“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false . . . all the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists”
I am going to class the word Apologies (as in Apologetics) the same way fundamentalists misrepresent the word Theory. Apologetics are saying sorry for what is wrong in the bible, wrong is always wrong
Great video. I'm a Christian, but I think apolog. arguments are usually crap. I'd be interested on your take on the argument from myth - basically that God gives us religion as a set of stories, an overarching mythos, to learn from, and that mankind interprets those myths imperfectly. That's basically where I'm at now, trying not to read the Bible from a literalist lense, whether evangelical or atheist, but judge the Bible based more on its truth as a worthy story, rather than truth as fact.
@edejardin Your latest series of comments have been deleted unread. I don't allow the fillibustering of my comments sections with essay responses. If you have something to say about me or my video, say it in a video response.
@DavidJohnWellman You don't allow "filibustering"? Nice try. To categorize my comments as a "filibuster," in this context, would *require* you to have read them, since a certain length, while a necessary condition of a filibuster, is not sufficient condition. What you really oppose, I suspect, is an in depth response to bubble gum reasoning.
@DavidJohnWellman I don't make videos. But I find it odd that you judge a 1500 character response -- not a 1500 word response, but a 1500 character response, which includes letters, spaces, and punctuation (what's that: roughly 200 words?) -- to be an instance of "filibustering" while a ten minute or so video is not.
Anyway, the point of my now deleted posts was simple: your argument is an obvious non sequitur, and there are sundry counterexamples to it (a few of which I had provided).
@edejardin A 10 minute video is not hijacking the comments section, because people can choose whether to watch it or not. At the same time, it displays prominently on the original video page.
I sympathize with your position, and wish there were some way to accommodate those who would like to respond in-depth to my videos but who are either too lazy or too cowardly to do so by making a video themselves. Sadly, the way YouTube is set up, this is not practical. So either make a video, or go away.
@DavidJohnWellman Wow, a non sequitur (if X can't be said to be hijacked if people can choose whether to "view" it, then comments sections can't be hijacked either), a false alternative (one might not make videos because of time constraints, access to technology, interest, etc.) and an ultimatum that's not consistent with "how Youtube is srt up" (since it allows for comments, too -- even multiple comments).
I think I shall go away, though; I've seen enough of your inability to reason cogently.
@edejardin I did not say that comments sections cannot be hijacked, I said that video responses do not constitute such hijacking.
If YouTube was set up to allow essay-length responses, it would allow for more than 500 characters in a single comment.
None of the factors you mentioned are prohibitive against a person who actually has an argument to make and isn't lazy or a coward. If that does not describe you, then prove me wrong. Make a video response. I'm all ears.
@edejardin I wish you would have just taken a few minutes to make a little text video of your response instead of dragging this into a gripe about nothing.
@edejardin First of all, a principle can admit counterexamples, and still function well as a rule of thumb -- particularly when said counterexamples are as unrealistic as your Oxford hypothetical.
Second, your interpretation of my principle is understandable, as I did not word it with analytic rigor, but in fact it applies not when S was initially persuaded into belief by the arguments, but when the arguments serve as a (continuous) empirical foundation for S to hold those beliefs.
Let's say I'm initially persuaded that Oxford exists on the basis of arguments, but later visit Oxford and know it exists through my experience. Now in such a case would it be accurate to claim that *if* you could show that the arguments that initially persuaded me were faulty, and yet I retained my belief that Oxford exists, it follows that I wasn't initially persuaded by arguments? Of course not. I think the experiential element of 'living' Christian faith, post-conversion, does similar work.
@edejardin If your initial arguments for the existence of Oxford were shown to be faulty, then it would be rational for you to believe in the existence of Oxford solely on the basis of your experience of Oxford.
If that experience were then shown to be unreliable -- say, because you took heavy mind-altering drugs the day of your visit -- then it would not be rational for you to believe in Oxford.
The problems with your analogy are somewhat glaring in both regards, but there it is.
I'd argue with you on the matter of Darth Vader being lame, but I'm a fan of the Star Wars EU, so I gotta admit that compared to some of the Sith of the Old Republic era, Vader's just an emo burn victim.
I suspect you read a lot from these apologists but I can't be bothered. I start with the premise that all religions are bogus childish superstitions that are useless except to manipulate large groups in specific directions. An example would be Mormons tithing $million$ from the faithful in and OUTSIDE of California to get the anti-gay marriage bill "Prop 8" passed. It worked too well! I expect, some day, church leaders will be talking about how silly the homophobes of our era acted...
