1. Nice try, it even works, and again the theists fall on their nose. But Why is it always the atheists/scientists/educated world that does BOTH the job to investigate life, earth and universe AND disproving god, while the theists just sit on their fat asses and whine and NEVER learn anything NOR contribute ??? All they do is say "ur (sic!) wrong, angry and evul!".
But I get upset about the theists claiming that it is up to us atheist to disprove god and there is not one among them who has ever learned about first order logic and the difference between the proof of existence and its disprove.
I think logic is the most powerful means for argueing with theist, because it is logic which they claim they use without actually seeing their own logical fallacies.
There are a Lot of Fake Logic Lovers among these ppl who wrote Comments here. They seem to be more Interested in Sex than Logic. LOL. I hope that's Not the Reason why you made this Vid, Getting Attention from Dudes. LOL.
2.) If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Simply provide the evidence your mind used to be 100% certain. No rational person can say with 100% certainty anything about anything, it's irrational! Therefore you are a hypocrite.
i said any "THING" meaning physically existing, not ideologies or logic. Logic exists in our minds, absolutes are a product of us observing reality. But we cannot say with 100% certainty anything about anything outside of our own minds.
I did not say I was 100% certain, I said I was 100% Atheist.
I am 100% certain no one has objectively & empirically proved god's existence to me at this time, so I am 100% Atheist. Negatives need not be logically proven. Positives must.
Given objective empirical proof to the positive, I would redefine my mindset to "100% Theist". Not 99% (why not 99.9, or 93.234? You cannot "quantify" beliefs with percentages.) You either believe in something, or you don't.
Here is another logical argument against the existence of god.
1.) Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
Is it just me, or are there others with XY chromazomes out there that pay extra attention when the teacher has such fine XX chromazones, and teaches logic?
I don't think this kind of "all men are people, all people have heads, therefore all men have heads" logic can be usefully applied to this question. Trying to refute Norman Malcolm's argument this way just shows his argument more respect than it could possibly deserve.
Most believers mould their idea of god into something useful to them in their daily lives, and questions of omnipotence, omniscience etc are left to theologians who have time to waste. See "logic is for eggheads" comment earlier!
okay so i watched your first video on this subject and now this one. i am not a philosaphy major. not a mathmatician. in truth i have limited education. however i am interested in this subject and would like to pose a question to u. in terms of logic when no other logical explanation for existance can be found or proven. in fact all other explanations can be disproved....does that not make god the default answer threw process of elimination?? is that logical at all or what...do u suppose?
That does not make GOD the logical answer it just makes it NOT the other stuff? Get it? Disproving one thing does not automatically prove something else, like GOD. God needs to be 'proven' as well.
Your Idea can be True if Two Conditions Hold. The first Condition is the Set which you are Eliminating each Members must Contain "God" as one of its Member. The second Condition is, the Set must be Finite, so your Elimination Process can be Terminated.
I like your Comment. In Particular, how you began. Knowing Phil or Math isn't that Important. Furthermore, Most of ppl who Wrote Comments here do Not Know Math or Logic. They are just Better Pretender, that's all. It seems their Primary interest is what's under this Chicks Skirt. LOL. Nothings Wrong with that, I guess, that makes us Human. LOL.
Your logic needs some more work. I'm an agnostic. I've learn to understand religions this way: If I meet a man from Rome in year 1, I would call him a Roman. If I meet a man from Rome in year 1230, I would call him a Christian. If I meet a man from Rome in year 2009, I would call him an Italian. So if a man claims, he is a Christian & Italian in 2009, then what is he? My answer is, "He is a man from a place called Italy in 2009 & he is a traditionalist." And this doesn't sound bad after all.
That is some pretty good logic and stuff that I never thought about. But a lot of people view things in a common sense way. For some communities, it is common sense that a Christian calls himself a Christian because he is believes in God in the christian point of view.
Most people view things in a common sense way, and very little people understand about different meanings.
Yr 1095, in France, a man might have said, "I will find the Kingdom of Heaven in the Holy Land(Palestine)". The Kingdom of Heaven is another name for the Christendom. The Christendom is a land on where Christians live. So, the statement above means, he will gain a private property in Palestine. Since, a Land Ownership is for Economical Activities, hence the statement above is equivalent to a 21st century statement such as "I will invest in a Stock Market".
There are two types of common sense. One is a folky Description of Natural Phenomenon, the other is a Socio-Cultural Conformity. The 1st one doesn't change & we don't the origin, the 2nd one changes time to time & it became a sense called Common, sometime in the past. Prevailing common sense of differentiation between Divine & Secular has been forming for last little while, but that wasn't the case in the past.
I study Pure Math. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I'm an Agnostic, so I'm not a Church or Temple goer. However, I like Architecture, Music, Arts, Literatures, Ethics in Religions. Also, I like Religious ppl. Actually I like everything from the Past. Which one sounds better to you, "I will find the Kingdom of Heaven" or "I wiill invest in a Stock Market"?
