Pwned: tooltime9901

[twinqletwinqle]

You confuse imagine, with experience.

Your whole 'blackness' eg is just another way of saying 'I think therefore I am', but it doesn't apply here.

I can IMAGINE non-existence as a thing. However I can't EXPERIENCE non-existence because I'm in the act of existing (your example).

It's a sunny day, I can imagine it to be a rainy day (swap with non-existance), but I can't experience today as a rainy day.

[Siashi]

Eh.. 1 point. How can you make a distinction between physical and non-physical if you are a monist? Perhaps you could look up Hinduism in regards to that. By saying that the mind and brain are separate, you are claiming dualism. And we have seen cases of the "mind" be influenced by purely physical events, such as Phineas Gage. So seeing that the mind can be influenced by the physical, why can't we posit that the mind was created by the physical? There is obvious interaction with the physical.

[LocustFurii]

Interesting argument but to me all it proves is there is likely 2 universes, the one we conjure in our heads and the one that actually exists outside our consciousness. That is if we assume that are seperate which I think today's science does. Perhaps, we can't imagine ourselves not existing is because it is our dna programming to keep surviving in the material world. 1000+ years ago no one could have imagined quantum physics, but it exists today.

[Skydeskiven]

Why are you in a jungel? 

[helldogas2]

@npage85 You can't really pwn someone who is right.

[Gaaminator]

God is partly Physical, Jesus CHrist came down to earth to die for our sins.

So if got is a trinity then he is in 3 parts, but physical and supernatural.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus Christ...He was a real historical person.

[Jonstern1983]

How is it impossible to imagine a scene in which you don't exist? I write fiction, and while I do put and author avatar in many of my works, much of it does not include my avatar, and since it is fiction it does not include myself. There I just shot your argument down with the power of fiction. If you cannot imagine a scene where you do not exist, you have no imagination.

[FeachMachugh]

you can too imagine yourself not existing. I can very clearly imagine myself without existence.

[BreathingTheDark]

"...If you think of pitch blackness... then you are imagining yourself looking at blackness"

this seems incorrect: you arent imagining yourself looking at blackness, you are imagining blackness. youre adding another dimension to "imagining" that makes it's definition different, leaving it disconnected from what it means in everyday usage. it doesnt matter whether or not you exist at the time of imagining; actual imagining is using a mechanism for hypothetical situations, usually

(cont.)

[BreathingTheDark]

distinct from what's currently in reality. i can use that mechanism to imagine a world where i dont exist, how is that not me imagining my non-existence? imagining is not a mental *experience* of situations, it is a structuring of hypothetical things or events.

[MrUndertaker170]

fuck your mind and suck my dick bitch

[MortalLuc]

Who says the mind is nonphysical? I'm pretty damn sure that if I rip out your brains you and your mind will cease to exist. You'll die.

When you die it's not your physical appearance, your body that ceases to exist, but your mind. Why? Well obviously because your brain activity stops.

Your brain activity is your mind and your brain is physical, it's the physical engine and source of your mind.

I can rip out a kidney and you'll survive, but if I rip out your brain you'll die instantly.

[MortalLuc]

So yeah, if by any means you try to imply that the mind is nonphysical then at least proof it. Give us evidence why your mind is anything else but your brain and it's activity.

[Violent2aShadow]

Honestly, 1 star is being very generous for this video.

[Mithcoriel]

Sorry, this logic makes no sense. o_O

Why should something not exists if we can't imagine it?? Why is reality limited by the human mind? (Why not e.g. an ant's mind? I bet an ant couldn't imagine a computer.) By this logic...

- You couldn't not have existed before you were born.

- Being unconscious is impossible, cause if you imagine yourself being unconscious, you're conscious about it

- Jupiter doesn't exist unless you're there. Cause you can't imagine Jupiter without your mind being there.

[madbullowns]

just because you cannot imagine something does not mean it cannot happen, quite obviously. Theres probably many things you cannot imagine and can still be true, I doubt you would be ignorant enough to disagree with that.

And if you say the human mind is "immortal" and always existed and will exist, how come we are supposed to praise God for being created, if we weren't.

gf 1/5

[Diomedes01]

I rated it one star. But I will be happy to provide a comment.

You have NO idea what you are talking about. You are throwing around pseudo-intellectual arguments to justify your flawed premise. I could refute it, but I have insufficient space in this comment block. The only summary I would provide is the notion of a 'mind' is strictly conjecture. Your argument is attempting to prove something unproven by justifying the existence of something else which is unproven. Flawed from all angles.