"There are the evangelical apologists who go a step further than that and use these intellectual arguments to try to argue people to the faith."
I don't understand why this is such a bad thing - they have a belief in what they see as true & good and so want others to share in that belief.Honestly, many Athiests are exactly the same - they proclaim something like 'I don't care what you believe just don't try to convert me', all the while pushing their Athiest belief (or lack,whatever) to others.
Hey, Darth Vader isn't lame! The Star Wars movies certainly have no shortage of totally lame characters (Jar Jar and the rest of the Gungans, Annakin Skywalker (child and young man), Ewoks and no doubt many other characters so "meh" they don't even come to mind, but Vader's pretty cool!
Whaddya mean Darth Vader is lame? He's way cooler than Khan or that dork Nero, played rather poorly by Eric Bana... Heck, even the name Nero is unoriginal.
I don't think Christian apologists are insincere and emotional (non-rational). In any case, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the arguments and really can't find anything wrong with them. I try to keep abreast of what non-believers say in response to them as well. I wonder what, for example, is wrong with the Liebnizian cosmological argument on your view?
@evangelical1 It simply makes the assumption that something he chooses to call God is the reason for why the universe exists. Alternatively it defines God as the entity that is the reason why the universe exists. The problem is that it doesn't say anything more about what God is, which leads to the question: why call it God? Why not call it something for which there isn't already a preconceived meaning? If there is no good answer to that criticism then the argument is intellectually dishonest.
@evangelical1 Any combination of letters that doesn't carry with it additional, preconceived meaning. The most blatantly obvious preconception for the word 'God' is that it represents a god. But there is nothing in the argument which shows that the 'entity which caused the existence of the universe' must be a god. It doesn't even show that such an entity must exist, it just assumes that it does.
"A rose..." does not apply, being the physical cause for the universe is not sufficient to be a god.
ID in it's purest sense is NOT attached to any one religion in fact there are many people who adhere to no religion whatsoever that still believe in some form of ID.
People like Philip Johnson (and the Christian Fundamentalist Discovery Institute) who highjack ID as a cover for their fundamentalist views are irrelevant.
fwiw, on a small political debate site, a protestant son of missionaries that claims to look down on KJV only xtians and Warrior Jesus types, but he has absolutely zero love for Dawkins et al. from time to time he lashes out at atheist calling us curs, claiming we worship ourselves, claiming we hate our families if they are religious (claims he's just trying to get people to argue for their positions), damn near seems like projection that he's bitter that he knows he's faking it (cont)
(cont 2) because no otherwise intelligent person seems to think that claiming things like some old Chinese man is happy after 70 years that he's best friends with a skeleton of a man that lived nearly 2k years ago, probably shouldn't think that is a good argument for xtianity being "true"
Maybe about as true as only a "good story" from a book, I think most "believers" are firmly aware of that but won't admit it, because they are completely wrapped up in calling it something different.
Remember, this "God" fellow has trouble with iron chariots. If he couldn't give the Israelites some heavy machine guns, RPGs or lazer guided anti-chariot missiles, what makes you think he'll give his biggest fanboys some good arguments?
THe individual that can prove the existence of any god beyond a reasonable doubt, backed by solid evidence, should be prepared to to become the most famous person in history.
I am sure this is as original as a Jackson Pollock. Who fucking cares! There is no God. Talk about something worthwhile. The worst thing about us fucking atheists is that it seems we love the sound of our own fucking voices. You and the people who commented here are new atheists so that explains a lot. Here's a fucking medal! Congrats!
Good video, I would have liked to see your debate between yourself and that apologist from way back.
Never admitting that your arguments are bad is a sure sign of emotional commitment to the argument. You don't want to admit the argument is bad, because then you'd have to admit that you have no reason to believe the way you do, which means you probably shouldn't believe in it, and this produces fear and anxiety in the individual, as one of their core beliefs is being challenged.
(continued from previous post) Even apologists like Mcdowell, Zacharias, and Strobel, who claimed to be nonbelievers, and say they came to belief because of "research" the "evidence" are lying. They say this, but once you dig deeper into their stories, you find out that the true reason for their conversion, was because Christianity provided them with emotional comfort in a time of great emotional distress. The apologetics are nothing more than after the fact rationalization.