I'm freshman, I'm studying for a business degree. I took an intro class to sociology, so I know alot of beginner stuff about what drives society and people to act and do the things they do and think what they think
Hey. This entire line of reasoning is unnecessary, though nicely done. The entire "proof" offered only works if one assumes knowledge of a state (in this case existence/not of God). the concept of God need be neither logical nor illogical unless one already knows whether he exists or not. Logic is based upon a priori (or a posteriori) truths. We do not know the "state" of the god entity "a priori", nor do we not know it "a posteriori". The basis of the proof is thus null. Merry Solstice :)
You actually missed an even larger fallacy in your formulation of the argument. Even if you grant ~C (and therefore ~I and therefore N), your still left affirming the consequent on G > N. On this formulation, even if God is necessary, it doesn't follow that he exists. But this is just a flaw in the formulation, not the argument. The conditionals in the first two premises should be biconditionals.
for all the victims of Randi's monstrous idea.......
Click on my name for the URL
to see how we stopped James Randi's fraudulent MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL challenge.....
watch carefully the consequences of Randi's *idea*.....
For over 40 years James Randi Zwigert (is this even a REAL NAME?) has had total control over who and how the testing was conducted, yet despite all this he has terminated the challenge.
Hi Elaine43. The sad truth is, I don't post under any name these days. When I moved to the North Island, starting my life over has consumed me. I imagine making videos, and someday soon it might happen, but I've got heaps of things going. (I've never been good at time management, so something's got to give.) Wanna know something funny? I stopped working on computers and now I teach yoga!
you're cute, however you dont need simple formal logic to disprove the exists of god, just common sense and a quick review of history is sufficent. Again doesnt matter because a majority of people, at least in our lifetime, will believe in God and nothing you can do to change it.
You're totally right, that premise was flawed. I just had to pick one weak spot from which to begin taking things apart. (Like shooting fish in a barrel, that was.)
No sorry about that. I responded but forgot to approve your comment. I've got comments set for this vid to be shown after approval because it was getting badly spammed by a porn-bot.
You say that the conditional, If G then N, together with N, implies that G is possible. Later you make the same inference with the conditional, If I then C, and the affirmation of C, asserting the possibility of I.
These inferences are invalid; a more charitable reading of Malcolm is possible. In any case, surely he wants to show more than that God's existence is an 'open possibility.'
But- I'll buy you a beer anyway. I commend you on your courage in taking on this argument.
You should shine a light directly on the surface where you will graphically illustrate and take the cam off auto focus after you manually focus it upon that point before recording. Other than that great presentation.
I've got a webcam with only auto focus. When I'm in a more permanent place, I hope to purchase a good camera. For now, I'm moving and I've got an "exit" only policy for material possessions.
Are you logico-mystically experienced?.. Yes I am.. after watching your video.. At first it felt like a bad mushroom trip, but then has a good mathematic Shaman you lead us trough that 101 on the most unanswered question ever asked. Is there a 201 on that one? I like. BRAVO!
Your request is an honour. I've just got to get the bee in my bonnet to do something wild like a proof with symbolic logic. I can't plan these things...
if i prove god exists babe can we sleep together. not that id do a lot of sleeping but you get my point.maybe this is just a stab in the dark butt im sure you can point me in the right di rection xxx
I like your hypothesis, pope. We ought to run some tests and see if you aren't right. The ocean between us is going to throw a wrench in the works, though. Let's just keep an open mind and be ready to seize an opportunity, should one arise. xx
I'm still here, just super busy fixing up the house. My presence here could be spotty for a while, as I am in a state of transition. Thanks for looking in on me. *smiles*
"they will make up a thousand reasons why they can't think" by Rhonda9 <-- Seriously all that is in the matter is lies vs truth, since truth is only one, the arguments of false cohesion are truly evident and numerous.
Wonderful vid. No matter how many different logical ways one can show a person to think in rational terms, unless they are ready to step out of their comfort zone - they will make up a thousand reasons why they can't think.
However if science combines with and utilizes the illicit human wisdom as a guide it becomes nothing but an "erroneous observation of natural laws and an analysis of fallible merit" and clearly becomes the enemy of God.
Science assures us that "for every action there is a reaction" if that is true, that means that behind your existence has to be an uncreated mover which I call God. And that it should be made known that any and all scientific reasonings by themselves are not evil and therefore cannot be used to explain the "absence" of God; only existence of God because he permitted science to exist.
There is a sense of wit and mocking towards God, as you flail about and gloat in your triumph. At 3:06-3:16 of video time you mention that [God could not make a riddle that he himself could not solve].A first, greatly relevant point of interest comes to mind: If you don't understand God, then you cannot make a valid statement (or assumptions) about Gods capabilities!
You readily assigned a LIMIT to GOD that is UNLIMITED and ALL POWERFUL, limit being: "God could NOT create a riddle that he himself could NOT solve." God is so mighty that he CAN and yet at the same time CAN NOT solve it, God is beyond all understand because God himself created it; We we're not prepared to even begin to comprehend such concepts. You are a bright mind; your logic is no doubt undisputable when applied to practical concepts.
On the other hand, if anyone would like to talk about why I am so comfortable and living without fear of "hell" or "damnation," shoot me a PM and I'm happy to share a discourse.
God is beyond your knowing, your blab is very fallible and inconsistent. You allocate many variables without proper explanation in order to perplex your audience.
Hi xeinaga0, I'm not trying to perplex anyone. If you have a question, I am happy to explain anything that I've not made clear. Did you have a specific question? I wish this didn't alarm you. I don't believe in damnation, but anyone who wants to think otherwise is still unencumbered. Please don't worry.
Ok: Genesis 1, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Where did God put them in his pockets? This dumb god and his dumb followers do not realize in the beginning they needed to create a place and space, than earth and other shits. Where he was himself at that time?
