What if we discovered some sort of level of existence that is exactly where we would expect to find a god, but instead we find something that perhaps has some powers a god has, (like generation a universe) and doesn't follow rules as far as we can tell, but it has no consciousness and doesn't act in a meaningful way the way our idea of supernatural things usually do. Would that thing be supernatural, or just a different level of natural existence we don't understand?
I don't know if I agree with your definition of natural. I think something that's natural is something that exists in the natural world. A feature of the natural world that we have observed is that it follows predictable laws. This leads to the problem of then defining the natural world and existence. Maybe the natural world is that which exists in the fabric of the universe, but what if there are multiple universes? cont'
Good video - well said. I've only come across TheAtheistAntidote recently but it's the same banal asenine baseless unreason delivered with the same gormless overconfidence that I've come to expect from god-bothering creobots. No new substance just a slightly different style. Nice simple rebuttal on your part. Concise and to the point ;o)
That is the best video on the this topic I've seen, well done. Also, response to: "it's called faith no need to test it" you are of course correct, you don't need to test it, because you can come to any conclusion based on faith despite it being wrong or contradictory to evidence because faith allows you to believe anything. With faith I could believe that only I exist and that everyone else is a figement of my imagination, although no one assumes that because there is nothing to support it.
and if there's evidence against that faith what would you do? You'd either stop believing in that faith or shut out reality, how is that a good thing for you or for human kind to purposely stay ignorant?
You said there is no evidence against faith for anything, but I'm assuming you mean religion because I doubt your stupid enough to assume no faith has evidence against it.
there is no evidence against the theory of a god creating the big bang, that is true, however, all religions that say a god created the universe in any other way besides the big bang HAS evidence against it and besides all of the large religions have illogcial inconsistencies within themselves.
and here's some logic for you, any monotheic all powerful omnipotent god religion would have to mean that god is evil, or there would be no suffering in this life.
if you are, I must ask you something, who created rape? I think you would say Satan, but who is responsible for the creation of Satan? God, of course, and god is omnipotent, correct? So he would already know Satan would create rape yet he allowed it to happen so god is responsible for rape and anything else bad that happens to us, this would mean that god is no better then Satan, so why would you worship him?
Correction, God did NOT "create" rape. He gave man free will and in that free will came evil -- rape. The devil takes advantage of that free will to deceive people into doing evil.
ahh and god knew the devil would do that and allowed it to happen so it was god who was responsible for it. If god loves us all soooo much why would he ever allow us to be harmed when he obviously could have stopped it? It makes no sense. God is evil if he does exist so I ask again why would you worship him?
Ok. If I had a son that I loved dearly and I tell him not to do something and he disobeyed so I punished him, it does NOT mean that I don't love him -- he made a bad CHOICE and have to pay for it. The harm you speak of is committed by those who make BAD CHOICES given the free will that was granted to them by their creator. To blame it on God, is naivete to say the least. Why would he allow it? No one knows, but there is a reason behind everything. So, I'm sorry that I did not bend to your views
No matter what my son did it would never be justice to punish him with torture and suffering for all eternity, nor would it in any way be loving or justice to convey that punishment onto my grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc for generation after generation until they committed a blood sacrifice.
God IS to blame. Free will is nothing but an apologetic cop-out to try and get away from the problem.
Well there's no in between with God. God of wrath and God of love -- to the extreme. The eternity punishment is NOT an automatic damnation given the fact that we are aware and are given the chance to CHOOSE the opposite. I admit, I'm not in any position to be the one preaching, but I do know that the CHOICE is ours. Free will is NOT an apologetic cop-out to try and get away from the problem. Rather, it IS the problem. If we had no free will, YOU too will believe in GOD today.
How do you know that? How do you know a god wouldn't want there to be atheists or non-believers, if there weren't then half of a Christians life is gone (trying to convert people to their cult) furthermore here's some more logic for you, how could a perfect being create an imperfect being? How can a perfect machine create something imperfect? It can't. It says in the bible we were created in gods image, but how is this body perfect? If god was perfect we'd be pure energy, not an organism.
