Jacoby-Shermer debate, 4/10

[dwheel39]

can anyone say "straw man"? lol..what does ANY of this have to do with evidence and reasoning given by Jacoby? Come on Shermer

[LifeisBeautiful746]

he spends his time trashing false religions (christianity excluded) haha then fine. i guess if u wanna call man made religions like mormons and hindus and stuff stupid instead of actually arguing any of the points jacoby brought up, it wont get u any people from the fans. I'm just writing to write in, i know it wont get a top comment, why? because I beleive in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. The universe is so much more than what ur eyes can see. God bless you all <3

[crudbts1]

@LifeisBeautiful746 Shermer was giving equal time to many religions since they are all equally false. May Jacoby's knob-twiddler bless you all.

[Offspringfan64]

Just...SO well said.



[MrJezuzfreak]

2/2 That gets nowhere! To truly have understanding of what religion and belief, you have to study that out by yourself. That means as athiests you can't trust your entire belief on what someone else said or you own prior knowledge, the same goes with christians. Study things out for yourself, look at both arguements very intently and you'll come to the conclusion you want, I did and just by looking at my name you can tell which side i chose. Thank you for your time and have a great day.

[MrJezuzfreak]

"If you study science long enough and hard enough it will force you to believe in a God"- Lord Calvin. To many times as people we look at what people call themselves and disregard any and everything they say after that, just as shermer stated. But to try our best to get to a conclusive solution we each have to look at what eachother has to say. Most of the comments posted by athiests actually have nothing to do with the statements in the video but rather, go off on thier own ignorant aruments...

[fidenful]

Bumbly Shermer could be awesome if he could talk and sound like Hitchens.

[Ricardius1710]

The main element of any religious argument is faith. Faith is not evidence, but a belief apart from evidence. Most people become believers based on unintellectual reasons and then later attempt to justify those beliefs based on intellectual reasons. They always need reasons to believe. The bible says that you are saved by faith, so why all the crap trying to prove god through science?

[jamestrekky]

Shermer is lost. Very bad opening statement, bumbly through things and making statements with no basis. It's a no brainer that you will be associated with the religion of your surroundings, so what? He gets side tracked and uses a lot of red herrings. So frustrating!

[theUSER101]

You have to be stubborn or just brain washed to not agree with Shermer. Its common sense. The debate is over. Science gets the edge, no doubt.

[Transformers217]

Shermer's opening wasn't that good. But it was interesting. I'll give him that.

[GrahamSMcCann]

Shermer is awesome.

[1982witchcraft]

Shut up you filthy beast

[bradmorris67]

Infinite regress / panspermia?? Oh come one Michael, is that the best one you got!

[MorganMarvinson]

"At some point you have to have a bottom-up natural explanation for the origins of things," Shermer says.

That is only required if you will not accept an eternal God who could do what you are attributing to the imaginary Vegans. Otherwise, you have no answer for where the first stuff comes from. You must posit that the first stuff was always there--and "eternal stuff" creates an even bigger problem than an "eternal God." That is: stuff can't make itself, and nothing can't make something.

[onetwopussies]

Who's saying that there has to be a Scientific Answer ?

[Wazzup132435465768]

Youtube: Mountain of Fire. The Real Mt Sinai. Jabel Al Lawz Saudi Arabia. God melted half a 4000 Ft. Mountain.

[npotts89]

where Shermer is wrong is that, where he said "who created God?" where as if something comes before God...it cannot be God, for is something precedes God, it would rightfully be called, God.

i do agree that other religions do believe sincerely, but the problem with the argument of sincerity is that you can be sincerely wrong. and no other religion holds itself together with itself like Christianity does. each one falls apart against itself like Mormonism, Islam and such. so thus, another flaw.

[Gwisss]

The argument for creation is ultimately an argument against creation. If it seems created, it must have been created. Therefore, God must also in turn be a creation of some creator. Who created God? Who created that God? This of course is called an infinite regression.

Seeing the obvious dilemma here, Christians resort to; "Well, God always existed" which is of course against their MAIN argument for his existence and a conclusion that according to Occam's Razor is more complex then need be.

[npotts89]

ahh....see, there is where your argument is flawed. yes, a Christian will state "God always existed" simply because, the fact is everything that enters time has a beginning, if there is something outside of time....it cannot have a beginning nor an end because it is not subject to time but Lord over time. so, if something created God...then that creator before it would be God...simply because whatever precedes "God" is rightfully called...God.

so, your argument is flawed.

[Gwisss]

"The God before God is a God, and the God before that God is God." Which is by definition an infinite regression.

Most of what you are saying is an explanation falling in the gaps of our understanding. You do not know what came before our Universe nor do we know whether our universe is unique or if it is only one of many other universes, each of course with it's own possible laws and time. One need only evoke occam's razor to refute deism.