Snowfeet is a Hypocrite - She espouses no supernatural beings in the universe, AND YET, One has only to look at her videos to see she herself is a Goddess.
wow babe, how is it possible that you can be so cool and yet so hot at the same time in such a short space of time.any chance of any extra lessons after school, i really need to expand my horizens before post-orbit xxx
Yes, I agree. We have discovered many things through evidence found while observing the world around us. There is no evidence that some deity outside of the observable universe exists yet. If in 200 years, evidence of this deity is discovered, many people will likely be convinced of God's existence. Until then, all you've got is your understanding that God won't prove himself, and faith is required.
Your conclusion "God is not a created thing but something else," assumes the premise that God already exists. Assuming something exists is not proof of such. Saying that God cannot be verifiable using traditional methods is another case of "Defining him into existence." This is fine for you to do w/ your personal beliefs, but it will never be logically persuasive.
That's it; you and Ben must marry me at once. I'm sure we can make this trhee country thing work out, and I'm pretty sure I can talk my wife into it... I've said too much...
How does logic handle a paradox? After all, even though the religious 'God' does not exist, there still exists the nature of That Which They Call God? Things are BOTH created and evolved. Is that a logical paradox?
Apart from Mathematicians and Theology graduates I cannot believe anybody else following logic equations or the transposing of terms in order to reverse their sign so maintaining equality, and certainly not when used to prove or disprove the existence of God, sorry.
I still say there are better ways of disproving the ontological argument. The hole in this particular argument is that there are *some* god concepts that are not contradictory. Only when we give the god certain contradictable essential qualities (such as omniscience, or omnipotence, etc) can we logically prove that gods non-existence. ...
The flaw with the ontological argument is solely on the statement "The concept of god is NOT contradictory". This statement can neither be proved nor disproved logically. ...
Concept: The perfect Island that nobody has seen before exists. An essential quality of this Island concept is existence since it cannot be perfect and not exist.
* If the Island doesn't exist then its existence is Impossible
* If the Island does exist it's existence is Necessary
Impossible OR Necessary
* If Impossible then the concept of the Island is contradictory
* The concept of the Island is NOT contradictory (Problem statement)
NOTE: Though showing other made up concepts in which existence is *necessary* for the concept is the best way to disprove the argument (IMO), I still love your vids!!! Great stuff. :)
Thanks for your input trick0171. Yes, stating that a concept of God cannot be contradictory" is to give God a quality that can never be proven, should we accept that condition to be true. When properly broken down, the "proof" becomes a series of tautologies, stated from a position that God HAS these god-like qualities which cannot be reasoned away.
The first premise simply does not follow. It is possible for a God not to exist yet be conseptually plausible. However, The concept of god is contradictory.
Fascinating! But your video entices my mind toward that Introduction to Symbolic Logic book I rescued from a garage sale years ago. May have to put away what I'm reading now and crack that baby open!
~(~C) doesn't change that I -> C, since by double-negation, we'd be confirming the consequent. This leaves the I open for discussion, putting both atheists and theists in no better a position.
~(~C) doesn't have to change I->C. All it has to do is not negate it. You will see that I said it "leaves wide-open the possibility that (~G) God doesn't exist.
You meant to say that I would be committing the fallacy of affirming the antecedent. C IS the consequent, I the antecedent. (I wouldn't have pointed this out if you weren't always flashing your smarts around like some rhyming, singing, genius philosopher.)
No, no, I meant what I said. I thought you were trying to disprove Malcolm's proof, and I said, it leaves the I open for discussion. But you were just trying to show the uncertainty.
I think he meant that you are AFFIRMING the Consequent, which would be: If I then C, C, therefore I. This isn't quite what you are doing, since you only infer that I is possible, if I understand you correctly. This would be a modal version of Affirming the Consequent- still invalid. (Affirming the Antecedent is not a fallacy. It's the valid argument form Modus Ponens.) Cheers...
I agree, but plan to later show that even after accepting that we are forced to also accept that god is outside logic and therefore illogical. Of course that may never happen if I keep answering comments, hanging in stickam, planning BBQs and all the other random time wasting that I do.
1. Nice try, it even works, and again the theists fall on their nose. But Why is it always the atheists/scientists/educated world that does BOTH the job to investigate life, earth and universe AND disproving god, while the theists just sit on their fat asses and whine and NEVER learn anything NOR contribute ??? All they do is say "ur (sic!) wrong, angry and evul!".
2. You are the hotest woman on youtube!
heyawhaw 1 year ago
Go read more about Allan Kardec maybe u find your answer.
caiobasilio 1 year ago
Great to see a mathematical approach.
But I get upset about the theists claiming that it is up to us atheist to disprove god and there is not one among them who has ever learned about first order logic and the difference between the proof of existence and its disprove.
I think logic is the most powerful means for argueing with theist, because it is logic which they claim they use without actually seeing their own logical fallacies.
FHB71 2 years ago
Why did you have to go and ruin your wall like that?
writingsofmine 2 years ago
There are a Lot of Fake Logic Lovers among these ppl who wrote Comments here. They seem to be more Interested in Sex than Logic. LOL. I hope that's Not the Reason why you made this Vid, Getting Attention from Dudes. LOL.
nxn8690 2 years ago
cool video. I wish I was as intellectually productive when doing stuff instead of cleaning.
tinySpectacle 2 years ago
Logic subbed from Theramin Trees. I miss making music :(
Xechorizo 2 years ago
Wow, somebody actually knows how to use propositional logic.