[npage85]

lol...

You call my arguments "pseudointellectual..."

I completely destroyed every single point that tooltime made in this debate... and I find it funny that the only people coming over to rate it one star are his subscribers.

Isn't that a little interesting... hmmm....

[Diomedes01]

Ok, I retract that. You are just plain stupid then. Considering you think you refuted all his points. You refuted nothing! Anything you thought you refuted merely exists in your 'mind'.

Interestingly, your own statements back up my previous assertion. Your ineptitude demonstrates your lack of 'mind'. But hey, if you want to continue to make an ass of yourself, its a free country. And comedy this hilarious is seldom free.

[VahnsGrl244]

@npage85 "Completely destroyed"? You're not playing battleship, arrogant little theist. How closed-minded do you have to be to actually think that any of your "rational" arguments even compared to tooltime's? I'm not his subscriber, I'd rate this one star because calling this logic is shameful.

[MetalSwitch95]

@npage85 I can find the first flaw in this video by 1:08 you cocky theist. I see you omit the part where he says you confuse a scenario with the act of imagining a scenario. As in, imaging blackness does NOT mean you are imagining yourself there witnessing it. He justifies this by saying if you imaging a play does not place you in the framework of the idea of the play. Similarly, imagining blackness does not place you in the framework of that blackness. Your very first argument is flawed.

[MetalSwitch95]

@npage85 I love how you use the blackness argument for a second time. It´s completely hollow.

[army103]

Actually, the hubris he was referring to was your unrelenting confidence that you are right and that your arguments are perfect beyond questioning. You actually said that people may raise objections to your reasoning, but they would be wrong - sounds like hubris to me.

[acheroninsignia]

Pwnage fail...

[Themaskedchristian77]

It's funny put a christian vid on the tube it gets 1 star get an atheist vid..on here it's gold ..oh how liberty dies.

[jmthetank]

Lol, naw, it's not liberty dying, it's thinkers growing. That, and a vast many of the arguments the theist brings to the table are laughable, and everyone but a poor few recognize that, and rate accordingly.

[AdvocatusThei]

I have an honest question:

Let's assume that things existed before I was conceived and therefore before my mind came into existence. I can imagine the past, and it existed, yet my mind did not exist in the pats. Therefore following your argument the past did not exist. How can this contradiction be rectified?

I came up with two solutions:

-I cannot imagine the past, only an image of what I think the past looked like.

-It is only necessary to be able to imagine the future for it to be possible.

[npage85]

I believe you are thinking about this the wrong way from the start.

It must be impossible for anything to imagine it for it to be impossible to happen.

People in the past imagined the past... so the past cannot be used in a counter-argument to my argument.

At least that is how I have countered this objection before.

[AdvocatusThei]

Hmm, you just confused me a little. I'll have to go and watch your videos again to make sure I understand your thesis correctly and then I'll get back to you.

[123columbo123]

@npage85 people in the past imagined it so there for it makes it so?????????

you have have completely shifted the argument in the video you talk of self not the whole, see you really have no idea! The funny thing is you really think you're smart, but you quite clearly have a lack of understanding of basic principles logic. I have watched all most all of your videos, and not found any that posit correct logical structures. The most ironic when you try to refute someones statements who know more

[Hammerfly86]

@npage85 "It must be impossible for anything to imagine it for it to be impossible to happen."

But can't other people imagine me not existing? Which would mean that its not impossible for me not to exist, which contradicts your whole conclusion...

[editplayer]

This dude is a dipshit

[messiahjonz]

So one MUST comment to rate this video. So YOU make the rules?

Kooky.

How about this for my "defendable position":

All gods are myths.

Myth: A person or thing having an imaginary or unverifiable existence.

All gods, even yours, fit this definition.

I will rate you one star simply because you pretended to be able to tell me what I can and/or cannot do.

[meinonghitdatbong]

ok you know berkeleys argument for the necessity of idealism since the act of conceiving of something unconceived implies that it is conceived. thats how bad your argument is. just though you should know. first anything that is logically consistent is possible (this is what we call conceivability, not imagining). second, if we change it to conceivability instead, you still make the berkeleyan error of confusing the act of conceiving with conceivability.

[bckyrdboogie]

The brain is physical, the idea of a mind is purely the reaction to stimuli humans have developed through evolution.