I am convinced that no one becomes a Christian because of Christian apologetics. I think most become part of Christianity, or any other faith for that matter, because they were either born and raised in it, or experienced some emotional turmoil in their life, and whatever particular religion they adhere to now provided them with easy answers and solace (continued).
Talking about Star Trek, I wish time travel were possible. We'd be able to take all the apologists back to the past and exclaim: "See, magic didn't happen back then either."
Sir!! Darth Vader is not in any way lame. He is a perfect villain. Look at his physical flaws vs his emence power and how they expand the character. His history of being this nice little kid turning into.. ah well.. his turning could have been caused by something realistic rather than some mystical evil force.. He being the father of the sagas hero.. ok he's lame.
“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false . . . all the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists”
That must be a stupid Christian...right?
No is an atheist Kai Nielsen....damn!!!
VyckRo 4 weeks ago
Apologetic speech came during the persecutions period, when Christians were accused of being a bad and dangerous cult.
Apologetic speech reappears today, when the new atheists are tries to present all Christians as retarded, crazy, and dangerous.
One of your one arguments is the argument of suffering, another is the argument from evil, both can be easily rejected.
VyckRo 4 weeks ago
I am going to class the word Apologies (as in Apologetics) the same way fundamentalists misrepresent the word Theory. Apologetics are saying sorry for what is wrong in the bible, wrong is always wrong
angrywhenroused 1 month ago
Great video. I'm a Christian, but I think apolog. arguments are usually crap. I'd be interested on your take on the argument from myth - basically that God gives us religion as a set of stories, an overarching mythos, to learn from, and that mankind interprets those myths imperfectly. That's basically where I'm at now, trying not to read the Bible from a literalist lense, whether evangelical or atheist, but judge the Bible based more on its truth as a worthy story, rather than truth as fact.
Bab5Blake7 5 months ago
I just finished a video about Christian apologetics, it was partly inspired by this video.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@edejardin Your latest series of comments have been deleted unread. I don't allow the fillibustering of my comments sections with essay responses. If you have something to say about me or my video, say it in a video response.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@DavidJohnWellman You don't allow "filibustering"? Nice try. To categorize my comments as a "filibuster," in this context, would *require* you to have read them, since a certain length, while a necessary condition of a filibuster, is not sufficient condition. What you really oppose, I suspect, is an in depth response to bubble gum reasoning.
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin You may test that suspicion by submitting your in-depth response as a video response.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@DavidJohnWellman I don't make videos. But I find it odd that you judge a 1500 character response -- not a 1500 word response, but a 1500 character response, which includes letters, spaces, and punctuation (what's that: roughly 200 words?) -- to be an instance of "filibustering" while a ten minute or so video is not.
Anyway, the point of my now deleted posts was simple: your argument is an obvious non sequitur, and there are sundry counterexamples to it (a few of which I had provided).
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin A 10 minute video is not hijacking the comments section, because people can choose whether to watch it or not. At the same time, it displays prominently on the original video page.
I sympathize with your position, and wish there were some way to accommodate those who would like to respond in-depth to my videos but who are either too lazy or too cowardly to do so by making a video themselves. Sadly, the way YouTube is set up, this is not practical. So either make a video, or go away.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@DavidJohnWellman Wow, a non sequitur (if X can't be said to be hijacked if people can choose whether to "view" it, then comments sections can't be hijacked either), a false alternative (one might not make videos because of time constraints, access to technology, interest, etc.) and an ultimatum that's not consistent with "how Youtube is srt up" (since it allows for comments, too -- even multiple comments).
I think I shall go away, though; I've seen enough of your inability to reason cogently.
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin I did not say that comments sections cannot be hijacked, I said that video responses do not constitute such hijacking.
If YouTube was set up to allow essay-length responses, it would allow for more than 500 characters in a single comment.
None of the factors you mentioned are prohibitive against a person who actually has an argument to make and isn't lazy or a coward. If that does not describe you, then prove me wrong. Make a video response. I'm all ears.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@edejardin I wish you would have just taken a few minutes to make a little text video of your response instead of dragging this into a gripe about nothing.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@edejardin Incidentally, the verdict is in on your "to categorize my comments" sentence: /watch?v=TKyxWf4SGoY
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@edejardin First of all, a principle can admit counterexamples, and still function well as a rule of thumb -- particularly when said counterexamples are as unrealistic as your Oxford hypothetical.