You've got my sub
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
Good argument. Nice Logic. It's kinda sexy, actually... :-)
1RationalMind 2 years ago
Continued-
2.) If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
-Ayn Rand
1RationalMind 2 years ago
How is that an argument for a god? All it shows is that consciousness is necessarily a product of its environment.
wretcherwretch 2 years ago
"How is that an argument for a god?"
I was providing argument against the existence of god, not for it.
I am 100% Atheist.
1RationalMind 2 years ago
My mistake :)
wretcherwretch 2 years ago
you mean 99% Atheist, no one knows with 100% certainty. It is unscientific to say 100%. I also label myself Atheist.
meloveanna 2 years ago
"I mean 99%?"
The meanings of the statements that I make are determined by my mind, no one else's.
I said 100%, I meant 100%.
Feel free to provide counter arguments to my statements, this is a public forum of discussion- but do not presume to tell me what I think.
1RationalMind 2 years ago
Simply provide the evidence your mind used to be 100% certain. No rational person can say with 100% certainty anything about anything, it's irrational! Therefore you are a hypocrite.
meloveanna 2 years ago
"No rational person can say with 100% certainty anything about anything, it's irrational!"
So you are stating that there are no absolutes, is that correct?
1RationalMind 2 years ago
i said any "THING" meaning physically existing, not ideologies or logic. Logic exists in our minds, absolutes are a product of us observing reality. But we cannot say with 100% certainty anything about anything outside of our own minds.
meloveanna 2 years ago
Oh, please answer my original question. Simply provide the evidence your mind used to be 100% certain?
meloveanna 2 years ago
I did not say I was 100% certain, I said I was 100% Atheist.
I am 100% certain no one has objectively & empirically proved god's existence to me at this time, so I am 100% Atheist. Negatives need not be logically proven. Positives must.
Given objective empirical proof to the positive, I would redefine my mindset to "100% Theist". Not 99% (why not 99.9, or 93.234? You cannot "quantify" beliefs with percentages.) You either believe in something, or you don't.
Rational enough for you?
1RationalMind 2 years ago
Here is another logical argument against the existence of god.
1.) Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
1RationalMind 2 years ago
Hmmm, I knew you were pretty, but now I see your intelligent, logical - and witty, too!
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
Is it just me, or are there others with XY chromazomes out there that pay extra attention when the teacher has such fine XX chromazones, and teaches logic?
Awsome vid!
kristofer58 2 years ago
I don't think this kind of "all men are people, all people have heads, therefore all men have heads" logic can be usefully applied to this question. Trying to refute Norman Malcolm's argument this way just shows his argument more respect than it could possibly deserve.
Most believers mould their idea of god into something useful to them in their daily lives, and questions of omnipotence, omniscience etc are left to theologians who have time to waste. See "logic is for eggheads" comment earlier!
KrisBlueNZ 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Show us your tits.
ManlytearsUK 2 years ago
What if I believe that God is not all powerful? then is the concept of god still contradictory?
solidysnake1 2 years ago
okay so i watched your first video on this subject and now this one. i am not a philosaphy major. not a mathmatician. in truth i have limited education. however i am interested in this subject and would like to pose a question to u. in terms of logic when no other logical explanation for existance can be found or proven. in fact all other explanations can be disproved....does that not make god the default answer threw process of elimination?? is that logical at all or what...do u suppose?
HufHeartd 3 years ago 3
That does not make GOD the logical answer it just makes it NOT the other stuff? Get it? Disproving one thing does not automatically prove something else, like GOD. God needs to be 'proven' as well.
KayelaBella 2 years ago
Your Idea can be True if Two Conditions Hold. The first Condition is the Set which you are Eliminating each Members must Contain "God" as one of its Member. The second Condition is, the Set must be Finite, so your Elimination Process can be Terminated.
nxn8690 2 years ago
I like your Comment. In Particular, how you began. Knowing Phil or Math isn't that Important. Furthermore, Most of ppl who Wrote Comments here do Not Know Math or Logic. They are just Better Pretender, that's all. It seems their Primary interest is what's under this Chicks Skirt. LOL. Nothings Wrong with that, I guess, that makes us Human. LOL.
nxn8690 2 years ago
Your logic needs some more work. I'm an agnostic. I've learn to understand religions this way: If I meet a man from Rome in year 1, I would call him a Roman. If I meet a man from Rome in year 1230, I would call him a Christian. If I meet a man from Rome in year 2009, I would call him an Italian. So if a man claims, he is a Christian & Italian in 2009, then what is he? My answer is, "He is a man from a place called Italy in 2009 & he is a traditionalist." And this doesn't sound bad after all.
nxn8690 3 years ago
That is some pretty good logic and stuff that I never thought about. But a lot of people view things in a common sense way. For some communities, it is common sense that a Christian calls himself a Christian because he is believes in God in the christian point of view.
Most people view things in a common sense way, and very little people understand about different meanings.