You CAN NOT use philosophy as a scientific claim. Our minds are not created, we are born. Our minds develop into something amazing, but very flawed.

Unless you believe in reincarnation, that would be a lot of fucking minds floating around.

[bckyrdboogie]

Your argument around 1:12 is so totally flawed, the logic you're using is only somewhat staggering until you realize that you're saying you can't imagine a scenario without you in it, because you're viewing it. But I'm currently viewing a scenario I am not in, in which I see Npage85 spitting false logic.

I am only viewing the scenario, and besides trying to use our mind as the basis of logic is flawed in and of itself.

Our minds are finite and weak. Your explanation on the brain is weak as well.

[Hollenthon2468]

"every scene you try to imagine with you not existing, still involves you existing"

-I disagree. I do agree that it may be impossible to imagine yourself nonexisting in a first person perspective. But people can imagine what a scene would be like if they didn't exist. Just like when you imagine a scene that you do not take part of or attend.

[gerontodon]

I don't understand all the arguments here, but I'm not sure that some of the people who might accuse you of believing in sky daddies do either. You'd have to define God and you'd have to define existence before I'd start to agree with you. I think you're on to something though. I am a non-dualist, and I think that "things" don't exist apart from consciousness. I quite like your "thinking while clip is playing" gimmick, but hey - that's just me (apparently)!

[yakker21]

You do realize that when atheists say "god doesn't exist" atheists are talking about god in the sense of a higher power of any religion don't you? If so then why would you assume that all atheists are talking about christianity when the actual name of your god is yahweh?

[CeraSeptem]

I give you one star because your editing is fun and that earns you bonus points. Otherwise zero.

You (appear to) lack an even rudimentary understanding of the things about which you are speaking.

[dutchroll]

I gave this one star because:

Your "arguments" get bogged down in philosophical complexity all for the sole purpose of "proving" (by what definition and standards??) the "existence" (by what definition??) of a giant all-seeing all-knowing sky fairy of some mysterious description.

Oh, and you come across as arrogant and obnoxious too.

[billymatronics]

I give this one star... here's why because if you watch tooltimes response, you are wrong wrong and wrong again.

[Freeze01]

Rated it one star, as per your request

[kaduisaui]

Your arguments are tedious and boring. You bore all your imaginary friends and your imaginary God as well.

[swampwitch13]

How do YOU know what your god is?

[Broan13]

One star for circular arguments and for attitude.

There, some criticism.

[Broan13]

I really can't stand your approach in your videos. Its too condescending.

[jben2north]

You are really misusing Occam's Razor. What is really painful is that you have a very rudimentary understanding of philosophy, logic and apologetics, but you speak unjustified confidence.

[SCRYER1973]

I agree that In the absence of a consciousness I cannot experience death but I also cannot experience pre-conception. According to his logic I should not only exist forever into the future, I should also exist forever into the past.

[pageboythehumanist]

You know, it's not that I have any problems with the actual content of the video, but the quasi intellectual posturing while tooltime was playing in the background grated on my nerves.

[hal970fx]

Is there any real evicence for an aphysical nature of the mind?

I find it interesting that people who suffer brain damage experience changes in personality, showing a dependancy upon the physical brain. Also, you ment Regardless not irregardless.

[Sick0wn4ge]

lmao, you got owneeed. just give up

[TaylorJohnson1020]

Tooltime destroyed you twice now why don't u just crawl away and stfu.

[BENY0HAMA]

"I won't stop responding.

You think that's annoying?

You shouldn't... if you are right, right?"

Dumbass:2+2=5

Me: No, it's 4.

D: [long, awful argument for 2+2 being 5]

M: [short, simple argument for 2+2=4]

D: [slightly different version of awful argument]

M: [Quick response]

If you were NOT the dumbass (which is impossible to imagine), how long would it take for this to get annoying?

[LadyTigerLily]

You are using a dualist argument. Right from the get-go with your example of the brain versus the mind. Your own words: you can't have it both ways. Being a neutral monist? After all you've said before, this seems like a cop out.

[ImmortalMojo]

don't try to make sense of something that makes no sense.... 1 star for you buddy, just for being wrong, not only are you wrong, but you claim to posses intelligence and than fail to produce one convincing argument

[ChDuda]

This video was totally unnecessary. All it shows is that:

1. You didn't really get what tooltime said.

2. You don't even seem to get what you said...

Leave it at that my friend, it only gets worse.

