the same concept. Imminence is as directly inaccessible as transcendence. Has consciousness ever been directly observed in a laboratory as the phenomenon is perceived first-hand in another? No. Does that mean consciousness of others doesn't exist? No.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu If this 'god' sometimes exists with in space and time then where is the evidence for this unsupported assertion? Ill will ask you one more time and then I will disengage. Your refusal to address your epistemology is dishonest and dishonorable. How do you know anything about this god? I have asked you several times and you refuse to answer this simple fact. I see three possibilities: voices in your head, a dusty old myth book, or you are just making shit up. Which is it?
adam3251 8 months ago
@adam3251 "Your refusal to address your epistemology is dishonest and dishonorable"
???? The epistemology is the unity of opposition and foundationalism.
"How do you know anything about this god?"
Spitiuality, logic, intuition. Sam Harris writes books on spirituality. Ask him.
" I will disengage"
in order to protect and maintain your automatic pilot of atheist linearity, maybe you should disengage. Roger wilco and out. God speed ahead.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu "The epistemology is the unity of opposition and foundationalism." IE You are making this shit up, nice work sir. That is the great thing about the western world is that you can make up whatever batshit theory, have no evidence or reasoned arguments to back it up and then just wave your hands and demand attention.
"in order to protect and maintain your automatic pilot of atheist linearity"
You have no idea what my opinions are as I have not stated them.
adam3251 8 months ago
@adam3251 "have no evidence or reasoned arguments"
I gave you a reasoned argument.. I don't know if you noticed it, but your criticism of the unity of opposition idea failed: "red" is a composite concept, as I told you. "Foundationalism" is a well-established epistemic theory. It's not "made-up" by me.
"You have no idea what my opinions are"
You display your opinion every time you respond subjectively to my replies, rather than objectively. It's your will not to believe in God.
namesameasu 8 months ago
I couldn't listen long enough to form an opinion. What's wrong with the sound?
prescod 8 months ago
1) Turn off that horribly annoying special effect. 2) Cause cannot occur outside of time. Cause and effect require time.
Defining your god as being outside of verification does not refute the argument for holding evidence-based beliefs. The human mind is not physically capable of conceiving all of reality, which is why we create MODELS of reality.
kubush 8 months ago
@kubush "Are you forgetting deism? polytheism? pantheism? buddhism?"
How many atheists speak against Buddhism?
2) "Cause-effect" is a physical event. But cause or effect would either lead to or follow from events. They're not necessarily events themselves.
"evidence-based beliefs" - would you accept a good logical argument as evidence?
"which is why we create MODELS of reality" -- like God?
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu "like God?" No. God is not a model. God is a magical explanation with no actual evidence to support it. A model represents something that exists.
"How many atheists speak against Buddhism?" I think you missed the point.
Sure, a good logical argument can be a form of evidence but in many cases it is insufficient. Ex: logically, big foot can exist, but having logical consistency doesn't make it true. Do you know what I'm saying?
kubush 8 months ago
@kubush "A model represents something that exists."
So to expect a model for God would be question-begging. God wouldn't exist, but subsist.
"I think you missed the point"
Which was?
"big foot can exist"
This is because Big Foot wouldn't be purely metaphysical, but a physical construct.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu "God wouldn't exist, but subsist." Explain.
The point was disproving atheism (which I don't agree that you did) does not logically mean that theism is correct.
What does that matter? Again, you missed the point. The point being, being logical does not necessitate existence. The thing in question must be logical but being logical is not sufficient to exist.
kubush 8 months ago
@namesameasu Cause and effect is a temporal event. You have to have one prior to the other. If you remove time, you remove the link between the two, therefor time is a necessary characteristic of existence. Nothing can be "outside" of time.
kubush 8 months ago
@kubush " time is a necessary characteristic of existence"
Nobody's removing time in regards to existence. Existential things are not in doubt. But God would subsist -- meaning God would be a founation of existence, beyond existence itself. A "cause" wouldn't be known as a cause until linked with cause-effect. Such an initial factor, however, may just as well be a state of affairs as opposed to an event, similar to how an epiphany is distinguishable from a thought.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Saying something exists beyond existence is illogical. Do you admit that a cause and effect relationship requires time? Two events occurring in the same "moment" cannot be caused one by the other. A progression of time is required. Of course we also know that time is inherently part of space itself. Making it even more obvious that it is a necessary condition of existence.
kubush 8 months ago
@namesameasu buddism, taoism and other such eastern cultures are a way of life compared to chrisianity and other western cultures attempt to force their own beliefs on others. Buddists do not.
im not saying all christians do. i met a priest today who is a very happy man and very easy to talk to. you are not, attempting and failing to prove that god exists.
needpowershots 8 months ago
@needpowershots "attempting and failing to prove that god exists"
Where did I fail? When you weren't listening?
namesameasu 8 months ago
I was going to point out how weak and self-contradictory this "argument" is, but then I realised the sound effect that makes him sound like he's speaking in an echo chamber bolsters the reasoning and makes it irrefutable.
holzpusher 9 months ago
So, essentially, everything requires a cause, and one cannot be its own cause. So, in order for the universe to exist, there then must be something that is eternal.