PoetryRocksAlot 2 years ago
Divine & Secular difference is a Modern Idea.
nxn8690 2 years ago
Yr 1095, in France, a man might have said, "I will find the Kingdom of Heaven in the Holy Land(Palestine)". The Kingdom of Heaven is another name for the Christendom. The Christendom is a land on where Christians live. So, the statement above means, he will gain a private property in Palestine. Since, a Land Ownership is for Economical Activities, hence the statement above is equivalent to a 21st century statement such as "I will invest in a Stock Market".
nxn8690 2 years ago
There are two types of common sense. One is a folky Description of Natural Phenomenon, the other is a Socio-Cultural Conformity. The 1st one doesn't change & we don't the origin, the 2nd one changes time to time & it became a sense called Common, sometime in the past. Prevailing common sense of differentiation between Divine & Secular has been forming for last little while, but that wasn't the case in the past.
nxn8690 2 years ago
what is your profession/what do you study
PoetryRocksAlot 2 years ago
I study Pure Math. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I'm an Agnostic, so I'm not a Church or Temple goer. However, I like Architecture, Music, Arts, Literatures, Ethics in Religions. Also, I like Religious ppl. Actually I like everything from the Past. Which one sounds better to you, "I will find the Kingdom of Heaven" or "I wiill invest in a Stock Market"?
nxn8690 2 years ago
I will find the kingdom of heaven sounds better.
PoetryRocksAlot 2 years ago
Agree, indeed.
nxn8690 2 years ago
What do you study?
nxn8690 2 years ago
I'm freshman, I'm studying for a business degree. I took an intro class to sociology, so I know alot of beginner stuff about what drives society and people to act and do the things they do and think what they think
PoetryRocksAlot 2 years ago
Very well my friend, it sounds good. Good Luck with Studies. Best Regards.
nxn8690 2 years ago
I don't know what on earth your talking about, but I could watch you for hours.
clean3 3 years ago
Hey. This entire line of reasoning is unnecessary, though nicely done. The entire "proof" offered only works if one assumes knowledge of a state (in this case existence/not of God). the concept of God need be neither logical nor illogical unless one already knows whether he exists or not. Logic is based upon a priori (or a posteriori) truths. We do not know the "state" of the god entity "a priori", nor do we not know it "a posteriori". The basis of the proof is thus null. Merry Solstice :)
azreal88 3 years ago
I like that God wants us to love him, but cannot show us his true nature. Contradictory.
great vid.
nonsensemusic 3 years ago
logic is for eggheads
Serge808 3 years ago
you are so pretty it gives me depression.
chrisalmond 3 years ago
You actually missed an even larger fallacy in your formulation of the argument. Even if you grant ~C (and therefore ~I and therefore N), your still left affirming the consequent on G > N. On this formulation, even if God is necessary, it doesn't follow that he exists. But this is just a flaw in the formulation, not the argument. The conditionals in the first two premises should be biconditionals.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
'Just noticed you've made your own video about this. I'm going to have a look. You seem to be quite "onto it."
snowfeet 3 years ago
Believe it or not I actually do this (that is, argue about God, not post on YouTube) for a living, so I hope I'm 'onto it.'
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
I believe it. You are very well spoken. How did you manage to get paid for arguing about God?
snowfeet 3 years ago
I teach philosophy of religion. It comes in handy some times. Thank you for the compliment.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
The sound quality is not great. And this was a little confusing...
The famous Epicurus argument goes like this:
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then were does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?
Mind0verM4tter 3 years ago
This is really interesting but I got a bit lost towards the end. Must... re-watch...
novanine 3 years ago
for all the victims of Randi's monstrous idea.......
Click on my name for the URL
to see how we stopped James Randi's fraudulent MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL challenge.....
watch carefully the consequences of Randi's *idea*.....
For over 40 years James Randi Zwigert (is this even a REAL NAME?) has had total control over who and how the testing was conducted, yet despite all this he has terminated the challenge.
davidmabusa 3 years ago
Just re-watching some old vids... Do you post under another name these days?
Elaina43 3 years ago
Hi Elaine43. The sad truth is, I don't post under any name these days. When I moved to the North Island, starting my life over has consumed me. I imagine making videos, and someday soon it might happen, but I've got heaps of things going. (I've never been good at time management, so something's got to give.) Wanna know something funny? I stopped working on computers and now I teach yoga!
snowfeet 3 years ago
I imagine you really enjoying the changes in your life - good for you! We'll be here when ya get the time to post.
Peace,
Elaina
P.S. What's the deal with davidmabusa? (Read the comment below mine.) Is that as massive a distortion of reality as you've ever seen or what?
Elaina43 3 years ago
God cannot create a riddle that he cannot solve. Great point! never thought about that one. Thanks!
ebrocato 3 years ago
Please, no more wall writing...it gives me jitters.
xanaxchill 4 years ago
You can't see that she had a plastic sheet on the wall?
dbes02 3 years ago
you are cute. why do you choose to write on a wall?
xanaxchill 4 years ago
you're cute, however you dont need simple formal logic to disprove the exists of god, just common sense and a quick review of history is sufficent. Again doesnt matter because a majority of people, at least in our lifetime, will believe in God and nothing you can do to change it.
SPQR100 4 years ago
hahahahahaha, discrete logic even disproves god.
p.s you wrote on your wall...
azfarmb 4 years ago
Awesome and a half.
TheProxenator 4 years ago
I always use the epicurean riddle to expose the self contradictory nature of god.
But your way has the added bonus of a nice red sweater.
mattblackcat 4 years ago
Grr. Logic and theism don't belong in the same discussion. The belief in God(s) is a matter of faith. Period.