[Myst936]

z0mg dude, you failed. lolol

[NermalsChannel]

I LOL'd at you comment about one staring. You're the only person that doesn't understand why.

[TheThinkingMinority]

Wow... You totally suck dude.

Do you even know what his argument is? I surely don't think you do.

[wretcherwretch]

You deserve 1 star within the first 30 seconds by misrepresenting his statement and accusing him of making a generalization that you actually made.

[rhettboy]

If people voting low for you because they you're wrong and petty is baised, then bring on bias. That's WHY people vote for videos like this, based on whether they agree or not.

[rhettboy]

lol you're so damn petty. You got spanked and now you're whining about it, trying to save face.

You're a joke.

[adgandd]

boo. 1 star fail. I had to just stop counting the number of rediculous assumptions you make about some undefinable + intangible cosmic mind factory. how is it that you came to believe that you could logically reach such a conclusion??? this is what you get for disregarding the naturalistic explanation for things such as neuropsychology and replacing it with "oh well obviously our thoughts come from our souls, not our brains" & "these soul-minds are made by some giga space brain outside of time"

[Ravlei]

People have seen tooltime's video VS. yours. We don't need to rip you a new one as he already has. Instead of repeating yourself, at least try to explain why he's wrong. Or is it that you can't?

[Gpk76]

go play half life gordon freeman

ur assuming that ur concious when u don't exist

[kegs666]

You got burned, your position is indefensible.

[Smurfzation]

1 Star cuz you suck =)

i dont need no argument ToolTime already raped you! =)

[Twayleph]

Is it, for you, about "not liking" solipcism or about rejecting it on a valid basis?

Also, since when is inconceivable the same as impossible? The world at the quantum level is difficult, if not impossible to imagine (and I mean imagine, not just describe with equations), yet the evidence for its existence is strong.

[jalit]

Rating one star doesn't mean you are rating from bias. How can I be biased when I have watched videos from both sides and they are both "pwning" each other?

[daveheet]

npage, i dont even know what you are saying....

[snownet]

rating one star for the green screen

[FrogJon]

Sorry, your "logic" is anything but logical. It may seem logical to you, but you cherry-pick ideas that would confirm your belief while leaving out anything that would dismantle it.

[HopeOfSisyphus]

tooltime said everything that needed to be said.

[tom22p]

Lol, I love watching theists get their ass handed to them.

You picked the wrong guy to debate llol, tooltime always pwns morons like you.

[freethinkersociety]

I can imagine not existing.

[rustyshackelford1980]

Flawed, failure of an argument, 1star

[Samael994]

You don't get 1 star because we are biased. You get 1 star because your argument is made up almost entirely of flaws.

[ShroomFuu86]

@Samael994 what flaw? bust out that knowledge.

[Samael994]

@ShroomFuu86

Well for example, at 2.10 he attempts to prove his point by describing the non-physical nature of the mind, despite the fact the existence of any independent phenomenon such as the mind has never been demonstrated. So his evidence for something unproven is something else, which is unproven. Thats a flawed argument.

[adeadlysniper]

Rofl, Pwned by a lego castle!

GG noob.

[DavosLogos]

look kids , this is what we in the natural world call a retard.

Notice his posing , this tells us that he needs to project his emotion through prehistoric facial expression.

Also note the premature forming of sentences , the retard speaks before he thinks.

This case of retardedness is not so common.

[psychodeathmonkey]

You said previously that minds are created in an infinate amount of time, so my mind was created before i was born but if my parents had never met id never be born thus me not existing and my mind wouldnt exist. And i can imagine the past, whether or not the details are accurate are one thing but i can imagine it nonetheless and in 1492 i would not exist so it is possible. Its an interesting argument, your just not right.

[10trev10]

What a dumbass.

[b1adefury]

you got megapwned. lol.

[TucsonDave111]

Npage85. You need to learn when you have lost. You could have just slipped away quietly but you just couldnt figure it out.

YOU LOST. Your argument is silly. Im sure you spent a lot of time on your theory and are very proud of it.

I doesnt work. You should apologize and move on.

[Fordi]

Failure to pay attention and digest the other dude's argument != pwnage. You failed to address *most* of what ToolTime said in a meaningful manner.

How's about you actually *watch* the video you're responding to and try again?

[KaminaGurren]

Nothing new or convincing here. Sorry, npage85.

[boburanus69]

npage is a tard and a half.

[Faustuss1]

Another epic fail video.