Ahem. Matter is eternal. There. I just solved that problem.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi Well, since matter is typically defined as the general term for physical substances, in order to not be a strict physicalist, you're better off designating such an external state of affairs as "substance" itself. What you then come up with is a whole pandora's box that much of Western philosophy consists of, including the key theories offered by the Christian scholastics of Medieval times (e.g, Scotus, Ockham, etc.).
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu I don't really see a 'pandora's box' at all. The first law of thermodynamics. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It's very simple.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi Well, if the big bang created space-time, then where and when was matter without space-time, and how did it exist? A "transcendent physicality," or even "non-space-time matter" seem to be oxymorons, since everything physical is said to have boundaries.
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu Matter itself can exist without space, or time. Space is the nonexistence of matter, and Time is relative to space existing. So matter existing without space and time is entirely plausible. And don't get me wrong, that's not the only issue I have with your little video here. You've named what you term to be 'axioms' that not everyone agrees on, in fact, your title is very misleading. Nothing about this is a proof for God, indirect or otherwise. It's just violation of Occam's Razor.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi How could matter not occupy space? Do you have an example? You're also implying that matter isn't necessarily quantitative. Your reduction to avoid God-talk seems to redefine "matter" for the special purpose of eliminating God. I can say that everything is matter, too, but it won't mean much unless I define what I mean by "matter."
Ockham's razor warns not to multiply entities beyond necessity. Still seems to me that God is necessary.
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu I'm not redefining matter. I've been using it colloquially this entire time. Yes, I can give an example of matter existing without space. It's called quantum mechanics. Several things Quantum Mechanics can show is is that matter, at its very basic form, exists without space. The space around it is what exists, but the matter itself contains no space. It also shows us that, on a quantum level, things can literaly 'come into being'. randomly.
This tells me God isn't necessary.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi "The space around it is what exists, but the matter itself contains no space"
The space around what? Defies logic. Virtual particles exist for a limited amount of space-time. How could a process occur without space-time by your account?
"on a quantum level, things can literaly 'come into being'. randomly."
... because we're unable to observe the order: Indeterminacy.
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu The creation of space time was a spontaneous thing. There was no space, and there was no time, but there was matter. I can't see how you don't understand this concept.
The fact is, the argument says that something has to be eternal in order for everything to exist. And the fact remains that nothing about science demonstrates any sort of proof for a god, including the knowledge of the Big Bang.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi "I can't see how you don't understand this concept"
The question is: Do you? If you cannot explain it, why should I believe you understand it?
"And the fact remains that nothing about science demonstrates any sort of proof for a god"
Science is a field that studies quantifiable data. So why should we even expect science to come up with any proof, for or against? However, science indirectly proves the existence of God by its inability to fully explain consciousness.
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu I did explain it. You're repeating yourself in ignoring my explanation that matter does not require space nor time to exist, due to space being a lack of matter, and time being relative to space.
Science doesn't prove ANYTHING about god's existence, intentionally or unintentionally. You literally just came up wit ha huge argument from ignorance, right there, "Can science explain consciousness?" "No" "Muahaha, God exists."
That's asinine.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi "matter does not require space nor time to exist, due to space being a lack of matter"
So this matter, then, lacks any kind of dimensionality? According to your statement, matter couldn't exist in space via exclusion. Yet it does. In fact, even voids are said to have density.
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu The Big Bang didn't have a void, it didn't have space, it didn't have time, prior to its occurence. So that's completely irrelevant. Matter CAN exist without either, that's what matter is.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi "You literally just came up wit ha huge argument from ignorance"
The argument right here is more like: "Can science explain consciousness?" "No" Therefore, science isn't yet a field capable of determining whether God is reason itself. The full indirect argument is exactly as it's listed above in the description column, and in my indirect proof part 2 video.
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu And it's still an argument from ignorance. It does nothing to prove god. What it DOES is it says God's a POSSIBIITY, which nobody is denying. When you assert that it's proof for a god, you're just plain wrong, because there's nothing about science's inabiity to explain ANYTHING that would prove god. An inability to explain an occurence does not then require any existence of a deity as any sort of default.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi (Pt III) "That's asinine."
Only for those who comprehend things backwards, looking for holes in any argument.
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu No, it's a logical fallacy, and logical fallacies are asinine.
And besides, if you're making an argument for the existence of god, it had better be logically valid and sound, and when I CAN poke holes in the argument? Then it's not a proof.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi The fallacy is your strawman argument: preferring to overemphasize a single comment, than the video itself.. I admit if all I had was that one comment I would be fallacious. The indirect proof is the video, not a single comment. The comment was a response to your scientism, and to that extent, not fallacious. Understand now?
"it had better be logically valid and sound"
It is. Thanks. An indirect proof of reductio ad absurdum is used very often in logic.
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu It's not a strawman. An inability to explain something, even if only temporary, is not a proof for anything else, it is simply a nonexplanation. This is how it works.
And reducto ad absurdum is used to DISprove, not prove.
BigLundi 9 months ago