FaceForRadio63 4 years ago
He's affirming the consequent, though, in G -> N, so it isn't logical to begin with. By the way, do you make it a habit to draw on your walls? Lol.
JSResponds 4 years ago
You're totally right, that premise was flawed. I just had to pick one weak spot from which to begin taking things apart. (Like shooting fish in a barrel, that was.)
snowfeet 4 years ago
You deleted my comment! Oh Nose!
JSResponds 4 years ago
No sorry about that. I responded but forgot to approve your comment. I've got comments set for this vid to be shown after approval because it was getting badly spammed by a porn-bot.
snowfeet 4 years ago
Ah. I see. That explains it.
JSResponds 4 years ago
cool ur right handed
thegrimreaper999 4 years ago
"Nature hates calculators." Emerson
guitaoist 4 years ago
Emerson is a goon
Notmut 4 years ago
This was very interesting and thought provoking.
I love the equations you used and you made it simple to understand, as well. Great video. :)
HaleyMary 4 years ago
I am really glad to hear you thought my explanations were easy to comprehend. Maybe it would be fun to be a teacher. What do you think?
snowfeet 4 years ago
cool ur right handed
thegrimreaper999 4 years ago
A beautiful girl that knows logic, that's simlpy logicaly impossiple.
BayerLexan 4 years ago
You should have seen my first logic teacher at uni!
snowfeet 4 years ago
You say that the conditional, If G then N, together with N, implies that G is possible. Later you make the same inference with the conditional, If I then C, and the affirmation of C, asserting the possibility of I.
These inferences are invalid; a more charitable reading of Malcolm is possible. In any case, surely he wants to show more than that God's existence is an 'open possibility.'
But- I'll buy you a beer anyway. I commend you on your courage in taking on this argument.
kevalya 4 years ago
All you had to write out was...
God = Santa = Tooth Fairy
gwm1976 4 years ago
Only god could have created those eyes! ;) A little hard to follow the vid though because of the sound quality.
CommediaDelArte 4 years ago
Now don't think that you can compliment me into believing in god!
Sorry about the audio. I'll blame the webcam. Someday I'll get a good one.
snowfeet 4 years ago
You should shine a light directly on the surface where you will graphically illustrate and take the cam off auto focus after you manually focus it upon that point before recording. Other than that great presentation.
Rhemasonador 4 years ago
Thanks for the tips, Rhamasonador!
I've got a webcam with only auto focus. When I'm in a more permanent place, I hope to purchase a good camera. For now, I'm moving and I've got an "exit" only policy for material possessions.
snowfeet 4 years ago
Are you writing on the wall? 0.o
Moeilikheid13 4 years ago
There is paper on the wall. What do you think, I'm some kind of savage? ;)
snowfeet 4 years ago
I smell something funny here
RAB 4 years ago
yer so pretty!
and god is nowhere!
MaryStewart 4 years ago
Are you logico-mystically experienced?.. Yes I am.. after watching your video.. At first it felt like a bad mushroom trip, but then has a good mathematic Shaman you lead us trough that 101 on the most unanswered question ever asked. Is there a 201 on that one? I like. BRAVO!
Boucrate 4 years ago
Your request is an honour. I've just got to get the bee in my bonnet to do something wild like a proof with symbolic logic. I can't plan these things...
snowfeet 4 years ago
if i prove god exists babe can we sleep together. not that id do a lot of sleeping but you get my point.maybe this is just a stab in the dark butt im sure you can point me in the right di rection xxx
popebenadict16 4 years ago
Oh man, I haven't done logic math for years! It's always a bit of fun though ;)
Puck759 4 years ago
i think its time to alert the media; you're such a hypocrite
xelnaga0 4 years ago
WOW.. thank god for your logic.
I think the proof of gods existance is apparent on any Jimi Hemndrix record.
TyroneSandalphon 4 years ago
Is flirting allowed for atheists? Don't say I have not warned you, when God is interrupting your next video.
U2beOliver 4 years ago
babe im in love with you proper, me and you would make a proper pair xx
popebenadict16 4 years ago
I like your hypothesis, pope. We ought to run some tests and see if you aren't right. The ocean between us is going to throw a wrench in the works, though. Let's just keep an open mind and be ready to seize an opportunity, should one arise. xx
snowfeet 4 years ago
hi babe glad ya back thought yad thor,ed out xx
popebenadict16 4 years ago
I'm still here, just super busy fixing up the house. My presence here could be spotty for a while, as I am in a state of transition. Thanks for looking in on me. *smiles*
snowfeet 4 years ago
lets not get too complicated babe i prefer the basic stuff know what i mean xxx
popebenadict16 4 years ago
Oh oh. I have no idea what you mean, but I suspect it's nothing proper.
We're agreed on keeping it basic, and complications are probably just miscommunications, (w/the language barrier and all). x
snowfeet 4 years ago
err i just thought it was me trying to get in ya pants but whatever babes xx
popebenadict16 4 years ago
Yeah, I guess I know that, pope. xxx
snowfeet 4 years ago
thank god for that babe for a moment then i thought we was talking somthing else like well deep and that xx
popebenadict16 4 years ago
That's not deep?
snowfeet 4 years ago
"they will make up a thousand reasons why they can't think" by Rhonda9 <-- Seriously all that is in the matter is lies vs truth, since truth is only one, the arguments of false cohesion are truly evident and numerous.