Second, your interpretation of my principle is understandable, as I did not word it with analytic rigor, but in fact it applies not when S was initially persuaded into belief by the arguments, but when the arguments serve as a (continuous) empirical foundation for S to hold those beliefs.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
Let's say I'm initially persuaded that Oxford exists on the basis of arguments, but later visit Oxford and know it exists through my experience. Now in such a case would it be accurate to claim that *if* you could show that the arguments that initially persuaded me were faulty, and yet I retained my belief that Oxford exists, it follows that I wasn't initially persuaded by arguments? Of course not. I think the experiential element of 'living' Christian faith, post-conversion, does similar work.
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin If your initial arguments for the existence of Oxford were shown to be faulty, then it would be rational for you to believe in the existence of Oxford solely on the basis of your experience of Oxford.
If that experience were then shown to be unreliable -- say, because you took heavy mind-altering drugs the day of your visit -- then it would not be rational for you to believe in Oxford.
The problems with your analogy are somewhat glaring in both regards, but there it is.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
I'd argue with you on the matter of Darth Vader being lame, but I'm a fan of the Star Wars EU, so I gotta admit that compared to some of the Sith of the Old Republic era, Vader's just an emo burn victim.
KriimIanga 1 year ago
I suspect you read a lot from these apologists but I can't be bothered. I start with the premise that all religions are bogus childish superstitions that are useless except to manipulate large groups in specific directions. An example would be Mormons tithing $million$ from the faithful in and OUTSIDE of California to get the anti-gay marriage bill "Prop 8" passed. It worked too well! I expect, some day, church leaders will be talking about how silly the homophobes of our era acted...
AmericanGayAtheist 1 year ago
Atheism is a "Religion" in the same way as NOT collecting stamps is a "Hobby"!
AmericanGayAtheist 1 year ago
"There are the evangelical apologists who go a step further than that and use these intellectual arguments to try to argue people to the faith."
I don't understand why this is such a bad thing - they have a belief in what they see as true & good and so want others to share in that belief.Honestly, many Athiests are exactly the same - they proclaim something like 'I don't care what you believe just don't try to convert me', all the while pushing their Athiest belief (or lack,whatever) to others.
mehawind 1 year ago
Hey, Darth Vader isn't lame! The Star Wars movies certainly have no shortage of totally lame characters (Jar Jar and the rest of the Gungans, Annakin Skywalker (child and young man), Ewoks and no doubt many other characters so "meh" they don't even come to mind, but Vader's pretty cool!
TravisMorien 1 year ago
Whaddya mean Darth Vader is lame? He's way cooler than Khan or that dork Nero, played rather poorly by Eric Bana... Heck, even the name Nero is unoriginal.
thereprieve 1 year ago
I like you and I like your videos Mr Wellman.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
I don't think Christian apologists are insincere and emotional (non-rational). In any case, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the arguments and really can't find anything wrong with them. I try to keep abreast of what non-believers say in response to them as well. I wonder what, for example, is wrong with the Liebnizian cosmological argument on your view?
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1 It simply makes the assumption that something he chooses to call God is the reason for why the universe exists. Alternatively it defines God as the entity that is the reason why the universe exists. The problem is that it doesn't say anything more about what God is, which leads to the question: why call it God? Why not call it something for which there isn't already a preconceived meaning? If there is no good answer to that criticism then the argument is intellectually dishonest.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt And what would be a better term for the entity which sufficiently causes the universe to be? A rose by any other name, and all that jazz.
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1 Any combination of letters that doesn't carry with it additional, preconceived meaning. The most blatantly obvious preconception for the word 'God' is that it represents a god. But there is nothing in the argument which shows that the 'entity which caused the existence of the universe' must be a god. It doesn't even show that such an entity must exist, it just assumes that it does.
"A rose..." does not apply, being the physical cause for the universe is not sufficient to be a god.
Griexxt 1 year ago
great job.
freethinker3161 1 year ago
ID in it's purest sense is NOT attached to any one religion in fact there are many people who adhere to no religion whatsoever that still believe in some form of ID.