[FranzDuckVideos]

We rated you 1 star because your arguments are good.

Go jerk off.

[pato2909]

npage, you need to go out and get laid man. your pathetic.

[Ssalamanderr]

You're missing the point on the Lego analogy (among other things).

You say that whatever creates minds must contain all the parts for a mind, and therefore must be a mind itself.

What's wrong is the second part. While the pile of lego does indeed contain all the parts to make a lego castle, it is not itself a lego castle.

[ltlegenda]

I think your logic is more convincing in this response.

[Maxell720]

dumbass

[guitarmaestro078]

Dude... you are an idiot...

Its amazing how stupid you are.

[stoked2behere]

your an idiot....when you die there is no imagining...do you remember the billions of years before your birth?

You can't simplify something down like that and deny everything else

[antybu86]

There are still so many things wrong with the argument besides the fact that it presupposes that the universe is contingent upon our minds.

So, what you're saying is, if ONE person is able to imagine it, then it is real (or at least possible?). So, like people that take LSD that claim they can 'see' music and 'taste' colors - even though that is their brain just going haywire... what you're saying is that it is then a possibility to taste color?

[Trashwolfe]

Psychical experiences form the mind.

[thapunkrockgangsta]

When did you start using the Dharma Initiatives TV equipment?

[WilltheAtheist]

Nah it's still tooltime9901 1 - npage85 0

[Xepp375]

WOW NPAGE IS TOTALLY RETARDED

[neonchez]

npage loses a lot of ppl(atheists particularly)with all the talk of the "non-physical". non-physical being a sort of code word for "spiritual" in the way that "Intelligent Design" means creationism but ID sounds less childish

in order for any of npage's ideas to even sound remotely possible he would first need to demonstrate the non-physical exists

npage repeatedly says in his videos "as WE have already concluded" but WE haven't concluded anything. WE aren't in agreement on anything.

[antybu86]

I can imagine I don't exist - but I don't imagine 'blackness' like you imagine. I think of it the same way I think of the time before I was born, or the time when I'm asleep (and not dreaming). Imagining a 'scene' of nonexistence is contradictory.

Besides, just because you can't imagine something, doesn't mean it's not possible. For example, I know people who just can't imagine the concept of space-time, but it doesn't mean it's not a real concept.

[MadChemicals]

I imagine a world that I'm not in when I'm not imagining. Game, set, match.

[hugesinker]

Imagine before you were born. You just imagined your own non-existence! Unless you believe in spirit babies existing in heaven or something like the Mormons do.

Why do you say you are a theist? You seem like a poor deist at best.

[friendlydiplomat]

A deist is a type of a theist. SO, deists are theists.

[dawn0293]

Deists are not theists. They do not subscribe to theology.

[friendlydiplomat]

Deists like Antony Flew believe in God. A deist is someone who believes in a 'distant' God who doesn't care about the universe he created...a God who created and then left it be. But deists are still theists because they believe God exists, period. Anyone who believes God exists is a theist. So, a deist is just a TYPE of a theist.

[dawn0293]

No. They are different. Even cracking open a dictionary will show you this. A theist is one who accepts a supernatural revelation of a God and a Deist is one who rejects a supernatural revelation of a God.

If deists don't accept the principles of theism then they are NOT theists. They are their own separate third category which is what any actual deist will tell you.

[BENY0HAMA]

dawn: By your definition, early christians weren't theists, because their god was a physical man, not a supernatural revelation.

Deists accept the principles of theism because they accept that a god exists. That is THE principle of theism. The only principle of theism.

[dawn0293]

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Since when does physical equate with being non-supernatural? This is an illogical premise.

[dawn0293]

By the way the early Christians did divulge much of their religion from supernatural revelations just look at the writings of Paul or heck that wacky end of times part called 'revelations'. The people that followed Jesus during his time (if he actually lived) did not worship HIM, they worshiped the father Yahweh - they were considered Jews.

[BENY0HAMA]

"Since when does physical equate with being non-supernatural?"

Physical is a synonym for natural. Super-natural, by definition, is beyond natural, or not natural.

The early christians DID worship Jesus, and the father through him, much like Branch Davidians did with David Koresh.

Regardless, Deists are theists because they believe there's a god. They do believe in a natural god, FYI, they believe in supernatural one who works through natural means.