Oh but that is where you are wrong my friend. What we mortals define as "imperfection" is not what God sees it as. Furthermore, while we are created in God's image we are NOT Gods nor do we hold the ability to MAINTAIN the perfection of which we WERE created with thanks to the God given free will. Moreover, the idea of being created in the "image" is just that -- an image. To answer your question, God does NOT want us to be non believers and those who knew him were a testament to this
"nor do we hold the ability to MAINTAIN the perfection of which we WERE created with" so the kid who was born(created) with his heart outside of his chest is a perfect being?
and now you're claiming god has a different definition for perfect, so that would mean he is imperfect himself according to OUR definition which is used in the bible.
and that is a prime example of him lieing to us, unless you take back what you said about him having his own definition of perfection, but then we're back into the perfect machine can't make an imperfect thing conundrum XD
Yes even that child with the chest out IS created with perfection. Like I said, we do NOT know the true meaning of perfection, but we were created perfectly, but somewhere along the line we go faulty. He did not lie to us, we just made up our own definition of perfection.
We came up with the english language and the dictionary humans DECIDE what a word means, if god did exist he'd be well past vocal language as a form of communication.
and you admit MAN wrote the bible so we used OUR definition of perfection when we wrote it or implied it in said book, This whole "god has his own definition for perfection" thing was made up by your or your priest because you had no actual argument against it, so you made it up.
if we were perfect we wouldn't have pedophilia or incest or homosexuality(I'm not against homosexuality because it doesn't harm anyone just in case someone else besides you read this(and I'm bi) that are from GENES, not from our environment. It's sinful desires we are born with even finding pleasure in taking another persons life is from a genetic problem.
Then god is a small, hateful, vindictive ass hole and the opposite of loving.
The choice between mindless faith and eternal damnation is not a choice at all. It is the illusion of choice, thus free will is also an illusion. But the fact remains God created the whole situation to start with, he could have set up anything and everything but instead he created the injustice of the heaven/hell dichotomy.
God is infinite in nature, but small-minded and petty in action. Can't have it both ways.
Actually God's intention was to be close to us and not to have anybody in hell. There was no hell to begin with. It is the disobedience that came from free will, which was supposed to be a gift to man, that brought about hell. Then came the option to OPT OUT of hell by going back to how we were initially created. While we were giving free will in begining, we were warned that there were certain things off limits -- the tree.
If there is anything off limits then it is not really free will, you just contradicted yourself, and god KNEW Adam and Eve would still go eat from that tree yet he still punished them for it and he knew there would not be followers yet he punished them for it. How does that make any sense whatsoever?
I sense a bit of anger coming from you. Take a chill pill -- this a mere dialogue, and you did not "pawn" me..quite the contrary. Just because you do not UNDERSTAND it, does not mean it is not what it is. We are NOT equipped to understand God's ways and unfortunately, atheists like you think that you know it all. However, you fail to see that the intelligence that God gave man can be his ultimate undoing. So, I'll leave with that to think about..
You're pathetic, logic is logic, there is nothing that changes it no matter how smart the person is, you fail to find arguments against what I have to say and merely crawl back in your shell of ignorance, did you know in 300 A.D. there were 8 versions of christianity, but there was a meeting of all the religios leaders for christianity to decide which one they will use, so if it really did happen there are at least 7 different forms that could be correct.
You're damn right I'm angry, I'm fed up with idiots like you, oh and did you also know there is absolutely no written history that ever spoke of this savior during that time period and there were many of the same or similar messiahs in previous religions that were born a virgin birth and many other parralels? Not only is religion bullshit, but Christianity is just a crappy rip off of older religions.
and hell, what if islam is right or buddhism or the billions of other religions in the past, there is no way to say there's is wrong w/o discrediting your own as well. You're gullible, brainwashed, delusional, and ignorant, I'm going to be so glad when idiots like you don't exist in 50 or 60 years.