[npotts89]

i would agree if God were subjected to time that it would be infinite regression. but since time actually has a start at the Big Bang...infinity does not exist in this realm at least. now...

but if everything that begins has a cause, and the universe began....the universe is caused. but then....who caused it? only something outside of time would not be labeled with "beginning or end" even Genesis 1:1 says that God is outside of creation. God must be the origin of all things, or He cannot be God

[Gwisss]

You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Why are you pampering unfalsifiable claims and manipulating truth to fit your fallacious faith based belief?

Your argument for deism fails against common logic, and there is NO scientific proof or evidence for such a claim. You are evoking a God where one need not be.

You seem to think that a deistic stalemate(agnosticism), allows for you to believe that a book of bronze age myth was written on his behalf. That is utter non-sense.

[npotts89]

simply because you don't understand, doesn't mean i don't know what i'm talking about. but, i would agree that deism is illogical because if there were a God, then He created the universe with a purpose....then it is impossible for the universe to lack purpose. infinite regress doesn't make sense because there must be something to get the ball rolling....thus, a creator of the ball.

if you want scientific evidence, read Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, There is a God by Antony Flew, and......

[Gwisss]

You are obviously far too dull minded to think before you write. You are AGAIN saying:

"infinite regress doesn't make sense because there must be something to get the ball rolling."

That is why the idea of a creator does not make sense And to claim that he always existed is to make an illogical claim. Occam's Razor.

Moreover, mindless forces do not need purpose, nor does biological life. Purpose is a very human necessity and characteristic.

[npotts89]

you're lack of logic obviously shows here. you do not make sense. how would i be the dull minded one if obviously there must be something to start the regression?

again. humans would have a purpose....even if it were natural selection. the purpose would be to reach the top. we have purpose no matter which way you look at it.

[Gwisss]

Are you kidding me?

I'll try and phrase this for your fragile mind to read properly.

It is an infinite regress by YOUR definition of creator. There must always be a creator to create something of complexity (agreed?). Otherwise, if you are to say that something of complexity need not have a creator, then evidently the Universe need not have a creator(wakaremasu ka).

I don't understand what you've just said, it was nonsensical, be more clear. Purpose is a neurological production.

[npotts89]

watch the argument that changed Antony Flew's life. that caused Him to believe in God. The greatest Atheist through the 20th Century. its by Gerald Schroeder.

[Gwisss]

Thanks, I shall look them up. If you want to read some interesting articles, subscribe to "Scientific American" and "Scientific American: Mind".

[npotts89]

yea, i'll definitely take a look at them. i do have to say that i am very busy with 18 credit hours this semester so it might be awhile...prolly summer til i can. but, i will most definitely put it on my list to read up on. ^_^

[Gwisss]

They are monthly magazines with normal 1 to 3 page articles(with diagrams and pictures) on what ever is current in science. I'm certain that even with a heavy course load, there is always time to read a brief article. It is often refreshing to take a half an hour break away from current studies to read something off your regular topic.

[npotts89]

yea, i wish i could say there is always time. i wish i could take a half an hour break....i've already taken a week break haha (stupid on my part) but i have catching up to do while trying to juggle this weeks load with it and i'm going crazier than i already am. (i'm a Christian...i must be crazy! haha. jk)

[MisterSartor]

@npotts89 for every Anthony Flew, there are Christians who have fallen or lacked belief as well (Mother Theresa). Individual belief or bias does not make something true. The beauty of the scientific process is that it ignores individual bias and work towards a demonstrable objective view of how the universe functions through collective information and separate lines of inquiry and a multitude of experimental verification.

[npotts89]

@MisterSartor. The question is not does someone lack belief based upon facts, the question is does someone lack motivation based upon crappy circumstances. i've been there and i'm sure many Christians have been there, but that doesn't mean anyone lacks belief based upon the facts. i mean, the greatest example that there is a God of the universe is the resurrection of Jesus. but that's not what this topic was about. ;)

[Fishqueen1972]

@npotts89 Be skeptical of wishful thinking.

[npotts89]

@Fishqueen1972 i'm pretty much skeptical of everything. but i don't get what you're getting at. the resurrection of Jesus is one of the most highly recognized events in ancient history. you should read what historians such as Mike Licona and Gary Habermas have stated on it.

[npotts89]

i would agree that would wouldn't know what is before the universe unless revelation was given to us. nor would we know if there were other multverses....but the only way we could know is if those multiverses came into contact with us...in which they have not. and we couldn't know if there was a God unless He came into contact with us. thus, Jesus Christ.

[TooDrunkToCare808]

Sorry but omnipotents doesn't necessarily need to be created by something more complex than the universe it is used to create...

Thats just not scientific.

[leeroynaggins]

Well you CAN'T prove BOB doesn't exist!!

The universe came from his PIPE!!