ImperatorPraeterea 4 years ago
Wonderful vid. No matter how many different logical ways one can show a person to think in rational terms, unless they are ready to step out of their comfort zone - they will make up a thousand reasons why they can't think.
Rhonda9 4 years ago
Well said, Rhonda9. Thanks!
snowfeet 4 years ago
Your nonsense has been debunked so stop claiming it as a fact, u cant explain God that way, take it off gg go qq lol
xelnaga0 4 years ago
ahh, the wonders of principles of reasoning.
maliterra 4 years ago
Terri Elliot was the best teacher ever!
snowfeet 4 years ago
However if science combines with and utilizes the illicit human wisdom as a guide it becomes nothing but an "erroneous observation of natural laws and an analysis of fallible merit" and clearly becomes the enemy of God.
ImperatorPraeterea 4 years ago
Science assures us that "for every action there is a reaction" if that is true, that means that behind your existence has to be an uncreated mover which I call God. And that it should be made known that any and all scientific reasonings by themselves are not evil and therefore cannot be used to explain the "absence" of God; only existence of God because he permitted science to exist.
ImperatorPraeterea 4 years ago
There is a sense of wit and mocking towards God, as you flail about and gloat in your triumph. At 3:06-3:16 of video time you mention that [God could not make a riddle that he himself could not solve].A first, greatly relevant point of interest comes to mind: If you don't understand God, then you cannot make a valid statement (or assumptions) about Gods capabilities!
xelnaga0 4 years ago
You readily assigned a LIMIT to GOD that is UNLIMITED and ALL POWERFUL, limit being: "God could NOT create a riddle that he himself could NOT solve." God is so mighty that he CAN and yet at the same time CAN NOT solve it, God is beyond all understand because God himself created it; We we're not prepared to even begin to comprehend such concepts. You are a bright mind; your logic is no doubt undisputable when applied to practical concepts.
xelnaga0 4 years ago
your allocation of variables is fallible, your blab is insulting and directing others into damnation, i tell you its not to late to stop all this
xelnaga0 4 years ago
On the other hand, if anyone would like to talk about why I am so comfortable and living without fear of "hell" or "damnation," shoot me a PM and I'm happy to share a discourse.
snowfeet 4 years ago
God is beyond your knowing, your blab is very fallible and inconsistent. You allocate many variables without proper explanation in order to perplex your audience.
xelnaga0 4 years ago
Hi xeinaga0, I'm not trying to perplex anyone. If you have a question, I am happy to explain anything that I've not made clear. Did you have a specific question? I wish this didn't alarm you. I don't believe in damnation, but anyone who wants to think otherwise is still unencumbered. Please don't worry.
snowfeet 4 years ago
I see on my screen that I have given you 5 stars but I have NO memory of actually doing this. Damn you and your hypnotic skillz!
philhellenes 4 years ago
<i>You are feeling *verrrrry* sleepy... now you are imagining the world a place full of beauty and mystery yet governed by natural laws... </i>
snowfeet 4 years ago
Runs out into the street screaming, "She's in my HEAD!"
philhellenes 4 years ago 2
(No one will believe you, phil. They'll all just say you're crazy. It's better if you just don't resist.)
snowfeet 4 years ago
Screw the complexity of the cell.
Your eyes show me that there was most certainly a Creator.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago 2
You ought to see my mum's eyes. That will make you believe that genetic traits are passed to children. ;)
snowfeet 4 years ago
snowfeet, this comment made me burst out in laughter. You have the quickest wit.
Rhonda9 4 years ago
You are what I've been looking for.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Ok: Genesis 1, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Where did God put them in his pockets? This dumb god and his dumb followers do not realize in the beginning they needed to create a place and space, than earth and other shits. Where he was himself at that time?
babri62 4 years ago
good vid!
dankwilliams 4 years ago
Snowfeet is a Hypocrite - She espouses no supernatural beings in the universe, AND YET, One has only to look at her videos to see she herself is a Goddess.
msginca 4 years ago
the concept of god is an asylum of ignorance
B. Spinoza
ulujm 4 years ago
"the concept of god is an asylum of ignorance"
Yea ... it's true, but geeezzz ... it's an evolutionary neccessity ... what'r ya gonna do!?!?
msginca 4 years ago
wow babe, how is it possible that you can be so cool and yet so hot at the same time in such a short space of time.any chance of any extra lessons after school, i really need to expand my horizens before post-orbit xxx
popebenadict16 4 years ago
You need some private tutoring? I bet we could work something out. All for the love of knowledge, Pope.
xxs
snowfeet 4 years ago
All I understand is drinking a beer. Cheers. :)
U2beOliver 4 years ago
This is hard ... you're forcing me to learn something new ... damn!
msginca 4 years ago
You can't play dumb with me! This is nothing new for you.
snowfeet 4 years ago
Yes, I agree. We have discovered many things through evidence found while observing the world around us. There is no evidence that some deity outside of the observable universe exists yet. If in 200 years, evidence of this deity is discovered, many people will likely be convinced of God's existence. Until then, all you've got is your understanding that God won't prove himself, and faith is required.
snowfeet 4 years ago
Your conclusion "God is not a created thing but something else," assumes the premise that God already exists. Assuming something exists is not proof of such. Saying that God cannot be verifiable using traditional methods is another case of "Defining him into existence." This is fine for you to do w/ your personal beliefs, but it will never be logically persuasive.