Free will is not an illusion, but a gift that only those created in his image have with totality. I can allow you to do something, but it does not mean that that i would not punish if you do the wrong thing, especially if I warned you about it.
but YOU don't KNOW if the person will or not, but if you did know they would, wouldn't it make sense to STOP them from doing it? If god already knows what we're going to do and he doesn't change it then it IS an illusion, it is a predetermined path that was allowed or in other words put in place by god.
If I had a son and I told him not do something, but I KNEW he would do it and I had the power to stop him yet I didn't that makes me a bad father doesn't it? and now you're just falling back to "he's wiser then us" The fact of the matter is logic is logic, whether it is from god or humans and there is no excuse. You're god is evil and is no better then Satan, realize it you stubborn fuck.
And how is it free will when he knows what we're doing, how do we even know that it IS free will? Because it says so in the bible which was clearly written by imperfect humans? God can lie! if he does exist how do we know we aren't doing exactly what he wants us to do? Sure have your faith and slow down the evolution of our species at least there's less of you every day (I think, Islam's being a real bitch though, we need some ex-Islamics going after them now :/)
It's free will because while he knows what we're going to do, he does not interfere nor stop us. The bible is written by imperfect human beings who were inspired by God and some who witnessed it first hand. God cannot lie. I'm a bit lost about your Islamic comment. lol
the islamic thing was a tangent, since it's the second largest religion now and catching up fast. Oh and god can do whatever the fuck he wants, he's freakin' god! "How dare a mortal say god can or can't do something" (I'm sure that's a quote from some religious zealot somewhere) P:
The fact of the matter is for a logical person, they would have more peace of mind believing the bad things that happened to them were by coincidence then a fate already set by such a "loving" god.
and if you're still a christian then you obviously aren't even listening to what I am saying so there's really no point to continue because your ignorant stubborn mind won't accept logic because you've been spoon fed lies most of your life.
I think naturalism is tough to define. Certainly, being constrained to some type of lawful behavior is part of it, but that can't be enough. Astrology, numerology, and karma all superficially meet that criterion, but I'd call their claims supernatural.
Great observation that supernatural claims are devoid of constraints and that they admit no obvious means of plausibility comparison.
Well titled video. Why the hell is someone as sharp as you bothering with what that fool says?
Lawfull behavior is very strict: if this happens then this is the concequence. The reverse is also true: if this happens then this is the cause. Astrology just doesn't work that way, no accurate predictions can be made and no always applying rules can be formulated.
The physical sciences make very strict lawful predictions. But here, lawful behavior is given as a (presumably) defining feature of naturalism, not the physical sciences. It's not clear that strictness is required for this use in defining naturalism. Are the soft sciences' claims, with their hazy predictions, to be excluded?
Astrology is strict in lawfulness for how predictions follow from conditions. It's predictions are specific, in a sense, though their satisfaction is open ended.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo The soft sciences search for patterns in the behavior of millions and billions of simultaneous physical reactions built upon and interacting with millions and billions of other physical reactions by inferring downward from the result of these reactions rather than studying the reactions themselves. Thus the soft sciences study something that behaves naturalistically in a practical way, rather than a rigorous way, which explains the vagueness.
Well, I was planning on leaving you hanging, but I'll briefly sketch out why. Essentially, when people who speak of a supernatural realm, they never use the definition that urbanelf used. For all they know, there could be things that are supernatural and also follow a law-like pattern. Usually, when people talk about the supernatural, all they are referring to is what is above and beyond the physical world.
Nicely done. "Or shut the fuck up" indeed. From what I've seen of this AtheistAntidote person, he's yet to meet a hackneyed theistic talking point that he doesn't love. Very much all hat and no cattle.
These folks cannot even explain what they call 'supernatural' in any coherent way. It's a bunch of gibberish.