People like Philip Johnson (and the Christian Fundamentalist Discovery Institute) who highjack ID as a cover for their fundamentalist views are irrelevant.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
1 the perfect evil exist, 2 perfection include to exist, so the perfect evil exist
to be a perfect evil, that has to include to be Almighty, all knowing, all-evil, and so on.
an Almighty being cant loose to another being, even if its also Almighty
so God can not beat the devil.
according to the bible, God beets the devil.
this against the law of non-contradiction.
ergo the bible is wrong.
yes, bullshit-logic is fun
hanspshansen 1 year ago
If the vacuum sucks, wouldn't you buy it? I wouldn't buy one that doesn't suck.
AldusValor 1 year ago
Comment removed
Maphisto86 1 year ago
fwiw, on a small political debate site, a protestant son of missionaries that claims to look down on KJV only xtians and Warrior Jesus types, but he has absolutely zero love for Dawkins et al. from time to time he lashes out at atheist calling us curs, claiming we worship ourselves, claiming we hate our families if they are religious (claims he's just trying to get people to argue for their positions), damn near seems like projection that he's bitter that he knows he's faking it (cont)
MinervaInTheBrain 1 year ago
(cont 2) because no otherwise intelligent person seems to think that claiming things like some old Chinese man is happy after 70 years that he's best friends with a skeleton of a man that lived nearly 2k years ago, probably shouldn't think that is a good argument for xtianity being "true"
Maybe about as true as only a "good story" from a book, I think most "believers" are firmly aware of that but won't admit it, because they are completely wrapped up in calling it something different.
MinervaInTheBrain 1 year ago
Remember, this "God" fellow has trouble with iron chariots. If he couldn't give the Israelites some heavy machine guns, RPGs or lazer guided anti-chariot missiles, what makes you think he'll give his biggest fanboys some good arguments?
MinervaInTheBrain 1 year ago
THe individual that can prove the existence of any god beyond a reasonable doubt, backed by solid evidence, should be prepared to to become the most famous person in history.
JustinBringit 1 year ago
I am sure this is as original as a Jackson Pollock. Who fucking cares! There is no God. Talk about something worthwhile. The worst thing about us fucking atheists is that it seems we love the sound of our own fucking voices. You and the people who commented here are new atheists so that explains a lot. Here's a fucking medal! Congrats!
kingdave84 1 year ago
Good video, I would have liked to see your debate between yourself and that apologist from way back.
Never admitting that your arguments are bad is a sure sign of emotional commitment to the argument. You don't want to admit the argument is bad, because then you'd have to admit that you have no reason to believe the way you do, which means you probably shouldn't believe in it, and this produces fear and anxiety in the individual, as one of their core beliefs is being challenged.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
(continued from previous post) Even apologists like Mcdowell, Zacharias, and Strobel, who claimed to be nonbelievers, and say they came to belief because of "research" the "evidence" are lying. They say this, but once you dig deeper into their stories, you find out that the true reason for their conversion, was because Christianity provided them with emotional comfort in a time of great emotional distress. The apologetics are nothing more than after the fact rationalization.
alphacause 1 year ago
I am convinced that no one becomes a Christian because of Christian apologetics. I think most become part of Christianity, or any other faith for that matter, because they were either born and raised in it, or experienced some emotional turmoil in their life, and whatever particular religion they adhere to now provided them with easy answers and solace (continued).
alphacause 1 year ago
Theology: The study of elaborate verbal disguises for non-ideas...Unknown
KasparHauser4 1 year ago
Faith that's "backed up by reason, logic, and proof" is not faith. Sounds more like something that does not require faith at all.
Excellent video. I've learned some things.
TheOtherSide100 1 year ago
Boo Star Wars. Yay Star Trek!
Talking about Star Trek, I wish time travel were possible. We'd be able to take all the apologists back to the past and exclaim: "See, magic didn't happen back then either."
wimsweden 1 year ago
Vader was pretty lame in episode 4.
steviemgallacher 1 year ago
Sir!! Darth Vader is not in any way lame. He is a perfect villain. Look at his physical flaws vs his emence power and how they expand the character. His history of being this nice little kid turning into.. ah well.. his turning could have been caused by something realistic rather than some mystical evil force.. He being the father of the sagas hero.. ok he's lame.
BitRobot 1 year ago
@BitRobot He was awesome in 4, 5 and 6 befor you knew anything about him.
Mossasan 1 year ago
Yet another video that's going on my Favourites list.
FSAthe1st 1 year ago
"vaccum sucks" made me laugh a little ;)
JoakimfromAnka 1 year ago
You can't admit Darth Vader is lame when the objective facts clearly show that he's not lame ;)
Censeo 1 year ago 2