snowfeet 4 years ago
That's it; you and Ben must marry me at once. I'm sure we can make this trhee country thing work out, and I'm pretty sure I can talk my wife into it... I've said too much...
abbnormalfunctions 4 years ago
I don't know why, but I have this weird urge to give you a beer...
weeeezzll 4 years ago
You give me a beer => I'm gonna drink it!
snowfeet 4 years ago
How does logic handle a paradox? After all, even though the religious 'God' does not exist, there still exists the nature of That Which They Call God? Things are BOTH created and evolved. Is that a logical paradox?
thinkofwhy 4 years ago
U2beOliver would give you the Nobel prize for maths. First time I love maths.
U2beOliver 4 years ago
Apart from Mathematicians and Theology graduates I cannot believe anybody else following logic equations or the transposing of terms in order to reverse their sign so maintaining equality, and certainly not when used to prove or disprove the existence of God, sorry.
lamical22 4 years ago
I realy like the way you make your videos, they are so much less "preaching" than some other atheist videos on youtube.
bwhahrhr 4 years ago
oh i've been curious about this stuff for a long time, but never gotten around to checking it out! this is so cool!
redcardisgone 4 years ago
I never understood logic equations, but from the little knowledge I've learned about it in the past, your equation is right on the mark.
geroldkid 4 years ago
I still say there are better ways of disproving the ontological argument. The hole in this particular argument is that there are *some* god concepts that are not contradictory. Only when we give the god certain contradictable essential qualities (such as omniscience, or omnipotence, etc) can we logically prove that gods non-existence. ...
trick0171 4 years ago
The flaw with the ontological argument is solely on the statement "The concept of god is NOT contradictory". This statement can neither be proved nor disproved logically. ...
trick0171 4 years ago
Concept: The perfect Island that nobody has seen before exists. An essential quality of this Island concept is existence since it cannot be perfect and not exist.
* If the Island doesn't exist then its existence is Impossible
* If the Island does exist it's existence is Necessary
Impossible OR Necessary
* If Impossible then the concept of the Island is contradictory
* The concept of the Island is NOT contradictory (Problem statement)
trick0171 4 years ago
NOTE: Though showing other made up concepts in which existence is *necessary* for the concept is the best way to disprove the argument (IMO), I still love your vids!!! Great stuff. :)
trick0171 4 years ago
Thanks for your input trick0171. Yes, stating that a concept of God cannot be contradictory" is to give God a quality that can never be proven, should we accept that condition to be true. When properly broken down, the "proof" becomes a series of tautologies, stated from a position that God HAS these god-like qualities which cannot be reasoned away.
snowfeet 4 years ago
Exactly
Katalyzt 4 years ago
The first premise simply does not follow. It is possible for a God not to exist yet be conseptually plausible. However, The concept of god is contradictory.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 years ago
Yes, I completely agree. It is only conceptually impossible for a theist's concept of God to exist at the same time as God not existing.
snowfeet 4 years ago
Fascinating! But your video entices my mind toward that Introduction to Symbolic Logic book I rescued from a garage sale years ago. May have to put away what I'm reading now and crack that baby open!
near2earth 4 years ago
I found mine in a dumpster during my university years. I'd love to see if the book inspires you to make some logic videos. Fun!
snowfeet 4 years ago
Awesome!
Drawing on the wall while disproving god logically? I....I think I'm in love....
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
~(~C) doesn't change that I -> C, since by double-negation, we'd be confirming the consequent. This leaves the I open for discussion, putting both atheists and theists in no better a position.
azrienoch 4 years ago
~(~C) doesn't have to change I->C. All it has to do is not negate it. You will see that I said it "leaves wide-open the possibility that (~G) God doesn't exist.
snowfeet 4 years ago
You meant to say that I would be committing the fallacy of affirming the antecedent. C IS the consequent, I the antecedent. (I wouldn't have pointed this out if you weren't always flashing your smarts around like some rhyming, singing, genius philosopher.)
snowfeet 4 years ago
No, no, I meant what I said. I thought you were trying to disprove Malcolm's proof, and I said, it leaves the I open for discussion. But you were just trying to show the uncertainty.
azrienoch 4 years ago
I think he meant that you are AFFIRMING the Consequent, which would be: If I then C, C, therefore I. This isn't quite what you are doing, since you only infer that I is possible, if I understand you correctly. This would be a modal version of Affirming the Consequent- still invalid. (Affirming the Antecedent is not a fallacy. It's the valid argument form Modus Ponens.) Cheers...
kevalya 4 years ago
I agree, but plan to later show that even after accepting that we are forced to also accept that god is outside logic and therefore illogical. Of course that may never happen if I keep answering comments, hanging in stickam, planning BBQs and all the other random time wasting that I do.
thequestionmarkofGod 4 years ago
oooh do godel's ontological proof next!
bubonicnate 4 years ago
Aren't you cute? I'd love to take requests, but I'm not sure there's an audience for more of these boring things. Maybe privately...
snowfeet 4 years ago
oh theres all sorts of stuff I would love to do in private with you! hee hee!
bubonicnate 4 years ago
Hmm. They'd better be rational.
snowfeet 4 years ago
strictly - I'm sure
bubonicnate 4 years ago