Great vid, UE. I wrote a comment on his video echoing the same concerns. I was reminded of a molecular biologist challenging Kent Hovind to outline any application that could come out of creation science. I doubt that even a research program could be outlined to investigate a supernatural world constrained only by our imagination.
This is a good video and I enjoyed it, however my claim was simply that one can study organisms with the presumption that they were created by God. I am not claiming the possibility or even the need to test the supernatural. You simply are strawmaning. You act as if the system for testing the natural world belongs to the atheist, when just the opposite is true.
Can you give me even one real reason why a GOD creator presumption hinders an individual researcher in any way, shape or form.?
"one can study organisms with the presumption that they were created by God"
And they do. There are scientists who believe in God. However, operationally they are doing the same things that a scientist who doesn't believe in those things is doing - reverse engineering, because the designer provided no blueprints. This is why science adopts methodological naturalism.
The presumption doesn't hinder research, but it also does nothing to further it.
If you think I am strawmaning you, what is the relationship of GOD to the scientific hypotheses explaining biological organisms?
I think there are 2 possibilities. a) The way Catholics and many protestants view science and GOD. That science reveals how GOD created biological systems through natural processes. If you agree with this, yes I'm strawmaning you.
The alternative (b) is that you think supernatural intelligence can be detected through science.
Brock both this guy and i answered your question. If you insert god into the equations then that is a x factor. One that can not be verified in our dimension. If you put god in the inspiration portion of the hypothesis. Then god is given credit without messing up the math. For every whole you put god into. It gets filled then what? I posed this several times. Maybe you should have watched past the music at the beginning. Then again this cat answered your question pretty darn good too. :)
Given the comments you made at about 7:00 you imply that supernatural intelligence can be detected, just like intelligence can be detected in art and airplanes. This makes GOD an integral component of the hypothesis and therefore must be testable.
So, there are your choices. (a) and I am strawmaning you, but GOD is totally superfluous to the scientific method. (b) and I'm not strawmaning you.
Because a scientfic theory has to be falsifiable and "simple". Adding things to a theory, like the GOD assumptions and supernatural phenomena that can't be (observed and) falsified, doesn't add anything to the theory and doesn't make it "simpler". This is two of the prime criteria of modern science.
Another thing you have missunderstood is, science doesn't take a stance on the reality of supernatural phenomena. It just states that it is not "a suitable" scientific topic.
What if we discovered some sort of level of existence that is exactly where we would expect to find a god, but instead we find something that perhaps has some powers a god has, (like generation a universe) and doesn't follow rules as far as we can tell, but it has no consciousness and doesn't act in a meaningful way the way our idea of supernatural things usually do. Would that thing be supernatural, or just a different level of natural existence we don't understand?
LanceDirk 1 year ago
I don't know if I agree with your definition of natural. I think something that's natural is something that exists in the natural world. A feature of the natural world that we have observed is that it follows predictable laws. This leads to the problem of then defining the natural world and existence. Maybe the natural world is that which exists in the fabric of the universe, but what if there are multiple universes? cont'
LanceDirk 1 year ago
verry good response,verry good video
RaLLenheimer 2 years ago
i recommend william lane craig vs john shook.
10sodot 2 years ago
Thankyou sorienor for your help in fighting against the idiocy of bigje2008 ^^
HAJS5 2 years ago 2
Good video - well said. I've only come across TheAtheistAntidote recently but it's the same banal asenine baseless unreason delivered with the same gormless overconfidence that I've come to expect from god-bothering creobots. No new substance just a slightly different style. Nice simple rebuttal on your part. Concise and to the point ;o)
dj2baduk 2 years ago
I loled at your closing statement.
Tubember 2 years ago
That is the best video on the this topic I've seen, well done. Also, response to: "it's called faith no need to test it" you are of course correct, you don't need to test it, because you can come to any conclusion based on faith despite it being wrong or contradictory to evidence because faith allows you to believe anything. With faith I could believe that only I exist and that everyone else is a figement of my imagination, although no one assumes that because there is nothing to support it.
poponimpact 2 years ago
It's called faith! No need to test it
bigje2008 2 years ago
and if there's evidence against that faith what would you do? You'd either stop believing in that faith or shut out reality, how is that a good thing for you or for human kind to purposely stay ignorant?