[dawn0293]

Now you are playing a semantics game. The physical that you were referring to in the first comment was that of having substance or material existence not that the early Christians considered him a 'natural' God as opposed to a 'Super Natural' one. Unless you want to argue that anything that can physically manifest is incapable of being supernatural because of an entry in a dictionary, I suggest you cease this argument as it is getting rather redundant now.

[dawn0293]

Many people think that Christianity did not start until Ac 11:26 occured which is after the death of Jesus. Before that time, they were considered Jews as Jesus himself was supposed to have been.

[dawn0293]

not sure why it messed up the scripture but that was A C T S 11:26

[BENY0HAMA]

*sigh*

The main point was that deists are theists. Early christians were an example. You're pulling an npage85 here, ignoring the main point while attacking the minor one.

[dawn0293]

No, I am replying directly to your claim that if you were to take my definition for theists (which happens to actually be a well excepted one I might add) that it means that Christianity wasn't theistic and therefore my definition was false. I explained what about your premise was faulty and you accuse me of goalpost switching? Nice.

[dawn0293]

ack! I meant well accepted not excepted. That's what I get for staying up way past my bedtime. :)

[atlant80]

You fail. How is the mind "nonphysical"? It isn't something trancendant and magical, it is just the neurons in our brain sending out electrical signals and hormons and the like. Also, the imagination thing proves absolutly nothing, because just because our human ape minds are incredibly limited does not mean that reality is as limited as our ape mids, unless you can prove that, which you cannot. So, that is why I give you a nice, big ONE STAR!

[qanazir]

You make on very importantfallacious assumption with makes your castle of arguments crumble.

That is the existence of such a thing as a soul.

When all mental functions can be attributed to centers in the brain.

You should you go study it.

Right now, if you truly want to call yourself "rational."

[syndicateluv]

you are really petty

[thapunkrockgangsta]

Yes, he is very petty. Trust me. I've known him for about 10 years. npage isn't arguing about this because he belives in it, he's arguing cause he want's to be right. He wants to prove everyone else wrong. I say this despite the fact that I actually do belive in most of the things he's saying. I just question weather or not he does.

[syndicateluv]

yeah but that is no reason to argue. i only argue when it is necessary not when it makes me feel important. that just shows how shallow and ignorant he is

[bighaus54]

Actually all I would need to do to imagine my own nonexistance is imagine a normal day without me being there. Just think about my friends and family going about there normal day without me. It could be either that I never existed and how theirs lives would be different, or I could imagine their lives after my death. True that when I imagine something, I would be imagining it from where I would most likely be, but just like a movie I am not really there just because thats the angle of the camera

[surfriderx]

Assuming what you mean by existence is consciousness, you're saying that you can't imagine yourself being unconscious, so it is impossible for you to be unconscious.

I can't image myself sleeping either, but I do sleep, and I am unconscious when I sleep. So not being able to imagine something doesn't necessarily mean it can't happen.

[firefoxfink]

your arguments are quite slipshod.

[kcolumbusgirl]

Yes, I'm joking. I didn't rate. I don't do philosophical debates, and therefore don't have much of an opinion on it. So although I think his reasoning is a tad screwy, this is not my forte, so I'll leave the rating to the folks who "get it".

[dollhouseDISASTER]

Therefore, I'm imaging myself as not existing as I am seeing at time through someone else's eyes where I don't exist. Case closed.

[dollhouseDISASTER]

Okay- to set the record straight, I, the Amazing fantastico will now imagine myself NOT EXISTING -end of sarcastic dramatisation. Okay, so there was definitley a time when I didn't exist since there was a time that my parents hadn't made me yet. So in order to imagine myself not existing, I need to imagine that time. But you will say that I'm imagining myself looking at that time. Actually, I'm not, I'm imagining myself as my mother, with her other kids with me not there yet. Through her eyes.

[kcolumbusgirl]

Would you rather we create vote-bots to do it for us? ;)

[dawn0293]

Reality is not contingent upon what our limited minds are able to grasp. To say otherwise indicates an inflated sense of self-importance that is fallacious.

[JohnsJava]

Thats very true, but it's just as irrational to claim knowlege of this greater unknown without working to gain that knowlege through logic.

[PursuitOfReality]

We know you're Christian. It's obvious in your video "I'm a Rational Theist."

[dawn0293]

*facepalm* I love when you ask how he knows which religion you subscribe to when your backdrop in the last video screams it.

[Jtking3000]

i thought you were a dualist hence the whole proofing of dualism

[pyxzer]

So... if I can't imagine myself not being god, they I couldn't not be god, therefore I am god?