And the pipe smokes BOB!!!

[BSintolerant]

computer hacker lololol

[akambitsis3]

Why should shermer have to eliminate the existence of god? It's up to creationists to prove it, which they haven't done. All they say is science can't prove this or that yet, which it someday will, that's not proving god exists, it's the intellectual equivalent of a kid saying I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!

[shenodirikos]

Neither side is claiming to prove anything. Shermer is saying that there is a history of invoking God to fill in the gaps which have now been explained away with science. So, says Shermer, we should be weary about ever using God as a hypothesis. Jacoby is saying that there are some questions that are outside of the domains of natural science (beginning of the universe, nature's complexity, and morality), which point to a greater intelligence--God.

[jnrosemas]

exactly: and the more extraordinary the claim is, the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be. The burden of proof resides on the believer, not the nonbeliever.

[wildreams]

@akambitsis3 Occasionally some one has to come forth to remind the theist that they have, yet, prove the existence of their deity; so don't act like you have done so.

[dexytao]

How can one who stands up for his good beliefs get a negative reaction (6 thmbs dwn!) and this comment: WWFSMD?

RAmen

get 2 positives??

(Shaking my head in disbelief)

[plimbuff]

Dexytao, I totally agree on your WWFSMD point, very odd indeed. But as for your 6 thumbs down, you should realize that you are in the company of people that are searching for EVIDENCE of God. So you basically need to explain WHY you believe in God, and explain why you think Shermer is going to hell. Basically, you got a low rating because you don't explain your belief, yet assume it is true. Please, if you have a reason for your belief, don't keep it a secret. -Till next time -Peace

[dexytao]

WHOAH! I do not believe he is goin to hell! No way! In fact, I believe that he will make it! No proper Christian should believe that someone like Shermer will go to hell. IF they do, then I would question their love for ppl and their faith at that moment!

You're right. I made assumptions. I repent! Thanks for ur patience n advice. Peace...

[plimbuff]

Dexytao, if every religious person thought the way you do, then the world would be a great place. I think you have good points and honestly think you are a reasonable person. My point is that of Sam Harris, that religious EXTREMISTS are abundant in the world, and this is potentially dangerious. I would never want to stop a HARMLESS person like yourself from believing in God. I think the video "Firefly515 talks to Brian Sapient of Rational Response Squad" directly relates to our discussion.

[dexytao]

People, you know someone will be losing a debate when their argument is based on someone from Mars. End of story! We can only pray for Mr. Shermer to "get it". Amen....!

[NeuroticoAnonimo]

You know somebody is deluded when they base their life and beliefs in the bronze age myths of an ignorant desert tribe.

[asonjdj]

Yeah, it's almost as ridiculous as a virgin birth! HE made some very solid and logical points; you're just too indoctrinated to see the relative nature of your beliefs. The mars analogy was simply to illustrate this relative nature and how if one steps outside of his own culture and prevelant dogma, it becomes clear that people all over the world believe very different things.

[dexytao]

Yes, I can see how he made good points. Yes, I can see how others can believe in other things. Great. So, how does that eliminate the existence of God? It doesnt. We all know that. But, very good discussion in opening my mind to others' perspectives. I also apologise for my slightly prideful comment ("We can only pray for...")above.

[plimbuff]

Shermer is NOT "eliminating" the existence of God. He is simply agreeing with 99% of scientists that say there is NO EVIDENCE. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (This is a basic logical concept of science). The point is there is no REASON TO BELIEVE IN GOD (due to lack of evidence). Dexytao, I suggest you learn a little more about the opposing side of you're argument before arguing.

[dexytao]

1. Shermer says plainly, "I don't believe in God". That means that he does not believe that God exists. But, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Contradictory.

2. I believe there is evidence of God through all the fantastic creations (human body, the earth, etc.) that He made. But, that's a mostly a question of faith, of course.

3. I just learned about the opposing side right now by arguing. At least, I AM learning.

[plimbuff]

Your first point shows again that you aren't understanding the words that Shermer is saying. Him saying "I don't believe in God" is much different from saying, "There IS NO GOD". He's is NOT saying "There IS NO GOD"! He's simply saying there is no evidence for God, therefor he LACKS THE BELIEF. (I'm not saying you misquoted him, I'm saying you misunderstood his quote). Shermer KNOWS god hasn't been proven or dis-proven!

[plimbuff]

Dexytao, watch the first 20 seconds of this video: "Michael Shermer on Charlie Rose on Pseudoscience, Part 2". Shermer clearly explains his position.

[dexytao]

That video was clarifying. Amen. Thanks!

[FSM911]

WWFSMD?

RAmen

[Denshuu]

The Pastafarian in 4:14 was me! :D

[vampyrian]

All hail mr. Shermer!

[happypantsman10]

Shermer is great.