HAJS5 2 years ago
...but there isn't any "evidence" that has not been refuted is there.... no I think not.
bigje2008 2 years ago
You said there is no evidence against faith for anything, but I'm assuming you mean religion because I doubt your stupid enough to assume no faith has evidence against it.
there is no evidence against the theory of a god creating the big bang, that is true, however, all religions that say a god created the universe in any other way besides the big bang HAS evidence against it and besides all of the large religions have illogcial inconsistencies within themselves.
HAJS5 2 years ago
and here's some logic for you, any monotheic all powerful omnipotent god religion would have to mean that god is evil, or there would be no suffering in this life.
HAJS5 2 years ago
are you a Christian sir?
HAJS5 2 years ago
if you are, I must ask you something, who created rape? I think you would say Satan, but who is responsible for the creation of Satan? God, of course, and god is omnipotent, correct? So he would already know Satan would create rape yet he allowed it to happen so god is responsible for rape and anything else bad that happens to us, this would mean that god is no better then Satan, so why would you worship him?
HAJS5 2 years ago
Correction, God did NOT "create" rape. He gave man free will and in that free will came evil -- rape. The devil takes advantage of that free will to deceive people into doing evil.
bigje2008 2 years ago
ahh and god knew the devil would do that and allowed it to happen so it was god who was responsible for it. If god loves us all soooo much why would he ever allow us to be harmed when he obviously could have stopped it? It makes no sense. God is evil if he does exist so I ask again why would you worship him?
HAJS5 2 years ago
Ok. If I had a son that I loved dearly and I tell him not to do something and he disobeyed so I punished him, it does NOT mean that I don't love him -- he made a bad CHOICE and have to pay for it. The harm you speak of is committed by those who make BAD CHOICES given the free will that was granted to them by their creator. To blame it on God, is naivete to say the least. Why would he allow it? No one knows, but there is a reason behind everything. So, I'm sorry that I did not bend to your views
bigje2008 2 years ago
No matter what my son did it would never be justice to punish him with torture and suffering for all eternity, nor would it in any way be loving or justice to convey that punishment onto my grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc for generation after generation until they committed a blood sacrifice.
God IS to blame. Free will is nothing but an apologetic cop-out to try and get away from the problem.
sorienor 2 years ago
Well there's no in between with God. God of wrath and God of love -- to the extreme. The eternity punishment is NOT an automatic damnation given the fact that we are aware and are given the chance to CHOOSE the opposite. I admit, I'm not in any position to be the one preaching, but I do know that the CHOICE is ours. Free will is NOT an apologetic cop-out to try and get away from the problem. Rather, it IS the problem. If we had no free will, YOU too will believe in GOD today.
bigje2008 2 years ago
How do you know that? How do you know a god wouldn't want there to be atheists or non-believers, if there weren't then half of a Christians life is gone (trying to convert people to their cult) furthermore here's some more logic for you, how could a perfect being create an imperfect being? How can a perfect machine create something imperfect? It can't. It says in the bible we were created in gods image, but how is this body perfect? If god was perfect we'd be pure energy, not an organism.
HAJS5 2 years ago
Oh but that is where you are wrong my friend. What we mortals define as "imperfection" is not what God sees it as. Furthermore, while we are created in God's image we are NOT Gods nor do we hold the ability to MAINTAIN the perfection of which we WERE created with thanks to the God given free will. Moreover, the idea of being created in the "image" is just that -- an image. To answer your question, God does NOT want us to be non believers and those who knew him were a testament to this
bigje2008 2 years ago
"nor do we hold the ability to MAINTAIN the perfection of which we WERE created with" so the kid who was born(created) with his heart outside of his chest is a perfect being?