Does that sound about right?

[SkepticsClaw]

Yay, I like these kind of debates. My main problem with your original argument was that 'if we cannot imagine something it must be false' is self-evidently wrong. For example, we cannot imagine an infinity - but that does not mean that infinities cannot exist. It simply means our minds are limited in what they can conceive.

[64kix]

Your argument is based on two false premises. You have to make leap after leap to accept it.

[VASTAzx]

There is a difference between unimaginable and incomprehensible.

[cjdaweasel]

This argument is a mess. I don't even know where to begin.

[Kratzbyrste]

When you imagine a universe where you do not exist, then you would still exist in this universe? Sorry, but that is nonsense. Or what did I get wrong?

A Universe without me existing in it is perfectly imaginable. And the fact that I can imagine it is only because I exist in THIS universe. It's like watching a film. I do can watch it, but I am not part of the fictional world of that film.

[Matrixfart]

Youtube is an open forum for the exchange of ideas (or is at least supposed to be). When people 1-star your videos you automatically assume it is because of their bias. This despite your illogical points being refuted or demolished quite obviously for everyone to see. Might it not just be that you are wrong? Or is such a position unimaginable for you?

In that case, your own logic would of course presume that this state of being is impossible, which just helps to highlight your delusional nature.

[mirandansa]

An apple, when optically perceived, can create the red color. Is the quality of redness physical? No. The physical can create the non-physical. The physical brain generates the non-physical mind.

[BespokeGroupUK]

I can imagine the houses of parliament without imagining me watching the houses of parliament, so your principal argument is wrong. Unfortunately all debate is deate in a circle and as such you need to instead of explain "proof" of your beliefs, why not explain why you believe and how your belief benefits you. I feel that this argument is at a tangent

[infinit888]

"Go on and rate this video one-star without commenting with objections"

Comments ≥ One-star ratings

Come one you never would put the same criteria on other videos

[Censeo]

well I rate this video 5 stars. I love debates like this and I favor oppsoing viewpoints to the fullest, without them, we wouldn't have the fun :)

[Censeo]

You didn't touch his most demolishing point to your argument, which is that you can't be created if it is impossible for you to not exist. About the imagine thing. You do of course, imagine that you are someone else, which makes it possible to imagine you don't exist. Just as you can imagine it being the year 1832 or 2091 though it isn't the case, it doesn't have to be another ones mind actually for it to be a valid way to imagine.

[npage85]

At what time did he make that point?

Cause... I must've missed it when compiling all of his clips, if he actually made that point...

If I missed it, then oh well... let him bring it up again, I really couldn't care less.

I've already dealt with that point *many*, many times before... so it's not like I'd be saying anything super new.

[Censeo]

Well I have totally missed your rebuttal on that rebuttal. So how can we be created if there are no state of affairs where we can't possibly not exist?

[PROdotes]

Yep, he did make a point that goes kinda like follows.

Premise: "if something that I can't imagine doesn't exist, it doesn't exist"

Premise: "I can't imagine me not existing"

Conclusion: "I've always existed"

If you add the premise that only God is eternal... then I'm God ^^

Then again, I can't imagine a movie about pink elephants eating humans not existing. Does that means it exists?

The basic premise is false and was used a long time ago as you prolly know "if you can imagine god he exists"

[DrSim0nSayz]

He never respond to things were he is proven wrong.

He sets up smoke screens about everything else. He is a magician (card tricks). He is well aware of the concept of slight of hand, confuse your audience and they will not notice that you are blowing smoke up their ass.

Of course he did not address the main point of tooltime's rebuttal, he could not so he tries to distract from the messages.

And being a smug condescending prick while avoiding the main point.

[bloodyrediron]

You "logic" is ... confusing. You seem to be jumping to some pretty extreme conclusions from very little with little to back that up. Please explain (fill in the gaps). PM me and we'll discuss it tonight.

[Censeo]

I think tooltime was adressing your smirk face when you said that your argument was flawless as you having hybris, not that you said people get upset.

[npage85]

Maybe...maybe not.

But he *was* quoting the part of my video that I was referring to.

If he *was* referring to my facial expression, as you assert, that's really, really weak.

People have been known to start fights over facial expressions when those facial expressions aren't expressing what the person thought they were.

So... yeah.

[thapunkrockgangsta]

And you've been known to be an ass.

So... Yeah.