HAJS5 2 years ago
and now you're claiming god has a different definition for perfect, so that would mean he is imperfect himself according to OUR definition which is used in the bible.
HAJS5 2 years ago
and that is a prime example of him lieing to us, unless you take back what you said about him having his own definition of perfection, but then we're back into the perfect machine can't make an imperfect thing conundrum XD
HAJS5 2 years ago
Yes even that child with the chest out IS created with perfection. Like I said, we do NOT know the true meaning of perfection, but we were created perfectly, but somewhere along the line we go faulty. He did not lie to us, we just made up our own definition of perfection.
bigje2008 2 years ago
We came up with the english language and the dictionary humans DECIDE what a word means, if god did exist he'd be well past vocal language as a form of communication.
and you admit MAN wrote the bible so we used OUR definition of perfection when we wrote it or implied it in said book, This whole "god has his own definition for perfection" thing was made up by your or your priest because you had no actual argument against it, so you made it up.
HAJS5 2 years ago
if we were perfect we wouldn't have pedophilia or incest or homosexuality(I'm not against homosexuality because it doesn't harm anyone just in case someone else besides you read this(and I'm bi) that are from GENES, not from our environment. It's sinful desires we are born with even finding pleasure in taking another persons life is from a genetic problem.
HAJS5 2 years ago
Then god is a small, hateful, vindictive ass hole and the opposite of loving.
The choice between mindless faith and eternal damnation is not a choice at all. It is the illusion of choice, thus free will is also an illusion. But the fact remains God created the whole situation to start with, he could have set up anything and everything but instead he created the injustice of the heaven/hell dichotomy.
God is infinite in nature, but small-minded and petty in action. Can't have it both ways.
sorienor 2 years ago
Actually God's intention was to be close to us and not to have anybody in hell. There was no hell to begin with. It is the disobedience that came from free will, which was supposed to be a gift to man, that brought about hell. Then came the option to OPT OUT of hell by going back to how we were initially created. While we were giving free will in begining, we were warned that there were certain things off limits -- the tree.
bigje2008 2 years ago
If there is anything off limits then it is not really free will, you just contradicted yourself, and god KNEW Adam and Eve would still go eat from that tree yet he still punished them for it and he knew there would not be followers yet he punished them for it. How does that make any sense whatsoever?
HAJS5 2 years ago
and if he didn't want anyone to go to hell there would BE NO HELL! You are inconsistent, please shutup, you have just been pwned.
HAJS5 2 years ago 3
I sense a bit of anger coming from you. Take a chill pill -- this a mere dialogue, and you did not "pawn" me..quite the contrary. Just because you do not UNDERSTAND it, does not mean it is not what it is. We are NOT equipped to understand God's ways and unfortunately, atheists like you think that you know it all. However, you fail to see that the intelligence that God gave man can be his ultimate undoing. So, I'll leave with that to think about..
bigje2008 2 years ago
You're pathetic, logic is logic, there is nothing that changes it no matter how smart the person is, you fail to find arguments against what I have to say and merely crawl back in your shell of ignorance, did you know in 300 A.D. there were 8 versions of christianity, but there was a meeting of all the religios leaders for christianity to decide which one they will use, so if it really did happen there are at least 7 different forms that could be correct.
HAJS5 2 years ago
You're damn right I'm angry, I'm fed up with idiots like you, oh and did you also know there is absolutely no written history that ever spoke of this savior during that time period and there were many of the same or similar messiahs in previous religions that were born a virgin birth and many other parralels? Not only is religion bullshit, but Christianity is just a crappy rip off of older religions.
HAJS5 2 years ago
and hell, what if islam is right or buddhism or the billions of other religions in the past, there is no way to say there's is wrong w/o discrediting your own as well. You're gullible, brainwashed, delusional, and ignorant, I'm going to be so glad when idiots like you don't exist in 50 or 60 years.
HAJS5 2 years ago
yes, you have just been pwned, good bye idiot ^^
HAJS5 2 years ago
Free will is not an illusion, but a gift that only those created in his image have with totality. I can allow you to do something, but it does not mean that that i would not punish if you do the wrong thing, especially if I warned you about it.
bigje2008 2 years ago
but YOU don't KNOW if the person will or not, but if you did know they would, wouldn't it make sense to STOP them from doing it? If god already knows what we're going to do and he doesn't change it then it IS an illusion, it is a predetermined path that was allowed or in other words put in place by god.
HAJS5 2 years ago
Comment removed
HAJS5 2 years ago
If I had a son and I told him not do something, but I KNEW he would do it and I had the power to stop him yet I didn't that makes me a bad father doesn't it? and now you're just falling back to "he's wiser then us" The fact of the matter is logic is logic, whether it is from god or humans and there is no excuse. You're god is evil and is no better then Satan, realize it you stubborn fuck.
HAJS5 2 years ago
And how is it free will when he knows what we're doing, how do we even know that it IS free will? Because it says so in the bible which was clearly written by imperfect humans? God can lie! if he does exist how do we know we aren't doing exactly what he wants us to do? Sure have your faith and slow down the evolution of our species at least there's less of you every day (I think, Islam's being a real bitch though, we need some ex-Islamics going after them now :/)
HAJS5 2 years ago
It's free will because while he knows what we're going to do, he does not interfere nor stop us. The bible is written by imperfect human beings who were inspired by God and some who witnessed it first hand. God cannot lie. I'm a bit lost about your Islamic comment. lol
bigje2008 2 years ago
the islamic thing was a tangent, since it's the second largest religion now and catching up fast. Oh and god can do whatever the fuck he wants, he's freakin' god! "How dare a mortal say god can or can't do something" (I'm sure that's a quote from some religious zealot somewhere) P:
HAJS5 2 years ago
and he did too create rape, he created EVERYTHING! Every act, every atom, ever particle of energy, everything.
HAJS5 2 years ago
The fact of the matter is for a logical person, they would have more peace of mind believing the bad things that happened to them were by coincidence then a fate already set by such a "loving" god.
HAJS5 2 years ago
and if you're still a christian then you obviously aren't even listening to what I am saying so there's really no point to continue because your ignorant stubborn mind won't accept logic because you've been spoon fed lies most of your life.
HAJS5 2 years ago
I think naturalism is tough to define. Certainly, being constrained to some type of lawful behavior is part of it, but that can't be enough. Astrology, numerology, and karma all superficially meet that criterion, but I'd call their claims supernatural.
Great observation that supernatural claims are devoid of constraints and that they admit no obvious means of plausibility comparison.
Well titled video. Why the hell is someone as sharp as you bothering with what that fool says?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Lawfull behavior is very strict: if this happens then this is the concequence. The reverse is also true: if this happens then this is the cause. Astrology just doesn't work that way, no accurate predictions can be made and no always applying rules can be formulated.
wasneeplus 2 years ago
The physical sciences make very strict lawful predictions. But here, lawful behavior is given as a (presumably) defining feature of naturalism, not the physical sciences. It's not clear that strictness is required for this use in defining naturalism. Are the soft sciences' claims, with their hazy predictions, to be excluded?
Astrology is strict in lawfulness for how predictions follow from conditions. It's predictions are specific, in a sense, though their satisfaction is open ended.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
I'm going to have to think about this, too.
urbanelf 2 years ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo The soft sciences search for patterns in the behavior of millions and billions of simultaneous physical reactions built upon and interacting with millions and billions of other physical reactions by inferring downward from the result of these reactions rather than studying the reactions themselves. Thus the soft sciences study something that behaves naturalistically in a practical way, rather than a rigorous way, which explains the vagueness.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
Also, your definitions of supernatural and natural were not very good to me.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Were you going to say why, or just leave us hanging?
Hez0 2 years ago
Well, I was planning on leaving you hanging, but I'll briefly sketch out why. Essentially, when people who speak of a supernatural realm, they never use the definition that urbanelf used. For all they know, there could be things that are supernatural and also follow a law-like pattern. Usually, when people talk about the supernatural, all they are referring to is what is above and beyond the physical world.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
I'm going to have to think about this.
urbanelf 2 years ago
I don't know why tooltime spends so much time with people like jesusfreak and the atheistantidote.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Nicely done. "Or shut the fuck up" indeed. From what I've seen of this AtheistAntidote person, he's yet to meet a hackneyed theistic talking point that he doesn't love. Very much all hat and no cattle.
These folks cannot even explain what they call 'supernatural' in any coherent way. It's a bunch of gibberish.
ProfMTH 2 years ago 4
That was rude of me.
urbanelf 2 years ago
Very solid argument now lets see you do that sober :)
ShellySummers 2 years ago
Great vid, UE. I wrote a comment on his video echoing the same concerns. I was reminded of a molecular biologist challenging Kent Hovind to outline any application that could come out of creation science. I doubt that even a research program could be outlined to investigate a supernatural world constrained only by our imagination.
riversonthemoon 2 years ago
This is a good video and I enjoyed it, however my claim was simply that one can study organisms with the presumption that they were created by God. I am not claiming the possibility or even the need to test the supernatural. You simply are strawmaning. You act as if the system for testing the natural world belongs to the atheist, when just the opposite is true.
Can you give me even one real reason why a GOD creator presumption hinders an individual researcher in any way, shape or form.?
TheAtheistAntidote 2 years ago
"when just the opposite is true"
What do you mean by this statement, that it belongs (only) to the supernaturalist??
drchaffee 2 years ago
"one can study organisms with the presumption that they were created by God"
And they do. There are scientists who believe in God. However, operationally they are doing the same things that a scientist who doesn't believe in those things is doing - reverse engineering, because the designer provided no blueprints. This is why science adopts methodological naturalism.
The presumption doesn't hinder research, but it also does nothing to further it.
riversonthemoon 2 years ago
"You simply are strawmaning."
If you think I am strawmaning you, what is the relationship of GOD to the scientific hypotheses explaining biological organisms?
I think there are 2 possibilities. a) The way Catholics and many protestants view science and GOD. That science reveals how GOD created biological systems through natural processes. If you agree with this, yes I'm strawmaning you.
The alternative (b) is that you think supernatural intelligence can be detected through science.
urbanelf 2 years ago
Brock both this guy and i answered your question. If you insert god into the equations then that is a x factor. One that can not be verified in our dimension. If you put god in the inspiration portion of the hypothesis. Then god is given credit without messing up the math. For every whole you put god into. It gets filled then what? I posed this several times. Maybe you should have watched past the music at the beginning. Then again this cat answered your question pretty darn good too. :)
ShellySummers 2 years ago
Given the comments you made at about 7:00 you imply that supernatural intelligence can be detected, just like intelligence can be detected in art and airplanes. This makes GOD an integral component of the hypothesis and therefore must be testable.
So, there are your choices. (a) and I am strawmaning you, but GOD is totally superfluous to the scientific method. (b) and I'm not strawmaning you.
You pick.
urbanelf 2 years ago
"Can you give me even one real reason why a GOD creator presumption hinders an individual researcher in any way, shape or form.?"
question:
what is the origin of cytokenesis in eukaryotic cells?
researcher:
"god done it..."
sum1unxpected 2 years ago
-->TheAtheistAntidote
Because a scientfic theory has to be falsifiable and "simple". Adding things to a theory, like the GOD assumptions and supernatural phenomena that can't be (observed and) falsified, doesn't add anything to the theory and doesn't make it "simpler". This is two of the prime criteria of modern science.
Another thing you have missunderstood is, science doesn't take a stance on the reality of supernatural phenomena. It just states that it is not "a suitable" scientific topic.
laserbuddha 2 years ago